FURTHER APPLICATION OF EVOLUTIONARY T

<< APPLICATION OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

GREINER’S MODEL OF ORGANISATIONAL– EVOLUTION AND REVOLUTION >>

Change Management MGMT625

Lesson # 15

FURTHER APPLICATION OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES

First is the strategystructure debate and its application of western managerial knowledge in context of

Pakistan. The knowledge around us is the knowledge developed in the West for their own purposes and

objectives (environment). What is important for us is to develop skills to seek relevancy, relate and

appropriate this knowledge to our own contexts. We can already observe the limitations and

inadequacies of Western managerial and theoretical knowledge like that of Hawthorne effect and

Maslow theory of motivation as too abstract and generalised to deal with distinct and differentiated

cultural entities and societies of developing countries like that of Pakistan. Hence the need is to go for

synthesis and selective application of Western management paradigm.

Similarly, the logic and spirit of contextualising also goes fine with certain dimensions of evolution

theory like that of selection and adaptation. For instance in the context of public sector organisation in

Pakistan there is a kind of fixation with organization structure rather than strategy resulting in the failure

to evolve a distinct organization structure and managerial culture on their own. For example one such

reason for the failure of strategy was that shift in government's strategy from import-substitution to

export-promotion over a period of time never brought with it a shift or adjustment in organization

structure. In fact with the same (static) set of institution, bureaucratic structure and values different

strategies were followed. Therefore what is suggested is that evolving strategy should be coupled with

evolving structure.

With respect to strategy-structure debate the typical controversy is which should come first? Should

strategy be formulated first and then structure is organized along the strategy dimensions? Or it is the

idealised and standardised structure which remains effective and can make effective any type of

strategy. Further concern is how do organizations evolve their strategies? And more important is

whether change in strategy is simultaneously followed or corresponded with strategy. Going by the

spirit of evolutionary thinking it is the strategystructure alignment and match which is required. This

was considered a traditional paradigm of management that good managers were considered good

managers every where (irrespective of industry, technology, size & place of organization) old paradigm

not valid for today's world. This has become irrelevant in today's highly specialised era with hi-tech

hyper changing world. So according to cultural school of thought (Comparative Management)

managerial practices which were considered effective in USA or Europe may not be relevant and valid

for developing countries like Pakistan. Therefore the localisation of management by MNCs and other

indigenous or local organization is imperative going by the dynamics of evolutionary theory.

Large organisations are complex more vulnerable because of formalization of process and

routinization. Mangers focus too much on procedures and due-process of law. Organizations are divided

into vertical columns (functional departments), therefore managers cease to look at organization from

holistic and integrated perspective. Organizations become rigid and refuse to learn owing to functional

specialization and tend to become inflexible. For larger organisations, QM should be more successful in

large and complex because they are vulnerable to organisational routines and stagnation. Large

organizations operate as a special case of selection principle as organization moves from smaller to

large one. According to John D Rockefeller, "the growth of a large business is merely a survival of the

fittest: it is merely the working out of a law of nature"

Moreover, organisation theorists use the term evolution in variety of ways. One such concept is learning

which means change in knowledge, change in skills and change in attitude of individual and or

organization as well. Now the question, is adaptation and learning synonymous with change? Sidney

Winter uses the term adaptive problem-solving. Adaptation and evolution are used synonymously but

for some authors the two terms are not similar? Levinthal distinguishes between learning and

adaptation. To him, learning occurs when there is an incremental change in an organisational routine in

response to feedback about outcome while adaptation is defined as when an organisation changes some

of its core attributes to fit environmental contingency.

Change Management MGMT625

Strategic management perspective

A firm has a perpetual concern with strategy formulation, strategy implementation and strategic

evaluation; and has a choice which set of strategy to opt or formulate. The two sets of policy choices are

internal development and external development; and both are considered opposite to each other. The

internal development strategy, in its traits is slow, gradual, equity based where one's own organization

culture is considered very sacred as against the external development strategy which exhibits the

characteristics of being fast, structural and high growth oriented. Mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures

strategies explain the same mode. Internal refers to slow, gradualism or incrementalist or evolutionary

view and the other refer to revolutionary types of change.

Relationship With other theories of change

How this theory fits with other theories like with teleological, life-cycle and dialectical theories. This

theory incorporates diversity and multiplicity of views. This theory seems to be comprehensive viz.

other theories like. OLC is again like parallel explanations of evolutionary theory. Thing tend to evolve

in each stage of its development; be competitive; and environmental context. Teleological theory

explains change in terms of purposive and cautious ways of objective setting, compatible with

teleological consistency in policies and objective for stable evolution of organization With in

organization we have dialectics and dialectical thinking; have to incorporate opposing view point so as

to come forth with effective policy outcome.

Criticism

This theory is not free from criticism. Natural selection favours the best of existing alternatives rather on

the best possible design. Here in this theory outcome is satisfying rather than optimising, which means it

does not strive for the best possible objectives. Another point of concern is that organisation analogy is

considered weak as organization is designed and managerial decisions are taken cautiously and

purposively while evolutionary biology rests on random variation. Because of this deficiency in analogy

Mayr has termed this theory as an "inappropriate formulation".

Table of Contents: