Yet management, in its haste to grow, often overlooks such critical developmental questions as, Where has our organization been? Where is it now? Instead, management fixes its gaze outward on the environment and toward the future, as if more precise market projections will provide the organization with a new identity. In stressing the force of history on an organization, I have drawn from the legacies of European psychologists who argue that the behavior of individuals is determined primarily by past events and experiences, rather than by what lies ahead.
Extending that thesis to problems of organizational development, we can identify a series of developmental phases through which companies tend to pass as they grow. Each phase begins with a period of evolution, with steady growth and stability, and ends with a revolutionary period of substantial organizational turmoil and change—for instance, when centralized practices eventually lead to demands for decentralization.
The resolution of each revolutionary period determines whether or not a company will move forward into its next stage of evolutionary growth. To date, research on organizational development has been largely empirical, and scholars have not attempted to create a model of the overall process. The most obvious and essential dimension for any model of development is the life span of an organization represented on the graph as the horizontal axis.
History shows that the same organizational practices are not maintained throughout a long life span. This demonstrates a most basic point: management problems and principles are rooted in time. The concept of decentralization, for example, can describe corporate practices at one period but can lose its descriptive power at another. Managerial problems and practices are rooted in time.
They do not last throughout the life of an organization. The passage of time also contributes to the institutionalization of managerial attitudes. As these attitudes become rigid and eventually outdated, the behavior of employees becomes not only more predictable but also more difficult to change.
This dimension is depicted on the chart as the vertical axis. Problems of coordination and communication magnify, new functions emerge, levels in the management hierarchy multiply, and jobs become more interrelated. Thus, time is not the only determinant of structure; in fact, organizations that do not become larger can retain many of the same management issues and practices over long periods.
As organizations age and grow, another phenomenon emerges: prolonged growth that we can term the evolutionary period. Most growing organizations do not expand for two years and then contract for one; rather, those that survive a crisis usually enjoy four to eight years of continuous growth without a major economic setback or severe internal disruption. The term evolution seems appropriate for describing these quiet periods because only modest adjustments appear to be necessary for maintaining growth under the same overall pattern of management.
Smooth evolution is not inevitable or indefinitely sustainable; it cannot be assumed that organizational growth is linear. In fact, evidence from numerous case histories reveals periods of substantial turbulence interspersed between smoother periods of evolution. We can term the turbulent times periods of revolution because they typically exhibit a serious upheaval of management practices. Traditional management practices that were appropriate for a smaller size and earlier time no longer work and are brought under scrutiny by frustrated top-level managers and disillusioned lower-level managers.
During such periods of crisis, a number of companies fall short. Those that are unable to abandon past practices and effect major organizational changes are likely either to fold or to level off in their growth rates. The critical task for management in each revolutionary period is to find a new set of organizational practices that will become the basis for managing the next period of evolutionary growth.
Interestingly enough, those new practices eventually sow the seeds of their own decay and lead to another period of revolution. Managers therefore experience the irony of seeing a major solution in one period become a major problem in a later period.
The speed at which an organization experiences phases of evolution and revolution is closely related to the market environment of its industry.
For example, a company in a rapidly expanding market will have to add employees quickly; hence, the need for new organizational structures to accommodate large staff increases is accelerated. Whereas evolutionary periods tend to be relatively short in fast-growing industries, much longer evolutionary periods occur in mature or slow-growing industries. Evolution can also be prolonged, and revolutions delayed, when profits come easily.
For instance, companies that make grievous errors in a prosperous industry can still look good on their profit-and-loss statements; thus, they can buy time before a crisis forces changes in management practices. The aerospace industry in its highly profitable infancy is an example. Yet revolutionary periods still occur, as one did in aerospace when profit opportunities began to dry up.
By contrast, when the market environment is poor, revolutions seem to be much more severe and difficult to resolve. With the foregoing framework in mind, we can now examine in depth the five specific phases of evolution and revolution. The pattern presented in the chart seems to be typical for companies in industries with moderate growth over a long period; companies in faster-growing industries tend to experience all five phases more rapidly, whereas those in slower-growing industries encounter only two or three phases over many years.
It is important to note that each phase is at once a result of the previous phase and a cause for the next phase. For example, the evolutionary management style in Phase 3 is delegation, which grows out of and becomes the solution to demands for greater autonomy in the preceding Phase 2 revolution. The style of delegation used in Phase 3, however, eventually provokes a revolutionary crisis that is characterized by attempts to regain control over the diversity created through increased delegation.
For each phase, managers are limited in what they can do if growth is to occur. For example, a company experiencing an autonomy crisis in Phase 2 cannot return to directive management for a solution; it must adopt a new style—delegation—in order to move forward.
In the birth stage of an organization, the emphasis is on creating both a product and a market. The following are the characteristics of the period of creative evolution:. All the foregoing individualistic and creative activities are essential for a company to get off the ground. But as the company grows, those very activities become the problem.
Larger production runs require knowledge about the efficiencies of manufacturing. Do you play it safe a make a micro change for the new year?
Maybe a tweak here or a slight change there. Or do you go big? Scrap the old and come out with something that no one has seen before. Do you burn the ships and go for it, or resort to that incremental change? Short Stories Photography. Additional menu. Question: What revolution do you want to start? Subscribe to our newsletter Get the latest posts delivered right to your inbox. Footer Looking For Inspiration? Click here for the latest motivational Stories and photographs.
Revolution can be defined as a sudden, complete, or radical change in something. It consists of the fundamental change in organizational structures or political power that takes place in a staggeringly short period. This is the major difference between the two words evolution and revolution. According to Aristotle, there are two types of political revolution and they are complete change from one constitution to another constitution, and modification of an existing constitution.
It is indeed true that the human history has seen several revolutions over different periods of time. It is important to know that revolution brings about changes in culture , economy, and even socio-political conditions.
To find out what motivates individuals and provide them with the support and energy they …. So do I. Everyone is encouraged to innovate. It is my observation that nothing creates happiness in a person more than a sense of purpose.
Yet, for most of us, it is elusive. I have, as …. Vision statements drive me to despair. They should be a means by which we describe a desired outcome that invokes a vivid mental picture of our goal. Change: evolution or revolution? How is a choice made between adopting a revolutionary approach and an evolutionary approach? In short, the organisations are well-led and well-managed.
Comments are closed. Leadership Attributes.
0コメント