Survival: adapting for the future

Summary: [You might view the earlier post “Survival: executing performance” before this.] The bias of past experiences may negatively impact adaptability. Flexibility of form or social architecture is needed.


A reciprocal relationship with the environment the company finds itself in helps the process of its adapting.

The bias of experience

Our experience makes our thinking biased. We store in memory various schemas of what to do and how to do it from learning over years.

We assume that what’s worked in the past, will always work. Our thought structure becomes set. We dislike novelty in the processes we follow, and tend to resist change.

Unconscious biases, and our perceptual errors affect the quality of our decision-making. The overoptimistic reasons that change efforts aren’t urgent.

There’s a sense of complaisance. Resources then route to short-term processes, leaving future to take care of itself.

Soured ‘cream’

Companies generally organize into hierarchies. ‘Cream’ is at the top - the successful people who bring stability to the system and contribute largely to the company’s performances. All’s well, for a while.

With significant environmental change, however, they’re in shock. Past achievements don’t serve current purpose, because requirements have altered.

Researchers call this the hero-rogue syndrome: a CEO hailed for success in one environment, falls off a cliff in a new reality.

Systemic gridlock

Complex problem solving involves interdependencies that grow as the company’s size increases. Problems are fragmented to various departments. Successful coordination between them ensures reassembling the pieces in correct sequences.

The degrees of freedom drop. Conflicts and constraints appear during implementing. The system becomes gridlocked since positive change in one part impact negatively elsewhere. In highly interdependent set-ups, change appears impossible.

Simplify structure

How then can the system adapt? One way is through change in structure and processes. That is, redesigning the organizational form to:

• Reduce hierarchy
• Increase autonomy
• Encourage diversity.
  

Flatter organizations for example, are more agile and able to problem solve far more quickly.

But flatness, autonomy and diversity lose the control, coordination and consistency needed for complex problem solving.

Build flexibility

Obviously, an arbitrary change from one organizational form to another is not always feasible since organizations evolve in response to the problems they solve – simple or complex.

How can the system then adapt and perform? Research suggests another way. By instilling:

1. Cooperating norms – encourage trust, reciprocity and shared purpose.
2. Performing norms – create strong expectations for individual performance, rewarding initiatives, honesty and transparency.
3. Innovating norms - support experimentation and diversity, showing that facts matter and the best idea can come from anywhere, not necessarily from the top.

The social architecture

Adaptability may be developed addressing the organizational norms and culture building the flexibility to change, into the social architecture and the mindset.

This is a crucial requirement especially in an organization hoping to establish a presence in global diversity today.

Flexibility enables the system to adapt as it executes. As a result, there is significant value for longevity while sustaining the company’s performance.

Comments/opinions anyone??