Hot Topics

Lessons in Adaptation:
The Hiwassee Event (Introduction)

2nd of a 4-part series on
Three Approaches to Organizational Adaptation

In last month’s edition of LazCast we began a series of discussions on organizational adaptation. In the first part of this series, we suggested that the term “adaptation” is perhaps a better term for thinking about organizational change than is the term “change.” We further suggested that organizations use three basic approaches to adaptation to varying degrees and in varying combinations.

Passive Adaptation = Evolutionary

(Adaptation is barely perceptible, happening slowly over time with members of the organization investing little energy and activity to influence it in any given direction. It is usually adequate to keep the organization alive though not adequate to enable it to thrive or to weather unexpected difficulty.)

Reactive Adaptation = Revolutionary

(Adaptation is sudden and obvious, happening quickly with members of the organization investing lots of energy and activity to influence it and survive the interrupting event. It is adequate to keep the organization alive and to enable it to thrive for the short term.)

Proactive Adaptation = Dynamic /Organic

(Adaptation is continuous and paced, happening spontaneously and at the appropriate pace with members of the organization investing appropriate energy and activity to influence it in a given direction. It is adequate to keep the organization alive and to enable it to thrive for the short term, mid term, and long term.)

Finally, we suggested that organizations tend to form patterns of adaptation – some adequate for life and health and others inadequate. Each area of each organization tends to have an approach to adaptation that is water level for that area and becomes the norm and a defining part of the environment. The organization as a whole also tends to have a general water level for adaptation and tends to seek and return to it over and over, even if the level is not particularly healthy.

The following graphics illustrate these three approaches to adaptation and the interactions among them in organizations. You will note that the more proactive the adaptation, the more efficient, effective, and direct the path of development.

Three Approaches to Adaptation In Organizations

As we move forward in our discussion, we will examine these three approaches to adaptation and their impact on the behaviors of those people involved. We will also examine their impact on the over all effectiveness of an organization and on the relative success or failure of a specific effort.

The Problem with Most Discussions About Adaptation

The difficulty with most discussions about adaptation or change in organizations is that they tend to talk about the organization and the people in them as two separate entities. Organizational adaptation is about people – how they think, feel, understand, and act; what they know; what they can do; what they will put into practice – regardless of their role or position in the organization. Adaptation happens in an organization because individuals are capable (defined as knowledge, skills, & abilities + willingness) of making the needed adaptation.

This observation seems to be true regardless of the structure of the organization. We have worked with traditionally structured organizations in which the CEOs were not capable of adapting to the shifting demands of their markets. We have worked with more participatively structured organizations in which department leaders and / or members were not capable of adapting to the increasing demands for more efficient processes. We have also worked with collaborative organizations in which the research & development teams with final authority over future designs were not capable of totally abandoning their current designs to keep up with changing technology. The results in all of these cases were the same; the needed adaptations did not happen because people vital to their success were not capable of making them. The organizations suffered and became more and more unhealthy as the tension between their practices and the demands of their environments increased.

Allow Us to Deviate from the Norm

Sharing more detailed experiences that we have had with client organizations making adaptations is probably the norm for such a discussion as this. However, we are going to deviate from the norm and share with you an experience from the life of one of Lazarus’ members. Why are we doing this?

We have found that many organizations and organization members tend to view themselves as unique and different from most other organizations and their members, and therefore do not benefit very much from our sharing experiences from other organizations. The general message seems to be that “we are special, and that we will not have the problems other organizations or individuals in them have had.”

Our experience has been that the individuals who must make the adaptation have difficulty evaluating their individual capability to adapt or their individual contribution to the overall results of an adaptation effort. We tend to think of most adaptation efforts and activities as somehow outside ourselves and out of our control, something that is being required of us or done to us rather than something that we must require of ourselves or something to which we contribute.

Since our greatest learning experiences about our own capabilities to adapt and our tendencies to use passive, reactive, and proactive approaches have not necessarily come from work experiences, we have asked one of our members to recount her greatest learning experience. We believe we can more accurately evaluate our behaviors in situations where less of our ego is invested in being right, doing right, or having the right answers. When we do not consider ourselves experts and understand that others do not either, our defenses are sometimes lowered enough for us to really see ourselves.

“Like many with whom I work, I saw myself as fairly capable of adapting to about anything. If I was not capable of making the adaptation in a particular situation, it was because of external reasons or forces over which I had no control. It was certainly not I. However, a short canoe trip a few years ago, really forced me to honestly look at my capabilities. It also taught me some great lessons about adaptation in general and what is needed for people and organizations to be capable of adapting. I would like you to join me in this experience. I hope it will be helpful for you to examine.”

Cynthia W. House

Next: The Hiwassee Event ...

Questions? Comments? We would love to hear from you.
Drop us a line at info@lazarusconsulting.com .