Hot Topics

Impact of the Three Approaches to Adaptation on Organization Effectiveness
(Part A)

As we suggested in our first article about organizational adaptation, 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.)

We further suggested that organizations tend to form patterns of adaptation – some adequate for life and health and others inadequate. Though all three forms of adaptation are needed for any organization to successfully adapt, forming a proactive pattern usually leads to the greatest health.

In a previous edition of LazCast, one of our members shared her experience of a canoe trip and the practical understandings about adaptation she gained from the journey. As we move forward in our discussion, we will examine the three approaches to adaptation, their impact on the behaviors of those involved, and when each approach is most successfully used. We will also examine the impact that effective and ineffective use of the three approaches has on the overall effectiveness of an organization and on the relative success or failure of a specific effort.

THE SEVEN CRITICAL BUSINESS NEEDS / AREAS

Every organization has "an ecology," a combination of the internal environment it creates and the external environment in which it lives. The goal of every organization is to be stable, productive, innovative, and adaptable. Stability, productivity, innovation, and adaptability will enable any organization to become a healthy ecological community. A healthy ecology means that internally the organization is living in accordance with its basic nature or what it is in the world to do. Externally it is in sync with the circumstances in which it must operate.

In order to become and remain an ecologically healthy organization, we must attend to the Seven Critical Business Needs. Critical business needs are those things that must be given intentional and continuous attention if the organization is to survive and be healthy. They are those areas into which effort must be invested in order to maintain or change some result.

Essentially, we can alter anything associated with meeting any of these needs in any of the groups, areas, departments, business units, or organizations in which we might find ourselves. These needs are not just manifest in the larger organization. They are also present anywhere and everywhere in the organization from individually to locally to globally.

The Seven Critical Business Needs around which alterations or changes can be made are listed below. We will examine each of these as they relate to the three approaches to adaptation

• DIRECTION NEEDS
• PEOPLE NEEDS
• DESIGN NEEDS
• INTEGRATING SYSTEMS NEEDS
• OPERATIONAL PROCESSES NEEDS
• EXTERNAL PARTNER NEEDS
• ADAPTATION NEEDS

DIRECTION NEEDS

Whether it is we as individuals, the department, area or team, or the organization as a whole, direction is perhaps the first and most important need to present itself. Direction does not just mean "where am I or where are we headed?" It means what's important to us, where are we headed, how will we get there, and what will be the focus of our operational activities - our values, our vision, our strategies, and our mission.

PASSIVE ADAPTATION

Impact on the Behaviors of those Involved

A passive adaptation is perhaps the most frequently used for altering or adapting our direction. With the exception of our strategies, which we tend to examine yearly, we assume that our values, vision, and mission are somehow static or should stand the test of time. Because of this attitude, direction needs tend to change over time without much attention. Eventually, the organization finds itself actually practicing things that are not in sync with the espoused or written values, vision, and even mission. The passive approach tends to make some members anxious and fearful and others comfortable and disinterested. In both cases, productivity tends to be much lower; stability is fragile, innovation is thin, and adaptability is difficult. Stability, productivity, innovation and adaptability are usually most attainable for organizations that view direction and direction changes as important intentional.

When the Passive Approach is Most Successful

The passive approach to adapting direction is most successfully used when applied to values. Values (what is important to us) tend to change gradually and somewhat unintentionally over time as we grow and change personally and professionally. Changing espoused or practiced values without serious consideration and time could mean loss of motivation and initiative and even turnover thus impacting productivity, stability, and innovation.

REACTIVE ADAPTATION

Impace on the Behaviors of those Involved

Reactive adaptation of any part of direction is perhaps the least advisable and has the most potential to be destructive. Reactive changes made in values, vision, strategies, or mission in response to something in the environment tends to elicit anxiety, mistrust, confusions, frustration, fear, lowered moral, and turnover among those impacted. Since the components of direction really define the organization both internally and externally, adapting or changing this identity during a crisis with little consideration or preparation will usually seem a move of desperation. Even when a quick change in strategy is necessary, those impacted are usually resentful and angry about the miscalculation and about the extra effort required to make a quick change.

When the Reactive Approach is Most Successful

The strategies that an organization used to realize its vision and fulfill its mission are the most amenable to reactive change and the least likely to create problems for those involved. While changing strategies reactively is not the best practice, sometimes a strategy that seemed entirely right in the planning stage can prove entirely wrong in the implementation stage. An organization finding itself in this situation must make a rapid adaptation or suffer worse consequences.

PROACTIVE ADAPTATION

Impace on the Behaviors of those Involved

Proactive adaptation of direction has the least adverse impact on those involved. When changes are carefully considered, well planned, well communicated, and members well prepared for them, adaptation of direction can be relatively low stress. Obviously, any change in something as major as the concerns of direction will cause some anxiety and stress for those involved. Turnover can also occur because of alignment issues. Some members may not be in agreement with or may not be interested in pursuing a new vision or changing their work to accommodate a new mission, or is implementing a certain strategy. If these members choose to stay, however, they can create implementation and morale problems.

When the Proactive Approach is Most Successful

The proactive approach to adapting those things associated with direction is usually the most successful. Because of the strategic nature of direction needs, adaptations require careful consideration and thorough investigation. This is true whether assessing actual values, the viability of a vision, the likely success of various strategies, or the market demand for a mission. Proactively adapting direction needs is the best assurance for a continued strong and applicable foundation for the organization.

IMPACT OF EFFECTIVE & INEFFECTIVE USES ON THE ORGANIZATION & ON SPECIFIC EFFORTS

Continuous attention to Direction Needs and appropriate adaptation insure that the foundation of the organization is secure and strong. Using the three adaptation approaches to their best advantage can mean the difference in an organization that withstands the test of time and remains viable or that cracks and crumbles over time and dies a sad death. Specific efforts can also be adversely impacted by inappropriate adaptation choices. The organization as a whole and those involved in specific projects must be capable of running on autopilot in calm seas, of reacting quickly and decisively in a storm, and of anticipating and planning for the conditions that are ahead.

PEOPLE NEEDS

When we hear the term "people needs," the Personnel or Human Resources department probably comes to mind. However, when we use the term "people needs," we are actually referring to considerably more than just those areas commonly attended by HR such as hiring, firing, training, administering benefits, and keeping personnel files. Because people are the life of the organization, their needs are numerous and varied. People needs also include such things as professional development, strategic business information, operational information, team development, systems and process design, equipment and technology, and leadership development. If we consider everything that is required for us to do our jobs and be in successful relationships with everything in our environment, we will have begun to understand the scope of PEOPLE NEEDS within an organization.

PASSIVE ADAPTATION

Impact on the Behaviors of those Involved

When it comes to people needs, using passive adaptation is definitely not the best approach to use. Nothing sends a stronger message of "you are not important or cared about" than does the passive approach to people needs. And nothing nets lower productivity, stability, innovation, morale, commitment, and adaptation hardiness and higher turnover than do such messages. In addition to our wanting to feel important and well attended, we also want to have what we need to do our jobs well and to make a positive contribution to the organization. When no intentional effort is made to provide the things necessary for successful relationships with everything in the environment, members tend to react first with hostility, then with ongoing discontent, and finally, if they do not turnover, with obvious indifference.

When the Passive Approach is Most Successful

The passive approach to adapting people needs is rarely successfully. Members will tolerate a passive approach to adapting most other critical business areas, and even welcome some. However, when it comes to tolerating this method in areas that impact them directly and continuously, they have little tolerance.

REACTIVE ADAPTATION

Impact on the Behaviors of those Involved

Reactive adaptation of people needs is better than passive adaptation; however, it also results in some negative reactions from members. A reactive change in a people needs area usually stems from some crisis that has put some aspect of the organization in jeopardy - a contract or project that cannot be delivered or completed with the current people, knowledge base, equipment, or processes or a competitor who is gaining market share and taking customers. Members usually respond to such crisis changes first with relief that the needed changes are being made "it's about time"; second with superiority and a sense of vindication that what they have been predicting all along has finally happened "I told you so," third with resentment that they were not listened to earlier so that the crisis could have been averted, and finally with anger and frustration about the effort that will be required to make the adaptations and learn to function a new way. Giving this kind of effort to an organization who has shown such unconcern for its people is difficult to do and many will not. Resistance and less than needed productivity, creativity, and adaptability is likely and turnover is probable.

When the Reactive Approach is Most Successful

The reactive approach is most successful in an organization who listens and attends to the needs of its members and when the crisis requiring the adaptation is a surprise for everyone. If we are all doing everything we can to look for and make the necessary people adaptations and a crisis hits, asking for or giving the necessary effort to manage the crisis is not such a big deal. The reactive approach can also be effective when the needed adaptation has been or is being resisted by members, such as moving to a new computer program, changing the way a long standing process is done, or implementing a new work or reporting structure. In such cases, a crisis is sometimes necessary and positive to influence the accepting of the new way.

PROACTIVE ADAPTATION

Impact on the Behaviors of those Involved

Proactive adaptation of people needs usually evokes the least negative reactions from members because the changes are planned, prepared for, and implemented over a period of time. In such cases, members have usually been involved in the discussions about who, what, where, when, why, and how the adaptation being made. Since it is impossible to please everyone with every change, some members may be disappointed or even hostile about the decisions that have been made and may even aggressively or passive aggressively resist the change. In some cases, members may grieve the loss of the old way even though they embrace the new way. In other cases still, members will be delighted with the decisions and excited to make the adaptations.

When the Proactive Approach is Most Successful

The proactive approach to adapting those things associated with people is usually the most successful over all. This will be particularly true in organizations that have participative or collaborative work and reporting structures and that have a significant amount of trust between and among members and formal leaders. These trust relationships enable decisions and plans to be made and implementation to proceed with the least disruption, the most commitment, and the most positive outcomes. When such structures and/or relationships do not exist, proactive, high involvement efforts can be fraught with conflict and ineffective and inefficient activity, making decision-making, planning and implementing laborious and time consuming efforts. Proactive is still the best approach. However, a consultative decision-making and planning process should be used where lots of in-put is sought, but decisions and plans are made by a small group.

IMPACT OF EFFECTIVE & INEFFECTIVE USES ON THE ORGANIZATION & ON SPECIFIC EFFORTS

Continuous attention to People Needs and appropriate adaptation insure that the current work is accomplished the most effectively and efficiently possible and that the requirements of future work are being proactively put into place to minimize crisis. Using the three adaptation approaches to their best advantage can mean the difference in organization and/or project members who are excited, motivated, and performing at peak and those who are disgruntled, unmotivated, and putting little effort into their work.

DESIGN NEEDS

Though most of us do not realize it, design needs in our organizations are greater than just the need for an organization chart. The reporting relationships or the accountability structure must be designed and then redesigned when the original structure no longer serves the organization. So must the work structure be designed and redesigned when needed, taking into account where the core work of the organization and it's supporting mechanisms will best be performed. Units, departments, teams and other such pieces of the structure also require designing. Good design work throughout the organization maximizes the unique social and technical realities of the business and delivers the greatest possible client or customer value.

PASSIVE ADAPTATION

Impact on the Behaviors of those Involved

The passive approach to making design adaptations most often looks like one of the following: moving people randomly from one place to another; changing who some person or group reports to; allowing a structure to evolve as the organization and/or work grows; putting more people or software on a processes, or waiting until the organization or group seems large enough to need a defined structure and then selecting a textbook design or a structure in common use. This method may meet the needs of a few organizations and a few people in them. However, for the most part, this approach doesn't meet the needs of the organization or its members. Members tend to feel arbitrarily treated, not considered, shoe-horned into an ill-fitting structure, unempowered, and restricted. They feel unable to perform to peak because of limitations of the structure and productivity, creativity, motivation, and moral decrease. In some cases anxiety and fear increase because of the unpredictability and the seemingly irrational nature of the changes. A sense of safety is lost and turnover goes up.

When the Passive Approach is Most Successful

The passive approach to adapting design is most successful in very small organizations (7 or fewer) where members do similar work and/or where members interact fluidly on a daily basis. It can also be successful in slightly larger organizations where a great deal of trust, openness, and homogeneity of people and work exists. Using the passive approach to choosing a design is advisable only if another organization with an identical profile is successfully using the design you are considering. However, finding such a twin is rare.

REACTIVE ADAPTATION

Impact on the Behaviors of those Involved

Reactive adaptation of design needs is rarely any more successful than is passive adaptation. Reactive design changes, both globally or locally, are usually the result of some crisis that has forced the organization, unit, department, or team to consider how it is accomplishing its work and with what results. Either the accountability structure or the responsibility structure is deemed to have failed. Sometimes both are viewed as the problem. Accountability failures usually result in changes to the people in or the design of the reporting structure (how the work is communicated about and accounted for). Responsibility failures usually result in changes to the people in or the design of the work structure (how the work is accomplished and with what results). Reactive changes to either of these areas are generally poorly conceived and implemented with a punitive quality. Such adaptations are usually resented, viewed as unfair, and met with a great deal of anger on the part of those directly affected and sometimes by those indirectly affected. Frustration and even disappointment can also result from changes being made without any real data as to the actual cause of the failure. Since no person or area wants to be found responsible or held accountable for the failure, such events create conflict and blaming behaviors as well. Failures do require that we react quickly. However, they also require that we act with accurateness and acuity. Bad design adaptations can result in more serious failures than the ones that the new design was meant to fix and lowered productivity, stability, innovation, motivation, morale and a hostile work environment in addition.

When the Reactive Approach is Most Successful

The reactive approach is most successful when the failure is or could be mission critical and the cause can be fairly well determined with limited analysis. For example, the reporting structure of a medical organization delaying procedure decisions to the extent that lives are threatened or the work of a hazardous waste disposal company being structured around functional silos so that many handoffs are necessary or the reporting structure of any organization being completely separated from the work structure so that decisions about the work are made by those who are disconnected from the work. Members tend to rally in these mission critical circumstances and expend the necessary effort to make the change. However, even when the identified cause turns out to be incorrect, members tend to be more tolerant because they understand that mission critical failures require quick responses.

PROACTIVE ADAPTATION

Impact on the Behaviors of those Involved

To have the least impact on the behaviors of those involved, adaptation are best done proactively based on data gathered over a period of time from multiple internal and external sources. Since design changes are incredibly impacting on the work lives and even the personal lives of those involved, members are more trusting and less fearful and anxious when such changes have been carefully thought through and all those involved have had opportunity for input. Productivity, motivation and morale tend to be less negatively affected. However, even proactive adaptations to design that involve the potential for lay offs, forced retirements, down sizing or replacement with a person or a machine are likely to elicit anxiety, fear, anger, depression, or even paranoia. At first, members may be more productive and innovative and seem more committed and excited in an effort to make themselves more valuable and less likely to be let go. However, as time lingers on, resentment and anger at having to live in the constant uncertainty will set in and productivity, motivation, and morale will diminish. Proactive design adaptations with no threat of lost employment, status, or compensation will be well accepted and met with positive behaviors. Proactive design adaptations that carry the threat of these losses will be met with negative behaviors.

When the Proactive Approach is Most Successful

Proactive adaptation to design is the most successful when it does not carry the threat or expectation of lost employment, position, status, compensation, or rewards. And when it does not carry the threat or expectation that a currently enjoyable work environment or situation or currently enjoyable work will be negatively impacted or lost altogether. Proactive adaptation can seem just as devastating, arbitrary, and unempowering to members as can passive and reactive if threat of loss is attached.

IMPACT OF EFFECTIVE & INEFFECTIVE USES ON THE ORGANIZATION & ON SPECIFIC EFFORTS

Because of the impact of design changes on the personal and professional lives of organization members, choosing the wrong approach, or choosing the right approach and implementing it badly can make or break the future of the organization and its viability in its particular ecology. If a very small organization that has need of little structure reactively or proactively implements more structure than is required, members will respond negatively and even seek employment elsewhere. If an organization reactively adapts a design because of a failure that is not mission critical, those involved are likely to be disgruntled and the results are likely to be less that ideal. Proactive change, which is generally the best method for adapting design, can have a negative impact if certain losses are connected with it.

Stay tuned for the final part of our discussion of adapting the Seven Critical Business Needs using each of the three approaches to adaptation. We will conclude our discussion by examining:

• INTEGRATING SYSTEMS NEEDS
• OPERATIONAL PROCESSES NEEDS
• EXTERNAL PARTNER NEEDS
• ADAPTATION NEEDS

Don't miss this informative discussion!

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