Search results

This paper describes an evolutionary model of organizational change through the selective retention of jobs. This type of change can operate in addition to top-down planned organizational change, providing "another engine" of organizational transformation over time. All evolutionary change processes require that there be a system for replicating activities over time, a source of variation in activities, and mechanisms which permit some activities to persist while others do not. In this model, formalized job systems and related management practices provide the mechanism for the replication of job activities. Idiosyncratic jobs—or jobs created around particular people rather than in the abstract—serve as a mechanism for unplanned variation in sets of job duties. Finally managerial actions such as layoffs, reorganizations, budget changes and copying jobs from other areas lead to the selective retention of some sets of job activities over others. The organizational change created by these processes may or may not be adaptive for the organization. The outcome will depend on such factors as the birth, death and imitation rates for idiosyncratic and other jobs, as well as the criteria used for job birth and job termination. Adaptation is possible, but is a function of complex, nonlinear constraints. Specific organizational processes that determine these factors are discussed. The model implies that adaptive change can occur in the absence of clear and consistent goals. Thus, the model's implications contradict the frequent assumption of strategic planning literatures that clear and stable goals are necessary for adaptive organizational change. Formalization is necessary for the organization to maintain over time those job activities which have proved to be useful innovations. Thus, the model's implications also contradict the assumption in structural contingency theory that formalization deters adaptive change. Although consistent with other theories of evolutionary organizational change, the model extends prior work by detailing concrete mechanisms, clarifying boundary conditions for the process, and stressing that adaptation is feasible but definitely not assured. The outcome depends in part upon managerial attention to organizational processes rather than to outcomes, and "benign opportunism"—or creative attention to unfolding organizational competencies. Finally, the paper outlines the potential of the model for further study, especially for empirical research on evolutionary change processes and on organizational learning. The evolutionary change process described can be seen as a form of trial-and-error learning in which retained jobs constitute the organization's memory. It is distinct from many other organizational learning models, however, because the source of innovation—idiosyncratic jobs—is not planned in advance by top management, and may be unrelated to current aspirations of the dominant coalition.

This article addresses theoretical and research frontiers for learning research, a second theme of Professor Argyris essay—the lead article in the "Crossroads" section. We outline three key theoretical questions for further work. We call for more systematic empirical learning research, suggesting that the paucity of such research may have resulted less from defensiveness than from the demanding requirements of doing crisp, systematic learning research. The need for scholarly empirical work is enhanced, we believe, by the growing popularity of organizational learning models among practitioners. Concurring with Professor Argyris' broad concern with enhancing research fruitfulness, we suggest ways to supplement traditional organizational research methods. In particular, we argue that it makes sense to cast wider nets for models of learning and adaptation, to sustain qualitative investigation, to use simulation techniques, and to maintain stronger—and perhaps even experimental—linkages between applied and theoretical research.

An inductive study of improvisation in new product development activities in two firms uncovered a variety of improvisational forms and the factors that shaped them. Embedded in the observations were two important linkages between organizational improvisation and learning. First, site observations led us to refine prior definitions of improvisation and view it as a distinct type of real-time, short-term learning. Second, observation revealed links between improvisation and long-term organizational learning. Improvisation interfered with some learning processes; it also sometimes played a role in long-term trial-and-error learning, and the firms displayed improvisational competencies. Our findings extend prior research on organizational improvisation and learning and provide a lens for research on entrepreneurship, technological innovation, and the fusion of unplanned change and order.