Organizational adaptation

Last updated February 23, 2023

Organizational adaptation (sometimes referred to as strategic fit and organizational congruence) is a concept in organization theory and strategic management that is used to describe the relationship between an organization and its environment. The conceptual roots of organizational adaptation borrows ideas from organizational ecology, evolutionary economics, industrial and organizational psychology, and sociology. A systematic review of 50 years worth of literature defined organizational adaptation as "intentional decision-making undertaken by organizational members, leading to observable actions that aim to reduce the distance between an organization and its economic and institutional environments".^[1]

Historical Development
Contrarian Views
The Interrelationship between Adaptation and Selection
Core Concepts Related to Adaptation
Progression of Adaptation Research
The Pursuit of Adaptation
Internal Factors that Constrain or Enable Adaptation
The Influence of Environments on Adaptation
Issues in Adaptation Research
See also
References
Further reading

Adaptation is a concept that has been studied from multiple perspectives and, as a result, transcends multiple levels of analysis including organizations, populations of organizations, and organizational fields.^[2]

Historical Development

Studies of organization adaptation are mainly concerned with the evolution of organizations in conjunction with the environments in which they are situated. Early works emphasized a notion that managers possessed the ability to determine the optimal means by which organizations could be structured. Aspects of adaptation began with a focus inside organizations and the adapting of internal structures to achieve the highest rates of success (see scientific management as an example). The study of adaptation evolved to focus on the interplay between strategy and structure, classically studied by Chandler (1962)^[3] which laid the foundation for subsequent studies of adaptation that elaborated more explicitly on the environment.

The two most prominent seminal works of adaptation evolved to describe the relationship between organizations and their environments. Cyert and March (1963), in their influential work, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, emphasized the adaptation of decision rules that facilitated the ways that organizations learned to cope with uncertain environments. Relatedly, Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) elaborated upon the notion of "fit" between organizational structures and the various sub-environments in which they operated.^[4] Organizations that were best able to match their organization structures to sub-environments outperformed other organizations, spawning a rich literature in contingency theory.

Contrarian Views

Beginning in the 1970s, scholars became skeptical of the emphasis on the capacity for managers to influence their environments. Sociological perspectives emerged as a result, emphasizing the role and strength of the environment in restraining the ability for managers to influence the success of organizations. Particularly prominent in this regard was the work of organizational ecologists that leveraged ideas from evolutionary biology to explain the natural selection of organizations.^[5] For ecologists, managers had little agency and organizational survival was determined primarily by the environment itself.

The Interrelationship between Adaptation and Selection

Broader ecological views emerged from early works that emphasized managers and subsequent works that emphasized environmental forces. Frameworks were developed that focused on the interplay between organizations and environments.^[2]^[6]^[7] Hrebeniak and Joyce (1985) specifically elaborated upon the interplay between strategic choice and environmental determinism, suggesting that both resided along a continuum that distinguished various forms of adaptation.^[8] Adaptation could, therefore, exist in multiple modes. Subsequent work by Levinthal (1997) entitled Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes further elaborated upon the notion that both adaptive and selective forces were simultaneously at play for organizations depending upon how "tightly coupled" (or interdependent) organizational structures were in relation to their environments. Environments were determined to be rugged because there are several local optimum points that related specifically to the intricacies of each organization's design.^[9]

Given such broad historical roots and biological connotations, organizational adaptation is often studied alongside related concepts to expose its presence. As a result, several concepts are closely related to adaptation.

Core Concepts Related to Adaptation

Adaptation is often contrasted with inertia and selection (see organizational ecology) and reflected as survival, growth, or performance.^[10] The attributes that reflect the concept of adaptation do not fully reflect either survival nor success for organizations, however, as biological notions of adaptation do not easily translate to organizations.^[11] Adaptation, as a standalone concept, does have distinguishable attributes from its related concepts. More specifically, organizational adaptation is premised on organizational decision-making that is intentional, whereby decision-makers are aware of their environment; relational, in that organizations and environments influence one another; conditioned, in that environmental characteristics evolved with other organizations’ actions; and convergent, in that organizations attempt to move closer to a set of environmental characteristics.^[1]

Progression of Adaptation Research

The widespread use of adaptation and its relationships to many theoretical perspectives has led to a diverse body of literature that spans multiple levels of analysis and multiple topics of study. A systematic review of 50 years worth of academic literature on adaptation uncovered 6 theoretical perspectives and 16 unique topics that have been studied with the concept of adaptation (see the interactive model of topics). Broadly, studies of organizational adaptation focus on 3 main areas: how do organizations pursue adaptation, what constrains organizational efforts to adapt, and what are the environmental forces that initiate adaptation.^[1]

The Pursuit of Adaptation

Pursuits of adaptation primarily follow the traditions that emphasize how managers influence the adaptation process and, therefore, focus mainly on decision-making. Organizations that recognize environmental change and make decisions to reconfigure resources or enter new markets are viewed as adapting accordingly. In this way, psychological perspectives that emphasize the cognition of managers play a strong role in explaining adaptation.^[12]^[13] Strategic perspectives that emphasize the capabilities of organizations also feature prominently in pursuits of adaptation.^[14]

Internal Factors that Constrain or Enable Adaptation

Drawing from perspectives that restrict the abilities of managers to fully influence or align to their environments, constraints (or conditions) on adaptation are also broadly studied. Organizations either needed to account for the internal relationships between core strengths that evolve with environments over time to achieve success^[15] or they needed to account for the fact that regulations may impose restrictions on organizations as they adjusted to their environments.^[16] The set of studies focused on the factors that condition adaptation, therefore, tend to focus on the outcomes of performance, survival, or legitimacy for organizations.

The Influence of Environments on Adaptation

A relatively smaller set of academic articles highlights that environments can initiate (or impose, in some cases) adaptation. The perspectives drawn upon to make the case for environments are evolutionary in nature and focus on variation, selection, and retention models that were popularized by Campbell (1965).^[17] Prominent works in this area of adaptation research highlight the interplay between organizations and environments whereby environmental forces are relatively stronger than strategic decisions, although adaptation remained present as Haveman and Rao demonstrated in their 1997 study of the early thrift industry^[18]

Issues in Adaptation Research

The three areas in which adaptation has been studied has led to some conceptual challenges that stem from the various levels and perspectives from which organizational adaptation has been studied. A systematic review identified 11 difficulties in adaptation research, which is summarized broadly in the following table.^[1]

Difficulty Area	Difficulty Description
Adaptation is Studied as both a Factor Leading to Convergence and an Outcome of Convergence	Functionalist Adaptation Fallacy: decisions are assumed to be effective means of converging with environments
	Adaptation without Strong Performance: organizations may converge with an environmental characteristic and not reap the benefits of strong performance
	Adaptation Depends on Competition: peer organizations may respond to decisions made that negate the benefits of an adaptive decision
Adaptation is Difficult to Observe	Continuous Change: organizations frequently make changes that may reduce the need for subsequent changes
	Asymmetric Causality: the presence of a condition that leads to inertia does not necessarily imply that its absence leads to adaptation
	Strategic Non-Adaptation: organizations may intentionally choose to avoid adaptation if it does not align with organizational aspirations
	Unobservable Adaptive Ability: organizations may possess the ability to adapt without an environmental opportunity to do so
Adaptation Occurs at Multiple Interdependent Levels	Adaptation Depends on Environments: environments may move in the direction of organizations just as much as organizations move in the direction of environments
	Environmental Multiplicity: organizations plausibly adapt to multiple environments at multiple levels simultaneously
	Co-evolution Across Levels: decisions made by the organizations plausibly change the environmental conditions and vice versa
	Adaptation as Transitory: adaptation does not occur at points in time but over periods of time

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evolutionary psychology</span> Branch of psychology

Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach in psychology that examines cognition and behavior from a modern evolutionary perspective. It seeks to identify human psychological adaptations with regards to the ancestral problems they evolved to solve. In this framework, psychological traits and mechanisms are either functional products of natural and sexual selection or non-adaptive by-products of other adaptive traits.

Evolutionary economics is part of mainstream economics as well as a heterodox school of economic thought that is inspired by evolutionary biology. Much like mainstream economics, it stresses complex interdependencies, competition, growth, structural change, and resource constraints but differs in the approaches which are used to analyze these phenomena. Some scholars prefer to call their evolutionary theory by a different names. Samuel Bowles named it "evolutionary social science" and Joachim Rennstich called it "evolutionary systems theory".

In the field of management, strategic management involves the formulation and implementation of the major goals and initiatives taken by an organization's managers on behalf of stakeholders, based on consideration of resources and an assessment of the internal and external environments in which the organization operates. Strategic management provides overall direction to an enterprise and involves specifying the organization's objectives, developing policies and plans to achieve those objectives, and then allocating resources to implement the plans. Academics and practicing managers have developed numerous models and frameworks to assist in strategic decision-making in the context of complex environments and competitive dynamics. Strategic management is not static in nature; the models can include a feedback loop to monitor execution and to inform the next round of planning.

In business administration, absorptive capacity has been defined as "a firm's ability to recognize the value of new information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends". It is studied on individual, group, firm, and national levels. Antecedents are prior-based knowledge and communication. Studies involve a firm's innovation performance, aspiration level, and organizational learning. It has been said that in order to be innovative an organization should develop its absorptive capacity.

Niche construction is the process by which an organism alters its own local environment. These alterations can be a physical change to the organism’s environment or encompass when an organism actively moves from one habitat to another to experience a different environment. Examples of niche construction include the building of nests and burrows by animals, and the creation of shade, influencing of wind speed, and alternation of nutrient cycling by plants. Although these alterations are often beneficial to the constructor, they are not always.

In biology, adaptation has three related meanings. Firstly, it is the dynamic evolutionary process of natural selection that fits organisms to their environment, enhancing their evolutionary fitness. Secondly, it is a state reached by the population during that process. Thirdly, it is a phenotypic trait or adaptive trait, with a functional role in each individual organism, that is maintained and has evolved through natural selection.

Organizational ecology is a theoretical and empirical approach in the social sciences that is considered a sub-field of organizational studies. Organizational ecology utilizes insights from biology, economics, and sociology, and employs statistical analysis to try to understand the conditions under which organizations emerge, grow, and die.

Environmental resource management is the management of the interaction and impact of human societies on the environment. It is not, as the phrase might suggest, the management of the environment itself. Environmental resources management aims to ensure that ecosystem services are protected and maintained for future human generations, and also maintain ecosystem integrity through considering ethical, economic, and scientific (ecological) variables. Environmental resource management tries to identify factors affected by conflicts that rise between meeting needs and protecting resources. It is thus linked to environmental protection, sustainability, integrated landscape management, natural resource management, fisheries management, forest management, and wildlife management, and others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evolutionary developmental psychology</span> Psychology field concerned with Darwinian evolution

Evolutionary developmental psychology (EDP) is a research paradigm that applies the basic principles of evolution by natural selection, to understand the development of human behavior and cognition. It involves the study of both the genetic and environmental mechanisms that underlie the development of social and cognitive competencies, as well as the epigenetic processes that adapt these competencies to local conditions.

Complexity theory and organizations, also called complexity strategy or complex adaptive organizations, is the use of the study of complexity systems in the field of strategic management and organizational studies. It draws from research in the natural sciences that examines uncertainty and non-linearity. Complexity theory emphasizes interactions and the accompanying feedback loops that constantly change systems. While it proposes that systems are unpredictable, they are also constrained by order-generating rules.

Computer simulation is a prominent method in organizational studies and strategic management. While there are many uses for computer simulation, most academics in the fields of strategic management and organizational studies have used computer simulation to understand how organizations or firms operate. More recently, however, researchers have also started to apply computer simulation to understand organizational behaviour at a more micro-level, focusing on individual and interpersonal cognition and behavior such as team working.

Tinbergen's four questions, named after 20th century biologist Nikolaas Tinbergen, are complementary categories of explanations for animal behaviour. These are also commonly referred to as levels of analysis. It suggests that an integrative understanding of behaviour must include: ultimate (evolutionary) explanations, in particular the behaviour (1) adaptive function and (2) phylogenetic history; and the proximate explanations, in particular the (3) underlying physiological mechanisms and (4) ontogenetic/developmental history.

In organizational theory, dynamic capability is the capability of an organization to purposefully adapt an organization's resource base. The concept was defined by David Teece, Gary Pisano and Amy Shuen, in their 1997 paper Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management, as "the firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing environments".

Business agility refers to rapid, continuous, and systematic evolutionary adaptation and entrepreneurial innovation directed at gaining and maintaining competitive advantage. Business agility can be sustained by maintaining and adapting the goods and services offered to meet with customer demands, adjusting to the marketplace changes in a business environment, and taking advantage of available human resources.

Human ethology is the study of human behavior. Ethology as a discipline is generally thought of as a sub-category of biology, though psychological theories have been developed based on ethological ideas. The bridging between biological sciences and social sciences creates an understanding of human ethology. The International Society for Human Ethology is dedicated to advancing the study and understanding of human ethology.

Organizational ambidexterity refers to an organization's ability to be efficient in its management of today's business and also adaptable for coping with tomorrow's changing demand. Just as being ambidextrous means being able to use both the left and right hand equally, organizational ambidexterity requires the organizations to use both exploration and exploitation techniques to be successful.

The success trap refers to business organizations that focus on the exploitation of their current business activities and as such neglect the need to explore new territory and enhance their long-term viability.

In organisational theory, organisational routines are “repetitive, recognizable patterns of interdependent actions carried out by multiple actors”.

Evolutionary psychology has traditionally focused on individual-level behaviors, determined by species-typical psychological adaptations. Considerable work, though, has been done on how these adaptations shape and, ultimately govern, culture. Tooby and Cosmides (1989) argued that the mind consists of many domain-specific psychological adaptations, some of which may constrain what cultural material is learned or taught. As opposed to a domain-general cultural acquisition program, where an individual passively receives culturally-transmitted material from the group, Tooby and Cosmides (1989), among others, argue that: "the psyche evolved to generate adaptive rather than repetitive behavior, and hence critically analyzes the behavior of those surrounding it in highly structured and patterned ways, to be used as a rich source of information out of which to construct a 'private culture' or individually tailored adaptive system; in consequence, this system may or may not mirror the behavior of others in any given respect.".

Hart E. Posen is an academic, researcher, and business analyst. He is a Professor of Management and Human Resources, and the Richard G. and Julie J. Diermeier Professor in Business at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

References

1 2 3 4 Sarta, Andrew; Durand, Rodolphe; Vergne, Jean-Philippe (2021). "Organizational Adaptation". Journal of Management. 47 (1): 43–75. doi:10.1177/0149206320929088. PMC 7736401 . PMID 33424060.
1 2 Aldrich, Howard. (1979). Organizations and Environments. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Business Books. ISBN 978-0-8047-5829-1.
↑ Chandler, Alfred D. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the American Industrial Enterprise.
↑ Lawrence, Paul R.; Lorsch, Jay W. (June 1967). "Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations". Administrative Science Quarterly. 12 (1): 1–47. doi:10.2307/2391211. JSTOR 2391211.
↑ Hannan, Michael T.; Freeman, John (1977). "The Population Ecology of Organizations". American Journal of Sociology. 82 (5): 929–964. doi:10.1086/226424. ISSN 0002-9602. JSTOR 2777807. S2CID 67770954.
↑ Baum, Joel A. C. (1994). Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations. Singh, Jitendra V. Cary: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-535891-9. OCLC 935260467.
↑ Aldrich, Howard E. (20 March 2020). Organizations evolving. Ruef, Martin., Lippmann, Stephen. (Third ed.). Cheltenham, UK. ISBN 978-1-78897-027-3. OCLC 1151024778.
↑ Hrebiniak, Lawrence G.; Joyce, William F. (September 1985). "Organizational Adaptation: Strategic Choice and Environmental Determinism". Administrative Science Quarterly. 30 (3): 336. doi:10.2307/2392666. JSTOR 2392666.
↑ Levinthal, Daniel A. (July 1997). "Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes". Management Science. 43 (7): 934–950. doi:10.1287/mnsc.43.7.934. ISSN 0025-1909.
↑ Dynamic capabilities : understanding strategic change in organizations. Helfat, Constance E. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. 2007. ISBN 978-1-4051-5904-3. OCLC 70230576.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
↑ Durand, Rodolphe (2006). Organizational evolution and strategic management. London: SAGE. ISBN 978-1-84787-808-3. OCLC 290532768.
↑ Ocasio, William (1997). "Towards an Attention Based View of the Firm". Strategic Management Journal. 18 (S1): 187–206. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199707)18:1+<187::aid-smj936>3.3.co;2-b. ISSN 0143-2095. S2CID 221895930.
↑ Barr, Pamela S. (December 1998). "Adapting to Unfamiliar Environmental Events: A Look at the Evolution of Interpretation and Its Role in Strategic Change". Organization Science. 9 (6): 644–669. doi:10.1287/orsc.9.6.644. ISSN 1047-7039.
↑ Teece, David J. (December 2007). "Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance". Strategic Management Journal. 28 (13): 1319–1350. doi: 10.1002/smj.640 .
↑ Siggelkow, Nicolaj (March 2002). "Evolution toward Fit". Administrative Science Quarterly. 47 (1): 125–159. doi:10.2307/3094893. JSTOR 3094893. S2CID 21344045.
↑ Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan J.; Boal, Kimberly B.; Hunt, James G. (Jerry) (March 1998). "Organizational Adaptation to Institutional Change: A Comparative Study of First-Order Change in Prospector and Defender Banks". Administrative Science Quarterly. 43 (1): 87. doi:10.2307/2393592. JSTOR 2393592.
↑ Campbell, Donald T. Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution. [s.n.] OCLC 848788358.
↑ Haveman, Heather A.; Rao, Hayagreeva (May 1997). "Structuring a Theory of Moral Sentiments: Institutional and Organizational Coevolution in the Early Thrift Industry". American Journal of Sociology. 102 (6): 1606–1651. doi:10.1086/231128. ISSN 0002-9602. S2CID 145002151.