FURTHER APPLICATION OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES:Criticism

<< APPLICATION OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY:Managerial focus

GREINER’S MODEL OF ORGANISATIONAL– EVOLUTION AND REVOLUTION >>

Change Management MGMT625

Lesson # 15

FURTHER APPLICATION OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES

First is the strategystructure debate and its application of western managerial knowledge in

context of Pakistan. The knowledge around us is the knowledge developed in the West for their

own purposes and objectives (environment). What is important for us is to develop skills to seek

relevancy, relate and appropriate this knowledge to our own contexts. We can already observe the

limitations and inadequacies of Western managerial and theoretical knowledge like that of

Hawthorne effect and Maslow theory of motivation as too abstract and generalised to deal with

distinct and differentiated cultural entities and societies of developing countries like that of

Pakistan. Hence the need is to go for synthesis and selective application of Western management

paradigm.

Similarly, the logic and spirit of contextualising also goes fine with certain dimensions of evolution

theory like that of selection and adaptation. For instance in the context of public sector organisation

in Pakistan there is a kind of fixation with organization structure rather than strategy resulting in the

failure to evolve a distinct organization structure and managerial culture on their own. For example

one such reason for the failure of strategy was that shift in government's strategy from import-

substitution to export-promotion over a period of time never brought with it a shift or adjustment in

organization structure. In fact with the same (static) set of institution, bureaucratic structure and

values different strategies were followed. Therefore what is suggested is that evolving strategy

should be coupled with evolving structure.

With respect to strategy-structure debate the typical controversy is which should come first? Should

strategy be formulated first and then structure is organized along the strategy dimensions? Or it is

the idealised and standardised structure which remains effective and can make effective any type of

strategy. Further concern is how do organizations evolve their strategies? And more important is

whether change in strategy is simultaneously followed or corresponded with strategy. Going by the

spirit of evolutionary thinking it is the strategystructure alignment and match which is required.

This was considered a traditional paradigm of management that good managers were considered

good managers every where (irrespective of industry, technology, size & place of organization) old

paradigm not valid for today's world. This has become irrelevant in today's highly specialised era

with hi-tech hyper changing world. So according to cultural school of thought (Comparative

Management) managerial practices which were considered effective in USA or Europe may not be

relevant and valid for developing countries like Pakistan. Therefore the localisation of management

by MNCs and other indigenous or local organization is imperative going by the dynamics of

evolutionary theory.

Large organisations are complex more vulnerable because of formalization of process and

routinization. Mangers focus too much on procedures and due-process of law. Organizations are

divided into vertical columns (functional departments), therefore managers cease to look at

organization from holistic and integrated perspective. Organizations become rigid and refuse to

learn owing to functional specialization and tend to become inflexible. For larger organisations,

QM should be more successful in large and complex because they are vulnerable to organisational

routines and stagnation. Large organizations operate as a special case of selection principle as

organization moves from smaller to large one. According to John D Rockefeller, "the growth of a

large business is merely a survival of the fittest: it is merely the working out of a law of nature"

Moreover, organisation theorists use the term evolution in variety of ways. One such concept is

learning which means change in knowledge, change in skills and change in attitude of individual

and or organization as well. Now the question, is adaptation and learning synonymous with change?

Sidney Winter uses the term adaptive problem-solving. Adaptation and evolution are used

synonymously but for some authors the two terms are not similar? Levinthal distinguishes between

learning and adaptation. To him, learning occurs when there is an incremental change in an

Change Management MGMT625

organisational routine in response to feedback about outcome while adaptation is defined as when

an organisation changes some of its core attributes to fit environmental contingency.

Strategic management perspective

A firm has a perpetual concern with strategy formulation, strategy implementation and strategic

evaluation; and has a choice which set of strategy to opt or formulate. The two sets of policy

choices are internal development and external development; and both are considered opposite to

each other. The internal development strategy, in its traits is slow, gradual, equity based where

one's own organization culture is considered very sacred as against the external development

strategy which exhibits the characteristics of being fast, structural and high growth oriented.

Mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures strategies explain the same mode. Internal refers to slow,

gradualism or incrementalist or evolutionary view and the other refer to revolutionary types of

change.

Relationship With other theories of change

How this theory fits with other theories like with teleological, life-cycle and dialectical theories.

This theory incorporates diversity and multiplicity of views. This theory seems to be

comprehensive viz. other theories like. OLC is again like parallel explanations of evolutionary

theory. Thing tend to evolve in each stage of its development; be competitive; and environmental

context. Teleological theory explains change in terms of purposive and cautious ways of objective

setting, compatible with teleological consistency in policies and objective for stable evolution of

organization With in organization we have dialectics and dialectical thinking; have to incorporate

opposing view point so as to come forth with effective policy outcome.

Criticism

This theory is not free from criticism. Natural selection favours the best of existing alternatives

rather on the best possible design. Here in this theory outcome is satisfying rather than optimising,

which means it does not strive for the best possible objectives. Another point of concern is that

organisation analogy is considered weak as organization is designed and managerial decisions are

taken cautiously and purposively while evolutionary biology rests on random variation. Because of

this deficiency in analogy Mayr has termed this theory as an "inappropriate formulation".

Table of Contents: