GREINER’S MODEL OF ORGANISATIONAL– EVOLUTION AND REVOLUTION

<< FURTHER APPLICATION OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORIES:Criticism

GROWTH RATE OF THE INDUSTRY:CREATIVITY, DIRECTION, DELEGATION >>

Change Management MGMT625

LESSON # 16

GREINER'S MODEL OF ORGANISATIONAL EVOLUTION AND REVOLUTION

The model explains why and how organizations are unable to grow, and in a way suggest how

organisations ought to grow? The model is based on certain assumptions about the organization

which are as under:

First assumption is organisations are rigid, bureaucratic, control-centric, and centralised entities.

Second, organisations fail to see that the future success of an organisation lie within their own

organisation, and also fail to assess their evolving states of development. Therefore inability of a

management to understand its organisation development problems can result in organisation

becoming frozen in its present stage of evolution (failure to evolve) regardless of market

opportunities.

Here Greiner's proposition is that future of an organisation may be less determined by outside

forces than it is by the organisation history. Therefore to him internal dynamics of organisation

structure play a critical and decisive role in shaping organisation strategy. This view comes closer

to the recently popular management paradigm of Resource Based View of strategy formulation.

According to this view each firm has a unique combination and configuration of its resources which

leads to inimitable competitive advantage.

The position confronts with Alfred Chandler (famous American author) who gave the concept n

strategy and structure perspective in business management, and who proposed that outside market

opportunities determine a organisation strategy which in turn determines company's structure. So

Greiner emphasises structure over strategy while Chandler focuses strategy over structure. Greiner

seems also influenced by European psychologist for whom individual behaviour is determined

primarily by previous events and experiences. Hence the analogy of individual development coined

with organisational development

Before discussing the model, first let us define the two terms: evolution and revolution. Evolution is

used to describe prolonged period of growth where no major upheaval occurs in organisation

practices. The term revolution is used to describe those periods of substantial turmoil in

organisational life. Each evolutionary period creates its own revolution, as organisation progresses

through developmental phases. For instance centralised practices eventually lead to demand for

decentralisation. Moreover the nature of management's solution to each evolutionary period

determines whether organisation will move forward into next stage of evolutionary growth.

According to Greiner, five key dimensions emerge as essential for building a model of organisation

development.

Age of the organisation

Size of the organisation

Stages of Evolution

Stages of Revolution

Growth rate of the industry

Each dimension influences the other overtime; when all five elements begin to interact, a more

comprehensive and dynamic picture of organisational growth emerges.

1. Age of the organisation

It is the foremost and essential dimension of organisation development. It is very clear to us that the

same organisation practices are not maintained throughout a long span of time. Most basic point is

management problems and practices are rooted in time. MBO a decade back had different meanings

Change Management MGMT625

than today. The passage of time also contributes to the institutionalisation of managerial attitude. As

result employee behaviour becomes not only more predictable but also more difficult to change when

attitudes are outdated. For example Parkinson law of expansion which means work tend to expand

over time.

2. Size of the organisation

Organisation's problems and solutions to such problems tend to change markedly as the number of

employees and sales volume increases. Thus time is not the only determinant of structure; in fact

organisations that do not grow in size can retain many of the same management issues and practices

over lengthy periods. Very typical problems of increased size are of coordination and of

communication, emergence of new functions, levels in the management hierarchy, and jobs become

inter-related.

3. Stage of Evolution

The term seems to describe quieter period in organisation history with modest adjustments necessary

for maintaining growth under the over all same pattern of management. With the increase in size and

time a phenomenon becomes evident which is "prolonged growth". Evolution is equated with

continuous and prolonged growth. According to Greiner, most growing organisations do not expand

two years and then retreat for one year; rather those that survive crises usually enjoy four to eight

years of continuous growth without a major setback or severe internal disruption.

4. Stages of Revolution

Smooth evolution is not inevitable for long. In other words organisation growth cannot be assumed

linear. For example, many case histories of Fortune 500 listed companies reveal that companies had

periods of substantial turbulence spaced between periods of evolution. Turbulent times leading to

severe upheaval of management practices means revolution or period of revolution.

Traditional management practices appropriate for smaller size and earlier times, are brought under

scrutiny by frustrated top managers and disillusioned lower-level managers. Many organisations fail

during such a crisis unable to abandon past practices have to wind-up or compromise to lower

levels of growth.

The critical task for management in each revolutionary period is to find a new set of organisation

practices that will become the basis for managing the next period of evolutionary growth.

Interestingly, the new practices sow their own seeds of decay and lead to another revolution.

Therefore management sees something a solution in one time period becomes a major problem later.

For example at individual level, the same situation can be identified as success trap, means success

has its own trap which generates single-variable-mindedness type of thinking in individual.

Table of Contents: