از آخرین نوشته این وبلاگ تقریبا دو سال می گذره!
چند شب پیش در یک مهمانی خدمت دوستان گرامی بودیم. جایتان خالی، خیلی با صفا بود.
نمی دانم چرا برخی از همکلاسی هایی که ازشان انتظار داشتیم (والا خیلی ها با عملشان گفتند دور ما نیایین و ما هم دور شما نمی آییم!) مدتی است به خفا رفته اند و خبری ازشان نیست.
بابا اینقدرا هم گرفتار و مشغول نیستیم، توی اون سبد فعالیت های ماهانه بگردین، اون زیر میرا یک تیکه کاغذ افتاده که روش نوشته بازدید و احوال پرسی دوستان!!!
از خانم امینی هم دوباره آنقدر دور شدیم که تقریبا راه ارتباطی ما با ایشون، همین وبلاگ است....
Strategic Change Issues Associated with Dialectical Tension
Since Barnard (1938), organization and management theorists have largely accepted the premise that cooperation and consensus among organizational members are prerequisites for achieving organizational goals. This ‘consensus orientation’ views conflict between organizational constituents and disagreement about organizational direction as counterproductive activities that divert organizational resources from the coordinated and efficient attainment of commonly accepted goals. Proponents of a consensus orientation cite empirical research demonstrating that organizational performance is facilitated by executive consensus on means (Bourgeois, 1980), consensus regarding both means and ends (Dess, 1987), and that cognitive diversity inhibits comprehensive and thorough long-range planning (Miller et al, 1998).
An alternative perspective suggests that unity and consensus among organizational members is only effective in stable environments and for unambiguous or routine organizational tasks (Nehmeth and Staw, 1989; Jehn, 1995). According to this alternative perspective, disagreement about goals and direction may be a critical organizational dynamic leading to innovation, change, and renewal (Coser, 1957). Organizations that squelch disagreements and foster consensus become rigid and myopic, unable to adapt to changing circumstances or respond to competitive threats. In the words of Dahrendorf (1959: 170), a consensus orientation can answer the question ‘What holds organizations together?’ but only an orientation that includes conflict and disagreement can answer the question ‘What drives organizations on?’.
Dialectical change processes are becoming increasingly relevant as organizations become complex and pluralistic. Dialectical processes are generated as actors with different bases of power and from different cultures interact with one another to influence organizational directions and compete with one another for scarce organizational resources. In a multicultural context, a change effort may produce counter reactions that affect the balance of power and associated social structures. Consequently, change itself spawns dialectical reactions in its wake.
Dialectical tensions between people with different values and preferences automatically increase as an organization opens up to change and pluralism. Opening up a firm to multiple constituencies raises a fundamental question -'In whose interest should a firm be run?' Pursuing such a question takes us to a stakeholder view of the firm (Cyert and March, 1963; Freeman, 1984; Dunbar and Ahlstrom, 1995; Garud and Shapira, 1997; see the AMJ issue on stakeholders, social responsibility and performance edited by Harrison and Freeman, 1999). In such a view, a firm consists of multiple constituencies, each with different interests and values. Organizational actors act in their self-interest, and in doing so, may be in opposition to one another (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). An organized entity, then, is not necessarily a unitary actor with an unified purpose. Instead, it consists of many actors with different value systems and preferences who act in their best self-interests.
From this perspective, a firm is a forum for facilitating processes that generate superordi-nate goals from the meaningful representation of different stakeholders. However, such a synthesis is not always assured. Sometimes one group may gather sufficient power to suppress and prevent the mobilization of opposition groups. Those in authority and power can address conflict in two ways. First, they can use the ‘hierarchy’ to address conflicts at one level through command and control exercised at a higher level. Or, they can use ‘time’ to address conflicts through the sequential attention to goals (March and Simon, 1958).
A different set of issues surface as one considers the oppositions that firms encounter as they pursue courses of actions that collide with those pursued by other firms (Van de Ven and Garud, 1993a, b; Garud and Rappa, 1994). For instance, the directions that any firm may pursue along a technological trajectory may be in opposition to those pursued by rivals. Each technological trajectory trades off one dimension of merit for another, thereby generating multiple and conflicting cues.
The presence of multiple and conflicting cues generates ambiguity (Daft and Lengel, 1986). In the presence of resources such ambiguity generates ‘action persistence’ (Brunsson, 1982; Garud and Van de Ven, 1992; Starbuck, 1983). Researchers developing cochlear implants encountered these conditions in the 1980s (Garud and Van de Ven, 1992). Their response was to close themselves from feedback. Metaphorically it was akin to saying ‘damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead’. Indeed, where future states may be enacted in a self-fulfilling manner, such action persistence may be appropriate.
However, as was the case with cochlear implants, these dynamics can result in an escalation of commitment (Staw, 1976). To avoid this eventuality, proactive firms may institute checks and balance to reduce the possibilities of needless escalation of commitments. For instance, Intel has put into place internal mechanisms to engage in critical inquiry (Argyris et al., 1985). Not only do they have mechanisms in place to discuss contrarian inputs from their employees, but their CEO also engages in ‘discrediting’ (Weick, 1979) by being ‘paranoid’ (Grove, 1996).
A broader principle implicit in Intel's practices is that ambiguous, uncertain, and changing situations require a more pluralistic leadership structure that encourages the requisite variety of perspectives needed for learning by discovery (Hedberg et al, 1976; Van de Ven and Grazman, 1997; Van de Ven et al, 1999). The value of conflict and disagreement in organizations is based on the assumption that the consideration of multiple perspectives is a critical requirement for effective decision making. Organizations and groups that foster multiple points of view are less likely to overlook critical competitive contingencies that affect their ability to accomplish goals and are more likely to anticipate the need for changes in organizational strategy and structure (Bantel and Jackson, 1989; Lant et al., 1992; Wiersema and Bantel, 1992). They are also more likely to develop creative ‘syntheses’ (Bartunek, 1993) and less likely to suffer from problems like groupthink (Janis, 1972).
In this regard, Van de Ven et al. (1999) offer insights on the virtues of fostering pluralistic leadership processes. They suggest that the roles of sponsors and champions be countered by a critics' role. It is through the dynamic interplay between these different leadership roles that strategy is forged over time.
However, internal diversity is difficult to maintain. Depending upon the nature of diversity and how it is managed, ‘vicious’ cycles may emerge (Raghuram and Garud, 1995). Perhaps this is why organizations with executive teams that value contradictory perspectives and keep them in balance are seldom observed. However, studies of these exemplary outliers provide some useful clues. First, Levinthal (1997) discusses structural mechanisms for maintaining diversity within the firm by establishing multiple sources of resources and bases of legitimate authority that promote multiple communities of practice or learning groups (Brown and Duguid, 1991). Second, Bartunek (1993) points out that achieving balanced internal diversity requires strong institutional leadership to tolerate the ambiguity of holding multiple perspectives, to be able to truly balance the power between managers with different perspectives, and to enable their interaction toward a creative outcome.
Strategic Change Issues Associated with Life Cycle Dynamics
The genesis of life cycle dynamics in the strategy literature may be traced to early work in technology studies. Two counter-forces shape the development and diffusion of technological systems. One is a ‘law of progress’ (Adams, 1931) that points to an exponential growth in the development of a technological system after a relatively slower start. A second force is the ‘law of limits’ that represents the physical limits one invariably confronts with the performance of a technological system. Together, these two forces combine to prescribe an ‘S’ shaped curve in the development and diffusion of a technological system (Foster, 1986).
Life cycle dynamics implicit in the ‘S’ shaped curve were productively employed in other disciplines as well. In the marketing literature, for instance, these dynamics are manifest in product life cycle issues (Kotler, 1994; Mahajan et al, 1990). In the economics literature, life cycle dynamics are apparent in the works of economists such as Vernon (1966). In the organizational field, life cycle dynamics can be found in conceptualizations of organizations progressing from one crisis to another as it grew in scale and scope (Greiner, 1972). They are also implicit in the contagion models that have been employed in diffusion studies and the creation of bandwagons in the development of fads and fashions (Abrahamson, 1991; Rogers, 1983). Clearly this is not an inclusive but an indicative list of those who have contributed to this way of thinking. However, as is apparent from even this short survey, life cycles unfold at various levels.
Several issues confront practitioners associated with processes exhibiting life cycle dynamics. First, there is a need to determine the stage in the life cycle of the organizational entity that is undergoing change. Monitoring internal and external contexts is an approach that has been advocated for this purpose. Although monitoring might appear to be a routine task, cognitive biases may create many difficulties in accomplishing this task (Kahneman et al., 1982; Kiesler and Sproull, 1982; Dutton and Jackson, 1987). Despite these difficulties, some tell-tale signs that have been employed to determine what stage an industry might be in its development are product price, the level of commoditization, the number of new entrants and exits.
In addition to correctly recognizing the stage of development of the entity being examined, another managerial challenge is determining the appropriate mode of operation in each stage of a life cycle. For instance, Utterback (1994) suggests that strategy implies competition based on functionalities during a ‘fluid’ stage of technology development whereas it implies competition based on reliability, quality and price during a ‘specific’ stage of development. Similar considerations have led others to suggest that a firm should be organized to ‘explore’ during early growth stages and organized to ‘exploit’ during later stages (March, 1991).
The most difficult challenge in managing processes driven by life cycle dynamics is to make transitions in between stages. Transitions are difficult as they imply changing one set of competencies well suited for one stage of operation to a different set of competencies required for a different stage of operation. Indeed, appropriate forms of behavior at one stage of operation may be the very forces that prevent organizations from transiting to the next stage. In other words, transitions become difficult as competencies at one point become traps (Levitt and March, 1988; Leonard-Barton, 1992).
While life cycle models are seductively simple to understand, they are easy for managers to misread. For instance, in the development of cochlear implants (a bio-medical prosthetic device), proponents of the single-channel device that gained early FDA approvals concluded to their peril that industry dynamics had switched to a growth and maturity stage (Garud and Van de Ven, 1992). This belief turned out to be misplaced when other firms continued developing their cochlear implants under the assumption that the industry was still at an introductory stage.
In a similar vein, Henderson (1997) illustrates how beliefs about the limits of a technology based on its internal structure can be misleading. Using the development of optical photolithography as an example, Henderson shows how the ‘natural’ or ‘physical’ limits of the technology were relaxed by unanticipated progress on three fronts: significant changes in the needs and capabilities of users, advances in the performance of component technologies (lenses), and unexpected development in the performance of complementary technologies. These observations lead Henderson to caution against using a life cycle model to predict the limits of a technology. Such predictions must be tempered by a recognition that many other factors (beyond the immediate grasp of those forecasting) may play a role in extending the life of a technology.
Life cycle dynamics are at play in a key field that drives change in contemporary times -semiconductors. For about three decades, Moore's law described progress that has been made with semiconductor chips - a doubling of the number of chips that might fit into a silicon chip every 18 months. Announcements by scientists at Intel suggest that the silicon substrate may be reaching its limit (Markoff, 1999). In Grove's terminology, these limits may represent the onset of a strategic inflexion point with the potential to create a ‘10X change’ (Grove, 1996). As this limit is reached, semiconductor firms will have to decide whether to continue with silicon chips, shift to a new architecture or to a new substrate. To ensure that Intel makes appropriate decision as it encounters this and other such inflexion points, Grove and his colleagues have put in place ‘dialectical processes’ that shape decision making at Intel. We explore issues associated with dialectical processes as they pertain to strategic change in the next sub-section.
Strategic Issues Associated with Teleology
Of the four change theories, teleology has been the most frequently used theory by strategy scholars and practitioners. This is not surprising as the field of strategic management is presupposed on the assumption that humans are purposeful with a capacity to make strategic choices. Indeed, these approaches underlie most models of strategic choice and goal setting. These models include what Mintzberg and his colleagues label as the positioning, design and planning schools of thought (Mintzberg et al., 1998). It also includes Allison's (1971) Model I that ascribes rationality to purposeful actors pursuing goals and objectives as they attempt to make consistent value maximizing choices within specified constraints. Indeed, these assumptions have been used by many game theorists in the field of strategy to model strategic behaviors (Schelling, 1960; Camerer, 1991; Postrel, 1991; Saloner, 1991).
Common to rational models of choice is a synoptic view of strategic decision making. In such a perspective thinking is separated from doing as decision makers apply a rational calculus to make optimal choices. However, because decision makers have limited information processing capabilities, most rational choice models accept Simon's (1957) perspective of bounded rationality.
The adaptive learning school is an important extension of this basic teleological model (March and Simon, 1958; March and Shapira, 1987; Levinthal and March, 1981; Lant and Mezias, 1992; Mezias, 1988). Changes in organizations are viewed as movements towards a desired purpose, goal, function, or aspiration. The ability of an organization to meet the aspirations of top managers has an impact on their risk preferences and, consequently, on how the firm might behave in the short run. In the long run, organizational decision makers may adjust their aspiration levels based on the organization's long run performance capabilities.
Those employing strategy theories around teleology often describe the genesis of novelty as being serendipitous (Garud and Karn⊘e, 2001). Variations from existing plans and standards of measurement are ‘mistakes’ that only by chance become successful. This is the benign side of such theories. A more pernicious side is evident when an application of these theories results in the active resistance to any deviations from existing standards (Garud and Rappa, 1994; Christensen, 1997). In doing so, practitioners may stamp out the very sources of novelty.
Perspectives on organizational change based on teleology possess many strengths. Most important is that they provide a way of thinking of change as being purposeful, one based on a rational calculation of contexts and contingencies. However, the emphasis on rationality places a heavy burden on strategists to have a comprehensive view of the many contingencies that they may encounter in the future (Simon, 1957). They may also assume that interdependent actors will subscribe to the same set of goals and react to the same set of stimuli and information - see Zajac and Bazerman (1991) for situations with games between interdependent parties with competitive blind-spots. Social construction (Berger and Luckmann, 1967; Latour, 1987; Law, 1992; Callon, 1986) and enactment (Weick, 1979) theories relax these assumptions and adopt an interactionist perspective in which organizational purposes and meanings emerge from shared reflections among decision makers.
Implications for Strategic Change
Each theory has important implications for strategic change in organizations. For instance, the notion of teleology has been central to the field of strategy as it offers a way of building theories that celebrate human agency (Child, 1972). In such theories, strategic choice is a key motor driving change with humans possessing an ability to plan and the power to shape economic, social and technological systems. Human agency becomes progressively circumscribed as we begin introducing other change motors. For instance, strategic initiatives may need to be conditioned by life cycle dynamics. Or, change processes could be circumscribed and shaped by a multitude of conflicting social forces that deny planners an ability to unambiguously navigate a stream of unfolding events. Or, change can unfold within an even larger evolutionary process of variation, selection and retention.
Strategic change processes are fundamentally different within each of these theories. Change driven by teleology is planned and deliberate, based on an assessment of the possibilities involved. Change driven by life cycle dynamics represent transitions from one stage to another as an organization progresses along a prescribed sequence and adapts to forces. With dialectical theories, change as adaptation gives way to political processes of partisan conflicts and mutual adjustments among opposing parties. Finally, evolutionary theory examines processes of variation, selection, and retention of alternative organizational forms as generated by competition for scarce resources among competition for processes, adaptation and adoption occur as organizations cycle between periods of exploration and exploitation within an overall punctuated equilibrium process.
We delve deeper into these motors in the rest of this section .
Our objective is to provide readers with a way of thinking about strategic change based on the kinds of motors that one might encounter in different settings. In doing so, we also offer readers with an illustrative survey of the literature on strategic change.
Van de Ven and Poole (1995) restrict ‘evolution’ to cumulative and probabilistic changes in populations of organizational entities. As in biological evolution, change proceeds through a continuous cycle of variation, selection, and retention (Hannan and Freeman, 1989). Variations, the creation of novel forms, are often viewed to emerge by random chance; they just happen. Selection occurs principally through competition among forms, and the environment selects those forms that are best suited to the resource base of an environmental niche. Retention involves the forces (including inertia and persistence) that perpetuate and maintain certain organizational forms. Retention serves to counteract the self-reinforcing loop between variation and selection (Aldrich, 1979). Thus, evolutionary theory explains changes as recurrent, cumulative, and probabilistic progression of variation, selection, and retention processes.
Alternative theories of social evolution distinguish how traits can be inherited, whether change proceeds incrementally or radically, and whether the unit of analysis focuses on populations or species. A Darwinian perspective argues that traits can be inherited only through inter-generational processes, whereas a Lamarkian argues that traits can be acquired within a generation through learning and imitation. A Lamarkian view appears more appropriate than strict Darwinism applications of social evolution theory to organization and management (March, 1997). As McKelvey (1982) discusses, few solutions have been developed to operationally identify an organizational generation and an intergenerational transmission vehicle.
Social Darwinian theorists emphasize a continuous and gradual process of evolution. In The Origin of Species, Darwin (1936) wrote, ‘as natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modifications; it can act only by short and slow steps’. Other evolutionists posit a saltational theory of evolution, such as punctuated equilibrium (Gould, 1989), which Tushman and Romanelli (1985) introduced to the management literature. Whether an evolutionary change proceeds at gradual versus saltational rates is an empirical matter, for the rate of change does not fundamentally alter the theory of evolution - at least as it has been adopted thus far by organization and management scholars.
Life cycle, teleology, dialectics, and evolutionary theories provide four useful ways to think about and study strategic change in organizations. The relevance of the four theories varies depending upon the conditions surrounding organizational change. Specifically, Van de Ven and Poole (1995) posit that the four theories explain processes of organizational change under the following conditions. Life cycle theory explains change processes within an entity when natural, logical, or institutional rules exist to regulate the process. Teleological theory explains change processes within an entity or among a cooperating set of entities when a desired end-state is socially constructed and consensus emerges on the means and resources to reach the desired end-state. Dialectical theory explains change processes when aggressor entities are sufficiently powerful and choose to engage opposition entities through direct confrontation, bargaining, or partisan mutual adjustment. Evolutionary theory explains change processes within and between a population of entities as they compete for similar scarce resources in an environmental niche.
These theories are a useful way of thinking about strategic change. In this chapter, we use these theories to understand how change is ‘driven’ by underlying motors or generative mechanisms. These motors, as we have described earlier, are inferred from a systematic analysis of the sequence of events underlying the development of phenomena. Such an assessment reveals a set of motors that determine the scope and nature of strategic change.
In our use of strategic change one can see how we both build upon and depart from common uses of the term in the strategic management field. For instance, strategic change has been commonly used to denote ‘key’ organizational changes. Complementing this view is the use of strategic change as being purposive and goal oriented. Strategic change has also been used to denote changes undertaken to align an organization with its environment. The perspective that we have adopted suggests that one applies the theory that best fits the specific conditions to explain change processes.
یک روز، خانواده لاک پشتها تصمیم گرفتند که به پیک نیک بروند. از آنجا که لاک پشت ها به صورت طبیعی در همه موارد یواش عمل می کنند، هفت سال طول کشید تا برای سفرشون آماده بشن!
در نهایت خانواده لاک پشت خانه را برای پیدا کردن یک جای مناسب ترک کردند. بالاخره در سال دوم سفرشان محل مناسب را پیدا کردند.
برای مدتی حدود شش ماه محوطه رو تمیز کردند و سبد پیکنیک رو باز کردند و مقدمات رو آماده کردند. بعد فهمیدند که نمک نیاوردند!
پیکنیک بدون نمک یک فاجعه است و همه آنها با این مورد موافق بودند. بعد از یک بحث طولانی، جوانترین لاک پشت برای آوردن نمک از خانه انتخاب شد.
لاک پشت کوچولو ناله کرد، جیغ کشید و توی لاکش کلی بالا و پایین پرید، گر چه او سریعترین لاک پشت بین لاک پشت های کند بود!
او قبول کرد که به یک شرط بره؛ اینکه هیچ کس تا وقتی اون برنگشته چیزی نخوره. خانواده قبول کردن و لاک پشت کوچولو به راه افتاد.
سه سال گذشت... و لاک پشت کوچولو برنگشت. پنج سال ... شش سال ... سپس در سال هفتم غیبت او، پیرترین لاک پشت دیگه نمی تونست به گرسنگی ادامه بده . او اعلام کرد که قصد داره غذا بخوره و شروع به باز کردن یک ساندویچ کرد.
در این هنگام لاک پشت کوچولو ناگهان فریاد کنان از پشت یک درخت بیرون پرید،« دیدید می دونستم که منتظر نمی مونید. منم حالا نمی رم نمک بیارم»!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!
بعضی از ماها زندگیمون صرف انتظار کشیدن برای این می شه که دیگران به تعهداتی که ازشون انتظار داریم عمل کنن. آنقدر نگران کارهایی که دیگران انجام میدن هستیم که خودمون (عملا) هیچ کاری انجام نمی دیم.
با نهایت تاسف و تاثر درگذشت دکتر داور ونوس استاد برجسته گروه مدیریت بازرگانی دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه تهران را به خانواده محترمشان و کلیه دانشگاهیان و دانش پژوهان تسلیت عرض می نماییم.
به همین مناسبت مجلس ختمی در روز شنبه مورخ 1/3/1389 ساعت 11 در دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه تهران برگزار خواهد شد.
A third family, dialectical theories, is rooted in the assumption that the organization exists in a pluralistic world of colliding events, forces, or contradictory values that compete with each other for domination and control. These oppositions may be internal to an organization because it may have several conflicting goals or interest groups competing for priority. Oppositions may also arise external to the organization as it pursues directions that collide with those of others (see Burawoy and Skocpol, 1982).
Dialectical process theories explain stability and change by reference to the relative balance of power between opposing entities. Stability is produced through struggles and accommodations that maintain the status quo between oppositions. Change occurs when these opposing values, forces, or events gain sufficient power to confront and engage the status quo. The relative power of an opposing paradigm or antithesis may mobilize to a sufficient degree to challenge the current thesis or state of affairs and set the stage for producing a synthesis. More precisely, the status quo subscribing to a thesis (A) may be challenged by an opposing entity with an antithesis (Not-A), and the resolution of the conflict produces a synthesis (which is Not Not-A). Over time, this synthesis can become the new thesis as the dialectical process recycles and continues. By its very nature, the synthesis is something created new that is discontinuous with thesis and antithesis.
Creative syntheses to dialectical conflicts are not assured. Sometimes an opposition group mobilizes sufficient power to simply overthrow and replace the status quo, just as many organizational regimes persist by maintaining sufficient power to suppress and prevent the mobilization of opposition groups. In the bargaining and conflict resolution literature, the desired creative synthesis is one that represents a win-win solution, while either the maintenance of the status quo or its replacement with an antithesis are often treated as win-lose outcomes of a conflict engagement. In terms of organizational change, maintenance of the status quo represents stability, while its replacement with either the antithesis or the synthesis represents a change, for the better or worse.
Life Cycle Theory
Van de Ven and Poole (1995) observe that many management scholars have adopted the metaphor of organic growth as a heuristic device to explain changes in an organizational entity from its initiation to its termination. Witness, for example, often-used references to the life cycle of organizations, products, and ventures, as well as stages in the development of individual careers, groups, and organizations: startup births, adolescent growth, maturity, and decline or death.
Life cycle theory assumes that change is immanent; that is, the developing entity has within it an underlying form, logic, program, or code that regulates the process of change and moves the entity from a given point of departure toward a subsequent end that is already prefigured in the present state. What lies latent, rudimentary, or homogeneous in the embryo or primitive state becomes progressively more realized, mature, and differentiated. External environmental events and processes can influence how the immanent form expresses itself, but they are always mediated by the immanent logic, rules, or programs that govern development.
The typical progression of events in a life cycle model is a unitary sequence (it follows a single sequence of stages or phases), which is cumulative (characteristics acquired in earlier stages are retained in later stages) and conjunctive (the stages are related such that they derive from a common underlying process). This is because the trajectory to the final end-state is prefigured and requires a specific historical sequence of events. Each of these events contributes a certain piece to the final product, and they must occur in a certain order, because each piece sets the stage for the next. Each stage of development can be seen as a necessary precursor of succeeding stages.
Life cycle theories of organizations often explain development in terms of institutional rules or programs that require developmental activities to progress in a prescribed sequence. For example, a US legislative bill enacting state educational reform cannot be passed until it has been drafted and gone through the necessary House and Senate committees. Other life cycle theories rely on logical or natural properties of organizations. For example, Rogers' (1983) theory posits five stages of innovation - need recognition, research on the problem, development of an idea into useful form, commercialization, and diffusion and adoption. The order among these stages is necessitated both by logic and by the natural order of Western business practices.
Most organizational scholars would agree that change is a difference in form, quality, or state over time in an entity. The entity may be a strategy, an individual's job, a work group, a strategic business unit, the overall organization, or an industry. Change in any entity manifests itself in differences on a set of dimensions across time.
Much of the literature on organizational change focuses on the nature of these differences, what produced them, and the consequences. The literature offers several useful distinctions about change: planned or unplanned, incremental or radical, evolutionary or revolutionary, emergent or realized, induced or autonomous, recurrent or unprecedented, and more (cf. Burgelman, 1983; Mintzberg and Waters, 1985; Pettigrew, 1985; Tushman and Anderson, 1986). As is apparent from even this short list of distinctions, explaining how and why organizations change has been a central and enduring quest of management scholars and in other social science disciplines (see reviews in Sztompka, 1993; Van de Ven and Poole, 1995).
Van de Ven and Poole (1995) propose a typology of this literature by categorizing change processes along two dimensions: mode of change and unit of change. Mode of change distinguishes between change sequences that are constructed and emergent in contrast to change sequences that are prescribed a priori by either deterministic or probabilistic laws. Unit of change distinguishes between change processes that involve the development of a single organizational entity in contrast to processes that involve interactions between two or more entities.
By cross-classifying these two dimensions, Van de Ven and Poole identify four ideal theories that are often used to explain how and why organizational changes unfold - life cycle, teleology, dialectics, and evolution (Figure 10.1). We review these four theories here, for they represent fundamentally different bases for strategic change. Each theory focuses on a different set of change generating mechanisms and causal cycles to explain the processes that unfold.
Van de Ven and Poole (1995) describe a teleological theory as based on the assumption that change is guided by a goal or desired end-state. It assumes that the organization is populated by purposeful and adaptive individuals. By themselves, or in interaction with others, they construct an envisioned end-state, take action to reach it, and monitor their progress. This approach underlies many organizational theories of change, including functionalism, decision making, adaptive learning, and most models of strategic choice and goal setting.
Teleological theory views development as a cycle of goal formulation, implementation, evaluation, and modification of goals based on what was learned or intended. The theory can operate in a single individual or among a group of cooperating individuals or organizations who are sufficiently like-minded to act as a single collective entity. Since the individual or cooperating group have the freedom to set whatever goals they like, teleological theory inherently accommodates creativity; there are no necessary constraints or forms that mandate reproduction of the current entity or state.
Teleology does not presume a necessary sequence of events or specify which trajectory development will follow. However, it does imply a standard by which development can be judged - development is that which moves the entity toward its final state. There is no prefigured rule, logically necessary direction or set sequence of stages in a teleological process. Instead, theories based on teleology focus on the prerequisites for attaining the goal or end-state: the functions that must be fulfilled, the accomplishments that must be achieved, or the components that must be built or obtained for the end-state to be realized. These prerequisites can be used to assess when an entity is developing; it is growing more complex, it is growing more integrated, or it is filling out a necessary set of functions. This assessment can be made because teleological theories posit an envisioned end-state or design for an entity and it is possible to observe movement toward the end-state vis-à-vis this standard.
While teleology stresses the purposiveness of the individual as the generating force for change, it also recognizes limits on action. The organization's environment and its resources of knowledge, time, money, etc. constrain what it can accomplish. Some of these constraints are embodied in the prerequisites, which are to some extent defined by institutions and other actors in the entity's environment. Individuals do not override natural laws or environmental constraints but make use of them in accomplishing their purposes.
( GNNF )
Strategy process research is at a crossroads. We are bombarded by an ever-increasing number of strategy concepts and frameworks. Some of these concepts and frameworks are normative whereas others are descriptive. Some are anchored at the individual level of analysis whereas others recognize the collective and distributed nature of strategy and strategizing. It is easy to get lost in this complexity.
The proliferation of strategy concepts and frameworks is perhaps a reflection of key changes that are occurring in our environment. First, the pace at which products, technologies, organizations, industries, and economies are changing is increasing. In some cases, change has become so rapid that a new term has been coined - internet time. Second, interdependencies between economic and social agents are becoming increasingly complex. In many instances, boundaries between once distinct entities are blurring to such an extent that it is difficult to discern where one entity begins and another takes over (Davis and Meyer, 1998; Garud et al., 1998a).
Historically, strategy process has been viewed as a logic used to explain a causal relationship in a variance theory, or a category of concepts dealing with the actions of leaders or organizations (Van de Ven, 1992). These perspectives were sufficient for examining change as a discrete shift from one stable state to another. However, the increasing pace of change and complexity of operation leads us to recognize change as an ongoing dynamic journey, not a discrete event shifting from one unfrozen state to another frozen state (Van de Ven et al, 1999).
Under these conditions, it is more productive to view change as nested sequences of events that unfold over time in the development of individuals, organizations, and industries. In these settings, we are challenged to examine how different mutually dependent groups co-evolve in their efforts. No longer is it appropriate to view organizational change as produced solely by full-blown strategic plans in response to industry life cycle dynamics or as adaptations and partisan mutual adjustments amongst conflicting entities within an evolutionary process (Chakravarthy and Doz, 1992). Instead, organizational change is more appropriately characterized as a ‘duality’ (Giddens, 1979) wherein organizations are shaped by a continual flow of events that they, in turn, help to shape (Garud and Karn⊘e, 2001).
Our objective is to explicate this notion of organizational change as duality. To do so, we begin with a review of four basic process theories of change. Van de Ven and Poole (1995) point out that each theory has an implicit ‘motor’ driving change. An explication of these motors provides a way to systematically explore strategic change processes. In doing so, we can generalize insights between settings driven by similar motors. Moreover, scholars and practitioners can generate additional insights by combining motors to explore more complex processes.
Source : Handbook of Strategy and Management
ü زندگی مانند دوچرخه سواری است. برای حفظ تعادل باید حرکت کرد.
ü مسائل را در همان سطح آگاهی که به وجود آمده است نمی توان حل کرد. آلبرت انیشتین
ü ما به افرادی که در ورود به عرصه «غیر ممکن» تخصص دارند نیاز داریم. تئودور روتکی
ü در عـصر تغییرات مـسـتـمر، تنــها «یــادگیــرندگان» آیـنــده را به ارث خواهند برد. مابـقی خود را برای زندگی در دنـیایی مجهـز کـرده اند که دیگر وجـود نـــــدارد. اریک هوفر
ü فردا همواره خواهد رسید و همیشه با روزهای دیگر متفاوت خواهد بود. فردا ، حتی بزرگ ترین شرکت ها نیز در معرض خطر هستند ، اگر در مورد آینده شان نیندیشیده باشند . پیتر دراکر
Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations Is Published (1776)
Published in 1776, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations is the magnum opus of Scottish economist Adam Smith.
It is a clearly written account of political economy at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and is considered the first modern work in the field of economics. In it, Smith postulates the theory of the division of labor and emphasizes that value arises from the labor expended in the process of production.
What was Smith's concept of "the invisible hand"?
Dying is a troublesome business: there is pain to be suffered, and it wrings one's heart; but death is a splendid thing a warfare accomplished, a beginning all over again, a triumph. You can always see that in their faces. George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Dying is a troublesome business: there is pain to be suffered, and it wrings one's heart; but death is a splendid thing a warfare accomplished, a beginning all over again, a triumph. You can always see that in their faces.
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
Rosabeth Moss Kanter holds the Ernest L. Arbuckle Professorship at Harvard Business School, where she specializes in strategy, innovation, and leadership for change. Her strategic and practical insights have guided leaders of large and small organizations worldwide for over 25 years, through teaching, writing, and direct consultation to major corporations and governments. The former Editor of Harvard Business Review (1989-1992), Professor Kanter has been named to lists of the "50 most powerful women in the world" (Times of London), and the "50 most influential business thinkers in the world" (Accenture and Thinkers 50 research). In 2001, she received the Academy of Management's Distinguished Career Award for her scholarly contributions to management knowledge, and in 2002 was named "Intelligent Community Visionary of the Year" by the World Teleport Association.
She is the author or co-author of 18 books. Her latest book is SuperCorp: How Vanguard Companies Create Innovation, Profits, Growth, and Social Good, a manifesto for leadership of sustainable enterprises. SuperCorp is based on three years of research and more than 350 interviews in 20 countries.
Her previous book, Confidence: How Winning Streaks & Losing Streaks Begin & End (a New York Times business and #1 Business Week bestseller), describes the culture and dynamics of high-performance organizations as compared with those in decline, and shows how to lead turnarounds, whether in businesses, hospitals, schools, sports teams, community organizations, or countries. Her classic prizewinning book, Men & Women of the Corporation (which won the C. Wright Mills award winner for the year's best book on social issues) offered insight to countless individuals and organizations about corporate careers and the individual and organizational factors that promote success; a spin-off video, A Tale of ‘O': On Being Different, is among the world's most widely-used diversity tools; and a related book, Work & Family in the United States, set a policy agenda (in 2001, a coalition of university centers created the Rosabeth Moss Kanter Award in her honor for the best research on work/family issues). Another award-winning book, When Giants Learn to Dance, showed how to master the new terms of competition at the dawn of the global information age. World Class: Thriving Locally in the Global Economy identified the rise of new business networks and analyzed dilemmas of globalization
She has received 23 honorary doctoral degrees, as well as numerous leadership awards and prizes for her books and articles; for example, her book The Change Masters was named one of the most influential business books of the 20th century (Financial Times). Through Goodmeasure Inc., the consulting group she co-founded, she has partnered with IBM on applying her leadership tools from business to other sectors; she is a Senior Advisor for IBM's Global Citizenship portfolio. She advises CEOs of large and small companies, has served on numerous business and non-profit boards and national or regional commissions including the Governor's Council of Economic Advisors, and speaks widely, often sharing the platform with Presidents, Prime Ministers, and CEOs at national and international events, such as the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Before joining the Harvard Business School faculty, she held tenured professorships at Yale University and Brandeis University and was a Fellow at Harvard Law School, simultaneously holding a Guggenheim Fellowship.
She is Chair and Director of the Advanced Leadership Initiative of Harvard University, an effort across the professional schools to help successful leaders at the top of their professions apply their skills to addressing challenging national and global problems.
ü "The best way to predict the future is to create it."
ü "What's measured improves."
ü "Company cultures are like country cultures. Never try to change one. Try, instead, to work with what you've got."
ü "Rank does not confer privilege or give power. It imposes responsibility."
Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.
Karl Marx & Frederick Engels (1818-1883)
دکتر طارق سیودان اخیرا کشفیات بسیار جالب، قابل توجه و تعمقی در آیات قرآن، در حوزه اعجاز قرآن در اشکال علمی کرده است.
به گزارش خبرنگار ایرنا از جمله کشفیات میتوان به برابری یک چیز با چیز دیگر، به عبارتی برابری اضداد اشاره کرد.
برابری مرد با زن یکی از نمونههای آن در این کشف است. هر چند این نکته از لحاظ دستور زبان عجیب بوده، ولی آنچه از مجموع آیات قرآن مجید آشکار می شود، این است که کلمه مرد ۲۴بار در قرآن مقدس آمده است. همچنین کلمه زن نیز ۲۴بار در قرآن مقدس آمده است.
سپس مطابق آنالیز آیات مختلف، مشخص شده که این همسانی در متناقض ها، در تمامی قرآن کریم صادق است. قرآن مجید مشخص میکند که یک چیز با چیز دیگری (یا به عبارتی با متضاد خود و یا ریشه خود) برابر است. در ادامه، نتایج شگفت آور حاصل از محاسبه کلمات عربی قرآن مجید و رمز اعداد را خواهید یافت.
کلمات و دفعات تکرار در جمع آیات قرآن مجید
- دنیا (یکی ازنام های زندگی): ١١۵، آخرت (نامی برای زندگی پس از این جهان): ١١۵
- ملائکه: ٨٨ ، شیاطین: ٨٨
- زندگی: ١۴۵ ، مرگ: ١۴۵
- سود: ۵٠ ، زیان: ۵٠
- ملت (مردم):۵٠، پیامبران: ۵٠
- ابلیس(پادشاه شیاطین): ١١ ، پناه جوئی از شرّ ابلیس: ١١
- مصیبت: ٧۵ ، شکر: ٧۵
- صدقه: ٧٣ ، رضایت: ٧٣
- فریب خوردگان (گمراه شدگان): ١٧ ، مردگان (مردم مرده): ١٧
- مسلمین: ۴١ ، جهاد : ۴١
- طلا: ٨ ، زندگی راحت: ٨
- جادو: ۶٠ ، فتنه: ۶٠
- زکات: ٣٢ ، برکت: ٣٢
- ذهن : ۴٩ ، نور: ۴٩
- زبان: ٢۵ ، موعظه (گفتار، اندرز): ٢۵
- آرزو: ٨ ، ترس: ٨
- آشکارا سخن گفتن (سخنرانی): ١٨ ، تبلیغ کردن: ١٨
- سختی: ١١۴ ، صبر: ١١۴
- محمد (صلوات الله علیه): ۴ ، شریعت (آموزه های حضرت محمد (ص)): ۴
- مرد: ٢۴ ، زن: ٢۴
- نماز: ۵
- ماه: ١٢
- روز: ٣۶۵
- دریا : ٣٢ ، زمین (خشکی): ١٣
- دریا + خشکی = ٣٢+ ۴۵ = ١٣ دریا = % 71.11=45/(32) خشکی = % 28.89=45/(13)
=١٠٠% دریا ( ٧١.11 %) + خشکی( (28.89%
- دانش بشری به تازگی اثبات نموده که آب ٧١٫١١١ % و خشکی ٢٨٫٨٨٩ % از کره زمین را فراگرفته است.
- آیا می توان گفت که این ها همه بر حسب اتفاق در قرآن مجید آمده است؟
پاسخ بی اختیار در ذهن خواهد درخشید: خداوند قادر مطلق این همه را بر پیامبر (ص) در قالب قرآن، کلام وحی آموخت
- ارسال توسط دکتر حمید مهدیان، email@example.com
شناسایی عوامل درون سازمانی موثر در توسعه بازاریابی الکترونیکی
در صنایع دارویی ایران
جلسه دفاع خانم عدالت جاوید، سه شنبه 24 آذر ، ساعت 1:30 بعدالظهر ، در کلاس 5 شمالی برقرار است.
حضور شما دوستان عزیز، مایه افتخار و دلگرمی است.
از کلیه دوستان و سروران گرامی دعوت می شود در جلسه دفاعیه اینجانب با موضوع
رابطه میان یادگیری سازمانی و تحول سازمانی
مطالعه مودری: پژوهشگاه اطلاعات و مدارک علمی ایران
که مورخ 24/8/88 راس ساعت 16:00 در ساختمان جنوبی دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه تهران (پل گیشا) برقرار است حضور به هم رسانند.
حضور عزیزان بهانه ای برای تازه کردن دیدار ها و موجب سرافرازی بنده است.
پیشنهاد شده است پنج شنبه ۵/۶/٨٨ برای افطاری به فرحزاد، رستوران درویش (که قبلا با آقای دکتر منوریان رفتیم)، برویم. این بار نیز آقای دکتر منوریان قبول زحمت کرده اند و می توانند بیایند.
لطفا دوستانی که ماشین دارند بیاورند تا مشکل رفت و آمد و هماهنگی با هم، کمتر شود. به نظر می رسد اگر محل قرار دانشکده مدیریت باشد و از آنجا برویم مناسب باشد. البته باید حساب ترافیک نزدیک افطار را در بزرگراه چمران هم داشته باشیم. اگر از طریق بخش نظرات دوستان با هم هماهنگ شوند بهتر میشه. ایده آل این است که همه رستوران درویش را بلند باشند و ساعت ٧ بعد از ظهر اونجا باشند.
شبنمی آهسته از چشمان برگ می چکد بر دامن رنگین خاک
گل می افشاند به چشم آفتاب نازخندی خوابناک
ناگهان از جای می خیزد نسیم شاد می رقصد میان خاکسار
گفتگویی نرم می لغزد به گوش
فرا رسیدن سال نو و عید سعید باستانی نوروز را پیشاپیش به تمامی دوستان تبریک می گوئیم . امیدواریم که سال خوب و پر برکتی را در پیش رو داشته باشید
بنده خیلی زیر پوستی و خیلی خیلی ضمنی عرض می کنم که مشکل دفاع کردن و مهلت دفاع نمودن کنون حل شده است. البته این موضوع برای دوستانی که هنوز فصل ٢ پایان نامه شان را تمام نکرده اند مهم است والا ما که استغفرالله.
به هر حال اگر توضیح لازم بود sms بزنید!
اولین کنفرانس بین المللی مدیریت اجرایی در تاریخ 3 و 4 اسفند ماه 1387 در سالن همایشهای بین المللی برج میلاد برگزار خواهد شد.
دبیر کنفرانس: دکتر سید مهدی الوانی
دبیر شورای سیاستگذاری: دکتر یعقوب رشنوادی
1- منابع انسانی، مدیریت عمومی
مدیریت منابع انسانی ، رفتار سازمانی ، رهبری و ساخت تیم ، اخلاق حرفه ای برای مدیران
2- اقتصاد، تامین منابع مالی و حسابداری
مدیریت مالی و تامین مالی ، اقتصاد محلی ، ملی و بین المللی ، مدیریت تعارض ، مدیریت بهره وری ، فنون مذاکره و قراردادهای بین المللی
3- بازاریابی و استراتژی
مدیریت بازاریابی و فروش ، تحلیلهای رقابتی ، مدیریت استراتژیک ، مدیریت تبلیغات ، مدیریت ارتباطات
4- سیستم ها و فرایندها
مدیریت پروژه ، مدیریت فرایندهای کسب و کار ، سیستمهای اطلاعات مدیریت ، تجارت الکترونیک ، سیستمهای مدیریت کیفیت ، مدیریت عملیات و تولید
1- Dr.Bob Urichuck در اولین کنفرانس بین المللی مدیریت اجرایی ایراد سخنرانی و همچنین ارائه کارگاه آموزشی خواهند داشت. ایشان؛
- هفتمین نابغه فروش جهان طبق رای گیری 500 کمپانی برتر دنیا
-نویسنده پرفروش ترین کتاب فروش سال جهان "خدماتت را ارتقاء بده"
-استاد دانشگاه Ottawa و مدیر کل فروش خدمات "Business Development Bank"
30 سال متخصص فروش و رهبری سازمانی
2- دکتر Michel Neray استاد MBA دانشگاه Mcgill بوده و سابقه تدریس و کار عملی در حوزه مدیریت اجرایی را دارا می باشد.