Page 183 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh10v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:27 PM Page 166

Chapter 10 ■ The learning organization
processes may need to be rethought. But at the heart of this learning process
are people who are either stimulated, helped or hindered by the circumstances
which prevail. What do we need to think about as far as the ‘fit’ between individu-
als and the organization is concerned if we wish to engender learning and renewal?
One of the often mentioned but little analysed issues in strategic change is that
of ‘timing’. It is often claimed that timing is vital. One sees it in the Ford case
(Chapter 3). Hurst’s (1995) view of the organizational ecocycle provides one way
of viewing the question of timing. By way of introducing this model I first list
Hurst’s own summary of its key features:

1 Change is continuous.
2 The pace of change varies, sometimes smooth and linear, sometimes rapid and
non-linear.
3 Renewal requires destruction. In a resource-limited world the only way to cre-
ate new structures, opportunities, possibilities is to dismantle structures which
are currently claiming the resources.
4 Emerging structures and processes are a product of a multiplicity of factors
including constraints imposed by the environment.
5 However, the organization’s people are self-conscious ‘actors’ capable of
rational action.

While the reader may refer to Hurst for a full treatment, here suffice it to say that
the essence of the ecocycle model is to argue that organizations go through cri-
sis and renewal through three phases:
1 Emergent action.
2 Rational action.
3 Constrained action.
The model starts with the recognition of a market opportunity which turns out
to be repeatable. Hurst gives the example of Nike, a company initially established
in high-performance track and field shoes, which was able quickly to expand as
it moved from basketball to tennis, American football, soccer and many more

activities. Also an early mover in the use of endorsements by top athletes, the
company exploited a huge, untapped market. By contrast the 1980s saw
increased specialization as between sports, new materials and designs combined
with flexible manufacturing. Nike were then attacked by competitors such as
Reebok (in the aerobics market).
In effect, therefore, Hurst argues that behaviour (action) is rational at the out-
set (as we seek to enter a given market), constrained as we proceed up the prod-
uct life cycle (by competition not least) and then emergent as the need for
renewal emerges, often because crisis has occurred or has to be precipitated
before significant change can be achieved. By rational we take Hurst to mean the
broader rationality we refer to in Chapter 3 rather than narrowly, scientifically
rational.
The similarity between the Hurst and the Van der Erve views is obvious enough.
Both are evolutionary models. In effect both argue that ‘nothing fails like suc-
cess’, i.e. that given a successful formula which then begins to underperform, it

166