Ramaprasad, Arkalgud, "A Typology of Adaptive Organizational Changes", 1983

A TYPOLOGY OF ADAPTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES

Arkalgud Ramaprasad
Department of Administrative Sciences
Southern Illinois University-Carbondale
Carbondale, IL 62901

ABSTRACT
Three types of changes are proposed as being generic to
an organization's adaptation to its environment. They are:
(a) Change in pattern, (b) Change in Structure, and (c) Change
of elements. The typology is based on Atkin's [4] mathematical
structure. The typology attempts to characterize change on the
basis of what is changed and what is held constant, instead of
on the basis of the effects of the change as is done in a num-
ber of current typologies. The three types of changes are
described and discussed with reference to a problem faced by a
diverse and fragmented academic department. The typology pro-
vides a framework for a strategist to delineate alternative
ways in which an organization can be changed to adapt to its
environment, to evaluate the pros and cons of each alternative,
and to make a choice.

INTRODUCTION

‘One purpose of strategic management is to change the
organization to adapt to current and anticipated environmental
threats and opportunities, and thereby to move the organization
from the current state to the desired state. There are innu-
merable changes that can be made within a complex system such
as an organization to adapt it to a dynamic environment. Each
change, in effect, is a alternative available to the strate-
gist. However, the alternatives are too many for the strate-
gist to consider the pros and cons individually and make a
choice. A systematic classification of changes is needed. A

typology of adaptive organizational changes will facilitate

358

strategic decision making.

Three commonly used dichotomous typologies of change are
based on effects of the change, not the change itself. one
typology classifies changes as strategic and operational fl.

A change is deemed to be strategic if it helps the organization
adapt to its environment, and to be operational if it has no
impact on adaptation. Another typology classifies changes as
effective and efficient [1]. A change which affects the organi-
zation-environment relationship is considered to be a change in
effectiveness, and a change which affects only the internal
structure and operations a change in efficiency. A third typo-
logy classifies changes as revolutionary and evolutionary [2].
A change is considered to be revolutionary (incorrectly, see
IB) if its effects are quick, dramatic, and wide ranging;
whereas if the effects are slow, undramatic, and narrow in

scope the change is considered to be evolutionary.

Classifying an organizational change based on the effects
of the change, instead of on the change itself, as in the three
typologies described above, is misleading, because the relation-
ship between a change and its effects in an organization is not
certain. In a complex system such as an organization, because
of multifinality and equifinality, identical changes may have
different effects, and similar effects may result from dissi-
milar changes. In classifying a change the focus should be on
the root cause of the effects, not the effects themselves. It

may sound tautological, but it has to be emphasized that a
359

change should be classified on the basis of what is changed,
and what is not changed (i.e., constant); not on the basis of

effects the change has.

Any characterization of change should simultaneously
specify what is constant and what is changed. What is constant
is the context in which the change occurs, and is as important
as the change itself. If the context is not specified, discus-
sion of any change is meaningless, just as it is meaningless ‘to
discuss the trajectory of a projectile without a constant
spatio-temporal coordinate axes. In Atkin's [4] terminology,
change can be meaningfully discussed only in the background of

a static back cloth. [See Note 1.]

A_Typology of Organizational Change
To describe what is constant and what has changed a map

of the system is needed. ‘The map should specify: (a) the ele-
ments ‘of the system, (b) the structure of relationships between
the elements, and (c) patterns defined on the elements of the

system.

A map specifying the above provides a static back cloth
--the coordinate axes--within which to characterize a systemic
change. In the framework of the map three basic types of
changes are possible. They are:

(a) Change in pattern,

{b) Change in structure, and

(c) Change in the set of elements.

Suppose we consider the organization as a large matrix of

4

relationships between a number of elements. A change in the
value of elements is change in pattern. A change in relation-
ships between elements is a change in structure. A change in

the set of elements is self explanatory.

A change in pattern is the simplest type of change. A
change in the priority of objectives is a change in pattern.
Similarly, a change in relative emphasis of print media as
compared to TV, for advertisement and promotion, is a change in
pattern, A change in pattern does not change the structure or
elements; it is however constrained by the existing structure
and elements, On the other hand, a change of pattern may re~

sult from change of structure, of the set of elements, or both.

A change in structure is more complex than a change in
pattern. A change in structure may alter patterns, but will
not affect the list of elements. Changes in structure may be of
two types. First, an existing relation may be deleted, or a
new relation may be added. Second, an existing relation may be
modified. Establishing direct communication between sales and
R&D, if there is none, is an example of the first type. Im-
proving efficiency, which alters the input-output relationship,

is an example of the second type.

A changé in the set of elements is the most complex
change, Such a change will alter the structure and pattern. A
change in the set of elements redefines the boundary of the
organization. Elements may be deleted from or added to the

organization. Elimination of a product line is an example of
360

deleting an element. Obversely, addition of a new product line

is an example of adding an element.

Following is a detailed illustration of the three types

of change and the pros and cons of each type.
AN ILLUSTRATION

Structure of an Academic Department

Table 1 summarizes the structure of faculty research
interests within a department of a midwestern university.
There are fourteen faculty members and twenty two interests.
The data were obtained from a brochure compiled by the depart-
ment chairman to send to prospective candidates for faculty
positions within the department. The data in the brochure
were, in turn, based on individual statements of interests

provided by the respective faculty members.

In listing the interests no attempt has been made to
combine similar interests. The interests are labelled as given
in the brochure. It is true some interests appear to be very
similar, although labelled slightly differently. For example,
operations management could conceivably be a subset of pro-
duction and operations management. But such marginal differ-
ences in labelling interests may be accidental or deliberate; _
they may be simply due to differences in choice of words or due
to a conscious attempt to differentiate ones interests from
others', Irrespective of reasons for the marginal differences,

combining synonymous interests will change the set of elements,

which, in turn, will alter the structure and pattern, If the
differences are accidental the resistance to such change will
be minimal, On the other hand, if the differentiation is deli-

berate, resistance to change will be high.

Analysis of the Structure

It may be noted in Table 1 that the number of interests a
faculty member has varies from one to six. Also, the number of
faculty members having an interest ranges from one to five. A
more descriptive summary of the structure is given in Tables 2,
3, 4, and 5.

Tables 2 and 3 summarize the valency and bond strength of
each faculty element and interest element respectively. Valen-
cy is defined as the maximum number of linkages an element can
have. For each faculty member, valency is equal to the number
of interests (s)he has. The valency of a faculty member repre-
sents the maximum number of interests (s)he can have in common
with another faculty member, and consequently the maximum
strength of the relationship (as measured by number of links or
common interests) (s)he can have with another faculty member.
For each interest, valency is equal to the number of faculty
members having the interest. The valency of an interest repre-
sents the maximum number of faculty members that can have the
particular interest in conjunction with another common inter-
est, and consequently the maximum strength of the relationship
(as measured by the number of links or common faculty members)

the interest can have with another interest.
Tables 4 and 5 summarize groups of faculty and interests
formed on the basis of the strength of linkages between the
respective elements. The groups are ordered by linkage
strength, and the number of groups corresponding to each link-

age strength is also listed in the table.

An element enters a group at linkage strength equal to
its valency. If the bond strength of the element is less than
its valency, until the linkage strength is reduced to the value
of the bond strength, the element remains single. In other
words, when the linkage strength is greater than the bond
strength, but less than or equal to the valency, the element
will form a group by itself. Thus, a single faculty group
xepresents a faculty member who does not share at least as many
interests as the corresponding linkage strength with another
faculty member. Similarly, a single interest group represents
an interest which is not had in conjunction with another common
interest by at least as many faculty members as the correspond-

ing linkage strength.

Elements within a multi-element group are linked directly
or indirectly by links at least as strong as the linkage
strength. Determining the strength of the direct link between
a pair of elements is straightforward; whereas determining the
maximum strength of the indirect links is not so straightfor-

ward. (See Figure 1.)

The strength of the direct link between a pair of ele-

ments is the extent of overlap (measured in number of elements)

361

8

between the elements. The strength of the direct link between
a pair of faculty members is the number of interest shared by
the two faculty members, Similarly, the strength of the direct
link between a pair of interests is the number of faculty mem-
bers having both interests. As shown in Figure 1, if faculty
members A and B share four interests, the strength of the di-
rect link between A and B is four. If A and B are interests,
and four faculty members have both interests, then too the

strength of the direct link between A and B is four.

The strength of an indirect link between a pair of ele-
ments is equal to the strength of the weakest link in the chain
linking the two elements. Thus, if elements A and C are linked
indirectly through B, A-B has a linkage strength four, and B-C
a linkage strength three, the strength of the indirect link

between A and C is three. (See Figure 1.)

And, continuing the above example, if A and C are direct-
ly linked with strength two, the overall strength of the link-
age between A and C will still be three--the maximum of the
strength of the direct linkage and of the indirect linkage.

(See Figure 1).

Because of the above rationale used in grouping, all
pairs of elements within a group may not be linked directly
with links equal to the linkage strength. They may be linked
indirectly by a chain of links whose strength is at least equal

to the linkage strength.
he diversity and fragmentation of the faculty can be

seen in Tables 2 to 5, Following is a detailed discussion.

Fragmentation and Diversity Within the Department

As summarized in Table 2 six out of four faculty members

have more than three interests. The rest have two or less

interests. Half the faculty members have either only one or no

interest in common with another faculty member; three have two
interests in common and four have three interests in common

with another faculty member.

the diversity and fragmentation is also evident in Table
3. Of the twenty two interests thirteen are individual inter-
ests, not shared by any other faculty member. Two of the inter-
ests are not linked to any other interest, and twelve interests
are weakly linked (by just one faculty member) to another in-
terest. Thus, although there is a large variety of interests
within the department, there are few shared or strongly inter-

linked interests.

Table 4 shows the grouping of the faculty based on data
in Tables 1 and 2. Even at the lowest linkage strength of one,
there are three single person groups, the isolates. At linkage
strength of two there is one group of five, one dyad, and four
single person groups. At linkage level three there is one
group of four and two single person groups. At linkage
strength four, five and six there are only single person
groups. Thus, except for the group of four, namely: {J, I, Fy

L} there are only weak linkages between faculty.

362

10

Table 5 shows the grouping of interests based on data in
Tables 1 and 3, At the lowest linkage strength of one there
are two single interest groups, one dyad, and one large group
containing the other interests. At linkage strength two eight
interests form a group, in addition to a single interest group.
At linkage strengths of three and above, except for one dyad at
strengths three and four, there are only single interest

groups.

Thus, although there is a large number of faculty members
within the department with a variety of interests, the lack of
overlapping faculty members and overlapping interests make the

department fragmented.

The Problem

In the above context the department is faced with the
problem of decreasing number of undergraduate majors enrolling
in the department. A number of reasons have been attributed to
the decreasing enrollment. First, because of the diversity of
subjects taught by the department, the inability to identify
the department with a professional career path, as in the case
of the accounting department, the finance department, etc.
Second, related to the first, the lack of meaningful speciali-
zations, related to job prospects, within the department.
Third, and last, a perception of the department as the ‘liberal

arts', supportive department rather than as area for majoring.

The department has to develop a focus (or a few foci) and

an identity to solve the above problem. There are three ways
LL

the department can develop a focus and identity. They are:

(a) By changing the pattern of emphasis on the different
interests by manipulating the pattern of resources
allocated to different faculty.

(b) By altering the structure of relationships between
faculty and interests. This can be achieved by
encouraging faculty to develop new interests in
common with other current faculty interests, and to
give up uncommon interest.

(c) By altering the elements. This can be achieved by
combining interests, adding interests, deleting

interests, adding faculty, etc.

Following is a detailed discussion of each alternative

and its pros and cons.

Changing the Pattern
One way of developing a focus and an identity for the

department would be to emphasize its strongly linked interest
and deemphasize its peripheral, i.e., weakly linked and isola-
ted interests (Table 5). This would entail at the very least
deemphasis of organizational communication, production and
operations, statistics and management science. If an even
tighter focus is desired, all interests except OB, OT, Policy,
OD, Managerial Behavior, Personnel, Research methods, and Man-
agement Education should be deemphasized. The emphasis of a
few interests and deemphasis of other interests could be

achieved by altering the pattern of resource allocation to the

363

corresponding faculty.

In manipulating the pattern of interests, the elements
and the structure of relationships between elements remain un-
changed. But, subsequently, changes in structure and elements
may be induced by the changes in pattern. Complete deemphasis
of an interest may result in the elimination of that interest
from the set of faculty interests. The changed pattern of
emphasis may induce faculty to develop interests in emphasized
areas and reduce interests in deemphasized areas, thus altering

the structure of faculty interests.

Manipulation of the pattern is constrained by the exist-
ing structure and elements, and by the effects such manipula-
tion may induce in the structure and patterh. If the current
faculty in the interests to be emphasized cannot utilize the
additional resources allocated to them, altering the pattern of
resource allocation will be meaningless, unless appropriate new
faculty members are recruited. Similarly, if a tenured faculty
member is going to become redundant due to the change in pat-
tern of resource allocation, the particular change will not be

feasible,

Thus, changing the pattern is appropriate when the struc-
tural relationships and boundary definitions (as defined by the
set of elements) are not severe constraints. But, even then
the strategist should evaluate the long term effects that may
be induced in the structure and boundary while making the

choice.
364

Changing the Structure
Structural changes are of two types: (a) addition of a

new relationship, and (b) deletion of an existing relationship.
Structural changes may be made directly, instead of inducing
them over a period of time by manipulating the pattern of re-
source allocation. Faculty members may be persuaded to develop
interests that they do not presently have, or to give up inter- .
ests they presently have. Even if persuasion is not effective,
environmental changes, such as reduced enrollment for parti-
cular courses, may force the faculty members to develop new

interests and give up current interests.

Structural changes will almost certainly induce immediate
changes in patterns defined on the elements. ‘There may be no
immediate effect on the set of elements. But, in the long run
structural changes could alter the set of elements, for ex-

ample, by making some interests redundant.

Structural changes are more fundamental than changes in
pattern, They are not constrainted by the existing patterns
defined on the elements. But they are constrained by the exist-
ing set of elements. ‘They are relatively more difficult to
xeverse than changes in pattern, They are also more difficult

to implement compared to pattern changes.

In the case of the particular academic department,
through structural changes it would be possible to develop more
linkages between faculty and between interests. If the faculty

develop new interests without giving up current interests,

14

fragmentation will be reduced without reducing diversity. On
the other hand, should the faculty give up current interests to
develop new interests, fragmentation will be reduced at the

expense of diversity.

Changing the Set of Elements
Changing the set of elements is the most fundamental

change which can be introduced. By changing the set of ele~
ments the boundary of the problem is redefined. Changing the
set of elements will immediately induce changes in structure

and patterns.

The set of elements can be changed in a number of ways to
achieve the desired purpose. Existing elements may be com-
bined, for example, operations management and production and
operations management may be combined. Existing elements may
be divided into two or more new elements. New elements may be
introduced; for example, new interests overlapping with current
interests may be introduced to act as links and to facilitate
focusing and integration of the various interests groups.
Similarly, new faculty members whose interests overlap current
faculty groups may be introduced to facilitate integration and
focusing. Last, existing elements may be deleted. If the
deleted element has a large number of relationships with other
elements, the effect of deletion on the structure and patterns

will be large, otherwise the effect will be small.

Changing the set of elements is even less reversible than

the change of structure. As a consequence, in choosing this
365
15

course of action the strategist should carefully consider the
effects, both short term and long term, that will be induced in

the structure and patterns.
CONCLUSION

The above discussion is based on a temporal cross section
of an organization. The map of the system includes information
on the elements, structure, and patterns at a point in term.
It does not include information on the predictable variations
in the elements, structure, and patterns over time. Ideally
these too should be encoded in the map. And, in weighing the
alternatives the impact on the predictable variations also

needs to be considered.

If the predictable variations are not explicitly con-
sidered there is a danger of confusing natural changes--those
which would have occurred anyway, with or without the inter-
vention of the strategist--with changes introduced or induced
by the strategist. For example, it would be sheer folly for a
manager to presume that the increased productivity is due to
the new management practices when, in fact, it is due to the

predictable effect of the learning curve.

However, given our limited understanding of the natural
predictable changes in organizations, consideration of the time

dimension is easier suggested than practiced.

REFERENCES

1 C. W. Hofer and D. Schendel, Strategy Formulation:
Analytical Concepts. New York: West, 1978,

2 D. Miller and P, H. Frieson, "Momentum and Revolution in
Organizational Adaptation," Academy of Management
Journal, 23, 591-614, 1980.

3 A. Ramaprasad, “Revolutionary Change and Strategi
Management," Behavioral Science, 27, 387-392, 1982.

4 RH. Atkin, Mathematical Structure in Human Affairs,

London: Heinemann, 1974.

Note 1

The discussion in this paper is based on Atkin's 4
mathematical structure. The terminology is changed and minor
modifications made to suit the present discussion. Following
is a list of terms used by Atkin and the equivalent terms used

in this paper:

Top-q valency
Bottom-q Bond strength
q-value Linkage strength
Qg-value Number of groups
Components Groups
uw
TABLE 1
Structure of Faculty Interests

——F ®
A oO DM HP L PBO MEM PS
c ROEG LO DMEUR MGSGSRM
uo GG PCL TL RGRSG FrMTTOL
L cMSBMHTI BTSSP DPESADB
T +O GCEICCOOEENOSOYRTCTOU
Y M TIHSRYTBHDLCYDNOHISPS
A ol
B B1liiil
c li
D li
E = Lad
F 1iu 12 &
G 161
H 1
Tr 4 th a 1
a 1 1 1 had
K 1
L 1 1 - 1
M 1
N 1 1

peretreeeetaterrceee

Organizational Communication
Operations Management
Decision Sciences

Managerial Behavior

Business Policy
Organizational Theory
Organizational Behavior
Leader Behavior

Management Education
Personnel Management
Business and Society
Organizational Psychology
Organizational Development
Male-Female Dynamics
Management Processes
Research Methods

Management Science
Statistics

Production and Operations Management
Small Business Administration

366

18

TABLE 2

Faculty valencies! and Bond strengths”

Bond
Faculty Valency Strength

2pmrZover mo
PEENNNNN EEUU
COPOPNNHUNH WWW

lyalency is defined as the maximum linkages an element (in
this case a faculty member) can have with another element. It
is equal to the total number of interests a faculty member has.

pond strength is defined as the maximum number of linkages
an element has with another element. It is equal to the
maximum number of interests a faculty member has in common with

at least one another faculty member.
367

19 20

TABLE 3 TABLE 4

1 2 Faculty Groups
Interests Valencies and Bond Strengths

Linkage! Number?
Bond Strength of groups Groups
Interest valency Strength

o
”

g
Organizational Behavior

Organization Theory 5 4 }; {1} + B+

Strategic Management

Organization Development 4 6 (he {1} p(B} CP} Ge CE} ()
Managerial Behavior

Personnel a 3 (J, I, F, L} + {B} 7 {B}

Health Care

Research Methods 2 6 {d, I, F, E, L} ; {B} 7 {G} 7 {D, Ch;
Management Education iN}; {K}

Management Information

Systems1 4 4 {g, I, F, B, E, L, G, D, C, N, H} +

Decision Sciences {K}; {A}; {M}
Operations Management
Organizational Communication
Small Business Administration
Production Operations
Statistics

Management Science
Management Processes
Male-Female Dynamics
Organizational Psychology
Business and Society

Leader Behavior

1,11 faculty members within a group are linked directly or
indirectly by at least as many common interests as the linkage
strength.

If A and B share three common interests, then A, B is a group
with linkage strength 3--A and B are linked directly by three
interests.

PEE HEH HOHE RN NOWAR AU
PEE RHE HORORHHE NNHNNANNA

If A and B share three common interests, B and C share four
common interests, and A and C share only two common interests,
then‘too {A, B, C} is a group with linkage strength 3. Even
1 though A and C directly share only two common interests, they
Valency is defined as the maximum linkages an element (in are linked indirectly by a chain of links through B, and the
this case an interest) can have with another element. It is minimum strength of the links in the chain is 3.

equal to the total number of faculty members having the
particular interest.

A single person group is formed when the person has at least as
many interests as the linkage strength, and (s)he does not

2gond strength is defined as the maximum number of linkages share enough (equal to the linkage strength) interests with
an element has with another element. It is equal to the another person to form a group.

maximum number of faculty members having the particular 5,

interest in conjunction with another common interest. Number of distinct groups of faculty with the corresponding

linkage strength.
368

21 . os
TABLE 5 FIGURE 1
Interest Groups . Direct and Indirect Linkages Between Elements;

Illustrative Examples

Linkage! Number?
Strength of groups Groups

5 i {0B}
4 3 {OB, OD}; {OT}; {Policy} . (+)
3 5 {OB, OD}; {OT}; {Policy}; {Mglbeh}; |

{Personnel} Ww
1 4 {OB, OT, Policy, OD, Mglbeh, AY

Personnel, Hlthcare, Resmeth, Mgted,
MIS, Decsci, Opmgt, Smlbus, Mgtpro,

2 2 {OB, OT, Policy, OD, Mgelbeh,
Personnel, Resmeth, Mgted}; {Hlthcare}

M-FDyn, Orgpsy, Bussoc, Ldrbeh};
{Orgcom}; {Prodop}; {Stats, Mgtsci}

1a11 interests within a group are linked directly or
indirectly by at least as many faculty members as the linkage
strength.

If four faculty members have interests C and D, each with or Pair ‘Type of Linkage Description Weakest Link
without additional interests, C,D is a group with linkage Blenent. aR
strength 4--C and D are linked directly by four faculty

‘Bonbore. AB pixeot wea 2
Indirect — A~(2)-C~(3)-1

If four faculty members have interests C and D, three have ae Indirect A-(2)-C-(1)-D-(2)-B 1.

interests D and E, and five have interests C and E, then {C,D,E} ’

is a group with linkage strength 4. Even though D and E are ff A-B= 4

linked directly by only three faculty members, they are linked Ovaralivatrengen OF 2:

by a chin of linkages through C, the minimum strength of a link

in the chain being four. Ac Direct bares Bree A
Indirect  A-(4)-B-(3)~

A single interest group is formed when at least as many aE Indirect A-(4)-B-(2)-D-(1)-¢ 1

faculty members as the linkage strength have the interest, and
not enough faculty members (equal to the linkage strength) have trength of A-C = 3
the particular interest in conjunction with another common ‘Overallistreng

interest.

2yumber of distinct groups with the corresponding linkage
strength.