Michael Lissack
Mintzberg notes the danger of “adapting away strategic advantage” when organizations fail to maintain sufficient stability in core positioning. Execution inconsistency emerges when local adaptation occurs without sufficient coordination, creating incompatible approaches across an organization. Customers experiencing radically different service models across locations may perceive inconsistency rather than adaptive excellence. Resource diffusion can result when too many exploratory initia- tives proceed simultaneously without sufficient focusing mechanisms. Innovation researcher Vijay Govindarajan warns against the “adaptation trap” where organizations spread resources too thinly across too many potential futures. These legitimate concerns don’t invalidate complexity-adapted ap- proaches but highlight the importance of thoughtful implementation that maintains appropriate balance rather than overcorrecting from traditional rigidity to adaptive chaos. The Empirical Evidence Question A fair assessment must acknowledge that empirical evidence compar- ing traditional and complexity-adapted approaches remains mixed and context-dependent. While studies in rapidly changing industries like tech- nology and consumer products generally favor more adaptive approaches, research in mature industries and regulated environments shows more varied results. A comprehensive meta-analysis by management researchers at London Business School found that “the performance advantage of adap- tive systems increases with environmental dynamism but diminishes or disappears in stable environments.” This nuanced finding supports a con- tingent rather than universal application of complexity principles.
422
Made with FlippingBook. PDF to flipbook with ease