Ei ole vaidlust selle üle, et väliskeskkonna muutuste eiramisel võivad organisatsioonile olla dramaatilised tagajärjed. Ainult avalikud organisatsioonid võivad mõnda aega rahulikult “tiksuda” ning nii sisemisi kui väliseid muutuseid eirata, sest riigieelarveline rahastus ei peatu.

Siinviidatud vabalevis olev tekst võiks huvi pakkuda neile, kel huvi organisatsioonide vastu ning eeskätt nendel, kel huvi organisatsiooni ellujäämise ja arengu vastu.

Kontekstiks:

Organizations often struggle to adapt to environmental changes, displaying paralyzing inertia in the face of substantive threats (Hannan and Freeman, 1984). For example, technology firms such as Xerox and Polaroid failed to adapt to a dynamically shifting technological environment by continuing to focus attention and resources on developing their core technologies (e.g., Tripsas and Gavetti, 2000).

Võimalikest tagajärgedest:

The consequences of failing to adapt to environmental changes are significant, often leading to organizational collapse, and in the case of the financial crisis, considerable harm to society.

Artifaktidest:

Unlike other artifacts such as tools or cultural symbols, artifacts that rely on mathematical algorithms and models can rapidly incorporate environmental changes as they unfold and stimulate ‘adaptive action’ (Simon, 1970). For instance, organizations use digital data to represent the environment by analysing sentiments in social media to understand reputational changes in the market in real time (Moe and Schweidel, 2017).

Uurimisküsimus:

How do organizations produce inertia despite using algorithmic routines that take environmental changes into account?

Inertsus:

Organizational inertia is broadly defined as the inability to enact internal changes in the presence of significant external changes (Gilbert, 2005). Such inertia is a result of path dependency due to organizational success (Leonard-Barton, 1992; Lieberman and Montgomery, 1988; Miller, 1994) based on a formula that shapes processes, competencies, relationships, values, and resource investment patterns (Burgelman, 2002; Sull, 1999).

Artifakti ja inimese seos:

Rather than viewing actors as ontologically separate from artifacts – i.e., humans who do things with artifacts – routine dynamics scholars study sociomaterial assemblages of actors, artifacts, theories, and actions (D’Adderio, 2008; D’Adderio et al., 2019; Glaser, 2017; Glaser et al., 2021b; Pentland et al., 2017). These artifacts can alternately or distinctly function as either passive intermediaries or active mediators in routine enactment (Aroles and McLean, 2016; Sele and Grand, 2016).

Algoritmid kui artifaktid:

Algorithms are artifacts that are particularly germane for understanding, predicting, and responding to environmental changes and uncertain futures (Alaimo and Kallinikos, 2017; Glaser et al., 2021a).

Lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

Dynamic inertia occurs when organizations ineffectively adjust algorithmic models to account for substantial environmental changes. Below we present our analysis of the mechanisms that contributed to dynamic inertia: bounded retheorization, sedimentation of assumptions, simulation of the unknown future, and specialized compartmentalization.

Omidvar, O., Safavi, M., & Glaser, V. L. (2022). Algorithmic routines and dynamic inertia: How organizations avoid adapting to changes in the environmentJournal of Management Studies.