Siinviidatu võiks kandideerida paljude organisatsioone puudutavate kursuste seminaritekstiks.
Kohandumine ja ellujäämine on küsimused, millele oleks ikka kasulik mõelda, kuid agiilsuse küsimused ei ole siiski väga lihtsad nii praktilisest kui teoreetilisest perspektiivist. Õigemini, need on komplekssed ja ülelihtsustamine võib tuua soovimatud või ootamatud tagajärjed. Alustuseks oleks kasulik lugeda ka Agiilse tarkvaraarenduse manifesti, mille lühike tekst sisaldab paljugi kasulikku.
Given major disruptions and increased competitiveness, it is perhaps unsurprising that agility has become the “New Holy Grail” (Pulakos et al., 2019) of organizational practice, […]
For the purposes of our discussion, we will focus on what Walter (2021) refers to as “agility capabilities,” which Lee et al. (2015) present as proactiveness, radicalness, responsiveness, and adaptiveness. […] In essence, agility is the capacity to do what is needed, when it is needed.
Unustamine ja õppimine on kohandumisel kriitilised tegurid:
Finally, works, such as Pedler and Hsu (2019), Antonacopoulou (2009), and Grisold et al. (2020), highlight the role of unlearning and learning as critical aspects of agility.
Following a basic definition of learning as the change of behavior in response to the processing of information (Huber, 1991), the challenge is arriving at ways in which individuals and organizations can learn to be agile, that is, to change behavior from non-agile to agile based on experience.
Agile may even promote dysfunctional learning, whereby individuals keep their views to themselves, and collective decision-making may actually go against the views of all the members. Therefore, Agile appears unable on its own to resolve tensions in learning that would lead to agility over time.
Autorid sõnastavad eesrmägi:
The aim of this article is to explore agility through a dialectical framework and offer insights into organizational learning interventions. We intend to move beyond Agile methodologies to a more general understanding of how to promote agility, and how this can be achieved under a complexity framework.
Broadly, dialectics is philosophy’s answer to the question: What is the nature of change? (Morgan, 2013). Our central claim is that successes and failures in seeking agility can be reconceptualized with a dialectical perspective as something that is and a way of thinking and doing.
Dialektikast siinse artikli tähenduses:
In this article, we consider a subset of the assumptions of Roy Bhaskar’s (1993, 1994) Dialectical Critical Realism (DCR), which we use to consider the ability of organizations to truly bring about transformational change that the environment would seem to require and Agile approaches mean to offer.
Pinged ja väljakutse:
To summarize the argument up to this point, achieving agility in the sense of “doing what is needed” is challenged by two pervasive tensions in practice between the goals of the individuals and the organizations within which they work on the one hand, and the need to explore new opportunities versus the need to exploit the current ones on the other.
Saamine … minnalaskmine …
We find DCR’s focus on absence as helpful in understanding the issue. Transformation involves not just “becoming” (Tsoukas and Chia, 2002) but also “begoing,” the ways of doing, thinking, or being that are replaced by the new.
One contribution of our case, then, is in providing a complementary view of dysfunction in organizational change projects.
Armstrong, R., & Manitsky, D. (2022). The fallacies of non-agility: Approaching organizational agility through a dialectical practice perspective. Management Learning. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505076221100924