Organizational Effectiveness:Changing Concepts forChanging Environments

Joseph McCann,The University ofTampa

The study of organizational effectiveness has dramatically evolved with the adoption of general

systems theory concepts and changes in the complexity and pace of change of organizational

environments. This article traces the evolution of those concepts and their application across a

broad variety of management fields. Two critically important emerging qualities or dimensions

of effectiveness—organizational agility and organizational resiliency—are defined and explored in terms

of their implications for HR professionals.

42 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING

Organizational effectiveness has alwaysmeasured how successfully organizations achievetheir missions through their core strategies.Organizational effectiveness studies are concernedwith the unique capabilities that organizationsdevelop to assure that success. Given the increas-ingly complex environments in which all organiza-tions operate now, the eapabilities that supportedpast performance will not work as well in thefuture. HR professionals and senior executivesmust understand the implications of this gapbetween cuiTent practice and emerging needs.The search is now on for new concepts and mod-els to help explain what is happening in organiza-tional environments, and how organizations cancontinue to achieve superior performance bydeveloping more adaptive capabilities and skills.

It is essential to first understand how organiza-tional effectiveness theory and practice has evolvedover time. The adoption of general systems theoryconcepts in management studies has been one ofthe most significant events in organizational effec-tiveness studies over the past 50 years and contin-ues to shape thinking and practice.

Systems theory views the individual, group,organization, and the organization's larger set ofinterdependent organizations as a dynamic, inter-related whole. Changes In one or more parts ofthis complex system imply changes for the others.All system parts are in a state of more or lessconstant and active adaptation, and how welladaptation occurs becomes the critical questionfrom an effectiveness perspective.

By recognizing the role of environments indriving organizational performance, it becamepossible to trace how dramatically increasinglevels of complexity and rates of environmentalchange began creating major new demands fororganizations. Those demands require equallynew capabilities and skills. This article exploresthe nature of those demands and why the con-cepts of organizational agility and organizationalresiliency are now becoming the focus of organi-zational effectiveness studies.

The Evolution of OrganizationalEffectiveness Concepts

Organizational effectiveness theory began adramatic evolution nearly 50 years ago with themerging of general systems theory concepts andthen-prevailing management theory (Aekoff,1970; Churchman. 1971: Emery & Trist, 1965;Herbst. 1974). This combination signaled the startof a paradigm shift̂ —a new way of viewing the

world and relating to each other—comparable toa shift from "machine age to organic thinking"(McCann, 1991). "Machine age" thinking wasliterally a product of the Industrial Revolutionfrom the late 1800s and a world view that heldthe organization as an independent and nearlyfree agent, able to act on its larger environmentand insulated from regulation and control(Chandler, 1962; Morgan, 1986).

At an individual job level, this view was mani-fested in the work of Frederick Taylor and theScientific Management movement at the turn ofthe past century which emphasized (he uniquejob demands and steps associated with workmeasurement (Taylor, 1911). Only later with theadvent of "socio-technical systems" design prin-ciples originating with the Tavistock Institutewere the crucial, often-determining interdepen-dencies between separate jobs within the group orteam recognized, along with the impact that worktechnologies had in "co-producing" outcomes(Herbst, 1974; Morgan. 1986; Trist. et al.. 1996).

The impact of systems theory and the resultingcall for "systems thinking" has been profound.Systems theory created an awareness of the orga-nization's larger environment and the need formanaging its complex, dynamic interdependen-cies. It created an awareness of the fundamentalrequirement for organizations to adapt to the con-ditions presented—their larger context countswhen it comes to strategy and effectiveness.

This idea sounds simple today, but was far-reaching at the titne. Systems thinking providedthe foundation for several new perspectives suchas contingency theory which stressed the impor-tance of strategy and structure "fit" as a determi-nant of performance (Bums & Stalker. 1961;Chandler. 1962; Child. 1972; Kast &Rosenzweig, 1973), The organization thatachieved the closest fit or alignment between itslarger environment, its overall strategy, and itsorganizational design would outperform its com-petitors, that is, be more effective. The tremen-dous fascination with organizational design overthe past 25 years reflects the interests ofresearchers and executives in finding that best fitand alignment among all of the organization'sconstituent parts (Chandler. 1962; Galbraith.1973; Mintzberg, 1979; Nadler, 1992). Many oftbe contingency models of this period, such as the"McKinsey 7-S" model, still provide powert"ulleverage for thinking about how to align all oftheparts of the organization.

Systems thinking affected other managementfields, even leadership theory where the analog

HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 43

became situational leadership—the idea that themost effective leadership style depended uponthe situation or context (Blake & Mouton. 1964;Fiedler, \9f)l). The continuous quality improve-ment movement, with its TQM, business processreengineering, and six sigma manifestations,profoundly improved the performance of organi-zations and entire industries {Deming, 1982;Drucker, 1991;Juran, 1964).

Similarly, the Organizational Development(OD) movement of the 1960s and 1970s criticallydepended on systems models for identifying thelevels of intervention necessary to execute change(Argyris, 1964; Huse, 1975; Schein; 1978). TheOD movement first identified the organization'sculture—its values and belief system—as a legiti-mate target for change (Beer, 1980). Culturebecame an even more important change targetduring the merger and acquisition waves of thesucceeding two decades when ihe merging ofcultures was recognized as a major source ofintegration difficulties (McCann & Gilkey, 1988).Many intervention tactics and designs created bythe OD movement are still used.

Michael Porter's groundbreaking industrydynamics models also helped capture specificcharacteristics of competitive environments thatcould be measured and, most importantly, shapedthrough competitive strategies (Porter. 1980).Analogous to the concepts of ecological nicheand specialization, the concepts of competitiveadvantage and distinctive competencies becamepowerful tools for explaining why some organiza-tions outperform others because of their uniqueassets or alignment within their markets. The spe-cial resources of the organization (Barney, 1991;Brown & Eisenhardt. 1998). its capacity for inno-vation (Edvinsson & Malone. 1997: Quinn, et a!.,1997), and stock of intellectual and human capital(Stewart. 1997) have all been intensely studiedfor their roles in promoting effectiveness.

With the frequent need to develop new com-petitive assets and to change business strategies,the focus shifted to understanding how organiza-tions "learn" (Argyris & Schon, 1978: Davenpoil& Prusak, 1998; de Geus, 1997). Organizationallearning is inherently grounded in systems theory,but applying human learning concepts ba.sed incognitive psychology to organization-level systemsand processes is a challenging task (Bateson,l972;Coleman. 1988; Hedberg, 1981).

Nonetheless, researchers and practitionershave found solid operational traction by focusingon the interaction of individual and group prac-

tices with organizational processes, systems, andtechnologies for acquiring, sharing, retaining, andapplying knowledge—all within the broadly iden-tified "knowledge management" field (Davenport& Prusak, 1998: McCann & Buckner, 2004). Itis smart knowledge management strategy, forexample, for an organization to cultivate func-tionally diverse and geographically dispersed"communities of practice" around important tech-nical challenges. Such "communities" are ground-ed in basic human needs to problem-solve andshare, and by enabling sharing behaviors throughsophisticated global information systems andcommunications technologies individual andgroup learning is leveraged to an organization andindustry level (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Froma knowledge management perspective, effectiveorganizations are those that promote individualand group learning through management practicesthat amplify and move inforuiation through orga-nization-level systems, processes, and technolo-gies (McCann & Buckner, 2004).

The Changing Nature of Change

The ability to learn quickly was becoming evenmore important for organizations as early as the1960s. As Emery and Trist (1965) ntHed, tbe natureof environmental change itself was beginning tochange. Even then, organizational environmentswere becoming increasingly "turbulent" systemsor fields as tbe global pace of technological changeand interdependence among organizations rapidlyaccelerated. Managing the environment for sus-tained performance was becoming increasinglydifficult. Competitive advantages and distinctivecompetencies, no matter the size of investmentmade to acquire them, were becoming increasinglytransitory and impossible to sustain.

While academics still argue over the best wayto measure the dynamics and pace of this change,the basic nature of organizational environmentswas generally recognized to be shifting, certainlyat least over the past 30 years (Brown &Eisenhardt. 1998: Castrogiovanni, 2002: Huy &Mintzbcrg, 2003). Indeed, we are now experienc-ing a fundamental shift from episodic, throughcontinuous, and now to disruptive environmentalchange, each shift demanding significantly differ-ent adaptive strategies and capabilities (McCann& Selsky, 2003). Exhibit I illustrates the threebasic trends in this shift.

Managing episodic change. Change was onceepisodic and characterized by periods of relative-

44 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING

ly low-level, munaged disruption, such as a newproduct roll-out timed for internal operatingneeds, or a carefully planned merger. The growthof conglomerate forms of organization throughacquisitions was. for example, a way of diversify-

to those now out.side the organization.Organizations had evolved sophisticated controlssuch as hierarchies for dealing with internal inter-dependencies, but those do not work as well or atall for externalized interdependencies that require

, The Changing Nature of Change and Strategies for Managing It

Episodic Change

Objective:Control change

Strategy:Buffer & protectoperations hy buildingredundancies & slackresources

Continuous Change Disruptive Change

Objective:Embrace change

Strategy:Build agility byopening theorganization andremoving boundariesand barriers to change

Objective:Prepare for change

Strategy:Build resiliency byplanning forcontingencies andassuring a capacity forrecovery & renewal

ing financial risk and smoothing uncertainty(Galbraith, 1995; Nadler & Tushman, 1997). Theorganization's primary objective was to controlchange to protect the core business. Any signifi-cant disruptions could be managed by built-inredundancies and slack resources—e.g., extrastaff or large inventories—that acted as buffers.

Managing continuous change. Organizationscontinued to induce even greater rates of changethrough their own dynamics and continuous tech-nological innovation. There were fewer periods oi'relative calm, and the iradilional buffers of redun-dancies and stack resources were driven out bythe relentless push for lower costs and an intensebusiness focus. The off-shore outsourcing phe-nomenon began and continues to be one outcomeof this adaptation process (Barthelemy, 2003).What is actually occurring in off-shore outsourc-ing is the extemali/ation of interdependenciesthat had previously been internalized within theorganization. Tn reality, the nature of the costsassociated with managing interdependencies hasbeen changed, not totally eliminated, and thebusiness focus has shifted from operations inside

continuous monitoring and renegotiation.Organizations were creating va.st new linkages

and mutual dependencies, giving rise to newforms of organization that defied ready descrip-tion and effective management—"network." "vir-tual," and "boundaryless" as examples (Nadler,1992; Pasternak & Viscio, 1998). The quest fororganizational effectiveness has e.scalated to ahigher level of analysis where the challenge hasbecome one of optimizing the effectiveness of anentire set of interdependent organizations such asthat in a global supply chain.

Dynamic new organizational capabilities werebeing demanded by turbulent environments. Theonly choice for organizations was to embracechange^go with it. even accelerate it further ifpossible. Those that decided otherwise, or couldnot transform themselves quickly, either underper-fomied or failed. Turbulence is. by definition, anuneven experience that depends upon the relativeadaptive capacity of each organization. For thosewith high levels of capacity, high velocity orhypercompetitive environments simply provideopportunities for growth (D'Aveni, 1994). Many of

HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 45

today's business success stories such as Microsoftand Intel are based upon the abilities of those orga-nizations to change continuously. Andy Grove, forexample, honed Intel's capacity for inducing rapidindustry change to a point where he declared: "Sogive me a turbulent world as compared to a stableworld and I'll want the turbulent world"(Karlgaard & Gilder. 1996).

Organizational effectiveness research hasfocused intensely on the capacities of individuals.groups, and the entire organization to align quick-ly, and then realign repeatedly, with changes instrategies required by turbulent environments.Operationally, the goal has been to develop largerglobal scale through alliances, partnering, andjoint venturing, at the same time keeping theorganization as agile as possible (Brown &Eisenhardt. 1997; D'Aveni. 1994; Davidow &Malone. 1994; Nadler & Tushman, 1997).

Agility is an important concept these days, butits pursuit as a defining characteristicor quality for an organization carriessignificant inherent risks. Agile orga-nizations are great at assessing theirenvironments, making sense of whatthey encounter, and quickly mobiliz-ing and redeploying assets and peopleto manage what they encounter.Some specific operational aspects oforganizational agility noted byMcCann and Selsky (2003) includethe highly developed capacity for:

Continuous change

is now a reality for

most organizations,

but the emerging

challenge is also to

manage disruptive

change.

1. Sense-making: Scanning and inter-preting tremendous amounts of diverse infor-mation and then quickly forming hypothesesand mental models about what the organizationexperiences;

2. Transforming knowledge: Efficiently andquickly acquiring, building, sharing, andapplying valuable knowledge to clearlydefined, critical priorities;

3. Acting decisively: Cultivating a strong butinformed action bias throughout the organiza-tion; and

4. Aligning and realigning resources: Quicklydeploying and then redeploying sufficientresources, talent, and skills to support effectiveexecution.

Creating this capability to a great extent hasmeant crealing ''boundaryless organizations."Simply put, agile organizations view internal andexternal boundaries as "bad." The argument is thatstructures and processes (including the cultural val-

ues, beliefs, and behaviors that underlie them) willact to slow response time, limit agility, and there-fore need to be eliminated or reduced (Bower &Christensen, 1995; Ghoshal & Gratton, 2002;Nadler, 1992; Pastemak & Viscio. 1998). McCannand Selsky (2003) have called this push toward thedestruction and elimination of internal and externalorganizational boundaries the "dominant logic ofopen organization thinking." This logic has drivenorganizational design and culture change practicesin organizations over the past 20 to 2,'i years.

Managing disruptive change. Continuouschange is now a reality for most organizations, butthe emerging challenge is also to manage disrup-tive change. Regardless of the event involved, suchas "9/11." the "SARS" outbreak, or Noitheastpower grid failure, it is no longer just the pace ofchange but the dismptiveness of that change thatdemands our attention (McCann & Selsky. 2(X)3;Mitroff, 2002; Mitroff & Alpaslan. 2003).

Rapid change can at least be antic-ipated, such as improvements in com-puting speed or capacity, but severeshocks and surprises such as that of"9/11" can destabilize entire indus-tries and economies in a matter ofhours or days. Such shocks quicklyreveal under appreciated and under-mauaged interdependencies, whetherin financial information systems,transportation and power networks,or healthcare systems. This degree oftruly disruptive change (change com-

ing from totally unique sources and with neardebilitating force) is unfortunately but potentiallybecoming a more prominent feature of organiza-tional environments.

Even at an organizational level, changes with-in an industry can be destabilizing because of"disruptive technologies" -new technologies orprocesses that quickly redefme the entire industry,such as digital cameras have done for film(Bower & Christensen. \995). Organizations canand do induce disruptiveness within their industryfor competitive advantage, but they uiust also becapable of managing the turbulent conditions theycreate (D'Aveni. 1994).

Tremendous benefits accrue to organizationsthat do open themselves to new and valuable rela-tionships with other organizations and embracethe change those relationships induce.Organizations learn from each other, streamlinetheir operations by sharing responsibilities andcosts, and expand their market presence. Today's

46 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING

global supply chains in the clothing, electronics,and automobile manufacturing industries, and thevalue creation networks among bio-tech/pharma-ceutical companies, are clear examples of thebenefits of thoughtfully created external interde-pendencies built via partnering, alliances, andjoint ventures. Increasingly, totally vertically inte-grated companies have become seen as monolithicand far from agile.

Openness is not cost- or risk-free. An organi-zation's performance critically depends upon itselTeclive deveiopment and deployment oftherequisite skills for operating in dynamic, openorganizational environments that are increasinglyglobal in scale. The most important of these skillsor capabilities is organizational agility. Buildingand sustaining organizational agility (i.e., the abil-ity quickly to recognize and seize opportunities,change direction, and avoid collisions) demandscontinuous investments in technology, systems.and particularly in people.

Exhibit 2 illustrates what happens when thebenefits of greater openness are traded off againstthe costs and risks associated with managing thegreater number and intensity of interdependenciesand risks posed by those relationships. The cre-ation and effective deployment of sufficient adap-

tive capacity mediates that trade-off.As McCann and Selsky (2003) note, in Zone A

the benefits of increasing openness greatly exceedthe costs and risks, and the organization's adaptivecapacity for managing those relationships is morethan adequate. The organization in Zone A canbenefit even further by building additional rela-tionships and interdependencies that create value.If, for example, an organization outsources itslegacy computer system support to a company inBangalore. India, it can eliminate some jobs orredeploy those positions to developing new com-puter networks—a net gain. When that sameorganization builds the internal knowledge andcommits the resources and people essential formanaging that new Indian company relationship,it must guarantee those benefits. Not to do so putsits own internal operating peribrmance at risk byunder-managing the new interdependencies creat-ed by that relationship.

At some point (Zone B). all ofthe relationshipsand interdependencies created demand the totalcommitment of the organization's available adap-tive capacity. All benefits are optimized relative tocosts and risks, and only the continuous develop-ment and deployment of new adaptive capacitywill sustain that degree of openness and interde-

Benefits of Greater Openness to the Environment Relative to RequiredInvestments of Adaptive Capacity

EtTicienI Frontier

Zone C

BenefitsRelative to

AdaptiveCapacity

Investment

Highly Closed Botinilaries Highly Open Boundaries

HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 47

pendence in a dynamic operating environment.Zone C represents the "tipping point" at which

the organization has become overexposed to thecosts and risks of its collective set of externalrelationships. The available adaptive capacity nolonger matches the level of interdependence andcomplexity the organization has created and musteffectively manage. The costs and risks now farexceed the benefits accruing from those externalrelationships. The organization is now grosslyunder-managing the complexity ofthe relation-ships and interdependencies it has created. In asense, it becomes "fragile" and over-exposed to itsenvironment, relative to its adaptive capacity, andis now susceptible to surprises and shocks.

Numerous examples of organizations in Zone Ccan be found, but the M&A waves of the 1980sand 1990s provide far too many case studies ofcompanies that could not manage the level of com-plexity they created through dozens of relativelyrapid acquisitions and under-supported integratii>nprograms. Entire companies such asLucent Technologies, AOL. andWorldCom unraveled as the result ofmergers and acquisitions that couldnot be supported effectively. It is alsobecoming clear that the outsourcingmovement now mnning at high speedis ignoring the hidden costs and risksassociated with externalized globalinterdependencies (Barthelemy. 2003).

The model in Exhibit 2 suggeststhat some organizations can succeedvery well while others can sufferdepending upon how well they bal-ance the benefits of openness with the inherentrisks and costs. The winners succeed only byinvesting in the creation of adaptive capacity^—the types of appropriate skills and abilities peo-ple, groups, and the entire organization need foreffectively managing not only continuous changebut increasingly disnaptive change.

The Emerging Interest inOrganizational Resiliency

Organizational agility helps avoid market col-lisions through such maneuvers as exiting arapidly declining market quickly or realigningpartners in a supply chain. The organization candevelop unique sets of competencies and skills tohelp accomplish this. On the other hand, whenorganizations are over-exposed to their environ-ments relative to their adaptive capacity, they can

Agility helps the

organization man-

age rapid change,

while resiliency

helps the organiza-

tion manage dis-

ruptive change.

take severe, if not fatal, performance hits.That happened to most airline companies fol-

lowing "9/11." where their excessive fmancialleverage, high fixed operating costs, and linkedcode-sharing arrangements left them exposed tonormal recessions, let alone something as disrup-tive as that event. To support this hypothesis, notehow well Southwest Airlines, with its indepen-dent reservation system, low debt, and low-costoperating structure, performed.

Arthur Andersen and Enron provide anotherexample. Enron created a mass of complexinterdependencies and level of turbulence in itsmarkets that far outstripped its financial andmanagerial capacities for managing. ArthurAndersen, in turn, failed to maintain clear ethi-cal and managerial boundaries between itselfand its client. Once Arthur Andersen was impli-cated in Enron's collapse, the interdependenciescreated could not be sustained by its own fragilepartnership structure and resource base.^ ^ ^ ^ The "dot.coms" in the 2000 tech-

nology market meltdown provide stillanother example. Amazon. Google.Microsoft, and eBay have all per-formed relatively well during thetech industry meltdown by carefullymanaging costs and cash tiows, andinvesting in well-defined businessmodels. The majority of the dot.comslart-ups did not or could not.

These successful organizationsare not only agile, they are resilient.Organizational resiliency is not thesame as organizational agility

(Deevy, 1995: Goldman, et al.. 1995; Hamel &Valikangas, 2003). The two concepts are related,but different. As McCann and Selsky (2003) note,agility helps the organization manage rapidchange, while resiliency helps the organizationmanage disruptive change. Some ofthe moreimportant dimensions of resiliency refer to theorganization's capacity for:

1. Absorbing shocks and surprises: Preserving asense of identity and purpose through a strongculture of commitment, shared values, andbeliefs, regardless of the number of setbacksand failures encountered:

2. Creatively e.xploring alternatives: Activelyplanning for crises and contingencies, andmaking difficult choices for recovery andrenewal when those plans fail:

3. Broadly accessing resources: Mobilizing andapplying an array of assets and talent both

48 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING

inside and outside the organization: and4. E.xecuting transformational change:

Rethinking its identity and purpose whenessential and redesigning itself to support itsnew self-concept.

These are certainly unique skills or abilitiesassociated with resiliency as an adaptive capacity.None of them is easy to build and sustain (Hamel& Valikangas, 2003). Note how the capabilitieslisted previously for both organizational agilityand resiliency depend critically upon the organi-zation's ability to learn and relearn. to acquirenew knowledge, and reassemble existing knowl-edge, and then quickly and effectively deploy thatknowledge as new skills and practices.

This ability to acquire knowledge and translateit into actual adaptive practices has been called"absorptive capacity" or "dynamic capabilities"by some researchers (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998;Eisenhardt & Martin. 2000). Regardless oftheterm, active adaptation to rapidly changing anddisruptive environments demands a close linkagebetween organizational learning and effectiveexecution (Bossidy & Charan. 2002).Organizational effectiveness researchers need tostudy how specific knowledge management prac-tices directly support adaptation and sustainedorganizational performance. While appealing.such arguments have so far been largely concep-tual, not empirical (McCann & Buckner, 2004).

As Rosabeth Moss Kanter (2003) and IanMitroff (2fX)2) also note, many new areas forlearning are required. Active experience withorganizational failures, turnarounds, and recoverieshelps us better understand the full range of dynam-ics, strategies, and resources required in such situa-tions. The general topic of surviving bankruptciesis, for example, under-studied in managementresearch. How does a United Airiines not onlyrestructure itself financially, but preserve a suffi-ciently large core of leadership talent and commit-ted employees to relaunch itself for sustainedgrowth? This is an important question as we lookahead at the field of organizational effectiveness.

Looking Ahead—A Call forContinued Investments inAdaptive Capacity

Most academics and HR practitioners wouldagree that our understanding has dramaticallyincreased about what capabilities and skills con-tribute to an organization's effectiveness. We havedeveloped sophisticated models and methods for

working with organizations, and. for the most part,have not led too many astray with prescriptionsfor organizational designs or radical changes thatclearly did not work. The persistent call by acade-mics and consultants to create "boundarytess orga-nizations'" does, however, need to be conditionedby an equally strong caveat that organizationsneed to invest at the same time in building theskills and resources for managing the resultingcomplexity and risks. The prevailing "dominantlogic of open organization thinking" may beoveremphasized if disruptive change is indeedbecoming more prevalent.

Do we foresee the re-intemalization of exter-nal interdependencies as outsourcing agreementsare abandoned and organizations reassume thoseactivities? Not likely, or at least not on a greatscale. It is impossible to consider closing theorganization to its environment by eliminatingvaluable relationships such as those in a globalsupply chain. It is safe, however, to predict thatorganizations will more carefully manage theirboundiu-ies and weigh costs and risks more effec-tively (McCann & Selsky. 2003).

We do know that as the nature of organiza-tional environments continues evolving, adaptivecapacity—the requisite concepts, skills, capabili-ties, systems, and technologies necessary tomanage the organization's relationships withinits environments—must also evolve. The onlyalternative for dealing with change that is bothrapid and disruptive is to keep quickly develop-ing and deploying the capacity to keep pace withthe demands of the environments that organiza-tions are encountering.

While organizational agility is certainly essen-tial, so is organizational resiliency. Rapid changerequires agility; disruptive change requiresresiliency. The HR profession is thus facing ahuge question to answer; How do you create anorganization that is both agile and resilient? Toanswer that question. HR academics and practi-tioners must work even more closely together tounderstand the trends and to translate theory intousable and practical recommendations for manag-ing highly dynamic organizational environments.

NoteAcknowledgements to Peter Karp. Sue

Mohrman, and Rich Vosburgh for their input ondrafts of this article.

Biographical SketchJoseph McCann is dean ofthe Sykes College

of Business and co-chief academic officer at TheHUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING 49

University of Tampa. He setred on the HRPSboard and e.xecutive committee for several years,and now sits on the board of the Human ResourceInstitute. Along with his role as associate articleseditor for Human Resource Phinning's organiza-tional effectiveness knowledge area, he sits on theeditorial board of a technology management jour-nal and has authored m'o books and many arti-cles on organizational design, .strategic planning,knowledge management, and organizationalchange. He completed his MA and PhD inManagement at The Wharttm School.

ReferencesAL-kolT. R.. (1970). A Crmcep! ofCarpimilf Pliinnhif;. New York: Wiley.

Argyris, C. (1964). Iniegraiiiiff the Indivkiuai and the Or^imiziuiim.New York: Wiley.

Argyris, C. & Schon, D. 11978). Orgaiiizalioiiui tA-<iniiii^: A Theory ojAction Perspeciive. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Bamey. J, (1991). "Fimi Resources and SuMained CompelitiveAdvantage." Joiinuil of Mananemenl 17 (Winter Special Issue).

Baleson. G. 11972). .Sfc/i.v iii im Eioloay of Mind. New York: BallaniineBooks.

Banhclemy. J. l2()O3). "The Seven Deadly Sins nfOuisourcing.'"Aiadem\ oj Management Execuiivf. 17(2|.

Beer, M. II9SII), Ori;iini:iiiiiin Change and Devehpmeiii. SaniaMcmiea. CA: Gmxiyeiir.

Bkike. R.R. &. Moiilon. J.S. (1%4). The iil Grid. Houston: Gulf.

Bossitly. L. Hi Charan. R. (21K)2| Kxi'niiian. The Di.^cipline of GellingThings Done. New York: Random House.

Bower. J.L. & Chrislensen, CM, (199,5). •Disruptive Technologies;Cutfhing Ihe Wave." Hiir\ard Business Review. 73 (January-February).

Brown. S.L. &. Eisenhardi. K.M. (1997). "ITie An ol Conlmuous Change:Linking Complexity Ilieory and Time-paced Evolution in RelentlesslyShifting Oi^anizations." Adminixiraiive Science Qiuirterly. 42.

Brown, S, L. & Eisenhardl, K. (1998). Compelins <m the Edae:Strategy as Structured Chuos. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Bums. T, & Stalker. G.M. (1961). The Mimagemeiit oftnnovallnn.London: Tavistock.

Ca^trogiovimni. G. (2()()2). "Organi/aiion Task Environments: Have TheyChanged Fundamentally Over Time'?" Jounial i>j Mimagemetii. 28(2).

Chatidler, A.D. (1962). Stratej^y and Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Child. J. (1972). "'Organiication Stnieture. Environment, andPertbnnanee: The Role of Organization Choiee." Sociology. 6.

Churchman, C.W. (1971). The Dcsif-n KJlnt^miing Systems. New York:BasiL- Books.

Coleman. J.S. (I9K8). "Sivial Capital in ihe Creation of HumanCapital." Ameriran Jimniid of .Sociology. 94.

D'Aveni, R. 11994). Hypercompetilion: The Ihiuiiniiw nJ SiniiegicManeuvi'riiifi. New York: Free Press.

Davenpon, TH. & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: HowOrganization.'^ Manage What They Know. Boston: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Davidow. W. & Malone, M.S. (19941. The Vtitual (.'uqumition. NewYork: Harper Collins.

Dcevy. E. (1995). Ciftiting thf Rexiiient Orgaiiiziilioii. KnglewmidCliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.

de Geus. A. (19971. The Living Company. Boston: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Deming. W.H. (1982), Otit of ihe Crisis. Cambridge, MA:Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for AdvancedEngineering Study.

Dmcker, P.F (1991). "The New Productivity Challenge." Hanard

Business Review. November-Dec ember.

Edvinsson. L. & Malone, M.S. (1997). Intellectual Capital: RealizingYtiiii Conipanx'.s True Vahie by Finding tts Hidden Brainpower. NewYork: HarperCollins.

Eisenhardl. K. &. Martin. J. (2000). "Dynamic Capabilities: What AreThey?" Strategic Management Journal. 21.

Emery. F.E. & Trist. E.L. (1965), "The Causal Texture ofOrgani/atiotial Environments." Hutntm Relaiions. 18.

Fiedler. F. Fiedler, F.F. (1967). A Theory of L^-adership Effectiveness.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Galbraith. J. (1995). Designing Organizations: An Executive Briefingon Striiti'gy. Structure, and Process. San Franeisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ghoshal. S. & Gratton, L. (2002). "integrating the Enterprise." MtTSUiiin Management Review. Fall,

Goldman, S.L.. Nagel, R.N. & Preiss. K. (1995i. Agile Competitorsand Virtual Organizations. New York: John Wiley.

Hamel, G. & Valikangas, L. (2(H)3). "The Quest tor Resilience."Harvard Bwine'^s Review. September.

Herbst, P. (1974). Socio-iechnical Design. London: Tavistock.

Hu.se, E.F. (19751. Organization Developmeni and Change. St. Paul: Wesi.

Huy, Q.N, & Mimzberg, H. (2(K)3). "Thi; Rhythm of Change." MtTShan Management Review. Summer.

Juran, J.M, 11964). Managerial Breakthrough. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kanter, Rosabeih Moss. (2003). "Leadership and the Psychology ofTurnarounds." Harvard Business Rfview. June.

Karlgaard. R. & Gilder, G. (1996). 'Talking with Intel's Andy Grove."Forbes. Hehruary 26.

Kasl, F. E. & Roseniweig, J.E. (1973). Conltngency Views ojOrganization and Management. Chicago: Seienee Research Associates.

MeCann. J.E. (1991). "Design Principles for an Innovating Company."Academy of Management Executive. May.

McCann. J.E. & Buckner, M. (2004), "Stralegically IntegratingKnowledge Management Initiatives." Jii»rnii/ of KnowledgeManagement, Vol. 8.

McCann. J.E. & Gilkey. R. (1988). Joining Forces: Creating &Mimnging SuciL-ssful Mergers & Acquisitions. Englewood Cliffs. N.J,:Prentice-Hal I.

McCann. J.E. & Selsky. J. (2(X)3). "Strategically ManagingOrganiaition Boundaries: Moving from Frdgility to Resiliency." Underreview, MIT Sloiin Munagenienl Review.

Mint/berg, H. (1994). The Ri.se and Fall oj Strategic Planning. NewYork: Free Press.

Miiroff, 1.1. (2002). "Criiiis Learning: The Lessons of Failure." TheFuturist. September-Ociober.

Mitroff. I.I. & Alpaslan. M.C. l2OO.3|, "Preparing for Evil." HanardBusiness Review. April.

Morgan. G. 1 1996). Imtigfs of Organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage,

Nadler, D.A. (1992). "Organi^tational Architecture: A Metaphor forChange-" In D.A. Nadler. M.S, Shaw, & R.B. Shaw (eds.).Organizational Archiii-cturc: Designs for Clumging Organizations. SanFrancisco; Jossey-Bass.

Nadler. D.A. & Tushman, M.L. (1997), Compttmghy Design: The Powerof Organizational Architecture. New Yori: Oxford University Press.

Pastemack. B.A. & Viscio. A.J. (199R). The Cenierlcss Organization.New York: Simon and .Schuster.

Porter. M, (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for AnalyzingIndustries and Competitors. The Free Press: New York.

Quinn. J.B., Baruch, J.J. & Zien, K.A. (1997). Innovation Explosion,New York: The f-ree Press.

Schein, K. (1978). Curevr Dvnamus. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Stewart. T.A. (1997). tnieilectiud Capital: The A'cii lVe«/l/f ofOrganizations, New York: Currency Doubleday.

Taylor, F.W. (1911). Principles of Scientific Managemetit. New York:Harper & Row.

Trist, E.. Emery. F. & Murray, H. leds.) I 1996). The Social F.ngagemeii!of Social Science: A Tavistock Anthology. Vol. ll. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.

50 HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING