Quanto mais pura for a estratégia, afinal a ideia ideia por detrás do mosaico:
- maior a rentabilidade;
- mas também, maior o risco e menor a flexibilidade, num mundo cada vez mais carregado de incerteza.
É preciso fazer escolhas!!!
.
Uns decisores optam por mais risco e outros por menos risco. Uns são beneficiados e outros pagam o preço das decisões honestas que tomaram e falharam. É, também assim, que nasce a heterogeneidade dentro de um mesmo sector de actividade.
.
William Barnett em "The Red Queen Among Organizations - How Competitiveness Evolves" aborda este tema:
.
"A fundamental argument in modern organization theory is that the process of change is especially hazardous the more that the change disrupts established organizational routines, roles, procedures, capabilities, and
identities. Put differently, the more capable and established an organization, the more that changing the organization is disruptive. Being well adapted implies the ability to perform well but also acts to constrain attempts to alter organizational activities. Organizational change is difficult and hazardous precisely when organizations are well adapted to their environment.
...
Competition-Inertia Hypothesis: The more an organization experiences a history of competition in one context, the more hazardous it will be for the organization to move into another context.
One implication of this hypothesis is that organizations do not become inert in isolation, but rather they do so in the company of their competitors.
As one organization competes and becomes well adapted to its context, and so less able to change significantly, its competitors are in the same situation. This raises again the problem of organizations collectively descending into competency traps, as discussed in chapter 3. If organizations turn to one another as social referents, then they may learn from one another. Such learning, however, promises to reinforce inertia as competing organizations collectively become both better adapted to one environment and especially vulnerable to disruption should they change to another." (Moi ici: Daí que quando os factores abióticos mudam e influenciam negativamente, é como se uma epidemia atacasse todo um sector)
identities. Put differently, the more capable and established an organization, the more that changing the organization is disruptive. Being well adapted implies the ability to perform well but also acts to constrain attempts to alter organizational activities. Organizational change is difficult and hazardous precisely when organizations are well adapted to their environment.
...
Competition-Inertia Hypothesis: The more an organization experiences a history of competition in one context, the more hazardous it will be for the organization to move into another context.
One implication of this hypothesis is that organizations do not become inert in isolation, but rather they do so in the company of their competitors.
As one organization competes and becomes well adapted to its context, and so less able to change significantly, its competitors are in the same situation. This raises again the problem of organizations collectively descending into competency traps, as discussed in chapter 3. If organizations turn to one another as social referents, then they may learn from one another. Such learning, however, promises to reinforce inertia as competing organizations collectively become both better adapted to one environment and especially vulnerable to disruption should they change to another." (Moi ici: Daí que quando os factores abióticos mudam e influenciam negativamente, é como se uma epidemia atacasse todo um sector)
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário