Dynamic Capacity of Adaptation¹

(*) Manuel Alfonso Garzón Castrillon²

(*) FIDEE Research Group
Foundation for Business Education Research and Development
Barranquilla, Colombia, South America
 manuelalfonsogarzon@fidee.org

Reception Date: 01/012/2018 - Approval Date: 01/30/2018

ABSTRACT

This article reviews the published literature about dynamic adaptive capacities, beginning with determining the background, made an approach to the concept of dynamic adaptive capacity; the evolution of the concept of adaptive capacity, the dimensions of such capacity, which are specified in six: strategic flexibility, with five (5) categories: Variety of problem frameworks; Multi-actor, multi-level, multi-sector; Variety of solutions; Redundancy (mirror); the dimension of intellectual flexibility, with four (4) categories: Trust; Simple learning; The double-loop learning; Discussion of questions; Resilience dimension with three (3) categories: continuous access to information; Act according to plan; the ability to improvise; Leadership dimension with three (3) categories: Visionary; Entrepreneur; Collaborator; Resource dimension, with three categories: Authority; Human capital; Financial resources; Governance and four (4) categories: Legitimacy; Equity; Answer's capacity; Accountability.

KEYWORDS: Dynamic Adaptive Capacity; Strategic Flexibility; Intellectual Flexibility; Resilience; Ambidextrous Organization.

INTRODUCTION

The dynamic capacity of adaptation for Garzón (2015) is a variable of the model of dynamic capacities and the literature that exists on this subject is important and in general considers the dynamic capacity of adaptation as a fundamental requirement for all organizations competing in dynamic markets and it supposes novel elements in the business strategy. This explains the growing interest provided as a key aspect for survival and the achievement of superior profitability by organizations.
Labor markets and therefore organizations have changed substantially in recent years, because the economic and social contexts face growing demands for permanent adaptation due to globalization and rapid technological changes, but the turbulences of the world advance more than the dynamic capacity of adaptation that organizations have developed, and this is where the only advantage that can be trusted is a superior ability to re-invent business models before circumstances force us to do so.
The most outstanding changes in organizations refer to the workload in fewer individuals, generated by changes in the organization with the flattening of hierarchical structures and the consequent reduction in the number of workers; facing even more global competition; the creation of multi-ethnic and multicultural work teams; forms of contracting through short-term contracts, part-time work; more self-employment and employment in small organizations, tele-work that allows people to work from or at home due to advances in communication technology more frequent changes in the skills required in the selection processes in which the academic degree is no longer as important a requirement as it was in previous times, among others.
Therefore, adaptation to changes is a very required capacity in organizations, both when looking for professionals, and in the face of the need to develop skills in acting in changing environments, for this reason in this article a tour through the published literature on dynamic adaptation capacities, starting with determining the background, making an approximation to the concept of dynamic capacity of adaptation and the evolution of the concept of dynamic capacity of adaptation.
Finally, an approximation is made to the construct of dynamic adaptation capacities, which is concreted in six dimensions: Strategic flexibility, with five (5) categories: Variety of problem frames; multi-actor, multi-level, multi-sector; Diversity of solutions; Redundancy (duplication); the Intellectual Flexibility dimension, with four (4) categories: Trust; Simple learning; The learning of double loop; Discussion of doubts; the dimension of Resilience, with three (3) categories: continuous access to information; Minutes of agreement to plan; the ability to improvise; the dimension of Leadership, with three (3) categories: Visionary; Entrepreneur; Collaborator; the Resources dimension, with three categories: Authority; Human capital; Financial resources; and Governance with four (4) categories: Legitimacy; Equity; Answer's capacity; Accountability.

 DEVELOPMENT

Literature review - adaptation

In summarizing research in the social sciences, the authors Smit and Pilifosova (2001) state that adaptation refers both to the process of adaptation and to the condition of being adapted. Instead we use adaptation only in the sense of a process, and - more specifically - we consider adaptation as a socio-cognitive-behavioral process.

Dynamic adaptation capacity

In general terms, most of the theories that address the concept of adaptation, despite proposing different processes and mechanisms to obtain it, observe it as the organizational strategic adjustment and the structure to adapt to the contextual conditions of the organization. However, it is also necessary to take into account that we must differentiate, according to Pérez (2009), that adaptation represents a transitory state of survival for the organization, while the dynamic capacity of adaptation is analyzed as a random process of continuous learning and adjustment that allows managing the complexity of the processes, which must be manifested in strategic flexibility understood as the elasticity of the organization to manage the availability of resources, as well as to apply said resources.
The dynamic capacity of adaptation, for Burnard et al. (2018) is related to its ability to respond to changing environmental conditions and is determined by its ability to change, learn and reconfigure its resources to respond to the dynamics of the environment. By, an organization with higher levels of dynamic capacity for adaptation will be one that can develop structured and rational approaches and allocate resources quickly and effectively to address problems and crisis events. Organizations that promote and develop their dynamic capacity for adaptation develop and develop new knowledge.
Theories on adaptation and change of strategic type in organizations focus on the role of management actions and strategic decisions as factors that make up the changes of the organization Child, (1997); Burgleman, (2002); Teece, (2007). They see organizational change as a product of the decisions and learning of the actors involved and not as the result of a passive environmental selection process.
According to Child (1997), organizational action is limited by internal and external relational material and cognitive structures, but at the same time influences those structures. Organizational actors, through their actions and enactments Weick, (1979), can redefine and modify structures in ways that open up new possibilities for future action. Thus, the perspective of strategic choices projects the possibility of creativity and innovative change within the organization.
Following Hamel (2012) the only thing that can be predicted with certainty is that very soon, sooner rather than later, your organization will be challenged to change in ways that are unprecedented. Hamel (2012) continues saying that his organization then adapts or declines; rethinks its basic preconceptions or let the future escape. And to be honest, it's likely to let the future escape.
Organizations and labor markets have changed substantially in recent years, as economic and social contexts face increasing demands for adaptation due to globalization and rapid technological changes Berntson, Sverke and Marklund, (2006). The liberalization of trade in financial markets, communications and transport had a significant impact on organizations and also on how work is experienced around the world. Arnold and Cohen, (2008). For organizations, such events increased competition and forced large-scale restructuring. Since the nature of the changes in the work due to these pressures, profound effects will inevitably happen in the structure of the way in which organizations and operate themselves Furnham, (1997), (2005). The essence of management is, therefore, the ability to cope with change. Chakravarthy, (1982).
For all organizations, establish Hamel and Valikangas (2003) the continued success no longer depends on the momentum: it depends on the dynamic capacity of adaptation, the ability to dynamically reinvent models and business strategies as circumstances change. Because for Hamel (2012), adaptability requires being willing to abandon routines, making changes without trauma.
Adaptability is the construct proposed by Savickas (2003, 2005) that focuses on the individual. However, its versatility and applicability could also be extended to a more macro level, that is, to organizations; it resembles what happens in other theoretical approaches. Both individuals and the environment can be evaluated considering their resemblance to each Holland type (1959).
When considering their resemblance to each personality type, individuals make an effort to self-organize their abilities, interests, values and abilities, which, in turn, define a pattern of linkage that is congruent or incongruent with a safe work environment (defined by the same type) Savickas, (2005). Satisfaction, stability and performance depend on the congruence between the personality of the individual and their work environment.
In a turbulent era, the only advantage that can be trusted according to Hamel and Valikangas (2003) is a superior ability to reinvent business models before circumstances force us to do so. Achieving this dynamic capacity of strategic adaptation is not easy; this implies a great dynamic ability to adapt the ability to dynamically reinvent models and business strategies as circumstances change. Therefore, in a world of change confirms Hamel (2012) that does not fit one in the head, what matters is not a mere competitive advantage at a point in time, but rather its evolutionary advantage over time.
The dynamic capacity of strategic adaptation for Hamel and Valikangas (2003), is not to respond to an occasional crisis. It is not about recovering from a setback. It is about anticipating and continually adapting to deep and secular trends that can permanently hinder the power to generate profits from a basic business. It is about having the ability to change before the need for change is desperately obvious. On the other hand, Reiman et al. (2014) states that, by creating connections between the different actors of the organization, the system also gains dynamic adaptation capacity due to the possibility of sharing information. In order to facilitate the interaction, it should reach the stakeholders.

For Arnold and Cohen (2010, p. 57) several changes have been occurring widely in the Western world, such as:

"(a) the increasing workload of individuals (number of hours and effort required), (b) changes in the organization with the elimination of hierarchical levels and reduction in the number of workers, (c) even more global competition (organizations in western countries need to control costs and improve the skills of their workers), (d) work teams (people with different knowledge must come together to develop a project), (e) more short-term contracts, with the renewal has been the exception and not the rule, (f) more frequent changes in the skills required, (g) more part-time work, (h) the change of work, due to the decrease in the birth rate and the increase in life expectancy, (i) more self-employment and employment in small organizations, (j) tele-workers, people who work from or at home due to advances in communication technology and cost reduction for the organization and (k) the increase of the pressure in the plans of the retirement pension".

With more flexible and dynamic working environments, understood as flexibility in relation to organizations and their environment, but also applies to the relationship between organizations and their members Berntson et al., (2006). In order to cope with the rapidly changing world, organizations have been cutting staff and costs (downsizing), contracting other services (outsourcing), decreasing hierarchical levels (flattening) and restructuring (restructuring), and, therefore, the careers have been radically changing Savickas and Baker, (2005). Economic and technological developments can lead to unpredictable careers due to the changing job market and opportunities Kuijpers and Scheerens, (2006), with a significant impact on the types of careers available in organizations and on individual enactment. Arnold and Cohen, (2008).
The change and the need for adaptation are, therefore, for Fraga (2014) the main characteristics of the functioning of organizations and have implications for both organizations and workers. Organizations have to perform at a high level of effectiveness and efficiency in order to face current and future challenges. Since the adaptation strategy are circumstantial, because useful solutions in the past could be poor models for success, satisfaction and innovation to the new challenges posed by the environment. Now, the key concept is the dynamic capacity of adaptation.
Any organization that wants to develop dynamic capacity for adaptation must face four challenges: Hamel and Valikangas (2003).

-The cognitive challenge

An organization must be completely free of denial, nostalgia and arrogance. You must be deeply aware of what is changing and be perpetually willing to consider how those changes can affect your true success. Hamel and Valikangas (2003).

-Strategic Challenge

The dynamic capacity of adaptation requires alternatives, that is, the capacity to create a great abundance of new options that serve as an alternative to the agonizing strategies. Hamel and Valikangas (2003).

- Ideological challenge

Few organizations question the doctrine of optimization but optimizing a business model that is slowly losing relevance cannot guarantee the future of an organization. For renewal to be continuous and opportunity-oriented, rather than episodic and crisis-oriented, organizations must adopt a creed that extends beyond operational excellence and flawless execution. Hamel and Valikangas (2003).

-Political Challenge

Organizations must be able to divert resources from yesterday's products and programs to those of tomorrow, this does not mean letting the imagination fly, but build capacity to provide support, with the encouragement and capital needed for a broad portfolio of dispersed experiments. Hamel and Valikangas (2003).
Few organizations, say Hamel and Valikangas (2003), if any, can claim to dominate these challenges. Although there is no simple recipe for building a flexible organization, a decade of research and renewal allows us to suggest some starting points.
According to McKee, et. al the. (1989), the dynamic capacity of adaptation has to be developed in a concrete way according to the characteristics of the organization in the following way:

• Unstable state: when organizations reduce their reactions to the environment, shortening their orientation towards the market and, therefore, their adaptive capacity.
• Stable state: when organizations react to the environment by observing the market, developing their dynamic capacity for adaptation through the imitation of the actions developed by other organizations in the face of the opportunities that appear in it.
• Neutral state: when organizations have a high dynamic capacity for adaptation and they are the first to look for opportunities in the market, as well as to invest resources to adapt to the opportunities found in the fastest possible way.
Finally, in relation to the dynamic capacity of adaptation, it is necessary to take into account the conclusions of the study conducted by Burnard et al. (2018) that an organization to improve its resilience must begin by exploring how to advance in its dynamic capacity for adaptation. This could involve proactive engagement with environmental monitoring and monitoring activities as this will support the development of situational awareness and, ultimately, allow for a continuous exchange and review of information from all networks in the organization.

Definition of the dynamic capacity of adaptation

On the basis of definitions and existing literature, the dynamic capacity of adaptation is defined as: Are the characteristics inherent to these organizations that allow you to respond to short and long-term impacts, either through planned measures or through allowing and stimulating creative responses, both a priori and posteriori, for which they develop: 1) Strategic flexibility; 2) Intellectual flexibility; 3) Resilience. 4) Leadership, 5) Resources, and 6) governance. This implies that organizations must allow learning new knowledge and experiences in order to generate flexibility and creativity to handle the expected and unexpected, while maintaining their identity.
The success of organizations will be according to Burnard et al. (2018) the ways in which this response process will be applied will depend on the event itself, and on the capacity of the organization to collect, analyze, interpret and use information effectively.

Dimensions of the Dynamic Adaptation Capacity

The proposed fundamental line by Gupta et al (2010) and complemented by the authors analyzed, is that the organizations that promote the dynamic capacity of adaptation are those that develop: 1) Strategic flexibility; 2) Intellectual flexibility; 3) Resilience. 4) Leadership, 5) Resources, and 6) governance. These six categories have twenty-one (21) dimensions. Table 1 presents the categories and dimensions and relates them to the literature. See Table 1.

Table N°. 1. Categories and dimensions of the Dynamic adaptation capacity

Sourse: Adapted from Gupta et al (2010)

The dynamic capacity of adaptation is one of the most relevant characteristics for a greater competitiveness in the world of work today - especially in situations of change - both for the person and the organization. The dynamism of the growing environment and the dynamic capacity for adaptation of organizations have received a new academic interest in how these organizations adapt to their environment and create superior business performance. Tuominen, Rajala and Möller, (2004).
From an economic perspective, adaptability is considered a characteristic of the production system of the organization, it is the inherent capacity to adjust or modify its operation of costs, according to the demand Katayama and Bennett, (1999). Other authors propose a broader definition, present adaptability as the capacity of an organization, which consciously or unconsciously changes to adapt to different circumstances. Busquets, Rodon and Wareham, (2009). For Chakravarthy (1982), adaptability is the ability of an organization to identify and capitalize on emerging markets and technological opportunities. It is also seen as a fundamental requirement of the capacity for innovation Tuominen, Rajala and Möller, (2004).
Organizational ecology theorists and institutions Hannan and Freeman, (1984); Barnett and Caroll, (1995); DiMaggio and Powell, (1983); Greenwood and Hinings, (1996) emphasize the powerful forces of organizational inertia and argue that organizations rarely manage to introduce radical changes in strategy and structure when turbulences occur in the environment. This research stream analyzes the way in which environments select organizations and studies how this selection process creates changes in organizational forms as new incorporations to a sector expose established organizations that cannot adapt with enough speed.
Therefore, a possible form of adaptation of organizations, from the perspective of the selection, is to generate new business projects Barnett and Freeman (2001), Christensen, (1997).
On the other hand, the theories on adaptation and change of strategic type in organizations focus on the role of management actions and strategic decisions as factors that make up the changes of the organization Child, (1997); Burgleman, (2002); Teece, (2007). They see organizational change as a product of the decisions and learning of the actors involved and not as the result of a passive environmental selection process.
Similarly, it is theoretically feasible for Fraga (2014) to assume that, as individuals, they can be described in terms of adaptability and its dimensions (concern, control, curiosity and trust), just as construction can also be applied to the organizational Figuretion. Organizational adaptability would denote the disposition and resources of an organization to cope with current and anticipated tasks and demands in accordance with its operation, and to cope with the transitions and key events experienced throughout its existence.
According to Child (1997), organizational action is limited by internal and external relational, material and cognitive structures, but at the same time influences those structures. Organizational actors, through their actions and their implementation according to Weick, (1979), can redefine and modify structures in ways that open new possibilities for future action. Thus, the perspective of strategic choices projects the possibility of creativity and innovative change within the organization.
In the same way, Fraga (2014) states that organizational psychologists can play a role in the identification that workers are already (or should be) an expert in adequate adaptability resources that adjust to the dynamic capacity of adaptation, the profile and the needs of the organization, which allows the satisfaction of the workers and the survival of the organization in the demand and the change of work environments.
The double search for stability and change constitutes a fundamental paradox in all forms of organization and poses an important challenge to the firms that operate in the current business environment Farjoun, (2010). In the past, many organization theorists argued that the structures, processes and practices that guarantee stability and reliability were largely incompatible with those needed for change and flexibility.

Ambidextrous organization

The notion of ambidextrous organization O'Reilly and Tushman, (2004), (2008); Tushman et al., (2010) suggests that the key to organizations' long-term success lies in their ability to exploit existing competencies while continuing to explore new you have possibilities, in order to compete in both mature and emerging markets. The term ambidextrous refers to the ability to do both. According to O'Reilly and Tushman (2004, 2008), ambidextrous organizations are those that manage to maintain their competitive advantage thanks to a combination of models in which two management trends coexist: one in which stability and control prevail for guarantee efficiency in the short term and another in which risks are assumed to generate long-term innovation.
The organizations that act in this way develop diverse architectures, competencies and internally disparate philosophies that on the one hand have the integrated capacities for the efficiency, coherence and reliability that are needed to exploit the current business and, on the other, they accommodate the experimentation and improvisation required to explore the new opportunities. From a strategic perspective, the ambidextrous organization has a dynamic capacity that allows it to maintain good ecological health and, if necessary, reconfigure existing assets and develop the new skills needed to respond to emerging threats and opportunities. O'Reilly and Tushman, (2008).
Many theorists of strategic adaptation see organizational change as a continuous process in which the paradoxical forces of continuity and change intervene. Continuity confers a sense of identity to organizational learning Weick, (1995), provides political legitimacy and increases the acceptability of change among those who have to live with him Child and Smith, (1987). Burgleman's (1991, 2002) study of the Intel Corporation illustrates how the company went from being a memory organization to successfully becoming a microprocessor firm through a combination of the twin elements of continuity and change for strategic renewal. Burgleman argues that the organizations that often accompany success apply in the design of strategies a combination of induced and autonomous processes to cause organizational renewal.
The induced process develops initiatives that fit within the current strategy of the organization and extend existing organizational learning (ie, continuity). The autonomous process, on the other hand, corresponds to the initiatives that arise outside the organization and provide opportunities for a new organizational learning (that is, change). These twin processes are considered vital for the successful transformation of an organization.
In the same vein, Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) point out that continuous organizational change, aimed at achieving rapid innovation in products, is becoming an essential capacity for organizations operating in high-speed sectors with short production cycles. Based on the study of some cases of innovations of several products of the computer sector, the authors conclude that continuous change and product innovations are supported by organizational structures that could be described as semi-structures, with a combination of mechanistic and organic characteristics that balance order and chaos. The double search for stability and change constitutes a fundamental paradox in all forms of organization and poses an important challenge to the firms that operate in the current business environment Farjoun, (2010).
In the past, many organization theorists argued that the structures, processes and practices that guarantee stability and reliability were largely incompatible with those needed for change and flexibility. The tension between exploitation and exploration in the learning and innovation of organizations is a familiar example March, (1991). Exploitation expands existing knowledge and finds a suitable breeding ground in the type of organizational cohesion that occurs in form J, while exploration requires the creation of new knowledge and ideas stimulated by a mode of business organization such as Adhocracy Lam., (2000).
The opposing organizational logic underlying the two activities makes an effective combination of both extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. However, in recent years, organizations have been under increasing pressure to develop dual structures and processes that guarantee performance in a complex environment and exposed to rapid changes. The notion of ambidextrous organization. O'Reilly and Tushman, (2004, 2008); Tushman et al., (2010) suggests that the key to organizations' long-term success lies in their ability to exploit existing competencies while exploring new possibilities, in order to compete in both mature and mature markets.
Emerging The term ambidextrous refers to the ability to do both. According to O'Reilly and Tushman (2004, 2008), ambidextrous organizations are those that manage to maintain their competitive advantage thanks to a combination of models in which two management trends coexist: one in which stability and control prevail for guarantee efficiency in the short term and another in which risks are assumed to generate long-term innovation. The organizations that act in this way develop diverse architectures, competencies and internally disparate philosophies that on the one hand have the integrated capacities for the efficiency, coherence and reliability that are needed to exploit the current business and, on the other, they accommodate the experimentation and improvisation required to explore the new opportunities.
From a strategic perspective, the ambidextrous organization has a dynamic capacity that allows it to maintain good ecological health and, if necessary, reconfigure existing assets and develop the new skills needed to respond to threats and emerging opportunities (O'Reilly and Tushman, (2008).
 The concept of ambidextrous organization is attractive, but the conditions that must be met to ensure long-term success and its impact on innovative performance have not yet been studied. The apparent paradox of stability and change continues to be a formidable task for many organizations.

Construction of adaptation capacities

As a result of the bibliographic review, which is established in Figure 1, the proposal for the construction of a dynamic adaptation capacity is presented. which was reached after a process of integration, union and fusion, for stable the proposal with six categories: 1) Strategic flexibility; 2) Intellectual flexibility; 3) Resilience. 4) Leadership, 5) Resources, and 6) governance. These six categories have twenty-one (21) dimensions.

Figure N° 1. Model of adaptation capacities
Sourse: Elaborado por el autor con base en, Nooteboom 2006; PollityBouckaert 2000; Hamel (2012) ; Pahl-Wostl (2009); Duit y Galaz (2008); Armitage (2008); Folke et al. (2005); Ostrom (2005); Verweij y Thompson (2006); Weick y Sutcliffe (2001); Pelling y High (2005); Olson et al. (2004); Carpenter et al. (2001); Marshal y Marshal (2007); Pelling et al.(2008); Argyris (1990); Ormond (1999); Milman y Short (2008); Polsky et al. (2007); Smit et al. (2000); Folke et al. (2003); Pelling y High (2005); Smit et al. (2000);Schenider (2006); Goldfinsh y Hart (2003); Andersson y Mol (2002); Folke y Berkes (2004); Armitage (2005); Marlin et al. (2007); Tierney et al. (2006); Pahl-Wostl et al. (2007); Grubb and Gupta (2000); Anderson y Mol (2002); Termeer (2009); Biermann (2007); Nelson et al. (2010); Smit et al. (2000); Yohe y Tol (2002); Haddad (2005); Botchway (2001)

CONCLUSION

In increasingly dynamic and changing economic and organizational environments, organizations need to restore stability and maintain continuity, in order to ensure their productive processes and improve competitiveness in their target market.
Therefore, it is necessary to develop simple but effective methodologies, which can be used by organizations to assess their dynamic capacity for adaptation, as well as strategies to improve that capacity, and it is also necessary to define metrics to evaluate it. Be coherent for those who make decisions in organizations, as well as directly relevant to the general objectives of the organization.
It is also important to define tacit or explicit rules of behavior and the performance of organizations, denoted by the goals to be achieved and the values / mission assumed by the organization among its employees, can provide guidelines for strategies and adaptability resources. It is feasible to propose that the organizational culture deals with issues of organizational adaptation for the environment.
The construction of the dynamic adaptation capacity proposed by Savickas (2010) to describe the dynamic capacity of career adaptation of individuals has the potential to be applied also to the macro-organizational context, considering its definition and implementation. Therefore, adaptive organizations can be described according to how they express themselves and anticipate their concern for its continuity and the future; increase control taking into account their survival and future, regardless of market conditions; reveal the curiosity for the identification of business opportunities as a result of internal potential that improves their attractiveness for investment and foreseen external scenarios (labor market and economic trends); and strengthen the confidence to initiate and maintain organizational goals.
In the future, it is important to develop the research in order to face the applicability of the construction of the dynamic capacity of adaptation, to anticipate the effects of possible disturbances and to improve the dynamic capacity of adaptation and recovery of organizations, their categories and dimensions and, for the organizational context. Also, it is important to develop qualitative and / or quantitative research methodologies and measures for the collection and evaluation of data. Such categories and dimensions of adaptability may also become relevant areas for the identification and definition of organizational needs and future interventions. Therefore, the dynamic capacity of adaptation is an important contribution to improve the preparation of the resources of the organizations to face the foreseen or actual changes presented by the turbulent work contexts and to guide these organizations in the development of suitable organizational strategies.
Based on the literature, this article has generated six categories and their dimensions of dynamic adaptation capacity: 1. Strategic flexibility; 2. Intellectual flexibility; 3. Resilience; 4. Leadership; 5. Resources; 6. Governance, each with its own criteria, for organizations, and designed to stimulate the dynamic capacity for adaptation.

Notes

1. Research Projects. The dynamic capacities of innovation in the oganizations. Research Group FIDEE. Foundation for reseach and Educational Enterprise Development, Colombia, South America.

2. BA, MSc; PhD, PostPhD, Research Professor, Director Research Group FIDEE, manuelafonsogarzon@fidee.org

BIBLIOGRAPHCIAL ABSTRACT

Please refer to articles Spanish Biographical abstract.

REFERENCES

Please refer to articles in Spanish Bibliography.

 

 

2. Argyris, C., (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational learning. Allyn and Bacon, Boston.         [ Links ]

3. Armitage, D., (2008). Governance and the commons in a multi-level world. International Journal of the Commons 2(1), 7–32.

4. Arnold, J., y Cohen, L. (2008). The psychology of careers in industrial and organizational settings: A critical but appreciative analysis. In G.P. Hodgkinson y J.K. Ford (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1-44).         [ Links ]

5. Barnett, W. P., y G. R. Caroll (1995), Modelling internal organizational change, Annual Review of Sociology 21, pp. 217‑236.         [ Links ]

6. Barnett, W. P., y J. Freeman (2001), Too much of a good thing? Product proliferation and organizational failure, Organization Science 12, pp. 539-558.         [ Links ]

7. Berntson, E., Sverke, M., y Marklund, S. (2006). Predicting perceived employability: Human capital or labor market opportunities? Economic and Industrial Democracy, 27, 223-244.         [ Links ]

8. Biermann, F., (2007). ‘Earth system governance’ as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Global Environmental Change 17, 326-337.

9. Botchway, F.N., (2001). Good Governance: The Old, the New, the Principle, and the Elements. Florida Journal of International Law 13(2), 159-210.         [ Links ]

10. Brown, S. L., y K. M. eisenhardt (1997), «The art of continuous change: Complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations», Administrative Science Quarterly 42, pp. 1-34.         [ Links ]

11. Burgleman, R. A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: theory and research, Organization Science 2, pp. 239-262.         [ Links ]

12. Burgleman, R. A. (2002), «Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in», Administrative Science Quarterly 47, pp. 325-357.         [ Links ]

13. Burnard, K. and Bhamra, R. and Tsinopoulos, C. (2018) 'Building organizational resilience:four configurations.', IEEE transactions on engineering management. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/aboutJournal.jsp?punumber=17         [ Links ]

14. Busquets, J., Rodon, J., y Wareham, J. (2009). Adaptability in smart business networks: An exploratory case in the insurance industry. Decision Support Systems, 47, 287-296.         [ Links ]

15. Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., y Abel, N., (2001). From Metaphor to Measurement: Resilience of What to What? Ecosystems 4(8), 765-781.         [ Links ]

16. Chakravarthy, B.S. (1982). Adaptation: A promising metaphor for strategic management. The Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 35-44.         [ Links ]

17. Child, J. (1997). Strategic choice in the analysis of action, structure, organizations and environment: Retrospect and prospect, Organization Studies 18, pp. 43-76.         [ Links ]

18.Child, J., y C. smith (1987). The context and process of organizational transformation – Cadbury limited in its sector», Journal of Management Studies 24, pp. 565-593.

19. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

20. DiMaggio, P. J., y W. W. Powell (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, American Sociological Review 48, pp. 147- 160.         [ Links ]
Duit A., Galaz, V., (2008). Governance and complexity – emerging issues for governance theory. Governance: an international journal of policy, administration and institutions 21(3), 311-335.

21. Farjoun, M. (2010), Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality, Academy of Management Review 35, pp. 202-225.         [ Links ]

22. Folke, C., Colding, J., Berkes, F., (2003). Synthesis: building resilience and adaptive capacity in social–ecological systems, in: Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Ed.), Navigating social–ecological systems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 252–387.

23. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J., (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological, systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30(1), 441-473.         [ Links ]

24. Fraga S. (2014) Organizational adaptability: a conceptual contribution for today’s organizations, in REOP. Vol. 25, nº1, 1º Cuatrimestre, 2014, pp. 128 – 136.

25. Furnham, A. (1997). The psychology of behavior at work. The individual in the organization. Hove East Sussex: Psychology Press, Publishers.         [ Links ]

26. Furnham, A. (2005). The psychology of behavior at work. The individual in the organization (2nd ed.). Hove East Sussex: Psychology Press, Publishers.         [ Links ]

27. Garzón, M.A. (2015). Modelo de capacidades dinámicas. Revista Dimensión Empresarial, vol. 13, núm. 1, p. 111-131.         [ Links ]

28. Goldfinch, S., Hart. P. ’t, (2003). Leadership and institutional reform: engineering macroeconomic policy change in Australia. Governance 6(2), 235-270.

29. Greenwood, R., y C. R. Hinings (1996), «Understanding radical organizational change: bringing together the old and new institutionalism», Academy of Management Review 21, pp. 1022‑1054.         [ Links ]

30. Grubb, M., Gupta, J., (2000). Towards a Theoretical Analysis of Leadership, in: Gupta, J., Grubb, M. (eds.), Climate Change and European Leadership: A Sustainable Role for Europe. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp.15-24.         [ Links ]

31. Gupta J, Termeer K, Klostermannc J, Meijerinkd S, van den Brinkd M, Jonge P, Nooteboomf, S. and Bergsmaa E (2010) The Adaptive Capacity Wheel: A Method to Assess the Inherent Characteristics of Institutions to Enable the Adaptive Capacity of Society, Environmental Science y Policy Volume 13, Issue 6, October 2010, Pages 459–471.

32. Haddad, B., (2005). Ranking the adaptive capacity of nations to climate change when sociopolitical goals are explicit. Global Environmental Change 15, 165-176.         [ Links ]

33. Hamel G. (2012) Lo que importa ahora, Cómo triunfar en un mundo de cambios implacables, comnpewtencia feroz e innovación sin barreras. Editorial Norma., Bogotá D.C. 149-164

34. Hamel G. y Valinkas L.  (2003) The Quest for Resilience, Harvard Business Review, 81(9), 52-65.         [ Links ]

35. Holland, J.L. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6, 35-44.         [ Links ]

36. Katayama, H. y Bennett, D. (1999). Agility, adaptability and leanness: A comparison of concepts and a study of practice. International Journal of Production Economics, 60-61, 43-51.         [ Links ]

37. Kuijpers, M.A.C.T., y Scheerens, J. (2006). Career competences for the modern career. Journal of Career Development, 32, 303-319.         [ Links ]

38. Lam, A. (2000), «Tacit knowledge, organizational learning, societal institutions: an integrated framework», Organization Studies 21, pp. 487-513.         [ Links ]

39. March, J. G. (1991), «Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning», Organization Science 2, pp. 71-87.         [ Links ]

40. Marlin, A., Olsen, L., Bruce, D., Ollerhead, J., Singh, K., Heckman, J., Walters, B., Meadus, D., Hanson, A., (2007). Examining Community Adaptive Capacity to Address Climate Change, Sea Level Rise, and Salt Marsh Restoration in Maritime Canada. Submitted to the Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations Program, Mount Allison Coastal Wetlands Institute and the Rural and Small Town Programme, Mount Allison University, Sackville.         [ Links ]

41. Marshall, N.A., Marshall, P.A., (2007). Conceptualising and operationalising social resilience within commercial fisheries in Northern Australia. Ecology and Society 12(1), [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art1/         [ Links ]

42. McKee, D. O.; Varadarajan, P.R.; Pride, W. M (1989) Strategic adaptability and firm performance: a market-contingent perspective. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, No 1, pp. 21-35.         [ Links ]

43. Milman, A., Short, A., (2008). Incorporating Resilience into Sustainability Indicators: An Example for the Urban Water Sector. Global Environmental Change 18, 758-767.         [ Links ]

44. Nelson, R., Kokic, P., Crimp, S., Martin, P., Meinke, H., Howden, S.M., de Voil, P., Nidumolu, U., (2010). The vulnerability of Australian rural communities to climate variability and change: Part II – Integrating impacts with adaptive capacity. Environmental Science y Policy 13, 18-27.

45. Nooteboom, S., (2006). Adaptive networks, the governance for sustainable development. Delft: Eburon.         [ Links ]

46. O’Reilly, C. A., y M. L. Tushman (2004), «The ambidextrous organization», Harvard Business Review, abril, pp. 74-81.

47. O’Reilly, C. A., y M. L. Tushman (2008), «Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemmas», Research in Organizational Behavior 28, pp. 185-206.

48. Olsson, P., Folke, C., Berkes, F., (2004). Adaptive Co-Management for Building Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Environmental Management 34, 75-90.         [ Links ]

49. Ormond, J.E., (1999). Human learning (3rd ed). Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River.         [ Links ]

50. Ostrom, E., (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.         [ Links ]

51. Pahl-Wostl, C., (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multilevel learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change 19, 354-365.         [ Links ]

52. Pelling, M., High, C., (2005). Understanding Adaptation: What Social Capital Offer Assessments of Adaptive Capacity. Global Environmental Change 15, 308-319.         [ Links ]

53. Pérez M. (2009) La relación entre la tecnología de la información, las prácticas de gestión de la calidad y el desarrollo de las capacidades dinámicas: una aproximación empírica. Tesis Doctoral, Universidad de Granada, España.         [ Links ]

54. Pollit C., Bouckaert, G., (2000). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford.         [ Links ]

55. Polsky, C., Neff, R., Yarnal, B., (2007). Building comparable global change vulnerability assessments: The Vulnerability Scoping Diagram. Global Environmental Change 17, 472-         [ Links ]

56. Savickas, M.L. y Baker, D.B. (2005). The history of vocational psychology: Antecedents, origin and early development. In W.B. Walsh y M.L. Savickas (Eds.), Handbook of Vocational Psychology (3rd ed., pp. 15-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.         [ Links ]

57. Savickas, M.L. (2003). Toward a taxonomy of human strengths: Career counseling’s contribution to positive psychology. In W.B. Walsh (Ed.), Counseling psychology and optimal human functioning (pp. 229-249). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

58. Savickas, M.L. (2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In S. Brown y R. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counselling. Putting theory and research to work (pp. 42-70). NJ: Wiley.         [ Links ]

59. Schneider B (2006) Resiliencia, cómo construir empresas en contextos de inestabilidad. Editorial Norma, Bogotá D.C.         [ Links ] 

60. Smit, B. y Pilifosova, O. (2001). Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity. In J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken, y K.S. White (Eds.), Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (pp. 877-912). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.         [ Links ]

61.Smit, B., Burton, I., Kleinand, R., Wandel, J., (2000). An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability. Climate change 45, 223-251.         [ Links ]

62. Smit, B., Burton, I., Kleinand, R., Wandel, J., (2000). An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability. Climate change 45, 223-251.         [ Links ]

63. Teece, D. (2007), «Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and micro-foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance», Strategic Management Journal 28, pp. 1319-1350.         [ Links ]

64. Termeer, C.J.A.M., (2009). Water professionals and public leadership. Irrigation and Drainage 58, S212-S216.         [ Links ]

65. Tierney, K., Bevc, C., Kuligowski, E., (2006). Metaphors Matter: Disaster Myths, Media Frames, and Their Consequences in Hurricane Katrina. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 604, 57-81.         [ Links ]

66. Tuominen, M., Rajala, A., y Möller, K. (2004). How does adaptability drive firm innovativeness? Journal of Business Research, 57, 495-506.         [ Links ]

67. Tushamn, M. L., W. K. smith y R. C. Wood et al. (2010), «Organizational designs and innovation streams», Industrial and Corporate Change. Identificador de objeto digital (doi): 10.1093/icc/ dtq040.         [ Links ]

68. Verweij, M., Thompson, M., (2006). Clumsy solutions for a Complex World. Governance, Politics and Plural Perceptions. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.         [ Links ]

69. WeicK, K. E. (1979), The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2.ª ed., Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.         [ Links ]

70. WeicK, K. E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.         [ Links ]

71. Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., (2001). Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.         [ Links ]