Under the premise that change is constant and inevitable, we see organizations obsessed with changing in order to react to changing reality. These changes tend to be aimed at solving a social or market problem quickly, but at the same time volatile. However, the absence of structural or systemic changes means that, when addressing change, the organization as a whole does not have the capacity to adopt these changes.
In some cases, the most viable, a conviction and commitment to change is achieved, but the rigidity of organizational structures and the adaptive limitation of support systems tend to undermine the impact of said change.
On the other hand, the misguided, but generalized, concept of resilience invites organizations and their members to a resistance, to a stoic struggle to remain firm and alive against change as if it were a passing storm. This misunderstood resilience generates an organizational rigidity, an unconscious resistance to this environment whose transformation is inevitable.
To be fair, smaller companies have been more adaptive to this changing reality, operating under more skillful models (nimble) that give them a unique speed to adjust iteratively. In the largest companies, this change agenda is considerably slower, a slowness generated in part by the difficulty generated by silos and organizational hierarchies, as well as the prioritization of changes that come from everywhere and are difficult to digest in a timely manner. .
That is why a new characteristic of organizations is introduced in this environment: the responsiveness. This adjective, although it is similar in its construction, is not related to responsibility. The organization responsive It is one that has the natural ability to respond to its environment immediately by design and culture, avoiding the planning and structuring processes of that response.
Aaron Dignan compares these responsive organizations to the behavior of ants, the immune system or the development of large cities. These systems are capable of reacting automatically to any reagent and in real time.
Faced with digitalization models, the world is full of examples. There are the usual ones, Blockbuster, Tower, Kodak, Xerox – companies that weren’t able to anticipate a changing market, and by the time they found out it was too late.
But beyond those typical cases, the absence of responsiveness it has affected many more. The recovery or “catch-up” in automation and digitization is slow or very costly, particularly in models of cultural adoption. But what is more incomprehensible is that, knowing that changes are coming, through resilience, organizations wait to see if what is already known to happen happens.