Organization is like a child and it requires continuous nurturing
Continuous change organizations
Organizations that undergo continuous change are argued to have the “ability to change rapidly and continuously, especially by developing new products (core competence and culture driven)” (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997, p. 1). The changes are “those that are ongoing, evolving and cumulative . . . small uninterrupted adjustments . . . ” (Pettigrew et al., 2001, p. 704). These continuous change organizations have had limited treatment in the literature; the case-studies provided so far can be classified as either public sector organizations, learning organizations or firms engaged in New Product Development (NPD). An initial scan of the literature suggests that each of these contexts displays varying degrees of change receptivity.
Much of the previous research uses NPD Teams as the unit of analysis (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997; Miner et al., 2001). These studies interpret continuous change as innovation, and consequently focus on NPD. Continuous change research has consisted largely of case-based studies as is appropriate in newareas of research (Eisenhardt, 1989).
With the emphasis being on NPD, the samples have consisted mainly of technically- oriented employees. Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) and Miner et al. (2001) have highlighted the necessity to create semi- structures that allow flexibility and order to co-exist in order to facilitate continuous change. Miner et al. (2001) and Sitkin et al. (1998) situate continuous change organizations in the organizational learning literature. In terms of findings, Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) highlight the importance of communication and future probe teams inmanaging the continuous innovation processes. All of these studies are concerned with emergent change in the form of NPD. In doing so, they are studying a population that is pro- innovation, and therefore, quite positive about continuous change as their role is to be innovative. It is also important to note that in
Organizations that undergo continuous change are argued to have the “ability to change rapidly and continuously, especially by developing new products (core competence and culture driven)” (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997, p. 1). The changes are “those that are ongoing, evolving and cumulative . . . small uninterrupted adjustments . . . ” (Pettigrew et al., 2001, p. 704). These continuous change organizations have had limited treatment in the literature; the case-studies provided so far can be classified as either public sector organizations, learning organizations or firms engaged in New Product Development (NPD). An initial scan of the literature suggests that each of these contexts displays varying degrees of change receptivity.
Much of the previous research uses NPD Teams as the unit of analysis (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997; Miner et al., 2001). These studies interpret continuous change as innovation, and consequently focus on NPD. Continuous change research has consisted largely of case-based studies as is appropriate in newareas of research (Eisenhardt, 1989).
With the emphasis being on NPD, the samples have consisted mainly of technically- oriented employees. Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) and Miner et al. (2001) have highlighted the necessity to create semi- structures that allow flexibility and order to co-exist in order to facilitate continuous change. Miner et al. (2001) and Sitkin et al. (1998) situate continuous change organizations in the organizational learning literature. In terms of findings, Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) highlight the importance of communication and future probe teams inmanaging the continuous innovation processes. All of these studies are concerned with emergent change in the form of NPD. In doing so, they are studying a population that is pro- innovation, and therefore, quite positive about continuous change as their role is to be innovative. It is also important to note that in