Crisis as a threat to organizational adaptation

Objective: to substantiate the feasibility of adopting and developing a research program in the field of crisis management. Methods: general methodological principles of constructing scientific theories, understanding their maturity, differences between the pre-paradigm and paradigm stages of a scientific discipline development, studying their foundations, formulating an understanding of the organizational crisis as maladaptation on the basis of methodological and general principles of the population-ecological sphere in economic research.Results: based on the analysis of scientific literature, the existence of many competing, and sometimes mutually exclusive approaches to the theoretical understanding of the nature of organizational crises is determined. This leads to considering the crisis as an organizational maladaptation, i.e. as a certain loss of a feature of adaptation, adaptability to the occupied population-ecological niche due to internal or external changes.Two approaches are used to diagnose a state of maladaptation (crisis) or an immediate threat of such a state and to plan measures to overcome it. The first one is crisis determinism, focused on identifying and assessing crisis threats and developing measures to overcome them. The second approach focuses on neutralizing the adverse factors, affecting the organization, by mobilizing, first of all, its human resources. This subjective side of management under a crisis is characterized by the concept of intentionality - will, desire, intention to overcome the crisis.Scientific novelty: the two selected approaches to understanding the essence of crisis management serve as the basis for a co-evolutionary method of studying organizational adaptation and prospects for maladaptation. On this basis, a coevolutionary model of the crisis as a maladaptation is proposed. The model is based on the idea of the crisis as a two-phase process: in the first phase, there is a gradual decrease in organizational adaptation under the influence of destructive environmental factors, in the second - an avalanche-like development of the crisis, where the importance of the intentional, subjective aspect of the crisis is especially great. The model implies that the successful overcoming of the crisis means the restoration of the organization’s adaptation to the external environment. If this does not happen, the organization is eliminated by natural selection and the composition of the population changes.Practical significance: the coevolutionary model of crisis can serve as a basis for developing specific recommendations based on a balanced view of the crisis as a process that has a deterministic component (objective cause-effect relations) and an intentional one (subjective factors of crisis management related to skills, abilities and a will to overcome the crisis consequences).

Economics and national economy management, Crisis, Anti-crisis management, Population-ecological theory of organizations, Crisis determinism, Intentionality, Coevolutionary approach

1. Abatecola G. Interpreting corporate crises: towards a coevolutionary approach // Future. 2012. Vol. 44. Рр. 860-869. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v14n5p21

2. Хит Р. Кризисное управление для руководителей и менеджеров. М.: Лори, 2004. 486 с.

3. Ханнан М., Фриман Дж. Экология организационных популяций // Теория организации. М.: Высшая школа менеджмента. 2010. С. 416-459.

4. Breslin D., Kask J. Do organizations really co-evolve? Problematizing co-evolutionary change in management and organization studies // Technological Forecasting and Social Change. March 2020. Pр. 155-167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119964

5. Darwinism, organizational evolution and survival: key challenges for future research / G. Abatecola, F. Belussi, D. Breslin, I. Filatotchev // Journal of Management & Governance. 2016. Vol. 20 (1). Рр. 1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-015-9310-8

6. Катькало В. С. Эволюция теории стратегического управления. СПб.: Высшая школа менеджмента, 2008. 548 с.

7. Зуб А. Т. Стратегический менеджмент. М.: Юрайт, 2014. 375 с.

8. Мэй Р. Любовь и воля. М.: Рефл-бук; К.: Ваклер, 1997. 384 с.

9. Поланьи К. Избранные работы. М.: Экономика, 2010. 200 с.

10. Stoelhorst J. W. Why is management not an evolutionary science? Evolutionary theory in strategy and organization // Journal of Management Studies. 2008. Vol. 45. Рр. 1008-1023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490900700101

11. Hrebiniak L., Joyce W. Organizational adaptation: strategic choice and environmental determinism // Administrative Science Quarterly. 1985. Vol. 30. Рр. 336-349.

12. Coevolution in the strategic renewal behavior of British, Dutch and French financial incumbents: interaction of environmental selection, institutional effects and managerial intentionality / B. Flier, F. Van den Bosch, H. Volberda // Journal of Management Studies. 2003. Vol. 40. Рр. 2163-2187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-6486.2003.00416.x

13. Breslin D. Interpreting futures through the multi-level co-evolution of organizational practices // Futures. 2011. Vol. 43. Рр. 1020-1028.

14. Грейнер Л. Эволюция и революция в процессе роста организаций // Управление изменениями: хрестоматия. СПб.: Высшая школа менеджмента, 2010. С. 192-209.

15. Reviewing cognitive distortions in managerial decision-making: Toward an integrative co-evolutionary framework / G. Abatecola, A. Caputo, M. Cristofaro // Journal of Management Development. 2017. Vol. 37 (5). Рр. 409-424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-08-2017-0263

16. Зуб А. Т. Менеджмент проблем как средство управления организационными трудностями // Экономические науки. 2015. № 7. С. 29-33.

17. Буранова Е. А. Психологическое антикризисное управление предприятием // Современные исследования основных направлений гуманитарных и естественных наук: материалы Международной научно-практической конференции / под ред. И. Т. Насретдинова. Казань, 2017. С. 165-169.

18. Саймон Г. Науки об искусственном. М.: УРСС, 2009. 142 с.

19. Child J. Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice // Sociology. 1972. Vol. 6. Рр. 1-22.

20. The generativity mindsets of chief executive officers: a new perspective on succession outcomes / A. Joshi, D. Hambrick, J. Kang // Academy of Management Review. 2020. 3 Mar. DOI: https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amr.2018.0426

21. Манушин Д. В. Новый взгляд на понятие «кризис» // Экономический анализ: теория и практика. 2013. № 15 (318). С. 17-24.

22. Дедов Н. П. Управление в условиях кризиса - социально-психологические и экономические критерии // Проблемы теории и практики управления. 2020. № 8. С. 10-20.

23. The personality factor: how top management teams make decisions. A literature review / G. Abatecola, G. Mandarelli, S. Poggesi // Journal of Management and Governance. 2013. Vol. 17, № 4. Рр. 1073-1100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-011-9189-y

24. Huse M. Boards, governance and value creation: the human side of corporate governance. Cambridge, 2007. 392 р.

25. Зуб А. Т. Управленческая психология. М.: Юрайт, 2020. 372 с.

26. Chatterjee A., Hambrick D. C. It’s all about me: narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance // Administrative Science Quarterly. 2007. Vol. 52. Рр. 351-386. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.3.351

27. Abatecola G. Interpreting corporate crises: towards a coevolutionary approach // Future. 2012. Vol. 44. Рр. 860-869. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v14n5p21

28. Хит Р. Кризисное управление для руководителей и менеджеров. М.: Лори, 2004. 486 с.

29. Ханнан М., Фриман Дж. Экология организационных популяций // Теория организации. М.: Высшая школа менеджмента. 2010. С. 416-459.

30. Breslin D., Kask J. Do organizations really co-evolve? Problematizing co-evolutionary change in management and organization studies // Technological Forecasting and Social Change. March 2020. Pр. 155-167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119964

31. Darwinism, organizational evolution and survival: key challenges for future research / G. Abatecola, F. Belussi, D. Breslin, I. Filatotchev // Journal of Management & Governance. 2016. Vol. 20 (1). Рр. 1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-015-9310-8

32. Катькало В. С. Эволюция теории стратегического управления. СПб.: Высшая школа менеджмента, 2008. 548 с.

33. Зуб А. Т. Стратегический менеджмент. М.: Юрайт, 2014. 375 с.

34. Мэй Р. Любовь и воля. М.: Рефл-бук; К.: Ваклер, 1997. 384 с.

35. Поланьи К. Избранные работы. М.: Экономика, 2010. 200 с.

36. Stoelhorst J. W. Why is management not an evolutionary science? Evolutionary theory in strategy and organization // Journal of Management Studies. 2008. Vol. 45. Рр. 1008-1023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490900700101

37. Hrebiniak L., Joyce W. Organizational adaptation: strategic choice and environmental determinism // Administrative Science Quarterly. 1985. Vol. 30. Рр. 336-349.

38. Coevolution in the strategic renewal behavior of British, Dutch and French financial incumbents: interaction of environmental selection, institutional effects and managerial intentionality / B. Flier, F. Van den Bosch, H. Volberda // Journal of Management Studies. 2003. Vol. 40. Рр. 2163-2187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-6486.2003.00416.x

39. Breslin D. Interpreting futures through the multi-level co-evolution of organizational practices // Futures. 2011. Vol. 43. Рр. 1020-1028.

40. Грейнер Л. Эволюция и революция в процессе роста организаций // Управление изменениями: хрестоматия. СПб.: Высшая школа менеджмента, 2010. С. 192-209.

41. Reviewing cognitive distortions in managerial decision-making: Toward an integrative co-evolutionary framework / G. Abatecola, A. Caputo, M. Cristofaro // Journal of Management Development. 2017. Vol. 37 (5). Рр. 409-424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-08-2017-0263

42. Зуб А. Т. Менеджмент проблем как средство управления организационными трудностями // Экономические науки. 2015. № 7. С. 29-33.

43. Буранова Е. А. Психологическое антикризисное управление предприятием // Современные исследования основных направлений гуманитарных и естественных наук: материалы Международной научно-практической конференции / под ред. И. Т. Насретдинова. Казань, 2017. С. 165-169.

44. Саймон Г. Науки об искусственном. М.: УРСС, 2009. 142 с.

45. Child J. Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice // Sociology. 1972. Vol. 6. Рр. 1-22.

46. The generativity mindsets of chief executive officers: a new perspective on succession outcomes / A. Joshi, D. Hambrick, J. Kang // Academy of Management Review. 2020. 3 Mar. DOI: https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amr.2018.0426

47. Манушин Д. В. Новый взгляд на понятие «кризис» // Экономический анализ: теория и практика. 2013. № 15 (318). С. 17-24.

48. Дедов Н. П. Управление в условиях кризиса - социально-психологические и экономические критерии // Проблемы теории и практики управления. 2020. № 8. С. 10-20.

49. The personality factor: how top management teams make decisions. A literature review / G. Abatecola, G. Mandarelli, S. Poggesi // Journal of Management and Governance. 2013. Vol. 17, № 4. Рр. 1073-1100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-011-9189-y

50. Huse M. Boards, governance and value creation: the human side of corporate governance. Cambridge, 2007. 392 р.

51. Зуб А. Т. Управленческая психология. М.: Юрайт, 2020. 372 с.

52. Chatterjee A., Hambrick D. C. It’s all about me: narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance // Administrative Science Quarterly. 2007. Vol. 52. Рр. 351-386. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.52.3.351