Actual Problems of
Economics and Law




DOI: 10.21202/2782-2923.2021.3.425-439

скачать PDF

Authors :
1. Anatoliy T. Zub, Doctor of Philosophy, Honored professor of MSU, Professor of the Department of the Economy of Innovative Development
Moscow State University named after M. V. Lomonosov

2. Sergey S. Kuzmin, PhD (Engineering), doctorate student of the Department of the Economy of Innovative Development, Faculty of State Management
Moscow State University named after M. V. Lomonosov

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).

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

Bibliography :
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. Khit R. Crisis management for executives and managers, Moscow, Lori, 2004, 486 p. (in Russ.).
3. Khannan M., Friman Dzh. Ecology of organizational populations, Teoriya organizatsii, Moscow, Vysshaya shkola menedzhmenta, 2010, pp. 416–459 (in Russ.).
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. Abatecola G., Belussi F., Breslin D., Filatotchev I. Darwinism, organizational evolution and survival: key challenges for future research, Journal of Management & Governance, 2016, Vol. 20 (1), рр. 1–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-015-9310-8
6. Kat'kalo V. S. Evolution of the theory of strategic management, Saint Petersburg, Vysshaya shkola menedzhmenta, 2008, 548 p. (in Russ.).
7. Zub A. T. Strategic management, Moscow, Yurait, 2014, 375 p. (in Russ.).
8. Mei R. Love and will, Moscow, Refl-buk; Kiev, Vakler, 1997, 384 p. (in Russ.).
9. Polan'i K. Selected works, Moscow, Ekonomika, 2010, 200 p. (in Russ.).
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. Flier B., Van den Bosch F., Volberda H. Coevolution in the strategic renewal behavior of British, Dutch and French financial incumbents: interaction of environmental selection, institutional effects and managerial intentionality, 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. Greiner L. Evolution and revolution in the process of organizational growth, Upravlenie izmeneniyami: khrestomatiya, Saint Petersburg, Vysshaya shkola menedzhmenta, 2010, pp. 192–209 (in Russ.).
15. Abatecola G., Caputo A., Cristofaro M. Reviewing cognitive distortions in managerial decision-making: Toward an integrative co-evolutionary framework, Journal of Management Development, 2017, Vol. 37 (5), рр. 409–424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-08-2017-0263
16. Zub A. T. Problem management as a means of managing organizational difficulties, Economic sciences, 2015, No. 7, pp. 29–33 (in Russ.).
17. Buranova E. A. Psychological anticrisis management of an enterprise, Modern research of the key directions of the Humanities and Natural Sciences: works of an International scientific-research conference, ed. I. T. Nasretdinov, Kazan, 2017, pp. 165–169 (in Russ.).
18. Saimon G. The sciences of the Artificial, Moscow, URSS, 2009, 142 p. (in Russ.).
19. Child J. Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice, Sociology, 1972, Vol. 6, рр. 1–22.
20. Joshi A., Hambrick D., Kang J. The generativity mindsets of chief executive officers: a new perspective on succession outcomes, Academy of Management Review, 2020, 3 Mar. DOI: https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amr.2018.0426
21. Manushin D. V. new look at the “crisis” notion, Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice, 2013, No. 15 (318), pp. 17–24 (in Russ.).
22. Dedov N. P. Management under crisis: social-psychological and economic criteria, International Journal of Management Theory and Practice, 2020, No. 8, pp. 10–20 (in Russ.).
23. Abatecola G., Mandarelli G., Poggesi S. The personality factor: how top management teams make decisions. A literature review, Journal of Management and Governance, 2013, Vol. 17, No. 4, pр. 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. Zub A. T. Managerial psychology, Мoscow, Yurait, 2020, 372 p. (in Russ.).
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

Citation :
Zub A. T., Kuzmin S. S. Crisis as a threat to organizational adaptation, Russian Journal of Economics and Law, 2021, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 425–439 (in Russ.). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21202/2782-2923.2021.3.425-439

Type of article : The scientific article

Date of receipt of the article :

Date of adoption of the print :

Date of online accommodation :