How Organization's Overcome Environmental Changes?
How organization's overcome environmental changes?
Organisations need to deal with environmental changes with appropriate strategies. First, organisations may choose to wait and see. Such strategy has its advantages and disadvantages. For example, facing a significant technological change, some companies may choose to integrate the new technology into their products. If they are successful, the rest companies’ ‘wait and see’ strategy is obviously unwise. However, if they failed, the rest companies’ ‘wait and see’ strategy appears wise. As a result, strategic decision making is impacted on and opportunities may either be lost or capitalised on.
Second, organisations may choose to change in response to environmental changes through either proactive or reactive. Proactive change involves actively attempting to make alterations to the work place and its practices. Companies that take a proactive approach to change are often trying to avoid a potential future threat or to capitalize on a potential future opportunity. Reactive change occurs when an organization makes changes in its practices after some threat or opportunity has already occurred in the external environment. As an example of the difference, assume that a hotel executive learns about the increase in the number of Malaysians who want to travel with their pets. The hotel executive creates a plan to reserve certain rooms in many hotel locations for travelers with pets and to advertise this new amenity, even before travelers begin asking about such accommodations. This would be a proactive response to change because it was made in anticipation of customer demand. However, a reactive approach to change would occur if hotel executives had waited to enact such a change until many hotel managers had received repeated requests from guests to accommodate their pets and were denied rooms. In reality, companies may use a combination of both proactive and reactive approaches. Proactive approach is highly common
Organisations need to deal with environmental changes with appropriate strategies. First, organisations may choose to wait and see. Such strategy has its advantages and disadvantages. For example, facing a significant technological change, some companies may choose to integrate the new technology into their products. If they are successful, the rest companies’ ‘wait and see’ strategy is obviously unwise. However, if they failed, the rest companies’ ‘wait and see’ strategy appears wise. As a result, strategic decision making is impacted on and opportunities may either be lost or capitalised on.
Second, organisations may choose to change in response to environmental changes through either proactive or reactive. Proactive change involves actively attempting to make alterations to the work place and its practices. Companies that take a proactive approach to change are often trying to avoid a potential future threat or to capitalize on a potential future opportunity. Reactive change occurs when an organization makes changes in its practices after some threat or opportunity has already occurred in the external environment. As an example of the difference, assume that a hotel executive learns about the increase in the number of Malaysians who want to travel with their pets. The hotel executive creates a plan to reserve certain rooms in many hotel locations for travelers with pets and to advertise this new amenity, even before travelers begin asking about such accommodations. This would be a proactive response to change because it was made in anticipation of customer demand. However, a reactive approach to change would occur if hotel executives had waited to enact such a change until many hotel managers had received repeated requests from guests to accommodate their pets and were denied rooms. In reality, companies may use a combination of both proactive and reactive approaches. Proactive approach is highly common