Model for Assessing Adaptive Effectiveness Development

Model for Assessing Adaptive

Effectiveness Development

Charlene Smithn, Claretha Jenningsnn, Nancy Castronnn

The purpose of this manuscript is to propose a Model for Assessing Adaptive Effectiveness(MAAE), to analyze an organisation’s response system for contingency or disruptive/crisisevents. The model will place emphasis on identifying and connecting the relationships betweenvariables in the organisation affected by the lack of a strategic contingency plan and will designmanagerial strategies for those times of disruption or crisis. The MAAE model will provide theorganisation with a systematic approach to manage disruption and to be proactive rather thanreactive. Leadership is a critical element in any crisis, this model will address how leaders caninfluence situations when human, and technical systems go awry.

Introduction

Mitroff (2004) differentiates between Crisis Lea-dership (CL) and Crisis Management (CM). Cri-sis Leadership ‘‘recognizes the need to managethese four factors before, during, and after a crisis.The before phase of CL consists of performing apre-crisis audit of strengths and vulnerabilities ofan organisation . . . the during phase involvesenactment of pre-crisis capabilities . . . theafter phase involves a reassessment of one’scrisis performance so as to implement new CLprocedures that will be more effective in meetingfuture crises’’ (Mitroff, 2004:5). The MAAE modeldeveloped will provide an organisation thesesteps to prepare, enact and reassess the plan forcontingencies.

In organisations large and small, everyday ofbusiness presents a potential for a crisis to occurand disrupt the standard way of doing things. AsRike stated, ‘‘everyday, there is a chance thatsome sort of business interruption, crisis, disaster,or emergency will occur’’ (2003: 25). Leadershipin an organisation is responsible for preparing theorganisation for the unexpected. Albright (2004)stated, information gathered external to an orga-nisation serves as a key guide for managerswithin the organisation to use in future planning.It can also evaluate an organisation’s strengthsand weaknesses in response to external (andinternal) threats and opportunities.

When assessing the organisation and develop-ing a plan for contingencies leaders should askthemselves the following questions as stated byWeick and Sutcliffe: ‘‘Why didn’t I know’’, ‘‘Whydidn’t my advisors know’’, ‘‘Why wasn’t I told’’,and ‘‘Why didn’t I ask?’’ (2001: 86). Weick andSutcliffe’s questions indicate that the process ofhaving a contingency plan is one that is on-going

and continuous. We have provided a model thatguides the leadership to have an ongoing strate-gic plan that involves reassessing the plan con-tinuously. Rike stated, ‘‘Too few organisations areprepared for the emergencies that wait just offstage-their entrances are unrehearsed, but theywill happen’’ (2003: 25). The MAAE will helporganisations be prepared, an increase thechances for longevity in operations. Weick andSutcliffe stated, ‘‘Better coping means fewerpressing problems’’ (2001: 50).

Model for Assessing AdaptiveEffectiveness

The Model for Assessing Adaptive Effectivenessis a model for organisations to use to plan forcontingencies or disruptions (Figure 1). Themodel helps an organisation develop a strategicplan that helps to assess continuously adaptiveorganisational effectiveness. The model has acontinuous flow of assessing the organisation,adapting, developing a strategic plan and asses-sing again. Albright stated, ‘‘Environmental scan-ning is not a stagnant process. It should beconstant and ongoing in order to maintain apreparative stance as environmental influencesarise’’ (2004: 40).

The first step to the model is to assess theorganisations ability to adapt, address, and assessdisruptions and crises. Rike stated, ‘‘in orderto allocate appropriate funds for developingprograms to prepare, protect and recover fromdisaster, there must be an adequate risk assess-ment’’ (2003: 28). The process of assessing in-volves identification of potential problems in theinternal environment and the external environ-ment. Albright stated, ‘‘Environmental scanning

nCEO of Calm Day Spa Inc.,TexasnnGovernment Contracting Of-ficial, United States ArmynnnInformation TechnologyConsultant (strategic technol-ogy management), Massachu-

settsAll three authors are DoctoralStudents, University of Phoe-nix, Doctor of Management inOrganisational Leadership Pro-gram, Arizona, 4605 East Elm-

wood Street, Phoenix, AZ85040 E-mail: [email protected]

r 2005 The AuthorJournal compilation r 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA, 02148, USA Volume 13 Number 3 September 2005

MODEL FOR ASSESSING ADAPTIVE EFFECTIVENESS DEVELOPMENT 129

reduces the chance of being blind-sided and re-sults in greater anticipatory management’’ (2004:40). In the external environment, Albright statedseveral external environments that may affect anorganisation. These can be grouped into cate-gories including social, regulatory, technological,political, economic and industrial,’’ (2004: 40).

The assessment also includes an internal audit.Weick and Sutcliffe stated, ‘‘The survival of highreliability organisations depends on reliable per-formance under conditions of constant surprise’’(2001: 89). We recommend in this step thatmanagement use Weick and Sutcliffe’s nine-step audit to create mindfulness in the organisa-tion about the unexpected. Weick and Sutcliffestated, ‘‘Use the survey results to diagnose areasthat need specific attention and formulate anaction plan’’ (2001: 113).

The formulation of a strategic plan shouldinvolve the use of Lewin’s Force Field Analysissince external and internal forces evaluated in theassessment of the organisation. Managers canuse this tool to diagnose situations and makedecisions to develop a strategic action plan. Bol-man and Deal stated, ‘‘Most organisations parti-cularly in the business world devote considerableeffort to developing strategy, which is the deter-mination of long-range goals and objectives of anenterprise, and the adoption of courses of actionand allocation of resources necessary for carryingout these goals’’ (2003: 62).

The action plan is available so that it is peri-odically up to date. Rike stated, ‘‘a standardformat should be developed . . . There should beprocedures that allow key personnel to reviewthe plan on a regular basis’’ (2003: 29). In theMAAE model, there is always an ongoing assess-ment of the organisations ability to work through

disruption or disasters. Rike stated, ‘‘It is essentialthat the plan be tested and evaluated on a regularbasis – at least annually’’ (2003: 30). By testing theplan, having the employees go over procedureson a regular basis, it can minimize disruptions tothe operations of the organisation (Rike, 2003).

Once any disruption occurs, there is a need toanalyze what happened and what can be better.In the U.S. Army there is always an After ActionReport (AAR) conducted after any event, plannedor unexpected. In this process, all participantsanswer what went well and what did not work.At this point in the AAR, it is appropriate for themodel attributed to Churchill, is also in usewithin the organisations’ after action report.

Weick and Sutcliffe stated, ‘‘Churchill’s auditconsisted of four questions: ‘‘Why didn’tI know’’, ‘‘Why didn’t my advisors know’’,‘‘Why wasn’t I told’’, and ‘‘Why didn’t I ask?’’ ’’(2001: 86). In the assessment phase after theevent managers should be asking these questionsto get a good idea of what can improve and willhelp the organisation be better prepared for thenext disruption in the organisation. The Modelfor Assessing Adaptive Effectiveness (MAAE) iscircular in shape because the process is on-goingand constant. It provides an effective process forthe proactive organisation to be prepared for theunexpected. Mitroff stated, ‘‘The need for prepa-ring for crises has never been greater’’ (2004: 14).

Other elements for effective planning of dis-ruption or crisis are the organisations’ ability tolearn, the ability to develop teams, and to haveethical leadership. Senge stated, ‘‘Learning orga-nisations are where people continually expandtheir capacity to create results they truly desire,where new and expensive patterns of thinkingare nurtured, where collective aspiration is setfree, and where people are continually learning tosee the whole together’’ (1990: 3). This sets thebasis for developing a good team and a learningorganisation that can respond to disruption andcrisis. Ethical leadership in an organisation isnecessary for the survival of the organisationthrough a disruption or crisis. Crisis leadershipis ethical and spiritual leadership of the highestform. Sample stated, ‘‘In the end the failure ofcrisis leadership is a profound failure of ethicaland spiritual leadership of the highest forms’’(2003: 110).

How to Analyze Organisation’sResponse Systems

The MAAE model highlights the conditions thatthreaten the survival of organisations. The abilityto analyze an organisation’s response system willhelp with the management of contingency anddisruptive events. Weick and Sutcliffe contendedorganisations must have a clear understanding of

Figure 1: Illustrative tool for assessing adaptive or-ganization effectiveness. The MAAE identifieswhether or not an organization has the strategic stepsnecessary for an effective approach to manage con-tingency or disruption.

130 JOURNAL OF CONTINGENCIES AND CRISIS MANAGEMENT

Volume 13 Number 3 September 2005r 2005 The AuthorJournal compilation r 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

what work’s right in order to become aware ofunforeseen events and unexpected problems,‘‘People act with flexibility earlier rather thanlater, when it is easier to correct deviations andwhen there are more possible courses of action.Later on, when the problem grows bigger, one’schoice of solutions is constrained,’’ (2001: 89).

To analyze an organisation’s response systemthe focus will be on how the organisation adaptsto cope effectively with the unexpected. Weickand Sutcliffe added these processes categorizeorganisation activities under two central areas offocus: (1) awareness and anticipation of theunexpected, and (2) containment of those unex-pected events that occur (2001: 159). We haveselected the following suggestions Weick andSutcliffe has outlined to analyze an organisation’sresponse system with the MAAE model. Thesesuggestions provide an opportunity to assess theorganisations’ contingency efforts in strategicplanning and their ability to adapt operations tounforeseen events (Table 1).

This approach in the MAAE model adds to thecredibility and productivity of an organisation tosecure its survival. Brody confirmed three devel-opments in American society threaten the survi-val of every organisation: (1) organisational, (2)social, and (3) demographic. ‘‘Organisations’responses will determine their credibility andgovern their productivity. Credibility and produc-tivity, in turn, will govern which will survive’’(1988: 15). Brody added survival in every case is afunction of how the organisation identifies thesetwo factors: (1) recognition of the problem and(2) organisational commitment to the solutions.The impact of these two features consumes theability for an organisation to conserve their sur-vival in any environment.

An organisation’s environment is receptive tohuman and technical resources contributing tothe pressure of organisational, social and demo-graphic productivity. Organisations with a com-mitment to long-term, hands on organisationalchange, assume the responsibility for their per-formance. When organisations tackle a new set ofchallenges, the actions must be satisfied withindividual as well organisational purpose. Brodycontended to succeed the challenges: (1) organi-sations must confirm to new standards of re-sponsibility imposed on organisations by socialsystems to demonstrate social responsibility, and(2) organisations must be prepared to competefor human resources where social change is achallenge by economic and intergenerationalconflict (1988: 21).

Determining Relationships betweenVariables in Organisational Life

The cyclical nature of the MAAE model high-lights that the relationships between the variables

in organisations contribute to the effectiveness ofan organisation’s life cycle. Weick and Sutcliffecontends what is different across organisationsare variables that account for people, knowledge,and top management support. How much valuepeople place on catching the unexpected devel-opments earlier rather than later, how muchknowledge do people have of the system and itscapacity to detect and remedy early indicationsof trouble, including how much support is therefrom top management to allocate resourcesto manage the unexpected, are all variables con-tinuous in the organisation environment (2001:20–21).

Drucker contended the true lesson of organi-sation crisis is different from the traditionalmeans to find the one right answer; instead,human performance is both its goal and its test(1975: 36). These variables in organisations oper-ate on an ongoing basis and require attention tomanage contingency and cope with disruption.With increased demands in the organisationenvironment, there is now growing attention tothe complex nature of key variables central toorganisational life cycles. We have adapted thefollowing organisational design principles ofDrucker (1975) as an approach to determiningthe relationships between variables in organisa-tional life.

Drucker (1975) concluded viewing the rela-tionships between variables in organisationsidentify the principal tasks of management thatinitiate organisation structure. This examinesthree types of work. (1) the operating task,responsible for producing results of today’s busi-ness; (2) the innovative task, creates the com-pany’s tomorrow; and (3) the top-managementtask, provides vision and sets the course for thebusiness of today and tomorrow (1975: 30–31).As all three are connected ingredients of theorganisation, Drucker’s design also highlightsthe relationships between variables in organisa-tional life that satisfy the need for structure:

� Clarity: Is the organisation position insideclear?

� Economy: Is the organisation effort one that isto maintain control and minimize friction?

� Direction of vision: How does the organisa-tion work toward the product rather than theprocess, and the result rather than the effort?

� Understanding: Does each organisationalmember understand his or her task in theorganisation as a whole?

� Decision-making: How does the organisationfocus on the right issues, is action oriented,and is carried out at the lowest possible levelof management?

� Stability: Is the organisation rigid, can they sur-vive turmoil, and adaptability to learn from it?


r 2005 The AuthorJournal compilation r 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Volume 13 Number 3 September 2005

Tab

le1:

Th

ree

key

area

sof

the

MA

AE

Mod

elar

eh

igh

ligh

ted

toan

alyz

ean

orga

nis

atio

n’s

resp

onse

syst

emin

(1)

Con

tin

gen

cyE

ffor

ts,

(2)

Str

ateg

icP

lan

nin

g,an

d(3

)A

dapt

Ope

rati

ons.

Qu

esti

ons

adap

ted

from

Wei

ckan

dS

utc

liff

e,20

01

Ass

ess

Co

nti

ng

ency

Eff

ort

s

Aw

aren

ess

tovu

lner

abil

ity

incr

ease

so

pp

ort

un

itie

sfo

rle

arn

ing

and

isce

ntr

alto

reli

able

,fa

ilu

re-f

ree

per

form

ance

:

Isth

eo

rgan

isat

ion

han

ds-

on

wit

hit

sw

ork

forc

e?H

asth

eo

rgan

isat

ion

crea

ted

anaw

aren

ess

of

vuln

erab

ilit

y?H

asth

eo

rgan

isat

ion

asse

ssed

the

wo

rkp

lace

envi

ron

men

tto

ask

peo

ple

,w

hat

isri

sky

her

e?S

urf

acin

gu

niq

ue

kn

ow

led

ge

iden

tifi

esth

eu

sefu

lo

utc

om

eso

fin

form

atio

nex

chan

ge:

Has

the

org

anis

atio

nfo

cuse

do

np

roce

ssm

ech

anis

ms

such

asb

rain

sto

rmin

gan

dn

om

inal

gro

up

tech

niq

ue

toen

cou

rag

ep

eop

leto

ask

qu

esti

on

san

dre

veal

info

rmat

ion

no

tw

idel

ysh

ared

?

Str

ateg

icP

lan

nin

gT

esti

ng

exp

ecta

tio

ns

isan

un

der

stan

din

go

fo

rgan

isat

ion

even

ts:

Has

the

org

anis

atio

nte

sted

thei

rex

pec

tati

on

s?C

anth

eo

rgan

isat

ion

spo

tsh

ort

fall

s?H

ow

do

esth

eo

rgan

isat

ion

spo

tex

pec

tati

on

sth

atd

on

ot

pan

ou

t?T

reat

ing

all

un

exp

ecte

dev

ents

asin

form

atio

nis

ad

ata

po

int

for

lear

nin

g:

Do

esth

eo

rgan

isat

ion

trea

tu

nex

pec

ted

even

tsas

info

rmat

ion

and

shar

eth

isin

form

atio

nw

idel

y?

Ad

apt

Op

erat

ion

sR

efre

shin

g,

ren

ewin

g,

and

reje

ctin

gp

roce

du

res,

enca

psu

late

new

org

anis

atio

nex

per

ien

ce,

thu

sju

stif

yin

gco

mp

lace

ncy

and

rig

idit

y:

Do

esth

eo

rgan

isat

ion

revi

seex

isti

ng

mo

del

so

rex

isti

ng

org

anis

atio

nal

pra

ctic

es?

Sys

tem

sb

eco

me

mo

revu

lner

able

toco

stly

dis

rup

tio

nif

they

fail

toad

dre

ssh

eig

hte

naw

aren

ess

toex

pec

tati

on

s:

Do

esth

eo

rgan

isat

ion

spec

ify

the

bu

rden

of

pro

of?



� Perpetuation and self-renewal: Is the organi-sation able to produce tomorrow’s leadersfrom within, helping each person developcontinuously, with a structure open to newideas? (1975: 31).

While the MAAE model emphasizes these con-cepts identify and connect the relationships be-tween organisational life that are impacted by thelack of contingency planning, Sapriel noted to beeffective, the organisational objective should bebetter prepared and one that is capable of re-sponding to new risk. ‘‘This is even more criticalwhen considering the ever more complex orga-nisations, with regular restructuring, mergers andacquisitions and investments taking place, thatoccur in the business world. This can only beachieved by working in an integrated way,’’(2003: 349).

Identifying if Organisation hasStrategic Steps Planned

An organisation experiences various stages as itprogresses throughout its lifecycle similar topeople, products, markets and societies (Adizes,1979). In an effort to ensure an effective andefficient life for an organisation, we recommendutilizing the Produce, Administer, Entrepreneur-ial, and Integration (PAEI) model. The modelallows the organisation to foresee potential pro-blems, to assess manager’s decision-makingstyle, analyze and predict behavioural patternsof managers and employees, after treatment forcontinued success (Adizes, 1979).

The model recognizes each stage of the life-cycle present distinct behavioural patterns andrecommends treatment accordingly. For an orga-nisation to endure for the short and long termrequires implementation of all four roles of thePAEI model (Adizes, 1979). As the organisationprogress from one stage to the next, differentroles and different role combinations producedifferent behavioural patterns. The PAEImodel identifies the role most applicable for thefollowing developmental stages: The CourtshipStage, The Infant Organisation, The Go-GoStage, The Adolescent Organisation, The PrimeOrganisation, The Mature Organisation, The Ari-stocratic Organisation, Bureaucracy, and Death(Adizes, 1979).

The Courtship Stage incorporates the entre-preneur role. The founders seek to focus theirideas as they try to start a new firm and considerthe type of business, facilities, equipment, andemployees to hire. Through social networking,the founders seek to develop strong ties to facil-itate trust and emotional support, while main-taining weak ties to ensure heterogeneity ofinterests and ideas (Granovetter, 1973). The di-versity of social ties increases knowledge through

access to information and resources, includingtechnical experts. As the founders continue tosale their idea to others through social network-ing, it reinforces their commitment to the con-cept. The founder’s commitment becomes vital tothe organisation, especially as it progresses to thenext stage or The Infant Organisation.

The Infant Organisation incorporates the pro-duce role as the entrepreneur role declines. Dur-ing this stage, the organisation incurs expensesand risks to produce results in a hostile environ-ment. The organisation operates in a centralizedmanner with few policies, systems, procedures,or budgets. Since the organisation lacks operat-ing capital, it remains vulnerable to externalpressures. The probability of mistakes in productdesign, sales, service, or financial planning, in-creases, as resources do not permit a well-balanced team for making decisions (Adizes, 1979).As the manager focuses on actual accomplish-ments or short-term pressures, it compromisesthe long-term opportunities. If management suc-ceeds in forecasting long-range opportunities, itincreases the probability of progressing to thenext stage or The Go-Go stage. The recommen-dation for treating the problems associated withThe Courtship Stage and The Infant OrganisationStage involves establishing a small advisoryboard with a lawyer, accountant, friends, and em-ployees to provide guidance without limitingthe freedom of the founder to function (Adizes,1979).

The Go-Go Stage incorporates the produceand the entrepreneur roles. This stage allowsflexibility and intuitive decision-making, therebypermitting an organisation to focus on its vision.The organisation moves very fast and attempts toprioritize every opportunity, thereby running therisks of exhausting its capital or failing to estab-lish systems, procedures, and policies to detachthe founder’s personal judgment from the deci-sion-making process (Adizes, 1979). Eventuallythe organisation comes to the realization someopportunities are actually threats and destructiveto the growth of the organisation after experien-cing several bad investments.

While the Infant Organisation required a closercommitment from the founder known as thefounder’s trap, this type of relationship is dys-functional during this stage (Adizes, 1979). Tominimize the impact of the founder’s trap, theorganisation must increase the administrativerole to progress to the next stage or The Adoles-cent Organisation. The recommendation fortreating the problems associated with The Go-Go Stage involves establishing an external boardof directors to improve strategic planning, deper-sonalize the leadership, and institutionalize thepolicies of the organisation (Adizes, 1979).

The Adolescent Organisation incorporates theentrepreneur role and the administrative role,



which brings more focus to planning and coor-dination. During this stage, the two roles appearin conflict as the administrative role seeks stabi-lity and the entrepreneur role seeks change. Thisstage operates under the premise that survivaland profitability is dependent upon establishingpolicies and organisational systems (Adizes,1979). The organisation develops training pro-grams, policies and procedures at the expense oflong-term planning. While the effort expended toorganize temporarily delays short-term growth, itprovides stability and prepares the organisationfor the long-term. Provided the organisationmakes it through the conflict associated withthis stage, it progress to the next stage or ThePrime Organisation. The recommendation fortreating the problems associated with The Ado-lescent Organisation involves obtaining a con-sultant to renew commitment to the organisationas well as facilitate strategic sessions to analyzethe future, identify threats and opportunities,determine goals, and design strategies (Adizes,1979). By revitalizing commitments, one hopes toimprove personal dynamics, growth, and inter-personal relations.

The Prime Organisation incorporates the pro-duce, administer, and entrepreneur roles toachieve results, efficiency through plans andprocedures, and awareness of environmentalfactors. During this stage, sales and profits be-come stable and predictable, whereas The Go-GoOrganisation was less assuring. Nevertheless, theability to remain a prime organisation dependson the difference between the desired and ex-pected conditions. In other words, a need forchange results when management’s desires ex-ceed the expected conditions. According toAdizes (1979), age, market share, and function-ality of organisational structure affect a manager’sdesires. As the entrepreneur spirit declines, thedesire to grow and change declines and theorganisation becomes satisfied with current ef-forts. Until this point, the entrepreneur roledominated as the organisation displayed a cultureof initiative and employed people for their con-tributions. When an organisation reaches thispoint, management requests no external treat-ment to address problems because they feeleverything is operating smoothly.

The Mature Organisation incorporates theproduce, administer, and integration roles. Dur-ing this stage, the organisation becomes moreformal as it recognizes a decline in the marketand improved relationships between organisa-tional members. As organisational members im-prove their social skills, they accept new ideaswithout the adamant opposition of the past. Theneed for adapting to change, and uncertainty,decreases along with investments in R&D andmarketing research, thereby minimizing the needfor strategic planning. The minimum effort ex-

hibited by organisational members result in ac-ceptance of the status quo with a reduction in thedesire to excel or produce results.

The Aristocratic Organisation incorporates theadministration and integration roles by focusingon improved technology or training programsinstead of generating new products or penetrat-ing new markets. The organisation adopts theattitude they have been in existence too long foranything to happen to them, known as the Finzi-Contini Syndrome (Adizes, 1979). The syndromeleads managers to display a false sense of securityby relying on past successes, which prevent themfrom aggressively preparing for the future. Sincepast successes provided a heavy cash flow, theorganisation seeks growth opportunities by ex-ternal means, such as acquiring Go-Go organisa-tions. However, rituals within the Aristocraticorganisations stifle the flexibility and intuitivedecision-making of Go-Go organisations, there-by limiting creativity and revenues in preparationfor transitioning to the next stage or Bureaucracy.

The recommendation for treating the problemsassociated with the Mature and Aristocratic Or-ganisations involves utilizing the A’S/M method.The method is a proactive way to identify andsolve problems, thereby preventing the organisa-tion from transitioning beyond or rejuvenatingthem back to the Prime Organisation (Adizes,1979). It incorporates 11 phases over a two-yearperiod to effect change in organisational structure,the decision-making process, manager’s aspira-tions, and teamwork. Whereas the first five phasescreate a new consciousness and propensity tochange (Adizes, 1979), the remaining phasesfocus on organisational design, information tech-nology, strategic planning, budgeting, PAEI orga-nisational design, and incentive systems.

Over time, a declining market and revenueslead to bureaucracy within the AristocraticOrganisation. In fighting between executives,shifts the focus from creating products, develop-ing market strategy and competitors to personalsurvival and establishing layers of protection.Executives engage in a concerted effort to dis-credit and eliminate their peers for the adverseconditions of the company (Adizes, 1979).In the meantime, experienced personnel leavethe company and performance continues todecline until the demise of the company, therebyeliminating the need for the PAEI model.The recommendation for treating the problemsassociated with early stages of Bureaucracy in-volves replacing ineffective managers as well asthose that create a negative environment (sur-gery). The organisation must minimize the needto respond in this manner to prevent paralyzingthe organisation. Afterward, the A’SM modelis applicable at a higher rate than prescribedfor the Mature and Aristocratic Organisations(Adizes, 1979).



The PAEI model identifies the potential pro-blems as an organisation continues to grow andprovides the necessary treatment of therapy orsurgery. The model realizes that no one treat-ment is applicable to all stages, but depends uponthe situation or stage of development. By identi-fying symptoms early and addressing them, itprevents stagnation and allows the organisa-tion to obtain or return to a healthy state. Further-more, by assessing the problem, adapting opera-tions, and strategic planning, one is able to pro-actively deal with contingencies during each stage.

How Leaders Influence Effectively

Leadership is an ‘‘influence relationship amongleaders and their collaborators who intend realchanges that reflect their mutual purposes’’ (Rost,1991: 7). The degree of actual change in attitudesor behaviour determines the influence obtainedthrough various tactics, such as reason, emotion,inspiration, consultation, ingratiation, favours,coalitions, pressure, and coercion (Sbriberget al, 2002). Nevertheless, Robbins (1993) con-cluded a workplace study of 165 managers iden-tified the following as the most commoninfluence strategies (Sbriberg et al, 2002).

1. Reason – the use of facts and data to presentideas in a rational manner

2. Friendliness – the use of goodwill prior to arequest

3. Sanctions – the use of rewards, punishments,or threats

4. Bargaining – the use of benefits or favourswhile conducting negotiations

5. Higher authority – the use of support fromhigher management to obtain a requests

6. Assertiveness – the use of a direct and forcefulapproach

7. Coalition building – the use of support fromother organisational members

Furthermore, the survey reveals managers selectthe influence tactic based on their relative power,their objectives, their expectation of compliance,and the organisation’s culture (Sbriberg et al,2002). As the types of influence vary withinorganisations, leaders and employees must beaware of the most prevalent types within theirorganisation. Rost maintains the type of influenceutilized determines the difference between man-agement and leadership (Rost, 1991). In otherwords, leaders utilize non-coercive influence,whereas managers utilize all types of influence.

The MAAE model support there is a differencebetween management and leadership. Kotter(1996) differentiated the two by stating, ‘‘Leader-ship establishes direction, management plansand budgets; leadership aligns people, manage-ment organizes and staffs; leadership motivates

and inspires people, management controls andproblem solves’’ (Sbriberg, et al, 2002: 95). Lea-dership is an important aspect of the model forthe assessing effectiveness. Leadership to moti-vate the employees into action requires mastery.

Senge stated, ‘‘Mastery is seen as a special kindof proficiency. It is not about dominance, butrather about calling,’’ (1990: 141). Leadershipinvolves vision, ethics and the ability to continueto learn. Individual learning does not guaranteeorganisational learning but without it, no orga-nisational learning occurs (Senge, 1990). Theleadership in the organisation must be willingto go through the cycles of the model and learnfrom the experiences of disruption or crisis.

Sample stated, ‘‘[Crisis leadership] requires therebuilding of new assumptions that will allow usto confront the future – to carry on – is the task ofspirituality’’ (2003: 103). Leaders in the processof using this model must create mindfulness inthe organisation. Mitroff stated, ‘‘there are manytechniques that relate directly to managingunexpected events, such as effective people-management practices, selection, training, skillchecks, design of procedures and administrativemechanisms’’ (2003: 115).

In our MAAE model, it is important thatleadership takes the time to train the employeesin the policies and gives them the opportunity topractice responses to the unexpected events. Rike(2003) recommends the first step is to securesenior management’s support and commitment.Change in the organisation is dependent on theleadership but leadership is about collaborationand not demanding. Rost noted,

‘‘Intend means that the leaders and their col-laborators do not have to produce changes topractice leadership only intend them and thenact on that intention. The very act of initiatinga change movement marks the time whenleadership happens when any goal has beenachieved. Real connotes that changes are sub-stantive attempts to transform people’s atti-tudes, behaviours and values’’ (1991: 7).

Leaders exercise influence to demonstrate a com-mitment to the mission and goals of the organi-sation. Bell and Elkins (2004) contend there is aspecific framework for performance excellencethat offers leaders indicators on how to influenceeffectively. The criteria within the framework areadapted from the principles guiding the MalcolmBaldrige National Quality Award. Leaders whouse the National indicators do so to enable anintegrated approach to organisational manage-ment that focus on performance goals of improv-ing value to customers, improving organisationaleffectiveness and capabilities, and organisationaland personal learning. These criteria build fromcore values and concepts found in organisations



with high performance: visionary leadership,customer-driven excellence, organisational andpersonal learning, valuing employees and part-ners, agility, focus on the future, managing theinnovation, management by fact, public respon-sibility and citizenship, focus on results andcreating value, and systems perspective (Belland Elkins, 2004: 13).

The ability to influence is an action carried outby leaders to imply a mutual relationship ratherone characterized by domination, control, orinduction of compliance with the leader (Bass,1990). Influential leaders are effective when set-ting high expectations and effectively communi-cate the ability to accomplish organisationalgoals. Kerfoot affirms, ‘‘Influential leaders areconsciously aware of leading by example andpurposely model public behaviours that are de-sirable in the workplace’’ (1990: 117). How lea-ders influence effectively impact membersinternal and external of the organisational envir-onment. As a result, leadership developmentbecomes the cornerstone to identifying whetheror not an organisation has strategic stepsthat ensure a planned, systemic approach to themanagement of contingency or disruption.

The MAAE model equally considers how lea-dership influences effectively as adapted by Xa-vier (2005) to demonstrate flexibility, adaptabilityand agility in order to survive organisation crisis.Xavier contends leadership is a focus on learninghow to cope with immediate change. Key strate-gies vital to identifying leadership effectivenessinclude: (1) are organisational leaders highlyflexible and adaptable to ever-changing circum-stances, (2) are organisational leaders looking inboth internal and external places for solutions toproblems, (3) are organisational leaders leadingdifferently to be more inclusive and broader tosolve the problem (2005: 35).

Xavier adds ‘‘Change is uncertain . . . uncer-tainty breeds fear . . . fear prevents change fromoccurring. It’s a vicious cycle. Leaders who fail toplan for change will be left holding the ball longafter the game is over – and they’ve lost’’ (2005:35). These recommendations offer executives areal chance to advance in their ability to lead andlead effectively by re-evaluating how flexible theyare in their solutions to organisational disruption.

Conclusion

To survive a contingency or disruptive challenge,effective leadership is necessary to analyze theability for an organisation environment to re-spond and cope effectively with the unexpected.Drucker’s (1975) organisation design introducesthe concept of viewing the relationships betweenvariables in organisations by first identifying theprincipal tasks of top management that initiateorganisation structure. The PAEI model extends

the understanding of organisational structure bydistinguishing the developmental stages of orga-nisations. Awareness to each stage is vital toexamining the strategic steps planned in improv-ing organisation development at a time of crisis.

Leaders committed to the process of using theMAAE model must create mindfulness in theorganisation, as change is dependent on leader-ship. It is significant organisations minimize theneed to respond with modest preparedness inorder to prevent the organisation from greateradversity. As the types of leadership influencediffer within organisations, organisation mem-bers must be aware of the most widespreadevents in the organisation.

The MAAE model illustrated leadership andmanagement respond to organisational crisis.Together members focus on preparing the orga-nisation for the unexpected as information gath-ers for an initial assessment, strategic planning,and adapting operations. The model helps toassess continuously the adaptive characteristicsof the external and internal organisation envir-onment, and highlights the conditions that threa-ten the survival of organisations. The cyclicalnature of the MAAE model highlights that therelationships between the variables in organisa-tions contribute to the effectiveness of an orga-nisation’s life cycle. We recommend the MAAE asa tool for organisations to use when planning forcontingencies or disruptions.

References

Albright, K.S. (2004), ‘Environmental Scanning: Radarfor Success’, Information Management Journal,Volume 38, Number 3, May/June, pp. 38–45.

Adizes, I. (1979), ‘Organisational Passages-Diagnosingand Treating Lifecycle Problems of Organisations’,Organisational Dynamics, Volume 8, Number 1, pp.3–25.

Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leader-ship: Theory, Research, & Managerial Applications,(3rd edition), Free Press, New York.

Bell, R.R. and Elkins, S.A. (2004), ‘A Balanced Score-card for Leaders: Implications of the MalcolmBaldrige National Quality Award Criteria’, AdvancedManagement Journal, Volume 69, Number 1, Winter,pp. 12–18.

Bolman, L. and Deal, T. (2003), Reframing Organisa-tions: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, Jossey-Bass,San Francisco.

Brody, E.W. (1988), ‘Credibility and Productivity: TheNew Rules for Organisational Survival’, Public Rela-tions Quarterly, Volume 33, Issue 3, Fall, pp. 15–22.

Drucker, P.F. (1975), ‘New Templates for Today’sOrganisations’, McKinsey Quarterly, Issue 4, Au-tumn, pp. 22–37.

Granovetter, M. (1973), ‘The Strength of WeakTies’, American Journal of Sociology, Volume 78, pp.1360–1380.

Kerfoot, K.M. (1990), ‘The Manage by Power andInfluence – The Nurse Manager’s Choice’, Nursing



Economics, Volume 8, Issue 2, March/April, pp. 177–191.

Mitroff, I. (2004), Crisis leadership: Planning for theUnthinkable, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Rike, B. (2003), ‘Prepared or Not . . . That is the VitalQuestion’, Information Management Journal, Volume37, Issue 3, May/June, pp. 25–32.

Rost, J.C. (1991), Leadership for the Twenty-First Cen-tury, Praeger, New York.

Sample, S. (2002), The Contrarian’s Guide to Leadership,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Sapriel, C. (2003), ‘Effective Crisis Management: Toolsand Best Practice for the New Millennium’, Journal

of Communication Management, Volume 7, Issue 4,May, pp. 348–356.

Sbriberg, A., Shriberg, D.L. and Lloyd, C. (2002),Practicing Leadership: Principles and Applications,New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: the Art andPractice of the Learning Organisation, Doubleday,New York.

Weick, K. and Sutcliffe, K. (2001), Managing theUnexpected, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Xavier, S. (2005), ‘Are you at the top of your game?Checklist for Effective Leaders’, Journal of BusinessStrategy, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp. 35–43.



Documents

Model for Assessing Adaptive Effectiveness Development