Academic Review of the Hansen Model
Academic Review of the Hansen Model of Growth and Development (2002)
The Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS), which is now The Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey reviewed the model for enterprise growth and development I introduced in my first book, Surviving Success. Below is the Executive Summary of their 2002 report done for my firm, Blue Heron Consulting.
Executive Summary
[Organizations] "…the successful ones live with paradox, or what they call dilemmas. Those firms have to be planned yet flexible, be differentiated and integrated at the same time, be mass marketers while catering to many niches; they must introduce new technology but allow their workers to be masters of their own destiny; they must find ways to produce variety and quality and fashion, all at low costs; in short, they have to reconcile what used to be opposites, instead of choosing between them."
— Charles Handy
The project goal for the Monterey Institute of International Studies (MIIS) team was to review and provide an analysis of the Surviving Success model. In addition, the team was asked to provide a marketing pitch for the Blue Heron consulting group.
The MIIS team began their analysis of Surviving Success by researching recent organizational theories. The team reviewed current studies in organizational development, lifecycle, contingency and situational leadership and change theory as follows:
- Life-cycle models are considered because they are the closely allied with the Surviving Success model.
- Management and leadership concepts are interesting because the Surviving Success model addresses management and leadership styles in each developmental stage.
- The change management framework helps companies align their current capabilities with their strategic goals.
- Contingency theory is relevant because the Surviving Success model can only be fully understood within the framework of a dynamic business environment.
- Adaptive organizational models were considered because the Surviving Success model describes the adapting mode as a necessary platform for the niche development stage.
- Change management models are relevant because they address the breathtaking pace of change today. Market conditions for many companies are changing every two to three years, bringing with them new paradigms for the conduct of business and the creation of value. Such dramatic change creates massive new opportunity and companies must react quickly and efficiently in order to succeed.
An initial difficulty the team encountered was sifting through the voluminous material that is available on organizational and leadership theory. After initially reviewing current periodicals[1](see note) it became clear that these articles did not have the depth and comprehensiveness that the team required in order to adequately analyze the material. It therefore became necessary for the team to switch to more fundamental and original material.
The team sorted the material into some predictable categories; organizations and how they develop whether predictably or chaotically and leadership and whether leaders can or should change leadership style as dictated by the environment.
The seven criteria against which the team evaluated the Surviving Success model are efficacy, applicability, adaptability, longevity, understandability, currency and popularity. Since the models differed considerably in comprehensiveness, the team decided to consider comprehensiveness separately. The team applied a two-dimensional grid with the results from the criteria evaluation on the horizontal axis and comprehensiveness on the vertical axis. Mapped on this grid, all models fall into three of the four possible quadrants.
The Surviving Success model ranked 100 on the qualitative evaluation and out-performs most others on the comprehensive scale. The upper right quadrant reflects the competitors of Surviving Success. The bottom right quadrant contains the complementors to the Surviving Success model. Two models stand out from the rest: The Flamholtz’ seven-stage organizational development model and the Charles Handy’s curve lifecycle model. The team saw these two models as providing additional conceptual value to Surviving Success.
The team concluded that integration is the strength of the Surviving Success model. It is this integration of organizational dynamics with leadership style, market and product development theories that makes the model intriguing. However, the absence of a methodology to constantly renew the organization is a shortcoming the Handy and Flamholtz’ models attempt to remedy.
In all, Surviving Success delivers the road map it promises. Well-grounded in traditional theoretical constructs, the Surviving Success model describes the development of the organization and its leadership and provides a pathway that is at once dynamic and stable.
Surviving Success holds up well under analysis. Avoiding the pop culture trap, it is a solid work that packs the staying power it needs to remain current for some time to come.
The MIIS team recommends enhancements to the model to address the issue of hyper competition
and change and to provide a map for recreating the organization at appropriate intervals.
Regards,
The Monterey Institute of International Studies
Team Members
- Journal of Managerial Psychology; Harvard Business Review; Academy of Management Journal; Academy of Management Executive; Academy of Management Review; Administrative Science Quarterly; Administrative Management; Business Process Management Journal; Business Management; Journal of Marketing; European Journal of Innovation Management; European Business Review; Journal of Management
