MSG Team's other articles

10037 Involvement of the Franchisor in Debt Funding

In the previous article, we have already seen that it is common for sporting franchises to raise significant amounts of debt funding. We also know that there are certain special characteristics of sports franchises that need to be taken into account before giving out loans to them. One more such important characteristic of debt funding […]

9014 The Dot Com Bubble of 2001

The new age high tech generation may seem to be immune to market inefficiencies of the past. They may seem to be aware of the true value of everything because of the vast network of information that they are connected to. However, this did not stop them from falling prey to the folly of an […]

11031 Risk Management in Financial Modeling

Financial models were widely used by corporations, even in 2008. However, the severity of the 2008 crash forced financial institutions to rethink their approach towards modeling. Many assumptions which are inbuilt in a financial model were being changed to imbibe the lessons learned in the great recession. One such lesson learned was about risk management. […]

12401 What is Bank Guarantee? – Different Types of Guarantees

The scope of trade has been widely expanded in the modern world. There are many kinds of organizations, private and public which trade with each other. A lot of the time, trades happen between big and small organizations and sometimes these trades happen when both parties are present in different countries. In such cases, there […]

11047 Risks in Money Market Investing

Money market instruments are considered to be very low-risk investments. This is because the money market as an asset class is considered to have a considerably low-risk profile as compared to other asset classes such as equity and debt. The main reason for the low-risk profile is because money market instruments consist of a large […]

Search with tags

  • No tags available.

External causes are considered to be the number one reason behind the organizational decline. However, they do not work in isolation. In reality, there are many causes that exist within the organization as well. In this article, we will have a closer look at the top two internal causes which are known for causing a decline.

Cause #1: Rigidity within the Organization

Organizations are like living creatures. Hence, just like living creatures, they must constantly grow and evolve. The failure to do so is called rigidity and is one of the leading causes of organizational decline.

The rigidity can be defined as continuing to pursue policies that have been successful in the past without any regard for the current feedback being obtained from the marketplace. External changes in the marketplace can be countered if the organization changes internally as well. These internal changes are inhibited or delayed by regulatory changes. This negatively affects the process, which is required for the company to respond to external threats.

Internal rigidity prevents companies from exploring newer markets when regulatory changes affect their business. It also prevents companies from building innovative switching costs to protect themselves from changes related to competition. Most importantly, it prevents the research and adoption of newer technology.

Technological advancements happen only after a significant amount of money has been invested upfront. Internal rigidity prevents funds from being mobilized and, as a result, prevent the incumbent firm from responding effectively to organizational threats.

Most importantly, rigidity can negatively impact the ability of an organization to learn. Rigid organizations are generally struck in their glorious past. As such, they are slow to recognize the need to learn a new skill and even slower to actually learn one!

Cause #2: Lack of Innovation

Since change is the main cause of the organizational decline, it is obvious that innovation is the best strategy to face this challenge. However, the problem with innovation is that it is a difficult process. Innovation often requires trial and error. This means that firms have to make several changes to their product and distribution mix. The first few changes are likely to be wrong. Not many organizations have been able to launch a best-selling product the first time that they made a change.

The problem with organizations facing decline is that they do not have either the time or the resources. Also, studies have shown that organizations that launch multiple products at the same time face a higher risk of failure as compared to organizations that use incremental innovation.

Organizations facing decline, therefore, face a unique challenge. They need to innovate. However, they also need to be capable of rolling back the innovation if the market feedback is not that good. This is where the concept of flexible and inflexible innovation comes in.

Flexible innovation allows companies to produce new products and services to the market in which the design is such that changes can be made even after the product has been introduced to the market. On the other hand, an inflexible innovation is where companies have to invest significant resources and where they do not have too many options to make changes after the product has been introduced in the market.

Companies facing decline are in unstable markets. Hence, they are unable to predict the nature of customer demand. In such cases, committing too many resources to a single project can be risky. It can quickly become an all or nothing proposition. If the needs of the product are not as per the customer’s requirements, the company doesn’t even get a chance to change.

The best way to innovate in such scenarios is to use product architecture, where delayed differentiation is possible. This allows the same operational strategy to be used with several versions of an operational strategy.

Also, it needs to be understood that a superior product does not guarantee success. Corporate history is rife with examples wherein clearly superior products have failed. It needs to be understood that customers do not adjust to the needs of the product. It always has to be another way round.

It is important to differentiate between the above two causes. Organizational rigidity refers to the rigidity of the entire organization, whereas the innovation problem may be faced only by a particular product or service in question.

The bottom line is that scanning the external organization and identifying the threat is not enough. It is important for the organization to have a culture that allows them to change themselves and negotiate these threats quickly.

Article Written by

MSG Team

An insightful writer passionate about sharing expertise, trends, and tips, dedicated to inspiring and informing readers through engaging and thoughtful content.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Cram Down in Bankruptcy Proceedings

MSG Team

Costs Associated With Bankruptcy

MSG Team

The Conceptual View of Organizational Decline

MSG Team