Question

Read the following passage and answer the question below.

Demography of organisations, also called population ecology, is an interesting field. It proposes that organisational mortality processes depend upon the age and size of the organisation, as well as on characteristics of populations and environments. Moreover, there is evidence of an imprinting process, meaning that environmental conditions at certain early phases in an organisation's development have long-term consequences. In particular, organisations subject to intense competition have elevated mortality hazards at all ages. A central theme is structural inertia, the tendency for organisations to respond slowly relative to the speed of environmental change. A central argument holds that the inertia derives from the very characteristics that make organisations favoured actors in modern society in terms of reliability and formal accountability. It follows that changes in an organisation's core features are disruptive and increase mortality hazards, at least in the short run. Research on this subject tends to support this view. The concept of niche provides a framework of relative environmental variations and competition to population dynamics and segmentation. Much empirical work examines the niches of organisational populations in terms of dimensions of social, political, and economic environments. Most research in this field builds on theories of resource partition and of density dependence. Resource-partitioning theory concerns the relationship between increasing market concentration and increasing proliferation of specialists in mature industries. The key implication of this theory concerns the effects of concentration on the viability of specialist organisations, those that seek to exploit a narrow range of resources. The theory of density-dependent organisational evolution synthesizes ecological and institutional processes. It holds that growth in the number of organisations in a population, density, drives processes of social legitimatisation and competition that, in turn, shape the vital rates.

Question: Most top-notch business consultants recommended changing the entire configuration of an organisation's strategy, structure and systems. If the ideas contained in the passage are agreed to, then such a recommendation:

• A. tends to rejuvenate the organisation.
• B. tends to make the organisation more aligned to the external environment.
• C. tends to increase the competitiveness of the organisation by redefining its core competence.
• D. tends to increase the vulnerability of the organisation.

Hint:

Connect the recommendation to the passage's idea of structural inertia and what happens when core features change all at once.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The passage argues that organisations resist change, called structural inertia, and that changing an organisation's core features is disruptive and raises its short-run mortality hazard. We are told that consultants recommend changing the entire configuration, strategy, structure, and systems together, of an organisation. We must judge the effect of such a sweeping change if the passage's ideas are accepted.

Step 2: Key Concept or Approach:
The passage states directly that changes in an organisation's core features are disruptive and increase mortality hazards, at least in the short run. Strategy, structure, and systems are exactly the kind of core features the passage is talking about, so changing all three together is the most extreme version of this disruption the passage describes.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
Option 1, that this rejuvenates the organisation, goes against the passage, which treats sweeping core change as disruptive and risky, not restorative.
Option 2, that it aligns the organisation better to its external environment, may be the consultants' intention, but the passage does not say the change will succeed in doing this, it warns instead about the mortality risk the attempt itself creates.
Option 3, that it increases competitiveness by redefining core competence, again assumes the change works out well, which the passage gives us no basis to assume, its concern is with the risk of change, not its eventual payoff.
Option 4, that it increases the organisation's vulnerability, matches the passage directly: changing core features, strategy, structure, systems, is disruptive and raises mortality hazards, which is exactly what increased vulnerability means.

Step 4: Final Answer:
Changing the entire configuration of strategy, structure, and systems together increases the organisation's vulnerability, following directly from the passage's claim about structural inertia and mortality hazards.
\[ \boxed{\text{Increases the vulnerability of the organisation}} \]