Premium
Does organizational adaptation really matter? How mission change affects the survival of U.S. federal independent agencies, 1933–2011
Author(s) -
Boin Arjen,
Kofman Celesta,
Kuilman Jeroen,
Kuipers Sanneke,
van Witteloostuijn Arjen
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
governance
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.46
H-Index - 76
eISSN - 1468-0491
pISSN - 0952-1895
DOI - 10.1111/gove.12249
Subject(s) - adaptation (eye) , test (biology) , public administration , public relations , population , organizational ecology , field (mathematics) , political science , sociology , psychology , biology , social science , ecology , demography , neuroscience , mathematics , pure mathematics
Abstract Public administration scholars tend to take for granted that organizational adaptation is important. This common notion that public organizations must adapt to stay alive has not been put to the test in the field of public administration, however. Intriguingly, organization ecologists find that adaptation does not matter and might even be counterproductive for individual organizations. They argue that the absence of adaptation—which they refer to as structural inertia—actually enhances the likelihood of survival. But organization ecologists focus mostly on nonpublic organizations. This prompts the question whether adaptation in public organizations really matters. In this article, we test these contrasting claims (while controlling for design features) on a population of U.S. federal independent public agencies ( n = 142). Our findings suggest a subtle narrative. We conclude that proactive adaptation increases termination hazards. But inertia does not seem to significantly enhance survival chances.