Do They Have To Abandon Their Features?

After reading my classmates' new blog post, I find the Master The Art of Adaptation is a hot topic for this week. On one hand it is based on this week's reading. On the other hand, every organization, not only non-profit organizations, need to adapt to changes. Administrators always have interests in talking about this.

In Forces for Good, the author mentions one point that "larger organizations become mired in bureaucracy or stuck in old ways of approaching social change that no longer work. They fail to recognize that the world is changing around them, and they are unable to modify their programs and tactics on the basis of signals received from the external environment or from key stakeholders". And one reason for adaption is "they must work outside the boundaries of their individual organizations to achieve greater impact."

In PI project, I add criteria: whether organizations could provide their goals, whether organizations could provide their long-term and short-term development plan, and whether organizations could adapt their short-term adapt to the social changes or other new trends. I think this is another way to evaluate their accountability in operation. But I still notice that, these kinds of evidences are difficult to find out. In other words, some changes are too small to be noticed.

In the same time, I have a new question: what can be changed and what cannot be changed, except their missions. Author also mentions that. Some organizations succeed for their special features. Personally, how do you think what can be changed or kept to "keep a balance"? Any examples?