International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development

Volume 11, Issue 1, June 2025, Pages 7-21

Adaptive-dynamic Cycle for Future Business Models

DOI: 10.18775/ijied.1849‑7551‑7020.2015.112.2001
URL:https://doi.org/10.18775/ijied.1849 7551 7020.2015.112.2001

¹Stefan Tewes

¹FOM University of Applied Sciences, Essen, Germany

Abstract:

This article develops a cyclical-adaptive model of organizational development, the adaptive-dynamic cycle, based on systemic, resilience theory and organizational theory. Based on the insight that organizations are not static but living and dynamic systems, the text argues against linear growth models and is in favor of a cyclical development approach in four phases: Innovation, Growth, Preservation, and Crisis - each divided into two sub-phases. The cycle not only describes typical patterns of organizational dynamics but also serves as an orientation, strategy, and transformation system for companies in the technosocial world of work. The theoretical derivation is based on classic models of resilience and systems research. The application of the model shows how organizations can systematically strengthen their transformation readiness, actively shape change, and use crises productively for renewal.

Keywords: Organizational development, systems theory, transformation, innovation, future management

2. Introduction

Organizations are not static entities. They are living, open systems that are in constant interaction with their environment (Luhmann, 1987; Senge, 1990). In an increasingly complex, uncertain, and dynamic world, it is no longer enough to create stability through planning. Instead, companies are required to develop adaptively, with foresight, and in cycles. Traditional strategic logic based on predictability, linear progress, and predictable value creation is becoming less effective in the face of far-reaching technological, social, and ecological transformations (Mintzberg et al., 2005; Reeves et al., 2015).

A key driver of this development is the technosocial co-evolution of people, technology, and organization. The working world of the present and future is no longer purely technological but is created in the interplay between digital infrastructures, social expectations, and cultural patterns (Brynjolfsson & McAfee, 2014; Zuboff, 2019, Tewes &Muschiol, 2024). Automation, artificial intelligence, and digital platforms not only change processes but also raise fundamental questions about meaning, identity, and creative power in organizations. The result is a new reality: a technosocial world of work in which traditional management tools, organizational models, and control logics are increasingly reaching their limits (Schnalzeret al., 2021).

In this context, systemic thinking is becoming increasingly important. Companies are no longer seen as machines that are controlled by clear input-output relationships but as complex, adaptive systems with multiple interdependencies (Meadows, 2008; Arnold & Wade, 2015). This way of thinking forms the basis for future-oriented management that focuses not only on reaction but also on conscious design under uncertainty (Rhisiart et al., 2015). The search for stability is replaced by the ability to think in cycles. As a result, the ability to not only anticipate the future but to actively shape it, is becoming a key success factor (Rieckmann, 2012; Spiegel et al., 2021). This requires new skills at an individual and organizational level: cultural learning ability, participative leadership, systemic spaces for reflection, and a new understanding of transformation - not as a project, but as a permanent state. Organizations must learn not only to react to change but to see adaptability itself as a strategic asset.

The Adaptive-dynamic Cycle picks up on these developments and translates them into an orientation, strategy, and transformation model for organizations in the technosocial world of work. It describes central phases that can be passed through cyclically, dynamically, and interlinked. The aim is not to develop organizations towards a target image but to enable them to respond continuously and reflexively to changes - and to further develop their identity in the process.

2. Literature Review

Companies and complex systems typically go through recurring phases of development and must behave resiliently in dynamic environments. Resilience was originally defined by C. S. Holling (1973) in ecology as the ability of a system to maintain its basic functioning despite disruptions. In contrast to a static understanding of stability, in which systems return to equilibrium after disturbances, the concept of resilience emphasizes the existence of several stable system states. When stress limits are exceeded, so-called bifurcations can occur - abrupt changes in system behavior that lead to a completely new state of order. This perspective focuses on uncertainty, sudden turning points, and the interplay between slow and fast variables in the system (Holling, 2001; Walker et al., 2004).

In the further development of this theory, Walker et al. (2004) differentiated the resilience capacity of a system into three dimensions: Resilience in the narrower sense (the ability to return to the same state after a disruption), adaptive capacity (the ability to actively shape the state within the given system) and transformative capacity (the ability to initiate a new system when the existing one is no longer viable). This distinction is increasingly being applied to social systems, particularly organizational systems, in which the ability to actively shape change is essential.

Based on these assumptions, Holling developed the concept of the adaptive cycle in the late 1970s, which describes four typical phases of system development: Exploitation (r-phase), Conservation (K-phase), Release (Ω-phase), and Reorganization (α-phase). The r-phase is characterized by rapid growth and the development of resources. In the K phase, structures are consolidated, resources are accumulated and processes are made more efficient. With increasing efficiency, however, system inertia also increases. The subsequent Ω-phase describes a collapse or crisis in which the system is destabilized. In the α phase, the system reorganizes itself and new structures and innovations emerge. The cycle begins anew - but often at a new stage of development (Holling, 2001).

This model was later expanded as part of the panarchy theory (Gunderson & Holling, 2002). Panarchy describes a hierarchical structure of nested adaptive cycles at different scale levels - from micro-processes to macro-structural units. An essential element is the interdependence of these levels: A crisis in a subsystem can influence larger systems (revolt effect), while stable macrosystems can provide orientation and resources in times of crisis (remember effect). In organizational contexts, this means that while an innovation project can transform an entire department or even thewhole organization, the overarching corporate culture can, conversely, have a stabilizing or even inhibiting effect on local changes (Allen et al., 2014).

Business management and organizational research have also produced cyclical models that are compatible with resilience research. An early example is the phase model by Lievegoed (1973), later expanded by Glasl (2016). It distinguishes four development phases of organizations: Pioneer, Differentiation, Integration, and Association phases. Each of these phases is characterized by certain management logic, forms of communication, and organizational structures. While the pioneering phase is characterized by an entrepreneurial spirit, informal structures, and a high degree of agility (strength), the differentiation phase is dominated by a growing division of labor and formalization (rationality). In the integration phase, functional and social aspects are brought together through organizational culture and overarching structures (organism). Finally, the association phase describes the opening of the company to networks, cooperation, and social responsibility (relationships with others).

Another prominent model comes from Larry E. Greiner (1972), who describes corporate development as a sequence of growth phases, each of which is interrupted by specific crises: Creativity leads to a leadership crisis, management to an autonomy crisis, decentralization to a control crisis, etc. Each phase of growth creates tensions that require new structural responses. This model emphasizes the dialectic of development and disruption: crises are not exceptions, but an integral part of progress.

A more comprehensive perspective is offered by IchakAdizes' (1990) model, which distinguishes ten phases of the “corporate life cycle” - from emergence and growth to maturity and potential bureaucratization or even dissolution. Adizes emphasizes that successful companies do not remain static “in maturity”, but must be consciously led back to a prime phase through renewing measures such as innovation, acquisition, or reorganization. His analyses show how certain management styles and organizational structures can be appropriate or obstructive in different phases of life. Offshoots of these approaches are based on resilience and systems thinking. One example is the Lazy Eight model (Katzmair& Gulas, 2018; Zukunftinstitut, 2024). Here, the adaptive cycle is applied to companies and combined with aspects of strategic foresight and systemic thinking. Tewes (2014; 2020) offers an extended perspective in the context of future business models, which has developed a cyclical-dynamic action model for future business models based on systems research.

In summary, it can be said that the current state of research shows a clear tendency to move away from linear growth models towards cyclical, adaptive-dynamic management models. These emphasize the importance of non-linearity, uncertainty, interaction, and disruption. They offer an integrative framework for understanding organizations as living, learning systems whose development cannot be predicted but can, in principle, be shaped. Dealing with phases of consolidation but also with crises and disruptions, thus becomes a strategic learning process - a loop of creative destruction and renewal, as Joseph Schumpeter identified as the engine of progress.

3.Theoretical Derivation

Organizational development therefore does not follow linear patterns of progress but proceeds in phases. This insight is reflected in numerous classical and systems theory models, each of which attempts to depict patterns of organizational dynamics. To make models from resilience, adaptivity, and systems research applicable to business, a derivation for organizations is required. The “Adaptive-dynamic Cycle” according to Tewes builds on the aforementioned models and transfers their core ideas to an integrative and economically viable four-phase model.

In the following, the development of this model is derived from its central theoretical predecessors. The basis for this is the comparative overview in Table 1, which relates the key development phases to each other. Based on the commonalities presented there, it is shown why the four phases of innovation, growth, preservation and crisis represent a suitable structure for describing the development of organizations in dynamic contexts.

Figure 1: Model consideration in the context of the adaptive-dynamic cycle

Model -------------- Phase	Holling	Gunderson & Holling	Lievegoed&Glasl	Greiner	Adizes	Katzmair(Zukunftsinstitut)
Innovation	Reorganization (α)	Microcycles begin	Pioneer phase	Creativity phase	Courtship/ Infancy	Renewal
Growth	Exploitation (r)	Growth impulses spread	Differentiation phase	Growth through leadership	Go-Go	Expansion
Preservation	Conservation (K)	Structuring dominates	Integration phase	Coordination phase	Prime	Control
Crisis	Release (Ω)	Revolt &Remember	Association phase	Crisis phases	Aristocracy/ bureaucracy	Crisis

Source: Own representation

 

The adaptive cycle according to Holling (1973; 2001) describes four systemic states: Exploitation (r-phase), Conservation (K-phase), Release (Ω-phase), and Reorganization (α-phase). This dynamic is directly reflected in the four phases of the Tewes model: the r-phase corresponds to the growth phase (development and consolidation), the K-phase to the preservation phase (efficiency and regulation), the Ω-phase to the crisis phase (instability and disruption) and the α-phase to the innovation phase (experimentation and selection). The cyclical structure and the idea that stability leads to disruption form the theoretical backbone of the new model (Holling, 2001).

Panarchy expands the understanding of dynamic systems through the idea of nested cycles at different scale levels. Relevant effects such as “revolt” and “remember” show how micro changes influence macrosystems and vice versa (Gunderson & Holling, 2002). The adaptive-dynamic cycle adopts this view by understanding organizations as multidimensional systems whose individual areas (e.g. departments, teams) can be in different phases and thus generate interactions that need to be managed systemically.

The organizational development model by Lievegoed and Glasl (2016) differentiates between four development phases: Pioneer, Differentiation, Integration and Association phases. These are integrated in Tewes' model: The pioneering phase is reflected in the innovation phase, differentiation in the growth phase, and integration in the preservation phase. The association phase is partly compatible with the idea of crisis management and reorganization if it is interpreted as a conscious opening to the environment in a phase of change (Glasl&Lievegoed, 2016).

Greiner's (1972) model describes growth phases of organizations, each of which is interrupted by specific crises. Each phase requires a new form of leadership or structure. The adaptive-dynamic cycle explicitly integrates this logic by assuming that development never occurs without tensions and that the transition between phases is always characterized by critical turning points. In the Tewes model, structural differentiation and subsequent coordination correspond to the growth and preservation phase. The subsequent crisis is clearly reflected in the crisis phase (Greiner, 1972).

The life cycle model by Adizes (1990) describes ten phases from the birth to the possible dissolution of a company. The productive middle - in particular the Go-Go, Adolescence, and Prime phases - corresponds to the growth and preservation phase of the Tewes model. Adizes' emphasis on the need for continuous renewal to avoid bureaucratization is reflected in the basic cyclical idea of the adaptive-dynamic cycle: the system can only remain vital in the long term through conscious crisis management and reorganization (Adizes, 1990).

The Lazy Eight model (Katzmair& Gulas, 2018; Zukunftinstitut, 2024) translates the logic of the adaptive cycle to organizations. It identifies four phases: Expansion, Control, Crisis and Renewal - and emphasizes the role of “crack signals” as early warning systems for the transition between phases. The four phases of the adaptive-dynamic cycle take up this structure and supplement it with operational sub-phases that enable concrete control measures. This gives the cycle not only a narrative but also a methodical function.

In summary, the four phases of the adaptive-dynamic cycle can be understood as a systematically derived synthesis of the six models described. They integrate the cyclical logic of Holling, the system nesting of Panarchy, the evolutionary development steps of Lievegoed and Glasl, the crisis-induced turning points of Greiner and Adizes as well as the strategic early warning and transformation logic of Lazy Eight. By dividing this structure into eight sub-phases, it can be operationalized and applied to the transformation of business models in volatile, uncertain, and complex environments.

4.Adaptive-dynamic Cycle

The adaptive-dynamic cycle describes four central phases of organizational development that are linked in a recurring, non-linear cycle. Each phase is divided into two sub-phases, creating a detailed picture of the dynamics and need for action.

1. Innovation phase: Experimentation and Selection

This phase marks the beginning (or after a crisis, the new beginning) of the cycle. It corresponds to the reorganization or alpha phase in the Holling cycle, in which diversity and novelty dominate. It is often triggered by a broken old structure or a recognized new opportunity that creates room for experimentation. Accordingly, the innovation phase is divided into two sub-phases: Experimentation and selection. Initially, the sub-phase of experimentation focuses on exploratory trial and error - a moment of discovery characterized by creativity, rapid prototype testing, and iterative learning. The organization still has a low drop height here: mistakes and wrong turns are tolerable and provide valuable insights. This search stage promotes self-organization - employees contribute a wide range of ideas, small agile units experiment with new solutions and there is a culture of learning from mistakes. Promising approaches crystallize over time. In the selection sub-phase, a decision is made in favor of one or a few promising innovations that are pursued further. A new start is made with a clear focus, in which the organization now commits itself to the selected path. Although this selection limits the initial diversity, it creates commitment and visibility - the new is communicated internally and externally and receives resources. Through diverse, decentralized experiments, new solutions emerge spontaneously, of which those with the best “fit” to the environment survive. The adaptive capacity of a system is also evident here - the ability to reposition itself internally and turn ideas into concrete innovations.

3. Growth phase: Development and Consolidation

 A consolidated concept emerges from the innovation phase, which is now scaled up - the company enters the growth phase. This phase corresponds to Holling's exploitation or r-phase, in which utilization and expansion dominate. It can also be divided into two sub-phases: Development and Consolidation. In the first growth sub-phase (development), the new business approach is aggressively expanded and implemented. The company invests in market development, increases production or service provision, and tries to gain market share quickly. The aim is often to exploit an initial lead and achieve economies of scale. The results and findings developed in the innovation stage are now implemented on a broad basis and driven towards scaling. Resources often also need to be increased in this phase: Hiring new employees, raising growth capital, expanding distribution channels, etc. Once a certain size has been reached, the growth phase transitions into a consolidation sub-phase. Here, the organization is increasingly establishing structures and processes to manage the expanded business efficiently. Roles and responsibilities are allocated more clearly, internal processes are standardized and the initial chaos of rapid growth is brought into order. This consolidation secures previous profits and creates the conditions for managing further growth. In theory, this entire phase reflects the development of existing opportunities - resources are effectively used and invested to increase value creation. The organization rides the wave of innovation and continuously improves its efficiency in service delivery. A certain degree of optimization and formalization is necessary to ensure sustainable growth. However, it is crucial to keep an eye on changes in the environment despite the booming business - because the end of the growth phase is often gradual and leads to a new phase.

3. Conservation phase: Efficiency and Regulation

 After rapid growth, the system enters a phase of maturity - referred to here as the preservation phase (equivalent to Holling's Conservation or K phase). The main focus is now on efficiency, standardization and, risk control. In the first sub-phase (efficiency phase), processes are further refined, costs are optimized and the existing business model is exploited to the maximum. The organization strives for stability: proven recipes for success are applied repetitively and deviations are minimized. In the second sub-phase (regulation phase), rules, hierarchies, and routines become increasingly entrenched. You could say that the company (consciously or unconsciously) rests on its laurels and focuses on protecting the status quo. This phase is characterized by the dominance of preservation. Change is perceived as a disruption rather than an opportunity; instead, people increasingly fall back on procedures that have “always worked”. Buffers and reserves are often built up - be it financial reserves or additional security mechanisms - to counter any risks and safeguard the existing system. In this late preservation phase, the system achieves a high level of performance within the established framework, but at the same time, inflexibility increases continuously. Innovation efforts stagnate, diversity is lost and the organization tends to ignore external warning signals. Resilience in the sense of adaptability decreases, although the superficial robustness (against small fluctuations) may be high. This is precisely what Holling and colleagues describe as a potential “rigidity trap” in which a system is trapped in its stable structure. Susceptibility to crises increases with increasing rigidity - in other words, while everything seems to be regulated in everyday life, unfamiliar shocks or new trends can now hit the rigid system all the harder. Classic business life cycle models locate the “saturation” or “stagnation” phase here: sales growth flattens out, and market shares are secured, but there is a lack of new impetus. Overall, the preservation phase serves to consolidate the acquired positions and structures and to achieve maximum profitability in the existing business. Theoretically, it is characterized by a strong path dependency and positive feedback that corrects deviations - a locally stable state (attractor) that can, however, lose stability in the face of changing environmental conditions.

5. Crisis phase: Instability and Disruption

Sooner or later, the system is forced into a crisis phase by internal or external events (analogous to Holling's release or omega phase). This phase can be divided into instability and disruption. In the first sub-phase, increasing instability is noticeable. The system initially tries to react using traditional means - typically by drawing on reserves, contingency plans, and increased control to save what already exists. People convince themselves that they can overcome the difficulties by “holding out”, and perhaps even more regulation is introduced to stabilize the situation. These measures can delay the crisis, but often cannot avert it permanently. The organization enters a phase of confusion in which ambiguity and actionism prevail, but the old recipes no longer work. Finally, the actual disruption occurs: a critical point - in theory, a bifurcation point - is reached at which the old system breaks up. This is where it is decided whether the organization will make the leap to renewal or fail because of the old system. In the first case, old patterns and hierarchies are overcome, and creative destruction occurs (often painfully): central assumptions of the business model are dropped, and rigid structures are broken up. New ideas that may already have existed in the margins suddenly gain weight. Improvisation and emergent leadership (“new authority systems”) characterize this phase. If this transformation is successful, the crisis leads to a new beginning - the system reorganizes itself and re-enters the innovation phase of the next cycle. Otherwise - if the organization clings to the old and refuses to undergo the necessary transformation - there is a risk of collapse: the business model becomes obsolete, the company shrinks dramatically, or ultimately fails. In terms of resilience, the crisis phase reveals the system's ability to transform: is it capable of establishing a fundamentally new balance when the previous one is no longer viable? Companies with a high level of transformation competence use crises as a turning point to reinvent themselves, while less adaptive companies remain in crisis and may exit the market. Overall, the crisis phase fulfills an important function in the cycle: it destroys outdated structures and releases tied-up resources that are needed for innovation and adaptation in the next cycle. This closes the cycle back to the innovation phase - at a new stage of development.

Figure 2: Four phases of the adaptive-dynamic cycle

Source: Own representation

In summary, the four-phase model can be characterized as follows: Innovation phases correspond to the emerging part of the cycle, characterized by creativity and diversity; growth phases to the expanding part, characterized by exploitation and development; preservation phases to the stabilizing part, characterized by efficiency and structure; and crisis phases to the disintegrating part, characterized by fragility and disruption. Theoretical concepts such as resilience (ability to resist and adapt), polystable dynamics (several possible states of equilibrium), bifurcation (critical switching points with sudden changes) and self-organization (spontaneous formation of order by decentralized actors) have been incorporated into this model and together explain its course. In the next step, the four main phases are described in detail - with their objectives, content, typical issues and options for action for companies.

5. Application of the phases in detail

In the following, innovation, growth, preservation, and crisis are presented in detail as phases of an adaptive-dynamic corporate cycle. Each phase is then defined and described in terms of its content - including possible key questions for the organization or employees and specific actions. The actions are used to understand what measures companies can take to successfully overcome the respective phase or transition to the next one. This practical approach is aimed at specialists and managers to make the abstract cycle concepts applicable to everyday business life.

1. Innovation phase

The innovation phase marks the start of a new development cycle within the adaptive-dynamic cycle. It serves to renew and realign the system, especially after a disruptive crisis, but can also be initiated in anticipation as a strategic step to secure the future. Its overarching goal is to tap into new potential - be it through products, services, business models or process innovations. The organization looks ahead and asks itself: What could we do next that would create real benefits in the future?

In the first sub-phase - experimentation - the focus is on openness, curiosity, and the willingness to try things out. Companies use this phase to test new ideas in the form of prototypes or pilot projects. They observe the areas of untapped innovation potential and formulate hypotheses about possible customer needs, new technologies, or social trends. In agile iterations, they develop initial solutions and obtain systematic feedback to learn from them. The question is asked in a targeted manner: How can we quickly find out what works - and what doesn't? Dealing with uncertainty becomes a skill: failed attempts are not seen as failures but as part of an intentional learning process. Typical actions in this phase include setting up innovation labs, incubators, or cross-functional teams that are allowed to operate outside of day-to-day business. Internal ideas campaigns, hackathons, or future workshops also provide valuable impetus. The methods used are usually based on agile approaches such as design thinking, lean startup, or scrum. It is important that experiments are initially conceived on a small scale - for example as MVPs (minimum viable products) - and that they are protected from premature economic evaluation by means of targeted safe spaces. This creates an explorative culture of innovation that deliberately does not become entrenched in routine.

After a phase of breadth and openness, the second step - selection - involves the necessary focus. Now it is a matter of selecting those ideas that are the most promising from the company's point of view, both strategically and in terms of the market. Organizations analyse the initial feedback from tests and pilot markets, assess the compatibility with existing competencies, and check whether the available resources are sufficient to drive the project forward. The central challenge of this phase is to make decisions under uncertainty - i.e. without complete information, but with growing evidence. The key question here is: How great is the potential for scaling - and how do we measure it? To answer these questions in a structured way, many companies set up innovation portfolios that are selected according to clear criteria (e.g. market proximity, scalability, strategic fit). Innovation boards or similar committees regularly make decisions on whether to pursue or discontinue projects. They allocate resources - for example in the form of budgets, personnel, or technical infrastructure - in a targeted manner and operationally plan the transition to the next phase, i.e. growth. This transition logic demonstrates the systemic nature of the entire cycle: only when an idea is both convincing in terms of content and organizationally prepared can it be transferred to the next phase.

Overall, the innovation phase requires a conscious balance between diversity and focus, openness, and structure. It is the breeding ground for future-oriented growth - not through planning in the traditional sense, but through the cultivated interplay of exploration, evaluation, and courageous decision-making.

2. Growth phase

The growth phase follows the innovation phase and aims to transfer the previously developed ideas into implementation and broad impact. The organization begins to actively embed new ideas, products, processes or structures in relevant contexts - for example in markets, existing organizational units or strategic networks. The focus here is not only on expansion but also on the task of creating viable foundations for sustainable development. The key question in this phase is: How do we bring the new into the world effectively and sustainably?

The first sub-phase - development - is about the initial set-up: The organization introduces the new product into relevant environments in a targeted manner, for example in the form of initial product placements, the implementation of new internal processes, or the launch of strategic partnerships. Investments are made in infrastructure, personnel, or technology to prepare for growth. This phase is characterized by energy, activity, and entrepreneurial determination. At the same time, it requires the ability to react flexibly to feedback from the environment and make adjustments where necessary. The organization keeps a close eye on where the new idea resonates - and where it does not. A central feature of this phase is also increasing networking: the organization begins to strengthen its ability to cooperate - whether through internal collaboration across departmental boundaries or through targeted partnerships with external players. Building resilient relationships thus becomes an integral part of a successful development strategy.

As the new system spreads, the second sub-phase begins - consolidation. The aim now is to stabilize the established system and embed it in existing structures. What was previously built up in an agile way now needs reliability. Processes are standardized, responsibilities clarified and initial routines established. The organization asks itself: How do we create a resilient foundation on which further growth is possible - without losing our agility? A particular focus is on integration: the new elements - whether products, teams, processes, or technologies - must be incorporated into the existing organization. This involves managing cultural tensions, avoiding redundancies, and leveraging synergies. At the same time, there is a need for control: management systems, clear decision-making paths, and functional role models ensure that the increasing complexity remains manageable.

In this phase, it is important not to fall into an “administrative logic”. Consolidation does not mean bureaucratization - it means structural intelligence. The art lies in transforming dynamism into order without stifling innovation. This is only possible if the organization remains capable of learning and continues to use feedback systematically.

3.Conservation phase

The preservation phase follows the growth and marks a period of stabilization, professionalization, and internal consolidation. After the energetic development and structural expansion, the focus is now on making the organization efficient, economically viable, and controllable. These phase aims to safeguard what has been achieved, systematically optimize it, and actively manage risks - without completely losing organizational agility.

In the first sub-phase - efficiency - the focus is on operational performance. The organization reviews its processes, resource consumption and structures for effectiveness and efficiency. The central question in this phase is: How can we design our operational system in such a way that it remains efficient, resource-efficient, and reliable in the long term? A central concern is to increase cost efficiency. This includes eliminating waste - be it through superfluous steps, inefficient use of resources, or non-value-adding activities. Companies rely on proven methods such as lean management or activity-based costing. At the same time, processes are simplified and automated to shorten throughput times and reduce susceptibility to errors. In this phase, it is also exemplary that performance is increasingly measured - for example through the introduction of KPIs, dashboards, or other monitoring tools that enable data-based control.

While efficiency is aimed at the internal logic of the company, the focus in the second sub-phase - regulation - shifts to the formal safeguarding of the system. The organization asks itself: What rules, decision-making channels, and control mechanisms do we need to be able to act sustainably? The first step is to establish governance systems that set basic guidelines for the organization's actions - for example in the form of guidelines, codes, or standard procedures. These not only provide legal certainty but also clarity and orientation in everyday life. Building on this, decision-making processes are formalized: Who decides what, when, and with whom? Committee structures, role allocations, and escalation paths are defined to make complexity manageable and responsibility clear. In addition, effective control mechanisms are established - for example through internal control systems, audits, or continuous monitoring - which help to identify deviations at an early stage and minimize risks.

The challenge of the preservation phase is not to confuse stabilization with rigidity. Efficiency and regulation should not be enemies of innovation, but rather prerequisites for sustainable further development. Those who manage to combine operational excellence with structural clarity lay the foundations for resilience - and recognize early on when the next transformation is necessary.

4. Crisis phase

The crisis phase marks the point in the cycle at which existing patterns no longer work. The organization loses its balance - either gradually or abruptly. What was previously successful loses its effect; routines come to nothing. Crises are rarely caused purely externally - they often arise from a combination of internal exhaustion, structural overload, and changing environmental conditions. This phase determines whether the organization remains capable of acting or falls into rigidity - or whether it can use the crisis as a springboard for genuine renewal.

In the first sub-phase - instability - the signs of excessive demands become more pronounced. Early warning signs such as a drop in performance, increasing friction, conflicts or fluctuation become more frequent. The usual order begins to crumble. But instead of falling into an operational frenzy, what is needed now is targeted observation and systemic understanding. The organization asks itself: What is happening here - and what does this tell us about ourselves? Symptoms are consciously observed - not only at a business level but also in culture, communication, and customer behavior. At the same time, it is important to actively moderate trouble spots: Tensions and uncertainties should not be suppressed, but openly addressed and dealt with. This creates space for joint reflection and initial orientation. This phase is not about quick solutions but about inner clarification. Initial stabilization steps, such as the establishment of temporary structures (e.g. task forces), which secure ongoing operations and provide security during change, help here.

Once it has become clear that the crisis cannot be resolved with short-term measures or process maintenance, the second sub-phase begins - disruption. Here it is recognized: A deep change is necessary. What has worked for a long time no longer works - and must be let go. This moment requires courage, decisions, and the willingness to question even cherished structures. In this phase, it is crucial to consistently let go of outdated things - be it dysfunctional processes, outdated management styles, or business models that are no longer sustainable. The organization consciously asks itself fundamental questions: What are we keeping up just because it has always been this way? Or what, and if we were to start from scratch? These questions mark a break with old ways of thinking - and open up new possibilities. Building on this, a transformation architecture is developed - in other words, a change framework that thinks systemically: strategy, structure, culture, and leadership are considered together. The result is not just a change project, but a renewed self-image. The organization consciously embarks on a transition - with the aim to reinvent itself.

The crisis phase is therefore not just a passage through a disruption, but a space for insight, clarification and coming to terms with the future. Those who can shape it not only develop solutions - but also themselves.

Figure 3: Four phases of the adaptive-dynamic cycle including eight sub-phases

Source: Own representation

6. Conclusion

The Adaptive-dynamic Cycle offers a well-founded and at the same time practice-oriented answer to the growing demands of a highly dynamic world characterized by technology. Today more than ever, organizations are required to see themselves not as rigid systems, but as living, adaptive entities that have to assert themselves and develop further in changing environments. The four phases - innovation, growth, preservation, and crisis - and their two sub-phases make it possible not only to describe organizational dynamics but also to shape them in a targeted manner. It becomes clear that transformation is not a state of emergency, but a basic principle of sustainable organizations.

The theoretical foundation of the model through concepts such as resilience, systems thinking, and evolutionary organizational theory gives the cycle not only analytical depth but also methodological robustness. It shows that sustainable development is not linear, but follows patterns of development, maturity, disruption, and renewal. The phases of crisis and upheaval in particular are not a disruption, but an integral part of systemic development - and a prerequisite for radical innovation and cultural change. In practical application, the adaptive-dynamic cycle serves as a tool for reflection and control. It supports managers and decision-makers in recognizing the respective maturity level of their organization, deriving suitable options for action and actively shaping the transition to the next development phase. It thus promotes future competence at all levels: strategic, structural, cultural, and individual.

The future is not created through planning alone, but through resilient adaptivity in dealing with change. The Adaptive-dynamic Cycle provides a robust model for thinking about this - and at the same time a concrete logic for action for organizations that not only want to endure the future, but also actively shape it.

References

• Adizes, I. (1990). Corporate Lifecycles: How and Why Corporations Grow and Die and What to Do About It. Prentice Hall.
• Allen, C. R., Angeler, D. G., Garmestani, A. S., Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (2014). Panarchy: Theory and application. Ecosystems, 17(4), 578–589.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9744-2.
• Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. (2015). A Definition of Systems Thinking: A Systems Approach. Procedia Computer Science, 44, 669–678.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.03.050.
• Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. Norton.
• Lievegoed, B., &Glasl, F. (2016). DynamischeUnternehmensentwicklung: Grundlagen für nachhaltiges Change Management. Haupt.
• Greiner, L. E. (1972). Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow. Harvard Business Review, 50(4), https://ils.unc.edu/daniel/131/cco4/Greiner.pdf.
• Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press.
• Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Annual Reviews, 4(1), 1–23.
• Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems, 4(5), 390–405.
• Katzmair, H. &Gulas, C. (2018): Resilienz – Das VermögenzurErneuerung.FAS Research (Ed.): Wirtschaftspolitische Blätter, 504.
• Lievegoed, B. C. J. (1973). The developing organization. Tavistock Publications.
• Luhmann, N. (1987). Soziale Systeme: GrundrißeinerallgemeinenTheorie. Suhrkamp.
• Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.
• Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. W., & Lampel, J. (2005). Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through the Wilds of Strategic Management. Free Press.
• Reeves, M., Levin, S., & Ueda, D. (2016). The Biology of Corporate Survival. Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2016/01/the-biology-of-corporate-survival.
• Rhisiart, M., Miller, R., & Brooks, S. (2015). Learning to use the future: Developing foresight capabilities through scenario processes. TechnologicalForecasting and Social Change, 101, 124–133.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.10.015.
• Rieckmann, M. (2012). Future-oriented higher education: Which key competencies should be fostered through university teaching and learning? Futures, 44(2), 127–135.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.09.005.
• Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Random House.
• Schnalzer, K. et al. (2021). TransWork – Transformation der Arbeit durchDigitalisierung, Mütze-Niewöhner, S. et al. (Ed.): Arbeit in der digitalisiertenWelt: Praxisbeispiele und Gestaltungslösungenaus dem BMBF-Förderschwerpunkt. Springer Vieweg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62215-5
• Spiegel, P. Pechstein, A., Ternès von Hattburg, A. Grüneberg, A. (2021). Future Skills: 30 ZukunftsentscheidendeKompetenzen und wiewirsielernenkönnen. Vahlen.
• Tewes, S. (2014). Die SystemdynamischeKodiermethode– EntwicklungeinerForschungsmethodezur Exploration komplexer Modelle. Universität Duisburg-Essen.
• Tewes, S. (2020). Geschäftsmodelle neu denken. S. Tewes, B. Niestroj, & C. Tewes (Ed.), Geschäftsmodelle in die Zukunft denken. Springer, 9-20.
• Tewes, S., &Muschiol, J. (2024). Die TechnosozialeArbeitswelt. Zukunftsreport, 54–61.
• Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, Adaptability and Transformability in Social–Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), Art. 5.
• Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism – The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. PublicAffairs, https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=56791.
• Zukunftsinstitut (2024). Lazy-Eight-Modell: Verortungs-Tool für die Strategiearbeit, https://www.zukunftsinstitut.de/zukunftsthemen/lazy-eight-modell-verortungs-tool-strategiearbeit.