If you see the world as something constantly changing, you will be unable to grasp the nature of things. Greek philosophers believe that time is a constant line of events. However this view is object-centered, meaning, that here we just take a look at the object and from this we try to say something about the history, present state and future. This is not a good idea and it tells us nothing about correlations and choices which have been made.

Events are rather like fields of influences. A plant only grows at daytime and when night comes the plant rests. When we only look at the plant we will never know why it grows. Likewise certain fields of influence allow growth, others do not. And other fields make it necessary to make changes.

In your own interest I would suggest to let the Greek view go and rather concentrade on a more Jewish view. The Greek view is outdated and also wrong in many ways. Heraklit was not able to grasp the deepth of the topic. Also did the available knowledge not allow him to translate his ideas into correct concepts sharp enough, but he stranded on the island he tried to build here up. The concept of wisdom goes way deeper (don't confuse it with the idea of wisdom like defined in a Greek way), but it needs to be studied extra. Lewin might be a good introduction, also he had problems too and was restricted. Then I also recommend to read the book of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (especially chapter 3). They talk about time rather like states, comparing it to seasons.

We need a complete other language here to describe a different concept. For this we must go back to the roots and take a look at what we have missed.

Also watch this to get a feeling for the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSqyvvoHmAw

For an overview about the books watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gab04dPs_uA

On my reading, Heraclitus indicates that every organization is necessarily in a state of transformation from one stage to the next. My question is (and the answer will depend on the organization), is the transformation an evolution or a devolution?

Each event replicates the form of the previous event, but is nevertheless different. This view leads onward to the idea of atoms, conceived later. The stream is or appears the same, but is made up of independent events-each moment or event independent.

The possible point: form and event should be considered independently, appearance (form) and reality (event) are different phenomenons.

Organisational change is dependent on the events, the different day by day aspects, and those should be understood.

In fact in reality, if you change the form (a bank takes on other activities, etc) the phenomenon or events also change. If you freeze the stream, its phenomena changes. In organisational terms, each activity should reflect or remain dependent on form-but form and event remain dependent on each other.