Osemeka Anthony
ID UAD7638HBY14286
Organizational development and change
(Course Work)
PhD in Psychology
Atlantic International University
School of Social and Human Studies
Table content
Table of content------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
Introduction-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------3
Overview of Organizational Development-----------------------------------------------4-7
New framework for Organizational Development--------------------------------------8-9
The definition of Organizational Development------------------------------------------9-10
Characteristics of Organizational Development-----------------------------------------10-16
Case history-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------16-17
Organizational Development functions in Organization--------------------------------17-19
Understanding of Organization-------------------------------------------------------------19-21
Systems and Processes-----------------------------------------------------------------------21-22
Organizational Development as a data-driven processing action research------------23-24
Organizational Development as a normative process-------------------------------------24-25
The role of data in the consulting process--------------------------------------------------26-29
OD initiative-A case study of Bankers Institute of Rural Development (BIRD) -----29-42
Organizational Development as tool system approach to change-----------------------42-44
Organizational change-------------------------------------------------------------------------44-51
Quality of work Life----------------------------------------------------------------------------52-53
1.0. Introduction
Simply put, an Organization Development practitioner is to an organization as a physician is to a human body. The practitioner "diagnoses" (or discovers) the most important priorities to address in the organization, suggests a change-management plan, and then guides the organization through the necessary change.
1.1.Significant organizational change occurs, for example, when an organization changes its overall strategy for success, adds or removes a major section or practice, and/or wants to change the very nature by which it operates. It also occurs when an organization evolves through various life cycles, just like people must successfully evolve through life cycles. For organizations to develop, they often must undergo significant change at various points in their development. That's why the topic of organizational change and development has become widespread in communications about business, organizations, leadership and management. Leaders and managers continually make efforts to accomplish successful and significant change it’s inherent in their jobs. Some are very good at this effort (probably more than we realize), while others continually struggle and fail. That's often the difference between people who thrive in their roles and those that get shuttled around from job to job, ultimately settling into a role where they're frustrated and ineffective.
2.0. Overview
Unlike medicine, accounting, law, police work, national politics, and many other disciplines, professions, and vocational callings that one might choose to pursue, all of which have a clear, consistent, and focused sense of purpose, the field of organization development (OD) is somewhat unique in its inherent and fundamental lack of clarity about itself. Organization development is a field that is both constantly evolving and yet constantly struggling with a dilemma regarding its fundamental nature and unique contribution as a collection of organizational scientist and practitioners. Although OD practitioners have been thinking, writing, and debating about the underlying nature of the field for decades (Church, Hurley, & Burke, 1992; Friedlander, 1976, Goodstain, 1984; Greiner, 1980, Sanzgir, & Gottlieb, 1992; Weilbord, 1982), the field itself has yet come to agreement on its basic boundaries or parameters. Moreover, various practitioner surveys conducted in the 1990s(Church, Burke, & Van Eynde, 1994, Fagenson & Burke, 1990; McMahen & Woodman,1992) have suggested that the field is no closer to finding the answer to these important questions than it was twenty years ago.
It should come as no surprise, then, that one of the most poignant criticisms leveled at OD since its inception is that there are almost as many definitions of the field as there are OD practitioner(Church, Waclawski, & Siegal, 1996; Jamieson, Bech Kallick, & Kur, 1984; Rothewell, Sullivan &Mclean, 1995).The field of OD has been by zealots out to democratize organization(Harvey,1974). To put it mildly, there is some disagreement in the field as to what is and is not OD(Churh,2000). This lack of unified definition of or approach to the central nature of OD is due in large part to the diversity of backgrounds of those who engage in OD practice from forestry, to Law,to history, to the social sciences. Because one of the value of the field is inclusivity, relatively little attention has been paid historically to maintaining boundaries around the practice or labeling of OD. A cursory review of some of the professional associations with which OD practitioners, affiliate(see table 1.1), for example, highlight the breadth of membership even among somewhat like-minded groups. Moreover, it has been argued by some that literally anyone can hang a shingle outside and be a self-proclaimed OD practitioner(Church, Waclawski,&Siegal,1996). Thus, for some, OD represents anything and everything that be offered. Moreover, because there are only a handful of OD doctoral programs in the United States, there is a real sense among many in the field(Allen et al,1993; Church & Burke, 1995; Golembieluski,1989; Van Eynde &Coruzzi, 1993) that the lack of common education, training, and experience is continuing to damage and erode its overall credibility as a profession. Clearly, given the fractured state of the field and the nature of the many divergent perceptions regarding OD, there is a need in the literature and with respect to training future practitioners for given the nature of these definitions and collective consulting experience in and exposure to others in the field over the decade. OD should be conceptualized as representing three essential components.
First and perhaps for foremost, OD is fundamentally a data-driven process; diagnosis and intervention are based on some form of behaviorally relevant data(such as observations, assessment, and surveys) collected through a process known as action research.
Second, the OD model represents a total system approach to organizational change in which this change is a formal and planned response to targeted organization-wide issues, problems, and challenges. Finally, although this component is controversial and by no means universally accepted as yet (Church,Burke,&Van Eynde,1994). It is strongly believe that values represent a third key component to the field.OD is(or should be) a normative and humanistic values-based approach to organizational improvement. In short in my own view OD work should be focused on and conducted for the good of the individual, as well as the good of the organization. Although balancing issues of effectiveness and profitability are certainly important for economic success and survival. It may be argued that an OD approach does not prioritize thes concerns over the human perspective. This emphasis represents our firm belief, as well as of most of the other practitioners writing in this book, and is without a doubt one of the key differentiators of the field today(Church,Waclawski, &Siegal,1996; Margulies &Raio 1990).
2.1. Table 1.1. Professional Association with Major OD Representation
Professional Organization
Mission & Objective
Information about Membership
Organization Development
Institute
“To promote a better understanding of and disseminate
Information about organization Development and to build the field of OD into a highly respected profession.” 500 members,90 of them registered organization development consultants(RODCS) split between practitioners and academics. No requirement
For general membership. The only organization to institute a credential membership option of RODC with a test of knowledge, prior experience and letters of recommendations.
Organization Development Network
“The organization Development Network is a values-based community which supports its members in their work in human organization and system development and offers leadership and scholarship to the profession.”
4,000 members practitioner majority. No formal membership criteria required to join largest single body of OD practitioners.
Society for industrial and Organizational Psychology
“To promote human welfare through the various applications of psychology to all types of organizations providing goods and services, such as manufacturing concerns, commercial enterprises, Labor unions or trade associations and public agencies.” 6,000 members split between practitioners and academics .
Specific educational requirements for membership
No formal interest groups
Approximately 15-25 percent of membership engage in OD related activities.
Academy of Human Resource Development
“To encourage systematic study of human resource development
theories, process and practices; to disseminate information about HRD, to encourage the application of HRD research findings, and to provide opportunities for social interaction among individuals with scholarly and professional interest in HRD from multiple discipline and from across the globe.” 850 members
Academic majority(85 percent verse 15 percent)
Emphasis on learning and performance improvement
No interest groups but significant proportion of content overlap with OD theory and research.
Academy of management
“The purpose of the Academy is to foster the general advancement of research, learning, teaching and practice in the management field and to encourage the extension and unification of management knowledge.” 10,000 members
Academic majority(93 percent versus 7 percent)
Emphasis on organization behavior and theory several relevant interest groups including organization Development and change(2,000 members) and management consulting(1,000 members).
American society of Training and Development
“To provide leadership to individual organization, and society to achieve work-related competence, performance, and fulfillment; a world-wide leader in work place learning and
performance.” 70,000 members
Practitioner majority
Emphasis on workplace learning and performance. No formal membership criteria required to join several relevant interest groups including organization development, HRD consultancy; performance and Quality improvement; management Development; learning organizations.
Source: Official association web pages, documentation, content with administrative offices and senior leadership, and assorted member survey.
3.0. A New framework for Organizational Development
Given the variety of issues and complexities regarding the field, there is need to provide a single source, as well as an overarching framework or model, regarding the contemporary practice of OD. Although the framework is relatively self-explanatory, several points should be made about it, first, data represent the central set of inputs (in systems) into the overall process. Data here refers to quantitative, qualitative, or process-based inputs that reflect the different interventions and methodologies. Because many practitioners rely on more than one form of data and in many instances a diagnosis using one method might lead to further examination or an intervention based on another,
3.1. Table 1.2. Framework for a driven Organizational Development
Quantitative and Qualitative Methods
Multisource Feedback,
Personality Assessment
Organization Surveys
Interviews
Focus Groups
Organizational Initiatives
Process-Based Methods
Process consultation
Team interventions
Appreciative Inquiry
Large Intervention
Action Learning
(such as global diversity training,
Mission and strategy implementation, Leadership development
Organizational Transformation
Culture change
An arrow indicates the reciprocal nature of their relationship. The outcomes of these data-driven methodologies drive the large organizational initiatives, which represent the movement stage in the change process. These initiatives include broad issues such as leadership development, global diversity training, and mission and strategy implementation. Moreover, some of the complexities involved in working with these initiatives as, an OD practitioner include the challenges of using information technology effectively, developing an awareness of diverse cultures and practices in doing OD around the world, and the ethics and values OD practitioners need to embody. These interventions, when pursued in a focused and highly integrated manner, will ultimately help transform the organization and result in improvement and change. In addition, the role of evaluation and linkage research is crucial for establishing the impact and credibility of OD as a field. Although we are not advocating an outcomes- only approach here, given the societal importance placed on metrics and numbers-our vital signs, as some have argued(Hronec,1993), it is time for the field to accept fully its roots in a data- driven approach and understand the value inherent in measuring what we do and how we do it.
4.0.Definitions of Organization Development
Fundamentally, OD is the implementation of a process of planned (as opposed to unplanned) change for the purpose of organizational improvement (as opposed to a focus solely on performance). It is rooted in the social and behavioral sciences and draw its influences from a wide variety of content areas, including social psychology, group dynamics, industrial organizational(I/O) Psychology, participative management theory, organizational behavior, sociology, and even psychotherapy. This diverse background has been cited as both strength and a weakness of OD. Its strength lies in the breadth and diversity that such openness affords. For the most part, all one needs to do to join a national network of OD professionals is to agree to abide by set of stated principles and values; no specific test of skills or knowledge are required. It is unlikely, for example, that a more restrictive or narrowly focused profession could yield practitioners specializing in one-on –one coaching using multisource feedback and large-scale interventions with five hundred or more executive in the same room at the same time. Such openness to new perspectives, approaches, and experiences as being equally representative of OD work, however, is seen by many as a weakness of the field as well. The lack of set boundaries contributes significantly to the perception among potential clients, colleagues, and card-carrying OD practitioners themselves of the field as a scattered and inherently lost profession that lacks a core ideology or set of fundamental assumptions.
Table1.3. provides an overview of some of the more coherent and comprehensive definitions of the field offered over the past few decade. Although it is somewhat reticent to offer yet another definitions in the interest of integration and advancing the most current definition of OD is as follows:
4.1.Table1.3. some Definitions of OD
Source
Definition
Burke(1982)
“Planned process of change in an organization’s culture through the utilization of behavioral science technologies, research, and theory”(p.10)
French &Bell(1978)
“A long-range effort to improve an organization’s problem solving and renewal process, particularly through a more effective and collaborative management of an organization culture with the assistance of a change agent, or catalyst, of and the use of the theory and technology of applied behavioral science, including action research.”(p.14)
Margulies & Raia(1972)
“A value-based process of self-assessment and planned changes involving specific strategies and technology, aimed at improving the overall effectiveness of an organizational system.”(p.24)
Porras &Robertson(1992)
“Planned, behavioral sciences based interventions in work settings for the purpose of improving organizational functioning and individual development.”(p.721)
Jamieson,Bach kellick, &Kur(1984)
“Long-term, Planned changes in the culture, technology, and management of a total organization or at least a significant part of the total organization.”(p.4)
4.2.Organization Development is a planned process of promoting positive humanistically oriented large-system and improvement in organizations through the use of social science theory, action research, and behaviorally based data collection and feedback techniques.
Regardless of the definition that one subscribes to, however, it should be apparent when reviewing these definitions that although they differ on several important dimensions, for example, some focus on the importance of technology in the change process, whereas, others explicitly mention top management support, and still others reference values explicitly, they share common components as well.
5.0.Characteristics of OD
5.1.There are seven characteristics of organizational development:
• Humanistic Values: Positive beliefs about the potential of employees (McGregor's Theory Y).
• Systems Orientation: All parts of the organization, to include structure, technology, and people, must work together.
• Experiential Learning: The learners' experiences in the training environment should be the kind of human problems they encounter at work. The training should NOT be all theory and lecture.
• Problem Solving: Problems are identified, data is gathered, corrective action is taken, progress is assessed, and adjustments in the problem solving process are made as needed. This process is known as Action Research.
• Contingency Orientation: Actions are selected and adapted to fit the need.
• Change Agent: Stimulate, facilitate, and coordinate change.
• Levels of Interventions: Problems can occur at one or more level in the organization so the strategy will require one or more interventions.
5.2.Action Learning
An unheralded British academic was invited to try out his theories in Belgium it led to an upturn in the Belgian economy. "Unless your ideas are ridiculed by experts they are worth nothing," says the British academic Reg Revans, creator of action learning [L = P + Q] learning occurs through a combination of programmed knowledge (P) and the ability to ask insightful questions (Q). Action learning has been widely used in Europe for combining formal management training with learning from experience. A typical program is conducted over a period of 6 to 9 months. Teams of learners with diverse backgrounds conduct field projects on complex organizational problems requiring use of skills learned in formal training sessions. The learning teams then meet periodically with a skilled instructor to discuss, analyze, and learn from their experiences.
Revans basis his learning method on a theory called "System Beta," in that the learning process should closely approximate the "scientific method." The model is cyclical - you proceed through the steps and when you reach the last step you relate the analysis to the original hypothesis and if need be, start the process again. The six steps are:
• Formulate Hypothesis (an idea or concept)
• Design Experiment (consider ways of testing truth or validity of idea or concept)
• Apply in Practice (put into effect, test of validity or truth)
• Observe Results (collect and process data on outcomes of test)
• Analyze Results (make sense of data)
• Compare Analysis (relate analysis to original hypothesis)
Note that you do not always have to enter this process at step 1, but you do have to complete the process.
Revans suggest that all human learning at the individual level occurs through this process. Note that it covers what Jim Stewart (Managing Change Through Training and Development, 1991) calls the levels of existence:
• We think - cognitive domain
• We feel - affective domain
• We do - action domain
All three levels are interconnected, e.g. what we think influences and is influenced by what we do and feel.
5.3.Change agent
A change agent in the sense used here is not a technical expert skilled in such functional areas as accounting, production, or finance. He is a behavioral scientist who knows how to get people in an organization involved in solving their own problems. His main strength is a comprehensive knowledge of human behavior, supported by a number of intervention techniques (to be discussed later). The change agent can be either external or internal to the organization. An internal change agent is usually a staff person who has expertise in the behavioral sciences and in the intervention technology of OD. Beckhard reports several cases in which line people have been trained in OD and have returned to their organizations to engage in successful change assignments. In the natural evolution of change mechanisms in organizations, this would seem to approach the ideal arrangement. Qualified change agents can be found on some university faculties, or they may be private consultants associated with such organizations as the National Training Laboratories Institute for Applied Behavioral Science (Washington, D.C.) University Associates (San Diego, California), the Human Systems Intervention graduate program in the Department of Applied Human Sciences (Concordia University, Montreal, Canada), Navitus (Pvt) Ltd (Pakistan), and similar organizations.
The change agent may be a staff or line member of the organization who is schooled in OD theory and technique. In such a case, the "contractual relationship" is an in-house agreement that should probably be explicit with respect to all of the conditions involved except the fee.
5.4. Contractual relationship
Although neither the sponsoring organization nor the change agent can be sure at the outset of the exact nature of the problem or problems to be dealt with or how long the change agents' help will be needed, it is essential that some tentative agreement on these matters be reached. The sponsoring organization needs to know generally what the change agent's preliminary plan is, what its own commitments are in relation to personal commitments and responsibility for the program, and what the change agent's fee will be. The change agent must assure himself that the organization's, and particularly the top executives', commitment to change is strong enough to support the kind of self-analysis and personal involvement requisite to success of the program. Recognizing the uncertainties lying ahead on both sides, a termination agreement permitting either side to withdraw at any time is usually included.
5.5.Applied behavioral science
One of the outstanding characteristics of OD that distinguishes it from most other improvement programs is that it is based on a "helping relationship." Some believe that the change agent is not a physician to the organization's ills; that s/he does not examine the "patient," make a diagnosis, and write a prescription. Nor does s/he try to teach organizational members a new inventory of knowledge which they then transfer to the job situation. Using theory and methods drawn from such behavioral sciences as (industrial/organisational psychology, industrial sociology, communication, cultural anthropology, administrative theory, organizational behavior, economics, and political science, the change agent's main function is to help the organization define and solve its own problems. The basic method used is known as action research. This approach, which is described in detail later, consists of a preliminary diagnosis, collecting data, feedback of the data to the client, data exploration by the client group, action planning based on the data, and taking action.
5.6.Systems context
OD deals with a total system the organization as a whole, including its relevant environment or with a subsystem or systems departments or work groups in the context of the total system. Parts of systems, for example, individuals, cliques, structures, norms, values, and products are not considered in isolation; the principle of interdependency, that is, that change in one part of a system affects the other parts, is fully recognized. Thus, OD interventions focus on the total culture and cultural processes of organizations. The focus is also on groups, since the relevant behavior of individuals in organizations and groups is generally a product of group influences rather than personality.
5.7. Improved organizational performance
The objective of OD is to improve the organization's capacity to handle its internal and external functioning and relationships. This would include such things as improved interpersonal and group processes, more effective communication, enhanced ability to cope with organizational problems of all kinds, more effective decision processes, more appropriate leadership style, improved skill in dealing with destructive conflict, and higher levels of trust and cooperation among organizational members. These objectives stem from a value system based on an optimistic view of the nature of man that man in a supportive environment is capable of achieving higher levels of development and accomplishment. Essential to organization development and effectiveness is the scientific method inquiry, a rigorous search for causes, experimental testing of hypotheses, and review of results.
5.8.Organizational self-renewal
The ultimate aim of OD practitioners is to "work themselves out of a job" by leaving the client organization with a set of tools, behaviors, attitudes, and an action plan with which to monitor its own state of health and to take corrective steps toward its own renewal and development. This is consistent with the systems concept of feedback as a regulatory and corrective mechanism.
5.9. Early development
Kurt Lewin played a key role in the evolution of organization development as it is known today. As early as World War II, Lewin experimented with a collaborative change process (involving himself as consultant and a client group) based on a three-step process of planning, taking action, and measuring results. This was the forerunner of action research, an important element of OD, which will be discussed later. Lewin then participated in the beginnings of laboratory training, or T-groups, and, after his death in 1947, his close associates helped to develop survey-research methods at the University of Michigan. These procedures became important parts of OD as developments in this field continued at the National Training Laboratories and in growing numbers of universities and private consulting firms across the country.
The failure of off-site laboratory training to live up to its early promise was one of the important forces stimulating the development of OD. Laboratory training is learning from a person's "here and now" experience as a member of an ongoing training group. Such groups usually meet without a specific agenda. Their purpose is for the members to learn about themselves from their spontaneous "here and now" responses to an ambiguous hypothetical situation. Problems of leadership, structure, status, communication, and self-serving behavior typically arise in such a group. The members have an opportunity to learn something about themselves and to practice such skills as listening, observing others, and functioning as effective group members. As formerly practiced (and occasionally still practiced for special purposes), laboratory training was conducted in "stranger groups," or groups composed of individuals from different organizations, situations, and backgrounds. A major difficulty developed, however, in transferring knowledge gained from these "stranger labs" to the actual situation "back home". This required a transfer between two different cultures, the relatively safe and protected environment of the T-group (or training group) and the give-and-take of the organizational environment with its traditional values. This led the early pioneers in this type of learning to begin to apply it to "family groups" that is, groups located within an organization. From this shift in the locale of the training site and the realization that culture was an important factor in influencing group members (along with some other developments in the behavioral sciences) emerged the concept of organization development.
6.0. Case history
The Cambridge Clinic found itself having difficulty with its internal working relationships. The medical director, concerned with the effect these problems could have on patient care, contacted an organizational consultant at a local university and asked him for help. A preliminary discussion among the director, the clinic administrator, and the consultant seemed to point to problems in leadership, conflict resolution, and decision processes. The consultant suggested that data be gathered so that a working diagnosis could be made. The clinic officials agreed, and tentative working arrangements were concluded.
The consultant held a series of interviews involving all members of the clinic staff, the medical director, and the administrator. Then the consultant "thematized", or summarized, the interview data to identify specific problem areas. At the beginning of a workshop about a week later, the consultant fed back to the clinic staff the data he had collected.
The staff arranged the problems in the following priorities:
• Role conflicts between certain members of the medical staff were creating tensions that interfered with the necessity for cooperation in handling patients.
• The leadership style of the medical director resulted in his putting off decisions on important operating matters. This led to confusion and sometimes to inaction on the part of the medical and administrative staffs.
• Communication between the administrative, medical, and outreach (social worker) staffs on mutual problems tended to be avoided. Open conflicts over policies and procedures were thus held in check, but suppressed feelings clearly had a negative influence on interpersonal and intergroup behavior.
Through the use of role analysis and other techniques suggested by the consultant, the clinic staff and the medical director were able to explore the role conflict and leadership problems and to devise effective ways of coping with them. Exercises designed to improve communication skills and a workshop session on dealing with conflict led to progress in developing more openness and trust throughout the clinic. An important result of this first workshop was the creation of an action plan that set forth specific steps to be applied to clinic problems by clinic personnel during the ensuing period. The consultant agreed to monitor these efforts and to assist in any way he could. Additional discussions and team development sessions were held with the director and the medical and administrative staffs. A second workshop attended by the entire clinic staff took place about two months after the first. At the second workshop, the clinic staff continued to work together on the problems of dealing with conflict and interpersonal communication. During the last half-day of the meeting, the staff developed a revised action plan covering improvement activities to be undertaken in the following weeks and months to improve the working relationships of the clinic. A notable additional benefit of this OD program was that the clinic staff learned new ways of monitoring the clinic's performance as an organization and of coping with some of its other problems. Six months later, when the consultant did a follow-up check on the organization, the staff confirmed that interpersonal problems were now under better control and that some of the techniques learned at the two workshops associated with the OD programs were still being used.
7.0.The Organizational Development functions in organizations
Although much of the trade literature and case studies regarding the practice of OD focus on the skills, challenges, and role of external consultants (Burke,1994;Block, 1981), and indeed for many this lifestyle represents the perceptually more clamoring choice(Van Enynde, Church, & Burke, 1994), the fact is that at least, half of all practitioners in the OD, HRD, and even I/O psychology arenas work internally in corporations, universities and nonprofit organizations, unfortunately, this role and consequently the contribution of this half is underemphasized, underrepresented and in some cases under appreciated in the field (2000; Mcmahan & Woodman, 1992).
Despite some popular with the fortune 500 industries and the fortune 100 fastest growing firms has shown that the primary client in most interenal OD efforts is senior management(Church, & Mcmahan, 1996; mcmahan, & Woodman,1992). Perhaps this is not surprising given that senior leadership support is almost always as a necessity for an effective intervention or systemic initiative. Nevertheless, this reinforces the notion that internal OD practitioners must be skilled at working within the political and cultural landscape of the if they are to effect change from within (Church,2000). Despite an apparent resurgent interest in the field, the state of the OD function in the mind-1990s was less than optimal. Survey results noted that only 34, percent and 26 percent of the fortune fastest growing firms and industries, respectively, had “Well established” functions, with the rest of the responses scattered among such categories as struggling(respectively,20 percent and 18 percent), worried(7 percent and 5 percent), or even nonexistent(9, percent and 3 percent),furthermore in some organizations, the term OD has such negative connections(as being ineffective or too “touching feeling”) that alternative terms such as organizational effectiveness have been created(Church,& Mcmahan, 1996, Golembiewski 1989). In other organizations, this manifests itself as more of an issue of the location of OD within other groups, such as HRD, personnel research, or even the occasional organizational learning function. At Microsoft, for example, some of the more strategic-level OD efforts are conducted through the executive and management development function(Church, Waclawski, Mc Hennry, & Mckenna, 1998. Although it is likely given the improvement in the global economy in that past few years that internal OD functions have started to become more prominent once again(and particularly in responses to the changing nature of work and emerging trends in training and retention issues among younger workers), it remains an unfortunate reality that many organizations either place little emphasis on or do not have internal OD function at their disposal at all. Despite these issues and concern it is important to reorganize that most of the leg work of organizational change and improvement is driven by these internal practitioners. As a field, we need to begin to reorganize these individuals more(and conversely, not chastise them for having “sold out” to big Business). This means more partnerships(rather than circumnavigation) and more shared learnings and skills across the internal-external boundary, from the internal side, this also means focusing more on collaborating with externals as opposed to focusing on issues of turf, and less application of the vendor mind- self to the way external work is contracted and used(Church & Waclawski,1998), before the unique contribution of the entire field has been eroded or supplanted by other consulting models. In short, we need to leverage our strengths as a field of internal and external practitioners to help promote OD and improve the state of organizations.
8.0. Understanding organizations
To really understand organizational change and begin guiding successful change efforts, the change agent should have at least a broad understanding of the context of the change effort. This includes understanding the basic systems and structures in organizations, including their typical terms and roles. This requirement applies to the understanding of leadership and management of the organizations, as well.
Weisberg presents a six-step model for understanding organization:
• Purposes: The organization member are clear about the organization’s mission and purpose and goal agreements, whether people support the organization’ purpose.
• Structure: How do we divide up the work? The question is whether there is an adequate fit between the purpose and the internal structure.
• Relationship: Between individual, between units or department that perform different tasks, and between the people and requirements of their job.
• Rewards: The consultant should diagnose the similarities between what the organization formally reward or punished for doing.
• Leadership: Is to watch for blips among the other boxes and maintain balance among them
• Helpful mechanism: Is a helpful organization that must attend to in order to survive which as planning, control, budgeting, and other information systems that help organization member accomplish.
Managing a successful business (nonprofit or for-profit) or building up the health of an already established business requires healthy, ongoing leadership and management, planning, product and service development, marketing and financial management. To carry out these practices in a healthy manner, it's important to first understand the basic "territory" in which these practices are carried out. These practices are all "systems" that occur within the larger system of the organization. This is not academic talk this is a highly practical point to understand. To truly understand and be effective at these practices, it helps greatly if leaders, managers and employees have some basic understanding of the overall "system" of the business, its common traits, dimensions, "personalities" and life cycles. Too often, this basic nature is not understood. Instead, people tend to focus only on the day-to-day events and when problems occur, they don't see the "larger picture" in order to resolve these problems effectively. Importance of this understanding is evident when you recognize that many graduate business programs start out with an overview of the organizational system (often, these programs start out with course called, for example, "Organizational Theory").
8.1.Basically, an organization is a group of people intentionally organized to accomplish an overall, common goal or set of goals. Business organizations can range in size from two people to tens of thousands.
There are several important aspects to consider about the goal of the business organization. These features are explicit (deliberate and recognized) or implicit (operating unrecognized, "behind the scenes"). Ideally, these features are carefully considered and established, usually during the strategic planning process.
8.2.Vision
Members of the organization often have some image in their minds about how the organization should be working, how it should appear when things are going well.
8.3.Mission
An organization operates according to an overall purpose, or mission.
8.4.Values
All organizations operate according to overall values, or priorities in the nature of how they carry out their activities. These values are the personality, or culture, of the organization.
8.5. Strategic Goals
Organizational members often work to achieve several overall accomplishments, or goals, as they work toward their mission.
8.6. Strategies
Organizations usually follow several overall general approaches to reach their goals.
9.0.Systems and Processes
Organizations have major subsystems, such as departments, programs, divisions, teams, etc. Each of these subsystems has a way of doing things to, along with other subsystems, achieve the overall goals of the organization. Often, these systems and processes are define by plans, policies and procedures.
How you interpret each of the above major parts of an organization depends very much on your values and your nature. People can view organizations as machines, organisms, families, groups, etc.
9.1.Organizations as Systems (of Systems of Systems)
9.2. Organization as a System
It helps to think of organizations as systems. Simply put, a system is an organized collection of parts that are highly integrated in order to accomplish an overall goal. The system has various inputs which are processed to produce certain outputs, that together, accomplish the overall goal desired by the organization. There is ongoing feedback among these various parts to ensure they remain aligned to accomplish the overall goal of the organization. There are several classes of systems, ranging from very simple frameworks all the way to social systems, which are the most complex. Organizations are, of course, social systems. Systems have inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes. To explain, inputs to the system include resources such as raw materials, money, technologies and people. These inputs go through a process where they're aligned, moved along and carefully coordinated, ultimately to achieve the goals set for the system. Outputs are tangible results produced by processes in the system, such as products or services for consumers. Another kind of result is outcomes, or benefits for consumers, e.g., jobs for workers, enhanced quality of life for customers, etc. Systems can be the entire organization, or its departments, groups, processes, etc.
9.3. Feedback comes from, e.g., employees who carry out processes in the organization, customers/clients using the products and services, etc. Feedback also comes from the larger environment of the organization, e.g., influences from government, society, economics, and technologies. Each organization has numerous subsystems, as well. Each subsystem has its own boundaries of sorts, and includes various inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes geared to accomplish an overall goal for the subsystem. Common examples of subsystems are departments, programs, projects, teams, processes to produce products or services, etc. Organizations are made up of people -- who are also systems of systems of systems and on it goes. Subsystems are organized in an hierarchy needed to accomplish the overall goal of the overall system. The organizational system is defined by, e.g., its legal documents (articles of incorporation, by laws, roles of officers, etc.), mission, goals and strategies, policies and procedures, operating manuals, etc. The organization is depicted by its organizational charts, job descriptions, marketing materials, etc. The organizational system is also maintained or controlled by policies and procedures, budgets, information management systems, quality management systems, performance review systems, etc.
9.4.Standard Planning Process and Working Backwards Through the System
Standard Planning Process is Similar to Working Backwards through the System; Remember how systems have input, processes, outputs and outcomes? One of the common ways that people manage systems is to work backwards from what they want the system to produce. This process is essentially the same as the overall, standard, basic planning process.
This process typically includes:
a) Establishing overall goals (it's best if goals are defined in measurable terms, so they usually are in terms of outputs) (the overall impacts of goals are outcomes, a term increasingly used in nonprofits)
b) Associating smaller goals or objectives (or outputs?) along the way to each goal
c) Designing strategies/methods (or processes) to meet the goals and objectives
d) Identifying what resources (or inputs) are needed, including who will implement the methods and by when.
10.0.Organizational Development as a Data-Driven Processing Acton Research
One of the most basic notions behind OD is that change and improvement are conducted through a data-based process known as action research. Kurt Lewin, who first conceptualized action search (1946) and has often being credited as saying that “there can be no action without research and no research without action.”was truly one of the first Scientist-Practitioners in the social sciences and a major contributor to much of the thinking underlying OD theory and practice (Burke, 1982; French and Bell, 1990). In OD work, action research entails systematically gathering data of whatever form, quantitative or qualitative, on the nature of particular problem or situation, analyzing the data to find central themes and patterns, feeding back a summary and analysis of the data in some participative form and then taken action based on what the analysis of the data and resulting diagnosis of the situation suggest (church, waclawsk, & Burke 2001). Given this framework, it s easy to see how both the classic and more contemporary OD tools and techniques described in this book meet the criterion of being data-driven OD because they collect and apply information for various problem-solving and improvement purposes. Organization surveys, multisource feedback, focus groups and interviews, personality assessments, process observations and consultation, action learning, appreciative inquiry, and large-scale interventions all fall squarely within this framework. They follow the progression of steps outline in the basic action research approach from data collection, through diagnosis, to taking action for improvement. The process by which data are used to drive change is a relatively simple one. Lewin, a social psychologist who specialized in studding group dynamics, asserted that individual and organizational transformation is best described as a three-stage process (see figure 1.1
10.1. Figure 1.1 classic change models
Unfreezing Movement Refreezing
In the first stage, unfreezing, the goal is to create motivation or a readiness for change (Church, Waclawski & Burke,2001). In most cases in OD practice, this translates to surfacing dissatisfaction with the current state and identifying a better or more desirable alternative, which is commonly referred to in OD terms as the ideal or desired future state (see Beckhard & Harris, 1987). An analogy from everyday life is dieting. Most people go on diet because they are unhappy with their weight. It is this dissatisfaction with the current t situation coupled with a vision of a better future state of weighing less and therefore being healthier and looking better, that motivates them to change their eating behavior. The second stage in Lewins model, movement, consists of making changes and engaging in new behaviors to help make the desired future state a reality. In short, once the need for a change has been realized, steps towards achieving a new and better state must be taken. In the dieting example, this will represent the point at which the dieter makes a change in behavior – a reduction in caloric intake and an increase in exercise level. In OD, the movement stage typically translates into focusing ones change efforts at three different levels: individuals, group and organizational. The third stage, refreezing, requires establishing a system or process that will solidify (or refreeze) the new desired state. In the dieting example, this will mean making what people call a permanent lifestyle change, such that the new eating and exercise regimen comes a permanent and normal part of everyday life. In OD, an example of the refreezing stage would be instilling a new reward and recognition programmed as a result as a result of an organizational culture survey to reinforce a new and desired set of leadership behaviors. In reality, however, given the rapid pace of change experienced by most organizations today, refreezing occurs all too infrequently (Church 2006),if at all, and even when it does, it is not likely to last for very long before some other chaotic events affects the organization.
11.0.Organizational Development as a normative process
11.1.The third concept, and in many ways the truly unique element, driving OD theory and practice is the notion that OD is or at least should be a values-driven, humanistic ally oriented, normative process for change. OD is about helping people have better life’s at work. Taken by some as an ethical mandate against the perceived evils of organizations, some OD parishioners focus their efforts on initiatives aimed at improving the state of human dignity, democracy honesty, integrity and empowerment in organizations (Burke, 1982;Friedlander,1976; Marglilies & Raia 1990). Although these “OD Missionaries” as they have been called (Henry, 1974) are probably not the norm, they do represent a truly unique aspect to change management. Moreover, when certain executives and organizations are heralded for their innovative people oriented practices or cultures (Roddick, 1994). The OD field is quick to focus on such triumphs of the human spirit at work. Unfortunately, one of the results of this emphasis on installing meaning and dignity in the work place (particularly when taken out of context) has been the perception of OD as been too soft or touchy-feely in focus (Church & Burke, 1995). Interestingly enough, such perceptions both attract certain types of practitioners and clients while putting off others. Although the extent to which this values are truly enacted n practice remains a major question for the field, particularly, given the financial realities of a consulting market place where expertise has been devalued and few can afford to stand for professional ideas or integrity (Church & Waclawski 1998 it is none the less important to recognize, appreciate, and even reinforce such values. Values derive a profession and make it unique (Weisboard, 1982). Clearly, given the moral corruption that exists in some of today’s political, social, and organizational systems, its heartening to know that some group of professionals somewhere stands for a higher purpose. Although the question regarding which values do or should drive the field of OD has been a topic of debate for decades (Burke,192; Friedlander, 1976. Gellermann, Frankel & Ladenson, 1990; Goodstein, 1984; Greiner, 1980, Hurley, church Burke, & Van Eynde, 1992, Margulies & Raia 1990), we believe strongly that OD does indeed represent a normative approach to organizational change. Just as the fields of i/o psychology and human resource development (HRD) are grouped in improving the conditions of people lives and promoting human welfare and learning in organizations, so too is the fields of OD. Although we know from research (Church, Burke, & Van Eynde, 1994) that not all OD practitioners act according to such ideas, there is a strong bias, and we believe an ethical imperative in OD work towards promoting human development and positive growth (Waclawski, Church & Burke, 1995). In sum, OD s driven by a value based, systematic mind-set using action research methods for organizational improvement. Although these three elements represent the basic Hieratical approach taken to OD work They do not specifically reflex the role of data in the diagnosis and intervention process itself.
12.0. The role of Data in the Consulting process
One of the best known approaches to OD practice is the seven-phase consulting model (Kolb Frohman, 1970; Nadler, 1977). Based in Lewin’s action research framework, this model consists seven distinct phases that apply to every change initiative or engagement; entry, contracting, data collection, data analysis, data feedback, intervention, and evaluation (See table 1.3).
In general, the seven phase model has a wide range of application in a varity of consulting situations and is especially important for OD practitioners for three reasons:
(1) It reinforce the centrality of data in the process of organization development and change
(2) Shows how and when data should be used to inform OD practice, and
(3)Is based on a system approach to organizations
Phase I, entry, represent the first meeting between t5he OD Practitioner and Client. This is often the practitioners first exposure to the current client system (Katz & Kahn, 1987) and is critical in terms of building what we might call a facilitative (as opposed to expert) relationship. Typically, during this initial meeting, both the client and the OD consultant are assessing one another, to determine whether they will be able to collaborate on the pending change initiative. This process includes the potential clients attempts to determine the competency and the experience level of the OD practitioner, as well as the practitioner’s initial assessment of the presenting problem( that is the symptom) and it’s underlying causes(the real problem), which will need to be examine through some form of data collection. As the potential client looks for signs of report with the practitioner, the practitioner looks for the signs of the potential clients true level of motivation for and commitment to the potential change effort.
The fact is that, if a client has neither the intention for the resources to implement a significant change effort, there is little reason from an OD perspective to pursue the situation in this context.
In short, the quality of the interaction here determines whether the OD effort will occur at all, if positive relations are not established, the relationship and thus the change effort will go no further or still in mid process.
Contracting, Phase 2 , consists of setting the expectations, role, and anticipated outcomes for the change effort(Block,1981;Burke,1994). From an OD perspective, the preferred mode here is to rely on open and honest communication rather than on a more formerlized legal contracting process, though the latter is often requested in today’s litigious and increasingly vendor-driven(Church,&Waclawski,1998) business environment. For example, if a client is interested in undertaking a series of one-on-one interviews to help diagnose the functioning of the senior leadership team of the organization, he or she may call in an external or internal OD practitioner to do this work.
During entry and contracting, the consultant and client will not only discuss the work to be done and the practitioner’s qualifications for doing this work, but they will also explore interpersonal issues(such as whether the two can communicate and therefore work with one another) and what can and cannot be realistically accomplished as a result of the diagnostic interviews and feedback process. Once entry, and contracting have been successfully completed, the internal or external OD consultant will need to collect data about the organization in order to gain a better understanding of the problems to be solved or the underlying issues at hand . To this end, Phase 3 through 5 of the consulting model concerns the collection, analysis, and feedback data. These data can either be quantitative (multisource feedback, survey instruments, personality assessments, or performance measures) or qualitative (observations, interviews, and focus groups, or process measures) in nature, or some combination of both. The consultant at this point will begin collecting and analyzing the major themes in interview data. By gathering perceptual, attitudinal, and perhaps behaviorally based critical incident data through one-on-one discussions, the practitioner is positioning himself or herself to develop a detailed understanding about the nature of the team’s functioning. Moreover, by directing the discussion as toward a focus on the nature of the team dynamics now, where members want these to be, , real or and what barriers, real or perceived, might exist, the challenges but also simultaneously creating energy for change on the part of team members. This energy, caused by attending to the perceptual gap between the existing and future states, is one of the basic means for initiating behavior change in the Lewinian approach.
Once data have been collected and analyzed, phase 6 can begin: specific interventions base on the diagnostic summary performed using the interview results can be interactively discussed and selected for subsequent action. The important point to remember here is that regardless of which interventions are chosen, their determination should be based on an interpretation of the issues inherent in the data itself(and not simply because it is the trendiest, most expensive, or most flashy OD, I/O, or HRD technique available), and jointly selected by the consultant and client. This leads to commitment on the part of the client and ultimately contributes to the success of the entire change process.
Finally, an evaluation of the success of the OD effort should always be undertaken. Often this require collecting additional data regarding the impact of the intervention in the light of the deliverables that were agreed on in the contracting phase, as well as brainstorming about process improvements for future OD efforts. Clearly this is easier said than done. One of the truly unfortunate situations in many OD efforts over the past thirty years and one that has damaged the reputation of the field. Somewhat as well, has been the lack of significant attention to evaluating the success or failure of an OD process. As many researchers and OD scholars have noted (Golembiewski &Sun, 1990, Porras & R obertson, 1992; Woodman & Wayne,1983), there is a real need in the field for the consistent application of evaluation strategies to the entire consulting cycle. Although some firms believe in the value-driven approach enough to forgo this element, it is not a helpful or a recommended approach to practice.
Overall, the internal and external practice of OD work is truly data-driven approach to helping organizations identify specific problems and issues and plan for improvement.
12.1.Table 1.4 Seven-Phase Consulting Model
Phase 1. Entry: initial meeting between client and consultant
The client and consultant meet to explore issues and the possibility of an OD effort. The client assesses 4. The consultant is trustworthy, experiences, and competent. The consultant assesses 4 the client is ready for change and has the resources and power to support change.
Phase 2. Reach agreement on what each will do.
This includes determing mutual expectations, expected time frame, schedule of activities, cost of activities and grand rules for proceeding.
Phase 3. Data collection: Gather information about the organization
Interviews, questionnaires, company documents and performance records, focus groups and other methods are used.
Phase 4. Data analysis: Summarize information and draw conclusions.
From the data, the client and consultant determine next steps once the diagnosis is understood and accepted.
Phase 5. Data feedback: present summary and conclusions to the client.
The consultant presents the summary and the preliminary interpretation, followed by a general discussion to clarify information. Next, the consultant and clients derive at a final diagnosis that accurately describes the organization. Together the generate plans for responding to the issues.
Phase 6. Intervention: Take action
The selected interventions should be a direct reflection and response to the diagnosis.
Phase 7. Evaluation: d etermines success or failure.
Change efforts are evaluated to see if the desired change has occurred.
13.0, Organization development Initiative –A case study of Bankers Institute of Rural Development (BIRD)
The initiative for OD programs comes from an organization that has a problem. This means that top management or someone authorized by top management is aware that a problem exists and has decided to seek help in solving it. There is a direct analogy here to the practice of psychotherapy: The client or patient must actively seek help in finding a solution to his problems. This indicates a willingness on the part of the client organization to accept help and assures the organization that management is actively concerned. Organization Development is a planned process of change in an organization's culture through the utilization of behavioral science technologies, research, and theory (Burke, 1994). OD is "a system wide application of behavioral science knowledge to the planned development and reinforcement of organizational strategies, structures and processes for improving an organization’s effectiveness " (Cummings and Worley, 1993)
As the above definitions suggest O.D. is a planned and sustained process of change to improve organizational effectiveness. Its target of change is the total organization or system.
It applies the knowledge, insights, tools and techniques of applied behavioral sciences.
Organization Development as a strategy of change with employee participation is being practiced world over in various organizations. There is a proliferation of O.D. approaches as different approaches are found succeeding in different organizations and environments. The present paper aims at sharingthe experience of Bankers Institute of Rural Development (BIRD) in conducting an Organization Development Initiative-a novel O.D. Intervention for this population-in 49 Regional Rural Banks (RRBs) in India during 1994-97.
13.1. The Background of the O.D. Initiative in the RRBs
The RRBs are a set of state-sponsored rural banks in India, each covering one or two districts with the mandate to provide banking facilities to rural clientele engaged in agriculture and non-farm activities. They have proved to be most appropriate grass root rural credit institutions in India on account of their wide branch network in remote unbanked areas, small size, local feel and rural orientation. Although, these banks had served well in providing various types of financial services to the rural customers, especially mobilizing small, rural savings and extending credit support to state sponsored poverty alleviation programmes, they suffered from several handicaps, like, poor recovery of loans, low level of business, undue restrictions on their business operations (e.g., they were required to lend only to the poor clients at concessional rates of interest). Most of these banks incurred continuous losses due to thin/negative financial margin, poor recoveries and high establishment costs in relation to their volume of business. Particularly, under the government-sponsored programmes, the RRBs had been left with very little choice of customers based on banking considerations. This was more on account of the way the sponsored programmes were actually implemented under external pressures and interference than the manner in which these programmes were originally designed. Over the years, the staff of these banks developed a complacent attitude about profit and business, apathy towards the customers and a deceptive self-assurance about the future of their organization, the attitude commonly observed in public sector organizations.
During early 90s, with a view to containing the sagging performance of the economy, an era of economic liberalization had to be ushered in by Government of India, which focused on economic growth through deregulation and market orientation. The reforms also touched the banking sector with emphasis on revamping the banking institutions into organizationally strong, vibrant and self-sustaining systems. Several policy measures were introduced to lift the restrictions on lending rates, choice of clientele, investment opportunities, location of branches, etc., in order to improve RRBs' efficiency, productivity, profitability and long term sustainability. In this context, the RRBs needed to change their business outlook, become more responsive to customer needs, reengineer their systems and procedures and, above all, reorient the mind-set of their employees. The reform package took care of introducing an enabling policy environment by lifting unnecessary curbs on RRBs operations. It also included preparation of long range, bank-specific business development plans (i.e., Development Action Plans [DAPs]) taking into account the bank's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Based on some broad guidelines issued by National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), the Development Financial Institution (DFI) for rural sector in the country, each RRB was advised to prepare its own Development Action Plan. The Government also took care to inject fresh capital to cleanse RRBs' balance sheets. Emphasis was put on strengthening the human resources in these organizations through proper training. Initially, the RRB employees did not accept the DAPs as they were not involved in its preparation and suspected that it implied additional workload on them without any scope for personal growth or benefits as mostly the plans tended to be and were perceived as a top down process. They looked upon DAPs as "instruments of exploitation" and "another experiment with RRBs."
Bankers Institute of Rural Development (BIRD) had long experience of training the RRB staff and was familiar with their problems and their general mind set. Based on interactions with BIRD in various forums where revamping of RRBs was discussed, it was increasingly realized by policy framers that a kind of intervention like O.D., and not merely training in banking skills, was needed for the RRBs. At the instance of NABARD and Reserve Bank of India (RBI), BIRD took up the responsibility of designing an appropriate O.D. intervention in RRBs selected for revamping in the first phase. The O.D. approaches were suitably modified through intensive faculty deliberations to design an intervention package named the Organization Development Initiative for these banks. Since the O.D. Initiative had to be done in a large number of RRBs (49) in a short spar of one year, the intervention was to be of short duration and a large number of Faculty Members from BIRD and its 4 sister training institutes (i.e., the National Bank Staff College, College of Agricultural Banking and 2 Regional Training Colleges of NABARD) had to be pressed into service to complete the job in time. Thus, it was an intervention by Faculty Consultants as a part of the reform package. The consultants were not invited by the RRBs themselves but by their majority stakeholders (i.e., the Government of India) and the policy makers like Reserve Bank of India (RBI )-the Central Bank of the country-and National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD)-the Apex Rural Development Bank to initiate this HRD intervention.
13.2. Objectives of the O.D. Initiative
Normally, O.D. objectives are set by the client organization. Contrary to this, in the present case, the objectives of O.D. Initiative were evolved by BIRD at the instance of and through a dialogue with the majority stakeholders of RRBs (i.e., the Government of India) and the controlling agencies (i.e., RBI and NABARD) and reflected their concern to make the RRBs efficient and viable organizations. More specifically, the intervention was aimed at:
Sensitizing RRB employees to appreciate the new realities in the context of reforms in the banking sector
Developing among them a sense of belonging to their organization Integrating their personal goals with Organizational goals
Building confidence and belief in their own capabilities to shoulder higher responsibilities.
Enabling them to internalize and own up to their problems
Developing problem solving abilities among them
Developing collaborative attitude and team spirit among them.
Building a climate of trust, openness, and free communication in RRBs
In brief, the task was to find an appropriate intervention strategy enabling the RRBs' human resources to halt organizational decay and create conditions for organizational renewal.
13.3. About BIRD
BIRD is India's apex training institute in rural development banking, promoted and substantially funded by NABARD. It is an autonomous body with mandate covering training, research and consultancy in areas of rural development and rural development banking. The Institute enjoys an excellent reputation in the country's banking circles. Through long association with RRBs as a training institute, BIRD had developed a special relationship with the RRB system combining in-depth knowledge about the RRBs and an understanding of the psyche of the RRB employees. The high credibility of BIRD among RRBs had given it a unique advantage to act as trustworthy consultants and counselors to RRBs. This helped acceptability of BIRD's Faculty Members as O.D. facilitators in RRBs.
13.4. Philosophical Underpinnings of the O.D. Initiative
The O.D. Initiative designed by BIRD borrowed several principles from applied behavioral sciences, adult learning, action research and T-Group learning. Some of the assumptions of the design were the following:
People have a positive direction and can make contribution to the organization, if they are allowed to participate in the planning and the decision making process. The best way to bring change in organizations is to empower the employees through entrusting them with responsibility and giving positive feedback for initiative, risk taking, creativity and good performance.
Groups are the basic organizational building blocks and peer pressure is the most powerful impetus for change. Change can be brought by building empowered teams in the organizations through team building efforts.
In most organizations, the level of inter-personal support, trust and cooperation is lower than desirable and necessary.
Organizations are inter-related systems and change, in order to be sustainable, has to cover all subsystems.
Organizational functioning is enhanced when people feel comfortable expressing both their opinions and feelings. Hence conflicts that are expressed and addressed openly can be helpful in bringing about change.
There is a need for an outside facilitator having expertise in process facilitation to initiate the O.D. intervention.
13.5. Design criteria of the O.D. Initiative
The O.D. Initiative was designed by BIRD and it sister training institutes incorporating the above principles. The design criteria established were:
The process should insist on complete involvement and participation of a large cross section of employees from all levels and pressure groups.
It should encourage the participants to think and analyze and sort out the problems themselves
The facilitator will not provide any training inputs or prescriptions to solve the bank's problems
Through the process of brainstorming, the employees will find answers to the problems identified by them as critical.
O.D. interventions were to be carried out in the bank's own premises, with minimum dislocation of the normal schedule.
13.6. Expected Results
At the end of the O.D. Initiative program, the RRB employees were expected to do the following:
• Communicate more openly
• Collaborate more effectively
• Take more responsibility
• Share a common vision for the organization
• Solve problems more effectively
• Show more respect and support for others
• Interact with each other more effectively
• Be more open to experimentation and new ways of doing things
• Be more prepared for change
• Actively participate in planning and decision making
• Promote free flow of information
• Function strategically rather than simply in response to stimulus
It was expected that the above developments will help to create a healthy work culture in RRBs, increase employee satisfaction and, thereby, lead to higher productivity and profitability.
13.7. Methodology
The methodology adopted had the following components:
Sensitization of the Chairmen and General Managers of selected RRBs to the concepts of O.D. and group dynamics prior to O.D. intervention and enlisting their support to O.D. process
Intervention at the bank's own environment involving a large cross section of employees and senior executives
Creating a climate and setting in which hierarchies are broken to facilitate frank and open discussions Brainstorming and group process to identify bank's problems and to find solutions thereto by examining all possible alternatives
Analysis of bank's performance data and its comparison with other banks, and examination of the replicability of success stories and best practices followed by other RRBs
13.8. Outcomes
The outcome of this process were:
Building a Mission statement, Vision and Goals Formulation of strategies and workable action plans for achieving the goals.
Exhaustive debate on various issues for diagnosing the organization's problems and arriving at consensus on the strategies and Action Plans
Presentation of the Action Plans to the Bank's Board seeking its support
Identification of internal Facilitators to take the O.D. Initiative message to other staff (who did not participate in the process) and sustaining the tempo generated by the initiative
Conducting studies and research on the RRBs Restructuring and giving feedback to policy makers for suitable policy correction
Organizing seminars/workshops to disseminate BIRD's experience in conducting the O.D. Initiative and insights gained and to facilitate wider debate on the subject.
13.9. OD. Initiative Program Modules
The O.D. Initiative design consisted of four modules:
1. A four day sensitization program for the Chairmen/General Managers of selected RRBs at BIRD prior to actual O.D. intervention in individual banks
2. A five day on-location O.D. program at the Bank's Head Office
3. A two day sensitization program for selected Branch Managers at RRB Head Office
4. A meeting with the Board of Directors at the end of the on-location program
13.10. O.D. Initiative Process
The process intervention by faculty consultants in the second and third module are discussed in detail in the following paragraphs:
13.11. O. D. Intervention Program at the Bank's Head Office
A five-day program was conducted at the Head Office of the Bank in which all departmental heads participated besides the Chairman, General Manager, a few Branch Managers and representatives of the Unions and various pressure groups. The total number of participants was kept within 30. The seating arrangement was circular suggesting equality of status of all participants. Each one was required to wear a name badge.
The module started with the Chairman explaining the objectives of the meeting and inviting the participants to participate freely without any fear or inhibition. This was followed by a brief presentation by the Faculty indicating the present position of the bank and how it compared with other banks, backed by analysis of data. The purpose was "to showy them the mirror" and sensitize them to their present position.
The following norms of brain storming and discussions were laid down:
All will participate as equals
Any idea from the participants, however wild, will be welcome
No one will attack an idea, but one was free to enrich it
Constraints should not be quoted to justify why something was not possible, rather one should suggest what could be possible in spite of constraints
There should not be any personal attacks
The discussions opened with the participants' reaction on the present status of the bank. Since this was the first ever occasion when the staff shared the platform with the Chairman and other senior members of the management to discuss the banks' problems, a lot of suppressed anger against past injustices were expressed, anomalies and inequities in the present set up pointed out and the rationale of the reforms were questioned. The Chairman and the General Manager were briefed earlier not to react but to listen patiently. This helped tempers to cool down making the participants receptive and ready to actively participate in the proceedings.
The participants were asked to ponder over the following questions:
What would you like your bank to become in the next 2 to 3 years?
What, in your opinion, are the critical areas which require priority/attention to achieve the above goals?
Answers to these questions facilitated a process of joint diagnosis of the problems and goal setting. Thereafter, the participants were encouraged to identify key performance areas and formulate strategies for organizational growth and effectiveness based on Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis. After this, the process of action planning for accomplishing the goals were chalked out through group process, first in small groups and then discussing them in large groups. During the process of action planning, the RRBs staff also identified the support needed to execute the action plans in terms of new systems and procedures, HRD support and policy changes, etc. While preparing the Action Plans for each functional area, the participants were encouraged to addressed the following questions:
What is to be done?
How is this to be done?
Who will do it?
What changes in systems and procedures will be necessary?
How progress will be monitored?
The Faculty Consultants joined the discussions and presented a range of alternative solutions by quoting best practices in other banks, whenever there was a stalemate in the discussions. The suggestions were made not as prescriptions, but as a means of enlarging the perspectives of the participants and helping them to choose from several alternatives after weighing their relative merits. The strategies which emerged covered all important areas like deposits, advances, recovery, investments, house keeping, customer service, systems and procedures, image building and human resource development, etc. At the end of the program, there was a high level of enthusiasm, commitment to implement the action plans and a sense of achievement and optimism about the bank's future.
13.12. O.D. Intervention Program for Branch Managers of RRBs
A two-day sensitization program for selected Branch Managers was conducted at Head office immediately after the program for Head Office officials. A similar process of objective setting by the Chairman, briefing by the Faculty Consultants, and norms setting was followed before starting the debate. The Branch Managers also took the opportunity to express their feelings of neglect by the Head Office, highlighted the problems faced by them in the field and the areas in which they would expect Head Office support.
13.13. The Branch Managers were then asked to respond to two questions:
1. What, as a Branch Manager, can you do on your own without any assistance from the Head Office?
2. What more can you do with Head Office assistance?
Answers to these questions in a group drove home the point that the Branch Managers, indeed, had a large operating space of their own. They could do many things and achieve significant business results without any support from Head Office. By examples and anecdotes from other banks discussions were held on positive changes that pro-active Branch Managers could bring about in their branches.
The Branch Managers were then divided into 2 to 3 groups to discuss the strategy to be adopted in key operational areas and answer similar questions (e.g., "What is to be done?"). The group presentation of the strategy was further discussed in the larger group to finalize the Action Plans for each key operational area (deposit, advances, recoveries, image building, etc.) The new points in the Branch Managers' Action Plans were dovetailed into the Action Plans of Head Office officials to finalize the Strategic Action Plans for the bank as a whole.
The finalized Action Plans were presented to the Board of Directors of the bank the next day in a special meeting convened for the purpose. With this the O.D. Intervention came to an end.
13.14. Follow-up
The facilitators visited the bank again after a gap of six months to one year to make an assessment of the changes observed in the bank both in business parameters and organizational processes. While the data on the business parameters were collected from bank's records, the data on organizational processes were collected by interviews, group meetings and process observations. The findings and observations of the consultants were shared with the Chairman and the Board, highlighting in the areas which needed their special attention.
13,15. The Impact of the O.D. Initiative
Evaluating the impact of O.D. is always a difficult task. There is no consensus yet among the O.D. specialists as to the most appropriate method or approach for evaluation of O.D. BIRD has so far not done any scientific evaluation of the impact of its O.D. Initiative in RRBs. Assessments have, however, been made based on the feedback received from the banks themselves, their own impressions about changes after the O.D. Initiative, and recorded observations by the Faculty consultants during their subsequent visits to the banks. There has been no comparison between the "control" and "experimental" groups of RRBs to establish that the RRBs involved in the O.D. Initiative fared better than those not involved. Similarly, in the absence of any bench marking prior to the intervention, it has not been possible to prove by research that improvement process has quickened after O.D. intervention. So, the assessment so far made is, at best, impressionistic.
A mid-term evaluation of 20 RRBs with O.D. intervention based on their published data for periods of 3 to 4 years showed that 14 of them have achieved sizable increase in their business levels, per employee business, improvement in recovery of loans, increase in financial margins, improvement in profitability, overall improvement in systems and procedure, customer service and image, etc., after O.D. intervention. But the change could not be attributed to the O.D. Initiative alone. A conjunction of several factors, like policy changes, initiative by the Chairman and the staff, support from other stake holders, etc., could have contributed to the result. Organizations are very "noisy" environments. That is, at any given time, many changes, planned or unplanned, may be taking place. It is, therefore, not possible to isolate the contribution of any single factor to the ultimate outcome (Walters, 1990). In fact, during process of O.D. Initiative in the 49 selected RRBs, a number of developments, both favorable and unfavorable to revamping, took place. Among the favorable factors were (a) enabling policy changes removing several restrictions on RRBs as regards the clientele, interest rates, investments, etc., (b) capital injection, (c) close monitoring of the progress by policy makers. Among the unfavorable factors were (a) rejection of the demand from RRBs for continued parity in pay scales with Commercial banks in the subsequent pay revision after initially allowing such parity since September 1987 and (b) considerable delay in payment of arrears of earlier pay revision to RRB employees. It is, therefore, impossible to isolate the contribution of the O.D. Initiative, or for that matter any single factor, in improvement of the "outcome variables." The O.D. Initiative could have been a catalyst in expediting the change, but it is difficult to say to what extent.
Similarly, the RRBs showed encouraging improvement in "process variables." There was greater communication sharing, more delegation of powers to lower levels, more visible sense of belonging among staff, more willingness to take responsibilities, more participation in planning and decision making, a greater sense of achievement and empowerment among the RRB staff. Though these conclusions are not research based, there are ample reports from the banks that the O.D. Initiative has made a noticeable impact in improving the organizational climate in their banks. Further, there has been a spate of demands from these banks for fresh doses of the O.D. Initiative and similar requests from other banks not covered under the O.D. Initiative for similar intervention. These lend substance to the "felt satisfaction" that the O.D. Initiative did have a positive impact in the RRBs.
13.16.Comparison of BIRD's O.D. Initiative Module with the Conventional O.D. Interventions
13.17. Points of similarity
BIRD's O.D. Initiative seeks to bring change in the entire organization: mission, strategy, systems, culture, climate and employees
Ensures Chief Executive Officers' commitment and support to the intervention
BIRD's O.D. Initiative aims at both commitment and capacity building of the employees by providing clarifications and hints at the flaws in the existing systems and procedures
Involves employees' participation at all levels in planning and implementing change
Intervention is by outside facilitators Brainstorming among staff to diagnose the problems of the organization and find solutions
Provides a forum to air long standing grievances; helps in catharsis.
Showing of the mirror by O.D. facilitators to bring home the point to the employees of the real state of affairs in the organization
SWOT analysis of the organization by the employees and building strategy, capitalizing on strengths and opportunities and attacking weaknesses and threats
No prescription by the O.D. facilitators to solve the organizations' problems-solutions are found by the employees themselves
13.18. Consensus building at all levels of the organization on the organizations' Mission and Strategy
Practicing new behavior to build the desired climate of openness, trust, freedom of expression, tolerance of others' opinions, appreciation of good work, working as a team, ownership of problems and discovery of a sense of power to solve problems while working in groups. In brief, efforts are focused to increase self control and self direction for the people within the organization.
13.19. How this initiative is different from conventional O.D.?
BIRD's O.D. Initiative was taken up at a large number of organizations at a time by BIRD and its sister Institutes.
The intervention was by professional trainers without having any O.D. experience but having intimate knowledge of the organizations in question and their employees.
The consultants were not engaged by the clients (viz., the organizations themselves), but by major stakeholders-the Government of India implementing revamping package for such organizations.
The O.D. intervention was a part of the revamping package for RRBs under Banking Sector Reforms.
It was of a short duration, the first intervention lasting about 10 days and the follow-up visit for 5 to 6 days after a gap of 6 months to one year.
Only a fraction of the organizations' employees were exposed to the process. Some internal facilitators were trained in the O.D. facilitation techniques to carry on the message to other staff/branches.
Outside consultants were engaged to keep in touch with the banks due to other pressing engagements of O.D. facilitators. They made independent assessment of the impact of the O.D. Initiative and identified areas which required further support.
New training programmes were designed and delivered by BIRD based on training needs identified during the O.D. Initiative and follow up visits in order to build the skill and competence of RRB staff in critical areas.
13.20.Lessons Learned
Organizing the O.D. Initiative in several grassroots institutions at a time by a team of dedicated Faculty Members was a Herculean task, but it gave the faculty an immense opportunity to practice counseling skills and enrich their understanding of the interpersonal dynamics at work. Designing and conducting O.D. intervention at such a massive scale was itself quite challenging. It was gratifying to know that the module worked effectively in totally different situations and contexts. There was initial resistance in some banks to the O.D. process from the top executives and the employees but in the end there was great enthusiasm among the staff to accept and participate in the change process. Certain limitations have also come to our notice in the design and delivery of O.D. intervention:
There was slow down of the euphoria in most of the banks one or two months after the O.D. intervention. Since the gap between the first and second contact was long, the tempo could not be sustained in many banks. Hence, a need was felt for more frequent contacts with banks by engaging outside consultants.
The follow-up of the O.D. Initiative by the banks themselves was not uniform. The banks which took interest to spread the message to other staff through internal facilitators did better as compared to banks which did not follow up adequately. Though BIRD had organized special programmes for the internal facilitators to equip them with some O.D. Initiative facilitation skills, their effectiveness was limited due to their low acceptability among the employees.
The banks where the Chairmen actively supported the O.D. Initiative process and implemented action plans fared better than the banks where such active support was lacking. In some banks where the Chairman changed after the O.D. intervention, the new incumbents did not show much enthusiasm for implementing the action plans. It was realized that O.D. Initiative alone cannot bring desired changes in the organization without supporting policy environment and commitment/support from other players. The O.D. Initiative also raised hopes among the employees for better incentives and rewards along with the optimism and positive outlook it generated. It was, therefore, felt necessary to support the expectations of the employees with some positive incentives/rewards.
14.0. Organizational Development as a tool system approach to change
14.1. OD is fundamentally grounded in a social systems approach (Katz Kahn, 1978). From this perspective, such as people, technology, or processes, that operates as a collective entity in response to changes in and pressures from the external environment, such as competitions, customers, or government regulations. An example from biology is that of a single cell existing within a large organism. In this context, the organization, is the cell, and the larger organism is the global business environment. The cell, although self-contained with its own series of inputs and outputs, depends on the larger organism to survive.
The larger organism, in turn is dependent on the functioning of the unique cells comprising it because these cell collectively transform and produce materials that the vital to the organism’s existence. As part of its function, the cell inputs certain materials from the larger organism, transforms them into the organism for use by other cells. Thus, the individual cell and the large organism form a symbolic relationship, each is dependent on the other for survival and growth by applying systems theory, an organization is seen as operating in much the same way, it takes in inputs from the outside world; such as raw materials, intellectual capital, human resources, or money for goods and services, and acts on them to transform them into new products or services and then export them back into the business environment for distribution and disposal(see figure 1.2.). From this perspective, large-scale OD and change efforts are seen as occurring within an organizational system and are generally initiated in response to changes in the business or external environment in which the organization operates (Burke &Litwin, 1992)
14.2. Figure 1.2.Systems Approach Model
Throughputs
Inputs Output
Given this framework, it is apparent that an OD model is somewhat different from other consulting approaches because most OD interventions used are aimed at changing the entire system, as opposed to a specific portion or segment of the organization.
15.0.Organizational change
Perhaps the most asked but least answered question in business today is “What can we do to make our business survive and grow?” The world is rapidly changing into something too hard to easily predict, with a hundred opportunities and pitfalls passing by every moment.
To add to this confusion, there are hundreds, if not thousands of techniques, solutions and methods that claim to help business improve productivity, quality and customer satisfaction. A company President, CEO or business owner has so many choices in these buzzwords, whether they be called Total Quality Management, Customer Satisfaction, Re-engineering or Teambuilding. They are like new shoppers in a giant grocery store: They are hungry, but there are so many brands, sizes and varieties you don’t know what to buy.
In response to this confusion, many do nothing, often afraid of making the wrong choices. Others change the techniques they use every few months, using the “program du’jeur” method of organizational change, otherwise known as MBS (Management by Best Seller). Neither of these responses help the organization in the long run. Changing nothing will produce nothing. Implementing a different buzzword (Total Quality, Just in Time, Re-engineering, etc.) every few months often creates a “whipsaw” effect that causes mass confusion among your employees. These buzzwords are often a hammer in search of a nail, techniques applied with no clear focus as to the why, expected results or return on investment.
Some Senior management proclaimed in a memo that Total Quality should be a way of life. One senior vice president declared that he wanted 25% of his organization using Total Quality tools within a year. This caused tremendous excitement in the organization, However, the follow-through was delayed, occasionally inappropriate and sometimes not there. Many employee became discouraged with the process and considered it just another management fad. With the next business downturn, virtually all training had stopped and little enthusiasm was left.
Other organizations clearly focus on technical problems and on improving what they had. They are initially successful, but become victims of their own success. I call this an improved, planned incremental approach. Their initial quality improvement teams may be so successful they rapidly create more teams, without the qualitative organization-wide changes (re-engineering) necessary to sustain a permanent effort.
One organization also had over 70 quality improvement teams in a plan with only 300 employees. They had shown little results after their first successes, and asked what their next steps should be. It was suggested that the union’s leadership in their efforts, look at restructuring their organization along more product-focused lines, and possibly start profit sharing. They were not interested in taking any of these actions. A few months later, its parent company shut down the site, partly because of its poor productivity.
Organizations need to move beyond the buzzwords into deciding what actions they need to perform that will help them grow and develop. In response to this problem, this article will provide you a framework for coping with organizational change independent of buzzwords or the latest management fad. Organizations must first decide on the framework their organizational change long before they choose a buzzword to implement.
15.2. The major decisions
Instead of grasping for the latest technique, I suggest instead that organizations should go through a formal decision-making process that has four major components:
• Levels, goals and strategies
• Measurement system
• Sequence of steps
• Implementation and organizational change
15.3. The levels of organizational change
Perhaps the most difficult decision to make is at what "level" to start. There are four levels of organizational change:
• shaping and anticipating the future (level 1)
• defining what business(es) to be in and their "core competencies” (level 2)
• reengineering processes (level 3)
• incrementally improving processes (level 4)
First let's describe these levels, and then under what circumstances a business should use them.
15.4. Level 1- shaping and anticipating the future
At this level, organizations start out with few assumptions about the business itself, what it is "good" at, and what the future will be like.
Management generates alternate "scenarios" of the future, defines opportunities based on these possible futures, assesses its strengths and weaknesses in these scenarios changes its mission, measurement system etc. More information on this is in the next article, "Moving from the Future to your Strategy."
15.5. Level 2 - defining what business (es) to be in and their "Core Competencies
Many attempts at strategic planning start at this level, either assuming that 1) the future will be like the past or at least predictable; 2) the future is embodied in the CEO's "vision for the future"; or 3) management doesn't know where else to start; 4) management is too afraid to start at level 1 because of the changes needed to really meet future requirements; or 5) the only mandate they have is to refine what mission already exists.
After a mission has been defined and a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis is completed, an organization can then define its measures, goals, strategies, etc. More information on this is in the next article, "Moving from the Future to your Strategy."
15.6. Level 3 - Reengineering (Structurally Changing) Your Processes
Either as an aftermath or consequence of level one or two work or as an independent action, level three work focuses on fundamentally changing how work is accomplished. Rather than focus on modest improvements, reengineering focuses on making major structural changes to everyday with the goal of substantially improving productivity, efficiency, quality or customer satisfaction. To read more about level 3 organizational changes, please see "A Tale of Three Villages."
15.7. Level 4 - Incrementally Changing your Processes
Level 4 organizational changes are focusing in making many small changes to existing work processes. Oftentimes organizations put in considerable effort into getting every employee focused on making these small changes, often with considerable effect. Unfortunately, making improvements on how a buggy whip for horse-drawn carriages is made will rarely come up with the idea that buggy whips are no longer necessary because cars have been invented.
The disadvantages of incremental approach include avoiding structural, system-wide problems, and assumes existing processes need modest improvement. In addition, using incremental approaches can be frustrating to employees and management if (pick a buzzword) does not catch on in the organization. As a result of these disadvantages, many organizations experience a high risk of failure in the long run.
15.8. What level do I choose?
These levels have much of the same goals: increasing customer satisfaction, doing things right the first time, greater employee productivity, etc. Despite these similarities, they differ substantially in the methods they use to achieve these goals.
Levels one through three, on one hand, focuses on "big picture" elements such as analysis of the marketplace, out-sourcing, purchase/sale of subsidiaries, truly out-of-the box" thinking and substantial change in the management and support systems of the company . In my experience, companies that use these methods tend to have a high need for change, risk-tolerant management, relatively few constraints and have substantial consensus among its management on what to do. Types of industries include those whose environment requires rapid adaptation to fast-moving events: electronics, information systems and telecommunication industries, for example.
Companies using mostly incremental tools (level 4) have management that perceives only a modest need for change, is relatively risk-avoidant, has many constraints on its actions and only has a modest consensus among themselves on what to do. Instead of focusing on new opportunities, they wish to hone and clarify what they already do. Types of industries that often use these methods include the military, aerospace, and until recently, health care organizations. Those organizations whose strategic planning solely focuses on refining an existing mission statement and communicating the paragraph also fall into using incremental (level 4) methods.
When discussing the continuum of structural vs. incremental change, its important to realize that what labels companies use are not important here. One must carefully observe their actions. Many companies have slogans, "glitter" recognition programs and large budgets to provide "awareness" training in the buzzword they are attempting to implement. The key, however, is to note what changes they are really making. If management is mostly filling training slots with disinterested workers and forming a few process improvement teams, they are using level three methods. If they are considering changes in business lines, re-organizing by customer instead of by function, or making major changes in how the everyday employee is being paid, they are using level 3 methods.
Unfortunately, all of this discussion hinges in management's belief about how much change is necessary. This belief often hinges on their often unassessed beliefs of 1) how well the organization performs compared to other organizations (a lack of benchmarking); and 2) what the future will be.
As a result, my recommendation is that organizations conduct scenario/strategic planning exercises (level 1) anyway, even if they have already decided that level 4 (incremental) methods will suffice to solve their problems. This way management can be aware of the limitations of the lower-level methods they are using and realize when it is best to abandon these lower-level methods for something more substantive.
Based on this exercise, comparison of existing internal processes with world-class examples (benchmarking) and market analysis, management may come to realize how much change is necessary. The greater the gap between what the organization needs to be and how it currently operations and what businesses it is in, the more it suggests that greater change is necessary, and greater restructuring is necessary.
This decision is very important. IBM in the mid 1980’s felt that the future would be much like the past and a result didn't have to change much. They did not realize how much microcomputers would replace the functions of their bread-and-butter business, the mainframe. The net result was tens of thousands of people were laid off, with the company suffering the first losses in its history.
15.9. Goals
Based on whatever level work you are doing, the opportunities that are found need to be evaluated to determine which of them best suit the existing and future capabilities of the organization and provide the most "bang for the buck" in terms of improvement in your measures of success. In addition, goals need to have the resources and management determination to see to their success.
15.10. Goals also need to be SMART, that is:
Specific - concrete action, step-by-step actions needed to make the goal succeed
Measurable - observable results from the goal's accomplishment
Attainable - The goal is both possible and is done at the right time with sufficient attention and resources
Realistic- The probability of success is good, given the resources and attention given it.
Time-bound- The goal is achieved within a specified period of time in a way that takes advantage of the opportunity before it passes you by.
15.11. Some examples include:
• We will expand into the polystyrene market within the next five years and achieve 20% market share”
• We will decrease the time from research to customer delivery by 50% within two years
• We will increase the quality of our largest product by 20% in three years.
15.12. Strategies
Where goals focus on what, strategies focus on how. Some examples include:
• “We will re-engineer our research and development process”
• “We will evaluate and improve our sales and marketing department”
• We will conduct a SWOT analysis and then define our core competencies
The goals and strategies are in one sense as they both need to be SMART. As what you might guess, the goals of a level are achieved by creating strategies at the lower levels.
15.13. The Measurement System
Without measures of success, the organization does not know if it has succeeded in its efforts. Someone once said, “What gets measured gets improved.” Someone else said, “If you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there.”
For more information on measurement systems and their place in organizational change, please see the "Balanced Scorecard" article, along with a number of articles where employee surveys are used.
15.14. Implementation and Organizational Change
The success of any organizational change effort can be summed into an equation:
Success = Measurement X Method X Control X Focused Persistence X Consensus
Like any equation with multiplication, a high value of one variable can compensate for lower levels on other variables. Also like any equation with multiplication, if one variable equals 0, the result is zero.
15. 15. On employee involvement
Some organizations involve employees right from the start, where they have significant influence in the strategic plan of the organization. This kind of involvement tends to reduce employees’ resistance, which is always a very important factor in the success of any organizational change. Such organizations as Eaton, Eastman Chemical and Rohm and Haas have used such an approach.
Such employee involvement, however, might also be threatening to management’s traditional power. Some organizations decide employee involvement will be limited to implementing the strategic decisions management makes, or further limit involvement to purely task-focused teams working on technical problems. Many aerospace organizations have used this approach.
15.16. Focused persistence, good project management and the sequence of implementation
The sequence of implementation is also an important factor. There are four basic options, with many variations of them. The first involves the entire organization from the start, with the whole organization intensively working at once on making the change. Ford Motor Company is currently restructuring its entire organization, moving from planning to implementation in nine months. Another option is a more relaxed approach, in which divisions or business units of the organization go at their own pace. This option can often become an incremental approach like the first or second village. Many conglomerates or other companies with diverse operations try this approach. A third option is similar to the previous one, with the focus being on individual business units doing the implementation. In this case, however, business units implement roughly the same things in roughly the same time schedule. Unisys, the computer company, is using this method on some of its organizational change efforts. A fourth option is to create a pilot project in one division or business unit, learn from its mistakes, and then apply those lessons to the rest of the organization. Examples of this option include the Saturn car facility at General Motors and the Enfield plant of Digital Equipment Corporation. It’s important to note here that creating pilot projects is a high-risk business. In both cases, the lessons learned from these pilot projects have not gained widespread acceptance in their parent companies due to their heavily ingrained cultures.
17.0. Quality of Work Life
Quality of Work Life (QWL) is the favorableness or unfavorableness of the job environment. Its purpose is to develop jobs and working conditions that are excellent for both the employees and the organization. One of the ways of accomplishing QWL is through job design. Some of the options available for improving job design are:
Leave the job as is but employ only people who like the rigid environment or routine work. Some people do enjoy the security and task support of these kinds of jobs.
• Leave the job as is, but pay the employees more.
• Mechanize and automate the routine jobs.
• And the area that OD loves - redesign the job.
When redesigning jobs there are two spectrums to follow - job enlargement and job enrichment. Job enlargement adds a more variety of tasks and duties to the job so that it is not as monotonous. This takes in the breadth of the job. That is, the number of different tasks that an employee performs. This can also be accomplished by job rotation. Job enrichment, on the other hand, adds additional motivators. It adds depth to the job - more control, responsibility, and discretion to how the job is performed. This gives higher order needs to the employee, as opposed to job enlargement which simply gives more variety. The chart below (Cunningham & Eberle, 1990) illustrates the differences:
17.1. Job Enrichment and Job Performance
_______________________________
Higher
Order
Job
Job
Enrichment
Enrichment
and
Enlargement
Accent on
_______________
_______________
Needs
Routine
Job
Job
Enlargement
Lower
Order
_______________
_______________
Few Many
Variety of Tasks
17.2. The benefits of enriching jobs include:
• Growth of the individual
• Individuals have better job satisfaction
• Self-actualization of the individual
• Better employee performance for the organization
• Organization gets intrinsically motivated employees
• Less absenteeism, turnover, and grievances for the organization
• Full use of human resources for society
• Society gains more effective organizations
17.3. There are a variety of methods for improving job enrichment (Hackman and Oldham, 1975):
• Skill Variety: Perform different tasks that require different skill. This differs from job enlargement which might require the employee to perform more tasks, but require the same set of skills.
• Task Identity: Create or perform a complete piece of work. This gives a sense of completion and responsibility for the product.
• Task Significant: This is the amount of impact that the work has on other people as the employee perceives.
• Autonomy: This gives employees discretion and control over job related decisions.
• Feedback: Information that tells workers how well they are performing. It can come directly from the job (task feedback) or verbally from someone else.
18.0 Conclusion
Our number-driven world makes facility with these data and data-based decision making a necessity. Organizations are far less receptive to non-data-based approaches to OD today than they were ten years ago. Proven methods that lead to financial as well as humanistic gains are now a requirement. The days when a consultant’s charisma and intuition were enough to get by on are gone. Clients today are more knowledgeable, sophisticated, experienced, and demanding than ever before. This, contemporary OD practitioners must be well vast in a wide variety of areas, possess a myriad of skills and embrace the use of data in their work. It is believed that practitioners who do not embrace this approach do so at their own peril.
Reference
Allen, K, Crossman, D, &Sevendsen,D. S.(1993). The future of OD: Conversations with “Living Legends”, OD practitioner,25(1),25-32,
Blockhard,R, &Harris, R. T. (1987). Organizational transitions: Managing complex change.
Block, P.(1981). Flawless consulting: A guide to getting Your expertise used.
Burke,W.W.(1982). Organizational Development: Principles and practices.
Burke, W. W. (1994). Organization development: A process of learning and changing.
Burke, W. W. &Litwin, G. H.(1992). A casual model of organizational performance and change. Journal of management, 18, 523-545.
Church, A. H. (2000). The future of OD: Relevant or not? Presentation to the best practices in leading change conference.
Church, A. H. (2000). Managing change from the inside out. Performance in practice, pp.13-14.
Church, A. H, Burke, W.W. (1995). Practiceitioner attitudes about the field of organization development.
Church, A. H, Hurley, R. F., & Burke, W.W.(1992). Evolution or revolution in the values of organization Development! Commentary on the state of the field. Journal of organizational change management, 5 (4), 6-23.
Church, A. H.& Van Eynde, D. F.(1994). Values, motives, and interventions of organization development practitioners. Group and organization management, 19,5-50.
Cummings T. G., & Worley C. (1993). Organization Development and Change.
Cunningham, J. B. & Eberle, T. (1990). "A Guide to Job Enrichment and Redesign," Personnel.
Davis, K. (1993). Organization Behavior: Human Behavior at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fagenson, E. A., Burke, W. W.(1990). The activities of organization development practitioners at the turn of the decade of the 1990s: A Study of their prediction. Group and organization studies, 15, 366-380.
French,W. L; Bell, C. H. Jr. (1978). Organization Development: Behavioral science interventions for organization improvement.
Friedlander.(1976). OD reaches adolescence: An exploration of its underlying values. Journal of Applied Behavioral science, 12, 7-21.
Gellerman, W., Frankel,M.S & Ladenson,R. F.(1990). Values and ethics in organization and human systems development: Responding to dilemmas in professional life.
Golembiewski, R.T.(1989). Organization development: Ideas and issues.
Golembiewski, R. T, & Sun, B. C.(1990). Positive findings bias in QWL studies: Rigor and outcomes in a large sample. Journal of management,16,665-674.
Greirier, L.(1980), OD values and the “Bottom Line.
Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1975). "Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey." Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, pp. 159-70.
Knoster, T., Villa, R. & Thousand, J. (2000). A framework for thinking about systems change.
Koch, C. (2006). The New Science of Change. CIO Magazine, Sep 15, 2006 (pp 54-56).
Mcmahan, G.C. & Church, A. H.(1996). The practice of organization and human resources development in America’s fastest growing firms. Leadership and organization development Journal, 19(2), 17-33.
McHennry, J., & Mckenna, D.(1998).Organization Development in high performing companies: An in depth work at the role of OD in microsoft. Organization Development Journal,16, (3), 51-64.
Revans, R. W. (1982).The Origin and Growth of Action Learning. Hunt, England: Chatwell-Bratt, Beckley.
Schein, E. (1968). "Organizational Socialization and the Profession of Management," Industrial Management Review, 1968 vol. 9 pp. 1-15 in Newstrom.
Siegal, W.& Waclawski, J.(1996). Will the real OD practitioners please stand up? A call for change in the field. Organization Development Journal, 14(2), 5-14.
Timmreck, C. W. & A.H. Church (Eds).The handbook of multisource feedback: The comprehensive resources for designing and implementing msf process(pp.301-317).
Walters P. G. (1990). Characteristics of successful organization development: A review of literature.
Waclawski, J, &Church, A. H. (1998). The vendor mind set: The devolution from organizational consultant to street peddler. Consulting psychology Journals practice and research,5(2), 87-100.
Waclawski, J,& Burke, W. W.(2000). Multisource fee-back for organization development and change.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment