Lecture-1 WHAT IS ORGANISATION DEVELOPMENT? We are often asked this question as to what is consulting in Organization Development?

Often asked this question because currently there’s no agreement on the meaning of the term “organization development”, and it is still less clear what a consultant in organization development is. That is why I am going to explain what we mean by that. We firmly believe that only companies having an internal structure corresponding to their goals are able to develop successfully. That is why our main goal is to help our clients to organize their internal resources in the most efficient way for their development. For instance, to distribute functions and authority, to create transparent system of interaction and control, to develop a common set of values, to unite various divisions into an efficient team for the purpose of performing clearly defined tasks... For us the key term is development. And development is a process, and this implies the fact that besides analysis and advice, helping to carry out organizational changes is also a significant part of our work. My approach from the very beginning would be from simple to complex issues for better comprehension of all the concepts both in particular and in general. Therefore before discussing the intervention techniques I would like you to be acquainted with the basic concepts like: What is OD? What is the Historical background of OD? Foundations of OD Change and OD Organization Culture and OD What is Organization Development? An organization is a system consisting of four interacting subsystems: structure, technology, people and task. Structure refers to the formal interactions within the organization as evidenced in the organizational chart or organ gram. Task refers to the set of activities to be performed. In other words, the behavioral specification associated with a job. Technology relates to the level of sophistication determining the workflow and performance of jobs in an organization. Higher technology, most often, means higher job knowledge and skills of employees. Organizations may be classified as to their level of technology: high, medium, low or obsolete. People variable refers to the human input in the organization i.e., individuals (in terms of their physical and mental skills, personality etc.) working in the organization. Organization as a system can be changed and developed to achieve its goals in the best possible way. The goals of an organization generally are: survival, stability, profitability, growth and service to society. From one organization to another, the goal or goals may differ depending upon at what stage of development the organization is. Organization can achieve its goal if it is able to respond to changes within the external and internal environment. The external environment is in terms of forces in the social, political, economic and cultural factors. Competition from similar organizations, changing needs of the public, knowledge explosion, and rapid growth of technology –

All constitute threat to organizational effectiveness. Organization has also to take into cognizance its internal environment, which includes existing structure, technology, needs and expectations of its people and the changing scenario of labor force. Organization development (OD) is planned approach to respond effectively to changes in its external and internal environment. Lecture 2 Essentially there are two schools of thought in OD: • Programmed –Procedure School • System –Process School The Programmed –Procedure school: It is an older approach. According to it, OD is the effective implementation of the organization’s policies, procedures and programmers. It is concerned with personnel activities that contribute to the overall growth and development of the organization, such as: recruitment, training, career development, Compensation, welfare and benefits, labor relations etc. Personnel development is primarily concerned with OD activities. At present, it is being widely recognized that personnel functions contribute only partly to OD. They at best serve the organizational control or maintenance function. The system process school: This school considers organization development in the context of both its internal and external environment. Proponents of this approach view organization as a system, which can be changed and developed to best, achieve its goals and objectives. Insights drawn from recent developments in behavioral sciences have contributed to the system-process school. An emerging role for OD is system based and focuses on total organization effectiveness and hence goes beyond the traditional personnel programmers. The emphasis is much more on work groups within and across departments rather than individuals as such. While personnel programmers Demand conformity for prescribed policies and procedures, the system process school encourages openness, and collaborative ways of solving problems so that the outcomes are advantageous to both the individual and the organization. It is likely that the objectives of both the schools and contradictory to certain extent. Programmed Procedure School System Process School Internal Internal & External Personnel – oriented Department – oriented Individual Group Sectional Holistic Prescriptive Open System internal Interdisciplinary Lecture 3 DEFINITION OF OD

OD may be defined as a systematic, integrated and planned approach to improve the effectiveness of the enterprise. It is designed to solve problems that adversely affect the operational efficiency at all levels (Koontz ET. Al. 1980). It is based on scientific awareness of human behavior and organization dynamics. Being an organization wide effort, it is directed towards more participative management and integration of individual goals with organization goals OD is intended to create an internal environment of openness, trust, mutual confidence and collaboration and to help the members of the organization to interact more effectively in the pursuit of organizational goals. Thus, the organization is enabled to cope effectively with external force in the environment. Meaning and Nature of Organization Development Definition of Organization Development Organization development (OD) is defined as a long-range effort to improve an organization's ability to cope with 'Change and its problem-solving and renewal processes through effective management of organization culture which ': involves moving towards a third wave organization and an attempt to achieve corporate excellence by fl; rating the desires of individuals for growth and development with organizational goals. According to Richard hard, "Organization development is an effort: 1 Planned, organization wide, managed from the top, to increase organization effectiveness and health, through planed interventions in the organization's processes using behavioral science knowledge." Organization development efforts then, are planned, systematic OD approaches to change. They involve changes to the total organization or to relatively large segments of it. The purpose of OD efforts is to increase the _effectiveness: of the system and. also, to develop the potential of all in individual members. Finally, a series of planned behavioral science intervention activities are carried out in collaboration with organization members to. Help find improved ways of working together towards individual and organizational goals. Another way of understanding OD is to know what it is not: 'OD is not a micro approach to change. Management development. For example. It is aimed at changing. Individual behavior. Where as OD is used on the macro goal of developing an organization-wide improvement in manageable OD is more than any single technique. Whereas OD consultants use many differing techniques. Such as total quality management or job enrichment. No single technique represents the OD discipline. OD does not include random or ad hoc changes. OD is based "on a incremental appraisal and diagnosis of problems leading to specific types of change, efforts. OD is aimed at more than raising morale or attitude OD is aimed: At. Overall organizational effectiveness. This may include participant satisfaction an aspect of the change effort but includes other effectiveness parameters.

2 Organization Development is an organizational Process for understanding and improving any and all substantive process an organization may develop for performing any task and pursuing any objectives 3 Organization development is a set of behavioral Science based theories, values, strategies and techniques aimed at the planned change of organizational work setting for the purpose of enhancing individual development and improving organizational performance, through organizational structure, process, strategy, people and culture. •Developing new and creative organizational solutions •Developing the organizations Self-renewing capacity. It occurs through collaboration of organizational members working with a change agent using behavioral science theory, research and technology. 5 OD can be defined as a Planned and sustained effort to apply behavioral science for system improvement using reflexive, self-analytical methods. (Schmuck and miles,1971) These definitions clarify the distinctive features of OD and suggest why it is such a powerful change strategy. The participative, collaborative, problem-focused nature of OD marshals the experience and expertise of organization members as they work on their most important problems and opportunity in ways designed to lead to successful outcomes OBJECTIVES OF OD The objectives of OD may be stated as follows: • Improved organizational performance as measured by profitability, market share, innovativeness etc. • Better adaptability of the organization to its environment . • Willingness of the members to face organizational problems and contribute creative solutions to these problems • Improvement in internal behavior patterns such as interpersonal relations, intercrop relations, level of trust and support among role members, understanding one’s own self and others, openness and meaningful communication and involvement in planning for organizational development. Lecture –4 CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF OD To enlarge upon the definition of OD Let us examine some of the basic characteristics of OD programs. Planned Change: It is a planned strategy to bring about organizational Change. This change effort aims at specific objectives and is based on the diagnosis of problem areas. Collaborative: OD typically involves a collaborative approach to change, which includes the involvement and participation of those organization members most affected by the changes.

Performance: OD programs include an emphasis on ways to improve and enhance performance and quality (TQM). Humanistic: OD relies on a set of humanistic values about people and organizations that aims at gaining more effective organizations by opening up new opportunities for increased use of human potential systems. OD represents a systems approach concerned with the interrelationship of various divisions, departments, groups and individuals and interdependent subsystems of the total organization. Focal Area Change is planned by managers to achieve goals. Involves collaborative approach and involvement. Emphasis on ways to improve and enhance performance. Emphasis upon increased opportunity and use of human potential relationship among elements and excellence. Scientific approaches supplement practical experience. An OD practitioner (either manager or consultant) is a person in an organization responsible for changing existing patterns to obtain more effective organizational performance. Organization development practitioners have come to realize that conventional training techniques are no longer sufficient for affecting the type of behavioral changes needed to create adaptive organizations. New techniques have been developed to provide participants with the competence and motivation to alter ineffective patterns of behavior. One interesting Question is, can OD be used change nations as well as organizations? There are many OD techniques, and any individual practitioner may rely on one or a combination of approaches. Regardless of the method selected, the objectives are to work from an overall organization perspective, through _increasing the ability of the "whole" to respond to a changing environment. Organizations have objectives such as making profit, surviving, and growing; but individual members also have desires to achieve, unsatisfied needs to fulfill, and career goals to accomplish within the organization. OD then, is a "process for Change, which can benefit both the organization and the individual. In today's business environment managers must continuously monitor change and adapt their systems to survive by staying competitive in a turbulent arena. The roots of OD lie in the famous Hawthorne experiments carried out at the Western Electric Company by Elton Mayon and his associates. These experiments highlighted the importance of employee attitudes and expectations, informal work groups, norms and Values and participation in decision making as influencing performance – all these still central concepts in various techniques of OD. Though there are divergent opinions and attitudes about the nature and practice of OD, among its practitioners, a general consensus may be noticed among them as to what the basic characteristics of OD are. In any OD effort the totality of the organization is to be taken into account. Organization being an integrated system of sub-systems, changes in anyone sub-system tends to have consequences for the other sub-systems. The approach should be holistic either for identifying the need for change within or for planning and implementing a change, until the intended change is absorbed in the total system, optimal collaboration, synergism and efficiency cannot be obtained. The theoretical body of knowledge underlying the concept and practice of OD is eclectic. Recent developments in the area of behavioral sciences,

especially psychology, sociology, anthropology etc., have influenced the OD thought and practice. The intended changes in OD programmers may be carried out at any of the sub-system levels such as: •Organization structure •Task accomplishment •Work climate (interpersonal and intercrop relations, work values) •Methods of decision-making and problem solving •Technology.

UNIT1 Lecture 5 Foundations of Organization Development The Emergence of OD Organization development is one of the primary means of creating more adaptive organizations. Warren Bennis. A leading OD practitioner has suggested three factors underlying the emergence of OD. 1 The need jar new' organizational forms. Organizations tend to adopt a form that is more appropriate to a particular time, and the current rate of change requires more adaptive forms. 2 The focus on cultural change. Because each organization forms a culture-a system of beliefs and values the only way to change is to alter this organizational culture. 3.The increase in social awareness. Because. Of the changing social climate, tomorrow's employee will no longer accept autocratic styles of management; therefore, greater social awareness is required in the organization. Today’s managers exist in shifting organizational structures and can be the central force in initiating change and establishing the means for adoption. Most organizations strive to be creative, efficient, and highly competitive, maintaining a leading edge in their respective fields rather than following trends set by others. Effective managers are vital to the continuing self-renewal and ultimate survival of the organization. The Consultant manager must recognize when changes are occurring in the external environment and possess the necessary competence to bring about change when it is needed. The manager must also be aware of the internal system and recognize that the major element in planned change is the organizational culture: the feelings, norms, and behaviors of its members. The Evolution: of Organization Development (Historical Development) It is not within the scope of this book to provide a detailed history of OD. But a brief explanation of the evolution 'this field may give you a better understanding of its application today. Organization development has 'involved over the past 40 years from the application of behavioral science knowledge and techniques to solving organizational problems. What has become OD stand in the late 1940s at MIT and is deeply rooted in the pioneering work of applied social scientists. such as Kurt Lewin, and also strongly influenced by the work of psychologists such as Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. The term organization Development is widely attributed to Robert Blake and Jane Mouton (the originators of the Managerial Grid) Herren Shepard (a leading OD pioneer); however, Richard Beckhard (an OD consultant) claims this distinction as well. Regardless of who first coined the term, it emerged about 1957 and is generally conceded to have evolved from two basic sources: the application of laboratory methods by National Training Laboratories (NTL) and the survey research methods ignited by the Survey Research Center. Both methods were pioneered by Kurt Lewin in about 1945.

Laboratory- Training methods -In the late I 940s and early 1950s laboratory-training methods were developed and applied by a group of behavioral scientists at Bethel, Maine. Douglas McGregor (Theory X and Theory Y with Richard BecKhard, began applying laboratory-training methods to industry, at General Iills in 1956 and at Union Carbide in 1957. At union Carbide, McGregor and John Paul Jones (an internal consultant) formed the First internal OD consulting group about the; same time. Herbert Shepard and Robert Blake were initiating a series of applied behavioral Science interventions at Esso, using mainly laboratory-training technique to improve work team processes. These early railing sessions provided the basis for what Blake and Mouton later developed as an instrumented training system they called the Managerial Grid. The success of these programs led to a dissemination of such efforts to her corporations. The Extent of OD Applications From these early beginnings OD has experienced a rapid growth. A growing number of organizations worldwide applying OD techniques ', including most major corporations, have formed internal OD consulting groups. The OD network, an organization of OD practitioners, has been in existence for only a little over two decades and has grown to a membership of more than 2,000 members. The National Training Laboratories, American psychological Association, American Society for Training and Development, and Academy of Management all have professional divisions relating to organization development. The first doctoral program for training OD specialists, called the Organizational Behavior Group, was started by Shepard in 1960 at what is now the Department of Organization and Administration at Case Western Reserve University: Shepard applied these OD techniques, in an educational setting, to the development of OD practitioners. The Organizational Behavior group has as since graduated over 100 specialists. Who are involved in teaching and consulting throughout? The group. Other universities with graduate programs bearing on OD include Brigham Young, Harvard. MIT, Southern, Methodist, UCLA, University of Washington, Gonzaga, Pepperdine, and Yale, with many others beginning to include OD in the curriculum. Organization development is an exciting rapidly growing field. OD efforts have grown into a multitude of differing approaches and are now applied in a number of organizations around the world by expanding number OD practitioners. Lecture 6 The Organization Culture The element of an organization system, which a manager needs to understand, is the organization culture. The term culture refers to a specific civilization, society, or group that are its distinguishing characteristics. As B. F. Skinner has commented: "A culture is not the behavior of the people 'living in it'; it is the 'it' in which they live-contingencies of social reinforcement which generate and sustain their behavior. Is The organization culture refers to a system of shared meanings, including the language, dress, patterns of behavior, value system, feelings, attitudes, interactions, and group norms of the members. ) You may examine the patterns of behavior on your campus Orin your company. How do people dress or wear their hair? What jargon or unique terms are used these are the elements that make up a culture: the accepted patterns of behavior. One example is the

culture at Federal Express, carefully crafted by Frederick Smith, the chairman, to reflect a combat situation. Flights are called missions" and competitors are "enemies."

GURE Schematic Diagram of Experiential Learning Cycle The Experiential Approach to Learning To learn OD techniques, a manager or student needs both the knowledge of content material and the Experience of putting theory into practice. Consequently, to create a learning environment for the field of Organization development at either the undergraduate or graduate level, the emphasis should be on experience .In this course you wiII be experiencing OD techniques by means of behavioral simulations at the same time .What you are learning OD theories.. You will perhaps discover a different approach to the study of organizational change. Many courses in OD approach change in a structured and traditional manner. By means of lectures and readings, useful concepts and theories are presented to the student, whose role is largely passive. This book utilizes an innovative and significantly different approach to teaching OD: the experiential approach. It is used on learning OD techniques experiencing simulated organizational situations. You will experience situations in which you are developing relationship with a client or diagnosing a problem rather than simply reading about them. Basic Concepts of Experiential Learning Experiential learning is based upon three basic concepts: You learn best when you are involved in the learning experience. Concepts have to be experienced or discovered by you. the learner, if they are to change your behavior. Your commitment to learning will be greatest when you are responsible for setting your own learning objectives.In the experiential approach, the major responsibility for learning is placed upon you, the learner. You will determine your own learning objectives and influence how the class goes about achieving these objectives. You attain your own goals, decide which theories you. want to learn, practice the skills or techniques you want to improve, and develop the

behavioral style you want to develop .experiential learning also involves an active, rather than a passive role. The experiential laming program can be presented a four-stage cycle ' 1 Gaining conceptual Knowledge and Theories -You will be reading about OD concept; and theories and doing pre class preparation. 2 Activity in behavioral simulation .-You. will be problem solving, making decisions, and communicating , actively practicing the concepts and theories. 3 Analysis of Activity-You will be analyzing, critiquing. and the way you solved problems, and comparing the results of different approaches. Connecting the theory and activity. with prior on-the-job or life situations-You will be connecting your Learning past experiences reflecting upon the results, and generalizing into the future. The end result should be proved skill and performance in applying ,these learning’s to 1ife and job situations. “Student centered" learning places a learning responsibility upon you. There will be an opportunity in the class for a high level of participation and for a challenging learning experience. Small-group learning environments. will be formed wherein you may share learning with others, thus encountering feedback. Each of tbe learning -units presents a conceptual background and a framework for a behavioral simulation. The focal point of each chapter is the actionoriented behavioral simulation. As part of the experiential learning model in OD, feelings, and emotions represent important data for learning. open and authentic relationships in which you share your feelings with others and provide honest feedback are necessary part of the learning situation. Each chapter is organized to help you learn concepts and skills, and each provides cases, simulations, and diagnostic instruments to help you learn more about OD. Although experiential learning can .be stimulating and often fun, it is important to remember that you learn from the combination of theory and experience. Lecture 7 Systems theory A systems approach takes a “big picture” perspective of organizational change. It is based on the notion that any change, no matter how large or small, has a cascading effect throughout an organization.16 For example, promoting an individual to a new work group affects the group dynamics in both the old and new groups. Similarly, creating project or work teams may necessitate the need to revamp compensation practices. These examples illustrate that change creates additional change. Today’s solutions are tomorrow’s problems. A systems model of change offers managers a framework to understand the broad complexities of organizational change. The three main components of a systems model are inputs, target elements of change, and outputs Inputs All organizational changes should be consistent with an organization’s mission, vision, and resulting strategic plan. A Mission statement represents the “reason” an organization exists, and an organization’s vision is a long-term goal that describes “what” an organization wants to become. Consider how the difference between mission and vision affects organizational change. Your university probably has a mission to educate people. This mission does not necessarily imply anything about change. It simply defines the university’s overall

purpose. In contrast, the university may have a vision to be recognized as the “best” university in the country. This vision requires the organization to benchmark itself against other world-class universities and to create plans for achieving the vision. While vision statements point the way, strategic plans contain the detail needed to create organizational change. A strategic plan outlines an organization’s long-term direction. And actions necessary to achieve planned results. Strategic plans are based on considering an organization’s strengths and weaknesses relative to its environmental opportunities and threats. This comparison results in developing an organizational strategy to attain desired outputs such as profits, customer satisfaction, quality, and adequate return on investment. Target elements of change Components of an organization that may be changed. Finished vans sit at the end of a production line in the Avon Lake, Ohio, Ford assembly plant. The plant assembles the Ford Mercury Villager, Nilsson Quest, and the Ford Econoline Vans.How will Ford’s inflexible plant design affect its ability to respond to changes in consumer preferences? AP/Wide World Photos volumes. Toyota Motor Corp. and Volkswagen, for example, could be big winners, since both are skilled at incorporating shared components among different models to save money. Outputs represent the desired end results of a change. Once again, these end results should be consistent with an organization’s strategic plan. Returning to the above example regarding Ford, the organizational changes are geared toward increasing flexibility, decreasing costs, and decreasing the time intakes to bring a new car to market. Parallel Learning structures Parallel learning structures, specially created organizational structures developed to plan and guide change programs, constitute another important foundation of organization development. Dale Zand introduced this concept under the label collateral organization in 1974, and defined it as: Us supplemental organization coexisting with the usual, formal Organization. USO The purpose of the collateral organization into deal with illstructured” problems that the formal organizations unable to resolve. Parallel structures help people break free of the normal constraints imposed the organization, engage in genuine inquiry and experimentation, and initiate needed changes. We believe parallel learning structures are a foundation of ad because they are prevalent in so many different 00 programs. The quality of work life programs of the 1970s and 1980s used parallel structures composed of union leaders, managers, and employees. Most sociotechnical systems redesign efforts and open systems planning programs Use parallel structures. Parallel structures are often used to coordinate self-directed teams in high-performance organizations. A steering committee and working groups were used to coordinate the employee involvement teams at Ford Motor Company. Parallel learning structures are often the best way to initiate change in large bureaucratic organizations, especial-lee when the change involves a fundamental shift in the organization’s methods of work and/or culture. Bushel and Shani recount a number of examples from variety of settings

where this intervention was used to great advantage. Parallel learning structures are a powerful tool for creating organizational change. Lecture 8 A normative Reeducative strategy of changing At the beginning of this chapter, we spoke of the importance of models and theories of planned change. Here we address another foundation of OD in terms of the strategy of change that underlies most organization development activities. Organization development involves change, and it rests on particular strategy of changing that has implications for practitioners and organization members alike. Chin and Benne describe three types of strategies for changing.54 First there are the empirical-rational strategies, based on the assumptions that people are rational, will follow their rational self-interest, and will change if and when they come to realize the change is advantageous to them. The second group of strategies is the normative-reeducative strategies, based on the assumptions that norms form the basis for behavior, and change comes through a reeducation process in which old norms are discarded and supplanted by new ones. The third set of strategies is the power-coercive strategies, based on the assumption that change is compliance of those with less power to the de-sires of those with more power. Evaluated against these three change strategies, 00 clearly falls within the normativereeducative category, although often 00 represents a combination of the normativereeducative and the empirical-rational strategies. Chin and Benne indicate the nature of the normative-reeducative strategy: A second group of strategies we call normativereeducative. These strategies build upon assumptions about human motivation different from those underlying the first. The rationality and intelligence of men are not denied. Patterns of action and practice are supported by sociocultural norms and by commitments on the part of the individu-103als to these norms. Sociocultural norms are supported by the attitude and value systems of individuals-normative outlooks which under-gird their commitments. Change in a pattern of practice or action, ac-cording to this view, will occur only as the persons involved are brought to change their normative orientations to old patterns and develop commitments to new ones. And changes in normative orientations involve changes in attitudes, values, skills, and significant relationships, not just changes in knowledge, information, or intellectual-al rationales for action and practice.” Our definition of organization development refers to improving and managing the organization’s culture-a clear reference to socio-cultural norms and to the normative nature of organizational change. Since norms are socially accepted beliefs about Appropriate and inappropriate behaviors held by groups, focusing on the group, not the individual, could best change norms. Burke writes: the application of behavioral science knowledge, practices, and skills in ongoing systems in collaboration with system members. Lecture 9 THE PROCESS OF CHANGE

SEQUENTIAL PROCESS OF CHANGE Change takes place through steps or phases. By this we mean the processes through which a given innovation becomes an accepted part of the personality and way of working of individuals, is usually evolutionary. Seldom does a new idea or practice become accepted in one step, small or large. Perhaps a better way of putting it is that people who accomplish successful change go through a number of sequential stages in reaching their goal. This latter way of putting the matter is important because it implies that people, not the innovation, go through the steps. This point is often lost sight of in large-scale development projects. Sometimes the planning is done by one group, usually a group of high-level administrators, and those who are expected to use the innovation may have experienced none of the development thinking involved. This is very likely to lead to uninformed, insensitive and different implementation, if implementation takes place at all. The dangers of this way of handling the stages of development can be minimized by indirect involvement in planning and evaluation, and by good communications among all the people who will eventually be touched by the new practice. But the problem remains one to be kept in mind in the planning and steering of any development effort. Several models of sequential steps or stages in change have been suggested. All these models envisage change as a continuous process involving several stages. The following eight stages are proposed here as framework of organizational change: 1.Initiation: Invitation is the stage of vocalization of the need for change. Organizational change starts when someone takes the initiative of proposing that something has to be done at the level of the corporate management where the concern for some dimension of organizational functioning is shared and discussed. The idea may be mooted at the level of the corporate management, at times based on observations or recommendations by some other level of the organization, and sometimes as are sult of discussion at the level of the corporate management. This usually leads to the hiring of a consultant from outside, or discussion with the appropriate set of people within the organization. 2. Motivation: Motivation is the stage of the involvement of people in detailed thinking about the proposed change. At this stage both the corporate management and the expert who helps in the organizational change take necessary steps to involve at large section of the organization in thinking about the various dimensions of the change process. 3. Diagnosis: Diagnosis is an attempt to search for the main cause of the symptoms encountered. 4. Information Collection: At this stage detailed information is collected on the dimension indicated by the diagnosis. Based on the diagnosis the necessary information is collected. 5. Deliberation: The deliberation stage is concerned with evaluating various alternatives generated for change.

6. Action Proposal: This is the stage of framing up an action proposal. 7. Implementation: Implementation is concerned with translating the proposal into action. 8. Stabilization: Stabilization is the stage of internalisising change and making it a part of the organization’s normal life. The various stages in the process of organizational change may be useful to pay attention to the process in the beginning much more and this will help to pay less attention to the process as the organizational change proceeds further. Later much more attention can be given to the task. It is necessary to understand the psychological process behind each stage of change, and the behavioral outcomes or indicators. THE PROCESS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE The process of change assumes qualitatively different dimensions in large and complex organizations. There are demands by the external environment and varying pressures from internal groups. In complex organizations, with rapid change in the environments. The process of change is one of transition from the present to the future. In such a case vision becomes an important process of collectively creating models of the future, and helps most people to move towards these models. Changes are complex, involving the Structure, systems, processes, and new norms and behavior. Continuous, monitoring is needed. Change has to continuously balance innovation with stability. When an organization undertakes to respond to a new challenge, to complex and changing environments, it needs to re-examine and re-define its mission, create a vision for the members of an organization, and develop broad strategies of mobilizing for the members of the organization to move into the future. Such a change will be called transformational change. Beck hard (1989) suggests four types of changes as transformational: a change in what drives the organization, a fundamental change in the relationship between and among organizational parts, a major change in the ways of doing work, and a basic change in means, values or reward systems. Beck hard suggests 10 pre-requisites for success of and 8 steps in the process of transformation change the role of the top executives are critical in transformational change. Pre-requisites of success of Transformational Change 1. Commitment of top leaders 2. Written description of the changed organization 3. Conditions that preclude maintenance of the status quo 4. Likelihood of a critical mass of support 5. A medium to long-term perspective 6. Awareness of resistance and the need to honor it 7. Awareness of the need for education 8. The conviction that the change must be true 9. Willingness to use resources 10. Commitment to maintaining the flow of information. Steps in Transformational Change 1. Designing the future state

2. Diagnosing the present state 3. Extrapolating what is required to go from present state to the transitional state 4. Analyzing the work that occurred during the transitional state 5. Defining the system that is affecting the problem 6. Analyzing each of the members of the critical mass with regard to readiness and capacity. 7. Identifying the power relationships and resources necessary to ensure the perpetuations of change Lecture 10 Concepts of Intervention The major task of diagnosis, as mentioned earlier, is .to seek information knowledge while the task of intervention is to act/ take action. A clear-cut line of division is not possible as Knowing and doing are inextricably linked up in human experience. In defining intervention French and Bell (1990) supports the view that intervention is primarily concerned with activities directed towards or antirational c go. 1’hey say, “We prefer however, that emphasis be plated 6n the activity nature of interpellation’s; interventions are “things that happen” Activates, in an organizations life... OD interventions are sets of structured activities in which selected organizational units (target groups or individuals) engage in a task or a sequence of tasks’ her task goals are related directly .a indirectly to organizational improvement. The definitions offered by French and Bell (and similar other definitions too) obviously poses some Publics. First of all, QP interventions are not the only interventions in organization change it is only a subset of interventions. Secondly, emphasis placed on task may be re-exanimate as there are hundred other things than task that an organization, even a work organization, is preoccupied with. Personal development may not bean part of’ goal directed tasks or instrumental to the organization’s improvement. Set the organization may make provisions for it. Thirdly, the concept of improvement is to be properly understood. In using the term ‘improvement’ conceptually a value’ mention of movement form ‘bad to good’, ‘dysfunctional to functional’, ‘immature to mature’ is implied. Interventions are also needed to maintain the state of maturity if an organization has attained the maturity. The desire of a healthy person to maintain his health may require interventions that may lot be Seen, as improvement in health. Similarly, all organization may need interventions that maintain its present level of maturity. The scope of intervention for managing change may be further elaborated if the concept “of o (generational change proposed by Chat () pathway and Pareek (1982) is taken into consideration In their view, Organizational change will be conceived as a restively as a relatively enduring alteration of the present state of an organization or its components functions, in totality or partially, in order to gain greater viability in the context of the present and anticipated future environment” (p. XVI). Any mental or physical activity that introduces or facilitates the change in an organization is in retention for organizational change. The chugged activities, for example, as Chattopadhyay and Pareek (.1982) observe, include  malgamation and bifurcation. A

Diversifications, reorganization, Restructuring, Change in design or the introduction of new systems encompassing the organizations. It will also mean change of people, task technology of the organization. The change may be directed to one or more aspects:’ Types of Intervention Organizational change interventions could be divided into broad categories; 1. Interventions that are directed towards manifest change in the organization: for Example restructuring, re-organizing, introducing new systems, diversification, etc. 2. OD interventions that deal with processes, basic assumptions, beliefs, value, etc., which are underlying the manifest changes and directly or indirectly influence the manifest changes. Lecture 11 Sensitivity Training Psychological technique in which intensive group discussion and interaction are used to increase individual awareness of self and others; it is practiced in a variety of forms under such names as T-group, encounter group, human relations, and group-dynamics training. The group is usually small and unstructured and chooses its own goals. T-Groups History In 1947, the National Training Laboratories Institute began in Bethel, ME. They pioneered the use of T-groups (Laboratory Training) in which the learners use here and now experience in the group, feedback among participants and theory on human behavior to explore group process and gain insights into themselves and others. The goal is to offer people options for their behavior in groups. The T-group was a great training innovation, which provided the base for what we now know about team building. This was a new method that would help leaders and managers create a more humanistic, people serving system and allow leaders and managers to see how their behavior actually affected others. There was a strong value of concern for people and a desire to create systems that took people's needs and feelings seriously. Objectives of T-Group Learning

The T-Group is intended to provide you the opportunity to:
• • • • • • • • • • •

Increase your understanding of group development and dynamics. Gaining a better understanding of the underlying social processes at work within a group (looking under the tip of the iceberg) Increase your skill in facilitating group effectiveness. Increase interpersonal skills Experiment with changes in your behavior Increase your awareness of your own feelings in the moment; and offer you the opportunity to accept responsibility for your feelings. Increase your understanding of the impact of your behavior on others. Increase your sensitivity to others' feelings. Increase your ability to give and receive feedback. Increase your ability to learn from your own and a group's experience. Increase your ability to manage and utilize conflict.

Success in these goals depends, to a large extent, on the implied contract that each participant is willing to disclose feelings that she or he may have, in the moment, about others in the group, and to solicit feedback from the others about herself or himself. The focus is upon individual learning; some participants may learn a great deal in most of the above areas, others learn relatively little. Method One way of describing what may happen for a participant is -1. Unfreezing habitual responses to situations -- this is facilitated by the participant's own desire to explore new ways of behaving and the trainer staying non-directive, silent, and providing little structure or task agenda 2. Self generated and chosen change by the participant - Experiment with new behaviors -Practice description not evaluation of 3. Reinforce new behavior by positive feedback, participants own assessment of whether what is happening is closer to what she/he intends, supportive environment, trust development Sources of Change in Groups
• • • • • •

Self-observation - participants give more attention to their own intentions, feelings, etc. Feedback - participants receive information on the impact they have on others Insight - participants expand self-knowledge Self-disclosure - participants exposes more of themselves to others Universality - participants experience that others share their difficulties, concerns or hopes Group Cohesion - participants experience trust, acceptance & understanding)

• • •

Hope - participant see others learn, achieve their goals, improve, and cope more effectively Vicarious Learning - participants pick up skills and attitudes from others Catharsis - participants experience a sense of release or breakthrough

A Description The T-group provides participants with an opportunity to learn about themselves, their impact on others and how to function more effectively in group and interpersonal situations. It facilitates this learning by bringing together a small group of people for the express purpose of studying their own behavior when they interact within a small group. A T-Group is not a group discussion or a problem solving group. The group's work is primarily process rather than content oriented. The focus tends to be on the feelings and the communication of feelings, rather than on the communication of information, opinions, or concepts. This is accomplished by focusing on the 'here and now' behavior in the group. Attention is paid to particular behaviors of participants not on the "whole person", feedback is non-evaluative and reports on the impact of the behavior on others. The participant has the opportunity to become a more authentic self in relation to others through self disclosure and receiving feedback from others. The Johari Window is a model that looks at that process. The training is not structured in the manner you might experience in an academic program or a meeting with an agenda or a team with a task to accomplish. The lack of structure and limited involvement of the trainers provides space for the participants to decide what they want to talk about. No one tells them what they ought to talk about. The lack of direction results in certain characteristic responses; participants are silent or aggressive or struggle to start discussions or attempt to structure the group. In the beginning of a T-Group participants are usually focused on what they experience as a need for structure, individual emotional safety, predictability, and something to do in common. These needs are what amount to the tip of the iceberg in most groups in their back home situation. By not filling the group's time with answers to these needs, the TGroup eventually begins to notice what is under the tip of the iceberg. It is what is always there in any group but often unseen and not responsibly engaged . So, participants experience anxiety about authority and power, being include and accepted in the group, and intimacy. Depending on forces, such as, the dynamics of the group, the past experience and competence of participants, and the skill of the trainers -- the group, to some extent, usually develops a sense of itself as a group, with feelings of group loyalty. This can cause groups to resist learning opportunities if they are seen as threatening to the group's self-image. It also provides some of the climate of trust, support and permission needed for individuals to try new behavior.

As an individual participant begins to experience some degree of trust (in themselves, the group and the trainers) several things become possible -•

• •

The participant may notice that his/her feelings and judgments about the behavior of others is not always shared by others. That what he/she found supportive or threatening was not experience in that way by others in the group. That how one responded to authority, acceptance and affection issues different from that of others (more related to ones family of origin than to what is happening in the group). Individual differences emerge in how experiences are understood. The participant may begin to try on new behavior. For example, someone who has always felt a need to fill silence with noise and activity tries being quieter and still. Participants begin to ask for feedback from the group about how their behavior is impacting others. Participants may find that they are really rather independent and have a relatively low level of anxiety about what is happening in the group. They will exhibit a broader range of behavior and emotions during the life of the group. In fact their leadership is part of what helps the group develop.

The role of the trainers

• • • • • •

To help the group and individuals analyze and learn from what is happening in the group. The trainer may draw attention to events and behavior in the group and invite the group to look at its experience. At times the trainer may offer tentative interpretations. To offer theory, a model or research that seems related to what the group is looking at. To encourage the group to follow norms that tend to serve the learning process, e.g., focusing on "here & now" rather than the "then & there". To offer training and coaching in skills that tend to help the learning process, e.g., feedback skills, EIAG, etc. To not offer structure or an agenda. To remain silent, allowing the group to experience its anxiety about acceptance, influence, etc. To be willing to disclose oneself, to be open with the group. On occasion being willing to offer feedback and challenge a participant To avoid becoming too directive, clinical, or personally involved.

Possible Problems

T-Group methods usually encourage self-disclosure and openness, which may be inappropriate or even punished in organizations. This was an early learning. When managers thought they could take the T-group method into the back home organization, they discovered that the methods and the assumptions of a T-group did not fit. T-groups consisted of participants who were strangers. They didn't

have a history or a future together and could more easily focus on here and now behavior. Another issue was that in the organization there were objectives, deadlines and schedules related to accomplishing the work of the company or group. Groups with a task to accomplish could not take the same time that would be used in a T-Group. These difficulties helped lead to the development of Organization Development and team building. What had been learned in TGroups was combined with other knowledge and these new disciplines emerged as ways to address the values raised by the T-Group experience. The T-Group experience can open up a web of questioning in a participant. Ways of behaving that the person has used for many years may be called into question by others in the group and oneself. This has in some cases brought the participant to question relationships in the family or at work. While this can be a very constructive process that leads to the renewal of relationships, it has on occasion lead to the breakdown of a relationship. While such a breakdown may have, in time, come to the relationship without participation in a T-Group, it remains a painful and possibly damaging experience. Participants being forced or pressured to attend, by an employer or other person with influence, are on the whole less likely to have a positive learning experience. Employers or others who want to require the participation of others may enhance the chance of having a productive outcome if -- they attend a lab themselves before sending others; they speak with the lab coordinator before the event to discuss what might realistically be expected and what the leader could do to assist in the learning process when the participant returns home. Very rarely there have been situations in which a participant has a psychiatric problem. One report said "The possibility of negative psychiatric effects of ST, and especially its role in inducing psychiatric symptoms, is yet to be clarified." This reinforces the value of participation based on intrinsic motivation; a norm that discourages people in therapy from attending without the approval of their therapist; and trainers staying focused on the learning areas suited for T-Group experiences.

Lecture -12 Team Interventions Most of us have either participated in or watched games that involve team work. A team is a group of individuals with complementary skills who depend upon one another to accomplish a common purpose or set of performance goals for which they hold themselves mutually accountable. Teamwork is work done by members, all subordinating personal prominence for the good of the team. In effective teams, members are open and honest with one another. There is support and trust; there is a high degree of cooperation and collaboration, decisions are reached by consensus, communication channels are open and well developed. And there is a strong commitment to the team goals. Many management theorists suggest the team-based organization is the wave of the future. The self-managed team should be one of the basic building blocks of the organization and may well become the productivity breakthrough of the 1990s. Management consultant. W. Edwards Deming (management guru to the Japanese and responsible for much of Japanese post-war industrial success). Once said in interview, “An example of a system well managed is an orchestra. The various players are not there as prima donnas-to play loud and attract the attention of the listener. They’re there to support each other. In fact, sometimes you see a whole section doing nothing but counting and watching. Just sitting there doing nothing. They’re there to support each other. That’s how business should be. In this chapter, we examine some reasons for using team building and discuss several work-team interventions, including team development, outdoor experiential laboratory training, role negotiation, and role analysis techniques. Other team and intergroup interventions, such as goal setting and self-managed work teams, are discussed in succeeding chapters. Techniques and exercises used in team building: 1. Role Negotiation Technique- Roger Harrison Role negotiation, is directed at the work relationships among team members. The technique involves a series of controlled negotiations between participants. During the role negotiation, managers frankly discuss what they want form each other and explain why. The steps of role negotiation include the following1. Contract setting. Each member prepares a list for each other member with three headings. (a) things to do more.(b) things to do less, and (c) things to do the same. 2. Issue diagnosis. Each member writes out a master list combining the lists written about him or her, and posts this list on the wall. Members are then asked to clarify any items that need explanation. 3.Influence trade. After the clarification, members decide which items they want most and form into pairs to negotiate, usually with a third party to help in the process.

4. Written role negotiation. The outcome of the role negotiation is set of written agreements spelling out the agreements and concessions which each party finds satisfactory. Role Analysis Another team development intervention, called role analysis technique (RAT), is designed to clarify role expectations. Team norms influence member behaviors or attitudes associated with a particular position. These set of behaviors or attitudes associated with a particular position in a team is called a role. At times team members develop discrepancies between what is expected of each other. Role analysis is used to clarify such role discrepancies. Leading to improved cohesiveness and functioning. Role expectations are those behaviors of one member (role incumbent) expected or prescribed by other team members, while role conception refers to the focal person’s own ideas about appropriate role behavior. Role ambiguity refers to the role incumbent’s being unaware of or lacking sufficient knowledge of the expectations of others. In other words, he or she does not fully know what others expect. When there is an incongruence or a discrepancy between the role expectations and the role conception, the role conflict occurs. Incongruence between formal job descriptions and actual role demands is another source of role conflict. Because the team members have a stake in each person’s performance. They develop attitudes and expectations about what a member should or should not do. Role analysis provides a means for dealing with such problems. This intervention is based on the premise that consensual agreement about team member roles will lead to a more productive and satisfied team. The steps of role analysis technique include the following. 1. Role analysis. The role incumbent sets forth the role as he or she perceives it, listing perceived duties, behaviors, and responsibilities. The role conception. Other team members add to or modify this list until all members are satisfied with the role description. 2. The role incumbent’s expectations of others. The role incumbent lists his or her expectation of other group members. This list describes those expectations of others that affect the incumbents role and impinge upon his or her performance. Again the whole team adds to or modifies this list until they agree upon a complete listing. 3. Role Expectations by other. The other members list their expectations of th4e role incumbent. This list includes what they expect him or her to do as it affects their role performance. The work team modifies this list until they all agree. 4. Role profile. Upon agreement of the role definition. The role incumbent is then responsible for making a written summary called a role profile. He or she distributes a copy of the completed role profile to each member. 5. the team follows the preceding procedure until each member has a written role profile.

6. periodically, the team reviews role expectations and role profiles, since these may change over time and group mission or members also may change. As with other OD techniques, there are reports of increased effectiveness from role analysis techniques. But there is little empirical evidence upon which to base any conclusion. Lecture 14 Responsibility Charting Responsibility Charting helps to clarify who is responsible for what with respect to various decisions and actions. It is a simple, relevant and effective technique for improving team functioning and ensuring clarity of responsibilities during a change process. A responsibility charting session can quickly identify who is to do what in relation to new initiatives, as well as helping to pinpoint reasons why previous decisions are not being accomplished as desired. Responsibility charting is a good intervention to use to:
• •

improve the task performance of a team with their existing work. to clarify roles and responsibilities before, during or after a change process.

It can also be particularly useful where decision making is embedded in a complex committee structure as the tool can be adapted to indicate which committees or interest groups need to be involved in approving change and which need to be kept informed The first step is to devise a Decision Matrix form. Down the left side list the decisions that are at issue. They may be decisions relating to policy and procedure or to the practicalities of implementation. Across the top fill in the actual and/or potential actors who are relevant to the listed decisions. The next step is to agree the definitions of behaviors associated with the decision making process. A typical set of terms is: A = APPROVE a person who must sign off or veto a decision before it is implemented or selected from options developed by the R role; accountable for the quality of the decision. R = RESPONSIBLE the person who takes the initiative in the particular area, develops the alternatives, analyses the situation, makes the initial recommendation, and is accountable if nothing happens in the area.

C = CONSULTED a person who must be consulted prior to a decision being reached but with no veto power. I = INFORMED a person who must be notified after a decision, but before it is publicly announced; someone who needs to know the outcome for other related tasks but need not give input. DK = DON'T KNOW A blank indicates no relationship. Actors Decisions

The tool is similar to the RAEW Analysis used in Process Review and can indeed be used as part of a continuous improvement approach to reviewing institutional decision making processes. Lecture 15 Force Field Analysis Force Field Analysis is a method for listing, discussing, and evaluating the various forces for and against a proposed change. When a change is planned, Force Field Analysis helps you look at the big picture by analyzing all of the forces impacting the change and weighing the pros and cons. By knowing the pros and cons, you can develop strategies to reduce the impact of the opposing forces and strengthen the supporting forces. Forces that help you achieve the change are called "driving forces." Forces that work against the change are called "restraining forces." Force Field Analysis can be used to develop an action plan to implement a change. Specifically it can . . . 1. Determine if a proposed change can get needed support 2. Identify obstacles to successful solutions 3. Suggest actions to reduce the strength of the obstacles Types of forces to consider Available Resources Attitudes of people Values

Traditions Vested interests Organizational structures Relationships Social or organizational trends The Process

Regulations Personal or group needs Present or past practices Institutional policies or norms Agencies

Desires Costs People Events

1. Start with a well-defined goal or change to be implemented. 2. Draw a force field diagram. a. At the top of a large sheet of paper write the goal or change to be implemented. b. Divide the paper into two columns by drawing a line down the middle. At the top of the left column, write "Driving Forces." Label the right column "Restraining Forces." 3. Brainstorm a list of driving and restraining forces and record them on the chart in the appropriate column. 4. Once the driving and restraining forces have been identified, ask the following questions: Are they valid? How do we know? How significant are each of them? What is their strength? Which ones can be altered? Which cannot? Which forces can be altered quickly? Which ones only slowly? Which forces, if altered, would produce rapid change? Which only slow change in the situation? What skills and/or information is needed and available to alter the forces? Can we get them? 5. Assign a score to each force, from 1 (weak) to 5 (strong). The score is based on (a) the strength of the force and (b) the degree to which it is possible to influence this force. 6. Calculate a total score for each of the two columns. 7. Decide if the goal or change is feasible. If so, devise a manageable course of action which: o o o Strengthens positive forces Weakens negative forces Creates new positive forces

Example Force Field Analysis Diagram Goal or proposed change: To have no abandoned cars along city streets by May 1.

Driving Forces (the pro's) Interest in the problem has recently been expressed by advocacy groups. The public service director supports the plan. The City Council supports the plan. Public climate favors cleaning up the city. Local auto salvage yards have agreed to take the cars at no cost. Health department cites old abandoned vehicles as potential healh hazard.

Restraining Forces (the con's) The definition of "abandoned cars" is unclear to the public. Owners of older cars feel threatened. Difficult to locate abandoned cars. Where to put the abandoned cars once identified? Expense involved in locating and disposing of abandoned cars. Need a procedure to verify vehicles declared "abandoned" and notify owners.

Lecture 16 Third Party Peacemaking Interventions INTERGROUP INTERVENTIONS Intergroup interventions are integrated into OD programs to facilitate cooperation and efficiency between different groups within an organization. For instance, departmental interaction often deteriorates in larger organizations as different units battle for limited resources or become detached from the needs of other units. Conflict resolution meetings are one common intergroup intervention. First, different group leaders are brought together to secure their commitment to the intervention. Next, the teams meet separately to make a list of their feelings about the other group(s). Then the groups meet and share their lists. Finally, the teams meet to discuss the problems and to try to develop solutions that will help both parties. This type of intervention, say supporters, helps to gradually diffuse tension between groups that has arisen because of faulty communication. Rotating membership interventions are used by OD change agents to minimize the negative effects of intergroup rivalry that arise from employee allegiances to groups or divisions. The intervention basically entails temporarily putting group members into their rival groups. As more people interact in the different groups, greater understanding results.

OD joint activity interventions serve the same basic function as the rotating membership approach, but these involve melding members of different groups to work together toward a common goal. Similarly, common enemy interventions achieve the same results by finding an adversary common to two or more groups and then getting members of the groups to work together to overcome the threat. Examples of common enemies targeted in such programs include competitors, government regulation, and economic conditions. Lecture 17 Third-Party Consultation One method of increasing communication and initiating intergroup problem solving is the intervention of a third party, usually an outside consultant, although the person also may be a superior, a peer, or a representative from another unit. Third partyinterventions have the potential to solve such conflicts. Pone basic feature of this technique is confrontation.31 Confrontation refers to the process in which the parties directly engage each other and focus on the conflict between them. The goals of interventions include achieving increased understanding of the issues, accomplishing a common diagnosis, discovering alternatives for resolving the conflict and focusing on the common or Meta goals. The third party attempts to make interventions aimed at opening communications, equalizing owner, and confronting the problems. Achieving a balance in situational power. If the situational power of the groups is not approximately equal, it is difficult to establish trust and maintain open lines of communication. In such a case, it may be possible to arrange for a third group, such as another work unit, to provide support to the groups witless power. For groups who have leaders who are less articulator forceful in their presentations, the third party may need to regulate the discussion. Coordinating confrontation efforts. One group’s positive overtures must be coordinated with the other group’s readiness to reciprocate. If one group is more highly motivated than the other, the third party may protract the discussion or the higher-motivated group may be encouraged to moderate their enthusiasm. A failure to coordinate positive initiatives and readiness to respond can undermine future efforts to work out Organization Mirror The organization mirror is a technique designed to give work units feedback on how other elements or customers of the organization viewthem.2 this intervention is designed to improve relationships between teams and increase effectiveness. A work team (which could be in personnel, engineering, production, accounting, and so on) that is experiencing interface problems with related work terms may initiate afeedbacksession. A consultant or other third party obtains specific information, usually by questionnaire or interview, from other organization groups that the work team contacts daily. The work team (also called the host group) meets to process the feedback. At this meeting, it is important that one of two spokespersons from each contacted group be present. The outside key people and the consultant discuss the data collected in an inner circle, while the host group” fishbowls” and observes on the outside (therefore the term organization mirror). Following this, the host group may ask questions of clarification (i.e., Why did you say this?) but may not argue or rebut. The host unit, with the assistance of the consultant, then discusses the data to identify problems. Subgroups are formed of host-

group members and key visitors to identify specific improvements that will increase operating efficiency. Following this, the total group hears a summary report from each subgroup, and they outline action plans and make specific task assignments. This completes the meeting, but follow-up meeting to assess progress is usually set up for evaluation. The organization mirror provides a means for a work team to improve its operating relations with other groups. It allows the Team to obtain feedback on what it is doing, to identify key problems, and to search for specific improvements of operating efficiency. Interrupt Team Building One intervention technique, originally developed by Robert Blake, Herb Shepard, and Jane Mouton, is termed intergroup team building confrontation. Key members of conflicting groups meet to work on issues or interface. “An interface is nay Point at which conflicting groups meet to work on issues or interface. “An interface is nay point at which contact between groups is essential to achieving a result”34 The groups may be two interdependent organization elements such as architects and engineers, purchasing and production, or finance and other department heads. Lecture 18 Role-playing is a frequently used method for gaining cross group understanding. As in all confrontation, the consultant must intervene to open communications, balance power, and shift from hostile to problem-solving confrontation. Integroup team-building meetings usually take one or two days. Members are brought together to reduce misunderstanding, to open communication, and to develop mechanisms for collaboration. Most OD practitioners advise intragroup team development before intergroup team building. The purpose of this is to clear out any team issues or “garbage” before getting to work on interface problems. The inter group team building meeting usually involves the following steps: Step 1. Two work groups who have identified intergroup operating problems first make three lists each before meeting together 1. How do we see ourselves? 2. How we think the other department sees us? 3. How do we see the other department? The groups prepare their lists written in large legible print on sheets of newsprint. Step 2. The groups then meet together and tape their lists to the wall. A spokesperson for each group presents that group’s lists. While one department is making its presentation, the other department may not defend itself, argue, or rebate; but it does have the opportunity to ask clarifying questions (What do you mean by inflexible? Could you be more specific unautocratic?) Step 3. The groups then meet separately to discuss the discrepancies In perception and react to the feedback. The feedback allows for correcting perceptions and behaviors to a more effective mode.

Step 4. In the next phase, the groups divide into subgroups of five or six by mixing members of the two departments. These cross groups have the objectives of agreeing upon a diagnosis of interface problems and the development of conflict-reducing or problem-solving alternatives with action plans and follow appractivities. Together the groups develop an action plan for solving problems and assigning responsibilities for the action plan. Step 5. Usually, they schedule a follow-up meeting to evaluate Progress and to make sure that the actions have achieved their Purpose. Although little hard evidence is available, there have been Subjective reports of positive results from intergroup meetings. Blake. Shepard, and Mouton reported improved relationships In there study, and French and Bell also reported working Successfully with three tribal groups. Bennis also reported Improved relationships between two groups of officials within The U.S. Department of State.36 Lecture 19 COMPREHENSIVE INTERVENTIONS OD comprehensive interventions are used to directly create change throughout an entire organization, rather than focusing on organizational change through subgroup interventions. One of the most popular comprehensive interventions is survey feedback. This technique basically entails surveying employee attitudes at all levels of the company and then disseminating a report that details those findings. The employees then use the data in feedback sessions to create solutions to perceived problems. A number of questionnaires developed specifically for such interventions have been developed. This chapter will examine several system - wide approaches organization development: 1) TQM2) Reengineering 3) Grid-OD4) survey research feedback 5) Linker’s system 4 model. In the simulation, you will have an opportunity to experience and practice the concepts of system wide change approaches. Total Quality Management One system wide approach to change is termed Total Quality management (TQM). TQM is dedicated to having organization members who are committed to continuous improvement and meeting or exceeding customer expectations. During a time of downsizing and restructuring, many American companies are finding that they must learn to manage more effectively, and TQM involves all levels of the organization in developing practices that are customer oriented, flexible and responsive to changing needs. Total Quality management has been the most widely adopted system change strategy to improve productivity and competitiveness during the past five years. This concept began with Deming’s work with Japanese management, and its initial focus was on improving quality. But as it is now being applied, TQM represents a system wide change approach, which is being used by leading companies around the world. Total

quality management (TQM) involves all organization members in ensuring that every activity related to the production of goods or services relates to product quality. In essence all organization members focus performance on maintaining the quality of products offered by the company. In TQM, all improve the quality of products. Although the TQM movement actually began in the United States, the establishment, growth, and development of the movement throughout the world began with the Japanese. Reengineering: A Radical Redesign Although is too early to predict the long term results of reengineering change programs, many companies including Boeing, Ford, Hallmark, Kodak, and PepsiCo. Have applied Reengineering tow work process. Reengineering -like TQM is a system wide change approach focusing on changing the basic processes of an organization. Reengineering (as set forth by Michael Hammer and James Company) may be defined as “the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve drastic improvements in performance. Reengineering as the name implies focuses on the design of work activities of processes: how the task is accomplished. It dislike designing a circuit, examining the flows or sequences of activities from input to output in an attempt to eliminate inefficiencies, and improve productivity, Reengineering seeks to Make all processes more efficient by combining, eliminating or restructuring tasks without regard to traditional methods: the way things have always been done around here. The idea is toga in a large or quantum leap in performance, improvements of100 percent or more. Like TQM, the main focus is the customer. Companies such as AT&T and Pacific Bell have reengineered the process used to implement telephone service to new customers. The result has-been faster, better, and easier for both employees and customers, cutting down customer service time by one half. Reengineering does not refer to minor modifications of current practices. Instead it means starting with a clean sheet of paper, includes radical changes in work processes and work relationships. The main emphasis one reengineering is making the customer happy. The first step is to identify the key business processes of a department or work team. The next step is to identify performance measures in terms of customer satisfaction and to examine current processes to meet these measures. The customer doesn’t care about internal rewards, or “turf wars”, the customer just wants the product or service done right, anon time. The third step is to reengineer the process, organizing work around the process, not functions or departments. Work is simplified by combining related tasks and eliminating any elements that do not directly add customer value. Finally, there designed process is implemented and all activities undergo a continuing reevaluation. As technology, computers, and customers change, work processes are continually reexamined. Reengineering examines each process and evaluates the processing terms of how it usually focuses on incremental changes, while reengineering is seeking a radical reexaminations amide at large scale increases in productivity. While some OD practitioners have criticized reengineering as a top down, or numbers approach, this approach lends employee involvement, empowerment, and teams, reengineering is similar to the sociotechnical approach to change.

Lecture 20 High-Performance Systems (HPS) One of the more recent developments in large-scale change is the concept of high performing systems, (HPS) a term originated by Peter Vaill. The idea is that today’s organizations need continuing excellence and renewal as a way of bringing innovation into our systems. In order to be effective, HPS leaders must see that the excessive layers of structure within the organization are removed and create a climate, which emphasizes participation and communication across ability to display energy and zest for the task being Worked on, the product being built and one’s fellow team members. Leading by example is a popular way for managers to create excitement and electricity within the workplace. Displaying enthusiasm tends to greatly impact the morale and productivity Of the workface.10 a high performing system has been defined as an excellent human system - one that performs at an unusually high level of excellence. But, as Peter Vaill points out, how we define excellence and performance depends upon our values. HPS Criteria Wail has identified a set of eight criteria, which may be used to Examine systems: 1. They are performing excellently against a known external standard. 2. They are performing excellently against what is assumed to be their potential level of performance. 3. They are performing excellently in relation to where they were at some earlier point in time. 4. They are judged by informed observers to be doing substantially better qualifiedly than other comparable systems. 5. They are doing whatever they do with significantly less resources than it is assumed are needed to do what they do. 6. They are perceived as exemplars of the way to do whatever they do, and thus they become a source of ideas and 7. They are perceived to fulfill at a high level the ideals for the ——— Within which they exist. 8. They are the only organizations that have been able to do what they do at all

The Grid OD Program One of the most widely used approaches to system –wide planned change is Gride organization development. A change model designed by Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton and marketed by Scientific Methods. Inc. This program is a systematic approach aimed at achieving corporate excellence. Blake and Mouton feel that in order to increase the effectiveness of managers and the organization, change must take place in the Basic culture of the system. Grid organization development starts with a focus on individual behavior, specifically on the managerial styles of executives using what Blake and Mouton call The Managerial Grid. The program them moves through a series of sequential phases involving the work team, the relationships between groups or subunits,

and finally to the culture of the organization itself. The Managerial Grid and Grid OD represents one of the most extensively applied approaches to organization improvement and, administered by Scientific Methods, Inc., have been used by such major U.S.corporations as Procter & Gamble, Conoco, Merck, and Whirlpool, as well as by a number of foreign organizations. Westinghouse, for example. Have run more than 7,000 managers through the Grid starting in 1975 through 1990. Blake estimates that perhaps750, 000 managers have been involved with the Grid in one way or another and that perhaps 5,000 companies have engaged in Grid development activities. These are necessarily estimates, as there is nonrealistic basis for a head count. It is known that the necessarily estimates, as there is no realistic basis for a head count. It is known that the Managerial Grid book has sold approximately 500,000copies in English and more than 100,000 copies in Japanese. The book has also been translated into a number of other languages and has enjoyed wide popularity. 14Blake and Mouton assembled data on corporate excellence from some 200 organizations. They found that two common problems were planning and communication. Blake and Mouton found that the Managerial Grid seminars could be used as a starting point for a planned change program called Grid OD. Grid OD has as its objectives the maximizing of its managers’ concerns for both their subordinates and the organization. In order to increase the effectiveness of an Individual manager dealing with his or her subordinates, change must take place in the organization culture itself. The Grid OD program consists of the following six grid phases. Learning the Grid as a way to analyze thinking. Increasing personal objectivity in appraising oneself. Achieving clear and candid communication Learning and working effectively in a team. Learning to manage intergroup conflict Analyzing one’s corporate work culture by applying the Grid framework. Gaining understanding of the phases of Grid OD. The seminar is highly structured, with most of the activities devoted to short lectures and team projects. It is highly intensive and emotionally demanding, since it encourages competition between teams and confrontation between team members. Participants who leave the seminar committed to the precepts of the Grid will probably encourage other key members of their organization to attend a similar seminar. The sessions include investigation by each person of his or her won managerial approach and alternative ways of managing, which can be learned about. Experimented with, and applied. Participants study methods of team action. They measure and evaluate team effectiveness in solving problems with others. High point of seminar learning is receives a critique of his or her style of managerial performance from other members of the team. Another is when managers critique the dominant style of their organization’s culture, its traditions, precedents, and past practices. A third is when participants consider steps for increasing the effectiveness of the Whole organization.

Phase 2: Teamwork Development AN organization is composed of many subgroups or teams whose members range from top management to assembly-line workers, Phase 2 is concerned with improving teamwork and includes a boss and his or her immediate subordinates meeting together for a I-week session. Teamwork development begins with the top manager in the organization and the employees who report directly to him or her. These people later attend another team meeting with their own subordinates. This continues down through the entire organization. Teamwork development is a planned activity that begins with each team member completing various Grid instruments. The teams deal with subjects directly relevant to their daily operations and behaviors. The team members are also getting feedback from participants on their Grid styles in real situations. Before the conclusion of the week, the team sets group and individual goals Phase 3: Intergroup Development The Phase 2 teamwork development meetings have cut vertically through the organization encompassing natural work teams, but people also relate with others along a horizontal dimensions: people interact with others in different teams, departments, divisions, and sections, Unintended competition between departments may develop into a win-lose contest resulting in a loss of organization effectiveness. Coordination, cooperation, and collaboration between elements are necessary for an effective organization, and to accomplish this intergroup development meeting are held and attended by the key members of two segments or divisions where barriers exist. Inter group development involves group-to-group relationships where members of interfacing teams meet for three or four days to identify those things that would be present in an ideal relationship between their two segments. The objective is for the two segments to agree on the elements for an ideal relationship and then develop specific actions to attain the ideal. As in Phase 2, participants leave the meetings with actual goals and objectives plus an increased understanding of communication with one another. Phase 4: Development of an Ideal Strategic Model The development of an ideal strategic model provides an organization with the knowledge and skills to move from reactionary approach to one of systematic development. This phase is concerned with the overall norms, policies, and structure of the organizations. The responsibility for these matters is with the top manager and those reporting to him other. During a week of study, the key people in the organization Define what the organization would be like if it were truly excellent. It is not unusual for a moderate-sized organization to spend six months to a year perfecting the ideal strategic model. During this time other people at various levels have the opportunity to contribute to the model. This helps build commitment to the model needed for implementation. Phase 5: Implementing the Ideal Strategic Model The manner in which the ideal strategic model is implemented determines the success of Grid OD in the organization. AN edict coming from above will probably fall on deaf ears and be doomed to failure from the beginning. The Grid OD program has an implementation model that can be adapted to any organization. An organization can be divided into identifiable segments such as products, profit centers, or

geographical areas. Once the segments are identified, the top management team assigns one planning team to each segment, one team to the corporate headquarter, and a coordinator of Phase 5. The coordinator recommends tactics of implementation to the topline executive. The task of each planning team is to analyze all aspects of its section’s operations and determine how that section would act ideally. The design is based on the ideal strategic model determined is Phase 4 but is interpreted and implemented for each section by the planning team. The task is aided by the skills attained during Phase 1,2, and 3. The studies to convert the ideal model into reality for each section may take three months to a year, and the actual conversion may take six months to five years of even longer. Phase 6: Systematic Critique The final phase in Grid OD is a systematic examination of progress toward change goals. The systematic critique determines the degree of organization excellence after Phase 5 compared With measurements taken before Phase 1. The basic instruments a 100-question survey investigating managerial behavior, teamwork, intercrop relations, and corporate strategy. Through the use of instruments administered at each phase, its possible to observe the degree of change and gain insight into the total process of change. I is gratifying for people to seethe movement they have made toward their goals, as success may not be readily apparent considering that the entire Grid OD program may have been implemented over a period of five to ten years. Because change never ceases, this discovery sets the stage for a new beginning. The Results of Grid OD Programs As with many OD intervention techniques, there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence regarding Grid OD programs but little Empirical evidence. The results of one Grid OD program have been reported in an article by Blake, Mouton, and Barnes, andGreiner.15 their findings can be summarized as follows: 1. The analysis of data showed within a three-year period as increase in productivity of 30 percent and a decrease in costs of 14 percent. 2. Subordinates reported a 12 percent improvement in ratings of their managers’ style and ability’ to manage. 3. The study suggests that managerial and team effectiveness can be improved and that Grid OD can make significant contributions to organization effectiveness. Lecture 21 SURVEY RESEARCH AND FEEDBACK making, superior subordinate relationship, and job satisfaction. The data generated by the questionnaire are then used as a basis for further change efforts.Therefore, this method provides techniques for Changing work relationships and also a means for measuring the effects of such changes within organizations. The client system is usually involved in the data collection activities, and members of management and other organization members are usually asked to submit questions for the survey and to plan the data collection itself. The data

are usually fed back to the organization through work teams, that is, the superior and those immediately reporting to him or her in a work-related Group. These feedback conferences then provide the client system with data about problems, leading to specific action plans and programs to improve work team effectiveness. The Step in Survey Feedback The survey feed approach as developed by the Survey Research Center usually includes the following steps: Step 1. The involvement of top management in preliminary planning of the survey questionnaire. Other organization members may be involved if appropriate. Step 2. The survey questionnaire is administered by the outside staff to all organization members. Step 3. The data are summarized by the outside staff and then fed back to work teams throughout the hierarchy of the organization, usually beginning with the top management team and flowing down to successive levels of the organization, a so called waterfall effect. Some guidelines for providing survey results include. · each manager should receive the results from his/her own Work team. · Results should be shared with the whole work team. · everyone should see the results to the organization as a Whole. Step 4. Each manager then has a meeting of his or her own work team to diagnose problems from the data presentation and to develop action plans and programs for improvement. An outside consultant involved in the survey usually attends each work team meeting acting as a process consultant or resource person. This process may be described as a series of interlocking conferences or meetings structured in term of organizational family units- the superior and immediate subordinates – considering the survey data together. The data presented to each group were those pertaining to their own group or for those subunits for which members of the organizational unit were responsible. The purposes of survey feedback include the following: 91) to develop an understanding of the problems, (2) to improve working relationships, and (3) to identify factors and opportunities for change or to determine areas where more research is required. In one such company-wide study of employee and management attitudes and opinions over a period of two years, three different sets of data were fed back: 91) information on the attitudes and perception soft 8,000 no supervisory employees toward their work, promotions opportunities, supervision, fellow employees, and so on: (2) firstand second – line supervisors’ feelings about various aspects of their job and supervisory belief: and (3) information from intermediate and top levels of management about their supervisory philosophies, roles, policy information, problems of organizational integration, and so on Lecture 22 What is MBO? Management by objectives (MBO) is a systematic and organized approach that allows management to focus on achievable goals and to attain the best possible results from available resources. It aims to increase organizational performance by aligning goals

and subordinate objectives throughout the organization. Ideally, employees get strong input to identify their objectives, time lines for completion, etc. MBO includes ongoing tracking and feedback in the process to reach objectives. Peter Ducker first outlined MBO in 1954 in his book 'The Practice of Management'. In the 90s, Peter Ducker himself decreased the significance of this organization management method, when he said: "It's just another tool. It is not the great cure for management inefficiency... Management by Objectives works if you know the objectives, 90% of the time you don’t." Managerial Focus MBO managers focus on the result, not the activity. They delegate tasks by "negotiating a contract of goals" with their subordinates without dictating a detailed roadmap for implementation. MBO is about setting you objectives and then breaking these down into more specific goals or key results. Main Principle The principle behind MBO is to make sure that everybody within the organization has a clear understanding of the aims, or objectives, of that organization, as well as awareness of their own roles and responsibilities in achieving those aims. The complete MBO system is to get managers and empowered employees acting to implement and achieve their plans, which automatically achieve those of the organization. Where to Use MBO The MBO style is appropriate for knowledge-based enterprises when your staff is competent. It is appropriate in situations where you wish to build employees' management and self-leadership skills and tap their creativity, tacit knowledge and initiative. MBO is also used by chief executives of multinational corporations (Macs) for their country managers abroad. Setting Objectives In MBO systems, objectives are written down for each level of the organization, and individuals are given specific aims and targets. "The principle behind this is to ensure that people know what the organization is trying to achieve, what their part of the organization must do to meet those aims, and how, as individuals, they are expected to help. This presupposes that organization's programs and methods have been fully considered. If they have not, start by constructing team objectives and ask team members to share in the process."6 "The one thing an MBO system should provide is focus", says Andy Grove who ardently practiced MBO at Intel. So, have your objectives precise and keep their number small. Most people disobey this rule, try to focus on everything, and end up with no focus at all. For MBO to be effective, individual managers must understand the specific objectives of their job and how those objectives fit in with the overall company objectives set by the board of directors. "A manager's job should be based on a task to be performed in order to attain the company's objectives... the manager should be directed and controlled by the objectives of performance rather than by his boss."1

The managers of the various units or sub-units, or sections of an organization should know not only the objectives of their unit but should also actively participate in setting these objectives and make responsibility for them. The review mechanism enables leaders to measure the performance of their managers, especially in the key result areas: marketing; innovation; human organization; financial resources; physical resources; productivity; social responsibility; and profit requirements. However, in recent years opinion has moved away from the idea of placing managers into a formal, rigid system of objectives. Today, when maximum flexibility is essential, achieving the objective rightly is more important

Lecture –23

Organization Structure As you may know, there are three main types of organizational structure: functional structure, Divisional structure and Matrix structure. Each structure has its own strong and weak points.

In the functional structure, above, the employees are working in departments based on what they are doing i.e. we have engineering department, maintenance department, finanance department, research department, Warehouse department, purchasing department. This structure enhances the experience of each function. For example, all the maintenance engineers are working in the same department and thus they will exchange knowledge and support each other. This structure saves us money because of the economies of scale. This structure makes the coordination between different department more difficult than other structures. It also does not allow for flexibility becasue of the centralization.

Divisional structure divides, shown above, the employees based on the product/customer segment/geographical location. For example, each division is responsible for certain product and has its own resources such as finance, marketing, warehouse, maintnenace..etc. Accordingly, this structures is a decentralized structure and thus allows for flexibility and quick response to environmental changes. It also enhances innovation and differentioan strategies. On the other hand, this struture results in duplication of resources becasue, for ex., we need to have warehouse for each division. Obviuosly, it does not support the exchange of knowledge between people working in the same profession because part of them are working in one division and the others are working in other divisions.

Matrix structure, shown above, combines both structures. For example, we can have a functional structure and then assign a manager for each product. Some employees will have two managers: functional manager and product manager. This type of structure tries to get the benefits of functional structure and also of divisional structure; however, it is not easy to implement becasue of the dual authority. This struture is vey useful for multinational companies. Lecture 24 Learning Organization Learning organizations [are] organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together. (Senge 1990: 3) The Learning Company is a vision of what might be possible. It is not brought about simply by training individuals; it can only happen as a result of learning at the whole organization level. A Learning Company is an organization that facilitates the learning of all its members and continuously transforms itself. (Pedler et. al. 1991: 1) Learning organizations are characterized by total employee involvement in a process of collaboratively conducted, collectively accountable change directed towards shared values or principles. (Watkins and Marsick 1992: 118) Behaviour to Encourage There are five disciplines (as described by Peter Senge) which are essential to a learning organisation and should be encouraged at all times. These are:  Team Learning  Shared Visions  Mental Models  Personal Mastery  Systems Thinking Team Learning Virtually all important decisions occur in groups. Teams, not individuals, are the fundamental learning units. Unless a team can learn, the organisation cannot learn. Team learning focusses on the learning ability of the group. Adults learn best from each other, by reflecting on how they are addressing problems, questioning assumptions, and receiving feedback from their team and from their results. With team learning, the learning ability of the group becomes greater than the learning ability of any individual in the group.

Shared Visions To create a shared vision, large numbers of people within the organisation must draft it, empowering them to create a single image of the future. All members of the organisation must understand, share and contribute to the vision for it to become reality. With a shared vision, people will do things because they want to, not because they have to. Mental Models Each individual has an internal image of the world, with deeply ingrained assumptions. Individuals will act according to the true mental model that they subconsciously hold, not according to the theories which they claim to believe. If team members can constructively challenge each others' ideas and assumptions, they can begin to perceive their mental models, and to change these to create a shared mental model for the team. This is important as the individual's mental model will control what they think can or cannot be done. Personal Mastery Personal mastery is the process of continually clarifying and deepening an individual's personal vision. This is a matter of personal choice for the individual and involves continually assessing the gap between their current and desired proficiencies in an objective manner, and practising and refining skills until they are internalised. This develops self esteem and creates the confidence to tackle new challenges. The Fifth Discipline - Systems Thinking The cornerstone of any learning organisation is the fifth discipline - systems thinking. This is the ability to see the bigger picture, to look at the interrelationships of a system as opposed to simple cause-effect chains; allowing continuous processes to be studied rather than single snapshots. The fifth discipline shows us that the essential properties of a system are not determined by the sum of its parts but by the process of interactions between those parts. This is the reason systems thinking is fundamental to any learning organisation; it is the discipline used to implement the disciplines. Without systems thinking each of the disciplines would be isolated and therefore not achieve their objective. The fifth discipline integrates them to form the whole system, a system whose properties exceed the sum of its parts. However, the converse is also true - systems thinking cannot be achieved without the other core disciplines: personal mastery, team learning, mental models and shared vision. All of these disciplines are needed to successfully implement systems thinking, again illustrating the principal of the fifth discipline: systems should be viewed as interrelationships rather than isolated parts. Lecture 25

A Virtual Organization

• •

is an organization existing as a corporate, not-for-profit, educational, or otherwise productive entity that does not have a central geographical location and exists solely through telecommunication tools. A Virtual Organization comprises a set of (legally) independent organizations that share resources and skills to achieve its mission / goal, but that is not limited to an alliance of for profit enterprises. The interaction among members of the virtual organization is mainly done through computer networks. A Virtual Organization is a manifestation of Collaborative Networks. See also Virtual Enterprise. In business a Virtual Organization is a firm that outsources the majority of its functions; see virtual corporation. In grid computing, a Virtual Organization is a group of individuals or institutions who share the computing resources of a "grid" for a common goal.

Boundaryless organisations are not defined or limited by horizontal, vertical, or external boundaries imposed by a predetermined structure. They share many of the characteristics of flat organisations, with a strong emphasis on teams. Cross-functional teams dissolve horizontal barriers and enable the organisation to respond quickly to environmental changes and to spearhead innovation. Boundaryless organisations can form relationships (joint ventures, intellectual property, distribution channels, or financial resources) with customers, suppliers, and/or competitors. Telecommuting, strategic alliances and customer-organisation linkages break down external barriers, streamlining work activities. Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, to facilitate interactions with customers and suppliers, first used this un-structure.

Lecture 26 Action Research :A Process and Approach Action research may be described as a process, that is, as an Ongoing series of events and actions. Used in this way, it is Defined as follows: Action research is the process of systematically collecting research data about an ongoing system relative to some objective, goal, or need of that system; feeding these data back into the system; taking actions by altering selected variables within the system .Based both on the data and on hypotheses; and evaluating the results of actions by collecting more data. This definition characterizes action research in terms of the active-ties comprising the process. First, a static picture is taken of an organization. On the basis of “what exists,” hunches and hypotheses suggest ac-tins; these actions typically entail manipulating variables in the system that are under the control of the action researcher (this often means doing something differently from the way it has always been done). Later a second static picture is taken of the system to examine the effects of the action taken. These steps are very similar to the steps 00 practitioners use when they execute 00 programs. Several

authors have noted the importance of viewing action research as a process. In a study of the Tremont Hotel in Chicago, William F. Whyte and Edith L. Hamilton described their work as follows: What was the project? It was an action-research program for management. We developed a process for applying human relations research findings to the changing of organization behavior. The word process is important, for this was not a one shot affair. The project involved a continuous gathering and analysis of human relations research data and the feeding of the findings into the organization in such a way as to change behavior.’ Action research is a process in two different ways. It is a sequence of Joint action planning (Objectives of 0D program and means of attaining goals, e.g., ‘team building’) Feedback to key client or Client group Further data gathering, Data gathering and diagnosis by Consultant, Consultation with behavioral scientist consultant Action research and organization development Action (new behavior) Action planning (degeneration of objectives and how to get there) Discussion and work on data feedback and data by client group (new attitudes, new perspectives emerge) Feedback to client group (e.g., in team-building sessions, summary feedback by consultant; elaboration by group) Data gathering (reassessment of state of the system) of events and activities within each iteration (data collection, feedback and working with the data, and taking action based on the data); and it is a cycle of iterations of these activities, sometimes treating the same problem through several cycles and sometimes moving to different problems in each cycle. Action research may also be described as an approach to problem solving, thus suggesting its usefulness as model, guide, and or paradigm. Used in this way, action research may be defined as follows: action research is the application of the scientific method of fact-finding and experimentation to practical problems requiring action solutions and in-evolving the collaboration and cooperation of scientists, practitioners, and laypersons. The desired Outcomes of the action research approach are solutions to the immediate problems and a contribution to scientific knowledge and theory. Viewing action research from this perspective points up additional features that are important. Action research waste conceptual model for an early organization improvement program in a group of oil refineries. Herbert Shepard, one of the behavioral scientists involved in that program, defines the nature of action research as follows: Shepard’s concept of the action research model Shepard highlights the relations among goals (objectives), planning, and action in his diagram-a point we think is a very important feature of action research. And both he and French emphasize that action research is research inextricably linked to action; it is research with a purpose, that is, to guide present and future action. In an action research approach, the role of the consultant/change agent takes on especial form, as shown by Shepard: The action-research model is normative model for learning, or a model for planned change. Its main features are these. In front of intelligent human action there should be an objective, be it ever so fuzzy or distorted. And in advance of human action there should be planning, although knowledge of paths to the objective is always inadequate. Action

itself should be taken a step at a time, and after each step it is well to do some factfinding. The fact-finding may disclose whether the objective is realistic, whether it is nearer or more distant than before, whether it needs alteration. Through fact-finding, the present situation can be assessed, and this information, together with information about the objective, can be used in planning the second step- Movement toward an objective con-sits of a series of such cycles of planning-acting-fact-finding -planning.’ The role is to help the manager plan his actions and design his fact-finding procedures in such a way that he can learn from them, to serve such ends as becoming a more skillful manager, setting more realistic objectives, discovering better ways of organizing. In this sense, the staff concerned with follow-up is research consultants. Their task is to help managers formulate Management problems as experiments.’ Lecture 27 Issues in consultant-client relationships A number if interrelated issues can arise in consultant-client relationships in OD activities, and they need to be managed appropriately if adverse effects are to be avoided. These issues Tend to center on the following important areas: • Entry and contracting • Defining the client system • Trust • The nature of the consultant’s expertise • Diagnosis and appropriate interventions • The depth of interventions • On being absorbed by the culture • The consultant as a model • The consultant team as a microcosm • Action research and the OD process • Client dependency and terminating the relationship • Ethical standards in OD • Implications of OD for the client There are no simple prescriptions for resolving dilemmas or problems in these aspects of OD, but we do have some options about managing these areas. Entry and contracting An initial discussion that can lead to an OD consulting contract can occur in various ways, but typically events evolve something like this. There is a telephone call: An executive has some concerns about his or her organization and the consultant has-been recommended as someone who could help. After a brief description of some of the problems and a discussion of the extent to which the consultant’s expertise is a reasonable fit for the situation, an agreement is made to pursue the matter over a meal or through an appointment at the executive’s office. During the face-to-face meeting, the consultant explores with the potential client some of the deeper aspects of the presenting problem. If “communications between managers aren’t as thorough and as cordial as they

ought to be,” the consultant asks for examples to get better fix on the nature of the problem and its dynamics. Almost inevitably there are several interrelated problems. Or if the potential client says, “I want to move to self-managed teams in Plant B,” the rationale and objectives forth such a program are explored. Furthermore, in the first meeting, the consultant and the client probably begin to sort out what group would be the logical starting point for an OD intervention. For example, in a particular manufacturing organization it might be important to focus on the top-management team of eight people; or, in a city government it might appear prudent to include the top 20 key people which would involve the city manager, assistant city managers, and all of the department heads. Considerable thought must be given to exactly who is to be included – and thus who is to be excluded – in the first interventions. The exclusion of the key people, in particular, can be a serious Mistake.”All kinds of nuances can arise in this discussion. In addition to problems of who can and who should attend a workshop, there are matters of when and where it could be held, whether or not the management group can be away from their offices for the desired period, whether or not the top person is to be briefed about interview themes prior to the workshop, the extent of confidentiality of the interviews, and so on. An overriding dimension in this preliminary discussion is the extent of mutual confidence and trust that begins to develop between consultant and client.

Defining the client system The question of who the client is quickly becomes an important issue in consultant-client relationships. (We will usually refer to the consultant in the singular, but the points we want to make also tend to apply to consultant teams. Similarly, the initial client be an individual or a managements team.) We think a viable model is one in which, in the initial contact, a single manager is the client, but as trust and confidence develop between the key client and the consultant, both begin to view the manager and his or her subordinate team as the client. Ideally, this begins to occur in the first interview. The trust issue A good deal of the interaction in early contacts between client and consultant is implicitly related to developing a relationship of mutual trust. For example, the key client may be fearful that things will get out of hand with an outsider intervening in the system – that the organization will be overwhelmed with petty complaints or that people will be encouraged to criticize their superiors. Subordinates may be concerned that they will get out of hand with an outsider intervening in the system – that the organization will be overwhelmed with petty complaints or that people will be encouraged to criticize their superiors. Subordinates may be concerned that they will be manipulated toward their superior’s goals with little attention given to their own. These kinds of concerns mean that the consultant will need to earn trust in these and other areas and that the consultant will need to earn trust in these and other areas and that high trust will not be immediate. The nature of the consultant’s expertise

Partly because of the unfamiliarity with organization development methods, client frequently try to put the consultant in the role of the expert on substantive content, such as on personnel policy or business strategy. We believe it is possible, and desirable, for the OD consultant to be an expert in the sense of being competent to present a range of options open to the client, but any extensive reliance on the traditional mode of consulting, that is, giving substantive advice, will tend to negate the OD consultant’s effectiveness. The OD consultant needs to resist the temptation of playing the content expert and will need to clarify his or her role with the client when this becomes an issue. However, we think the OD consultant should be prepared to describe in broad outline what the organization might look like if it were to go very far with an OD effort. Moving into the expert or advocate role – or as Schein says, the” purchase of expertise role” or the “doctor-patient model” frequently stems from an overriding desire to please the client. The consultant wishes to maintain the relationship for a verity of reasons – professional, financial, or self-esteem – and naturally wants to be perceived as competent. The consultant, therefore, gets trapped into preparing reports or giving substantive advice, which if more than minimal, will reduce his or her effectiveness. There are at least four good reasons why the OD consultant should largely stay out of the expert role. The first is that a major objective of an OD effort is to help the client system to develop its own resources. The expert role creates a kind of dependency that typically does not lead to internal skill development. The second reason is that the expert role almost inevitably requires the consultant to defend his or her recommendations. With reference to an initial exploratory meeting, Schein mentions the danger of being “seduced into a selling role” and states that under such conditions “we are no longer defending one’s advice tends to negate a collaborative, developmental approach to improving organizational processes. A third reason for largely avoiding the expert role has to do with trust. Thus, making recommendations to the top is quite different from confronting the top-management group with the data that three-fourths of the members of the top team believe that the organization has serious problems, partly stemming from too many divisions. In the one instance, the consultant is the expert; in the other instance, the consultant is helping the top team to be more expert in surfacing data and diagnosing the state of the system. A fourth reason has to do with expectations. If the consultant goes very far in the direction of being an expert on substance in contrast to process, the client is likely to expect more and more substantive recommendations, thus negating the OD consultant’s central mission, which is to help with process. In the other words, the OD consultant should act in the expert role on the process used but on the task. Lecture 28 Diagnosis and appropriate interventions Another pitfall for the consultant is the temptation to apply an intervention technique, which he or she particularly likes and which has produced good results in the past, but may not square with a careful diagnosis of the immediate situation. For example, giving subgroups an assignment to describe “what is going well in our weekly department head meetings” and “what is preventing the meetings from being as effective as we’d like”

might be more on target and more timely than launching into the role analysis technique with the boss’s role as the focus of discussion. It might be too soon; that is, there might be too much defensiveness on the part of the boss and too much apprehension on the part of subordinates for a productive discussion to take place. Depth of intervention A major aspect of selecting appropriate interventions is the matter of depth of intervention. In Roger Harrison’s terms, depth of intervention can be assessed using the concepts of accessibility and individuality. By accessibility Harrison means the degree to which the data are more or less public versus being hidden or private and the ease with which the intervention skills can be learned. By individuality is meant the closeness to the person’s perceptions of self and the degree to which effects of an intervention are in the individual in contrast to the organization. We are assuming that the closer one moves on this continuum to the sense of self, the more the inherent processes have to do with emotions, values, and hidden matters and, consequently, the more potent they are to do either good or harm. It requires a careful diagnosis to determine that these interventions are appropriate and relevant. If they are inappropriate, they may be destructive or, at a minimum, unacceptable to the client or the client system.The consultant, then, needs to have the skills to intervene effectively down through these progressively smaller – frequently simultaneously – according to whether the issue is How well are we performing as a total organization? How well are we doing as a large unit? How well are we doing as a team? How well are you and I working together? How well are you doing? How well am I doing? The concept of depth of intervention, viewed either in this way or in terms of a continuum of the formal systems, and self, suggests that the consultant needs an extensive repertoire of conceptual models, intervention techniques, and sensitivities to be able to be helpful at various levels. The consultant’s awareness of his or her own capabilities and limitations, of course, is extremely important. On being absorbed by the culture One of the many mistakes one can make in the change-agent role is to let oneself be seduced into joining the culture of the client organization. While one needs to join the culture enough to participate in and enjoy the functional aspects of the prevailing culture – an example would be good-natured bantering when it is clear to everyone that such bantering is in fun and means inclusion and linking – participating in the organization’s pathology will neutralize the consultant’s effectiveness. The dependency issue and terminating the relationship If the consultant is in the business of enhancing the client system’s abilities in problem solving and renewal, then the consultant is in the business of assisting the client to internalize skills and insights rather than to create a prolonged dependency relationship.

This tends not be much of an issue, however, if the consultant and the client work out the expert versus facilitator issue described earlier and if the consultant subscribes to the notion that OD should be a shared technology. The facilitator role, we believe, creates less dependency and more client growth than the traditional consulting modes, and the notion of a shared technology leads to rapid learning on the part of the client. An issue of personal importance to the consultant is the dilemma of working to increase the resourcefulness of the client versus wanting to remain involved, to feel needed, and to feel competent. We think there is a satisfactory solution to this dilemma. A good case can be made, we believe, for a gradual reduction in external consultant use as an OD effort reaches maturity. In a large organization, one or more key consultant may be retained in an ongoing relationship, but with less frequent use. If the consultants are constantly developing their skills, they can continue to make innovative contributions. Furthermore, they can serve as a link with outside resources such as universities and research programs, and more important, they can serve to help keep the OD effort at the highest possible professional and ethical level. Their skills and insights should serve as a standard against which to compare the activities of internal change agents. Some of the most innovative and successful OD efforts on the world scene, in our judgment, have maintained some planned level of external consultant use. Another dimension of the issue arises, however, when the consultant senses that his or her assistance is no longer needed or could be greatly reduced. For the client’s good, to avoid wasting the consultant’s own professional resources, and to be congruent, the consultant should confront the issue. A particularly troublesome dilemma occurs when the use of the Lecture 29 Ethical standards in OD Much of this chapter and, indeed, much of what has preceded in other chapters, can be viewed in terms of ethical issues in OD practice, that is, in terms of enhancement versus violation of basic values and/or in terms of help versus harm to persons. Louis White and Kevin Wooten see five categories of ethical, dilemmas in organization development practice stemming from the actions of either the consultant or client or both. The types of ethical dilemmas they see are: Misrepresentation of the consultant’s skills An obvious area for unethical behavior would be to distort or misrepresent one’s background, training, competencies, or experience in vita sheets, advertising, or conversation. A subtle form of misrepresentation would be to let the client assume one has certain skills when one does not. Professional/technical ineptness The potential for unethical behavior stemming from lack of expertise is pervasive in OD. To give one example using Harrison’s concept of depth of intervention, it would seem to be unethical to ask people in a team-building session to provide mutual feedback about leadership style when neither preliminary interviews nor the client group has indicated a readiness or a willingness diagnosis suggests the appropriateness of a feedback intervention, but the consultant has no experience from which to draw in order to design a

constructive feedback exercise. The consultant goes ahead anyway. It would be unethical for the consultant to plow ahead without some coaching by a more experienced colleague. (This may be a situation that calls for the “shadow consultant,” the consultant to a single individual, in this case another consultant.) Misuse of data Again, the possibilities for unethical behavior in the form of data misuse on the part of either the client or the consultant are abundant. This is why confidentiality is so important in OD efforts. Data can be used to punish or otherwise harm persons or groups. An obvious example would be a consultant’s disclosure to the boss of who provided information about the boss’s dysfunctional behavior. Another example would be showing climate survey results from Department A to the head of Department B if this had not been authorized. Serious distortions of the data would also be unethical. Let’s imagine a scenario in which the consultant interviews the top 20 members of management and finds several department heads are angry about the behaviors of fellow department head Z is hostile and uncooperative with the consultant in the data gathering interview. The consultant is now angry takes the form of overstating and overemphasizing the dysfunctional aspects of Z’s unit. (In an ironic twist, the group might turn on the consultant and defend Z. As a colleague of ours says, “Never attack the ‘worst’ member of the group – the group will reject you.”) Collusion An example of collusion would be the consultant agreeing with the key client to schedule a team-building workshop when it is known that department head Z will be on vacation. (This is hardly the way to deal with the problems created by Z, is likely to create reduced trust in the consultant and key client, Z’s boss, and is likely to intensify Z’s dysfunctional behavior.) Another example illustrating the power that a consultant with expertise in group dynamics can wield for good or harm is the consultant colluding with other members of the group to set up a feedback situation in which Z’s deficiencies will be all too apparent, particularly to Z’s boss. Instead of creating a situation in which everyone, including Z, has a chance of improving performance, this collusion is aimed at Z’s undoing. (We’ve picked on Z enough; if he or she is this much of a problem, Z’s performance should be confronted head on by the boss, outside of the team-building setting, and preferably well in advance. If OD interventions are perceived as methods for “getting” anyone, the OD process is doomed to failure. Coercion It is unethical to force organizational members into settings where they are, in effect, required to disclose information about themselves or their units which they prefer to keep private. The creation of a T-group with unwilling participants would be an example. A troublesome dilemma occurs in the case of a manager and most of his of her subordinates who want to go off-site for a problem-solving workshop but one or two members are strongly resisting. If friendly persuasion and addressing them, concerns of a individual(s) – not painful arm-twisting – do not solve the matter, perhaps a reasonable option is for the manager to indicate that nonparticipation is acceptable, and that there

will be no recriminations, but it should be understood that the group will go ahead and try to reach consensus an action plans for unit improvement without their input. Promising unrealistic outcomes Obviously, this is unethical and counterproductive. The temptation to make promises in order to gain a client contract can be great, but the consequences can be reduced credibility of the consultant and the OD field, and the reduced credibility of the key client within his or her organization .Thus, the values underlying ethical OD practice are honesty; openness; voluntarism; integrity; confidentiality; the development of people; and the development of consultant expertise, high standards, and self-awareness. Lecture 30 Implications of OD for the client An OD effort has some fundamental implications for the chief executive officer and top managers of an organization, and we believe that these implications need to be shared and understood at the outset. We reach the following conclusions when we ask ourselves, what is top management buying into in participating in the supporting an OD effort? Basically, OD interventions as we have described them, are a conscious effort on the part of top management: 1. To enlarge the database for making management decisions: In particular, the expertise, perceptions and sentiments of team members throughout the organization are more extensively considered than heretofore. 2. To expand the influence processes: The OD process tends to further a process of mutual influences; managers and subordinates alike tend to be influential in ways they have-not experienced previously. 3. To capitalize on the strengths of the informal system and to make the formal and the informal system more congruent: A great deal of information that has previously been suppressed within individuals or within the informal system (e.g. appreciations, frustration, hurts, opinions about how to do things more effectively, fears) begins to be surfaced and dealt with. Engineers spent suppressing matters can now be rechanneled into cooperative effort. 4. To become more responsive: Management must now respond to data that have been submerged and must begin to move in the direction of personal, team, and organizational effectiveness suggested by the data. 5. To legitimatize conflict as an area of collaborative management: Rather than win-lose, smoothing, or withdrawal modes of conflict resolution, the mode gradually becomes one of confronting the underlying basis for the conflict and working the problem through to a successful resolution. 6. To examine its own leadership style and ways of managing: We do not think an OD effort can be viable long if the top management team (the CEO plus subordinate team or top team of an essentially autonomous unit) does not actively participate in the effort. The top team inevitably is a powerful determinant of organizational culture. OD is not a televised game being played for viewing by top management; members of top management are the key players.

7. To legitimatize and encourage the collaborative management of team, and organization cultures: This is largely the essence of OD.We think that these items largely describe the underlying implications for top management and that the OD effort. These issues have to do with establishing the initial contract, identifying implications for top management and that the OD consultant needs to be clear about them from the very beginning and to help the topmanagement group be clear about them as the process unfolds. The Changing Environment The environment in which organizations operate is increasingly turbulent in an era of global, national, and regional commercial competitiveness. But paradoxically that competition is part of a rapidly shifting manage of competitiveness and interdependencies. Alliances, consortia, mergers, and acquisitions are all common. Production and communications technology are changing at an exponential rate. Furthermore, disloca1ion of people through downsizing and restructuring is rampant. Simultaneously, a profusion of business startups is taking place. Yesterday’s strategies are not likely to work in to-morrow’s workplaces. In large part the old organizational paradigm is dying. It doesn’t work well in this emerging environment. Top-down, autocratically directed, rigidly hierarchical, fear generating organizations are giving way to something new. The new paradigm proclaims that the most innovative and successful organizations will be those that derive their strength and vitality from adaptable, committed team players at all levels and from all specialties, not from the omniscience of the hierarchy.! Increasingly, organizations will be flatter, with smaller central staffs and with more real delegation to small groups and units. High-performance organizations focusing on the customer and continuous quality improvement and placing high value on human resources, diversity, and high-performance teams will be the norm.OD will be a major player in assisting organizations to shift to and sustain this new paradigm and to help invent even more effective paradigms in the future. The future of OD is bright, but only if the field continues to evolve. Here are some opinions about that evolution and some of the contingencies that must be faced. Lecture 31 Fundamental Strengths of OD These processes include careful tuning in to the perceptions and feelings of people; creating safe conditions for surfacing perceptions and feelings; involving people in diagnosing the strengths and weaknesses of their organizations and making action plans for improvement; focusing on team and other inter-dependent configurations; redesigning work so that it is more meaningful and motivating; explicitly training people toward a participative, open, team leadership mode; and using qualified third parties. These and other characteristics of OD have created a powerful and durable process for organization improvement. . A second fundamental strength has to do with the political, governmental milieu. OD is highly compatible with democratic governmental structures and processes that are well

established in many parts of the world and emerging elsewhere. Indeed, OD approaches promote and help sustain democratic processes. Third, OD practice has been expanding in the last two or three decades to create a blending of attention to people-orient processes with attention to the design of the human-technical system. Fourth, almost everywhere organizations, are recognizing the need for assistance in getting the right people together to talk constructively about important organizational and trans organizational matters, and for developing processes for making things better. In light of these pressing needs, the OD field clearly has an enormous and vital role to play in the foreseeable future. 0D’s Future How large a role OD will play in the constantly changing organizational, political, and economic milieu of the future will depend upon a number of interrelated conditions. Most of the conditions we see are generally favorable to OD, but countertrends and/or uncertainties will have to be addressed. These conditions and contingencies have to do with leadership And values; knowledge about OD; OD training; the interdisciplinary nature of OD; diffusion of technique; integrative practice; mergers, acquisitions; and alalliances; rediscovering and recording history; and the search for community. Leadership and Values For OD to flourish, top management-CEOs, boards of directors, top executives, including the human resources executive-and OD consultants must place high value on strong individual, team, and organizational performance coupled with peopleoriented values. As O’Tople says, management can choose to try to create organizations that have both profitability and humanistic/developmental objectives whether or not the two are necessarily correlated.4 In an almost schizophrenic situation in the United States, some top managements are highly attentive and committed to this duality of objectives, and others are concerned only with the bottom line and/or the price of stock. As George Strauss says, some executives have a “slash and bum” mentality. Knowledge About OD Top management groups are likely to utilize OD to the extent that they are aware of and understand the process involved. Even though the extent of this knowledge is undoubtedly widespread, we suspect that much of it is constrained by lack of an experiential feel for what the process is like. University courses, workshops sponsored by consultants and consulting firms, laboratory training, books and articles-these and other methods contribute to the information available to managers and executives. Descriptions and explanations by subordinates and by consultants probably playa large part. Our sense is that news accounts frequently shortchange the ODfield. Although not every article or news story about a successful employee involvement or participative improvement program can go into detail about the origins of that particular-effort, our” wish list” includes more reporting about the major components of improvement programs and how they started. By major components we mean aspects such as a third party teaming up with an executive, the data-gathering methods used, the formation of particular kinds of teams,

and so on. We suspect that many of the successful employee involvement efforts reported by the media have OD people and processes and OD-oriented executives as unsung, behind-the-scenes leaders and movers. Perhaps this oversight is part of the “marginality” of OD consultants.9 Overall, we see the need for more detailed, published case studies of OD efforts-including successes and failures and the use of OD processes in conjunction with other improvement strategies.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful