CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1
 INTRODUCTION

Organizational development plan is the process through which an

organization develops the internal capacity to be the most effective it can be in its
mission work and to sustain itself over the long term. This definition highlights
the explicit connection between organizational development work and the
achievement of organizational mission. This connection is the rationale for doing
OD work. Organization development, according to Richard Beckhard, is defined
as:

1. A planned effort...
2. organization-wide...
3. managed from the top...
4. to increase organization effectiveness and health...
5. through planned interventions in the organization's 'processes', using
behavioural science knowledge.

According to Warren Bennis, organization development (OD) is a complex

strategy intended to change the beliefs, attitudes, values, and structure of
organizations so that they can better adapt to new technologies, markets, and
challenges.

Warner Burke emphasizes that OD is not just "anything done to better an

organization"; it is a particular kind of change process designed to bring about a
particular kind of end result. OD involves organizational reflection, system
improvement, planning, and self-analysis.

The term "Organization Development" is often used interchangeably with

Organizational effectiveness, especially when used as the name of a department
or a part of the Human Resources function within an organization.

2
Definition

At the core of OD is the concept of an organization, defined as two or

more people working together toward one or more shared goals. Development
in this context is the notion that an organization may become more effective over
time at achieving its goals.

"OD is a long range effort to improve organization's problem solving and

renewal processes, particularly through more effective and collaborative
management of organization culture-with specific emphasis on the culture of
formal workteams-with the assistance of a change agent or catalyst and the use
of the theory and technology of applied behavioral science including action
research"

History

Kurt Lewin (1898 - 1947) is widely recognized as the founding father of

OD, although he died before the concept became current in the mid-1950s. From
Lewin came the ideas of group dynamics, and action research which underpin
the basic OD process as well as providing its collaborative consultant/client
ethos. Institutionally, Lewin founded the Research Center for Group Dynamics at
MIT, which moved to Michigan after his death. RCGD colleagues were among
those who founded the National Training Laboratories (NTL), from which the T-
group and group-based OD emerged. In the UK, working as close as was
possible with Lewin and his colleagues, the Tavistock Institute of Human
Relations was important in developing systems theories. Important too was the
joint TIHR journal Human Relations, although nowadays the Journal of Applied
Behavioral Sciences is seen as the leading OD journal.

3
OD topics

 Action research
 Appreciative Inquiry
 Chaos Theory in Organizational Development
 Collaboration
 Diversity management
 Employee research
 Group process
 Knowledge management
 Leadership development
 Managing change
 Meetings
 Organizational communication
 Organizational culture
 Organizational diagnostics
 Organizational engineering
 Organizational learning
 Organizational performance
 Performance improvement
 Process improvement
 Quality
 Social networks
 Strategic planning
 Succession planning
 Systems intelligence
 Systems thinking
 Team building
 T-groups

4
 RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY

5
Need and importance of the study:

It is responsibility if manager to make employs look for better ways of during

their jobs in Kotak mahindra Group.

To study the awareness level of the employees and need for change management
in Kotak mahindra Group.

To study the level of change techniques followed by the management.

To know the existing relationship between the employer and management.

To suggest the stages of implementations of change management techniques in

Kotak mahindra Group.

Scope of the study :

The scope of the study is confined to the develop management with reference to
Kotak investment solution ,Hyderabad .

 Origin and history of organization development.

 Need for the organization development.
 Development in organization.
 Organization development for individual firms.
 Organization development levels and process.
 Resistance to change
 Organization development in financial institutions.
 Organization development in unicaon investment solutions.

Objective of the study :

6
To study the change management programmed being followed in various
economics.

To find of the employees awareness on the organization development that are

anticipated in Kotak mahindra Group.

To find out what and how people accept and adopt organization development at
work place.

To determine the techniques affecting change.

To suggest strategies that will increase employees changing behavior.

Research Methodology :

The basic idea sampling is that by selection some of the elements in a population
we may draw conclusion about the entire population. For any systematic inquiry
application of appropriate methods and scientific bent of mind are sinequanon.
This has an important bearing on the collection of reliable data of the present
study is to acquire an intensive option about the organization development in
Kotak investment solution private limited.

Sampling design:

Sample population :

Sample population for this is all employess working(60 members) in Kotak

investment solution in Hyderabad branches.

Sample size:

In this project sample size Is which include staff of company.

 Sampling technique: in this study non-probability convenient sampling

was taken as the sampling technique. as the sample unit of the
organization has been taken.


Sampling tools:

7
The study has been carried out by using structured questionnaire is prepared by
negotiating with the guide.

Data collection:

The data used for analysis and interpretation form annual reports of the
company that is secondary forms of data.

The project is presented by using table’s graphs and with their

interpretations. No survey is undertaken or observation study is conducted in
evaluating ‘Fixed assets’ performance of Kotak.

Limitations:

1 The study period of 45 days as prescribed by university

2 The study is limited unto the date and information provided by Kotak
company and its annual reports

3 The report will not provide exact change development status and position
in Kotak investment solution company; it may vary from time to time and
situation to situation.
4 This report is not helpful in investing in Kotak either through
disinvestments or capital market.

8
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Organizational architecture

The architecture of an organization provides the framework through

which an organization aims to realize its core qualities as specified in its vision
statement. It provides the infrastructure into which business processes are

9
deployed and ensures that the organization's core qualities are realized across
the business processes deployed within the organization. In this way
organizations aim to consistently realize their core qualities across the services
they offer to their clients.

According to most authors organizational architecture is a metaphor, like

traditional architecture it shapes the organizational (some authors would say the
informational) space where life will take place. It also represents a concept which
implies a connection between the organizational structure with other systems
inside the organization in order to create a unique synergistic system which will
be more than just the sum of its parts.

Simplified scheme of organizational architecture

Conventionally organizational architecture consists of the formal

organization (organizational structure), informal organization (organizational
culture), business processes, strategy and the most important human resources
because what is an organization if not a system of people. The table shows some
approaches to organizational architecture.

Nadler & Merron Galbraith Henning Churchill Corporate

Tushman (1995) (1995) (1997) (1997) Transitions
(1997) International

10
 (2004)

Vision, Strategy The role of Strategy

strategic goals the
and strategic organization
management

Informal Organizational Reward Reward Organizational Organizational

organization culture systems systems culture culture

Formal Organizational Organizational Groupings Organizational Organizational

organization structure structure structure structure

Business Processes and Business

processes lateral links processes
and work
design

Human Human Human Communication

resources resources resource
development

The goal of organizational architecture is to create an organization which will be

able to continuously create value for present and future customers, optimizing and
organizing it self. Some under organizational architecture understand building blocks
which are mandatory for the growth of the organization. To design an organization means
to set up a stage where the drama of life will take place.

Organizational learning

11
 Organizational learning is an area of knowledge within organizational
theory that studies models and theories about the way an organization learns
and adapts.

In Organizational development (OD), learning is a characteristic of an adaptive

organization, i.e., an organization that is able to sense changes in signals from its
environment (both internal and external) and adapt accordingly. OD specialists
endeavor to assist their clients to learn from experience and incorporate the
learning as feedback into the planning process.

How organizations learn

Several models have been proposed that facilitate understanding of

organizational learning:

 Argyris and Schon (1978) distinguish between single-loop and double-

loop learning, related to Gregory Bateson's concepts of first and second
order learning. In single-loop learning, individuals, groups or
organizations modify their actions according to the difference between
expected and obtained outcomes. In double-loop learning, the entities
(individuals, groups or organization) question the values, assumptions
and policies that led to the actions in the first place; if they are able to view
and modify those, then second-order or double-loop learning has taken
place. Double loop learning is the learning about single-loop learning.

 March and Olsen (1975) attempt to link up individual and organizational

learning. In their model, individual beliefs lead to individual action,
which in turn may lead to an organizational action and a response from
the environment which may induce improved individual beliefs and the
cycle then repeats over and over. Learning occurs as better beliefs produce
better actions.

12
 Kim (1993), as well, in an article titled "The link between individual and
organizational learning", integrates Argyris, March and Olsen and another
model by Kofman into a single comprehensive model; further, he analyzes
all the possible breakdowns in the information flows in the model, leading
to failures in organizational learning; for instance, what happens if an
individual action is rejected by the organization for political or other
reasons and therefore no organizational action takes place?

 Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) developed a four stage spiral model of

organizational learning. They started by differentiating Polanyi's concept
of "tacit knowledge" from "explicit knowledge" and describe a process of
alternating between the two. Tacit knowledge is personal, context specific,
subjective knowledge, whereas explicit knowledge is codified, systematic,
formal, and easy to communicate. The tacit knowledge of key personnel
within the organization can be made explicit, codified in manuals, and
incorporated into new products and processes. This process they called
"externalization". The reverse process (from explicit to implicit) they call
"internalization" because it involves employees internalizing an
organization's formal rules, procedures, and other forms of explicit
knowledge. They also use the term "socialization" to denote the sharing of
tacit knowledge, and the term "combination" to denote the dissemination
of codified knowledge. According to this model, knowledge creation and
organizational learning take a path of socialization, externalization,
combination, internalization, socialization, externalization,
combination . . . etc. in an infinite spiral.

 Nick Bontis et al. (2002) empirically tested a model of organizational

learning that encompassed both stocks and flows of knowledge across
three levels of analysis: individual, team and organization. Results

13
 showed a negative and statistically significant relationship between the
misalignment of stocks and flows and organizational performance.

 Flood (1999) discusses the concept of organizational learning with Peter

Senge and the origins of the theory from Argyris and Schon. The author
aims to "re-think" Senge's The Fifth Discipline through systems theory.
Where Senge's work has been critiqued as a sort of an organizational
guru's self-help book, the author illustrates how advanced the concepts
are by integrating them with key theorists such as Bertalanffy.
Conceptualizing organizational learning in terms of structure, process,
meaning, ideology and knowledge, theory development with the
philosophy of science would further the discussion of how the theorists
have been influenced by twentieth-century advances from the classical
assumptions of science.

Organizational knowledge

What is the nature of knowledge created, traded and used in

organizations? Some of this knowledge can be termed technical – knowing the
meaning of technical words and phrases, being able to read and make sense of
economic data and being able to act on the basis of law-like generalizations.
Scientific knowledge is ‘propositional’; it takes the form of generalizations –
whenever A, then B. For example, whenever water reaches the temperature of
100 degrees, it boils; whenever it boils, it turns into steam; steam generates
pressure when in an enclosed space; pressure drives engines. And so forth.

A large part of the knowledge used by managers, however, does not

assume this a form. The complexities of a manager’s task are such that applying
A may result in B, C, or Z. A recipe or an idea that solved very well a particular
problem, may, in slightly different circumstances backfire and lead to ever more
problems. More important than knowing a whole lot of theories, recipes and

14
solutions for a manager is to know which theory, recipe or solution to apply in a
specific situation. Sometimes a manager may combine two different recipes or
adapt an existing recipe with some important modification to meet a situation at
hand.

Managers often use knowledge in the way that a handyman will use his or
her skills, the materials and tools that are at hand to meet the demands of a
particular situation. Unlike an engineer who will plan carefully and scientifically
his or her every action to deliver the desired outcome, such as a steam engine, a
handyman is flexible and opportunistic, often using materials in unorthodox or
unusual ways, and relies a lot on trial and error. This is what the French call
‘bricolage’, the resourceful and creative deployment skills and materials to meet
each challenge in an original way. Rule of thumb, far from being the enemy of
management, is what managers throughout the world have relied upon to
inform their action.

In contrast to the scientific knowledge that guides the engineer, the

physician or the chemist, managers are often informed by a different type of
know-how. This is sometimes referred to a ‘narrative knowledge’ or ‘experiential
knowledge’, the kind of knowledge that comes from experience and resides in
stories and narratives of how real people in the real world dealt with real life
problems, successfully or unsuccessfully.

Narrative knowledge is what we use in everyday life to deal with

awkward situations, as parents, as consumers, as patients and so forth. We seek
the stories of people in the same situation as ourselves and try to learn from
them. As the Chinese proverb says "A wise man learns from experience; a wiser
man learns from the experience of others."

15
 Narrative knowledge usually takes the form of organization stories (see
organization story and organizational storytelling). These stories enable
partipants to make sense of the difficulties and challenges they face; by listening
to stories, members of organizations learn from each other's experiences, adapt
the recipes used by others to address their own difficulties and problems.
Narrative knowledge is not only the preserve of managers. Most professionals
(including doctors, accountants, lawyers, business consultants and academics)
rely on narrative knowledge, in addition to their specialist technical knowledge,
when dealing with concrete situations as part of their work. More generally,
narrative knowledge represents an endlessly mutating reservoir of ideas, recipes
and stories that are traded mostly by word or mouth on the internet. They are
often apocryphal and may be inaccurate or untrue - yet, they have the power to
influence people's sensemaking and actions.

Individual vs. Organizational Learning

Learning by individuals in an organizational context is a well understood

process. This is the traditional domain of human resources, including activities
such as: training, increasing skills, work experience, and formal education. Given
that the success of any organization is founded on the knowledge of the people
who work for it, these activities will and, indeed, must continue. However,
individual learning is only a prerequisite to organizational learning.

Others take it farther with continuous learning. The world is orders of

magnitude more dynamic than that of our parents, or even when we were
young. Waves of change are crashing on us virtually one on top of another.
Change has become the norm rather than the exception. Continuous learning
throughout one’s career has become essential to remain relevant in the
workplace. Again, necessary but not sufficient to describe organizational
learning.

16
 What does it mean to say that an organization learns? Simply summing
individual learning is inadequate to model organizational learning. The
following definition outlines the essential difference between the two: A learning
organization actively creates, captures, transfers, and mobilizes knowledge to
enable it to adapt to a changing environment. Thus, the key aspect of
organizational learning is the interaction that takes place among individuals.

A learning organization does not rely on passive or ad hoc process in the

hope that organizational learning will take place through serendipity or as a by-
product of normal work. A learning organization actively promotes, facilitates,
and rewards collective learning.

Creating (or acquiring) knowledge can be an individual or group activity.

However, this is normally a small-scale, isolated activity steeped in the jargon
and methods of knowledge workers. As first stated by Lucilius in the 1st century
BC, “Knowledge is not knowledge until someone else knows that one knows.”

Capturing individual learning is the first step to making it useful to an

organization. There are many methods for capturing knowledge and experience,
such as publications, activity reports, lessons learned, interviews, and
presentations. Capturing includes organizing knowledge in ways that people can
find it; multiple structures facilitate searches regardless of the user’s perspective
(e.g., who, what, when, where, why,and how). Capturing also includes storage in
repositories, databases, or libraries to insure that the knowledge will be available
when and as needed.

Transferring knowledge requires that it be accessible to everyone when

and where they need it. In a digital world, this involves browser-activated search
engines to find what one is looking for. A way to retrieve content is also needed,
which requires a communication and network infrastructure. Tacit knowledge
may be shared through communities of practice or consulting experts. It is also

17
important that knowledge is presented in a way that users can understand it. It
must suit the needs of the user to be accepted and internalized.

Mobilizing knowledge involves integrating and using relevant knowledge

from many, often diverse, sources to solve a problem or address an issue.
Integration requires interoperability standards among various repositories.
Using knowledge may be through simple reuse of existing solutions that have
worked previously. It may also come through adapting old solutions to new
problems. Conversely, a learning organization learns from mistakes or
recognizes when old solutions no longer apply. Use may also be through
synthesis; that is creating a broader meaning or a deeper level of understanding.
Clearly, the more rapidly knowledge can be mobilized and used, the more
competitive an organization.

An organization must learn so that it can adapt to a changing

environment. Historically, the life-cycle of organizations typically spanned stable
environments between major socioeconomic changes. Blacksmiths who didn’t
become mechanics simply fell by the wayside. More recently, many fortune 500
companies of two decades ago no longer exist. Given the ever-accelerating rate of
global-scale change, the more critical learning and adaptation become to
organization relevance, success, and ultimate survival.

Organizational learning is a social process, involving interactions among

many individuals leading to well-informed decision making. Thus, a culture that
learns and adapts as part of everyday working practices is essential. Reuse must
equal or exceed reinvent as a desirable behavior. Adapting an idea must be
rewarded along with its initial creation. Sharing to empower the organization
must supersede controlling to empower an individual.

Clearly, shifting from individual to organizational learning involves a

non-linear transformation. Once someone learns something, it is available for

18
their immediate use. In contrast, organizations need to create, capture, transfer,
and mobilize knowledge before it can be used. Although technology supports
the latter, these are primarily social processes within a cultural environment, and
cultural change, however necessary, is a particularly challenging undertaking.

Learning organization

The work in Organizational Learning can be distinguished from the work

on a related concept, the learning organization. This later body of work, in
general, uses the theoretical findings of organizational learning (and other
research in organizational development, system theory, and cognitive science) in
order to prescribe specific recommendations about how to create organizations
that continuously and effectively learn. This practical approach was championed
by Peter Senge in his book The Fifth Discipline.

Diffusion of innovations

Diffusion of innovations theory explores how and why people adopt new
ideas, practices and products. It may be seen as a subset of the anthropological
concept of diffusion and can help to explain how ideas are spread by individuals,
social networks and organizations.

Organizational culture

Organizational culture, or corporate culture, comprises the attitudes,

experiences, beliefs and values of an organization.

It has been defined as "the specific collection of values and norms that are
shared by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they
interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization.
Organizational values are beliefs and ideas about what kinds of goals members
of an organization should pursue and ideas about the appropriate kinds or

19
standards of behavior organizational members should use to achieve these goals.
From organizational values develop organizational norms, guidelines or
expectations that prescribe appropriate kinds of behavior by employees in
particular situations and control the behavior of organizational members
towards one another." (Hill & Jones, 2001)

Senior management may try to determine a corporate culture. They may

wish to impose corporate values and standards of behavior that specifically
reflect the objectives of the organization. In addition, there will also be an extant
internal culture within the workforce.

Work-groups within the organization have their own behavioral quirks

and interactions which, to an extent, affect the whole system. Task culture can be
imported. For example, computer technicians will have expertise, language and
behaviors gained independently of the organization, but their presence can
influence the culture of the organization as a whole.

Strong/Weak cultures

Strong culture is said to exist where staff respond to stimulus because of

their alignment to organizational values.

Conversely, there is weak culture where there is little alignment with

organizational values and control must be exercised through extensive
procedures and bureaucracy.

Where culture is strong—people do things because they believe it is the

right thing to do—there is a risk of another phenomenon, Groupthink.
"Groupthink" was described by Irving L. Janis. He defined it as "...a quick and

20
easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage when they are deeply
involved in a cohesive ingroup, when members' strivings for unanimity override
their motivation to realistically appraise alternatives of action." This is a state
where people, even if they have different ideas, do not challenge organizational
thinking, and therefore there is a reduced capacity for innovative thoughts. This
could occur, for example, where there is heavy reliance on a central charismatic
figure in the organization, or where there is an evangelical belief in the
organization’s values, or also in groups where a friendly climate is at the base of
their identity (avoidance of conflict). In fact groupthink is very common, it
happens all the time, in almost every group. Members that are defiant are often
turned down or seen as a negative influence by the rest of the group, because
they bring conflict (conflicting ideas) and disturb the central culture. In cultural
studies, culture is seen as ethnocentric (Barone, J.T, Switzer, J.Y), or
culturocentric, meaning that we tend to think that our culture/subculture is the
best. The stronger the culture, the greater the risks of groupthink.

By contrast, bureaucratic organizations may miss opportunities for

innovation, through reliance on established procedures.

Innovative organizations need individuals who are prepared to challenge

the status quo—be it groupthink or bureaucracy, and also need procedures to
implement new ideas effectively.

Classifying organizational culture

Several methods have been used to classify organizational culture. Some

are described below:

21
Hofstede

Geert Hofstede demonstrated that there are national and regional cultural
groupings that affect the behavior of organizations.

Hofstede identified five dimensions of culture in his study of national influences:

 Power distance - The degree to which a society expects there to be

differences in the levels of power. A high score suggests that there is an
expectation that some individuals wield larger amounts of power than
others. A low score reflects the view that all people should have equal
rights.
 Uncertainty avoidance reflects the extent to which a society accepts
uncertainty and risk.
 individualism vs. collectivism - individualism is contrasted with collectivism,
and refers to the extent to which people are expected to stand up for
themselves, or alternatively act predominantly as a member of the group
or organization.
 Masculinity vs. femininity - refers to the value placed on traditionally male
or female values. Male values for example include competitiveness,
assertiveness, ambition, and the accumulation of wealth and material
possessions.
 Long vs. short term orientation - describes a society's "time horizon," or the
importance attached to the future versus the past and present. In long
term oriented societies, thrift and perseverance are valued more; in short
term oriented societies, respect for tradition and reciprocation of gifts and
favors are valued more. Eastern nations tend to score especially high here,
with Western nations scoring low and the less developed nations very
low; China scored highest and Pakistan lowest.

Deal and Kennedy

22
 Deal and Kennedy defined organizational culture as the way things get
done around here. They measured organizations in respect of:

 Feedback - quick feedback means an instant response. This could be in

monetary terms, but could also be seen in other ways, such as the impact
of a great save in a soccer match.
 Risk - represents the degree of uncertainty in the organization’s activities.

Using these parameters, they were able to suggest four classifications of

organizational culture:

The Tough-Guy Macho Culture. Feedback is quick and the rewards are high.
This often applies to fast moving financial activities such as brokerage, but could
also apply to a police force, or athletes competing in team sports. This can be a
very stressful culture in which to operate.

The Work Hard/Play Hard Culture is characterized by few risks being taken, all
with rapid feedback. This is typical in large organizations, which strive for high
quality customer service. It is often characterized by team meetings, jargon and
buzzwords.

The Bet your Company Culture, where big stakes decisions are taken, but it may
be years before the results are known. Typically, these might involve
development or exploration projects, which take years to come to fruition, such
as oil prospecting or military aviation.

The Process Culture occurs in organizations where there is little or no feedback.

People become bogged down with how things are done not with what is to be
achieved. This is often associated with bureaucracies. While it is easy to criticize
these cultures for being overly cautious or bogged down in red tape, they do
produce consistent results, which is ideal in, for example, public services.

23
Charles Handy

Charles Handy (1985) popularized a method of looking at culture which

some scholars have used to link organizational structure to Organizational
Culture. He describes:

 a Power Culture which concentrates power among a few. Control radiates

from the center like a web. Power Cultures have few rules and little
bureaucracy; swift decisions can ensue.
 In a Role Culture, people have clearly delegated authorities within a
highly defined structure. Typically, these organizations form hierarchical
bureaucracies. Power derives from a person's position and little scope
exists for expert power.
 By contrast, in a Task Culture, teams are formed to solve particular
problems. Power derives from expertise as long as a team requires
expertise. These cultures often feature the multiple reporting lines of a
matrix structure.
 A Person Culture exists where all individuals believe themselves superior
to the organization. Survival can become difficult for such organizations,
since the concept of an organization suggests that a group of like-minded
individuals pursue the organizational goals. Some professional
partnerships can operate as person cultures, because each partner brings a
particular expertise and clientele to the firm.

Edgar Schein

Edgar Schein, an MIT Sloan School of Management professor, defines

organizational culture as "the residue of success" within an organization.
According to Schein, culture is the most difficult organizational attribute to
change, outlasting organizational products, services, founders and leadership
and all other physical attributes of the organization. His organizational model

24
illuminates culture from the standpoint of the observer, described by three
cognitive levels of organizational culture.

At the first and most cursory level of Schein's model is organizational

attributes that can be seen, felt and heard by the uninitiated observer. Included
are the facilities, offices, furnishings, visible awards and recognition, the way that
its members dress, and how each person visibly interacts with each other and
with organizational outsiders.

The next level deals with the professed culture of an organization's

members. At this level, company slogans, mission statements and other
operational creeds are often expressed, and local and personal values are widely
expressed within the organization. Organizational behavior at this level usually
can be studied by interviewing the organization's membership and using
questionnaires to gather attitudes about organizational membership.

At the third and deepest level, the organization's tacit assumptions are
found. These are the elements of culture that are unseen and not cognitively
identified in everyday interactions between organizational members.
Additionally, these are the elements of culture which are often taboo to discuss
inside the organization. Many of these 'unspoken rules' exist without the
conscious knowledge of the membership. Those with sufficient experience to
understand this deepest level of organizational culture usually become
acclimatized to its attributes over time, thus reinforcing the invisibility of their
existence.

Surveys and casual interviews with organizational members cannot draw

out these attributes--rather much more in-depth means is required to first
identify then understand organizational culture at this level. Notably, culture at
this level is the underlying and driving element often missed by organizational
behaviorists.

25
 Using Schein's model, understanding paradoxical organizational
behaviors becomes more apparent. For instance, an organization can profess
highly aesthetic and moral standards at the second level of Schein's model while
simultaneously displaying curiously opposing behavior at the third and deepest
level of culture. Superficially, organizational rewards can imply one
organizational norm but at the deepest level imply something completely
different. This insight offers an understanding of the difficulty that
organizational newcomers have in assimilating organizational culture and why it
takes time to become acclimatized. It also explains why organizational change
agents usually fail to achieve their goals: underlying tacit cultural norms are
generally not understood before would-be change agents begin their actions.
Merely understanding culture at the deepest level may be insufficient to institute
cultural change because the dynamics of interpersonal relationships (often under
threatening conditions) are added to the dynamics of organizational culture
while attempts are made to institute desired change.

Elements of culture

G. Johnson described a cultural web, identifying a number of elements

that can be used to describe or influence Organizational Culture:

 The Paradigm: What the organization is about; what it does; its mission;
its values.
 Control Systems: The processes in place to monitor what is going on. Role
cultures would have vast rulebooks. There would be more reliance on
individualism in a power culture.
 Organizational Structures: Reporting lines, hierarchies, and the way that
work flows through the business.
 Power Structures: Who makes the decisions, how widely spread is power,
and on what is power based?

26
  Symbols: These include organizational logos and designs, but also extend
to symbols of power such as parking spaces and executive washrooms.
 Rituals and Routines: Management meetings, board reports and so on
may become more habitual than necessary.
 Stories and Myths: build up about people and events, and convey a
message about what is valued within the organization.

These elements may overlap. Power structures may depend on control

systems, which may exploit the very rituals that generate stories which may not
be true.

Entrepreneurial Organizational Culture

Stephen McGuire defined and validated a model of organizational culture

that predicts revenue from new sources. An Entrepreneurial Organizational
Culture (EOC) is a system of shared values, beliefs and norms of members of an
organization, including valuing creativity and tolerance of creative people,
believing that innovating and seizing market opportunities are appropriate
behaviors to deal with problems of survival and prosperity, environmental
uncertainty, and competitors’ threats, and expecting organizational members to
behave accordingly. The next level deals with the professed culture of an
organization's members. At this level, company slogans, mission statements and
other operational creeds are often expressed, and local and personal values are
widely expressed within the organization. Organizational behavior at this level
usually can be studied by interviewing the organization's membership and using
questionnaires to gather attitudes about organizational membership.

Critical Views on Organizational Culture

27
 Writers from Critical management studies have tended to express
skepticism about the functionalist and unitarist views of culture put forward by
mainstream management thinkers. Whilst not necessarily denying that
organizations are cultural phenomena, they would stress the ways in which
cultural assumptions can stifle dissent and reproduce management propaganda
and ideology. After all, it would be naive to believe that a single culture exists in
all organizations, or that cultural engineering will reflect the interests of all
stakeholders within an organization. In any case, Parker (2000) has suggested
that many of the assumptions of those putting forward theories of organizational
culture are not new. They reflect a long-standing tension between cultural and
structural (or informal and formal) versions of what organizations are. Further, it
is perfectly reasonable to suggest that complex organizations might have many
cultures, and that such sub-cultures might overlap and contradict each other. The
neat typologies of cultural forms found in textbooks rarely acknowledge such
complexities, or the various economic contradictions that exist in capitalist
organizations.

One of the strongest and widely recognised criticisms of theories that

attempt to categorise or 'pigeonhole' organisational culture is that put forward by
Linda Smircich. She uses the metaphor of a plant root to represent culture,
describing that it drives organisations rather than vice verca. Organisations are
the product of organisational culture, we are unaware of how it shapes
behaviour and interaction (also recognised through Scheins (2002) underlying
assumptions) and so how can we categorise it and define what it is?

Measurement Of Organizational Culture

Despite the evidence suggesting their potential usefulness, organisational

climate metrics have not been fully exploited as leading safety, health and

28
environmental performance indicators and as an aid to relative risk ranking.
Dodsworth et al are the first researchers to have successfully used PLS modelling
techniques to correlate organizational climate metrics with an organisation’s
safety performance. Further information regarding this research can be obtained
from the following link Dodsworth's Homepage

In the context of effectiveness, the repertory grid interview can be used to

capture a representation of an organisation's culture or corporate culture - the
organisation's construct system. The repertory grid interview process provides a
structured way of comparing effective and less effective performance and
capturing it in the interviewee's words without imposing someone else's model
or way of thinking

Succession Planning

In organizational development, succession planning is the process of

identifying and preparing suitable employees through mentoring, training and
job rotation, to replace key players — such as the chief executive officer (CEO) —
within an organization as their terms expire. From the risk management aspect,
provisions are made in case no suitable internal candidates are available to
replace the loss of any key person. It is usual for an organization to insure the
key person so that funds are available if she or he dies and these funds can be
used by the business to cope with the problems before a suitable replacement is
found or developed.

Succession Planning involves having senior executives periodically review

their top executives and those in the next-lower level to determine several
backups for each senior position. This is important because it often takes years of
grooming to develop effective senior managers. There is a critical shortage in
companies of middle and top leaders for the next five years. Organizations will
need to create pools of candidates with high leadership potential.

29
 A recent example of sound succession planning is the case of how General
Electric found a successor to its CEO Jack Welch. The Board of Directors engaged
in a lengthy and systematic review of the potential successors prior to his
retirement.

With the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, succession planning in the United States
has risen in importance as a corporate governance issue.

A careful and considered plan of action ensures the least possible

disruption to the person’s responsibilities and therefore the organization’s
effectiveness. Examples include such a person who is:

 suddenly and unexpectedly unable or unwilling to continue their role

within the organization;
 accepting an approach from another organization or external opportunity
which will terminate or lessen their value to the current organization;
 indicating the conclusion of a contract or time-limited project; or
 moving to another position and different set of responsibilities within the
organization.

A succession plan clearly sets out the factors to be taken into account and
the process to be followed in relation to retaining or replacing the person.

Organizational Engineering

Organizational Engineering is a form of Organizational Development

created by Gary Salton of Professional Communications, Inc. While traditional
organizational development is based on psychology and sociology theories,
organizational engineering aims to take a formula based approach in which
people can be plugged into an organizational environment equation and the
outcome is predicted. Thus engineering organizational development. Like

30
organizational development the focus is to increase efficiency, effectiveness,
communication and coordination in groups of all kinds.

The information derived from organizational engineering testing is often

used to place people into groups based on their relationships for optimal
compatibility with out trying to change individuals.

The range of Organizational Engineering (OE) is from the individual level

(puberty and older) to culture (shared values, beliefs and behaviors). It provides
a means to understand, measure, predict and guide human behavior both
individually and in groups. The end objective of the discipline is to produce
visible, positive results of significant consequence and magnitude within a time
frame that is useful to the entity being addressed.

OE uses human information processing at an individual level. Sociology is

the tool of choice at the group level. The methods, tools and processes employed
have been documented in the books Organizational Engineering (Salton, 1996)
and the Managers' Guide to Organizational Engineering (Salton, 2000). The
instrumentation has been validated across all eight validity dimensions in the
book Validation of Organizational Engineering (Soltysik, 2000). These books are
available from Professional Communications Inc. Recent discoveries, additions
and enhancements are published in the Journal of Organizational Engineering
(JOE) and are incorporated in the seminars Dr. Salton periodically holds in Ann
Arbor, MI.

Tools

Organizational Engineering is considered to be a knowledge base of how

people act and why. Developed to compliment the knowledge obtained through
organizational engineering research, "I Opt" measures the characteristics of an
individual so that one can draw conclusions based on the orga

31
 Team Building

Need for team building

Modern society and culture continues to become more fluid and dynamic.
Factors contributing to this include the communications revolution, the global
market and the ever-increasing specialization and division of labor. The net effect
is that individuals are now required to work with many different groups of
people in their professional as well as personal lives. Joining a new group and
immediately being expected to get along with them is somewhat unnatural.
People have had to develop methods to help people adapt to the new
requirements.

All kinds of companies face the same difficulties. As yet there is no

generally agreed solution to the problem - it may not even be possible given the
thousands of years of cultural evolution that brought us to our present behavior
patterns.

Team building ingredients

Ingredients seen as important to the successful set-up and launch of such

team efforts include:

 Selection of participants
 Establishing goals
 Allocation of roles within the team
 Harmonizing personality types
 Training on how to work together
 Support within the team
 Making effective use of resources
 Communication between team members and leaders

32
 There have been no empirical studies that have been tested in anyof the
assumptions made by the following group theorists.

Selection of participants

The first important ingredient for team building is selecting of participants

to be in the activity. The team leader usually looks for specific things in his or her
members in order to ensure success in the project. It is very important to have
members that have confidence and are able to build trust among the other
participants.

A participant must also break out of his or her shell and become a leader.
Most importantly, the participant must have a positive attitude at all times
(LaFasto 3). Sometimes it is helpful to have an assessment each member has to
fill out at the end of a team building experience to help in selecting participants
in the future.

The authors of When Teams Work Best collected 15,000 assessments that
team members had to fill out about their fellow teammates. In the assessment
there were only two questions asked: (1) What strengths does this person bring
to the team?

(2) What might this individual do to contribute more effectively to the team’s
success?

The assessment revealed six factors to help distinguish between the

effective and ineffective team members. The factors fell into two groups: working
knowledge and teamwork.

“Working knowledge consists of two factors: experience and problem-

solving ability. Teamwork consists of four factors: openness, supportiveness,

33
action orientation, and personal style”. If each member has these qualities, the
outcome of the team building activity will likely be successful.

Establishing goals within the team is essential in team building. It is

important for the team leader to establish goals early so the members understand
their purpose for participating. If the goals are clarified, the participants are
motivated to excel in the activities and develop trust among their leader.

Goals give the team direction and provide a feeling of value and
importance. It is very important for a leader to make sure the team knows how
the work will be done and how they will accomplish their tasks. Without goals,
the team has nothing to strive for, and many members may lose motivation.
Keeping the goal simple and achievable will be very beneficial to the team in the
end.

Balancing skill sets

When creating a team building activity, it is important to have balanced

skill sets. One way to achieve this is by having experts in different fields. If some
members provide their technical skills, and other members provide their
theoretical skills, the outcome of the project will likely be successful.

For example, individuals that are knowledgeable about the course

materials are confused about the technology part of it. On the other hand,
individuals may feel that the technical side of the problem is more
comprehensible than the theoretical side of it.

By combining both types’ strengths, the team can come up with a solution
that benefits everyone. Balancing skill sets can be one of the most challenging
things to achieve, but it is very important to do to ensure the success of ones’
team.

34
Allocation of roles within the team

Assigning roles to team members help them to know their place on the
team. Each member should be assigned a role that is clearly defined and relates
to his or her personality.

Advantages of defining roles among team members are that it makes

assignments more straightforward, helps to understand the decision-making
process, and assures the task will be completed.

In most undergraduate projects there are three roles: project leader, chief
architect, and documentation leader. It is important to clarify each of these roles
at the very first meeting so members know exactly what they have to do.

Making a list of everyone’s skill sets, preference, work experience, courses

taken, and interests would help in assigning the roles. From this list it should be
determined who is best suited for what role. If there is conflict in the process,
team members can always share the responsibilities. Otherwise the leader can
perform a quick lottery to decide who gets what role.

However, participants may not have an interest in the role that they were
unwillingly assigned to. A serious problem that may occur is that a specific role
may have too little or too much work, which may cause resentment between the
members. Productivity may also be lost.

A team must always be ready to adjust to their new roles and be prepared
if assigned to a new one. Members must be willing to move beyond their roles
and help others in order to practice good teamwork and to get the job done
(Mallet 5).

Harmonizing personality

35
 The personality of a team leader plays a big factor on how the team
performs. A leader must understand the kind of personality they need to have in
order to gain the respect from his or her members. Many studies have been made
to see if personality effects working environments.

For example, V.J. Bentz (1985) conducted a study of ineffective managers

at the department store Sears. In his studies he found that almost all of the
managers had a “personality defect” of some sort.

Lesley and Van Velsor (1996) also conducted studies that ultimately
found four personality traits of ineffective managers. The four traits were poor
interpersonal skills (being insensitive, arrogant, cold, aloof, overly ambitious),
unable to get work done (betraying trust, not following through, overly
ambitious), unable to build a team, and unable to make the transition after
promotion.

The personality traits that these managers portrayed were proven to

negatively effect the working environment. It is imperative for leaders to have a
positive and effective personality to gain respect among their organization and
members.

Training on how to work together

A team must know how to work together in order to be productive and

successful. If a team can work together, they will be able to raise and resolve
issues that are standing in the way of accomplishing a goal.

Working together may not come easy at first, but with proper training the
team will be able to adapt quickly. The training may include the instruction on
how to communicate better, manage conflict, or understand the skills and talents
that everyone brings to the table.

36
 A full assessment of the team’s need is recommended before the training
(Bubshait). To encourage team members to work together, many companies
provide workshops in communication skills, meetings management, listening,
assertiveness, conflict resolution, goal setting, and other topics that help in being
an effective team player.

If people are working together effectively rather than working by

themselves, a lot more work will be accomplished.

Support within the team

Another important ingredient for team building is supportiveness.

Supportiveness is the aspiration to help others succeed. “Someone who shows
supportiveness is dedicated to the team’s success and wants what’s best for the
team, works behind the scenes to aid the team, willing to pitch in whenever
necessary, always willing to help out, willing to take on more responsibility, very
easy to work with, and listens well to others’ ideas” .

Recently, M. West, author of Effective Teamwork, introduced a

comprehensive model of team support. In the model he concluded that team
support is a multidimensional concept that includes four types.

The four types are

1) emotional support,
2) informational support,

3) instrumental support, and

4) appraisal support.

Someone who provides a shoulder to cry on, encouraging words, and is

sympathetic of others’ pain is said to be a team emotional support.

37
 A person that provides team informational support exchanges necessary
information about a certain thing to their peers. The person who is actually
“doing the support” provides team instrumental support.

The last type is appraisal support. This type is the help individual team
members can provide to aid in making sense of a particular problem (Somech).

Team building will be successful if the team members can cover each of
these types of team support.

Making effective use of resources

Effectively using resources is essential in the success of team building. In

the business-world companies are very serious on how they use their resources.

Many companies use team techniques in systems development to

effectively use their resources (Parker 9). “During group sessions, non-technical
end users and information systems staff meet on a common ground to hammer
out systems solutions that truly meet the needs of everyone---especially the
needs of end-user management”.

To ensure system requirements are on target, companies like Cigna

Company in Philadelphia, CNA Insurance Company in Dearborn, Michigan, and
Chase Manhattan Bank in New York are all using group design techniques.

All of these companies believe in the same thing: effective goal setting,
listening, facilitation skills, consensus building, and a willingness to
communicate.

These team techniques in systems development not only make effective

use of resources, but they also result in measurable benefits. Resources are
essential to team building and they must be used wisely and efficiently.

38
Communication between team members and leaders

When Teams Work Best, “the most important contribution a team leader can
make is to ensure a climate that enables team members to speak up and address
the real issues preventing the goal from being achieved.”

A leader with good communication skills must be able to speak the truth
and deal with problems openly. Their goal should be to promote listening, to
understand different viewpoints, and to work toward a resolution.

It is important for a team leader to make team members feel comfortable

enough to express their needs and their wants. Members want to feel that they
know what is going on at all time and are informed about things such as plans,
priorities, and progress the group is making.

Some ways to communicate is by email, online messengers, telephone, or

face-to-face methods. The most important part of communication is not so much
the tools you choose, but the dedication by each member of the team to use the
chosen tools regularly.

As team performance reflects on management, managers—and even

coaches—sometimes feel the need to take part in constructing and fostering
teams.

As with many activities, the methodology and effectiveness of team

building programs can run a full gamut. For a notorious recent example of team
building run amok, see the case of Kamp Staaldraad in South Africa, 2003.

39
Team building in organizational development

The term ‘team building’ can refer generally to the selection and
motivation of teams, or more specifically to group self-assessment in the theory
and practice of organizational development.

When a team in an organizational development context embarks upon a

process of self-assessment in order to gauge its own effectiveness and thereby
improve performance, it can be argued that it is engaging in team building,
although this may be considered a narrow definition.

To assess itself, a team seeks feedback to find out both:

 its current strengths as a team

 its current weaknesses

To improve its current performance, a team uses the feedback from the team
assessment in order to:

 identify any gap between the desired state and the actual state
 design a gap-closure strategy

As teams grow larger, the skills and methods managers must use to create
or maintain a spirit of teamwork change. The intimacy of a small group is lost,
and the opportunity for misinformation and disruptive rumors grows.

Managers find that communication methods that once worked well are
impractical with so many people to lead. In particular, leaders encounter
difficulties based on Daglow’s Law of Team Dynamics: “Small teams are informed.
Big teams infer.”

40
 Action research

Action research is research that each of us can do on our own practice,

that “we” (any team or family or informal community of practice) can do to
improve its practice, or that larger organizations or institutions can conduct on
themselves, assisted or guided by professional researchers, with the aim of
improving their strategies, practices, and knowledge of the environments within
which they practice.

Kurt Lewin, then a professor at MIT, first coined the term “action
research” in about 1944, and it appears in his 1946 paper “Action Research and
Minority Problems”. In that paper, he described action research as “a
comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social
action and research leading to social action” that uses “a spiral of steps, each of
which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the
result of the action”.

Action research is not only a research that describes how humans and
organizations behave in the outside world but also a change mechanism that
helps human and organizations reflect on and change their own systems (Reason
& Bradbury, 2001). After six decades of action research development, many
methodologies have been evolved, ranging:

1. from those that are more driven by the researcher’s agenda to those more
driven by participants;
2. from those that are motivated primarily by instrumental goal attainment
to those motivated primarily by the aim of personal, organizational, or
societal transformation; and
3. from 1st-, to 2nd-, to 3rd-person research (i.e. my research on my own
action, aimed primarily at personal change; our research on our group
(family/team), aimed primarily at improving the group; and ‘scholarly’

41
 research aimed primarily at theoretical generalization and/or large scale
change).

Action research can change the entire sense of social science, transforming
it from reflective knowledge about past social practices formulated by a
priesthood of experts (research PhDs) to an active moment-to-moment
theorizing, data collecting, and inquiring occurring in the midst of our ongoing
lives. “Knowledge is always gained through action and for action. From this
starting point, to question the validity of social knowledge is to question, not
how to develop a reflective science about action, but how to develop genuinely
well-informed action—how to conduct an action science” (Torbert 2001).

Five major action research theories are:

 Chris Argyris's Action Science

 John Heron and Peter Reason's Cooperative Inquiry]]
 Paulo Freire's Participatory Action Research (PAR)
 William Torbert’s Developmental Action Inquiry
 Jack Whitehead's and Jean McNiff's Living Theory approach

Argyris’ action science invites individuals to study themselves in action

with others, and simultaneously attempts to contribute to and transform the
practice of social science itself. Therefore, it is primarily a 1st-person approach,
learned in 2nd-person settings, but with implications for 3rd-person social
science theory and method that Argyris (1970, 1980) has strongly articulated.

Heron’s (1996)and Reason’s (1995) Cooperative Inquiry brings peers (e.g.

doctors, social workers, young women managers, men) together in self-study
groups. Thus, it is primarily a 2nd-person approach, though group participants
are also encouraged to try 1st-person action research outside the groups, and
Reason has played a central role in mounting a paradigm challenge to ‘naively
objective’ modernist social science.
42
 The Participatory Action Research approach of Freire (1970) and others,
primarily in the southern hemisphere, concerns empowering the poorest and
least educated members of society for literacy, for land reform analyses, and for
community. Hence, this approach is primarily 3rd-person in the scope of its
intended societal transformations.

The Developmental Action Inquiry approach of Torbert & Associates (2004)

attempts to interweave individual, 1st-person self-study with face-to-face 2nd-
person self-study by teams and with 3rd-person institution-wide self-study.

In the Living Theory approach of Whitehead (1989) and Whitehead and

McNiff (2006) individual's generate explanations of their educational influences
in their own learning, in the learning of others and in the learning of social
formations. They generate the explanations from experiencing themselves as
living contradictions in enquiries of the kind, 'How do I improve what I am
doing?' They use action reflection cycles of expressing concerns, developing
action plans, acting and gathering data, evaluating the influences of action,
modifying concerns, ideas and action in the light of the evaluations. The
explanations include life-affirming, energy-flowing values as explanatory
principles. Living Theories generated through this approach can be accessed at
www.actionresearch.net . A living theory approach with the above qualities is
distinguished from the living theories produced by practitioner-researchers
because of the uniqueness of each living theory generated by individuals.

Since action research is as much about creating a better life within more
effective and just social contexts as it is about knowledge-creating and
discovering true facts and theories, it should not be surprising that it has
flourished in Latin America, Northern Europe, India, and Australia as much or
more than within university scholarship in the US.

43
 A powerful tool for modern action research uses video of communities by
communities, and variations on that theme. Surprisingly it started in 1967 by a
pioneering advocate Don Snowdon who changed the lives of Newfoundland's
Fogo islanders by filming them and their grievances and promulgating their
distress to their government. This methodology is now called Participatory
Video (see external link). Its chief power is that the video is edited by it
partipants.

Systems thinking

Systems thinking is an approach to analysis that is based on the belief

that the component parts of a system will act differently when isolated from its
environment or other parts of the system, and argues against Descartes's
reductionist view. It includes viewing systems in a holistic manner, rather than
through purely reductionist techniques.

Systems thinking is about gaining insights into the whole by

understanding the linkages and interactions between the elements that comprise
the whole "system", consistent with systems philosophy. It recognizes that all
human activity systems are open systems; therefore, they are affected by the
environment in which they exist.

Systems thinking recognizes that in complex systems, events are

separated by distance and time; therefore, small catalytic events can cause large
changes in the system. It acknowledges that a change in one area of a system can
adversely affect another area of the system; thus, it promotes organizational
communication at all levels in order to avoid the silo effect.

Both systems thinkers and futurists consider that:

 a "system" is a dynamic and complex whole, interacting as a structured

functional unit
44
  information flows between the different elements that compose the system
 a system is a community situated within an environment
 information flows from and to the surrounding environment via semi-
permeable membranes or boundaries
 systems are often composed of entities seeking equilibrium, but can
exhibit oscillating, chaotic, or exponential growth/decay behavior

Why use systems thinking techniques?

Systems thinkers are particularly interested in studying systems because

changing a system frequently leads to counterintuitive system responses. For
example feedbacrk loops may operate to either keep the organization in check or
unbalance it.

Traditional decision making tends to involve linear cause and effect

relationships. By taking a systems approach, we can see the whole complex of
bidirectional interrelationships. Instead of analysing a problem in terms of an
input and an output, for example, we look at the whole system of inputs,
processes, outputs, feedback, and controls. This larger picture will typically
provide more useful results than traditional methods.

System thinking also helps us integrate the temporal dimension of any

decision. Instead of looking at discrete "snapshots" at points in time, a systems
methodology will allow us to see change as a continuous process.

Systems thinking is a world view based on the perspective of the systems

sciences, which seeks to understand interconnectedness, complexity and
wholeness of components of systems in specific relationship to each other.

Systems thinking is not only constructivist, rather systems thinking

embraces the values of reductionist science by understanding the parts, and the
constructivist perspectives which seek to understand wholes, and more so, the

45
understanding of the complex relationships that enable 'parts' to become 'wholes'
as noted in the example below.

What is a system?

A system is any set (group) of interdependent or temporally interacting

parts. Parts are generally systems themselves and are composed of other parts,
just as systems are generally parts or holons of other systems.

Systems thinking techniques may be used to study any kind of system --

natural, scientific, human, or conceptual.

The Systems approach relies on two pillars:

1. "The Whole is more than the sum of the parts" - Aristotle Greek
Philosopher 384BC-322BC.
2. The development ethic.

Examples

Systems thinking often involves considering a "system" in different ways:

Rather than trying to improve the braking system on a car by looking in

great detail at the composition of the brake pads (reductionist), the boundary of
the braking system may be extended to include not only the components of the

46
car, but the driver, the road and the weather, and considering the interactions
between them.

Looking at something as a series of conceptual systems according to

multiple viewpoints. A supermarket could be considered as a "profit making
system" from the perspective of management, an "employment system" from the
perspective of the staff, and a "shopping system" -- or perhaps an "entertainment
system" -- from the perspective of the customers. As a result of such thinking,
new insights may be gained into how the supermarket works, why it has
problems, or how changes made to one such system may impact on the others.

Methods

Systems thinking uses a variety of techniques that may be divided into:

 Hard systems - involving simulations, often using computers and the

techniques of operations research. Useful for problems that can justifiably
be quantified. However it cannot easily take into account unquantifiable
variables (opinions, culture, politics, etc), and may treat people as being
passive, rather than having complex motivations.
 Soft systems - Used to tackle systems that cannot easily be quantified,
especially those involving people holding multiple and conflicting frames
of reference. Useful for understanding motivations, viewpoints, and
interactions and addressing qualitative as well as quantitative dimensions
of problem situations. Soft systems are a field that utilizes foundation
methodological work developed by Peter Checkland, Brian Wilson and
their colleagues at Lancaster University. Morphological analysis is a
complementary method for structuring and analysing non-quantifiable
problem complexes.

 Evolutionary systems - the development of Evolutionary Systems Design

by Bela H. Banathy integrates critical systems inquiry with soft systems
47
 methodologies to create a meta-methodology applicable to the design of
complex social systems. These systems, similar to dynamic systems are
understood as open, complex systems, but further accounts for their
potential capacity to evolve over time. Banathy uniquely integrated the
multidisciplinary perspectives of systems research (including chaos,
complexity, cybernetics), cultural anthropology, evolutionary theory, and
others.

Applications

Systems thinking is increasingly being used to tackle a wide variety of

subjects in fields such as computing, engineering, epidemiology, information
science, health, manufacture, management, and the environment.

For example:

48
 Organisation Design and Development
 Job Design
 Team Population and Work Unit Design
 Linear and Complex Process Design
 Supply Chain Design
 Business continuity planning with FMEA protocol
 Critical Infrastructure Protection via FBI Infragard
 Delphi method - developed by RAND for USAF

 Futures studies - Thought leadership mentoring

 Leadership development
 Oceanography - Forecasting complex systems behavior
 Quality function deployment (QFD)
 Quality management - Hoshin planning methods
 Quality storyboard - StoryTech framework (LeapfrogU-EE)
 Software quality

49
 CHAPTER 3
COMPANY PROFILE

Kotak Mahindra Bank

Type Public
Traded as BSE: 500247

50
 NSE: KOTAKBANK
Industry Financial service
Founded 1985 (as Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd)
Headquarters Mumbai, India
Key people Uday Kotak (Vice Chairman) & (MD)
Deposit accounts, Loans, Investment services, Business banking
Products
solutions, Treasury and Fixed income products etc.
Revenue 10,963 crore (US$1.98 billion)(2011)[1]
Net income 1,569 crore (US$283.99 million)(2011)
Website www.kotak.com

Kotak Mahindra Bank (BSE: 500247, NSE: KOTAKBANK) is an Indian financial

service firm established in 1985. It was previously known as Kotak Mahindra Finance
Limited, a non-banking financial company. In February 2003, Kotak Mahindra Finance
Ltd, the group's flagship company was given the license to carry on banking business by
the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. is the first company in
the Indian banking history to convert to a bank. Today it has more than 20,000 employees
and Rs. 10,000 crore in revenue.[2]

Mr. Uday Kotak is Executive Vice Chairman & Managing Director of Kotak Mahindra
Bank Ltd. In July 2011 Mr. C. Jayaram and Mr. Dipak Gupta, whole time directors of the
Bank, were appointed the Joint Managing Directors of Kotak Mahindra Bank. Dr.
Shankar Acharya is the chairman of board of Directors in the company. The Bank has its
registered office at Nariman Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai.

History

It bought stressed assets from a number of banks, at full loan value of Rs 1,000 crore in
2005.[3] In January 2011, the bank reported a 32% rise in net profit to Rs188 crore for the
quarter ended December 2010 against Rs. 142 crore the corresponding quarter last year. [4]

51
Kotak Mahindra bank also reached the top 100 most trusted brands of India in The Brand
Trust Report published by Trust Research Advisory in 2011.

The group specializes in offering top class financial services catering to every
segment of the industry. The various group companies include.
 Kotak Mahindra Capital Limited
 Kotak Mahindra Securities Limited
 Kotak Mahindra Inc
 Kotak Mahindra (International) Limited
 Global Investments Opportunities Fund Limited
 Kotak Mahindra(UK) Limited Kotak Securities Limited
 Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Company Limited
 Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Company Limited
 Kotak Mahindra Trustee Company Limited
 Kotak Mahindra Investments Limited
 Kotak Forex Brokerage Limited
 Kotak Mahindra Private-Equity Trustee Limited

Kotak
Mahindra Bank

Kotak Kotak Kotak Kotak Kotak Kotak

Mahindra Mahindra Mahindra Mahindra
Securities Mahindra Asset
Capital Investments Trust
Company Prime Management Company
Company

Group Structure
Kotak Mahindra Kotak Mahindra (UK)
Securities

Kotak Mahindra
( International)
52
Global Investment
Opportunities Fund
Kotak Mahindra Inc.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Dr. Shankar Acharya, Non-Executive Part-time Chairman

Dr. Shankar Acharya, (66 years) B.A. (Hons.) from Oxford University and Ph.D.
(Economics) from Harvard University, has considerable experience in various fields of
economics and finance. He is a Honorary Professor at the Indian Council for Research on
International Economic Relations (ICRIER) and a Board Member of ICRIER and the
Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI). He was Chief Economic Adviser, Ministry
of Finance, Member, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and Member,
Twelfth Finance Commission. He has held several senior positions in the World Bank,
including Director of World Development Report (1979) and Research Adviser. He was

53
re-appointed as the Non-Executive Chairman of the Bank at the Annual General Meeting
held on 28th July 2009 for a period of three years with effect from 20th July 2009. He is
on the Board of Eros International Media Ltd. and The South Asia Institute for Research
and Policy (Private) Limited, Sri Lanka. Dr. Acharya is the Chairman of the Audit
Committee of the Bank, Member of the Audit Committee of Eros International Media
Limited and the Chairman of the Shareholders’ Grievance/Investors’ Relations
Committee of Eros International Media Ltd.

Mr. Uday Kotak, Executive Vice-Chairman and Managing Director

Mr. Uday Kotak, (53 years) holds a Bachelor’s degree in Commerce and an MBA from
Jamnalal Bajaj Institute of Management Studies, Mumbai. He is the Executive Vice-
Chairman and Managing Director of the Bank and its principal founder and promoter.
Under Mr. Kotak’s leadership, over the past 26 years, Kotak Mahindra group established
a prominent presence in every area of financial services from stock broking, investment
banking, car finance, life insurance and mutual funds. Mr. Kotak is the recipient of
several prestigious awards. He is a member of the Government of India’s high level
committee on Financing Infrastructure, the Primary Market Advisory Committee of
SEBI, Member of the Board of Governors of Indian Council for Research on
International Economic Relations, National Institute of Securities Markets and National
Council of CII and Chairman of the CII Capital Markets Committee. He is also a
Governing Member of the Mahindra United World College of India.

Mr. C. Jayaram, Joint Managing Director

54
Mr. C. Jayaram, (56 years) B. A. (Economics), PGDM-IIM, Kolkata, is Joint Managing
Director of the Bank and is currently in charge of the Wealth Management Business of
the Kotak Group. He also oversees the international subsidiaries and the alternate asset
management business of the group. He has varied experience of over 34 years in many
areas of finance and business and was earlier the Managing Director of Kotak Securities
Limited. He has been with the Kotak Group for 22 years and has been instrumental in
building a number of new businesses at Kotak Group. Prior to joining the Kotak Group,
he was with Overseas Sanmar Financial Ltd.

Mr. Dipak Gupta, Joint Managing Director

Mr. Dipak Gupta, (51 years) B.E. (Electronics), PGDM-IIM, Ahmedabad, is the Joint
Managing Director of the Bank and has over 26 years of experience in the financial
services sector, 20 years of which have been with the Kotak Group. He is responsible for
Group HR, administration, infrastructure, operations and IT. He is also responsible for
asset reconstruction business of the Bank. Mr. Dipak Gupta was responsible for leading
the Kotak Group’s initiatives into the banking arena. He was the Executive Director of
Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited. Prior to joining the Kotak Group, he was with A. F.
Ferguson & Company for approximately six years.

Mr. Asim Ghosh

55
Mr. Asim Ghosh, (64 years) is a B.Tech, IIT Delhi and MBA from the Wharton School,
University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Ghosh commenced his career in consumer goods
marketing with Procter & Gamble in the U.S. and Canada and worked subsequently with
Rothmans International as a Senior Vice President of one of Canada’s major breweries.
He moved to Asia in 1989 as CEO of the Frito Lay (Pepsi Foods) start up in India.
Thereafter, he was in executive positions with Hutchison in Hong Kong and India for 16
years. He continued as the CEO of Vodafone Essar Limited till 31st March 2009 and as a
Non-Executive Director till 9th February 2010. He is also on the Board of Husky Energy
Inc., other Husky Group Companies and some Hutchison Whampoa Group Companies.

Dr. Sudipto Mundle

Dr. Sudipto Mundle, (63 years) graduated from St. Stephen College, and has a Ph.D. in
Economics from the Delhi School of Economics. He was a Director in the Strategy &
Policy Department, Asian Development Bank, and also India Chief Economist at ADB’s
India Resident Mission. He was appointed as a Director of the Bank with effect from 21st
July 2010. He is a Partner Director of The Governance Group, Singapore; an Emeritus
Professor & Member, Board of Governors, National Institute of Public Finance and
Policy; Member, Board of Governors of Institute of Economic Growth; Member,
56
Monetary Policy Technical Advisory Committee, Reserve Bank of India; Member,
National Statistical Commission, Government of India; and President of PREETI
Foundation. In his earlier career Dr. Mundle was Economic Advisor in the Ministry of
Finance, Govt. of India; and Reserve Bank of India Chair Professor at the National
Institute of Public Finance and Policy. He has also served in other academic institutions
including the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad and Centre for Development
Studies, Trivandrum. He was a Fulbright Scholar at Yale University, USA; and had
visiting assignments at Cambridge University, UK; Institute of Social Studies,
Netherlands; and Japan Foundation, Japan.

Mr. Prakash Apte

Mr. Prakash Apte, (58 years)B.E. (Mechanical), is presently the Chairman of Syngenta
India Limited, one of the leading agri business companies in India. Mr. Apte, in a career
spanning over 35 years has considerable experience in various areas of management and
business leadership. During more than 15 years of very successful leadership experience
in agri business, he has gained varied knowledge in various aspects of Indian Agri Sector
and has been involved with many initiatives for technology, knowledge and skills up
gradation in this sector, which is so vital for India’s food security. He was instrumental in
setting up the Syngenta Foundation India which focuses on providing knowledge and
support for adopting scientific growing systems to resource poor farmers and enabling
their access to market. He is a Director of Syngenta Foundation India and Kotak
Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Limited. Mr. Apte is a member of Audit Committee
of Syngenta India Limited.

Mr. Amit Desai

57
Mr. Amit Desai, (53 years) B.Com, LLB, is an eminent professional with 31 years of
experience. He is also on the Board of Kotak Mahindra Trustee Company Limited and
Terra DeKM India Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Desai was a member of Audit Committee of Kotak
Mahindra Trustee Company Limited till 26th April 2012.

Mr. Narendra P. Sarda

Mr. N.P. Sarda, (66 years) B.Com, F.C.A., is a Chartered Accountant for more than 40
years. He is a former partner of M/s. DeloitteHaskin & Sells, Chartered Accountants, the
past President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (in 1993) and was a
public representative Director of the Stock Exchange, Mumbai (BSE).

YEAR MILESTONE
1986 Kotak Mahindra Finance Limited starts the activity of Bill Discounting
1987 Kotak Mahindra Finance Limited enters the Lease and Hire Purchase market
1990 The Auto Finance division is started
1991 The Investment Banking Division is started. Takes over FICOM, one of India's

58
 largest financial retail marketing networks
1992 Enters the Funds Syndication sector
Brokerage and Distribution businesses incorporated into a separate company -
1995 Kotak Securities. Investment Banking division incorporated into a separate
company - Kotak Mahindra Capital Company
The Auto Finance Business is hived off into a separate company -Kotak
Mahindra Prime Limited (formerly known as Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited).
1996 Kotak Mahindra takes a significant stake in Ford Credit Kotak Mahindra
Limited, for financing Ford vehicles. The launch of Matrix Information
Services Limited marks the Group's entry into information distribution.
Enters the mutual fund market with the launch of Kotak Mahindra Asset
1998
Management Company.
2000 Kotak Mahindra ties up with Old Mutual plc. for the Life Insurance business.
Kotak Securities launches its on-line broking site (now
2000 www.kotaksecurities.com). Commencement of private equity activity through
setting up of Kotak Mahindra Venture Capital Fund.
2001 Matrix sold to Friday Corporation
2001 Launches Insurance Services
Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. converts to a commercial bank - the first Indian
2003
company to do so.
2004 Launches India Growth Fund, a private equity fund.
Kotak Group realigns joint venture in Ford Credit; Buys Kotak Mahindra Prime
2005 (formerly known as Kotak Mahindra Primus Limited) and sells Ford credit
Mahindra.
2005 Launches a real estate fund
Bought the 25% stake held by Goldman Sachs in Kotak Mahindra Capital
2006
Company and Securities
2008 Launched a Pension Fund under the New Pension System
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Opened a representative office in Dubai
2009
Entered Ahmedabad Commodity Exchange as anchor investor
Ahmedabad Derivatives and Commodities Exchange, a Kotak anchored
2010
enterprise, became operational as a national commodity exchange.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd entered into a Business Cooperation arrangement
2011
with CIMB Group Sdn Bhd, Malaysia.

59
Awards

Recent achievements

At Kotak Mahindra Group we take a client-centric view and constantly innovate to

provide you with the best of services and infrastructure. We have regularly received
accolades that stand testimony to our success in this endeavour. Some of our recent
achievements are:

BANKING
 ICAI Award
Excellence in Financial Reporting under Category 1 - Banking Sector for the year
ending 31st March, 2010
 Asiamoney
Best Local Cash Management Bank 2010
 IDG India
Kotak won the CIO 100 'The Agile 100' award 2010
 IDRBT
Banking Technology Excellence Awards Best Bank Award in IT Framework and
Governance Among Other Banks' - 2009
Banking Technology Award for IT Governance and Value Delivery, 2008
 IR Global Rankings
Best Corporate Governance Practices - Ranked among the top 5 companies in
Asia Pacific, 2009
 FinanceAsia
Best Private Bank in India, for Wealth Management business, 2009
 Kotak Royal Signature Credit Card
Was chosen "Product of the Year" in a survey conducted by Nielsen in 2009
 IBA Banking Technology Awards
Best Customer Relationship Achievement - Winner 2008 & 2009
Best overall winner, 2007

60
 Best IT Team of the Year, 4 years in a row from 2006 to 2009
Best IT Security Policies & Practices, 2007
 Euromoney
Best Private Banking Services (overall), 2009
 Emerson Uptime Champion Awards
Technology Senate Emerson Uptime Championship Award in the BFSI category,
2008

WEALTH MANAGEMENT
 FinanceAsia
Best Private Bank India - FinanceAsia 2010

MISCELLANEOUS
 Best Local Trade Bank in India
The UK based Trade & Forfaiting Review awarded Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
the Bronze Award in the category of Best Local Trade Bank in India at the TFR
Awards 2011.
 LACP Vision Awards 2010 for Annual Report 2010-11
Platinum Award - Best among Banking Category, APAC
Gold Award - Most Creative Report, APAC
Ranked No. 21 among Top 50 Reports, APAC
Ranked No. 87 among the World's Top 100 Annual Reports
 Businessworld
'Most Valuable CEO' overall, 2010 awarded to Mr. Uday Kotak, Executive Vice
Chairman & Managing Director
 CNBCTV 18
'Best Performing CFO in the Banking/Financial Services sector by CNBCTV 18
CFO Awards 2010 awarded to Mr. Jaimin Bhatt
 GIREM
GIREM awarded Kotak Realty Funds Group, the "Investor of the Year" Award for
2009

61
  IBA Banking Technology Awards
Best Use of Business Intelligence - up, 2008
Best Enterprise Risk Management - Runner up, 2008
 The Great Places to Work Institute, India
Best Workplaces in India, 2008
 Hewitt
10th Best Employer in India, 2007, 2008 & 2009
 Financial Insights Innovation Award
Best Innovation in Enterprise Security Management in the Asia Pacific Region,
2009
 Frost & Sullivan
Best Passenger Vehicle Finance Company in India, 2006
 CNBC TV 18
Indian Business Leader of the Year, 2008 awarded to Uday Kotak, Executive Vice
Chairman & Managing Director

INTERNATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT

 Global Investor (Editorial Award)
Asian Asset Manager of the Year, 2009

ASSET MANAGEMENT
 ICRA Mutual Fund Awards 2009
Kotak Liquid (Regular Plan) - Ranked as a Seven Star Fund for its 1 year
performance
Kotak Flexi Debt Fund - Ranked as a Five Star Fund for its 1 year performance
Kotak Flexi Debt Fund - Ranked as a Five Star Fund for its 3 year performance
Kotak 30 - Ranked as a Five Star Fund for its 3 year performance

INVESTMENT BANKING
 FinanceAsia
Best Investment Bank in India, 2010

62
 Best Equity House in India, 2010
Best Broker in India, 2010
 Asiamoney
Best Domestic Equity House, 2010
Best Local Brokerage in the Asiamoney Brokers Poll – 2010
 Global Finance
Best Investment Bank in India, 2010
 Euromoney Real Estate Poll
Best Bank for Equity Finance in India, 2010
 Asset Asian Awards
Best Domestic Investment Bank, 2010
 FinanceAsia Country Awards for Achievement
Best Investment Bank in India, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 & 2010
Best Equity House in India, 2008 & 2010
 Asiamoney Best Domestic Bank Awards
Best Domestic Equity House, 2008, 2009 & 2010
 IFR Asia
India Equity House of the Year, 2008
 Global Finance
Best Investment Bank in India, 2008, 2009 & 2010
 Asset Asian Awards
Best Domestic Investment Bank, 2006, 2007, 2008 & 2009

SECURITIES
 FinanceAsia
Best Broker in India - 2010
 CNBC Financial Advisor Awards
Best Performing Equity Broker, 2008 & 2009
 Asiamoney Brokers Poll
Best Local Brokerage, 2006, 2007, 2008 & 2009
Best Analyst in India – Sanjeev Prasad, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 & 2009

63
 FinanceAsia Country Awards for Achievement
Best Broker in India, 2006, 2009 & 2010
 Thomson Extel Surveys Awards
India's Leading Equity House, 2007
 SuperBrands Council of India
Business Superbrand India, 2008

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS

64
1.Do you feel the compelling reasons for adopting the change programme?
a) Yes
b) No
c)To some extent
d)Don’ t Know
Option NO of employee Percentage
yes 9 38%
No 5 10%
To some extent 20 40%
Don’ t Know 6 12%

65
Comment :

Source :
From questionare given to the 50 % employess.

Analysis :
The above chart riveals that 40 % fo the employess say that to some extent,they
feel the compelling reasons for adopting the development ,38% of them say
yes,12 % don’t know,and 10% say no

2.Are you aware of how when and where the develop will happen ?
A.to large extent
b.to medium extent
c.to littile extent
d.not clear at all

Option No of employee percentage

To large extent 13 26%
To medium extent 21 42%
To little extent 16 32%
Not clear to all 0 0

66
Comment :

Source :
From questionare given to the 50 % employess.

Analysis :
The above chart riveals that 42% of the employees are aware to medium extent of
how ,when where the change will happen ,32% of them to large extent and 26%
of them to a little extent.

3.Does the senior executive team support need based changes ?

a.adequantely
b.inadequately
c.appropriately
d.not appliccable
Option No of employee Percentage
Adequately 27 54%
Inadequately 19 6%
Appropriately 1 38%
Not applicable 1 2

67
4.Has awarness programmes been conducted by your organization while
implementing development.
a.yes
b.no
c.to some extent
d.dont know.

Option No of employee Percentage

Yes 29 58%
No 3 6%

68
To some extent 17 34%
Don’t know 1 2%

Comment :
Source :
From questionare given to the 50 % employess.

Analysis :
The above chart riveals that 54% of the employees say that senior executive team
support the need based change adequently and 38% of the employees say
appropriately and 6% of say that senior executive team support the need based
change inadequenlty and 1% say not applicable.

5.Are all stakeholders involved in the development process. ?

a.yes
b.no
c.to some extent.
d.dont know

Options No of employess Percentage

Yes 17 34%
No 8 16%
Tosome extent 23 46%
Don’t know 2 4%

69
Comment :

Source :
From questionare given to the 50 % employess.

Analysis :
The above chart riveals that 58% of the employees say that awarness
programmes have been conducted by their organization while implementing
change,34% of them say that to some extent the awareness programmes are
being conducted while implementing change whereas 6% of them say no , and 2
% of them don’t know.
6.Do you agree that the employess are involved in framing the goals to lower
level of the organization.
a.agree
b.disagree
c.indiffrent
d.dont know

Options No of employess Percentage

Agree 30 60%
Disagree 9 18%
Indifferent 6 12%
Don’t know 5 10%

70
7.Does development support operational accountabilities ?
a.yes
b.no
c.to some extent.
d.dont know

Options No of employess Percentage

Yes 23 46%
No 6 12%
To some extent 20 40%
Don’t know 1 2%

71
Comment :

Source :
From questionare given to the 50 % employess.

Analysis :
The above chart riveals that 46% of the employees say that the change
management support operational accounatabillity 40% of them say to some
extent.

8.Do you agree that people with responsibility at your organization have the
necessary skills ?
a.agree
b.disagree
c.indiffrent
d.dont know

Options No of employess Percentage

Agree 26 52%
Disagree 7 14%
Indifferent 17 34%
Don’t know 0 0

72
Comment :

Source :
From questionare given to the 50 % employess.

Analysis :
The above chart riveals that 52% of the employess agreed that the people with
the responsibilities at their organization have the necessary skills,34% of them
agree to some extent,14% of them disagree.

9.Is the training programme sufficiently designed and adequently resourced ?

a.yes
b.no
c.to some extent.
d.dont know

Options No of employess Percentage

yes 28 56%
No 3 65%
To some time 18 36%
Don’t know 1 2%

73
Comment :

Source :
From questionare given to the 50 % employess.

Analysis :
The above chart rivals that 56% of the employees agree that the training
programme is being sufficiently designed and adequently resourced ,36% of
them agree to some extent,

10.Are terms being developed and supported for high performance?

a.yes
b.no
c.to some extent.
d.dont know

Options No of employess Percentage

yes 20 40%
No 4 85%
To some time 20 40%
Don’t know 6 12%

74
Comment :

Source :
From questionare given to the 50 % employess.

Analysis :
The above chart reveals that 40% of the employees agree that teams are being
developed and support for high performance ,40% fo the employees agree to
some extent,12% of them don’t know 8% of them say no.

11.Is there focus on skills as well as technical skills in Kotak.

a.On soft skills
b.on both technicalskills
cboth
d.not at all
Options No of employess Percentage
On soft skills 2 4%
On technical skills 14 28%
Both 28 56%
Not at all 6 12%

75
Comment :

Source :
From questionare given to the 50 % employess.

Analysis :
The above chart reveals that 56% of the employees agree that Kotak focuses on
both soft skillsa and technical skills.

12.Do information human resource and other systems support the new
operational environment.
a.support
b.dont support
c.to some extent
d.dont know

Options No of employess Percentage

Support 30 60%
Don’t support 1 2%
To some extent 18 36%
Don’t know 1 2%

76
Comment:

Source :
From questionare given to the 50 % employess.

Analysis :
The above chart reveals that 60% of the employess agree that information
system,human resource and other systems support the new operationsl
environment 36% of the agree to some extent ,2% of them say that it does not
support,where as 2 % of the them don’t know.

13.Are remuneration reward and recruitment systems aligned with the change
objectives ?
a.yes
b.no
c.to some extent.
d.dont know
Options No of employess Percentage
Ye s 34 68%
No 8 16%
To some extent 6 12%
Don’t know 2 4%

77
Comments:

Source :
From questionare given to the 50 % employess.

Analysis :

The above chart reveals that 68% of the employess agree that remuneration
rewards and recruitment systems aligned with the development objective ,where
as 16% of them say no ,12% of them agree that it aligned to some extent with the
development objective.

CHAPTER 5
78
FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS

SUGGESTIONS:

After analysis and conclusions, there is some need to provide a few

suggestions to the organization I am sincerely providing these suggestions for

the welfare of the organization. In order to analyze the job, we have to do

some changes.

1) Mainly inspecting work is the main activity that is in the part of

incumbent’s supervisory duties. Not only that, there are several activities

79
 like training, performance appraisal, coaching etc. also be given to the

employees.

2) I observed that eighth grade education is enough for this job.

3) If you take proper precautions for mechanical hazards, the employees can

do the job effectively and get more output.

4) Try to replace the high technology in the place of low technology.

5) Try to decrease the amount of experience needed to perform this job.

6) If personal attributes are required by the job, then the productivity will be

increased.

Conclusion

These core components of effective organizations offer a framework for

understanding the goals of organizational development work. Specific skills,
such as leadership skills, group process skills, communication skills and
problem-solving skills, are essential in order for these components to be
developed and maintained. The process through which each organization
approaches OD work must be developed in relation to several factors, including
its age and stage of development, the current conditions under which it is
operating externally and internally, and the history and identity of the
organization. Taken together, these components present a vision for
organizational health that can help guide and direct organizational development
efforts.

80
Lessons Learned

Organizational leaders who have experience with long-term

organizational development efforts have the following lessons to share with
those who are considering or are engaged in OD work:
The nature of OD work

• “Our sense is that organizational development is somewhat shaggier, less

systematic, and more situation-specific than the way we think about it in
workshops and learning clusters. It’s so didactic in workshops . . . . In reality and
practice, it’s not as neat as we present it; it’s different from organization to
organization. It’s living, it changes as we perfect it. It’s a dynamic, not a static
thing.”

• “It’s a process of two steps forward, one step back; it’s a progression, and it’s
not always linear. You should be happy about your successes because there will
be setbacks.”

• “It always takes longer than you think.”

• “You can’t pretend that there’s a magic OD formula. There are no ten things to
do to solve all problems. It’s about people and their personalities. There’s no
resolution but through interaction and day to day management. You can’t ever
pretend that things will disappear with OD.”

• “Organizations are like kids, it’s all about development. If you give them good,
strong
values, a clear vision of the future, and the view that everything is possible, they
will grow up to be like that and . . . . vice versa.”

• “You just have to do it (OD). It’s kind of like ‘good grooming.’ People don’t
want to know the details, but you’ve got to look and smell good as you walk out
of the house.”
81
OD as an ongoing, long term, never-ending process

• “Above all else, the key lesson learned from the OD process is that OD is an
ongoing process which organizations must continually address if they are to be
healthy and effective. Thus, the Justice Center is committed to making OD an
ongoing part of its future focus.”

• “OD never stops. We’re just beginning. We’re not going to let the OD money
run out. We’re going to find ways to pay for it.”

• “We learned that organizational development is everybody’s job. It is a

continual process that never ends.”

CHAPTER 6

QUESTIONNAIRE
82
QUESTIONNAIRE:

1. Name of the Employee :

2. Designation :

3. Department / Branch :

4. Age / Gender :

1.Do you feel the compelling reasons for adopting the change programme? [ ]
a) Yes
b) No
c)To some extent

d)Don’ t Know

2.Are you aware of how when and where the develop will happen ? [ ]
A.to large extent
b.to medium extent

83
c.to littile extent
d.not clear at all

3.Does the senior executive team support need based changes ? [ ]

a.adequantely
b.inadequately
c.appropriately
d.not appliccable

4.Has awarness programmes been conducted by your organization while

implementing development. [ ]
a.yes
b.no
c.to some extent
d.dont know.

5.Are all stakeholders involved in the development process. ? [ ]

a.yes
b.no
c.to some extent.

d.dont know

6.Do you agree that the employess are involved in framing the goals to lower
level of the organization. [ ]
a.agree
b.disagree
c.indiffrent
d.dont know

7.Does development support operational accountabilities ? [ ]

a.yes
b.no
c.to some extent.
d.dont know

8.Do you agree that people with responsibility at your organization have the
necessary skills ?
[ ]
a.agree

84
b.disagree
c.indiffrent
d.dont know

9.Is the training programme sufficiently designed and adequently resourced ?

[ ]

a.yes
b.no
c.to some extent.
d.dont know

10.Are terms being developed and supported for high performance? [ ]

a.yes
b.no
c.to some extent.
d.dont know

11.Is there focus on skills as well as technical skills in Kotak. [ ]

a.On soft skills
b.on both technicalskills
cboth
d.not at all

12.Do information human resource and other systems support the new [ ]
operational environment.
a.support
b.dont support
c.to some extent
d.dont know

13.Are remuneration reward and recruitment systems aligned with the change
objectives ? [ ]
a.yes
b.no
c.to some extent.
d.dont know

85
 CHAPTER 7

BIBLIOGRAPHY
86
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

AUTHOR’S NAME BOOK’S NAME

ASWATHAPPA HUMAN RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT

L.M. PRASAD ORGANIZATIONAL

BEHAVIOUR

HAROLD KOONTZ
ESSENTIAL OF MANAGEMENT

PETER STIMPSON
BUSINESS STUDIES

87
WEB SITES:

□ http://www.google.com

□ http://www.Kotak.com

□ http://www.hr.com

88