Running head: A DIAGNOSTIC MODEL FOR OD INTERVENTIONS: ARTICLE 1

A Diagnostic Model for OD Interventions: Article Review Summary-Assignment

A DIAGNOSTIC MODEL FOR OD INTERVENTIONS: ARTICLE 2

A Diagnostic Model for OD Interventions: Article Review Summary-Assignment

One of the great challenges in successful organizational development intervention is

finding a model and tool contextually differentiated. The author purports that the more precisely

tailored interventions are, the more successful it will be. Therefore, the article discusses the

development of an instrument.

Diagnosing work groups using a systems model, the intervention must include collecting

important and relevant information about the how the group or organization functions, analyzing

this information and then drawing conclusions based on this analysis. The survey described in

this article is the Survey of Organizations (SOO) (Taylor and Bowers, 1972). As mentioned

above, the Systems Model of Group Behavior is used to diagnose and further analyze groups and

organizations. This model regards the group as an open system with four stages: input, process,

output, and feedback. One of the unique features of this model is that it subdivides each stage

into four levels: the environment, the group, the individual member, and the task. This gives us

16 categories we can use to classify variables.

To create a comprehensive tool, four instruments had to be used in conjunction with one

another to analyze the performance of work groups. They are:

1. The Group Behavior Inventory (GBI)

2. The Job Reaction Questionnaire (JRQ)

3. The Team Interaction Profile (TIP)

4. The Survey of Organizations (SOO)

The author had the following comments to make about results based on the examination

of tables produced during this study. First, the group’s environment was the most neglected

level of the model; second, the feedback is the most neglected stage; third, the group process
A DIAGNOSTIC MODEL FOR OD INTERVENTIONS: ARTICLE 3

receives the most attention; fourth, the four instruments address only 13 cells of the model; fifth,

no single instrument addressed more than 9 cells. A final observation is that the major deficit in

creating a composite instrument to diagnose organizational development interventions is found

in the feedback stage, certainly one we would not want to neglect.

A DIAGNOSTIC MODEL FOR OD INTERVENTIONS: ARTICLE 4

References

Kaplan, I. T., & Greenbaum, H. H. (1991, Winter). A Dianostic Model for OD Interventions.

Public Administration Quarterly, 14(4); ABI/INFORM Complete pg. 519.