Lecture-1

WHAT IS ORGANISATION DEVELOPMENT?

We are often asked this question as to what is consulting in Organization Development?
Often asked this question because currently there’s no agreement on the meaning of the
term “organization development”, and it is still less clear what a consultant in
organization development is. That is why I am going to explain what we mean by that.
We firmly believe that only companies having an internal structure corresponding to their
goals are able to develop successfully. That is why our main goal is to help our clients to
organize their internal resources in the most efficient way for their development. For
instance, to distribute functions and authority, to create transparent system of interaction
and control, to develop a common set of values, to unite various divisions into an
efficient team for the purpose of performing clearly defined tasks... For us the key term is
development. And development is a process, and this implies the fact that besides
analysis and advice, helping to carry out organizational changes is also a significant part
of our work. My approach from the very beginning would be from simple to complex
issues for better comprehension of all the concepts both in particular and in general.
Therefore before discussing the intervention techniques I would like you to be acquainted
with the basic concepts like:

What is OD?
What is the Historical background of OD?
Foundations of OD
Change and OD
Organization Culture and OD

What is Organization Development?

An organization is a system consisting of four interacting subsystems: structure,

technology, people and task. Structure refers to the formal interactions within the
organization as evidenced in the organizational chart or organ gram. Task refers to the set
of activities to be performed. In other words, the behavioral specification associated with
a job. Technology relates to the level of sophistication determining the workflow and
performance of jobs in an organization. Higher technology, most often, means higher job
knowledge and skills of employees. Organizations may be classified as to their level of
technology: high, medium, low or obsolete. People variable refers to the human input in
the organization i.e., individuals (in terms of their physical and mental skills, personality
etc.) working in the organization. Organization as a system can be changed and
developed to achieve its goals in the best possible way. The goals of an organization
generally are: survival, stability, profitability, growth and service to society. From one
organization to another, the goal or goals may differ depending upon at what stage of
development the organization is. Organization can achieve its goal if it is able to respond
to changes within the external and internal environment. The external environment is in
terms of forces in the social, political, economic and cultural factors. Competition from
similar organizations, changing needs of the public, knowledge explosion, and rapid
growth of technology –
All constitute threat to organizational effectiveness.

Organization has also to take into cognizance its internal environment, which includes
existing structure, technology, needs and expectations of its people and the changing
scenario of labor force.

Organization development (OD) is planned approach to respond effectively to changes in

its external and internal environment.

Lecture 2

Essentially there are two schools of thought in OD:

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

Lecture 3
DEFINITION OF OD
OD may be defined as a systematic, integrated and planned approach to improve the
effectiveness of the enterprise. It is designed to solve problems that adversely affect the
operational efficiency at all levels (Koontz ET. Al. 1980). It is based on scientific
awareness of human behavior and organization dynamics. Being an organization wide
effort, it is directed towards more participative management and integration of individual
goals with organization goals OD is intended to create an internal environment of
openness, trust, mutual confidence and collaboration and to help the members of the
organization to interact more effectively in the pursuit of organizational goals. Thus, the
organization is enabled to cope effectively with external force in the environment.

Meaning and Nature of Organization Development

Definition of Organization Development

Organization development (OD) is defined as a long-range effort to improve an
organization's ability to cope with 'Change and its problem-solving and renewal processes
through effective management of organization culture which ': involves moving towards
a third wave organization and an attempt to achieve corporate excellence by fl; rating the
desires of individuals for growth and development with organizational goals.

According to Richard hard, "Organization development is an effort:

1 Planned, organization wide, managed from the top, to increase organization
effectiveness and health, through planed interventions in the organization's processes
using behavioral science knowledge."

Organization development efforts then, are planned, systematic OD approaches to

change. They involve changes to the total organization or to relatively large segments of
it. The purpose of OD efforts is to increase the _effectiveness: of the system and. also, to
develop the potential of all in individual members. Finally, a series of planned behavioral
science intervention activities are carried out in collaboration with organization members
to. Help find improved ways of working together towards individual and organizational
goals. Another way of understanding OD is to know what it is not:

'OD is not a micro approach to change. Management development. For example. It is

aimed at changing. Individual behavior. Where as OD is used on the macro goal of
developing an organization-wide improvement in manageable

OD is more than any single technique. Whereas OD consultants use many differing
techniques. Such as total quality management or job enrichment. No single technique
represents the OD discipline.

OD does not include random or ad hoc changes. OD is based "on a incremental

appraisal and diagnosis of problems leading to specific types of change, efforts.

OD is aimed at more than raising morale or attitude OD is aimed: At. Overall

organizational effectiveness. This may include participant satisfaction an aspect of the
change effort but includes other effectiveness parameters.
2 Organization Development is an organizational Process for understanding and
improving any and all substantive process an organization may develop for performing
any task and pursuing any objectives
3 Organization development is a set of behavioral Science based theories, values,
strategies and techniques aimed at the planned change of organizational work setting for
the purpose of enhancing individual development and improving organizational
performance, through organizational structure, process, strategy, people and culture.
•Developing new and creative organizational solutions
•Developing the organizations Self-renewing capacity. It occurs through collaboration of
organizational members working with a change agent using behavioral science theory,
research and technology.

5 OD can be defined as a
Planned and sustained effort to apply behavioral science for system improvement using
reflexive, self-analytical methods. (Schmuck and miles,1971)

These definitions clarify the distinctive features of OD and suggest why it is such a
powerful change strategy. The participative, collaborative, problem-focused nature of OD
marshals the experience and expertise of organization members as they work on their
most important problems and opportunity in ways designed to lead to successful
outcomes

OBJECTIVES OF OD
The objectives of OD may be stated as follows:
• Improved organizational performance as measured by profitability, market share,
innovativeness etc.
• Better adaptability of the organization to its environment .
• Willingness of the members to face organizational problems and contribute
creative solutions to these problems
• Improvement in internal behavior patterns such as interpersonal relations,
intercrop relations, level of trust and support among role members, understanding
one’s own self and others, openness and meaningful communication and
involvement in planning for organizational development.

Lecture –4
CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF OD
To enlarge upon the definition of OD Let us examine some of the basic characteristics of
OD programs.

Planned Change: It is a planned strategy to bring about organizational Change. This

change effort aims at specific objectives and is based on the diagnosis of problem areas.
Collaborative: OD typically involves a collaborative approach to change, which includes
the involvement and participation of those organization members most affected by the
changes.
Performance: OD programs include an emphasis on ways to improve and enhance
performance and quality (TQM).

Humanistic: OD relies on a set of humanistic values about people and organizations that
aims at gaining more effective organizations by opening up new opportunities for
increased use of human potential systems. OD represents a systems approach concerned
with the interrelationship of various divisions, departments, groups and individuals and
interdependent subsystems of the total organization.

Focal Area
Change is planned by managers to achieve goals. Involves collaborative approach and
involvement. Emphasis on ways to improve and enhance performance. Emphasis upon
increased opportunity and use of human potential relationship among elements and
excellence. Scientific approaches supplement practical experience. An OD practitioner
(either manager or consultant) is a person in an organization responsible for changing
existing patterns to obtain more effective organizational performance. Organization
development practitioners have come to realize that conventional training techniques are
no longer sufficient for affecting the type of behavioral changes needed to create adaptive
organizations. New techniques have been developed to provide participants with the
competence and motivation to alter ineffective patterns of behavior. One interesting
Question is, can OD be used change nations as well as organizations? There are many
OD techniques, and any individual practitioner may rely on one or a combination of
approaches. Regardless of the method selected, the objectives are to work from an overall
organization perspective, through _increasing the ability of the "whole" to respond to a
changing environment. Organizations have objectives such as making profit, surviving,
and growing; but individual members also have desires to achieve, unsatisfied needs to
fulfill, and career goals to accomplish within the organization. OD then, is a "process for
Change, which can benefit both the organization and the individual. In today's business
environment managers must continuously monitor change and adapt their systems to
survive by staying competitive in a turbulent arena.

The roots of OD lie in the famous Hawthorne experiments carried out at the Western
Electric Company by Elton Mayon and his associates. These experiments highlighted the
importance of employee attitudes and expectations, informal work groups, norms and
Values and participation in decision making as influencing performance – all these still
central concepts in various techniques of OD. Though there are divergent opinions and
attitudes about the nature and practice of OD, among its practitioners, a general
consensus may be noticed among them as to what the basic characteristics of OD are. In
any OD effort the totality of the organization is to be taken into account. Organization
being an integrated system of sub-systems, changes in anyone sub-system tends to have
consequences for the other sub-systems. The approach should be holistic either for
identifying the need for change within or for planning and implementing a change, until
the intended change is absorbed in the total system, optimal collaboration, synergism and
efficiency cannot be obtained. The theoretical body of knowledge underlying the concept
and practice of OD is eclectic. Recent developments in the area of behavioral sciences,
especially psychology, sociology, anthropology etc., have influenced the OD thought and
practice.

The intended changes in OD programmers may be carried out at any of the sub-system
levels such as:
•Organization structure
•Task accomplishment
•Work climate (interpersonal and intercrop relations, work values)
•Methods of decision-making and problem solving
•Technology.
UNIT1

Lecture 5
Foundations of Organization Development

The Emergence of OD
Organization development is one of the primary means of creating more adaptive
organizations. Warren Bennis. A leading OD practitioner has suggested three factors
underlying the emergence of OD.
1 The need jar new' organizational forms. Organizations tend to adopt a form that is
more appropriate to a particular time, and the current rate of change requires more
adaptive forms.
2 The focus on cultural change. Because each organization forms a culture-a system of
beliefs and values the only way to change is to alter this organizational culture.
3.The increase in social awareness. Because. Of the changing social climate,
tomorrow's employee will no longer accept autocratic styles of management; therefore,
greater social awareness is required in the organization. Today’s managers exist in
shifting organizational structures and can be the central force in initiating change and
establishing the means for adoption. Most organizations strive to be creative, efficient,
and highly competitive, maintaining a leading edge in their respective fields rather than
following trends set by others. Effective managers are vital to the continuing self-renewal
and ultimate survival of the organization. The Consultant manager must recognize when
changes are occurring in the external environment and possess the necessary competence
to bring about change when it is needed. The manager must also be aware of the internal
system and recognize that the major element in planned change is the organizational
culture: the feelings, norms, and behaviors of its members.

The Evolution: of Organization Development

(Historical Development)
It is not within the scope of this book to provide a detailed history of OD. But a brief
explanation of the evolution 'this field may give you a better understanding of its
application today. Organization development has 'involved over the past 40 years from
the application of behavioral science knowledge and techniques to solving organizational
problems. What has become OD stand in the late 1940s at MIT and is deeply rooted in
the pioneering work of applied social scientists. such as Kurt Lewin, and also strongly
influenced by the work of psychologists such as Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. The
term organization Development is widely attributed to Robert Blake and Jane Mouton
(the originators of the Managerial Grid) Herren Shepard (a leading OD pioneer);
however, Richard Beckhard (an OD consultant) claims this distinction as well.
Regardless of who first coined the term, it emerged about 1957 and is generally conceded
to have evolved from two basic sources: the application of laboratory methods by
National Training Laboratories (NTL) and the survey research methods ignited by the
Survey Research Center. Both methods were pioneered by Kurt Lewin in about 1945.
Laboratory- Training methods -In the late I 940s and early 1950s laboratory-training
methods were developed and applied by a group of behavioral scientists at Bethel, Maine.
Douglas McGregor (Theory X and Theory Y with Richard BecKhard, began applying
laboratory-training methods to industry, at General Iills in 1956 and at Union Carbide in
1957. At union Carbide, McGregor and John Paul Jones (an internal consultant) formed
the First internal OD consulting group about the; same time. Herbert Shepard and Robert
Blake were initiating a series of applied behavioral Science interventions at Esso, using
mainly laboratory-training technique to improve work team processes. These early railing
sessions provided the basis for what Blake and Mouton later developed as an
instrumented training system they called the Managerial Grid. The success of these
programs led to a dissemination of such efforts to her corporations.

The Extent of OD Applications

From these early beginnings OD has experienced a rapid growth. A growing number of
organizations worldwide applying OD techniques ', including most major corporations,
have formed internal OD consulting groups. The OD network, an organization of OD
practitioners, has been in existence for only a little over two decades and has grown to a
membership of more than 2,000 members. The National Training Laboratories, American
psychological Association, American Society for Training and Development, and
Academy of Management all have professional divisions relating to organization
development. The first doctoral program for training OD specialists, called the
Organizational Behavior Group, was started by Shepard in 1960 at what is now the
Department of Organization and Administration at Case Western Reserve University:
Shepard applied these OD techniques, in an educational setting, to the development of
OD practitioners. The Organizational Behavior group has as since graduated over 100
specialists. Who are involved in teaching and consulting throughout? The group. Other
universities with graduate programs bearing on OD include Brigham Young, Harvard.
MIT, Southern, Methodist, UCLA, University of Washington, Gonzaga, Pepperdine, and
Yale, with many others beginning to include OD in the curriculum. Organization
development is an exciting rapidly growing field. OD efforts have grown into a multitude
of differing approaches and are now applied in a number of organizations around the
world by expanding number OD practitioners.

Lecture 6
The Organization Culture
The element of an organization system, which a manager needs to understand, is the
organization culture. The term culture refers to a specific civilization, society, or group
that are its distinguishing characteristics. As B. F. Skinner has commented: "A culture is
not the behavior of the people 'living in it'; it is the 'it' in which they live-contingencies of
social reinforcement which generate and sustain their behavior. Is The organization
culture refers to a system of shared meanings, including the language, dress, patterns of
behavior, value system, feelings, attitudes, interactions, and group norms of the members.
) You may examine the patterns of behavior on your campus Orin your company. How
do people dress or wear their hair? What jargon or unique terms are used these are the
elements that make up a culture: the accepted patterns of behavior. One example is the
culture at Federal Express, carefully crafted by Frederick Smith, the chairman, to reflect a
combat situation. Flights are called missions" and competitors are "enemies."

GURE Schematic Diagram of Experiential Learning Cycle

The Experiential Approach to Learning

To learn OD techniques, a manager or student needs both the knowledge of content
material and the Experience of putting theory into practice. Consequently, to create a
learning environment for the field of Organization development at either the
undergraduate or graduate level, the emphasis should be on experience .In this course you
wiII be experiencing OD techniques by means of behavioral simulations at the same
time .What you are learning OD theories.. You will perhaps discover a different approach
to the study of organizational change. Many courses in OD approach change in a
structured and traditional manner. By means of lectures and readings, useful concepts and
theories are presented to the student, whose role is largely passive. This book utilizes an
innovative and significantly different approach to teaching OD: the experiential
approach. It is used on learning OD techniques experiencing simulated organizational
situations. You will experience situations in which you are developing relationship with a
client or diagnosing a problem rather than simply reading about them.

Basic Concepts of Experiential Learning

Experiential learning is based upon three basic concepts: You learn best when you are
involved in the learning experience. Concepts have to be experienced or discovered by
you. the learner, if they are to change your behavior. Your commitment to learning will
be greatest when you are responsible for setting your own learning objectives.In the
experiential approach, the major responsibility for learning is placed upon you, the
learner. You will determine your own learning objectives and influence how the class
goes about achieving these objectives. You attain your own goals, decide which theories
you. want to learn, practice the skills or techniques you want to improve, and develop the
behavioral style you want to develop .experiential learning also involves an active, rather
than a passive role. The experiential laming program can be presented a four-stage cycle
'
1 Gaining conceptual Knowledge and Theories -You will be reading about OD
concept; and theories and doing pre class preparation.
2 Activity in behavioral simulation .-You. will be problem solving, making decisions,
and communicating , actively practicing the concepts and theories.
3 Analysis of Activity-You will be analyzing, critiquing. and the way you solved
problems, and comparing the results of different approaches.
Connecting the theory and activity. with prior on-the-job or life situations-You will be
connecting your Learning past experiences reflecting upon the results, and generalizing
into the future. The end result should be proved skill and performance in applying ,these
learning’s to 1ife and job situations. “Student centered" learning places a learning
responsibility upon you. There will be an opportunity in the class for a high level of
participation and for a challenging learning experience. Small-group learning
environments. will be formed wherein you may share learning with others, thus
encountering feedback. Each of tbe learning -units presents a conceptual background and
a framework for a behavioral simulation. The focal point of each chapter is the action-
oriented behavioral simulation. As part of the experiential learning model in OD,
feelings, and emotions represent important data for learning. open and authentic
relationships in which you share your feelings with others and provide honest feedback
are necessary part of the learning situation. Each chapter is organized to help you learn
concepts and skills, and each provides cases, simulations, and diagnostic instruments to
help you learn more about OD. Although experiential learning can .be stimulating and
often fun, it is important to remember that you learn from the combination of theory and
experience.

Lecture 7

Systems theory
A systems approach takes a “big picture” perspective of organizational change. It is based
on the notion that any change, no matter how large or small, has a cascading effect
throughout an organization.16 For example, promoting an individual to a new work
group affects the group dynamics in both the old and new groups. Similarly, creating
project or work teams may necessitate the need to revamp compensation practices. These
examples illustrate that change creates additional change. Today’s solutions are
tomorrow’s problems. A systems model of change offers managers a framework to
understand the broad complexities of organizational change. The three main components
of a systems model are inputs, target elements of change, and outputs
Inputs All organizational changes should be consistent with an organization’s mission,
vision, and resulting strategic plan. A
Mission statement represents the “reason” an organization exists, and an organization’s
vision is a long-term goal that describes “what” an organization wants to become.
Consider how the difference between mission and vision affects organizational change.
Your university probably has a mission to educate people. This mission does not
necessarily imply anything about change. It simply defines the university’s overall
purpose. In contrast, the university may have a vision to be recognized as the “best”
university in the country. This vision requires the organization to benchmark itself
against other world-class universities and to create plans for achieving the vision. While
vision statements point the way, strategic plans contain the detail needed to create
organizational change. A strategic plan outlines an organization’s long-term direction.
And actions necessary to achieve planned results. Strategic plans are based on
considering an organization’s strengths and weaknesses relative to its environmental
opportunities and threats. This comparison results in developing an organizational
strategy to attain desired outputs such as profits, customer satisfaction, quality, and
adequate return on investment.
Target elements of change
Components of an organization that may be changed. Finished vans sit at the end of a
production line in the Avon Lake, Ohio, Ford assembly plant. The plant assembles the
Ford Mercury Villager, Nilsson Quest, and the Ford Econoline Vans.How will Ford’s
inflexible plant design affect its ability to respond to changes in consumer preferences?
AP/Wide World
Photos volumes. Toyota Motor Corp. and Volkswagen, for example, could be big
winners, since both are skilled at incorporating shared components among different
models to save money.

Outputs represent the desired end results of a change. Once again, these end results
should be consistent with an organization’s strategic plan. Returning to the above
example regarding Ford, the organizational changes are geared toward increasing
flexibility, decreasing costs, and decreasing the time intakes to bring a new car to market.

Parallel Learning structures

Parallel learning structures, specially created organizational structures developed to plan

and guide change programs, constitute another important foundation of organization
development. Dale Zand introduced this concept under the label collateral organization
in 1974, and defined it as: Us supplemental organization coexisting with the usual, formal
Organization. USO The purpose of the collateral organization into deal with ill-
structured” problems that the formal organizations unable to resolve. Parallel structures
help people break free of the normal constraints imposed the organization, engage in
genuine inquiry and experimentation, and initiate needed changes. We believe parallel
learning structures are a foundation of ad because they are prevalent in so many different
00 programs. The quality of work life programs of the 1970s and 1980s used parallel
structures composed of union leaders, managers, and employees. Most sociotechnical
systems redesign efforts and open systems planning programs Use parallel structures.
Parallel structures are often used to coordinate self-directed teams in high-performance
organizations. A steering committee and working groups were used to coordinate the
employee involvement teams at Ford Motor Company. Parallel learning structures are
often the best way to initiate change in large bureaucratic organizations, especial-lee
when the change involves a fundamental shift in the organization’s methods of work
and/or culture. Bushel and Shani recount a number of examples from variety of settings
where this intervention was used to great advantage. Parallel learning structures are a
powerful tool for creating organizational change.

Lecture 8
A normative Reeducative strategy of changing

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

Lecture 9

THE PROCESS OF CHANGE

SEQUENTIAL PROCESS OF CHANGE
Change takes place through steps or phases. By this we mean the processes through
which a given innovation becomes an accepted part of the personality and way of
working of individuals, is usually evolutionary. Seldom does a new idea or practice
become accepted in one step, small or large. Perhaps a better way of putting it is that
people who accomplish successful change go through a number of sequential stages in
reaching their goal. This latter way of putting the matter is important because it implies
that people, not the innovation, go through the steps. This point is often lost sight of in
large-scale development projects. Sometimes the planning is done by one group, usually
a group of high-level administrators, and those who are expected to use the innovation
may have experienced none of the development thinking involved. This is very likely to
lead to uninformed, insensitive and different implementation, if implementation takes
place at all. The dangers of this way of handling the stages of development can be
minimized by indirect involvement in planning and evaluation, and by good
communications among all the people who will eventually be touched by the new
practice. But the problem remains one to be kept in mind in the planning and steering of
any development effort.

Several models of sequential steps or stages in change have been suggested. All these
models envisage change as a continuous process involving several stages. The following
eight stages are proposed here as framework of organizational change:

1.Initiation: Invitation is the stage of vocalization of the need for change. Organizational
change starts when someone takes the initiative of proposing that something has to be
done at the level of the corporate management where the concern for some dimension of
organizational functioning is shared and discussed. The idea may be mooted at the level
of the corporate management, at times based on observations or recommendations by
some other level of the organization, and sometimes as are sult of discussion at the level
of the corporate management. This usually leads to the hiring of a consultant from
outside, or discussion with the appropriate set of people within the organization.

2. Motivation: Motivation is the stage of the involvement of people in detailed thinking

about the proposed change. At this stage both the corporate management and the expert
who helps in the organizational change take necessary steps to involve at large section of
the organization in thinking about the various dimensions of the change process.

3. Diagnosis: Diagnosis is an attempt to search for the main cause of the symptoms
encountered.

4. Information Collection: At this stage detailed information is collected on the

dimension indicated by the diagnosis. Based on the diagnosis the necessary information
is collected.
5. Deliberation: The deliberation stage is concerned with evaluating various alternatives
generated for change.
6. Action Proposal: This is the stage of framing up an action proposal.

7. Implementation: Implementation is concerned with translating the proposal into

action.

8. Stabilization: Stabilization is the stage of internalisising change and making it a part

of the organization’s normal life. The various stages in the process of organizational
change may be useful to pay attention to the process in the beginning much more and this
will help to pay less attention to the process as the organizational change proceeds
further. Later much more attention can be given to the task.
It is necessary to understand the psychological process behind each stage of change, and
the behavioral outcomes or indicators.

THE PROCESS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE

The process of change assumes qualitatively different dimensions in large and complex
organizations. There are demands by the external environment and varying pressures
from internal groups. In complex organizations, with rapid change in the environments.
The process of change is one of transition from the present to the future. In such a case
vision becomes an important process of collectively creating models of the future, and
helps most people to move towards these models. Changes are complex, involving the
Structure, systems, processes, and new norms and behavior. Continuous, monitoring is
needed. Change has to continuously balance innovation with stability. When an
organization undertakes to respond to a new challenge, to complex and changing
environments, it needs to re-examine and re-define its mission, create a vision for the
members of an organization, and develop broad strategies of mobilizing for the members
of the organization to move into the future. Such a change will be called transformational
change. Beck hard (1989) suggests four types of changes as transformational: a change in
what drives the organization, a fundamental change in the relationship between and
among organizational parts, a major change in the ways of doing work, and a basic
change in means, values or reward systems. Beck hard suggests 10 pre-requisites for
success of and 8 steps in the process of transformation change the role of the top
executives are critical in transformational change.

Pre-requisites of success of Transformational Change

1. Commitment of top leaders
2. Written description of the changed organization
3. Conditions that preclude maintenance of the status quo
4. Likelihood of a critical mass of support
5. A medium to long-term perspective
6. Awareness of resistance and the need to honor it
7. Awareness of the need for education
8. The conviction that the change must be true
9. Willingness to use resources
10. Commitment to maintaining the flow of information.
Steps in Transformational Change
1. Designing the future state
2. Diagnosing the present state
3. Extrapolating what is required to go from present state to the transitional state
4. Analyzing the work that occurred during the transitional state
5. Defining the system that is affecting the problem
6. Analyzing each of the members of the critical mass with regard to readiness and
capacity.
7. Identifying the power relationships and resources necessary to ensure the perpetuations
of change

Lecture 10

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

It will also mean change of people, task technology of the organization. The change may
be directed to one or more aspects:’

Types of Intervention

Organizational change interventions could be divided into

broad categories;
1. Interventions that are directed towards manifest change in the organization: for
Example restructuring, re-organizing, introducing new systems, diversification, etc.

2. OD interventions that deal with processes, basic assumptions, beliefs, value, etc.,
which are underlying the manifest changes and directly or indirectly influence the
manifest changes.

Lecture 11

Sensitivity Training

Psychological technique in which intensive group discussion and interaction are

used to increase individual awareness of self and others; it is practiced in a
variety of forms under such names as T-group, encounter group, human
relations, and group-dynamics training. The group is usually small and
unstructured and chooses its own goals.

T-Groups
History

In 1947, the National Training Laboratories Institute began in Bethel, ME. They
pioneered the use of T-groups (Laboratory Training) in which the learners use here and
now experience in the group, feedback among participants and theory on human behavior
to explore group process and gain insights into themselves and others. The goal is to offer
people options for their behavior in groups. The T-group was a great training innovation,
which provided the base for what we now know about team building. This was a new
method that would help leaders and managers create a more humanistic, people serving
system and allow leaders and managers to see how their behavior actually affected others.
There was a strong value of concern for people and a desire to create systems that took
people's needs and feelings seriously.

Objectives of T-Group Learning

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

• Increase your understanding of group development and dynamics.

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

Success in these goals depends, to a large extent, on the implied contract that each
participant is willing to disclose feelings that she or he may have, in the moment, about
others in the group, and to solicit feedback from the others about herself or himself. The
focus is upon individual learning; some participants may learn a great deal in most of the
above areas, others learn relatively little.

Method

One way of describing what may happen for a participant is --

1. Unfreezing habitual responses to situations -- this is facilitated by the participant's

own desire to explore new ways of behaving and the trainer staying non-directive,
silent, and providing little structure or task agenda
2. Self generated and chosen change by the participant
- Experiment with new behaviors -Practice
description not evaluation of
3. Reinforce new behavior by positive feedback, participants own assessment of
whether what is happening is closer to what she/he intends, supportive
environment, trust development

Sources of Change in Groups

• Self-observation - participants give more attention to their own intentions,

feelings, etc.
• Feedback - participants receive information on the impact they have on others
• Insight - participants expand self-knowledge
• Self-disclosure - participants exposes more of themselves to others
• Universality - participants experience that others share their difficulties, concerns
or hopes
• Group Cohesion - participants experience trust, acceptance & understanding)
 • Hope - participant see others learn, achieve their goals, improve, and cope more
effectively
• Vicarious Learning - participants pick up skills and attitudes from others
• Catharsis - participants experience a sense of release or breakthrough

A Description

The T-group provides participants with an opportunity to learn about themselves, their
impact on others and how to function more effectively in group and interpersonal
situations. It facilitates this learning by bringing together a small group of people for the
express purpose of studying their own behavior when they interact within a small group.

A T-Group is not a group discussion or a problem solving group.

The group's work is primarily process rather than content oriented. The focus tends to be
on the feelings and the communication of feelings, rather than on the communication of
information, opinions, or concepts. This is accomplished by focusing on the 'here and
now' behavior in the group. Attention is paid to particular behaviors of participants not on
the "whole person", feedback is non-evaluative and reports on the impact of the behavior
on others. The participant has the opportunity to become a more authentic self in relation
to others through self disclosure and receiving feedback from others. The Johari Window
is a model that looks at that process.

The training is not structured in the manner you might experience in an academic
program or a meeting with an agenda or a team with a task to accomplish. The lack of
structure and limited involvement of the trainers provides space for the participants to
decide what they want to talk about. No one tells them what they ought to talk about. The
lack of direction results in certain characteristic responses; participants are silent or
aggressive or struggle to start discussions or attempt to structure the group.

In the beginning of a T-Group participants are usually focused on what they experience
as a need for structure, individual emotional safety, predictability, and something to do in
common. These needs are what amount to the tip of the iceberg in most groups in their
back home situation. By not filling the group's time with answers to these needs, the T-
Group eventually begins to notice what is under the tip of the iceberg. It is what is always
there in any group but often unseen and not responsibly engaged . So, participants
experience anxiety about authority and power, being include and accepted in the group,
and intimacy.

Depending on forces, such as, the dynamics of the group, the past experience and
competence of participants, and the skill of the trainers -- the group, to some extent,
usually develops a sense of itself as a group, with feelings of group loyalty. This can
cause groups to resist learning opportunities if they are seen as threatening to the group's
self-image. It also provides some of the climate of trust, support and permission needed
for individuals to try new behavior.
As an individual participant begins to experience some degree of trust (in themselves, the
group and the trainers) several things become possible --

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

The role of the trainers

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

Possible Problems

• T-Group methods usually encourage self-disclosure and openness, which may be

inappropriate or even punished in organizations. This was an early learning.
When managers thought they could take the T-group method into the back home
organization, they discovered that the methods and the assumptions of a T-group
did not fit. T-groups consisted of participants who were strangers. They didn't
 have a history or a future together and could more easily focus on here and now
behavior. Another issue was that in the organization there were objectives,
deadlines and schedules related to accomplishing the work of the company or
group. Groups with a task to accomplish could not take the same time that would
be used in a T-Group. These difficulties helped lead to the development of
Organization Development and team building. What had been learned in T-
Groups was combined with other knowledge and these new disciplines emerged
as ways to address the values raised by the T-Group experience.
• The T-Group experience can open up a web of questioning in a participant. Ways
of behaving that the person has used for many years may be called into question
by others in the group and oneself. This has in some cases brought the participant
to question relationships in the family or at work. While this can be a very
constructive process that leads to the renewal of relationships, it has on occasion
lead to the breakdown of a relationship. While such a breakdown may have, in
time, come to the relationship without participation in a T-Group, it remains a
painful and possibly damaging experience.
• Participants being forced or pressured to attend, by an employer or other person
with influence, are on the whole less likely to have a positive learning experience.
Employers or others who want to require the participation of others may enhance
the chance of having a productive outcome if -- they attend a lab themselves
before sending others; they speak with the lab coordinator before the event to
discuss what might realistically be expected and what the leader could do to assist
in the learning process when the participant returns home.
• Very rarely there have been situations in which a participant has a psychiatric
problem. One report said "The possibility of negative psychiatric effects of ST,
and especially its role in inducing psychiatric symptoms, is yet to be clarified."
This reinforces the value of participation based on intrinsic motivation; a norm
that discourages people in therapy from attending without the approval of their
therapist; and trainers staying focused on the learning areas suited for T-Group
experiences.
Lecture -12

Team Interventions
Most of us have either participated in or watched games that involve team work. A team
is a group of individuals with complementary skills who depend upon one another to
accomplish a common purpose or set of performance goals for which they hold
themselves
mutually accountable. Teamwork is work done by members, all subordinating personal
prominence for the good of the team. In effective teams, members are open and honest
with one another. There is support and trust; there is a high degree of cooperation and
collaboration, decisions are reached by consensus, communication channels are open and
well developed. And there is a strong commitment to the team goals.

Many management theorists suggest the team-based organization is the wave of the
future. The self-managed team should be one of the basic building blocks of the
organization and may well become the productivity breakthrough of the 1990s.
Management consultant. W. Edwards Deming (management guru to the Japanese and
responsible for much of Japanese post-war industrial success). Once said in interview,
“An example of a system well managed is an orchestra. The various players are not there
as prima donnas-to play loud and attract the attention of the listener. They’re there to
support each other. In fact, sometimes you see a whole section doing nothing but
counting and watching. Just sitting there doing nothing. They’re there to support each
other. That’s how business should be. In this chapter, we examine some reasons for using
team building and discuss several work-team interventions, including team development,
outdoor experiential laboratory training, role negotiation, and role analysis techniques.
Other team and intergroup interventions, such as goal setting and self-managed work
teams, are discussed in succeeding chapters.

Techniques and exercises used in team building:

1. Role Negotiation Technique- Roger Harrison

Role negotiation, is directed at the work relationships among team members. The
technique involves a series of controlled negotiations between participants. During the
role negotiation, managers frankly discuss what they want form each other and explain
why.

The steps of role negotiation include the following-

1. Contract setting. Each member prepares a list for each other member with three
headings. (a) things to do more.(b) things to do less, and (c) things to do the same.
2. Issue diagnosis. Each member writes out a master list combining the lists written about
him or her, and posts this list on the wall. Members are then asked to clarify any items
that need explanation.
3.Influence trade. After the clarification, members decide which items they want most
and form into pairs to negotiate, usually with a third party to help in the process.
4. Written role negotiation. The outcome of the role negotiation is set of written
agreements spelling out the agreements and concessions which each party finds
satisfactory.

Role Analysis
Another team development intervention, called role analysis technique (RAT), is
designed to clarify role expectations. Team norms influence member behaviors or
attitudes associated with a particular position. These set of behaviors or attitudes
associated with a particular position in a team is called a role.
At times team members develop discrepancies between what is expected of each other.
Role analysis is used to clarify such role discrepancies. Leading to improved
cohesiveness and functioning.
Role expectations are those behaviors of one member (role incumbent) expected or
prescribed by other team members, while role conception refers to the focal person’s own
ideas about appropriate role behavior.
Role ambiguity refers to the role incumbent’s being unaware of or lacking sufficient
knowledge of the expectations of others. In other words, he or she does not fully know
what others expect. When there is an incongruence or a discrepancy between the role
expectations and the role conception, the role conflict occurs. Incongruence between
formal job descriptions and actual role demands is another source of role conflict.
Because the team members have a stake in each person’s performance. They develop
attitudes and expectations about what a member should or should not do. Role analysis
provides a means for dealing with such problems. This intervention is based on the
premise that consensual agreement about team member roles will lead to a more
productive and satisfied team.

The steps of role analysis technique include the following.

1. Role analysis. The role incumbent sets forth the role as he or she perceives it, listing
perceived duties, behaviors, and responsibilities. The role conception. Other team
members add to or modify this list until all members are satisfied with the role
description.

2. The role incumbent’s expectations of others. The role incumbent lists his or her
expectation of other group members. This list describes those expectations of others that
affect the incumbents role and impinge upon his or her performance. Again the whole
team adds to or modifies this list until they agree upon a complete listing.

3. Role Expectations by other. The other members list their expectations of th4e role
incumbent. This list includes what they expect him or her to do as it affects their role
performance. The work team modifies this list until they all agree.

4. Role profile. Upon agreement of the role definition. The role incumbent is then
responsible for making a written summary called a role profile. He or she distributes a
copy of the completed role profile to each member.

5. the team follows the preceding procedure until each member has a written role profile.
6. periodically, the team reviews role expectations and role profiles, since these may
change over time and group mission or members also may change.

As with other OD techniques, there are reports of increased effectiveness from role
analysis techniques. But there is little empirical evidence upon which to base any
conclusion.

Lecture 14

Responsibility Charting

Responsibility Charting helps to clarify who is responsible for what with respect to
various decisions and actions. It is a simple, relevant and effective technique for
improving team functioning and ensuring clarity of responsibilities during a change
process.

A responsibility charting session can quickly identify who is to do what in relation to new
initiatives, as well as helping to pinpoint reasons why previous decisions are not being
accomplished as desired.

Responsibility charting is a good intervention to use to:

• improve the task performance of a team with their existing work.

• to clarify roles and responsibilities before, during or after a change process.

It can also be particularly useful where decision making is embedded in a complex

committee structure as the tool can be adapted to indicate which committees or interest
groups need to be involved in approving change and which need to be kept informed

The first step is to devise a Decision Matrix form. Down the left side list the decisions
that are at issue. They may be decisions relating to policy and procedure or to the
practicalities of implementation. Across the top fill in the actual and/or potential actors
who are relevant to the listed decisions.

The next step is to agree the definitions of behaviors associated with the decision making
process. A typical set of terms is:

A = APPROVE a person who must sign off or veto a decision before it is implemented or
selected from options developed by the R role; accountable for the quality of the
decision.

R = RESPONSIBLE the person who takes the initiative in the particular area, develops
the alternatives, analyses the situation, makes the initial recommendation, and is
accountable if nothing happens in the area.
C = CONSULTED a person who must be consulted prior to a decision being reached but
with no veto power.

I = INFORMED a person who must be notified after a decision, but before it is publicly
announced; someone who needs to know the outcome for other related tasks but need not
give input.

DK = DON'T KNOW

A blank indicates no relationship.

Actors
Decisions

The tool is similar to the RAEW Analysis used in Process Review and can indeed be used
as part of a continuous improvement approach to reviewing institutional decision making
processes.

Lecture 15
Force Field Analysis
Force Field Analysis is a method for listing, discussing, and evaluating the various forces
for and against a proposed change. When a change is planned, Force Field Analysis helps
you look at the big picture by analyzing all of the forces impacting the change and
weighing the pros and cons. By knowing the pros and cons, you can develop strategies to
reduce the impact of the opposing forces and strengthen the supporting forces.

Forces that help you achieve the change are called "driving forces." Forces that work
against the change are called "restraining forces."

Force Field Analysis can be used to develop an action plan to implement a change.
Specifically it can . . .

1. Determine if a proposed change can get needed support

2. Identify obstacles to successful solutions
3. Suggest actions to reduce the strength of the obstacles

Types of forces to consider

Available Resources Attitudes of people Values
 Traditions Regulations
Desires
Vested interests Personal or group needs
Costs
Organizational structures Present or past practices
People
Relationships Institutional policies or norms
Events
Social or organizational trends Agencies
The Process

1. Start with a well-defined goal or change to be implemented.

2. Draw a force field diagram.
a. At the top of a large sheet of paper write the goal or change to be
implemented.
b. Divide the paper into two columns by drawing a line down the middle. At
the top of the left column, write "Driving Forces." Label the right column
"Restraining Forces."
3. Brainstorm a list of driving and restraining forces and record them on the chart in
the appropriate column.
4. Once the driving and restraining forces have been identified, ask the following
questions:

Are they valid?

How do we know?
How significant are each of them?
What is their strength?
Which ones can be altered?
Which cannot?
Which forces can be altered quickly?
Which ones only slowly?
Which forces, if altered, would produce rapid change?
Which only slow change in the situation?
What skills and/or information is needed and available to alter the forces?
Can we get them?

5. Assign a score to each force, from 1 (weak) to 5 (strong).

The score is based on (a) the strength of the force and (b) the degree to which it is
possible to influence this force.
6. Calculate a total score for each of the two columns.
7. Decide if the goal or change is feasible. If so, devise a manageable course of
action which:

o Strengthens positive forces

o Weakens negative forces
o Creates new positive forces

Example Force Field Analysis Diagram

Goal or proposed change: To have no abandoned cars along city streets by May 1.
 Driving Forces (the pro's) Restraining Forces (the con's)

Interest in the problem has recently

been expressed by advocacy groups. The definition of "abandoned cars" is
unclear to the public.
The public service director supports
the plan. Owners of older cars feel threatened.

The City Council supports the plan. Difficult to locate abandoned cars.

Public climate favors cleaning up the Where to put the abandoned cars once
city. identified?

Local auto salvage yards have agreed Expense involved in locating and
to take the cars at no cost. disposing of abandoned cars.

Health department cites old Need a procedure to verify vehicles

abandoned vehicles as potential healh declared "abandoned" and notify owners.
hazard.

Lecture 16

Third Party Peacemaking Interventions

INTERGROUP INTERVENTIONS Intergroup interventions are integrated into OD

programs to facilitate cooperation and efficiency between different groups within an
organization. For instance, departmental interaction often deteriorates in larger
organizations as different units battle for limited resources or become detached from the
needs of other units.

Conflict resolution meetings are one common intergroup intervention. First, different
group leaders are brought together to secure their commitment to the intervention. Next,
the teams meet separately to make a list of their feelings about the other group(s). Then
the groups meet and share their lists. Finally, the teams meet to discuss the problems and
to try to develop solutions that will help both parties. This type of intervention, say
supporters, helps to gradually diffuse tension between groups that has arisen because of
faulty communication.

Rotating membership interventions are used by OD change agents to minimize the

negative effects of intergroup rivalry that arise from employee allegiances to groups or
divisions. The intervention basically entails temporarily putting group members into their
rival groups. As more people interact in the different groups, greater understanding
results.
OD joint activity interventions serve the same basic function as the rotating membership
approach, but these involve melding members of different groups to work together
toward a common goal. Similarly, common enemy interventions achieve the same results
by finding an adversary common to two or more groups and then getting members of the
groups to work together to overcome the threat. Examples of common enemies targeted
in such programs include competitors, government regulation, and economic conditions.

Lecture 17
Third-Party Consultation
One method of increasing communication and initiating intergroup problem solving is the
intervention of a third party, usually an outside consultant, although the person also may
be a superior, a peer, or a representative from another unit. Third partyinterventions have
the potential to solve such conflicts. Pone basic feature of this technique is
confrontation.31 Confrontation refers to the process in which the parties directly engage
each other and focus on the conflict between them. The goals of interventions include
achieving increased understanding of the issues, accomplishing a common diagnosis,
discovering alternatives for resolving the conflict and focusing on the common or Meta
goals. The third party attempts to make interventions aimed at opening communications,
equalizing owner, and confronting the problems. Achieving a balance in situational
power. If the situational power of the groups is not approximately equal, it is difficult to
establish trust and maintain open lines of communication. In such a case, it may be
possible to arrange for a third group, such as another work unit, to provide support to the
groups witless power. For groups who have leaders who are less articulator forceful in
their presentations, the third party may need to regulate the discussion. Coordinating
confrontation efforts. One group’s positive overtures must be coordinated with the other
group’s readiness to reciprocate. If one group is more highly motivated than the other, the
third party may protract the discussion or the higher-motivated group may be encouraged
to moderate their enthusiasm. A failure to coordinate positive initiatives and readiness to
respond can undermine future efforts to work out

Organization Mirror
The organization mirror is a technique designed to give work units feedback on how
other elements or customers of the organization viewthem.2 this intervention is designed
to improve relationships between teams and increase effectiveness. A work team (which
could be in personnel, engineering, production, accounting, and so on) that is
experiencing interface problems with related work terms may initiate afeedbacksession.
A consultant or other third party obtains specific information, usually by questionnaire or
interview, from other organization groups that the work team contacts daily. The work
team (also called the host group) meets to process the feedback. At this meeting, it is
important that one of two spokespersons from each contacted group be present. The
outside key people and the consultant discuss the data collected in an inner circle, while
the host group” fishbowls” and observes on the outside (therefore the term organization
mirror). Following this, the host group may ask questions of clarification (i.e., Why did
you say this?) but may not argue or rebut. The host unit, with the assistance of the
consultant, then discusses the data to identify problems. Subgroups are formed of host-
group members and key visitors to identify specific improvements that will increase
operating efficiency. Following this, the total group hears a summary report from each
subgroup, and they outline action plans and make specific task assignments. This
completes the meeting, but follow-up meeting to assess progress is usually set up for
evaluation. The organization mirror provides a means for a work team to improve its
operating relations with other groups. It allows the
Team to obtain feedback on what it is doing, to identify key problems, and to search for
specific improvements of operating efficiency.
Interrupt Team Building
One intervention technique, originally developed by Robert Blake, Herb Shepard, and
Jane Mouton, is termed intergroup team building confrontation. Key members of
conflicting groups meet to work on issues or interface. “An interface is nay Point at
which conflicting groups meet to work on issues or interface. “An interface is nay point
at which contact between groups is essential to achieving a result”34 The groups may be
two interdependent organization elements such as architects and engineers, purchasing
and production, or finance and other department heads.

Lecture 18
Role-playing is a frequently used method for gaining cross group understanding. As in
all confrontation, the consultant must intervene to open communications, balance power,
and shift from hostile to problem-solving confrontation. Integroup team-building
meetings usually take one or two days. Members are brought together to reduce
misunderstanding, to open communication, and to develop mechanisms for collaboration.
Most OD practitioners advise intragroup team development before intergroup team
building. The purpose of this is to clear out any team issues or “garbage” before getting
to work on interface problems. The inter group team building meeting usually involves
the following steps:
Step 1. Two work groups who have identified intergroup
operating problems first make three lists each before meeting
together
1. How do we see ourselves?
2. How we think the other department sees us?
3. How do we see the other department?
The groups prepare their lists written in large legible print on
sheets of newsprint.

Step 2. The groups then meet together and tape their lists to the wall. A spokesperson for
each group presents that group’s lists. While one department is making its presentation,
the other department may not defend itself, argue, or rebate; but it does have the
opportunity to ask clarifying questions (What do you mean by inflexible? Could you be
more specific unautocratic?)

Step 3. The groups then meet separately to discuss the discrepancies

In perception and react to the feedback. The feedback allows for correcting perceptions
and behaviors to a more effective mode.
Step 4. In the next phase, the groups divide into subgroups of five or six by mixing
members of the two departments. These cross groups have the objectives of agreeing
upon a diagnosis of interface problems and the development of conflict-reducing or
problem-solving alternatives with action plans and follow appractivities. Together the
groups develop an action plan for solving problems and assigning responsibilities for the
action plan.

Step 5. Usually, they schedule a follow-up meeting to evaluate

Progress and to make sure that the actions have achieved their
Purpose.

Although little hard evidence is available, there have been Subjective reports of positive
results from intergroup meetings. Blake. Shepard, and Mouton reported improved
relationships In there study, and French and Bell also reported working Successfully with
three tribal groups. Bennis also reported Improved relationships between two groups of
officials within The U.S. Department of State.36

Lecture 19

COMPREHENSIVE INTERVENTIONS

OD comprehensive interventions are used to directly create change throughout an entire

organization, rather than focusing on organizational change through subgroup
interventions. One of the most popular comprehensive interventions is survey feedback.
This technique basically entails surveying employee attitudes at all levels of the company
and then disseminating a report that details those findings. The employees then use the
data in feedback sessions to create solutions to perceived problems. A number of
questionnaires developed specifically for such interventions have been developed.
This chapter will examine several system - wide approaches organization development:
1) TQM2) Reengineering 3) Grid-OD4) survey research feedback 5) Linker’s system 4
model. In the simulation, you will have an opportunity to experience and practice the
concepts of system wide change approaches.

Total Quality Management

One system wide approach to change is termed Total Quality management (TQM). TQM
is dedicated to having organization members who are committed to continuous
improvement and meeting or exceeding customer expectations. During a time of
downsizing and restructuring, many American companies are finding that they must learn
to manage more effectively, and TQM involves all levels of the organization in
developing practices that are customer oriented, flexible and responsive to changing
needs. Total Quality management has been the most widely adopted system change
strategy to improve productivity and competitiveness during the past five years. This
concept began with Deming’s work with Japanese management, and its initial focus was
on improving quality. But as it is now being applied, TQM represents a system wide
change approach, which is being used by leading companies around the world. Total
quality management (TQM) involves all organization members in ensuring that every
activity related to the production of goods or services relates to product quality. In
essence all organization members focus performance on maintaining the quality of
products offered by the company. In TQM, all improve the quality of products. Although
the TQM movement actually began in the United States, the establishment, growth, and
development of the movement throughout the world began with the Japanese.
Reengineering: A Radical Redesign Although is too early to predict the long term results
of reengineering change programs, many companies including Boeing, Ford, Hallmark,
Kodak, and PepsiCo. Have applied Reengineering tow work process.

Reengineering -like TQM is a system wide change approach focusing on changing the
basic processes of an organization. Reengineering (as set forth by Michael Hammer and
James
Company) may be defined as “the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of
business processes to achieve drastic improvements in performance. Reengineering as the
name implies focuses on the design of work activities of processes: how the task is
accomplished. It dislike designing a circuit, examining the flows or sequences of
activities from input to output in an attempt to eliminate inefficiencies, and improve
productivity, Reengineering seeks to
Make all processes more efficient by combining, eliminating or restructuring tasks
without regard to traditional methods: the way things have always been done around here.
The idea is toga in a large or quantum leap in performance, improvements of100 percent
or more. Like TQM, the main focus is the customer. Companies such as AT&T and
Pacific Bell have reengineered the process used to implement telephone service to new
customers. The result has-been faster, better, and easier for both employees and
customers, cutting down customer service time by one half. Reengineering does not refer
to minor modifications of current practices. Instead it means starting with a clean sheet of
paper, includes radical changes in work processes and work relationships. The main
emphasis one reengineering is making the customer happy. The first step is to identify the
key business processes of a department or work team. The next step is to identify
performance measures in terms of customer satisfaction and to examine current processes
to meet these measures. The customer doesn’t care about internal rewards, or “turf wars”,
the customer just wants the product or service done right, anon time. The third step is to
reengineer the process, organizing work around the process, not functions or departments.
Work is simplified by combining related tasks and eliminating any elements that do not
directly add customer value. Finally, there designed process is implemented and all
activities undergo a continuing reevaluation. As technology, computers, and customers
change, work processes are continually reexamined. Reengineering examines each
process and evaluates the processing terms of how it usually focuses on incremental
changes, while reengineering is seeking a radical reexaminations amide at large scale
increases in productivity. While some OD practitioners have criticized reengineering as a
top down, or numbers approach, this approach lends employee involvement,
empowerment, and teams, reengineering is similar to the sociotechnical approach to
change.
Lecture 20
High-Performance Systems (HPS)
One of the more recent developments in large-scale change is the concept of high
performing systems, (HPS) a term originated by Peter Vaill. The idea is that today’s
organizations need continuing excellence and renewal as a way of bringing innovation
into our systems. In order to be effective, HPS leaders must see that the excessive layers
of structure within the organization are removed and create a climate, which emphasizes
participation and communication across ability to display energy and zest for the task
being
Worked on, the product being built and one’s fellow team members. Leading by example
is a popular way for managers to create excitement and electricity within the workplace.
Displaying enthusiasm tends to greatly impact the morale and productivity
Of the workface.10 a high performing system has been defined as an excellent human
system - one that performs at an unusually high level of excellence. But, as Peter Vaill
points out, how we define excellence and performance depends upon our values.

HPS Criteria
Wail has identified a set of eight criteria, which may be used to
Examine systems:
1. They are performing excellently against a known external standard.
2. They are performing excellently against what is assumed to be their potential level of
performance.
3. They are performing excellently in relation to where they were at some earlier point in
time.
4. They are judged by informed observers to be doing substantially better qualifiedly than
other comparable systems.
5. They are doing whatever they do with significantly less resources than it is assumed
are needed to do what they do.
6. They are perceived as exemplars of the way to do whatever they do, and thus they
become a source of ideas and
7. They are perceived to fulfill at a high level the ideals for the
——— Within which they exist.
8. They are the only organizations that have been able to do what they do at all

The Grid OD Program

One of the most widely used approaches to system –wide planned change is Gride
organization development. A change model designed by Robert R. Blake and Jane S.
Mouton and marketed by Scientific Methods. Inc. This program is a systematic approach
aimed at achieving corporate excellence. Blake and Mouton feel that in order to increase
the effectiveness of managers and the organization, change must take place in the Basic
culture of the system. Grid organization development starts with a focus on individual
behavior, specifically on the managerial styles of executives using what Blake and
Mouton call The Managerial Grid. The program them moves through a series of
sequential phases involving the work team, the relationships between groups or subunits,
and finally to the culture of the organization itself. The Managerial Grid and Grid OD
represents one of the most extensively applied approaches to organization improvement
and, administered by Scientific Methods, Inc., have been used by such major
U.S.corporations as Procter & Gamble, Conoco, Merck, and Whirlpool, as well as by a
number of foreign organizations. Westinghouse, for example. Have run more than 7,000
managers through the Grid starting in 1975 through 1990. Blake estimates that
perhaps750, 000 managers have been involved with the Grid in one way or another and
that perhaps 5,000 companies have engaged in Grid development activities. These are
necessarily estimates, as there is nonrealistic basis for a head count. It is known that the
necessarily estimates, as there is no realistic basis for a head count. It is known that the
Managerial Grid book has sold approximately 500,000copies in English and more than
100,000 copies in Japanese. The book has also been translated into a number of other
languages and has enjoyed wide popularity. 14Blake and Mouton assembled data on
corporate excellence from some 200 organizations. They found that two common
problems were planning and communication. Blake and Mouton found that the
Managerial Grid seminars could be used as a starting point for a planned change program
called Grid OD. Grid OD has as its objectives the maximizing of its managers’ concerns
for both their subordinates and the organization. In order to increase the effectiveness of
an
Individual manager dealing with his or her subordinates, change must take place in the
organization culture itself.
The Grid OD program consists of the following six grid phases.
Learning the Grid as a way to analyze thinking.
Increasing personal objectivity in appraising oneself.
Achieving clear and candid communication
Learning and working effectively in a team.
Learning to manage intergroup conflict
Analyzing one’s corporate work culture by applying the Grid framework.
Gaining understanding of the phases of Grid OD.

The seminar is highly structured, with most of the activities devoted to short lectures and
team projects. It is highly intensive and emotionally demanding, since it encourages
competition between teams and confrontation between team members. Participants who
leave the seminar committed to the precepts of the Grid will probably encourage other
key members of their organization to attend a similar seminar.
The sessions include investigation by each person of his or her won managerial approach
and alternative ways of managing, which can be learned about. Experimented with, and
applied. Participants study methods of team action. They measure and evaluate team
effectiveness in solving problems with others. High point of seminar learning is receives
a critique of his or her style of managerial performance from other members of the team.
Another is when managers critique the dominant style of their organization’s culture, its
traditions, precedents, and past practices. A third is when participants consider steps for
increasing the effectiveness of the
Whole organization.
Phase 2: Teamwork Development
AN organization is composed of many subgroups or teams whose members range from
top management to assembly-line workers, Phase 2 is concerned with improving
teamwork and includes a boss and his or her immediate subordinates meeting together for
a I-week session. Teamwork development begins with the top manager in the
organization and the employees who report directly to him or her. These people later
attend another team meeting with their own subordinates. This continues down through
the entire organization. Teamwork development is a planned activity that begins with
each team member completing various Grid instruments. The teams deal with subjects
directly relevant to their daily operations and behaviors. The team members are also
getting feedback from participants on their Grid styles in real situations. Before the
conclusion of the week, the team sets group and individual goals

Phase 3: Intergroup Development

The Phase 2 teamwork development meetings have cut vertically through the
organization encompassing natural work teams, but people also relate with others along a
horizontal dimensions: people interact with others in different teams, departments,
divisions, and sections, Unintended competition between departments may develop into a
win-lose contest resulting in a loss of organization effectiveness. Coordination,
cooperation, and collaboration between elements are necessary for an effective
organization, and to accomplish this intergroup development meeting are held and
attended by the key members of two segments or divisions where barriers exist. Inter
group development involves group-to-group relationships where members of interfacing
teams meet for three or four days to identify those things that would be present in an ideal
relationship between their two segments. The objective is for the two segments to agree
on the elements for an ideal relationship and then develop specific actions to attain the
ideal. As in Phase 2, participants leave the meetings with actual goals and objectives plus
an increased understanding of communication with one another.

Phase 4: Development of an Ideal

Strategic Model The development of an ideal strategic model provides an organization
with the knowledge and skills to move from reactionary approach to one of systematic
development. This phase is concerned with the overall norms, policies, and structure of
the organizations. The responsibility for these matters is with the top manager and those
reporting to him other. During a week of study, the key people in the organization
Define what the organization would be like if it were truly excellent. It is not unusual for
a moderate-sized organization to spend six months to a year perfecting the ideal strategic
model. During this time other people at various levels have the opportunity to contribute
to the model. This helps build commitment to the model needed for implementation.

Phase 5: Implementing the Ideal

Strategic Model The manner in which the ideal strategic model is implemented
determines the success of Grid OD in the organization. AN edict coming from above will
probably fall on deaf ears and be doomed to failure from the beginning. The Grid OD
program has an implementation model that can be adapted to any organization. An
organization can be divided into identifiable segments such as products, profit centers, or
geographical areas. Once the segments are identified, the top management team assigns
one planning team to each segment, one team to the corporate headquarter, and a
coordinator of Phase 5. The coordinator recommends tactics of implementation to the
topline executive. The task of each planning team is to analyze all aspects of its section’s
operations and determine how that section would act ideally. The design is based on the
ideal strategic model determined is Phase 4 but is interpreted and implemented for each
section by the planning team. The task is aided by the skills attained during Phase 1,2,
and 3. The studies to convert the ideal model into reality for each section may take three
months to a year, and the actual conversion may take six months to five years of even
longer.

Phase 6: Systematic Critique

The final phase in Grid OD is a systematic examination of progress toward change goals.
The systematic critique determines the degree of organization excellence after Phase 5
compared
With measurements taken before Phase 1. The basic instruments a 100-question survey
investigating managerial behavior, teamwork, intercrop relations, and corporate strategy.
Through the use of instruments administered at each phase, its possible to observe the
degree of change and gain insight into the total process of change. I is gratifying for
people to seethe movement they have made toward their goals, as success may not be
readily apparent considering that the entire Grid OD program may have been
implemented over a period of five to ten years. Because change never ceases, this
discovery sets the stage for a new beginning. The Results of Grid OD Programs As with
many OD intervention techniques, there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence regarding
Grid OD programs but little
Empirical evidence. The results of one Grid OD program have been reported in an article
by Blake, Mouton, and Barnes, andGreiner.15 their findings can be summarized as
follows:

1. The analysis of data showed within a three-year period as increase in productivity of

30 percent and a decrease in costs of 14 percent.
2. Subordinates reported a 12 percent improvement in ratings of their managers’ style and
ability’ to manage.
3. The study suggests that managerial and team effectiveness can be improved and that
Grid OD can make significant contributions to organization effectiveness.

Lecture 21
SURVEY RESEARCH AND FEEDBACK
making, superior subordinate relationship, and job satisfaction.
The data generated by the questionnaire are then used as a basis
for further change efforts.Therefore, this method provides techniques for
Changing work relationships and also a means for measuring the effects of such changes
within organizations. The client system is usually involved in the data collection
activities, and members of management and other organization members are usually
asked to submit questions for the survey and to plan the data collection itself. The data
are usually fed back to the organization through work teams, that is, the superior and
those immediately reporting to him or her in a work-related
Group. These feedback conferences then provide the client system with data about
problems, leading to specific action plans and programs to improve work team
effectiveness. The Step in Survey Feedback The survey feed approach as developed by
the Survey Research Center usually includes the following steps:
Step 1. The involvement of top management in preliminary planning of the survey
questionnaire. Other organization members may be involved if appropriate.
Step 2. The survey questionnaire is administered by the outside staff to all organization
members.
Step 3. The data are summarized by the outside staff and then fed back to work teams
throughout the hierarchy of the organization, usually beginning with the top management
team and flowing down to successive levels of the organization, a so called waterfall
effect. Some guidelines for providing survey results include.
· each manager should receive the results from his/her own
Work team.
· Results should be shared with the whole work team.
· everyone should see the results to the organization as a
Whole.
Step 4. Each manager then has a meeting of his or her own work team to diagnose
problems from the data presentation and to develop action plans and programs for
improvement. An outside consultant involved in the survey usually attends each work
team meeting acting as a process consultant or resource person. This process may be
described as a series of interlocking conferences or meetings structured in term of
organizational family units- the superior and immediate subordinates – considering the
survey data together. The data presented to each group were those pertaining to their own
group or for those subunits for which members of the organizational unit were
responsible. The purposes of survey feedback include the following: 91) to develop an
understanding of the problems, (2) to improve working relationships, and (3) to identify
factors and opportunities for change or to determine areas where more research is
required. In one such company-wide study of employee and management attitudes and
opinions over a period of two years, three different sets of data were fed back: 91)
information on the attitudes and perception soft 8,000 no supervisory employees toward
their work, promotions opportunities, supervision, fellow employees, and so on: (2) first-
and second – line supervisors’ feelings about various aspects of their job and supervisory
belief: and (3) information from intermediate and top levels of management about their
supervisory philosophies, roles, policy information, problems of organizational
integration, and so on

Lecture 22

What is MBO?
Management by objectives (MBO) is a systematic and organized approach that allows
management to focus on achievable goals and to attain the best possible results from
available resources. It aims to increase organizational performance by aligning goals
and subordinate objectives throughout the organization. Ideally, employees get strong
input to identify their objectives, time lines for completion, etc. MBO includes ongoing
tracking and feedback in the process to reach objectives.
Peter Ducker first outlined MBO in 1954 in his book 'The Practice of Management'. In
the 90s, Peter Ducker himself decreased the significance of this organization
management method, when he said: "It's just another tool. It is not the great cure for
management inefficiency... Management by Objectives works if you know the
objectives, 90% of the time you don’t."

Managerial Focus
MBO managers focus on the result, not the activity. They delegate tasks by "negotiating
a contract of goals" with their subordinates without dictating a detailed roadmap for
implementation. MBO is about setting you objectives and then breaking these down
into more specific goals or key results.
Main Principle
The principle behind MBO is to make sure that everybody within the organization has a
clear understanding of the aims, or objectives, of that organization, as well as awareness
of their own roles and responsibilities in achieving those aims. The complete MBO
system is to get managers and empowered employees acting to implement and achieve
their plans, which automatically achieve those of the organization.
Where to Use MBO
The MBO style is appropriate for knowledge-based enterprises when your staff is
competent. It is appropriate in situations where you wish to build employees'
management and self-leadership skills and tap their creativity, tacit knowledge and
initiative. MBO is also used by chief executives of multinational corporations (Macs)
for their country managers abroad.
Setting Objectives
In MBO systems, objectives are written down for each level of the organization, and
individuals are given specific aims and targets. "The principle behind this is to ensure
that people know what the organization is trying to achieve, what their part of the
organization must do to meet those aims, and how, as individuals, they are expected to
help. This presupposes that organization's programs and methods have been fully
considered. If they have not, start by constructing team objectives and ask team
members to share in the process."6
"The one thing an MBO system should provide is focus", says Andy Grove who
ardently practiced MBO at Intel. So, have your objectives precise and keep their
number small. Most people disobey this rule, try to focus on everything, and end up
with no focus at all.
For MBO to be effective, individual managers must understand the specific objectives
of their job and how those objectives fit in with the overall company objectives set by
the board of directors. "A manager's job should be based on a task to be performed in
order to attain the company's objectives... the manager should be directed and controlled
by the objectives of performance rather than by his boss."1
 The managers of the various units or sub-units, or sections of an organization should
know not only the objectives of their unit but should also actively participate in setting
these objectives and make responsibility for them.
The review mechanism enables leaders to measure the performance of their managers,
especially in the key result areas: marketing; innovation; human organization; financial
resources; physical resources; productivity; social responsibility; and profit
requirements.
However, in recent years opinion has moved away from the idea of placing managers
into a formal, rigid system of objectives. Today, when maximum flexibility is essential,
achieving the objective rightly is more important

Lecture –23

Organization Structure

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

In the functional structure, above, the employees are working in departments based on
what they are doing i.e. we have engineering department, maintenance department,
finanance department, research department, Warehouse department, purchasing
department. This structure enhances the experience of each function. For example, all the
maintenance engineers are working in the same department and thus they will exchange
knowledge and support each other. This structure saves us money because of the
economies of scale. This structure makes the coordination between different department
more difficult than other structures. It also does not allow for flexibility becasue of the
centralization.
Divisional structure divides, shown above, the employees based on the product/customer
segment/geographical location. For example, each division is responsible for certain
product and has its own resources such as finance, marketing, warehouse,
maintnenace..etc. Accordingly, this structures is a decentralized structure and thus allows
for flexibility and quick response to environmental changes. It also enhances innovation
and differentioan strategies. On the other hand, this struture results in duplication of
resources becasue, for ex., we need to have warehouse for each division. Obviuosly, it
does not support the exchange of knowledge between people working in the same
profession because part of them are working in one division and the others are working in
other divisions.
Matrix structure, shown above, combines both structures. For example, we can have a
functional structure and then assign a manager for each product. Some employees will
have two managers: functional manager and product manager. This type of structure tries
to get the benefits of functional structure and also of divisional structure; however, it is
not easy to implement becasue of the dual authority. This struture is vey useful for
multinational companies.

Lecture 24

Learning Organization

Learning organizations [are] organizations where people continually expand their

capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of
thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are
continually learning to see the whole together. (Senge 1990: 3)

The Learning Company is a vision of what might be possible. It is not brought about
simply by training individuals; it can only happen as a result of learning at the whole
organization level. A Learning Company is an organization that facilitates the learning of
all its members and continuously transforms itself. (Pedler et. al. 1991: 1)

Learning organizations are characterized by total employee involvement in a process of

collaboratively conducted, collectively accountable change directed towards shared
values or principles. (Watkins and Marsick 1992: 118)

Behaviour to Encourage

There are five disciplines (as described by Peter Senge) which are essential to a learning
organisation and should be encouraged at all times. These are:

 Team Learning
 Shared Visions
 Mental Models
 Personal Mastery
 Systems Thinking
Team Learning

Virtually all important decisions occur in groups. Teams, not individuals, are the
fundamental learning units. Unless a team can learn, the organisation cannot learn. Team
learning focusses on the learning ability of the group. Adults learn best from each other,
by reflecting on how they are addressing problems, questioning assumptions, and
receiving feedback from their team and from their results. With team learning, the
learning ability of the group becomes greater than the learning ability of any individual in
the group.
Shared Visions

To create a shared vision, large numbers of people within the organisation must draft it,
empowering them to create a single image of the future. All members of the organisation
must understand, share and contribute to the vision for it to become reality. With a shared
vision, people will do things because they want to, not because they have to.

Mental Models

Each individual has an internal image of the world, with deeply ingrained assumptions.
Individuals will act according to the true mental model that they subconsciously hold, not
according to the theories which they claim to believe. If team members can constructively
challenge each others' ideas and assumptions, they can begin to perceive their mental
models, and to change these to create a shared mental model for the team. This is
important as the individual's mental model will control what they think can or cannot be
done.

Personal Mastery

Personal mastery is the process of continually clarifying and deepening an individual's

personal vision. This is a matter of personal choice for the individual and involves
continually assessing the gap between their current and desired proficiencies in an
objective manner, and practising and refining skills until they are internalised. This
develops self esteem and creates the confidence to tackle new challenges.

The Fifth Discipline - Systems Thinking

The cornerstone of any learning organisation is the fifth discipline - systems thinking.
This is the ability to see the bigger picture, to look at the interrelationships of a system as
opposed to simple cause-effect chains; allowing continuous processes to be studied rather
than single snapshots. The fifth discipline shows us that the essential properties of a
system are not determined by the sum of its parts but by the process of interactions
between those parts.

This is the reason systems thinking is fundamental to any learning organisation; it is the
discipline used to implement the disciplines. Without systems thinking each of the
disciplines would be isolated and therefore not achieve their objective. The fifth
discipline integrates them to form the whole system, a system whose properties exceed
the sum of its parts. However, the converse is also true - systems thinking cannot be
achieved without the other core disciplines: personal mastery, team learning, mental
models and shared vision. All of these disciplines are needed to successfully implement
systems thinking, again illustrating the principal of the fifth discipline: systems should be
viewed as interrelationships rather than isolated parts.

Lecture 25
A Virtual Organization

• is an organization existing as a corporate, not-for-profit, educational, or otherwise

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

Boundaryless organisations are not defined or limited by horizontal, vertical, or

external boundaries imposed by a predetermined structure. They share many of the
characteristics of flat organisations, with a strong emphasis on teams. Cross-functional
teams dissolve horizontal barriers and enable the organisation to respond quickly to
environmental changes and to spearhead innovation. Boundaryless organisations can
form relationships (joint ventures, intellectual property, distribution channels, or financial
resources) with customers, suppliers, and/or competitors. Telecommuting, strategic
alliances and customer-organisation linkages break down external barriers, streamlining
work activities. Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, to facilitate interactions
with customers and suppliers, first used this un-structure.

Lecture 26

Action Research :A Process and Approach

Action research may be described as a process, that is, as an Ongoing series of events and
actions. Used in this way, it is Defined as follows: Action research is the process of
systematically collecting research data about an ongoing system relative to some
objective, goal, or need of that system; feeding these data back into the system; taking
actions by altering selected variables within the system .Based both on the data and on
hypotheses; and evaluating the results of actions by collecting more data. This definition
characterizes action research in terms of the active-ties comprising the process. First, a
static picture is taken of an organization. On the basis of “what exists,” hunches and
hypotheses suggest ac-tins; these actions typically entail manipulating variables in the
system that are under the control of the action researcher (this often means doing
something differently from the way it has always been done). Later a second static
picture is taken of the system to examine the effects of the action taken. These steps are
very similar to the steps 00 practitioners use when they execute 00 programs. Several
authors have noted the importance of viewing action research as a process. In a study of
the Tremont Hotel in Chicago, William F. Whyte and Edith L. Hamilton described their
work as follows: What was the project? It was an action-research program for
management. We developed a process for applying human relations research findings to
the changing of organization behavior. The word process is important, for this was not a
one shot affair. The project involved a continuous gathering and analysis of human
relations research data and the feeding of the findings into the organization in such a way
as to change behavior.’

Action research is a process in two different ways.

It is a sequence of Joint action planning (Objectives of 0D program and means of
attaining goals, e.g., ‘team building’) Feedback to key client or
Client group Further data gathering, Data gathering and diagnosis by
Consultant, Consultation with behavioral scientist consultant

Action research and organization development

Action (new behavior) Action planning (degeneration of objectives and how to get there)
Discussion and work on data feedback and data by client group (new attitudes, new
perspectives emerge) Feedback to client group (e.g., in team-building sessions, summary
feedback by consultant; elaboration by group) Data gathering (reassessment of state of
the system) of events and activities within each iteration (data collection, feedback and
working with the data, and taking action based on the data); and it is a cycle of iterations
of these activities, sometimes treating the same problem through several cycles and
sometimes moving to different problems in each cycle. Action research may also be
described as an approach to problem solving, thus suggesting its usefulness as model,
guide, and or paradigm. Used in this way, action research may be defined as follows:
action research is the application of the scientific method of fact-finding and
experimentation to practical problems requiring action solutions and in-evolving the
collaboration and cooperation of scientists, practitioners, and laypersons. The desired
Outcomes of the action research approach are solutions to the immediate problems and a
contribution to scientific knowledge and theory. Viewing action research from this
perspective points up additional features that are important. Action research waste
conceptual model for an early organization improvement program in a group of oil
refineries. Herbert Shepard, one of the behavioral scientists involved in that program, de-
fines the nature of action research as follows: Shepard’s concept of the action research
model Shepard highlights the relations among goals (objectives), planning, and action in
his diagram-a point we think is a very important feature of action research. And both he
and French emphasize that action research is research inextricably linked to action; it is
research with a purpose, that is, to guide present and future action. In an action research
approach, the role of the consultant/change agent takes on especial form, as shown by
Shepard: The action-research model is normative model for learning, or a model for
planned change.
Its main features are these. In front of intelligent human action there should be an
objective, be it ever so fuzzy or distorted. And in advance of human action there should
be planning, although knowledge of paths to the objective is always inadequate. Action
itself should be taken a step at a time, and after each step it is well to do some fact-
finding. The fact-finding may disclose whether the objective is realistic, whether it is
nearer or more distant than before, whether it needs alteration. Through fact-finding, the
present situation can be assessed, and this information, together with information about
the objective, can be used in planning the second step- Movement toward an objective
con-sits of a series of such cycles of planning-acting-fact-finding -planning.’ The role is
to help the manager plan his actions and design his fact-finding procedures in such a way
that he can learn from them, to serve such ends as becoming a more skillful manager,
setting more realistic objectives, discovering better ways of organizing. In this sense, the
staff concerned with follow-up is research consultants. Their task is to help managers
formulate
Management problems as experiments.’

Lecture 27
Issues in consultant-client relationships
A number if interrelated issues can arise in consultant-client relationships in OD
activities, and they need to be managed appropriately if adverse effects are to be avoided.
These issues
Tend to center on the following important areas:
• Entry and contracting
• Defining the client system
• Trust
• The nature of the consultant’s expertise
• Diagnosis and appropriate interventions
• The depth of interventions
• On being absorbed by the culture
• The consultant as a model
• The consultant team as a microcosm
• Action research and the OD process
• Client dependency and terminating the relationship
• Ethical standards in OD
• Implications of OD for the client
There are no simple prescriptions for resolving dilemmas or problems in these aspects of
OD, but we do have some options about managing these areas.

Entry and contracting

An initial discussion that can lead to an OD consulting contract can occur in various
ways, but typically events evolve something like this. There is a telephone call: An
executive has some concerns about his or her organization and the consultant has-been
recommended as someone who could help. After a brief description of some of the
problems and a discussion of the extent to which the consultant’s expertise is a
reasonable fit for the situation, an agreement is made to pursue the matter over a meal or
through an appointment at the executive’s office. During the face-to-face meeting, the
consultant explores with the potential client some of the deeper aspects of the presenting
problem. If “communications between managers aren’t as thorough and as cordial as they
ought to be,” the consultant asks for examples to get better fix on the nature of the
problem and its dynamics. Almost inevitably there are several interrelated problems. Or if
the potential client says, “I want to move to self-managed teams in Plant B,” the rationale
and objectives forth such a program are explored. Furthermore, in the first meeting, the
consultant and the client probably begin to sort out what group would be the logical
starting point for an OD intervention. For example, in a particular manufacturing
organization it might be important to focus on the top-management team of eight people;
or, in a city government it might appear prudent to include the top 20 key people which
would involve the city manager, assistant city managers, and all of the department heads.
Considerable thought must be given to exactly who is to be included – and thus who is to
be excluded – in the first interventions. The exclusion of the key people, in particular, can
be a serious Mistake.”All kinds of nuances can arise in this discussion. In addition to
problems of who can and who should attend a workshop, there are matters of when and
where it could be held, whether or not the management group can be away from their
offices for the desired period, whether or not the top person is to be briefed about
interview themes prior to the workshop, the extent of confidentiality of the interviews,
and so on. An overriding dimension in this preliminary discussion is the extent of mutual
confidence and trust that begins to develop between consultant and client.

Defining the client system

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

The nature of the consultant’s expertise

Partly because of the unfamiliarity with organization development methods, client
frequently try to put the consultant in the role of the expert on substantive content, such
as on personnel policy or business strategy. We believe it is possible, and desirable,
for the OD consultant to be an expert in the sense of being competent to present a range
of options open to the client, but any extensive reliance on the traditional mode of
consulting, that is, giving substantive advice, will tend to negate the OD consultant’s
effectiveness. The OD consultant needs to resist the temptation of playing the content
expert and will need to clarify his or her role with the client when this becomes an issue.
However, we think the OD consultant should be prepared to describe in broad outline
what the organization might look like if it were to go very far with an OD effort. Moving
into the expert or advocate role – or as Schein says, the” purchase of expertise role” or
the “doctor-patient model” frequently stems from an overriding desire to please the
client. The consultant wishes to maintain the relationship for a verity of reasons –
professional, financial, or self-esteem – and naturally wants to be perceived as competent.
The consultant, therefore, gets trapped into preparing reports or giving substantive
advice, which if more than minimal, will reduce his or her effectiveness.

There are at least four good reasons why the OD consultant should largely stay out of the
expert role. The first is that a major objective of an OD effort is to help the client system
to develop its own resources. The expert role creates a kind of dependency that
typically does not lead to internal skill development. The second reason is that the expert
role almost inevitably requires the consultant to defend his or her recommendations.
With reference to an initial exploratory meeting, Schein mentions the danger of being
“seduced into a selling role” and states that under such conditions “we are no longer
defending one’s advice tends to negate a collaborative, developmental approach to
improving organizational processes. A third reason for largely avoiding the expert role
has to do with trust. Thus, making recommendations to the top is quite different from
confronting the top-management group with the data that three-fourths of the members
of the top team believe that the organization has serious problems, partly stemming from
too many divisions. In the one instance, the consultant is the expert; in the other instance,
the consultant is helping the top team to be more expert in surfacing data and diagnosing
the state of the system. A fourth reason has to do with expectations. If the consultant goes
very far in the direction of being an expert on substance in contrast to process, the client
is likely to expect more and more substantive recommendations, thus negating the OD
consultant’s central mission, which is to help with process.

In the other words, the OD consultant should act in the expert role on the process used
but on the task.

Lecture 28
Diagnosis and appropriate interventions
Another pitfall for the consultant is the temptation to apply an intervention technique,
which he or she particularly likes and which has produced good results in the past, but
may not square with a careful diagnosis of the immediate situation. For example, giving
subgroups an assignment to describe “what is going well in our weekly department head
meetings” and “what is preventing the meetings from being as effective as we’d like”
might be more on target and more timely than launching into the role analysis technique
with the boss’s role as the focus of discussion. It might be too soon; that is, there might
be too much defensiveness on the part of the boss and too much apprehension on the part
of subordinates for a productive discussion to take place.
Depth of intervention
A major aspect of selecting appropriate interventions is the matter of depth of
intervention. In Roger Harrison’s terms, depth of intervention can be assessed using the
concepts of accessibility and individuality. By accessibility Harrison means the degree to
which the data are more or less public versus being hidden or private and the ease with
which the intervention skills can be learned. By individuality is meant the closeness to
the person’s perceptions of self and the degree to which effects of an intervention are in
the individual in contrast to the organization. We are assuming that the closer one moves
on this continuum to the sense of self, the more the inherent processes have to do with
emotions, values, and hidden matters and, consequently, the more potent they are to do
either good or harm. It requires a careful diagnosis to determine that these interventions
are appropriate and relevant. If they are inappropriate, they may be destructive or, at a
minimum, unacceptable
to the client or the client system.The consultant, then, needs to have the
skills to intervene effectively down through these progressively smaller – frequently
simultaneously – according to whether the
issue is
How well are we performing as a total organization?
How well are we doing as a large unit?
How well are we doing as a team?
How well are you and I working together?
How well are you doing?
How well am I doing?
The concept of depth of intervention, viewed either in this way or in terms of a
continuum of the formal systems, and self, suggests that the consultant needs an
extensive repertoire of conceptual models, intervention techniques, and sensitivities to be
able to be helpful at various levels. The consultant’s awareness
of his or her own capabilities and limitations, of course, is extremely important.

On being absorbed by the culture

One of the many mistakes one can make in the change-agent role is to let oneself be
seduced into joining the culture of the client organization. While one needs to join the
culture enough to participate in and enjoy the functional aspects of the prevailing culture
– an example would be good-natured bantering when it is clear to everyone that such
bantering is in fun and means inclusion and linking – participating in the organization’s
pathology will neutralize the consultant’s effectiveness.

The dependency issue and terminating the

relationship
If the consultant is in the business of enhancing the client system’s abilities in problem
solving and renewal, then the consultant is in the business of assisting the client to
internalize skills and insights rather than to create a prolonged dependency relationship.
This tends not be much of an issue, however, if the consultant and the client work out the
expert versus facilitator issue described earlier and if the consultant subscribes to the
notion that OD should be a shared technology. The
facilitator role, we believe, creates less dependency and more client growth than the
traditional consulting modes, and the notion of a shared technology leads to rapid
learning on the part of the client. An issue of personal importance to the consultant is the
dilemma of working to increase the resourcefulness of the client versus wanting to
remain involved, to feel needed, and to feel competent. We think there is a satisfactory
solution to this dilemma. A good case can be made, we believe, for a gradual reduction in
external consultant use as an OD effort reaches maturity. In a large organization, one or
more key consultant may be retained in an ongoing relationship, but with less
frequent use. If the consultants are constantly developing their skills, they can continue to
make innovative contributions. Furthermore, they can serve as a link with outside
resources such as universities and research programs, and more important, they can serve
to help keep the OD effort at the highest possible professional and ethical level. Their
skills and insights should serve as a standard against which to compare the activities of
internal change agents. Some of the most innovative
and successful OD efforts on the world scene, in our judgment, have maintained some
planned level of external consultant use. Another dimension of the issue arises, however,
when the consultant senses that his or her assistance is no longer needed or could be
greatly reduced. For the client’s good, to avoid wasting the consultant’s own professional
resources, and to be congruent, the consultant should confront the issue. A particularly
troublesome dilemma occurs when the use of the

Lecture 29

Ethical standards in OD
Much of this chapter and, indeed, much of what has preceded in other chapters, can be
viewed in terms of ethical issues in OD practice, that is, in terms of enhancement versus
violation of basic values and/or in terms of help versus harm to persons. Louis White and
Kevin Wooten see five categories of ethical, dilemmas in organization development
practice stemming from the actions of either the consultant or client or both. The types of
ethical dilemmas they see are:
Misrepresentation of the consultant’s skills
An obvious area for unethical behavior would be to distort or misrepresent one’s
background, training, competencies, or experience in vita sheets, advertising, or
conversation. A subtle form of misrepresentation would be to let the client assume one
has certain skills when one does not.

Professional/technical ineptness
The potential for unethical behavior stemming from lack of expertise is pervasive in OD.
To give one example using Harrison’s concept of depth of intervention, it would seem to
be unethical to ask people in a team-building session to provide mutual feedback about
leadership style when neither preliminary interviews nor the client group has indicated a
readiness or a willingness diagnosis suggests the appropriateness of a feedback
intervention, but the consultant has no experience from which to draw in order to design a
constructive feedback exercise. The consultant goes ahead anyway. It would be unethical
for the consultant to plow ahead without some coaching by a more experienced
colleague. (This may be a situation that calls for the “shadow consultant,” the consultant
to a single individual, in this case another consultant.)

Misuse of data
Again, the possibilities for unethical behavior in the form of data misuse on the part of
either the client or the consultant are abundant. This is why confidentiality is so important
in OD efforts. Data can be used to punish or otherwise harm persons or groups. An
obvious example would be a consultant’s disclosure to the boss of who provided
information
about the boss’s dysfunctional behavior. Another example would be showing climate
survey results from Department A to the head of Department B if this had not been
authorized. Serious distortions of the data would also be unethical. Let’s imagine a
scenario in which the consultant interviews the top 20 members of management and finds
several department heads are angry about the behaviors of fellow department head Z is
hostile and uncooperative with the consultant in the data gathering interview. The
consultant is now angry takes the form
of overstating and overemphasizing the dysfunctional aspects of Z’s unit. (In an ironic
twist, the group might turn on the consultant and defend Z. As a colleague of ours says,
“Never attack the ‘worst’ member of the group – the group will reject you.”)

Collusion
An example of collusion would be the consultant agreeing with the key client to schedule
a team-building workshop when it is known that department head Z will be on vacation.
(This is hardly the way to deal with the problems created by Z, is likely to create reduced
trust in the consultant and key client, Z’s boss, and is likely to intensify Z’s dysfunctional
behavior.) Another example illustrating the power that a consultant with expertise in
group dynamics can wield for good or harm is the consultant colluding with other
members of the group to set up a feedback situation in which Z’s deficiencies will be all
too apparent, particularly to Z’s boss. Instead of creating a situation in which everyone,
including Z, has a chance of improving performance, this collusion is aimed at Z’s
undoing. (We’ve picked on Z enough; if he or she is this much of a problem, Z’s
performance should be confronted head on by the boss, outside of the team-building
setting, and preferably well in advance. If OD interventions are perceived as methods for
“getting” anyone, the OD process is doomed to failure.
Coercion
It is unethical to force organizational members into settings where they are, in effect,
required to disclose information about themselves or their units which they prefer to keep
private. The creation of a T-group with unwilling participants would be an example.
A troublesome dilemma occurs in the case of a manager and most of his of her
subordinates who want to go off-site for a problem-solving workshop but one or two
members are strongly resisting. If friendly persuasion and addressing them, concerns of a
individual(s) – not painful arm-twisting – do not solve the matter, perhaps a reasonable
option is for the manager to indicate that nonparticipation is acceptable, and that there
will be no recriminations, but it should be understood that the group will go ahead and try
to reach consensus an action plans for unit improvement without their input.

Promising unrealistic outcomes

Obviously, this is unethical and counterproductive. The temptation to make promises in
order to gain a client contract can be great, but the consequences can be reduced
credibility of the consultant and the OD field, and the reduced credibility of the key client
within his or her organization .Thus, the values underlying ethical OD practice are
honesty; openness; voluntarism; integrity; confidentiality; the development of people;
and the development of consultant expertise,
high standards, and self-awareness.

Lecture 30
Implications of OD for the client
An OD effort has some fundamental implications for the chief executive officer and top
managers of an organization, and we believe that these implications need to be shared
and understood at the outset. We reach the following conclusions when we ask ourselves,
what is top management buying into in participating in the supporting an OD effort?
Basically, OD interventions as we have described them, are a
conscious effort on the part of top management:
1. To enlarge the database for making management decisions: In particular, the expertise,
perceptions and sentiments of team members throughout the organization are more
extensively considered than heretofore.
2. To expand the influence processes: The OD process tends to further a process of
mutual influences; managers and subordinates alike tend to be influential in ways they
have-not experienced previously.
3. To capitalize on the strengths of the informal system and to make the formal and the
informal system more congruent: A great deal of information that has previously been
suppressed within individuals or within the informal system
(e.g. appreciations, frustration, hurts, opinions about how to do things more effectively,
fears) begins to be surfaced and dealt with. Engineers spent suppressing matters can now
be rechanneled into cooperative effort.
4. To become more responsive: Management must now respond to data that have been
submerged and must begin to move in the direction of personal, team, and organizational
effectiveness suggested by the data.
5. To legitimatize conflict as an area of collaborative management: Rather than win-lose,
smoothing, or withdrawal modes of conflict resolution, the mode gradually becomes one
of confronting the underlying basis for the
conflict and working the problem through to a successful
resolution.
6. To examine its own leadership style and ways of managing: We do not think an OD
effort can be viable long if the top management team (the CEO plus subordinate team or
top team of an essentially autonomous unit) does not actively participate in the effort.
The top team inevitably is a powerful determinant of organizational culture. OD is not a
televised game being played for viewing by top management; members of top
management are the key players.
7. To legitimatize and encourage the collaborative management of team, and organization
cultures: This is largely the essence of OD.We think that these items largely describe the
underlying
implications for top management and that the OD effort. These issues have to do with
establishing the initial contract, identifying implications for top management and that the
OD consultant needs to be clear about them from the very beginning and to help the top-
management group be clear about them as the process unfolds.

The Changing Environment

The environment in which organizations operate is increasingly turbulent in an era of
global, national, and regional commercial competitiveness. But paradoxically that com-
petition is part of a rapidly shifting manage of competitiveness and interdependencies.
Alliances, consortia, mergers, and acquisitions are all common. Production and
communications technology are changing at an exponential rate. Furthermore,
disloca1ion of people through downsizing and restructuring is rampant. Simultaneously, a
profusion of business startups is taking place. Yesterday’s strategies are not likely to
work in to-morrow’s workplaces. In large part the old organizational paradigm is dying.
It doesn’t work well in this emerging environment. Top-down, autocratically
directed, rigidly hierarchical, fear generating organizations are giving way to something
new. The new paradigm proclaims that the most innovative and successful organizations
will be those that derive their strength and vitality from adaptable, committed team
players at all levels and from all specialties, not from the omniscience of the hierarchy.!
Increasingly, organizations will be flatter, with smaller central staffs and with more
real delegation to small groups and units. High-performance organizations focusing on
the customer and continuous quality improvement and placing high value on human
resources, diversity, and high-performance teams will be the norm.OD will be a major
player in assisting organizations to shift to and sustain this new paradigm and to help
invent even more effective paradigms in the future. The future of OD is bright, but only if
the field continues to evolve. Here are some opinions about that evolution and some of
the contingencies that must be faced.

Lecture 31
Fundamental Strengths of OD

These processes include careful tuning in to the perceptions and feelings of people;
creating safe conditions for surfacing perceptions and feelings; involving people in
diagnosing the strengths and weaknesses of their organizations and making action plans
for improvement; focusing on team and other inter-dependent configurations; redesigning
work so that it is more meaningful and motivating; explicitly training people toward a
participative, open, team leadership mode; and using qualified third parties. These and
other characteristics of OD have created a powerful and durable process for organization
improvement. .

A second fundamental strength has to do with the political, governmental milieu. OD is

highly compatible with democratic governmental structures and processes that are well
established in many parts of the world and emerging elsewhere. Indeed, OD approaches
promote and help sustain democratic processes.

Third, OD practice has been expanding in the last two or three decades to create a
blending of attention to people-orient processes with attention to the design of the
human-technical system.

Fourth, almost everywhere organizations, are recognizing the need for assistance in
getting the right people together to talk constructively about important organizational and
trans organizational matters, and for developing processes for making things better. In
light of these pressing needs, the OD field clearly has an enormous and vital role to play
in the foreseeable future.

0D’s Future
How large a role OD will play in the constantly changing organizational, political, and -
economic milieu of the future will depend upon a number of interrelated conditions. Most
of the conditions we see are generally favorable to OD, but countertrends and/or
uncertainties will have to be addressed. These conditions and contingencies have to do
with leadership And values; knowledge about OD; OD training; the interdisciplinary
nature of OD; diffusion of technique; integrative practice; mergers, acquisitions; and al-
alliances; rediscovering and recording history; and the search for community. Leadership
and Values For OD to flourish, top management-CEOs, boards of directors, top
executives, including the human resources executive-and OD consultants must place high
value on strong individual, team, and organizational performance coupled with people-
oriented values. As O’Tople says, management can choose to try to create organizations
that have both profitability and humanistic/developmental objectives whether or not the
two are necessarily correlated.4 In an almost schizophrenic situation in the United States,
some top managements are highly attentive and committed to this duality of objectives,
and others are concerned only with the bottom line and/or the price of stock. As George
Strauss says, some executives have a “slash and bum” mentality.

Knowledge About OD
Top management groups are likely to utilize OD to the extent that they are aware of and
understand the process involved. Even though the extent of this knowledge is
undoubtedly widespread, we suspect that much of it is constrained by lack of an
experiential feel for what the process is like. University courses, workshops sponsored by
consultants and consulting firms, laboratory training, books and articles-these and other
methods contribute to the information available to managers and executives. Descriptions
and explanations by subordinates and by consultants probably playa large part. Our sense
is that news accounts frequently shortchange the ODfield. Although not every article or
news story about a successful employee involvement or participative improvement
program can go into detail about the origins of that particular-effort, our” wish list”
includes more reporting about the major components of improvement programs and how
they started. By major components we mean aspects such as a third party teaming up with
an executive, the data-gathering methods used, the formation of particular kinds of teams,
and so on. We suspect that many of the successful employee involvement efforts reported
by the media have OD people and processes and OD-oriented executives as unsung,
behind-the-scenes leaders and movers. Perhaps this oversight is part of the “marginality”
of OD consultants.9 Overall, we see the need for more detailed, published case studies of
OD efforts-including successes and failures and the use of OD processes in conjunction
with other improvement strategies.