Practicing Organization Development (A guide for Consultants) - Part 36 ppsx

Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organizational Improvement.. RESEARCH REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION We will first consider some issues regarding research on org

TARGET GROUP TYPES OF INTERVENTIONS

• Interventions designed to improve • Intergroup activities —Process directed

• Partnering

• Process consultation

• Third-party peacemaking at the group level

• Grid OD phase 3

• Survey feedback

• Interventions designed to improve • Sociotechnical systems (STS) the effectiveness of the • Parallel learning structures TOTAL ORGANIZATION • MBO (participation forms)

• Cultural analysis

• Confrontation meetings

• Visioning

• Strategic planning/strategic management activities

• Grid OD phases 4, 5, 6

• Interdependency exercise

• Survey feedback

• Appreciative inquiry

• Future search conferences

• Quality of work life (QWL) programs

• Total quality management (TQM)

• Physical settings

• Large-scale systems change

From W.L French & C.H Bell, Jr (1995) Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organizational Improvement Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, p 165 Reprinted with permission.

RESEARCH REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION

We will first consider some issues regarding research on organization change and development, and, second, some of the major results of research in this arena

Research Issues

The overriding issue regarding research in the arena of organization change and

development is purpose—that is, whether the research effort is for evaluation (Did it work?) or for knowledge generation (What is truth?) In other words, is

the research for the benefit of the client or the researcher? If we rely on the tra-ditional scientific method, then we control and manipulate some independent variables, make some interventions, and see whether any difference occurred

in relation to certain dependent variables For instance, we decide to use team building as an intervention and collect information (dependent variables) to see whether it made any difference We might use a questionnaire to ask team members if they feel more satisfied with and committed to the team, and

we might determine if the team’s work performance increased after the team-building effort occurred Even if our data showed increased satisfaction, com-mitment, and work performance, it would be difficult to demonstrate that the

team-building intervention had caused these outcomes unless we had also

col-lected data from a matched control group—for example, a similar team for which no team building had been done—unless we had collected data from

both teams before and after the team-building effort, and unless we had

col-lected these two sets of data at essentially the same time

Another critical factor in this evaluation effort would be the people who col-lect and analyze the data Numerous studies have shown that the researcher can affect the outcome (Rosenthal, 1976), which raises the question of objectivity To

be scientific, or objective, the researcher should be someone other than the team-building consultant or the organization members involved Argyris has argued, however, that the more scientific the evaluation is, the less likely it is to be relevant to and therefore used by the client He states that traditional scientific methods of evaluation (his term is “mechanistic”) “tend to create primarily depen-dent and submissive roles for the clients and provide them with little responsi-bility; therefore, the clients have low feelings of essentiality in the program (except when they fulfill the request of the professionals)” (Argyris, 1970, p 105)

To illustrate—rather dramatically—the challenges of employing the scien-tific method in an organizational field setting, consider the study by Blumberg and Pringle (1983) Their studies of interventions include job redesign and par-ticipative management in a mine Following the proper methods of science, these researchers had a control group and an experimental group of miners The control group, however, found out about what was going on with the experimental group and resented it, feeling that the latter had the unfair advan-tage of improving their quality of work life The control group of miners, being unionized, then proceeded to vote to stop the entire process And they suc-ceeded The change effort stopped abruptly We will never know whether the interventions worked, and we will never have the advantage of knowing the efficacy of these interventions from whatever learning did occur The impor-tant lesson that the researchers learned was about attempting traditional research in a field setting

Beer and Walton (1987) have suggested that moving in the direction of what

is labeled as “action science” (Argyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985) is a better choice As noted before:

“This means moving away from typical positivistic assumptions regarding research in organizations and toward a process that (a) involves the users in the study, (b) relies on self-corrective learning, say, trying certain assessment meth-ods, and then modifying them along the way as trial and error yields knowledge, and (c) occurs over time, not episodically As Beer and Walton noted, the litera-ture about this kind of choice regarding organization change research has begun

to grow.” (Burke, 2002, p 125)

Work by Carnall (1982), Morgan (1983), and Legge (1984) represent some of this growth

Research Results

There has been early evidence that organization change and development inter-ventions do work French and Bell (1978) selected nine studies that they con-sidered to be supportive These studies were conducted from 1964 to 1974 and included interventions such as grid OD, participative management, team build-ing, and the use of multiple interventions In a later and very careful review of seventy-two studies of OD interventions, Porras and Robertson (1992) found overall that (a) more than 40 percent of these studies had positive outcomes, that is, the interventions led to significant change in the intended direction; (b) about 50 percent of the studies showed little or no change; and (c) a small percentage, ranging from 7 to 14 percent, led to negative outcomes Porras and Robertson classified the many different interventions they studied into four

broad categories: (1) organizing arrangements: for example, establishing new committees, task forces, or quality circles; (2) social factors: for example, team building; (3) technology: for example, job redesign; and (4) physical settings:

such as modifying an office layout from a closed to a more open space These researchers drew the following conclusions from their extensive review:

“The fact that lack of change in the dependent variables occurred more fre-quently than any other change can potentially be explained in one of three ways First, and most pessimistically, it could simply be that OD, in general, is not very effective, with desired results being achieved less than half the time.

Second, it could be that the interventions used in these studies cannot achieve results consistently The problem may not be with any specific intervention, but that too frequently only one intervention, or interventions of one type, was used Only six cases existed in which a multifaceted, multi-category program of intervention took place The lack of positive change may have been the result of the lack of comprehensiveness of the change effort.

“Finally, it could be that beta change was involved in the measurement of many of the dependent variables As previously discussed, beta change involves a psychological recalibration of the instrument used to measure a stable dimension

of reality (Golembiewski, Billingsly, & Yeager, 1976, pp 135–136) In other words,

as a result of the OD intervention or interventions, organizational members’

perceptions of various aspects of their work environment can be altered so that the measures used to assess these characteristics do not maintain their calibration over time Consequently, while the characteristics being measured may in fact undergo change, such change may not be demonstrated because of the psycholog-ical recalibration of the measure An apparent lack of change can thus mask an actual change in the variable measured.” (Porras & Robertson, 1992, p 786)

The good news from the Porras and Robertson study is that little or no harm was done by using the interventions that were investigated

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

As stated at the outset, implementation is the difficult part of OD But not the

most difficult Sustaining the change effort once underway is more difficult than

implementation as such, certainly early implementation in the overall change process

The difficult aspects of implementation include dealing with (a) resistance, and remember that there are different forms of resistance (blind, ideological, and political), and (b) unanticipated consequences, those reactions to interventions that are not in the plan because we simply did not think about them in advance Also bear in mind that standards exist for effectiveness of implementation, that is, in the form of an intervention—the three criteria from Argyris: valid information, choice, and commitment—and that no single intervention by itself

is sufficient for effective OD

Finally, as research demonstrates, understanding the outcomes and effective-ness of these outcomes regarding our interventions is not obvious The researcher’s

behavior can affect outcomes, and there is usually the question of exactly what

was affected by our interventions—just perceptions or actual attitudes and values? Research does show that interventions do have organizational effects We must be diligent about being as clear as we can about the depth of these effects

References

Argyris, C (1970) Intervention theory and method Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D.M (1985) Action science San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Beckhard, R., & Harris, R.T (1987) Organizational transitions: Managing complex

change (2nd ed.) Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Beer, M., & Walton, A.E (1987) Organization change and development Annual

Review of Psychology, 38, 339–367.

Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S (1976) Consultation Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Blumberg, M., & Pringle, C.D (1983) How control groups can cause loss of control in

action research: The case of Rushton Coal Mine Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science, 19, 409–425.

Brehm, J.W (1966) A theory of psychological reactance New York: Academic Press Burke, W.W (1982) Organization development: Principles and practices Boston, MA:

Little Brown.

Burke, W.W (1994) Organization development: A process of learning and changing

(2nd ed.) Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Burke, W.W (2001) The broadband of organization development and change: An

introduction In L Carter, D Giber, & M Goldsmith (Eds.), Best practices in

organi-zation development and change (pp 3–9) San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Burke, W.W (2002) Organization change: Theory and practice Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Burke, W.W., & Biggart, N.W (1997) Interorganizational relations In D Druckman,

J.E Singer, & H Van Cott (Eds.), Enhancing organizational performance (pp.

120–149) Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Burke, W.W., Clark, L.P., & Koopman, C (1984) Improve your OD project’s chances

for success Training & Development, 38(8), 62–68.

Burke, W.W., & Hornstein, H.A (Eds.) (1972) The social technology of organization

development San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.

Carnall, C.A (1982) The evaluation of organizational change Brookfield, VT: Gower Cummings, T.G., & Worley, C.G (2005) Organization development and change (8th ed.).

Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern.

Fagenson, E.A., & Burke, W.W (1990) The activities of organization development

practitioners at the turn of the decade of the 1990s Group & Organization Studies,

15, 366–380.

French, W.L., & Bell, C.H., Jr (1978) Organization development: Behavioral science

interventions for organization improvement (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

French, W.L., & Bell, C.H., Jr (1995) Organization development: Behavioral science

interventions for organization improvement (5th ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Golembiewski, R.T., Billingsley, K., & Yeager, S (1976) Measuring change and

persis-tence in human affairs: Types of change generated by OD designs Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 12, 133–157.

Hambrick, D.C., & Cannella, A.A., Jr (1989) Strategy implementation as substance

and selling Academy of Management Executive, 3, 278–285.

Legge, K (1984) Evaluating planned organizational change Orlando, FL: Academic.

Lewin, K (1947) Group decision and social change In T.M Newcomb, E.L Hartley et

al (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp 330–344) New York: Henry Holt.

Massarik, F., & Pei-Carpenter, M (2002) Organization development and consulting.

San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Morgan, G (Ed.) (1983) Beyond method: Strategies for social research Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

O’Toole, J (1995) Leading change: Overcoming the ideology of comfort and the

tyranny of custom San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pascale, R.T., Millemann, M., & Gioja, L (2000) Surfing the edge of chaos: The laws of

nature and the new laws of business New York: Crown Business.

Porras, J.I., & Robertson, P.J (1992) Organizational development: Theory, practice,

and research In M.D Dunnette & L.M Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol 3) (pp 719–822) Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Rosenthal, R (1976) Experimenter effects in behavior science (enlarged ed.) New

York: Halsted Press.

Schmuck, R.A., & Miles, M.B (Eds.) (1971) Organization development in schools.

Palo Alto, CA: National Press Books.

Smither, R.D., Houston, J.M., & McIntire, S.D (1996) Organization development:

Strategies for changing environments New York: HarperCollins.

CHAPTER TWELVE

Evaluation

Gary N McLean and Steven H Cady

As described in Chapter Two, evaluation is a major step in OD; however, it

is one piece of the model that is frequently omitted or cut short This chap-ter clarifies what evaluation means in OD and describes the importance of evaluation for OD consultants and their clients, barriers to evaluation, issues to consider when planning an evaluation, and evaluation competencies Instru-ments and techniques used for evaluation are explored, along with examples

EVALUATION DEFINED WITHIN A SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE

“Evaluation is a set of planned, information-gathering, and analytical activities undertaken to provide those responsible for the management of change with a sat-isfactory assessment of the effects and/or progress of the change effort.”

—Beckhard & Harris, 1977, p 86.

A commitment to planned evaluation should be made early in the OD process, preferably in the pre-launch phase Planned evaluation allows those involved

to gather and examine data and to judge the value of the OD process on a con-tinuing basis, with the purpose of improving the process or deciding whether

to continue it

Workplace realities rarely facilitate the application of pure research methods, so

OD evaluation “is likely to be more action centered, value based, collaboratively

327

contexted, experientially rooted, situationally responsive, praxis oriented, and self-reflective than the current image” of research (Evered, 1985, p 439) Carefully planned evaluation pays attention to both soft (attitudinal) data, such as job sat-isfaction, and hard (quantitative) data, such as employee turnover rates

The target of an OD evaluation may be the total organization or system, the organization’s relationship with the external world and other organizations (transorganizational interaction), individual development, interpersonal devel-opment, intra-team and inter-team develdevel-opment, or role development These targets for evaluation are an expansion of those shown by Schmuck and Miles (1976) on the z-axis of their OD Cube (See Figure 12.1.)

Evaluation may target either the processes in use during the change effort (see Figure 12.2, the x-axis of the OD Cube by Schmuck & Miles, 1976) or the outcomes of the change effort (see Figure 12.3, the y-axis of the OD Cube)

Figure 12.1 The OD Cube

From R Schmuck & M Miles (1971), Organization Development in Schools In M Miles & R Schmuck

(Eds.), Improving Schools Through OD: An Overview (pp 1-28) Palo Alto, CA: National Press Books Used

by permission of the publisher The OD Cube was originally published in Organization Development in Schools, p 8, 1971 San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company For subsequent development of the OD Cube, see

R Schmuck & P Runkel (1985), The Handbook of Organization Development in Schools (3rd ed.).

Goals, plans Communication Culture, climate Leadership, authority Problem-solving Decision-making Conflict/cooperation Role definition Other

Goals, Plans Communication Culture, Climate Leadership, Authority Problem-Solving Decision-Making Conflict/Cooperation Role Definition Other

Total organization

Total o

aniza tion

Other

Othe

r Person

Perso

n Role

Role Dyad/triad

Dyad

/triad Team/g

roup

Team /gro up

Interg

roup (2 or more)

In rg

up (2

or m or

Total Organization

Other Person Role Dyad/T

riad Team/Group Interg

roup (2 or more)

Other

Plan-making

Confrontation

Data feedback

Problem-solving

Training (education)

Techno-structural activity

Process consultation, coaching

OD task force establishment

Other

Plan-Making

Confrontation

Data Feedback

Problem-Solving

Training (Education)

Techno-Structural Activity

Process Consultation, Coaching

OD Task Force Establishment

FOCUS OF A

TTENTION

Figure 12.2 OD Research Variables—Process

From J Porras & P Berg (1978, August) The Impact of Organization Development Academy of

Man-Group Orientation

Goal Emphasis and Goal Sett

ing

Policies and Procedures Decision Mak

ing

W ork F acilitation Interg roup Relations

Interg roup

Consideration and Concern Impar ting Enthusiasm

Suppor tivene ss Interaction Facilitation

Openness to Influence

Facilitation of Participation Goal Emphasis and Goal Setting Initiating Structure

Problem So lving

and Decision

Making

Work Facilitation Attitudes and V alues Leader-Subor dinate

Relations

Leader-Subor dinate

Interpersonal Relations

Interpersonal

Intimacy

Openness Listening

Awareness andUnderstanding

Self-Actualization a nd

Self-Deve lopment

Structure and Functionin

Trust

Leader

Approachab ility

Mutual Influence Interaction and Communication Peer Suppor

t

Involvement and Motivation Human Resources Primacy Motivat ion

Suppor t

Communication

Influence Leadership

Trust Group Process

Conflict Resolution

Norms

Participation Goal Setting, Consensus

Control Decision Making Integ ration Organizational Climate Systems of Management

Task Oriented

Task Oriented

Task Oriented

People Oriented People

Oriented

People Oriented

Macro Level Behavioral

Psycholog ical

Leader Characteristics

Organization Group

Individual

Leader Process Variables

In whatever context the evaluation occurs, the focus of the evaluation must

be on how the OD process has impacted the total organizational system

When a continuing evaluation effort is made, the following outcomes are likely:

• When management requests information to prove the value of the expenditure for OD, quality data are available or are in the process of being collected

• Participants are more likely to have a positive attitude about OD and about the organization because they have been involved in the evaluation

• The OD endeavor is likely to be more efficient and effective.

• There is likely to be increased quality and productivity in accomplishing organizational objectives

• If there are additional OD needs identified that arise from a lack of orga-nizational support for the changes created by the intervention or any other source, they may be identified and addressed

Figure 12.4 depicts an evaluation model that may be followed when con-ducting a planned evaluation of an OD intervention

Figure 12.3 OD Research Variables—Outcomes

From J Porras & P Berg (1978, August) The Impact of Organization Development Academy of Man-agement Review, p 253 Used by permission of Academy of ManMan-agement Review.

Production Levels ProductionEfficiency

Workforce Efficiency Absenteeism Turnover

Miscellaneous General

With Job Security With Pay

With Work Group With

Supervisor

With Job

With Company

Job Effectiveness

General Performance

Contact Frequency

Leader Performance

Quality of Meetings

Number

or Length

of Meetings

Group Performance

Economic Outcomes

Performance Leader

Performance

Economic Performances

Performance Ratings

Satisfaction

Workforce Characteristics Group Organization

Individual

Outcome Variables