Organization Development and Change- 10th ed - part 1

CHAPTER 4 ENTERING AND CONTRACTING 79 Certainly, OD consulting is as much a person specialization as it is a task specializa- tion. The OD professional needs not only a repertoire of technical skills but also the per- sonality and interpersonal competence to use himself or herself as an instrument of change. Regardless of technical training, the consultant must be able to maintain a boundary position, coordinating among various units and departments and mixing dis- ciplines, theories, technology, and research findings in an organic rather than in a mechanical way. The practitioner is potentially the most important OD technology available. Thus, in selecting an OD practitioner perhaps the most important issue is the fun- damental question, “How effective has the person been in the past, with what kinds of organizations, using what kinds of techniques?” In other words, references must be checked. Interpersonal relationships are tremendously important, but even con artists have excellent interpersonal relationships and skills. The burden of choosing an effective OD practitioner should not rest entirely with the client organization.10 As described in the Ethical Dilemmas section of Chapter 3, consultants also bear a heavy responsibility in finding whether there is a match between their skills and knowledge and what the organization or department needs. Few man- agers are sophisticated enough to detect or to understand subtle differences in expertise among OD professionals, and they often do not understand the difference between inter- vention specialties. Thus, practitioners should help educate potential clients, being explicit about their strengths and weaknesses and their range of competence. If OD pro- fessionals realize that a good match does not exist, they should inform the client and help them find more suitable help. Application 4.1 describes the entering process at Alegent Health, a large health care system in Nebraska and western Iowa. The entry process was largely “virtual” in that the researchers worked through two consultants who were conducting OD interventions on a regular basis. The case highlights how OD work can come in different forms and through different channels. It also reflects how quickly the “entry” process can occur. This is the first in a series of applications based on the Alegent project that will be used throughout the text. 4-2 Developing a Contract The activities of entering an OD relationship are a necessary prelude to developing an OD contract. They define the major focus for contracting, including the relevant parties. Contracting is a natural extension of the entering process and clarifies how the OD pro- cess will proceed. It typically establishes the expectations of the parties, the time and resources that will be expended, and the ground rules under which the parties will operate. The goal of contracting is to make a good decision about how to carry out the OD process.11 It can be relatively informal and involve only a verbal agreement between the client and the OD practitioner. A team leader with OD skills, for example, may voice his or her concerns to members about how the team is functioning. After some discussion, they might agree to devote one hour of future meeting time to diagnosing the team with the help of the leader. Here, entering and contracting are done together, informally. In other cases, contracting can be more protracted and result in a formal document. That typically occurs when organizations employ outside OD practitioners. Government agen- cies, for example, generally have procurement regulations that apply to contracting with outside consultants.12

80 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT ENTERING ALEGENT HEALTH A legent Health (AH) is a five-hospital sys- The form of research is typically action application 4 1 tem that serves the greater Omaha, research, meaning the data will be valuable Nebraska, and western Iowa region. for Alegent in not only assessing the impact Alegent was formed when two religious- and effectiveness of the DA intervention but sponsored health care systems merged to learning how to position this capability for leverage health care industry changes and to improved Alegent organizational effective- bargain more powerfully with physicians and ness. This can be quite valuable as Alegent insurance providers. The system had its own moves into the next round of change and managed care insurance program, was imple- transformation. menting a consumer-directed health care pro- gram for its employees, and had about 100 Thanks all. employed physicians in addition to the physi- cians with privileges at its hospitals. The researchers spent the next few days talking to the two consultants about AH, its Two well-known OD consultants had been history, strategy, structure, and culture, as working with AH for about two years, doing a well as the motivation for the large-group, deci- variety of OD work. By far, the largest project sion accelerator process. They also collected was the design and delivery of large group data on AH through the Internet. Alegent was interventions known as decision accelerators indeed a unique organization. It was highly (DAs) to create strategies for the major clinical successful from a financial point of view, had service areas, such as orthopedics, cardiology, a new CEO who had been brought in from and women’s and children’s services. [Note: Florida, and had a strong faith-based mission. Large group interventions are multistakeholder meetings of over 50 people—see Chapter 11 In the first phone call with the CIO, the for more information.] researchers introduced themselves, described the mission of the research center, and their At an organization design conference in interest in doing a case study of change at April, one of the consultants was talking with Alegent. The CIO talked about the history of researchers from the Center for Effective Orga- change at AH and asked questions about the nizations at USC. The conversation turned to a value the project would have for them. He saw discussion of the work at AH and the possibil- several benefits, including the opportunity to ity of evaluating the change effort. The generate a history of the change, to learn researchers were excited about the organiza- about the impacts of the change process on tion development and large group intervention the organization’s culture and members, and work in the health care context. The consultant to build a database that could be used to agreed to pitch the idea to AH’s Chief Innova- advance AH’s objective of “changing the face tion Officer (CIO). of health care.” The call ended with the agree- ment that the CIO would talk with others in the Following some additional background organization, including the CEO, and that the conversations with the researchers and the researchers should begin to put together a CIO, the consultant sent the following email in project purpose, cost estimate, and schedule. June: In the second call, the researchers presented Dear CIO, their understanding of the project as a case study I would like to introduce you to the Center assessment of how innovation was created and for Effective Organization researchers. As implemented at Alegent. They described a way we discussed, the researchers are very of working with organizations—the establish- interested in the work being done at AH ment of a “study team” composed of several and will be calling you early next week to key stakeholders in the organization. The study discuss the possibility of doing a research team would meet, before the project officially project on the Decision Accelerator effort. began, to review the objectives of the study

CHAPTER 4 ENTERING AND CONTRACTING 81 and ensure that the work was relevant to the organi- verbal agreement that the project should begin in zation. There was some conversation about who October. The CIO believed there was much to gain might be on that team, including the CEO, CFO, the from the project, and asked the Director of the hospital presidents, and the VPs of the clinical service Right Track office (this was the internal name AH areas. had given to the decision accelerator) to lead the contracting process and to help the researchers Subsequent email exchanges among the con- schedule meetings and interviews. sultants, the CIO, and the researchers led to a Regardless of the level of formality, all OD processes require some form of explicit contracting that results in either a verbal or a written agreement. Such contracting clari- fies the client’s and the practitioner’s expectations about how the OD process will take place. Unless there is mutual understanding and agreement about the process, there is considerable risk that someone’s expectations will be unfulfilled.13 That can lead to reduced commitment and support, to misplaced action, or to premature termination of the process. The contracting step in OD generally addresses three key areas:14 setting mutual expectations or what each party expects to gain from the OD process; the time and resources that will be devoted to it; and the ground rules for working together. 4-2a Mutual Expectations This part of the contracting process focuses on the expectations of the client and the OD practitioner. The client states the services and outcomes to be provided by the OD prac- titioner and describes what the organization expects from the process and the consultant. Clients usually can describe the desired outcomes, such as lower costs or higher job sat- isfaction. Encouraging them to state their wants in the form of outcomes, working rela- tionships, and personal accomplishments can facilitate the development of a good contract.15 The OD practitioner also should state what he or she expects to gain from the OD process. This can include opportunities to try new interventions, report the results to other potential clients, and receive appropriate compensation or recognition. 4-2b Time and Resources To accomplish change, the organization and the OD practitioner must commit time and resources to the effort. Each must be clear about how much energy and how many resources will be dedicated to the change process. Failure to make explicit the necessary requirements of a change process can quickly ruin an OD effort. For example, a client may clearly state that the assignment involves diagnosing the causes of poor productivity in a work group. However, the client may expect the practitioner to complete the assign- ment without talking to the workers. Typically, clients want to know how much time will be necessary to complete the assignment, who needs to be involved, how much it will cost, and so on. Peter Block has suggested that resources can be divided into two parts.16 Essential requirements are things that are absolutely necessary if the change process is to be suc- cessful. From the practitioner’s perspective, they can include access to key people or

82 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT information, enough time to do the job, and commitment from certain stakeholder groups. The organization’s essential requirements might include a speedy diagnosis or assurances that the project will be conducted at the lowest price. Being clear about the constraints on carrying out the assignment will facilitate the contracting process and improve the chances for success. Desirable requirements are those things that would be nice to have but are not absolutely necessary, such as access to special resources or writ- ten rather than verbal reports. 4-2c Ground Rules The final part of the contracting process involves specifying how the client and the OD practitioner will work together. The parameters established may include such issues as confidentiality, if and how the OD practitioner will become involved in personal or interpersonal issues, how to terminate the relationship, and whether the practitioner is supposed to make expert recommendations or help the manager make decisions. For internal consultants, organizational politics make it especially important to clarify issues of how to handle sensitive information and how to deliver “bad news.”17 Such process issues are as important as the needed substantive changes. Failure to address the con- cerns may mean that the client or the practitioner has inappropriate assumptions about how the process will unfold. Application 4.2 describes the contracting process for the evaluation project at Alegent Health. In this case, the contracting process was much more complicated than the entry process. What would you list as the strengths and weaknesses of this example? 4-3 Interpersonal Process Issues in Entering and Contracting The previous sections on entering and contracting addressed the activities and content- oriented issues associated with beginning an OD project. In this final section, we discuss the interpersonal issues an OD practitioner must be aware of to produce a successful agreement. In most cases, the client’s expectations, resources, and working relationship requirements will not fit perfectly with the OD practitioner’s essential and desirable requirements. Negotiating the differences to improve the likelihood of success can be personally and interpersonally challenging.18 Entering and contracting are the first exchanges between a client and an OD practi- tioner. Establishing a healthy relationship at the outset makes it more likely that the cli- ent’s desired outcomes will be achieved and that the OD practitioner will be able to improve the organization’s capacity to manage change in the future. As shown in Figure 4.1, this initial stage is full of uncertainty and ambiguity. On the one hand, the client is likely to feel exposed, inadequate, or vulnerable. The organization’s current effectiveness and the request for help may seem to the client like an admission that the organization is incapable of solving the problem or providing the leadership necessary to achieve a set of results. Moreover, clients are entering into a relationship where they may feel unable to control the activities of the OD practitioner. As a result, they feel vulnera- ble because of their dependency on the practitioner to provide assistance. Consciously or unconsciously, feelings of exposure, inadequacy, or vulnerability may lead clients to resist coming to closure on the contract. The OD practitioner must be alert to the signs of resistance, such as asking for extraordinary amounts of detail, and be able to address them skillfully.

CHAPTER 4 ENTERING AND CONTRACTING 83 application 4 2 CONTRACTING WITH ALEGENT HEALTH F ollowing the verbal approval of the CIO to path was the project scheduling—who, when, begin the work, the researchers began and where. working with the Right Track director and the consultants to formulate an agreement FORMAL CONTRACTING PROCESS on how to proceed with the case study and The formal contracting process required the assessment. The contracting process pro- researchers to propose a purpose, cost esti- ceeded on two parallel paths. One path was mate, and schedule for the case study. The the specification of the formal contract—who, researchers’ initial proposal looked like this: what, how much, and why—and the second Work Stream September October November December January • Coding DA archives • Collect DA • Write up materials • First archival round of data • Create interviews coding • Second scheme • Develop round of coding interviews Interviews • Finalize scheme interview • Coding questions • Meet with • Begin “study • Arrange team” analysis of interview interviews schedule • Feedback Governance meeting • Transfer • Article learning to writing organization The first work stream was the DA archives. for interviews, data analysis, and direct The researchers had learned, through the consul- expenses; the support resources expected tants and the Right Track director, that the Right from AH, including the establishment of the Track staff kept nearly verbatim transcripts and study team; a statement about data confidential- descriptions of each of the decision accelerator ity; and some suggested publication outlets. The meetings that took place. Thus, the researchers Right Track director reviewed the document and proposed an analysis of those documents as an asked for some additional detail. As described in important work stream in the process. The second the “Project Scheduling Process” section below, work stream, representing the bulk of the data col- the start date had slipped to early November. lection, would be two rounds of interviews with executives, managers, and staff involved in the Dear Right Track Director, change process. Finally, the project would be gov- erned by a study team that would work to frame We got a message from the consultants that project objectives, receive the feedback and assist you need a little extra “drill down detail” on the in data interpretation, and help to transfer the learn- case study assessment project. We’ve taken ing back to the organization. a stab at such a document and it is attached. In addition to the timeline, the research pro- The document includes a one-page posal outlined the purpose of the project; the description of proposed dates, activities, likely benefits to Alegent; the estimated costs and information to be gathered. Please let me know if this meets your needs.

84 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT The document also lists a set of potential couple of options for using a survey during the questions for the initial round of interviews. interview to collect information that would take There are two issues we could use your guidance too long to collect through just interview ques- on. First, what is the appropriate time frame for tions. Your counsel would be appreciated. questions about strategy? Second, we’ve listed a Thanks. DATA COLLECTION PLAN—RIGHT TRACK ASSESSMENT PROJECT Date Activity Data to Be Collected Day 1 during • Meet with study team members • Executive sense of business strategy, the week of to verify objectives and methods organization design, and Right Track November 6th and refine them in order to impact on organization incorporate sponsor concerns Day 2 during • Broad scoping of the post-RT the week of • Initial interviews with senior implementation/refinement activities November 6th executives* to understand germane to planning remainder of broad strategic context of orga- interviews/data gathering Prior to next visit nization and Right Track process • (Initial draft of questions attached) Potential dates: • Initial interviews with senior November 27, 28 executives* to understand • Executive sense of business strategy, December 4, 5 broad strategic context of organization design, and Right Track December 7, 8 organization and Right Track impact on organization December 13, 14 process Ongoing • Broad scoping of the post-RT • Finalize detailed interview implementation/refinement activities January, 2007 questions for different germane to planning remainder of (date to be stakeholders interviews/data gathering mutually determined) • Validate questions and sam- • (Initial draft of questions attached) pling approach with study team February • Work with Right Track office to • Detailed interviews with RT schedule interviews participants, nonparticipants, service-line managers, and • Details about perceptions of RT other related managers** process, service-line strategies, implementation processes, and • Telephone interviews with key implementation success personnel unavailable during visits to Omaha • Meeting with study team and/ or extended stakeholder group to review and discuss implications of findings • Work with Alegent sponsors to determine a publication strategy *Initial interview sample includes as many of the following as possible: [List of executives and physicians.] **Interview sample for detailed background information includes: [List of executives, managers, and other roles expected to be important.]

CHAPTER 4 ENTERING AND CONTRACTING 85 Shortly thereafter, the Right Track director described above—involved working with the Right sent the following email: Track office to pick dates, schedule interviews, communicate with interviewees, and set up other Center for Effective Organization logistical requirements to begin the study. Following Researchers, a few introductory emails, and based on the CIO’s interest in beginning in October, the researchers Thanks for this added info. I, along with one of sent the following message in early September: my staff members, have taken this along with all the documentation you have sent me to date Hi Right Track Director, and have attempted to create one cohesive doc- ument that can serve as the contract, statement With the CIO’s approval, we’re ready to begin of work, action plan, cost estimate, etc … This the Right Track assessment project. The con- document is attached for your review. sultants and the researchers are very excited about the effort. We need your help to set up I have also tried to answer some of the the first couple of days in October, ideally on outstanding questions we have had in this doc- the 17th and 18th. ument and have tried to further narrow the onsite dates and activities to include the inter- On the 17th, we’d like to have a meeting view list and the two questions you mentioned of the “study team.” This can be in the morn- below. On your questions I think the two-year ing or afternoon, whichever best fits into the window is appropriate and I preferred option 2 CIO’s schedule. which is incorporated in the attached. The balance of the 17th and all day on the Please review this latest document and pro- 18th should be 60-minute interviews with the vide any feedback and/or changes you might senior leadership of Alegent. Based on our dis- have to us all. I will be out of town for a few cussions with the consultants and the CIO, the days but my staff can keep the process moving list for the initial round of interviews would be through Legal and the CIO’s office in my absence. 10 to 12 of the following people: I can also be reached via cell phone through the rest of the week as needed. [List of top 15 executives and 7 key physicians] Thanks. Thanks for your help. The attachment referred to in the Right Track director’s email was a standard, corporate consulting In response, the Right Track director sent back contract, with the researchers’ proposal and revised the following email: schedule attached as the scope of work. Within the standard contract was a paragraph noting that all sur- Center for Effective Organizations veys, data, and documents created during the project Researchers, would become the exclusive property of the Alegent Health corporation. The paragraph directly contra- Welcome aboard and looking forward to dicted the confidentiality statement in the research- working with you on this effort. Is there a spe- ers’ proposal. A number of conversations among cific reason you are targeting 10/17 & 18? I the consultants, the researchers, and the different ask because there is a DA scheduled those Alegent departments ensued. Eventually, a para- two days that some of these folks are sup- graph was written that was satisfactory to all parties posed to be in and that I will be helping to and allowed for the researchers to use the data in support. It is actually an external group, their publications, but also gave Alegent the right to namely the Boy Scouts. Are you planning to review, edit, and approve any articles, chapters, or come that week because of that or is this just descriptions of the organization change effort. a coincidence? My contact info is enclosed. PROJECT SCHEDULING PROCESS Thanks. The project scheduling process—which was done Thus, there was some initial confusion on the in parallel with the formal contracting process start date of the project, and subsequent phone calls and emails clarified that starting the project in November would be a better fit for the Alegent orga- nization. Some initial dates that fit in the researchers’

86 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT schedule were not good for the AH executives and researchers flew to Omaha to begin the interview- physicians, while dates that were good for AH didn’t ing process. In the rush to schedule interviews, fit with the researchers’ schedule. make travel arrangements, and finalize the inter- view questions and survey items, the meeting of Eventually, the beginning of the project was the “study team” was overlooked. pushed back to early December, and the FIGURE 4.1 Factors Affecting Client-Practitioner Dynamics SOURCE: B. Jones and M. Brazzel (editors), The NTL Handbook of Organization Development & Change, Pfeiffer, 2006, Figure 10.2, pp. 177–91. Reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons Inc. On the other hand, the OD practitioner may have feelings of empathy, unworthi- ness, and dependency. The practitioner may over-identify with the client’s issues and want to be so helpful that he or she agrees to unreasonable deadlines or inadequate resources. The practitioner’s desire to be seen as competent and worthy may lead to an agreement on a project for which the practitioner has few skills or experience. Finally, in response to reasonable client requests, the practitioner may challenge the client’s motivation and become defensive. Schein noted that OD practitioners too often underestimate or ignore the power and impact of entry and contracting as an intervention in their own right.19 With even the simplest request for help, there are a myriad of things the OD practitioner, entering a system for the first time, does not know. Establishing a relationship with a client must be approached carefully; the initial contacts and conversations must represent a model of how the OD process will be

CHAPTER 4 ENTERING AND CONTRACTING 87 conducted. As a result, actually coming to agreement during the contracting phase can be difficult and intense. A number of complex emotional and psychological issues are in play, and OD practitioners must be mindful of their own as well as the client’s per- spectives. Attending to those issues as well as to the content of the contract will help increase the likelihood of success. SUMMARY Entering and contracting constitute the initial activities practitioner. Developing an OD contract focuses on of the OD process. They set the parameters for the making a good decision about whether to proceed phases of planned change that follow: diagnosing, plan- and allows both the client and the OD practitioner to ning and implementing change, and evaluating and clarify expectations about how the change process will institutionalizing it. Organizational entry involves clar- unfold. Contracting involves setting mutual expecta- ifying the organizational issue or presenting problem, tions, negotiating time and resources, and developing determining the relevant client, and selecting an OD ground rules for working together. NOTES 5. Block, Flawless Consulting. 6. D. Jamieson, “Pre-Launch,” in Practicing Organization 1. M. Lacey, “Internal Consulting: Perspectives on the Process of Planned Change,” Journal of Organization Development, 2nd ed., ed. W. Rothwell and R. Sullivan Change Management 8, no. 3 (1995): 75–84; J. Geirland (San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2005); J. Fordyce and R. Weil, and M. Maniker-Leiter, “Five Lessons for Internal Orga- Managing WITH People, 2nd ed. (Reading, MA: nization Development Consultants,” OD Practitioner 27 Addison-Wesley, 1979). (1995): 44–48; A. Freedman and R. Zackrison, Finding 7. Beer, Organization Change and Development; Fordyce Your Way in the Consulting Jungle (San Francisco: and Weil, Managing WITH People. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, 2001). 8. L. Forcella, “Marketing Competency and Consulting Competency for External OD Practitioners” (unpublished 2. P. Block, Flawless Consulting: A Guide to Getting Your master’s thesis, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA, Expertise Used, 3rd ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003). 2011); C. Margerison, “Consulting Activities in Organiza- 9. G. Lippitt, “Criteria for Selecting, Evaluating, and Devel- tional Change,” Journal of Organizational Change Man- oping Consultants,” Training and Development Journal agement 1 (1988): 60–67; R. Harrison, “Choosing the 28 (August 1972): 10–15. Depth of Organizational Intervention,” Journal of Applied 10. Greiner and Metzger, Consulting to Management. Behavioral Science 6 (1970): 182–202. 11. Block, Flawless Consulting; Gallant and Rios, “Entry and Contracting Phase,” in The NTL Handbook of Organiza- 3. S. Gallant and D. Rios, “Entry and Contracting Phase,” in tion Development and Change; Beer, Organization The NTL Handbook of Organization Development and Change and Development. Change, ed. B. Jones and M. Brazzel (San Francisco: 12. T. Cody, Management Consulting: A Game Without Pfeiffer, 2006); M. Beer, Organization Change and Chips (Fitzwilliam, NH: Kennedy and Kennedy, 1986), Development: A Systems View (Santa Monica, CA: 108–16; H. Holtz, How to Succeed as an Independent Goodyear, 1980); G. Lippitt and R. Lippitt, The Consult- Consultant, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, ing Process in Action, 2nd ed. (San Diego: University 1988), 145–61. Associates, 1986). 13. G. Bellman, The Consultant’s Calling (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990). 4. L. Greiner and F. Poulfelt, Management Consulting Today and Tomorrow (New York: Routledge, 2010); L. Greiner and R. Metzger, Consulting to Management (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1983), 251–58; Beer, Organiza- tion Change and Development, 81–83.

88 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT 14. M. Weisbord, “The Organization Development Con- 17. Lacey, “Internal Consulting.” tract,” Organization Development Practitioner 5 (1973): 18. S. Pellegrinelli, “Managing the Interplay and Tensions of 1–4; M. Weisbord, “The Organization Contract Revis- ited,” Consultation 4 (Winter 1985): 305–15; D. Nadler, Consulting Interventions. The Consultant-Client Rela- Feedback and Organization Development: Using Data- tionship as Mediation and Reconciliation,” Journal of Based Methods (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1977), Management Development 21 (2002): 343–65. 110–14. 19. E. Schein, “Taking Culture Seriously in Organization Development: A New Role for OD” (working paper no. 15. Block, Flawless Consulting. 4287–03, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, 16. Ibid. Mass, 2003).

© Pixmann/Imagezoo/ 5 Getty Images Diagnosing learning Discuss the philosophy and purpose of diagnosis in organization objectives development (OD). Explain the role of diagnostic models in OD, especially the open-systems model. Describe and apply organization-level diagnostic processes. Describe and apply group-level diagnostic processes. Describe and apply individual-level diagnostic processes. Diagnosing is the second major phase in the intended to improve organizational functioning. general model of planned change described (Chapters 10–20 present the major interventions in Chapter 2 (Figure 2.2). It follows the enter- used in OD today.) ing and contracting stage (Chapter 4) and precedes the planning and implementation phase. When This and the next chapter describe different done well, diagnosis clearly points the organization aspects of the diagnostic process. This chapter and the organization development (OD) practitioner presents a general definition of diagnosis and toward a set of appropriate intervention activities discusses the need for diagnostic models in guiding that will improve organization effectiveness. the process. Diagnostic models derive from conceptions about how organizations function, Diagnosis is the process of understanding a and they tell OD practitioners what to look for system’s current functioning. It involves collecting in diagnosing organizations, groups, or jobs. They pertinent information about existing operations as serve as a road map for discovering current well as analyzing those data and drawing con- functioning. A general, comprehensive diagnostic clusions about the reasons for current performance model is presented based on open-systems and the potential for change and improvement. theory. We then describe and apply the model to Effective diagnosis provides the systematic know- diagnostic situations at the organization, group, ledge of the organization needed to design app- and job levels. Chapter 6 completes the diagnostic ropriate interventions. Thus, OD interventions phase by discussing processes of data collection, derive from diagnosis and include specific actions analysis, and feedback. 89

90 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT 5-1 What Is Diagnosis? Diagnosis is the process of understanding how the organization is currently functioning, and it provides the information necessary to design change interventions.1 It generally follows from successful entry and contracting, which set the stage for successful diagno- sis. Those processes help OD practitioners and client members jointly determine which organizational issues to focus on, how to collect and analyze data to understand them, and how to work together to develop action steps from the diagnosis. In another sense, diagnosis is happening all the time. Managers, organization members, and OD practi- tioners are always trying to understand the drivers of organization effectiveness as well as how and why changes are proceeding in a particular way. Unfortunately, the term diagnosis can be misleading when applied to organizations. It suggests a model of organization change analogous to the medical model of diagnosis: An organization (patient) experiencing problems seeks help from an OD practitioner (doctor); the practitioner examines the organization, finds the causes of the problems, and prescribes a solution. Diagnosis in organization development, however, is much more collaborative than such a medical perspective implies and does not accept the implicit assumption that something is wrong with the organization. First, the values and ethical beliefs that underlie OD suggest that both organization members and OD practitioners should be involved in discovering the determinants of current organization effectiveness. Similarly, both should be involved actively in develop- ing appropriate interventions and implementing them. For example, a manager might seek an OD practitioner’s help to reduce absenteeism in his or her department. The manager and an OD consultant jointly might decide to diagnose the cause of the prob- lem by examining company absenteeism records and by interviewing selected employees about possible reasons for absenteeism. Alternatively, they might examine employee loy- alty and discover the organizational elements that encourage people to stay. Analysis of those data could uncover determinants of absenteeism or loyalty in the department, thus helping the manager and the OD practitioner jointly to develop an appropriate interven- tion to address the issue. Second, the medical model of diagnosis also implies that something is wrong with the patient and that one needs to uncover the cause of the illness. In those cases where organizations do have specific problems, diagnosis can be problem oriented, seeking rea- sons for the problems. On the other hand, as suggested by the absenteeism example above, the OD practitioner and the client may choose one of the newer views of organi- zation change and frame the issue positively. Additionally, the client and the OD practi- tioner may be looking for ways to enhance the organization’s existing functioning. Many managers involved with OD are not experiencing specific organizational problems. Here, diagnosis is development oriented. It assesses the current functioning of the organization to discover areas for future development. For example, a manager might be interested in using OD to improve a department that already seems to be functioning well. Diagnosis might include an overall assessment of both the task performance capabilities of the department and the impact of the department on its individual members. This process seeks to uncover specific areas for future development of the department’s effectiveness. In organization development, diagnosis is used more broadly than a medical defini- tion would suggest. It is a collaborative process between organization members and the OD practitioner to collect pertinent information, analyze it, and draw conclusions for action planning and intervention. Diagnosis may be aimed at uncovering the causes of specific problems, focused on understanding effective processes, or directed at assessing the overall functioning of the organization or department to discover areas for future

CHAPTER 5 DIAGNOSING 91 development. Diagnosis provides a systematic understanding of organizations so that appropriate interventions may be developed for solving problems and enhancing effectiveness. 5-2 The Need for Diagnostic Models Entry and contracting processes can result in a need to understand either a whole system or some part, process, or feature of the organization. To diagnose an organization, OD practitioners and organization members need to have an idea about what informa- tion to collect and analyze. Choices about what to look for invariably depend on how organizations are conceived. Such conceptions can vary from intuitive hunches to scien- tific explanations of how organizations function. Conceptual frameworks that OD practi- tioners use to understand organizations are referred to as “diagnostic models.” They describe the relationships among different features of the organization, as well as its environment and its effectiveness. As a result, diagnostic models point out what areas to examine and what questions to ask in assessing how an organization is functioning. However, all models represent simplifications of reality and therefore emphasize cer- tain organizational features as critical while ignoring other features. Focusing attention on particular features, often to the exclusion of others, can result in a biased diagnosis. For example, a diagnostic model that relates team effectiveness to the handling of inter- personal conflict would lead an OD practitioner to ask questions about relationships among members, decision-making processes, and conflict resolution methods. Although relevant, those questions ignore other group issues such as member skills and knowledge, the complexity of the tasks performed by the group, and task interdependencies. Thus, OD practitioners must choose diagnostic models and processes carefully to address the organization’s presenting problems as well as to ensure comprehensiveness. Potential diagnostic models are everywhere. Any collection of concepts and relation- ships that attempts to represent a system or explain its effectiveness can potentially qual- ify as a diagnostic model. Major sources of diagnostic models in OD are the thousands of articles and books that discuss, describe, and analyze how organizations function. They provide information about how and why certain organizational systems, processes, or functions are effective. The studies often concern a specific facet of organizational behav- ior, such as employee stress, leadership, motivation, problem solving, group dynamics, job design, and career development. They also can involve the larger organization and its context, including the environment, strategy, structure, and culture. Diagnostic mod- els can be derived from that information by noting the dimensions or variables that are associated with an organization’s effectiveness. Another source of diagnostic models is OD practitioners’ experience in organiza- tions. So-called “field knowledge” offers a wealth of practical information about how organizations operate. Unfortunately, only a small part of that vast experience has been translated into diagnostic models that represent the professional judgments of people with years of experience in organizational diagnosis. The models generally link diagnosis with specific organizational processes, such as group problem solving, employee motiva- tion, or communication between managers and employees. The models list specific ques- tions for diagnosing such processes. This chapter presents a general framework for diagnosing organizations rather than trying to cover the range of OD diagnostic models. The framework describes the systems perspective prevalent in OD today and integrates several of the more popular diagnostic models. The systems model provides a useful starting point for diagnosing organizations,

92 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT groups, and individual jobs. (Chapters 10–20 present additional diagnostic models that are linked to specific OD interventions.) 5-3 Open-Systems Model This section introduces systems theory, a set of concepts and relationships describing the properties and behaviors of things called systems—organizations, groups, and jobs, for example. Systems are viewed as unitary wholes composed of parts or subsystems; the sys- tem serves to integrate the parts into a functioning unit. For example, organization systems are composed of groups or departments, such as sales, operations, and finance. The organization serves to coordinate behaviors of its departments so that they function together in service of an organization goal or strategy. The general framework that underlies most of the diagnosing in OD is called the “open-systems model.” 5-3a Organizations as Open Systems As shown in Figure 5.1, the open-systems model recognizes that organizations exist in the context of a larger environment that affects how the organization performs, and, in turn, is affected by how the organization interacts with it. The model suggests that organizations acquire specific inputs from the environment and transform them using social and technical processes. The outputs of the transformation process are returned to the environment and information about the consequences of those outputs serve as feedback to the organization’s functioning. The open-systems model also suggests that organizations and their subsystems— groups and individual jobs—share a number of common features that explain how they are organized and how they function. For example, open systems display a hierarchical ordering. Each higher level of system is composed of lower-level systems: Systems at the level of society are comprised of organizations; organizations are comprised of groups; and groups are comprised of individual jobs. Although systems at different levels vary in many ways—in size and complexity, for example—they have a number of common characteristics by virtue of being open systems. The following open-systems properties are described below: environments; inputs, transformations, and outputs; boundaries; feedback; and alignment. FIGURE 5.1 The Open-Systems Model © Cengage Learning 2015

CHAPTER 5 DIAGNOSING 93 Environments Environments are everything outside of the system that can directly or indirectly affect its outputs. Open systems, such as organizations and groups, exchange information and resources with their environments. Because these external forces influ- ence the system, organizations cannot completely control their own behavior. Organiza- tions, for example, are affected by such environmental conditions as the availability of labor and human capital, raw material, customer demands, competition, and government regulations. Understanding how these external forces affect the organization can help to explain some of its internal behavior. Inputs, Transformations, and Outputs Organizational systems are composed of three related properties: inputs, transformations, and outputs. Inputs consist of human capital or other resources, such as information, energy, and materials, coming into the system from the environment. For example, a manufacturing organization acquires raw materials from an outside supplier. Similarly, a hospital nursing unit acquires informa- tion concerning a patient’s condition from the attending physician. In each case, the system (organization or nursing unit) obtains resources (raw materials or information) from its environment. Transformations are the processes of converting inputs into outputs. In organiza- tions, a production or operations function composed of both social and technological components generally carries out transformations. The social component consists of peo- ple and their work relationships, whereas the technological component involves tools, techniques, and methods of production or service delivery. Organizations have developed elaborate mechanisms for transforming incoming resources into goods and services. Banks, for example, transform deposits into mortgage loans and interest income. Schools attempt to transform students into more educated people. Transformation processes also can take place at the group and individual levels. For example, research and development departments can transform the latest scientific advances into new product ideas, and bank tellers can transform customer requests into valued services. Outputs are the results of what is transformed by the system and sent to the environ- ment. Thus, inputs that have been transformed represent outputs that leave the system. Group health insurance companies receive premiums and medical bills, transform them through record keeping, and export payments to hospitals and physicians. Boundaries The idea of boundaries helps to distinguish between organizational sys- tems and their environments. Boundaries—the borders or limits of the system—help to protect or buffer the organization’s transformation process from external disruptions; they also assure that the right inputs enter the organization and the relevant outputs leave it. An organizational system’s boundaries can vary in permeability, with some sys- tems, such as a highly cohesive work team on the shop floor, being relatively closed to the environment and other systems, such as a field sales force, being open to external forces. Organizational boundaries are determined not only by physical location, but also can be defined for managerial, technical, or social purposes. For example, to facilitate managerial control, a department’s boundaries could encompass all members reporting to a common administrator; to promote a smooth workflow, the department’s bound- aries might include suppliers, employees, and customers located along a common supply chain; or to foster cohesion among members, the department’s boundaries could embrace those members sharing particular social connections and attitudes. Because organizational boundaries can serve different purposes, OD practitioners may need to determine early in the OD process if the client system’s boundaries are appropriate for the intended purpose of the change effort. This may result in redefining or changing the

94 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT client’s boundaries before diagnosing begins. For example, the boundaries that identify a particular client system on an organization chart might be well suited for addressing leadership issues in that unit. However, the client system’s boundaries might have to be enlarged to include other related departments if the intent of OD is to improve coordi- nation among interdependent work groups. Feedback As shown in Figure 5.1, feedback is information regarding the actual per- formance or the outputs of the system. Not all such information is feedback, however. Only information used to control the future functioning of the system is considered feedback. Feedback can be used to maintain the system in a steady state (for example, keeping an assembly line running at a certain speed) or to help the organization adapt to changing circumstances. McDonald’s, for example, has strict feedback processes to ensure that a meal in one outlet is as similar as possible to a meal in any other outlet. On the other hand, a salesperson in the field may report that sales are not going well and may insist on some organizational change to improve sales. A market-research study may lead the marketing department to recommend a change to the organiza- tion’s advertising campaign. Alignment How well a system’s different parts and elements align with each other partly determines its overall effectiveness. This alignment or fit concerns the relation- ships between the organization and its environment as well as among the components that comprise the design of the organization. Alignment represents the extent to which the features and operations of one component support the effectiveness of another com- ponent. Just as the teeth in the wheels of a watch must mesh perfectly for the watch to keep time, so do the parts of an organizational system need to mesh for it to be effective. Diagnosing environmental relationships and the interactions among the various compo- nents of an organizational system requires taking “a systemic perspective.” This view suggests that diagnosing often involves the search for misalignments among the various parts of an organizational system. 5-3b Diagnosing Organizational Systems When viewed as open systems, organizations can be diagnosed at three levels. The high- est level is the overall organization and includes the company’s strategy, structure, and processes. Large organization units, such as divisions, subsidiaries, or strategic business units, also can be diagnosed at that level. The next lowest level is the group or depart- ment, which includes group design and methods for structuring interactions among members, such as norms and work schedules. The lowest level is the individual position or job. This includes ways in which jobs are designed to elicit required task behaviors. Diagnosis can occur at all three organizational levels, or it may be limited to issues occurring at a particular level. The key to effective diagnosis is knowing what to look for at each level as well as how the levels affect each other.2 For example, diagnosing a work group requires knowledge of the variables important for group functioning and how the larger organization design affects the group. In fact, a basic understanding of organization-level issues is important in almost any diagnosis because they serve as criti- cal inputs to understanding groups and jobs. Figure 5.2 presents a comprehensive model for diagnosing these different organizational systems. For each level, it shows (1) the inputs that the system has to work with, (2) the key components for designing the system to create, and (3) the system’s outputs. The relation- ships shown in Figure 5.2 illustrate how each organization level affects the lower levels.

CHAPTER 5 DIAGNOSING 95 FIGURE 5.2 Comprehensive Model for Diagnosing Organizational Systems © Cengage Learning 2015 The environment is the key input to organization design decisions. Organization design is an input to group design, which in turn serves as an input to job design. These cross-level relationships emphasize that organizational levels must fit with each other if the organization is to operate effectively. For example, organization structure must fit with and support group task design, which in turn must fit with individual-job design.

96 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT The following sections of this chapter address diagnosing at each of the three levels—organization, group, and individual job. General overviews of the dimensions (and their relationships) that need to be understood at each level are presented. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to describe in detail the many variables and relation- ships reported in the extensive literature on organizations. However, specific diagnostic questions are identified and concrete examples are included as an introduction to this phase of the planned change process. 5-4 Organization-Level Diagnosis The organization level of analysis is the broadest systems perspective typically taken in diagnostic activities. (In some cases, OD is applied to a multiorganization system; those change processes are discussed in Chapter 20 on Transorganizational Change.) The model shown in Figure 5.2 is similar to other popular organization-level diagnostic models. These include Weisbord’s six-box model,3 Nadler and Tushman’s congruency model,4 Galbraith’s star model,5 and Kotter’s organization dynamics model.6 Figure 5.2 shows that an organization’s design components represent the way the organization organizes itself within an environment (inputs) to achieve specific results (outputs).7 To understand how a total organization functions, it is necessary to examine particular inputs, design components, and the alignment of the two sets of dimensions. 5-4a Inputs Figure 5.2 shows that three key inputs or environmental types affect the way an organi- zation is designed. We first describe these environments and then identify environmental dimensions that influence how organizations respond to external forces. Environmental Types Three classes of environments influence how organizations function and achieve results: the general environment, the task environment, and the enacted environment.8 The general environment consists of all external forces that can directly or indirectly affect an organization.9 The general environment can include a variety of social, techno- logical, economic, ecological, and political/regulatory forces. These forces may interact in unique and unpredictable ways, presenting the organization with challenging threats and opportunities. Each of the forces also can affect the organization in both direct and indi- rect ways. For example, an organization may have trouble obtaining raw materials from a supplier because a national union is grieving the supplier’s employment practices, a government regulator is bringing a lawsuit against the supplier, or a consumer group is boycotting the supplier’s products. Thus, parts of the general environment can affect the organization without having any direct connection to it. The task environment is another important organization input. Michael Porter defined an organization’s task environment in terms of industry structure represented by five forces: supplier power, buyer power, threats of substitutes, threats of entry, and rivalry among competitors.10 First, an organization must be sensitive to powerful suppli- ers who can increase prices (and therefore lower profits) or force the organization to pay more attention to the supplier’s needs than to its own needs. For example, unions represent powerful suppliers of labor that can affect the costs of any organization within an industry. Second, a firm must respond to powerful buyers. Powerful retailers, such as Walmart and Costco, can force Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, or other

CHAPTER 5 DIAGNOSING 97 suppliers to lower prices or deliver their products in particular ways. Third, an organiza- tion must be sensitive to the threat of new firms entering into competition. Profits in the restaurant business tend to be low because of the ease of starting a new restaurant. Fourth, a company must respond to the threat of new products or services that can replace existing offerings. Ice cream producers must carefully monitor their costs and prices because it is easy for a consumer to purchase frozen yogurt or other types of desserts instead. Finally, an organization must be sensitive to rivalry among existing competitors. If many organizations are competing for the same customers, then the orga- nization must be responsive to product offerings, costs, and structures if it is to survive and prosper. Together, these five forces play an important role in determining an orga- nization’s success, whether it is a manufacturing or service firm, a nonprofit organiza- tion, or a government agency. While the general environment and the task environment describe the objective pressures an organization faces, the organization must first recognize those forces. The enacted environment consists of organization members’ perception and representation of the general and task environments. Environments must be perceived before they can influence decisions about how to respond to them.11 Organization members must actively observe, register, and make sense of the environment before it can affect their decisions about what actions to take. Thus, only the enacted environment can affect which organizational responses are chosen. The general and task environments, however, influence whether those responses are successful or ineffective. For example, members may perceive customers as relatively satisfied with their products and may decide to make only token efforts at developing new products. If those perceptions are wrong and customers are dissatisfied with existing products, the meager product development efforts can have disastrous organizational consequences. As a result, an organization’s enacted environment should accurately reflect its general and task environments if mem- bers’ decisions and actions are to be effective.12 Environmental Dimensions In addition to understanding what inputs are at work, the environment can be understood in terms of its rate of change and complexity.13 The rate of change in an organization’s general environment or task environment can be characterized along a dynamic–static continuum. Dynamic environments change rap- idly and unpredictably while static environments change more slowly and expectedly. The complexity of the environment refers to the number of different elements in the gen- eral and task environments that can significantly affect the organization. Some organiza- tions, such as software development firms, face dynamic and complex environments. Not only do technologies, regulations, customers, and suppliers change rapidly, but also all of them are important to the firm’s survival. On the other hand, other organizations, such as manufacturers of glass containers, face more stable and less complex environments. A useful way to understand how the rate of change and complexity of environments influence organizations is to view environments as information flows that organizations need to process to discover how to relate to their environments.14 The key dimension of the environment affecting information processing is information uncertainty, or the degree to which environmental information is ambiguous. Organizations seek to remove uncertainty from the environment so that they know how to transact with it. For exam- ple, organizations may try to discern customer needs through focus groups and surveys and attempt to understand competitor strategies through press releases, sales force beha- viors, and knowledge of key personnel. The greater an organization environment’s rate of change and complexity, the more information uncertainty the organization faces, and consequently, the more information the organization must process to learn about the

98 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT environment.15 Thus, dynamic and complex environments pose difficult information- processing problems for organizations. For example, global competition, technological change, and financial markets have created highly uncertain environments for many multinational firms and have severely strained their information-processing capacity. 5-4b Design Components Figure 5.2 shows that an organization’s design is composed of four components—technology, structure, management processes, and human resources systems. It is surrounded by an inter- mediate input—strategy—and an intermediate output—culture—that need to be considered along with the organization’s design. Effective organizations align their strategy to environ- mental inputs and then fit the design components to each other to support the strategy and to jointly promote strategic behaviors. (Chapter 18 describes strategy and organization design interventions.) A strategy represents the way an organization uses its resources (human, economic, or technical) to achieve its goals and to gain a competitive advantage in a particular environ- ment.16 Because strategy defines how an organization positions itself to compete in an environment, it is shown in Figure 5.2 as an intermediate input between the environment and the four design components. A complete statement of strategy includes the organiza- tion’s mission, goals and objectives, strategic intent, and functional policies.17 An organiza- tion’s mission defines the long-term purpose of the organization, the range of products or services offered, the markets served, and the societal needs addressed. Goals and objectives include specific targets for achieving strategic success. They provide explicit direction, set organization priorities, provide guidelines for management decisions, and serve as the cor- nerstone for organizing activities and setting standards of achievement. “Strategic intent” is a succinct label or metaphor that describes how the organization intends to leverage three resource dimensions—breadth, aggressiveness, and differentiation—to achieve its goals and objectives. For example, in 2013, a turnaround strategic intent drove Nokia’s goals of restoring financial confidence. That turnaround can be characterized by a narrower (as opposed to broader) focus on specific markets and products, increased aggressiveness dem- onstrated by its marketing expenditures and internal cost reductions, and improved differ- entiation through its alliance with Microsoft and its Windows 8 operating system. Finally, functional policies are the methods, procedures, rules, or administrative practices that guide decision making and convert strategic plans into actions. In the semiconductor busi- ness, for example, Intel had a policy of allocating about 30% of revenues to research and development to maintain its lead in microprocessors production.18 (Chapters 18 and 19 describe strategy interventions.) Technology is concerned with the way an organization converts inputs into products and services. It represents the core transformation process and includes production methods, workflow, and equipment. Two features of the technological core have been shown to influence other design components: technical interdependence and technical uncertainty.19 Technical interdependence involves the extent to which the different parts of a technological system are related. High interdependence requires considerable coordination among tasks, such as might occur when departments must work together to bring out a new product. Technical uncertainty refers to the amount of information processing and decision making required during task performance. Generally, when tasks require high amounts of information processing and decision making, they are difficult to plan and routinize. The technology of car manufacturing is relatively certain and moderately interdependent. As a result, automobile manufacturers can specify in advance the behaviors workers should exhibit and how their work should be coordinated.

CHAPTER 5 DIAGNOSING 99 Structure is the basic organizing mode for (1) dividing the overall work of an orga- nization into subunits that can assign tasks to groups or individuals and (2) coordinating these subunits for completion of the overall work.20 Structure, therefore, needs to be closely aligned with the organization’s technology. Organization structure can divide work by function (e.g., accounting, sales, or production), by product or service (e.g., Chevrolet, GMC, or Cadillac), by customer (e.g., large, medium, or small enter- prise), or by some combination of both (e.g., a matrix composed of functional depart- ments and product groupings). Structures can coordinate work across subunits through the managerial hierarchy or a variety of lateral mechanisms, such as plans and schedules, budgets, project managers, liaison positions, integrators, cross-departmental task forces, and matrix relationships. The amount of coordination required in a structure is a func- tion of (1) the amount of uncertainty in the environment, (2) the degree to which sub- units differ from each other, and (3) the amount of interdependence among subunits.21 As uncertainty, subunit difference, and interdependence increase, more sophisticated coordinating devices are required.22 (Chapter 12 discusses structural interventions.) Management processes are methods for processing information, making decisions, and controlling the operation of the organization. They help the organization to understand how well it is performing, to detect and control deviations from goals, to make relevant decisions, and to communicate the results. Closely related to structural coordination, management processes monitor organizational operations and feed data about work activities to managers and members so that they can better understand current perfor- mance, make relevant decisions, and coordinate work. Effective information, decision making, and control systems are linked closely to strategic objectives; provide accurate, understandable, and timely information; are accepted as legitimate by organization mem- bers; and produce benefits in excess of their cost. Human resources systems include mechanisms for selecting, developing, appraising, and rewarding organization members. These influence the mix of skills, personal characteristics, and behaviors of organization members. An organization’s strategy and technology provide important information about the skills and knowledge required if the organization is to be successful. Appraisal processes identify whether those skills and knowledge are being applied to the work, and reward systems complete the cycle by recognizing performance that contributes to goal achievement. Reward systems may be tied to measurement systems so that rewards are allocated based on measured results. (Chapters 15, 16, and 17 discuss specific human resources systems, such as rewards and career development.) Organization culture represents the basic assumptions, values, and norms shared by organization members.23 Those cultural elements are generally taken for granted and serve to guide members’ perceptions, thoughts, and actions. For example, McDonald’s culture emphasizes efficiency, speed, and consistency. It orients employees to company goals and suggests the kinds of behaviors necessary for success. In Figure 5.2, culture is shown as an intermediate output from the four design components because it represents both an outcome and a constraint. Culture initially derives from an organization foun- der’s values and is reinforced and sustained through organization selection and socializa- tion processes. It is also an outcome of the organization’s history and environment as well as of prior choices made about the strategy, technology, structure, management pro- cesses, and human resources systems. Because organization culture is personally internal- ized, it can be difficult to change and can restrict an organization’s ability to change its strategy and organization design components.24 In that sense, culture can either hinder or facilitate organization change. In diagnosing organizations, the culture needs to be understood well enough to determine its alignment with the organization’s strategy and the four design components. (Chapter 18 discusses culture change in more detail.)

100 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT 5-4c Outputs The outputs of organization design are measures of how well the design contributes to organization effectiveness. This can include three kinds of outcomes. First, organization performance refers to financial outcomes, such as sales, profits, return on investment (ROI), or earnings per share (EPS). For nonprofit and government agencies, perfor- mance often refers to the extent to which costs were lowered or budgets met. Second, productivity concerns internal measurements of efficiency, such as sales per employee, waste, error rates, quality, or units produced per hour. Third, stakeholder satisfaction reflects how well the organization has met the expectations of different groups having an interest in the organization. For example, customer loyalty can be measured in terms of market share or focus-group data; employee engagement can be measured in terms of an opinion survey; investor satisfaction can be measured in terms of stock price or analyst opinions; and environmental sustainability can be measured by the orga- nization’s carbon footprint. 5-4d Alignment Diagnosing the effectiveness of an organization requires knowledge of the above ele- ments to determine the alignment or fit among them. 1. Does the organization’s strategy fit with the inputs? To be effective, an organi- zation’s strategy needs to be responsive to the general and task environments. They include external forces, threats, and opportunities that need to be consid- ered in making strategic choices about mission, goals and objectives, strategic intent, and functional policies. The organization makes those choices based on members’ perceptions of the environment (the enacted environment). Thus, the organization’s information-processing and strategy-making capabilities must match the information uncertainty of the general and task environments if the organization’s perceptions and strategic choices are to accurately reflect external realities. Environments that change rapidly and are complex are highly uncertain. In these situations, organizations need to constantly process information and monitor wide segments of their environments; their strategy-making process needs to be flexible resulting in strategic choices that can quickly be adapted to changing external conditions. (Chapter 19 describes dynamic strategy-making interventions.) Conversely, organizations can periodically assess selected parts of the environment and make strategic choices that are stable over moderate to long periods of time when the information uncertainty of their general and task envir- onments is relatively low. 2. Do the organization design components fit with each other to jointly support the strategy? For example, if the organization’s strategy is highly flexible and responsive to environmental change, then the design components must mutually support and reinforce agile and adaptable organizational behaviors. Successful firms in Silicon Valley, such as Apple and Oracle, tend to have flexible strategies that promote inno- vation and change. Their organization design components include leading-edge technologies that are complex and uncertain; flexible structures that emphasize agil- ity and fast responses; management processes that provide rapid information and feedback and promote employee decision making; human resource policies that select, develop, and reward talented employees. These flexible and agile firms have organization cultures that value technical sophistication, member commitment, invention, and customer loyalty.

CHAPTER 5 DIAGNOSING 101 5-4e Analysis Application 5.1 describes the Steinway organization and provides an opportunity to per- form an organization-level analysis.25 A useful starting point is to examine outputs and to ask about the organization’s current effectiveness. Steinway has excellent market share in the high-quality segment of the grand piano market, a string of improving financial measures, and strong customer loyalty. However, the data on employee satisfaction are mixed; there are both long-tenured people and an indication that some workers are leav- ing for other jobs. Financial improvements appear modest when contrasted with industry averages. Understanding the underlying causes of these effectiveness issues begins with an assessment of the inputs and organization design and then proceeds to an evaluation of the alignments among the different parts. In diagnosing the inputs, two questions are important. 1. What is the company’s general environment? Steinway’s external environment is only moderately uncertain and not very complex. Socially, Steinway is an important part of a country’s artistic culture and the fine arts. It must be aware of fickle trends in music and display an appropriate sensitivity to them. Politically, the organization operates on a global basis and its distribution and sales networks must be attuned to different governmental and country requirements. The manufacturing plant in Hamburg, Germany, suggests an important political dependency that must be mon- itored. Technologically, Steinway appears reasonably concerned about the latest breakthroughs in piano design, materials, and construction. They are aware of alter- native technologies, such as the assembly-line process at Yamaha, but prefer the classic methods they have always used. Ecologically, Steinway must be mindful. Their product requires lumber and they are very selective (some would say wasteful) about the choices, rejecting many pieces. It is likely that environmentalists would express concern over how Steinway uses this natural resource. Together, these envi- ronmental forces paint a relatively moderate level of uncertainty. Most of these issues are knowable and can be forecast with some confidence. In addition, while there are several environmental elements that need to be addressed, not all of them are vitally important. The environment is not very complex. 2. What is the company’s task environment? Steinway’s industry is moderately com- petitive and profit pressures can be mapped by looking at five key forces. First, the threat of entry is fairly low. There are some important barriers to cross if an organi- zation wanted to get into the piano business. For example, Steinway, Yamaha, and Baldwin have very strong brands and dealer networks. Any new entrant would need to overcome these strong images to get people to buy their product. Second, the threat of substitute products is moderate. On the one hand, electronic keyboards have made important advances and represent an inexpensive alternative to grand and upright pianos. On the other hand, the sophisticated nature of many of the artists and audiences suggests that there are not many substitutes for a concert grand piano. Third, the bargaining power of suppliers, such as providers of labor and raw materials, is high. The labor union has effective control over the much- sought-after craft workers who manufacture and assemble grand pianos. Given the relatively difficult time that most high-end piano manufacturers have in holding onto these highly trained employees, the organization must expend considerable resources to retain them. Similarly, given the critical nature of wood to the final product, lumber suppliers can probably exert significant influence. Fourth, the bar- gaining power of buyers varies by segment. In the high-end segment, the number of buyers is relatively small and sophisticated, and the small number of high-quality

102 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT STEINWAY & SONS application 5 1 S teinway & Sons, which turned 160 years old grand pianos were sold. Piano customers can in April 2013, is generally regarded as the fin- also be segmented into professional artists, est piano maker in the world. Founded in amateur pianists, and institutions such as con- 1853 by the Steinway family, the firm was cert halls, universities, and music schools. The sold to CBS in 1972, taken private in 1985 by private (home) market accounts for about 90% John and Robert Birmingham, and sold again in of the upright piano sales and 80% of the grand 1995 to Dana Messina and Kyle Kirkland, who took piano sales, with the balance being sold to insti- it public in 1996. Steinway & Sons is the piano tutional customers. New markets in Asia repre- division of the Steinway Musical Instruments Com- sent important new growth opportunities. pany that also owns Selmer Instruments and other manufacturers of band instruments (www. The piano industry has experienced sev- steinwaymusical.com). Piano sales in 2002 were eral important and dramatic changes for such $169 million, down 7.6% from the prior year and a traditional product. Industry sales, for exam- mirroring the general economic downturn. Since ple, dropped 40% between 1980 and 1995. going public, Steinway’s corporate revenues have Whether the decline was the result of grown a compounded 6–7% a year, while earnings increased electronic keyboard sales, a real per share have advanced, on average, a com- decline in the total market, or some temporary pounded 11%. The financial performance for the decline was a matter of debate in the industry. overall company in 2002 was slightly below indus- Since then, sales growth has tended to reflect try averages. the ups and downs of the global economy. The Steinway brand remains one of the Competition in the piano industry has also company’s most valuable assets. The com- changed. In the United States, several hundred pany’s president notes that despite only 2% piano makers at the turn of the century had of all keyboard unit sales in the United States, consolidated to eight by 1992. The Baldwin they have 25% of the sales dollars and 35% of Piano and Organ Company is Steinway’s pri- the profits. Their market share in the high-end mary U.S. competitor. It offers a full line of pia- grand piano segment is consistently over 80%. nos under the Baldwin and Wurlitzer brand For example, 98% of the piano soloists at 30 of names through a network of over 700 dealers. the world’s major symphony orchestras chose In addition to relatively inexpensive upright pia- a Steinway grand during the 2000/2001 con- nos produced in high-volume plants, Baldwin cert season. Over 1,300 of the world’s top pia- also makes handcrafted grand pianos that are nists, all of whom own Steinways and perform well-respected and endorsed by such artists as solely on Steinways, endorse the brand with- Dave Brubeck and Stephen Sondheim, and by out financial compensation. the Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia orches- tras. Annual sales are in the $100 million range; Workers at Steinway & Sons manufacturing Baldwin was recently sold to the Gibson Guitar plants in New York and Germany have been Company. The European story is similar. Only with the company for an average of 15 years, Bösendorfer of Austria and Fazioli of Italy often over 20 or 30 years. Many of Steinway’s remain as legitimate Steinway competitors. employees are descendants of parents and grandparents who worked for the company. Several Asian companies have emerged as important competitors. Yamaha, Kawai, Young THE ENVIRONMENT Chang, and Samick collectively held about 35% of the vertical piano market and 80% of The piano market is typically segmented into the grand piano market in terms of units and grand pianos and upright pianos, with the former 75% of global sales in 1995. Yamaha is the being a smaller but higher-priced segment. In world’s largest piano manufacturer with sales 1995, about 550,000 upright pianos and 50,000 of over $1 billion and a global market share of about 35%. Yamaha’s strategy has been to

CHAPTER 5 DIAGNOSING 103 produce consistent piano quality through continuous drying is necessary to ensure the best sound- improvement. A separate handcrafted concert grand producing qualities of the wood. Even after all the piano operation has also tried to use continuous care of the drying process, the workers reject improvement methods to create consistently high- approximately 50% of the lumber. quality instruments. More than any other high- quality piano manufacturer, Yamaha has been able After drying, the parts-making operations begin. to emulate and compete with Steinway. The first of these operations involves bending of the piano rim (the curved side giving a grand piano its THE STEINWAY ORGANIZATION familiar shape). These rims are formed of multiple layers of specially selected maple that are manually Steinway & Sons offers several different pianos, forced into a unified shape, held in presses for sev- including two brands (Steinway and the less eral hours, and then seasoned for 10 weeks before expensive Boston brand) and both upright and being joined to other wooden parts. During this grand piano models. The company handcrafts its time, the sounding board (a specially tapered Alaska grand pianos in New York and Germany, and sells Sitka spruce panel placed inside the rim to amplify them through more than 200 independent dealers. the sound) and many other case parts are made. About half of the dealers are in North and South The final critical operation with parts-making America and approximately 85% of all Steinway involves the fabrication of the 88 individual piano pianos are sold through this network. The company action sets that exist inside a piano. Piano “actions” also owns retail outlets in New York, New Jersey, are the intricate mechanical assemblies—made London, Munich, Hamburg, and Berlin. almost completely of wood and some felt, metal, and leather—that transmit finger pressure on the The dealer network is an important part of Stein- piano keys into the force that propels the hammers way’s strategy because of its role in the “concert that strike the strings. The action is a particularly bank” program. Once artists achieve a certain sta- important part of a piano because this mechanical tus, they are invited to become part of this elite linkage gives Steinways their distinctive feel. In the group. The performer can go to any local dealer, try action department, each operator is responsible for out different pianos, and pick the one they want to inspecting his or her own work, with all assembled use at a performance for only the cost of bringing actions further subject to 100% inspection. the piano to the concert hall. The concert bank con- tains over 300 pianos in more than 160 cities. In Piano-making operations include “bellying,” return for the service, Steinway is given exclusive finishing, and tone regulating. The bellying process use of the performer’s name for publicity purposes. involves the precise and careful fitting of the soundboard, iron piano plate, and rim to each Creating a Steinway concert grand piano is an other. It requires workers to lean their stomachs art, an intricate and timeless operation (although against the rim of the piano to complete this task. alternate methods have been created and improved, Because of individual variations in material and the the basic process hasn’t changed much). It requires high degree of precision required, bellying takes more than 12,000 mostly handcrafted parts considerable skill and requires several hours per and more than a little magic. The tone, touch, piano. After the bellying operations, pianos are and sound of each instrument is unique, and 120 strung and moved to the finishing department. Dur- technical patents and innovations contribute to the ing finishing, actions and keyboards are individually Steinway sound. Two years are required to make a fit to each instrument to accommodate differences Steinway grand as opposed to a mass-produced in materials and tolerances to produce a working piano that takes only about 20 days. There are instrument. The final piano-making step involves three major steps in the production process: wood- tone regulating. Here, the pianos are “voiced” for drying (which takes about a year), parts-making, and Steinway sound. Unlike tuning, which involves the piano-making. loosening and tightening of strings, voicing requires careful adjustments to the felt surround- Wood-drying operations convert moisture-rich ing the hammers that strike the strings. This oper- lumber into usable raw material through air-drying ation is extremely delicate and is performed by and computer-controlled kilns. Time is a critical ele- only a small handful of tone regulators. The tone ment in this process because slow and natural

104 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT regulators at Steinway are widely considered to be production. They are represented by the United among the most skilled artisans in the factory. Furniture Worker’s union. Seventy-five percent of Their voicing of a concert grand can take as much the workers are paid on a straight-time basis; the as 20 to 30 hours. All tone regulators at Steinway others, primarily artisans, are paid on piece rates. have worked for the company in various other posi- Retaining workers has proved increasingly difficult tions before reaching their present posts, and sev- as well-trained Steinway craftspeople are coveted eral have more than 20 years with the firm. Finally, by other manufacturers, and many of the workers after tone regulation, all pianos are polished, could easily set up their own shop to repair or cleaned, and inspected one last time before pack- rebuild older Steinway pianos. Excess inventories ing and shipment. due to weak sales both pre and post September 11 forced Steinway to adjust its production schedule; Steinway produced more than 3,500 pianos in rather than lay off highly skilled workers needed to 2002 at its New York and Hamburg, Germany, build its pianos, workers in the New York plant plants. Almost 430 people work in the New York reported to work every other week. plant and all but about 100 of them work in pianos means that customers can put pressure on prices, although they are clearly willing and able to pay more for quality. In the middle and lower segments, the number of buyers is much larger and fragmented. It is unlikely that they could collectively exert influence over price. Finally, the rivalry among firms is severe. A number of well-known and well-funded domestic and international competitors exist. Almost all of them have adopted marketing and manufacturing tactics similar to Steinway’s in the high-end segment, and they are competing for the same custo- mers. The extensive resources available to Yamaha as a member of their keiretsu, for example, suggest that it is a strong and long-term competitor that will work hard to unseat Steinway from its position. Thus, powerful buyers and suppliers as well as keen competition make the piano industry only moderately attractive and represent the key sources of uncertainty that Steinway faces. Overall, Steinway executives’ perceptions of the general and task environments seem to be accurate. The following questions are important in assessing Steinway’s strategy and organiza- tion design: 1. What is the company’s strategy? Steinway’s primary strategy is a sophisticated niche and differentiation strategy. It attempts to meet its financial and other objec- tives by offering a unique and high-quality product to sophisticated artists. However, its product line does blur the strategy’s focus. With both Boston and Steinway brands and both upright and grand models, a question about Steinway’s commit- ment to the niche strategy could be raised. No formal mission or goals are men- tioned in the case, and this makes it somewhat difficult to judge the effectiveness of the strategy. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to assume a clear intent to main- tain its dominance in the high-end segment. However, with new owners in 1995, it is also reasonable to question whether goals of profitability or revenue growth, implying very different tactics, have been sorted out. 2. What are the company’s technology, structure, management processes, human resources systems, and culture? First, Steinway’s core technology is highly uncer- tain and moderately interdependent. The manufacturing process is craft-based and

CHAPTER 5 DIAGNOSING 105 dependent on the nature of the materials. Each piano is built and adjusted with the specific characteristics of the wood in mind. So much so that each piano has a dif- ferent sound that is produced as a result of the manufacturing process. The technol- ogy is moderately interdependent because the major steps in the process are not closely linked in time. Making the “action sets” is independent of the “bellying” pro- cess, for example. Similarly, the key marketing program, the concert bank, is inde- pendent of manufacturing. Second, the corporate structure is divisional (pianos and band instruments), while the piano subsidiary appears to have a functional structure. The key functions are manufacturing, distribution, and sales. A procurement, finance, and human resources group is also reasonable to assume. Third, manage- ment processes are focused on the production system. There are specific mentions of inspections by both the worker and the organization. For example, 100% inspec- tion (as opposed to statistical sampling) costs time and manpower and no doubt is seen as critical to quality. In addition, there must be some system of keeping track of work-in-progress, finished goods, and concert bank inventories. Fourth, the human resources system is highly developed. It includes a reward system that is both hourly and piece rate; a unionized employee relationship; worker retention programs; and global hiring, compensation, benefits, and training programs. Fifth, while there is lit- tle specific information, Steinway’s culture can be inferred. The dominant focus on the high-end segment, the craft nature of the production process, the importance of the concert bank program, and the long history of family influence all point to a culture of quality, craftsmanship, and responsiveness. These values are manifest in the way the organization chooses its raw materials, the way it caters to its prized customers, the care in the production process, and the image it works to retain. Now that the organization inputs, design components, and outputs have been assessed, it is time to ask the crucial question about how well they fit together. The first concern is the fit between the environmental inputs and the strategy. The moderate com- plexity and uncertainty in the general and task environments argue for a strategy that is flexible enough to address the few critical dependencies but formal enough to control a sophisticated production process. Steinway’s focus on the high-end segment of the industry and the moderate breadth in its product line support this flexibility. It clearly intends to differentiate its product by serving the high-end segment with unique high-quality pianos. However, the market for higher-priced and more specialized concert grands is much smal- ler than the market for lower-priced uprights and limits the growth potential of sales unless Steinway wants to compete vigorously in the emerging Asian markets where the Asian companies have a proximity advantage. Steinway’s lack of clear strategic goals in general and policies that support neither growth nor profitability also would make entry into new markets difficult. Steinway’s flexible and responsive manufacturing process sup- ports and defends its preeminence as the top grand piano maker in the world. It also miti- gates the powerful buyer forces in this segment. Steinway’s moderate product line breadth gives it some flexibility and efficiency as well. It can achieve some production efficiencies in the upright and medium-market grand piano segments, and its brand image helps in marketing these products. Steinway must be careful not to broaden its product line too much, however, as this could dilute its strategic focus on the high-end market. Overall, the alignment between Steinway’s environment and its strategy appears sound. The second concern is the alignment of the design components to support the strat- egy. There appears to be a good fit between Steinway’s strategy and the organization design components. The differentiated strategic intent requires technologies, structures, and systems that focus on creating sophisticated and unique products, specialized

106 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT marketing and distribution, and the concert bank program. The flexible structure, formal inspection systems, and responsive culture seem well suited for that purpose. Steinway’s technology appears aligned with its structure. The production process is craft-based and deliberately not standardized. The functional structure promotes specialization and professionalization of skills and knowledge. Specific tasks that require flexibility and adapt- ability from the organization are given a wide berth. Although a divisional structure over- lays Steinway’s corporate activities, the piano division’s structure is functional but not rigid and appears to be responsive to the craft and the artists it serves. In addition, the concert bank program is important for two reasons. First, it builds customer loyalty and ensures future demand. Second, it is a natural source of feedback on the instruments themselves, keeping the organization close to the artist’s demands and emerging trends in sound preferences. The well-developed human resources system supports the responsive production and marketing functions as well as the global nature of the enterprise. Finally, Steinway’s culture of quality and responsiveness promotes coordination among the produc- tion tasks, serves to socialize and develop people, and establishes methods for moving infor- mation throughout the organization. Clearly, any change effort at Steinway will have to acknowledge its long-established culture and design an intervention accordingly. The strong culture will either sabotage or facilitate change depending on how the change process aligns with the culture’s values and norms. Based on this diagnosis of the Steinway organization, at least two OD interventions seem relevant. First, in collaboration with the client, the OD practitioner could suggest increasing the clarity of Steinway’s strategy. In this intervention, the practitioner would want to talk about formalizing—rather than changing—Steinway’s strategy because the culture would likely resist strategy change. However, there are obvious advantages to be gained from a clearer sense of Steinway’s future goals, its businesses, and the relation- ships among them. Second, Steinway could focus on better coordinating its structure, measurement systems, and human resources systems. The difficulty of retaining key pro- duction personnel warrants continuously improved retention systems as well as efforts to codify and retain key production knowledge in case workers do leave. This would apply to the marketing and distribution functions as well, since they control an important interface with the customer. 5-5 Group-Level Diagnosis Work groups are prevalent in all types and sizes of organizations. They generally consist of a relatively small number of people working together on a shared task either face- to-face or virtually via electronic communication. Work groups can be relatively perma- nent and perform an ongoing function, or they can be temporary and exist only to per- form a certain task or to make a specific decision. Figure 5.2 shows the inputs, design components, outputs, and relational fits for group-level diagnosis. The model is similar to other popular group-level diagnostic models such as Hackman and Morris’s task group design model,26 McCaskey’s framework for analyzing groups,27 and Ledford, Lawler, and Mohrman’s participation group design model.28 5-5a Inputs Organization design and culture are the major inputs to group design. They consist of the design components characterizing the larger organization within which the group is embedded—technology, structure, management processes, and human resources

CHAPTER 5 DIAGNOSING 107 systems—and organization culture. Technology can determine the characteristics of the group’s task; structural systems can specify the level of coordination required among groups. Management processes can determine how much information the group receives and how much decision making and self-control it can exercise. The human resources and measurement systems, such as performance appraisal and reward systems, play an important role in determining team functioning.29 For example, individual-based, forced-ranking performance appraisal and reward systems tend to interfere with team functioning because members may be concerned with maximizing their individual per- formance to the detriment of team performance. Organization culture can influence the norms that groups develop to control member behavior. Collecting information about the group’s organization design context can greatly improve the accuracy of diagnosis. 5-5b Design Components Figure 5.2 shows that group designs have five major components: goal clarity, task struc- ture, group composition, team functioning, and performance norms. Goal clarity involves how well the group understands its objectives. In general, goals should be moderately challenging; there should be a method for measuring, monitoring, and feeding back information about goal achievement; and the goals should be clearly understood by all members. Task structure is concerned with how the group’s work is designed. Task structures can vary along two key dimensions: coordination of members’ efforts and regulation of their task behaviors.30 The coordination dimension involves the degree to which group tasks are structured to promote effective interaction among group members. Coordina- tion is important in groups performing interdependent tasks, such as surgical teams and problem-solving groups. It is relatively unimportant, however, in groups composed of members who perform independent tasks, such as a group of call center specialists or salespeople. The regulation dimension involves the degree to which members can control their own task behaviors and be relatively free from external controls such as supervi- sion, plans, and programs. Self-regulation generally occurs when members can decide on such issues as task assignments, work methods, production goals, and membership. (Chapter 14 discusses OD interventions for designing group task structure.) Group composition concerns the membership of groups. Members can differ on a number of dimensions having relevance to group behavior. Demographic variables, such as age, education, experience, and skills and abilities can affect how people behave and relate to each other in groups. Demographics can determine whether the group is composed of people having task-relevant skills and knowledge, including interpersonal skills. People’s internal needs and personal traits also can influence group behaviors. Individual differences in social needs can determine whether group membership is likely to be satisfying or stressful.31 Team functioning is the underlying basis of group life. It involves group processes hav- ing to do with how members relate to each other, which is important in work groups because the quality of relationships can affect task performance. In some groups, for exam- ple, interpersonal competition and conflict among members result in their providing little support and help for each other. Conversely, groups may become too concerned about sharing good feelings and spend too little time on task performance. In OD, considerable effort has been invested in helping work-group members develop healthy interpersonal rela- tions, including an ability and a willingness to share feelings and perceptions about mem- bers’ behaviors so that interpersonal problems and task difficulties can be worked through

108 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT and resolved.32 Group functioning, therefore, involves task-related activities, such as advo- cacy and inquiry; coordinating and evaluating activities; and the group-maintenance func- tion, which is directed toward holding the group together as a cohesive team and includes encouraging, harmonizing, compromising, setting standards, and observing.33 (Chapter 10 presents interpersonal and group process interventions.) Performance norms are member beliefs about how the group should perform its task and what levels of performance are acceptable.34 Norms derive from interactions among members and serve as guides to group behavior. Once members agree on performance norms, either implicitly or explicitly, then members routinely perform tasks according to those norms. For example, members of problem-solving groups often decide early in the life of the group that decisions will be made through voting; voting then becomes a routine part of group task behavior. (Chapter 10 discusses interventions aimed at helping groups to develop appropriate performance norms.) 5-5c Outputs Team effectiveness has two dimensions: performance and quality of work life. Perfor- mance is measured in terms of the group’s ability to control or reduce costs, increase productivity, or improve quality. It is a “hard” measure of effectiveness. In addition, effectiveness is indicated by group members’ quality of work life. It concerns work satis- faction, team cohesion, and organizational commitment. 5-5d Alignment Diagnosing team effectiveness requires assessment of how well the group elements described above fit with each other. 1. Does the group design fit with the inputs? As shown in Figure 5.2, the key inputs into group design are the larger organization’s design and culture. Organization designs and cultures that are highly flexible and promote agile and adaptive orga- nizational behaviors generally fit with work groups composed of highly skilled and experienced members performing highly interdependent tasks. Conversely, organi- zation designs and cultures that are bureaucratic and support standardized beha- viors generally align with work groups that have clear, quantitative goals and norms and structures that support routine task behaviors and interactions. Although there is little direct research on these fits, the underlying rationale is that congruence between organization design and culture and group design sup- ports overall integration of task behaviors within the organization. When group designs are not compatible with organization designs and cultures, groups often conflict with the organization.35 They may develop norms that run counter to organizational effectiveness, such as occurs in groups supportive of horseplay, goldbricking, and other counterproductive behaviors. 2. Do the group design components fit with each other? The nature of a group’s task determines how the design components should align with each other. When the task is highly interdependent and requires coordination among group mem- bers, goal clarity, task structure, group composition, performance norms, and team functioning all need to promote effective task interaction among members. For example, task structure might physically locate related tasks together; group composition might include members with similar interpersonal skills and social needs; performance norms would support task-relevant interactions; and healthy interpersonal relationships would be developed. Conversely, when a group’s task

CHAPTER 5 DIAGNOSING 109 is independent, the design components should promote individual task perfor- mance.36 The other relevant task dimension concerns task uncertainty, which has to do with the amount of information processing and decision making that need to occur during task performance. When a work group has an uncertain task, then task structure, group composition, performance norms, and team functioning should promote self-regulation. Members should have the nec- essary freedom, information, and skills to assign members to appropriate tasks, to decide on production methods, and to set performance goals.37 For example, when self-regulation is needed, task structure might be relatively flexible and allow the interchange of members across group tasks; composition might include members with multiple skills, interpersonal competencies, and social needs; per- formance norms would support complex problem solving; and efforts would be made to develop healthy interpersonal relations. On the other hand, when tech- nology is relatively certain, group designs should promote standardization of behavior and groups should be externally controlled by supervisors, schedules, and plans.38 5-5e Analysis Application 5.2 presents an example of applying group-level diagnosis to a top- management team engaged in problem solving. Examination of the group’s outputs shows that it is ineffective at problem solving. Members report a backlog of unresolved issues, poor use of meeting time, lack of follow-through and decision implementation, and a general dissatisfaction with the team meetings. Examining group inputs and design components and assessing the fit among them can uncover the causes of those group problems. The key inputs into a work group are the design and culture of the larger organi- zation. The Ortiv Glass Corporation’s decentralized philosophy allows each plant to set up its own organization design. Freedom to innovate in the manufacturing plants is probably an outgrowth of the firm’s OD activities and culture, which promote par- ticipation and innovation. Although little specific data are given about the new plant’s organization design, tasks are structured into functional departments that must work together to produce plate glass. The team’s problem-solving activities reflect this inter- dependence among the departments as coordination among team members is needed to resolve plantwide issues. The team meetings also seem to involve many issues that are complex and not easily solved, so there is probably uncertainty in the technology or work process. This ambiguity is typical in a new plant and makes it difficult for a problem-solving team to determine the causes of problems or to find acceptable solu- tions. Consequently, members of the top-management team must process considerable information during problem solving. Diagnosis of the team’s design components answers the following questions: 1. How clear are the group’s goals? The team’s goals seem relatively clear: they are to solve problems. There appears to be no clear agreement, however, on the specific problems to be addressed. As a result, members come late because they have “more pressing” problems needing attention. 2. What is the group’s task structure? The team’s task structure includes face-to-face interaction during the weekly meetings. This structure allows members from differ- ent functional departments to come together physically to share information and to solve problems mutually affecting them. It facilitates coordination of problem

110 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT TOP-MANAGEMENT TEAM AT ORTIV GLASS CORPORATION application 5 2 T he Ortiv Glass Corporation produces and meetings were often interrupted by “urgent” markets plate glass for use primarily in phone messages for various members, includ- the construction and automotive industries. ing the plant manager, and in most cases, the The multiplant company has been involved recipient would leave the meeting hurriedly to in OD for several years and actively supports par- respond to the call. ticipative management practices and employee involvement programs. Ortiv’s organization design The group had problems arriving at clear is relatively flexible, and the manufacturing decisions on particular issues. Discussions plants are given freedom and encouragement often rambled from topic to topic, and mem- to develop their own organization designs and bers tended to postpone the resolution of pro- approaches to participative management. It blems to future meetings. This led to a backlog recently put together a problem-solving group of unresolved issues, and meetings often made up of the top-management team at its lasted far beyond the two-hour limit. When newest plant. group decisions were made, members often reported problems in their implementation. The team consisted of the plant manager and Members typically failed to follow through on the managers of the five functional departments agreements, and there was often confusion reporting to him: engineering (maintenance), about what had actually been agreed upon. administration, human resources, production, Everyone expressed dissatisfaction with the and quality control. In recruiting managers for team meetings and their results. the new plant, the company selected people with good technical skills and experience in their Relationships among team members were respective functions. It also chose people with cordial yet somewhat strained, especially some managerial experience and a desire to when the team was dealing with complex solve problems collaboratively, a hallmark of par- issues in which members had varying opinions ticipative management. The team was relatively and interests. Although the plant manager pub- new, and members had been working together licly stated that he wanted to hear all sides of for only about five months. the issues, he often interrupted the discussion or attempted to change the topic when mem- The team met formally for two hours each bers openly disagreed in their views of the week to share pertinent information and to problem. This interruption was typically fol- deal with plantwide issues affecting all of the lowed by an awkward silence in the group. In departments, such as safety procedures, inter- many instances, when a solution to a pressing departmental relations, and personnel prac- problem did not appear forthcoming, members tices. Members described these meetings as either moved on to another issue or they infor- informative but often chaotic in terms of deci- mally voted on proposed options, letting major- sion making. The meetings typically started ity rule decide the outcome. Members rarely late as members straggled in at different discussed the need to move on or vote; rather, times. The latecomers generally offered these behaviors emerged informally over time excuses about more pressing problems occur- and became acceptable ways of dealing with ring elsewhere in the plant. Once started, the difficult issues. solving among the departments in the plant. The structure also seems to provide team members with the freedom necessary to regulate their task behaviors in the meetings. They can adjust their behaviors and interactions to suit the flow of the discussion and problem-solving process.

CHAPTER 5 DIAGNOSING 111 3. What is the composition of the group? The team is composed of the plant man- ager and the heads of the five functional departments. All members appear to have task-relevant skills and experience, both in their respective functions and in their managerial roles. They also seem to be interested in solving problems collabora- tively. That shared interest suggests that members have job-related social needs and should feel relatively comfortable participating in group problem-solving situations. 4. What are the group’s performance norms? Group norms cannot be observed directly but must be inferred from group behaviors. The norms involve member beliefs about how the group should perform its task, including acceptable levels of performance. A useful way to describe norms is to list specific behaviors that complete the sentences “A good group member should …” and “It’s okay to ….” Examination of the team’s problem-solving behaviors suggests the following performance norms: • It’s okay to come late to team meetings. • It’s okay to interrupt meetings with phone messages. • It’s okay to leave meetings to respond to phone messages. • It’s okay to hold meetings longer than two hours. • A good group member should not openly disagree with others’ views. • It’s okay to vote on decisions. • A good group member should be cordial to other members. • It’s okay to postpone solutions to immediate problems. • It’s okay not to follow through on previous agreements. 5. What is the nature of team functioning in the group? The case strongly suggests that interpersonal relations are not healthy on the management team. Members do not seem to confront differences openly. Indeed, the plant manager purposely deflects issues when conflicts emerge. Members feel dissatisfied with the meetings but spend little time talking about those feelings. Relationships are strained, but members fail to examine the underlying causes. The problems facing the team can now be explained by assessing how well the group design fits the inputs. The plant’s organization design requires coordinated problem solv- ing among functional departments. The newness of the plant and the uncertainty of the technology result in complex, plantwide issues that require considerable information processing to resolve. The weekly team meetings are an attempt to address and resolve these interdependent and complex problems. The plant’s culture promotes participation in problem solving and the team meetings are a reflection of that involvement. Although it is too early to tell whether the team will succeed, there does not appear to be signifi- cant incongruity between the plant’s organization design and culture and what the team is trying to do. Next, alignment among the group design components is assessed to determine how well they fit together to promote interdependent and complex problem solving. The team’s task structure and composition appear to fit the type of issues that the team is sup- posed to address. The face-to-face meetings help to coordinate problem solving among the department managers, and except for interpersonal and group problem-solving skills, members seem to have the necessary task-relevant expertise to address the plantwide pro- blems. There appears, however, to be a conflict in the priority between the problems to be solved by the team and the problems faced by individual managers. Moreover, there seems to be a mismatch between the demands of the problem-solving task and the team’s perfor- mance norms and interpersonal relations. Complex, interdependent problems require per- formance norms that support sharing of diverse and often conflicting kinds of information. The norms must encourage members to generate novel solutions and to assess the relevance of problem-solving strategies in light of new issues. Members need to

112 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT address explicitly how they are using their knowledge and skills and how they are weighing and combining members’ individual contributions. The team’s performance norms fail to support complex problem solving; rather, they promote a problem-solving method that is often superficial, haphazard, and subject to external disruptions. Members’ interpersonal relationships reinforce adherence to the ineffective norms. Members do not confront per- sonal differences or dissatisfactions with the group process. They fail to examine the very norms contributing to their problems. In this case, diagnosis suggests the need for group interventions aimed at improving performance norms and developing healthy interper- sonal relationships. (Chapter 10 describes interpersonal and group process interventions.) 5-6 Individual-Level Diagnosis The final level of organizational diagnosis is the individual job or position. An organiza- tion consists of numerous groups; a group, in turn, is composed of several individual jobs. This section discusses the inputs, design components, and relational fits needed for diagnosing jobs. The model shown in Figure 5.2 is similar to other popular job diagnostic frameworks, such as Hackman and Oldham’s job diagnostic survey and Herzberg’s job enrichment model.39 5-6a Inputs Four major inputs affect job design: organization design, culture, group design, and the personal characteristics of jobholders. Organization design is concerned with the larger organization within which the indi- vidual job is the smallest unit. Organization design is a key part of the larger context surrounding jobs. An organization’s technology, structure, management processes, and human resources systems can have a powerful impact on the way jobs are designed and on people’s experiences in them. For example, company reward systems can orient employees to particular job behaviors and influence whether people see job performance as fairly rewarded. In general, technology characterized by relatively uncertain tasks is likely to support job designs allowing employees flexibility and discretion in performing tasks. Conversely, low-uncertainty tasks are likely to promote standardized job designs requiring routinized task behaviors.40 Culture represents the values and norms shared by organization members. Because they are generally taken for granted, they guide members’ perceptions, thoughts, and actions. Culture can influence the kinds of work designs that organizations consider and that members perceive as legitimate. The more an organization culture promotes member participation and innovation, the more likely job designs will be highly flexible and involve member decision making. Group design concerns the work group containing the individual job. Like organiza- tion design, group design is an essential part of the job context. Task structure, goal clar- ity, group composition, performance norms, and team functioning serve as inputs to job design. They typically have a more immediate impact on jobs than do the larger, organi- zation design components. For example, group task structure can determine how indi- vidual jobs are grouped together—as in groups requiring coordination among jobs or in ones comprising collections of independent jobs. Group composition can influence the kinds of people who are available to fill jobs. Group performance norms can affect the kinds of job designs that are considered acceptable, including the level of jobholders’ per- formances. Goal clarity helps members to prioritize work, and group functioning can

CHAPTER 5 DIAGNOSING 113 affect how powerfully the group influences individual-job behaviors. When members maintain close relationships and the group is cohesive, group norms are more likely to be enforced and followed.41 Personal characteristics of individuals occupying jobs include age, education, experi- ence, skills, and abilities. All of these can affect how people react to job designs and per- form. Individual needs and expectations also can affect employee job responses. For example, individual differences in growth needs—the need for self-direction, learning, and personal accomplishment—can determine how much people are satisfied by jobs with high levels of skill variety, autonomy, and feedback about results.42 Similarly, work motivation can be influenced by people’s expectations that they can perform a job well and that good job performance will result in valued outcomes.43 5-6b Design Components Figure 5.2 shows that individual jobs have five key dimensions: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback about results.44 Skill variety is the degree to which a job requires a range of activities and abilities to perform the work. Assembly-line jobs, for example, generally have limited skill variety because employees perform a small number of repetitive activities. On the other hand, most professional jobs include a great deal of skill variety because people engage in diverse activities and employ several different skills in performing their work. Task identity measures the degree to which a job requires the completion of a rela- tively whole, identifiable piece of work. Skilled craftspeople, such as tool-and-die makers and carpenters, generally have jobs with high levels of task identity. They are able to see a job through from beginning to end. Assembly-line jobs involve only a limited piece of work and score low on task identity. Task significance identifies the degree to which a job has a significant impact on other people’s lives. Custodial jobs in a hospital are likely to have more task significance than similar jobs in a toy factory because hospital custodians are likely to see their jobs as affecting someone else’s health and welfare. Autonomy indicates the degree to which a job provides freedom and discretion in scheduling the work and determining work methods. Assembly-line jobs generally have little autonomy; the work pace is scheduled and people perform preprogrammed tasks. College teaching positions have more autonomy. Professors usually can determine how a course is taught, even though they may have limited say over class scheduling. Feedback about results involves the degree to which a job provides employees with direct and clear information about the effectiveness of task performance. Assembly-line jobs often provide high levels of feedback about results, whereas college professors must often contend with indirect and ambiguous feedback about how they are performing in the classroom. Those five job dimensions can be combined into an overall measure of job enrich- ment. Enriched jobs have high levels of skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback about results. They provide opportunities for self-direction, learning, and personal accomplishment at work. Many people find enriched jobs inter- nally motivating and satisfying. (Chapter 14 discusses job enrichment more fully.) 5-6c Outputs Individual-job effectiveness includes two kinds of outputs, those related to how well the job is performed and those having to do with how people experience their job. Perfor- mance is measured in terms of the quantity, quality, time, and cost of producing a

114 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT particular job outcome such as a product or service. Indicators of an individual’s experi- ence of the job include job satisfaction, absenteeism, and personal development. 5-6d Alignment The diagnostic model in Figure 5.2 suggests that the job-design elements just described must align with each other to produce effective job outputs, such as high quality and quantity of individual performance, low absenteeism, and high job satisfaction. 1. Does the job design fit with the inputs? Job design should be congruent with the larger organization design, culture, and group design within which the job is embed- ded.45 Both the organization and the group serve as powerful contexts for individual jobs or positions. They support and reinforce particular job designs. Highly flexible organization designs, participative cultures, and work groups that permit members to self-regulate their behavior align with enriched jobs. These organization and group inputs promote autonomy, flexibility, and innovation at the individual-job level. Conversely, bureaucratic organizations and cultures and groups relying on external controls are congruent with job designs scoring low on the five design com- ponents. These organization and group inputs reinforce standardized, routine jobs. As suggested earlier, congruence across different levels of organizational design pro- motes integration of the organization, group, and job levels. Whenever the levels do not fit each other, conflict is likely to emerge. Job design also should fit jobholders’ personal characteristics if they are to perform effectively and derive satisfaction from work. Generally, enriched jobs fit people with strong growth needs.46 These people derive satisfaction and accomplish- ment from performing jobs involving skill variety, autonomy, and feedback about results. Enriched jobs also fit people possessing moderate-to-high levels of task- relevant skills, abilities, and knowledge. Enriched jobs generally require complex information processing and decision making; people must have comparable skills and abilities to perform effectively. Jobs scoring low on the five job-design compo- nents generally fit people with rudimentary skills and abilities and with low growth needs. Simpler, more routinized jobs requiring limited skills and experience fit better with people who place a low value on opportunities for self-direction and learning. However, because people can develop growth needs and expertise through educa- tion, training, and experience, job design must be monitored and adjusted from time to time to fit jobholders’ changing needs and enhanced knowledge and skills. 2. Do the job-design components fit with each other? The five job-design compo- nents must align with each other to provide a clear and consistent direction to how the job should be performed. Enriched job designs that score high on skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback of results signal the need for flexibility, active engagement, and decision making to perform the job. Conversely, traditional job designs that score low on the design components indicate the need for routine and standardized job performances. 5-6e Analysis Application 5.3 presents an example of individual-level diagnosing. As part of a larger cost-cutting initiative, the university is considering a change in the job design of a program administrator. The application provides information about the administrator’s current job. Diagnosing the individual-level elements and the alignment among them can help to address whether or not the proposed change makes sense.

CHAPTER 5 DIAGNOSING 115 application 5 3 JOB DESIGN AT PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY T he Graziadio School of Business and Man- enrollment and graduation processes including agement (GSBM) at Pepperdine University their interface with the university’s registrar is one of the largest business schools in the and finance office and the school’s financial country and has the third largest part- aid office; and coached students through the time MBA program. The school also provides program. After graduation, the Program Admin- graduate education aimed at different istrator served as an unofficial placement ser- markets including an executive MBA (EMBA), vice, hooking up eligible graduates with a presidential/key executive MBA (PKE), and a prospective employers who called looking for specialized master’s degree in organization MSOD talent, provided career guidance, and development (MSOD). The MSOD program’s worked with the program’s alumni organization curriculum consists of 10 four-unit classes to sponsor conferences and other alumni over 22 months. Eight of the classes are con- activities. ducted off-site during eight-day sessions at both domestic and international locations. The Each of the above activities was some- MSOD program office consists of a faculty what programmable; they occurred at specific director, a program administrator, and an times of the year and could be scheduled. administrative assistant. In response to cost- However, because each applicant, student, cutting initiatives at the university level, a pro- class, or graduate was somewhat unique, the posal was being considered to alter the job specific tasks or actions could not always be designs of the MSOD program staff. specified in advance and there were a number of exceptions and unique situations that arose The MSOD Program Administrator, the during each day, month, or year. focus of this application, was responsible for marketing and recruiting new students, man- The MSOD Program Administrator has aging the delivery logistics of the off-site pro- worked with the MSOD program for over 15 gram, managing the students’ registration and years and was a fixture in both the MSOD financial relationships with the university, and and the general OD communities. Year over maintaining relationships with the MSOD year, the Program Administrator delivered qual- alumni. The marketing and recruiting duties ified applicants in excess of available space involved working with the Program Director although that task had become increasingly dif- and the Director of Marketing for GSBM to ficult in the face of tuition increases, increas- develop marketing tactics including advertise- ingly restrictive corporate policies on tuition ments, brochures, conference marketing and reimbursement, and the ups and downs of support, and other market development activi- the economy. He handled both routine and ties. The recruiting process involved explaining nonroutine administrative details profes- the curriculum to prospective applicants, over- sionally, displays and reports a high level of seeing the application process for each appli- job satisfaction and commitment to the pro- cant, working with the faculty to have qualified gram, and has been complimented formally applicants interviewed, and managing the and informally by the students in the program. admissions process. This too had to be coordi- In fact, each cohort develops its own relation- nated with the director and the administrative ship with the administrator and he becomes a assistant. Once a class was admitted, the Pro- de facto member of almost every class. The gram Administrator worked with various off- alumni considered the Program Administrator site facilities to establish room and board a key and integral part of the MSOD program. rates and catering services; managed the The set of duties described above has evolved faculty’s travel and teaching requirements; considerably over the Program Administrator’s managed various intersession activities includ- tenure. In particular, he has become more ing the final exam; managed the students’ involved and responsible for marketing and recruiting activities, and the alumni relations

116 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT duties have been added in response to alumni program, including working with faculty to support requests that cannot be filled by traditional univer- their teaching efforts, managing textbook ordering sity departments. processes, and providing different facilities logistics activities. It would not include marketing, recruiting, In an effort to improve efficiencies, and in and alumni development activities. The Program recognition of the MSOD Program Administrator’s Administrator would receive additional compensa- outstanding productivity, a proposal was being con- tion for the increased responsibilities and a title sidered by GSBM administration to change the change. The new position would include joint super- design of his job. The proposal suggested that the vision, with the EMBA program administrator, of an MSOD Program Administrator continue to perform assistant program administrator, who would in turn all of the current duties of the position and, in addi- manage a pool of administrative assistants. In addi- tion, provide administrative support to two PKE clas- tion, the new program administrator job would ses from their initial class to graduation. The duties report to both the MSOD program director and the of administrating the PKE program would be similar director of EMBA/PKE programs. in nature to the delivery aspects of the MSOD Diagnosis of individual-level inputs answers the following questions: 1. What are the design and culture of the organization within which the individual job is embedded? Although the example says little about the organization’s design and culture, a number of inferences are possible. The business school’s administra- tion was attempting to reward the Program Administrator with a more enriched job. This suggests that the culture of the organization was supportive of employee involvement. However, the proposed change also was being considered as part of an efficiency drive. The school is large, hosting the third largest part-time MBA pro- gram in the United States. This helps to explain why a specialized master’s degree in OD has been paired with two EMBA programs and differentiated from the large, part-time MBA program. To the extent that the MSOD program has different stu- dents or different marketing, delivery, and alumni relations processes than the EMBA programs, there may be difficult points of integration between the two types of programs. 2. What is the design of the group containing the individual job? Three individual jobs were grouped together according to the type of program. In this case, a faculty director, program administrator, and administrative assistant comprise the program office. The office is clearly dependent on other university and school functions, such as the registrar’s office, financial aid, and the teaching faculty. Each of the three jobs has specific duties, but there is a clear sense that all three jobs are highly interdepen- dent. The Program Administrator must coordinate with the faculty director on mar- keting, admissions, and curriculum decisions and with the administrative assistant on recruiting, program delivery, and routine administrative processes. Interaction during task performance is thus intense, and although partly scheduled, the work involves a high number of exceptions. 3. What are the personal characteristics of the jobholder? The application provides some clues about the Program Administrator’s personal characteristics. First, he has stayed in the position for more than 15 years; this speaks to a loyalty or com- mitment to the OD program. Second, his job has evolved considerably and suggests at least a moderate amount of growth needs strength.

CHAPTER 5 DIAGNOSING 117 Diagnosing individual jobs involves the following design components: 1. How much skill variety is included in the job? The program administrator job involves a wide variety of tasks, including recruiting students; advising prospective and current students on career opportunities; making input into marketing strategies and tactics; handling routine and nonroutine administrative matters such as registra- tion, grade changes, and graduation processes; supervision of an administrative assistant; coordination with other functions and departments within the school and university; traveling to several class sessions and handling logistics details; negotiat- ing with a variety of resort properties on rooming costs, menus, meal costs, and room setup; working with alumni; and a variety of ancillary tasks. 2. How much task identity does the job contain? The program administrator job is “all of a piece.” It involves following individuals through an entire process, as appli- cants, students, and alumni. It engages them as individuals, as professionals, and as members of a family or other community. 3. How much task significance is involved in the job? The program administrator job scores high on task significance. It includes bringing potential students into a well- respected program, working with them during their matriculation, advising them on their experiences in the program, and taking an important hand in their personal and professional development. The job is an integral part of a transformational edu- cational process, which also contributes to its task significance. 4. How much autonomy is included in the job? There is a moderate-to-high amount of autonomy included in the program administrator job. It involves considerable discretionary decision making without much supervision or external controls. 5. How much feedback about results does the job contain? The program administra- tor job receives a lot of feedback. It comes from the faculty director on job perfor- mance; from program evaluations about service quality; and from students on the amount of support and guidance received. Assessing individual-level outputs involves measures of job satisfaction, performance, absenteeism, and personal development. The Program Administrator performs his job well and seems to be very satisfied with it and the personal development opportunities it affords. Although there is no information on his level of absenteeism, it seems safe to assume that it is negligible. These positive outcomes suggest that currently there is a good fit between the job design and the inputs and among the job-design components. When the job components are examined together, the program administrator job contains high levels of enrich- ment. Task variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback about results are all high and mutually contribute to an enriched job experience. Over time, the level of enrichment appears to have increased because skill variety and autonomy have increased. The fit between the job design and the organization design is mixed, however. The business school’s technology of recruiting and educating students and managing alumni is at least moderately, if not highly, uncertain. Tasks that are uncertain require considerable information processing and decision making. Enriched jobs fit such tasks, and the program administrator job has gradually evolved to fit the high levels of task uncertainty. Structurally, as a specialized master’s degree that is different from an EMBA program, the MSOD program office, and the administrator job in particular, have evolved to be somewhat independent of the business school’s other programs. There does not appear to be much sharing or coordination of tasks across these different MBA programs, despite obvious opportunities such as student registration, graduation, book ordering, and others. Either the MSOD program is sufficiently different from the

118 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT EMBA programs that it warrants such independence, or there are some important opportunities for improved efficiencies from the proposed change. There also seems to be only a partial fit between Graziadio School of Business and Management’s culture and the administrator’s job design. The culture includes values that promote both employee involvement and efficiency, with the former supporting an enriched job and the latter potentially impeding enrichment. The program administrator job and the other jobs in the program office closely interact with each other to form a team that is cohesive and mostly self-managed. This suggests a good fit between the enriched program administrator job and the design of the office team. Finally, the design of the program administrator job aligns well with the personal characteristics of the Program Administrator. In the current context, the proposed change to the program administrator job needs to be considered very carefully. Will the change likely improve productivity, enhance quality, or increase job satisfaction? In general, the answer appears to be “no.” For exam- ple, the proposed change argues that adding new responsibilities will increase task vari- ety, task identity, and task significance. However, the additional administrative tasks of the EMBA classes do not increase the skill variety of the existing program administrator job. There are, in fact, no new skills required to administer those classes, and adding these responsibilities may actually unbalance the existing skill mix. That is, under the proposed new job, the program delivery component of the job will increase dramatically with respect to the other job components and more or less dominate the mix. This could actually result in decreased task variety. The proposed change also contends that task significance will increase because the program administrator job will be able to affect the lives of both the MSOD program participants and the EMBA students. There is some merit to this idea, but it must be tempered with the chance that task identity might decrease. The task identity of the pro- gram administrator job, as described in the application, is high while the task identity for the EMBA program is relatively low. In the EMBA program, the program administrator job would interact with the students only during the program; it would have little involvement with them in the recruiting process and later as alumni. Thus, any increase in the number of people the proposed new job affects (task significance) is likely to be offset by the reduced involvement it would have with about half of these people (task identity). Finally, the proposed change claims that the Program Administrator is being given more responsibility, which is true, but he will have less autonomy. The new program administrator job will report to two bosses: the MSOD program director and the EMBA/PKE director. Thus, the Program Administrator will probably have more, not less, supervision as the MSOD program director ensures that the MSOD program objec- tives are addressed, and the EMBA/PKE program director ensures that his or her program objectives are being addressed. Examining the proposed changes in relation to the design components of the program administrator job suggests an intervention dilemma in this case. Should the business school’s administration continue with the proposed change? The hoped-for effi- ciencies may or may not materialize. The Program Administrator’s extensive skills and knowledge may in fact be applied to improve productivity. However, will it do so at a cost to his work satisfaction? Over time, such a solution may not be sustainable. If the change is implemented, OD interventions probably should be aimed at mitigating the negative effects on task identity, task significance, and autonomy. The MSOD director and the EMBA/PKE director need to work with the Program Administrator to set out clear expectations for his new job. They need to figure out methods to allow the Program

CHAPTER 5 DIAGNOSING 119 Administrator to perform certain tasks that he finds most rewarding. (Chapter 14 describes interventions for matching people, technology, and job design.) If the proposed changes are not implemented, alternative structural arrangements within the EMBA programs organization may need to be examined. SUMMARY This chapter presented information for diagnosing the behaviors of its departments. It is open to exchanges organizations, groups, and individual jobs. Diagnosis with the larger environment and is influenced by exter- is a collaborative process, involving both organization nal forces. As open systems, organizations are hierar- members and OD practitioners in collecting pertinent chically ordered; that is, they are composed of groups, data, analyzing them, and drawing conclusions for which in turn are composed of individual jobs. Organi- action planning and intervention. Diagnosis may be zations also display five key open-systems properties: aimed at discovering the causes of specific problems, environments; inputs, transformations, and outputs; or it may be directed at assessing the organization or boundaries; feedback; and alignment. department to find areas for future development. Diag- nosis provides the necessary practical understanding to A comprehensive model for diagnosing organiza- devise interventions for solving problems and improv- tional systems was described and applied to three orga- ing organization effectiveness. nizational levels—organization, group, and individual job. It consists of inputs; a set of design components; Diagnosis is based on conceptual frameworks and a variety of outputs, such as performance, produc- about how organizations function. Such diagnostic tivity, and stakeholder satisfaction. For each organiza- models serve as road maps by identifying areas to tional level, diagnosing involves understanding each of examine and questions to ask in determining how an the parts in the model and then assessing how the organization or department is operating. design components align with each other and with the inputs. Effective outputs are likely to result from The model presented here views organizations as good alignment. open systems. The organization serves to coordinate NOTES 3. M. Weisbord, “Organizational Diagnosis: Six Places to Look for Trouble with or without a Theory,” Group and 1. C. Lundberg, “Organization Development Diagnosis,” in Organizational Studies 1 (1976): 430–37. Handbook of Organization Development, ed. T. Cummings (Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 2008), 137–50; D. Nadler, 4. D. Nadler and M. Tushman, Competing by Design: The “Role of Models in Organizational Assessment,” in Organi- Power of Organizational Architecture (New York: Oxford zational Assessment, ed. E. Lawler III, D. Nadler, and University Press, 1997). C. Cammann (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1980), 119–31; R. Burton, B. Obel, H. Starling, M. Sondergaard, 5. J. Galbraith, Designing Organizations (San Francisco: and D. Dojbak, Strategic Organizational Diagnosis and Jossey-Bass, 2002). Design: Developing Theory for Application, 2nd ed. (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 6. J. Kotter, Organizational Dynamics: Diagnosis and Inter- 2001). vention (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978). 2. M. Poole and A. Van de Ven, eds., Handbook of Organi- 7. M. Tushman and E. Romanelli, “Organization Evolution: zational Change and Innovation (New York: Cambridge A Metamorphosis Model of Convergence and Reorienta- University Press, 2004); D. Coghlan, “Organization tion,” in Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 7, ed. Development through Interlevel Dynamics,” International L. Cummings and B. Staw (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Journal of Organizational Analysis 2 (1994): 264–79. 1985); C. Worley, D. Hitchin, and W. Ross, Integrated

120 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT Strategic Change: How OD Builds Competitive Advantage 24. E. Abrahamson and C. Fombrun, “Macrocultures: Deter- (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996). minants and Consequences,” Academy of Management 8. R. Daft, Organization Theory and Design, 11th ed. Review 19 (1994): 728–56. (Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing, 2013); R. Miles, Macro Organization Behavior (Santa Monica, CA: 25. Adapted from material in R. Brammer, “Sizing Up Small Goodyear, 1980). Caps: Stay Tuned,” Barrons (April 19, 2002); A. Serwer, 9. M. Porter, Competitive Strategy (New York: Free Press, “Happy Birthday, Steinway,” Fortune, March 17, 2003, 1980). 96–98; D. Garvin, “Steinway & Sons,” Harvard Business 10. Ibid. School Case 628-025 (Boston: Harvard Business School, 11. K. Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd ed. 1981); J. Gourville and J. Lassiter, Steinway & Sons: Buy- (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979). ing a Legend (Boston: Harvard Business School, 1999). 12. J. Pfeffer and G. Salancik, The External Control of Orga- nizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective (New York: 26. J. Hackman and C. Morris, “Group Tasks, Group Interaction Harper & Row, 1978); H. Aldrich, Organizations and Process, and Group Performance Effectiveness: A Review Environments (New York: Prentice Hall, 1979); and Proposed Integration,” in Advances in Experimental L. Hrebiniak and W. Joyce, “Organizational Adaptation: Social Psychology, vol. 9, ed. L. Berkowitz (New York: Strategic Choice and Environmental Determinism,” Academic Press, 1975), 45–99; J. Hackman, ed., Groups Administrative Science Quarterly 30 (1985): 336–49. That Work (and Those That Don’t): Creating Conditions for 13. F. Emery and E. Trist, “The Causal Texture of Organiza- Effective Teamwork (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989). tional Environments,” Human Relations 18 (1965): 21–32; H. Aldrich, Organizations and Environments (Englewood 27. M. McCaskey, “Framework for Analyzing Work Groups,” Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1979). Harvard Business School Case 9-480-009 (Boston: 14. J. Galbraith, Competing with Flexible Lateral Organizations, Harvard Business School, 1997). 2nd ed. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1994); P. Evans and T. Wurster, “Strategy and the New Economics of 28. G. Ledford, E. Lawler, and S. Mohrman, “The Quality Information,” Harvard Business Review 75 (1997): 70–83. Circle and Its Variations,” in Productivity in Organiza- 15. M. Tushman and D. Nadler, “Information Processing as tions: New Perspectives from Industrial and Organiza- an Integrating Concept in Organizational Design,” Acad- tional Psychology, ed. J. Campbell, R. Campbell, and emy of Management Review 3 (1978): 613–24. Associates (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988), 255–94. 16. M. Porter, Competitive Advantage (New York: Free Press, 1985); M. Hitt, R. D. Ireland, and R. Hoskisson, Strategic 29. D. Ancona and H. Bresman, X-teams: How to Build Management (Mason, OH: South-Western College Teams that Lead, Innovate, and Succeed (Boston: Harvard Publishing, 2006). Business School Press, 2007); S. Mohrman, S. Cohen, and 17. C. Hofer and D. Schendel, Strategy Formulation: Analyti- A. Mohrman, Designing Team-Based Organizations cal Concepts (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1978). (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995). 18. E. Lawler and C. Worley, Built to Change (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006). 30. G. Susman, Autonomy at Work (New York: Praeger, 19. J. Thompson, Organizations in Action (New York: 1976); T. Cummings, “Self-Regulating Work Groups: McGraw-Hill, 1967); D. Gerwin, “Relationships between A Socio-Technical Synthesis,” Academy of Management Structure and Technology,” in Handbook of Organiza- Review 3 (1978): 625–34; J. Slocum and H. Sims, tional Design, vol. 2, ed. P. Nystrom and W. Starbuck “A Typology for Integrating Technology, Organization, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), 3–38. and Job Design,” Human Relations 33 (1980): 193–212. 20. Galbraith, Designing Organizations; Daft, Organization Theory and Design. 31. J. R. Hackman and G. Oldham, Work Redesign (Reading, 21. P. Lawrence and J. Lorsch, Organization and Environ- MA: Addison-Wesley, 1980). ment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967). 22. Galbraith, Competing with Flexible Lateral Organizations. 32. E. Schein, Process Consultation, vols. 1–2 (Reading, MA: 23. J. Martin, Organizational Culture: Mapping the Terrain Addison-Wesley, 1987). (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publishing, 2002); E. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed. 33. W. Dyer, Team Building, 3rd ed. (Reading, MA: Addison- (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990). Wesley, 1994). 34. Hackman and Morris, “Group Tasks”; T. Cummings, “Designing Effective Work Groups,” in Handbook of Orga- nizational Design, vol. 2, ed. P. Nystrom and W. Starbuck (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), 250–71. 35. Cummings, “Designing Effective Work Groups.” 36. Susman, Autonomy at Work; Cummings, “Self-Regulating Work Groups”; Slocum and Sims, “Typology.” 37. Cummings, “Self-Regulating Work Groups”; Slocum and Sims, “Typology.”

CHAPTER 5 DIAGNOSING 121 38. Ibid. 42. Hackman and Oldham, Work Redesign; Pierce, Dunham, 39. Hackman and Oldham, Work Redesign; F. Herzberg, and Blackburn, “Social Systems Structure.” “One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees?” 43. E. Lawler III, Motivation in Work Organizations Harvard Business Review 46 (1968): 53–62. (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1973). 40. J. Pierce, R. Dunham, and R. Blackburn, “Social Systems Structure, Job Design, and Growth Need Strength: A Test 44. Hackman and Oldham, Work Redesign. of a Congruence Model,” Academy of Management Journal 45. Pierce, Dunham, and Blackburn, “Social Systems Structure”; 22 (1979): 223–40. 41. Susman, Autonomy at Work; Cummings, “Self-Regulating Susman, Autonomy at Work; Cummings, “Self-Regulating Work Groups”; Slocum and Sims, “Typology.” Work Groups”; Slocum and Sims, “Typology.” 46. Hackman and Oldham, Work Redesign; Pierce, Dunham, and Blackburn, “Social Systems Structure.”



© Pixmann/Imagezoo/ 6 Getty Images Collecting, Analyzing, and Feeding Back Diagnostic Information learning Understand the importance of the diagnostic relationship in the objectives organization development (OD) process. Describe the methods for collecting diagnostic data. Understand the primary techniques used to analyze diagnostic data. Outline the process issues associated with data feedback. Describe and evaluate the survey feedback intervention. Organization development is vitally depen- whom data will be collected and then choosing data dent on collecting diagnostic information collection techniques. Four methods can be used to that will be shared with the client in jointly collect data: questionnaires, interviews, observations, assessing how the organization is functioning and and unobtrusive measures. Data analysis organizes determining the best change intervention. The qual- and examines the information to make clear the ity of the information gathered and the effective- underlying causes of an organizational problem or ness of the feedback process, therefore, are to identify areas for future development. Data critical parts of the OD process. In this chapter, feedback presents diagnostic information to we discuss several key issues associated with col- organizational members so they can understand it lecting, analyzing, and feeding back diagnostic data and draw action implications from it. Effective on how an organization or department functions. feedback involves attention to both the content and the process of data feedback. A popular Data collection involves gathering information on technique for feeding back questionnaire data is specific organizational features, such as the inputs, called survey feedback. Its central role in many design components, and outputs presented in large-scale OD efforts warrants a special look. The Chapter 5. The process begins by establishing an overall process of data collection, analysis, and effective relationship between the organization feedback is shown in Figure 6.1. development (OD) practitioner and those from 6-1 The Diagnostic Relationship In most cases of planned change, OD practitioners play an active role in gathering data from organization members for diagnostic purposes. For example, they might interview members of a work team about causes of conflict among members; they might survey 123

124 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 6.1 The Cycle of Data Collection and Feedback SOURCE: Figure adapted from D. Nadler, Feedback and Organization Development, 1977, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ. employees at a large industrial plant about factors contributing to poor product quality. Before collecting diagnostic information, practitioners need to establish a relationship with those who will provide and subsequently use it. Because the nature of that relation- ship affects the quality and usefulness of the data collected, it is vital that OD practitioners clarify for organization members who they are, why the data are being collected, what the data gathering will involve, and how the data will be used.1 That information can help allay people’s natural fears that the data might be used against them and gain members’ participation and support, which are essential to developing successful interventions. Establishing the diagnostic relationship between the OD practitioner and relevant organization members is similar to forming a contract. It is meant to clarify expectations and to specify the conditions of the relationship. In those cases where members have been directly involved in the entering and contracting process described in Chapter 4, the diagnostic contract will typically be part of the initial contracting step. In situations where data will be collected from members who have not been directly involved in enter- ing and contracting, however, OD practitioners will need to establish a diagnostic con- tract as a prelude to diagnosis. The answers to the following questions provide the substance of the diagnostic contract:2 1. Who am I? The answer to this question introduces the OD practitioner to the orga- nization, particularly to those members who do not know the consultant and yet will be asked to provide diagnostic data. 2. Why am I here, and what am I doing? These answers are aimed at defining the goals of the diagnosis and data-gathering activities. The consultant needs to present the objectives of the action research process and to describe how the diagnostic activities fit into the overall developmental strategy. 3. Who do I work for? This answer clarifies who has hired the OD practitioner, whether it be a manager, a group of managers, or a group of employees and man- agers. One way to build trust and support for the diagnosis is to have those people directly involved in establishing the diagnostic contract. Thus, for example, if the

CHAPTER 6 COLLECTING, ANALYZING, AND FEEDING BACK DIAGNOSTIC INFORMATION 125 consultant works for a joint labor–management committee, representatives from both sides of that group could help the consultant build the proper relationship with those from whom data will be gathered. 4. What do I want from you, and why? Here, the OD practitioner needs to specify how much time and effort people will need to give to provide valid data and subse- quently to work with these data in solving problems. Because some people may not want to participate in the diagnosis, it is important to specify that such involvement is voluntary. 5. How will I protect your confidentiality? This answer addresses member concerns about who will see their responses and in what form. This is especially critical when employees are asked to provide information about their attitudes or perceptions. Either OD practitioners can ensure confidentiality or state that full participation in the change process requires open information sharing. In the first case, employees are frequently concerned about privacy and the possibility of being punished for their responses. To alleviate concern and to increase the likelihood of obtaining honest responses, the con- sultant may need to assure employees of the confidentiality of their information, perhaps through explicit guarantees of response anonymity. In the second case, full involvement of the participants in their own diagnosis may be a vital ingredient of the change pro- cess. If sensitive issues arise, assurances of confidentiality can coopt the OD practitioner and thwart meaningful diagnosis. The consultant is bound to keep confidential the issues that are most critical for the group or organization to understand.3 OD practi- tioners must think carefully about how they want to handle confidentiality issues. 6. Who will have access to the data? Respondents typically want to know whether they will have access to their data and who else in the organization will have similar access. The OD practitioner needs to clarify access issues and, in most cases, should agree to provide respondents with their own results. Indeed, the collaborative nature of diagnosis means that organization members will work with their own data to dis- cover causes of problems and to devise relevant interventions. 7. What is in it for you? This answer is aimed at providing organization members with a clear delineation of the benefits they can expect from the diagnosis. This usu- ally entails describing the feedback process and how they can use the data to improve the organization. 8. Can I be trusted? The diagnostic relationship ultimately rests on the trust estab- lished between the OD practitioner and those providing the data. An open and hon- est exchange of information depends on such trust, and the practitioner should provide ample time and face-to-face contact during the contracting process to build this trust. This requires the consultant to listen actively and discuss openly all questions raised by participants. Careful attention to establishing the diagnostic relationship helps to promote the three goals of data collection.4 The first and most immediate objective is to obtain valid information about organizational functioning. Building a data collection contract can ensure that organization members provide honest, reliable, and complete information. Data collection also can rally energy for constructive organizational change. A good diagnostic relationship helps organization members start thinking about issues that con- cern them, and it creates expectations that change is possible. When members trust the OD practitioner, they are likely to participate in the diagnostic process and to generate energy and commitment for organizational change. Finally, data collection helps to develop the collaborative relationship necessary for effecting organizational change. The diagnostic stage of action research is probably the

126 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT first time that most organization members meet the OD practitioner, and it can be the basis for building a longer-term relationship. The data collection contract and subsequent data-gathering and feedback activities provide members with opportunities for seeing the consultant in action and for knowing him or her personally. If the consultant can show employees that he or she is trustworthy, is willing to work with them, and is able to help improve the organization, then the data collection process will contribute to the longer- term collaborative relationship so necessary for carrying out organizational changes. 6-2 Collecting Data The four major techniques for gathering diagnostic data are questionnaires, interviews, observations, and unobtrusive measures. Table 6.1 briefly compares the methods and lists their major advantages and problems. No single method can fully measure the kinds of diagnostic variables important to OD because each has certain strengths and weaknesses.5 For example, perceptual measures, such as questionnaires and surveys, are open to self-report biases, such as respondents’ tendency to give socially desirable answers rather than honest opinions. Observations, on the other hand, are susceptible to observer biases, such as seeing what one wants to see rather than what is really there. Because of the biases inherent in any data collection method, more than one method should be used when collecting diagnostic data. If data from the different meth- ods are compared and found to be consistent, it is likely that the variables are being TABLE 6.1 Strengths and Weaknesses of Different Data Collection Methods Data Collection Primary Strengths Primary Weaknesses © Cengage Learning 2015 Method Surveys and Member beliefs and attitudes can be Relatively impersonal quantified easily Mechanistic and rigid—assumes all questionnaires Can gather large amount of data from the right questions are asked Interviews many people Easy to “over interpret” the data Response bias Observations Inexpensive on a per-person basis Relatively expensive Unobtrusive Very flexible—can adapt to interviewee Interviewer responses can be biased measures and data collection subject Difficult to code and interpret Self-report bias Data is “rich” Interview process builds rapport and Difficult to code and interpret Sampling may be inconsistent empathy Observer bias and reliability can be Collects data on actual behavior, rather questioned than reports of behavior Can be expensive Real time, not retrospective Privacy, access, and retrieval difficulties Adaptive and objective Validity concerns Difficult to code and interpret No response bias High face validity Easily quantified

CHAPTER 6 COLLECTING, ANALYZING, AND FEEDING BACK DIAGNOSTIC INFORMATION 127 measured validly. For example, questionnaire measures of job discretion could be supple- mented with observations of the number and kinds of decisions employees are making. If the two kinds of data support each other, job discretion is probably being assessed accu- rately. If the two kinds of data conflict, the validity of the measures should be examined further—perhaps by using a third method, such as interviews. 6-2a Questionnaires One of the most efficient ways to collect data is through questionnaires. Because they typi- cally contain fixed-response queries about various features of an organization, these mea- sures can be administered to large numbers of people simultaneously. Also, they can be analyzed quickly, especially with the use of computers, thus permitting quantitative com- parison and evaluation. As a result, data can easily be fed back to employees. Numerous basic resource books on survey methodology and questionnaire development are available.6 Questionnaires can vary in scope, some measuring selected aspects of organizations and others assessing more comprehensive organizational characteristics. They also can vary in the extent to which they are either standardized or tailored to a specific organi- zation. Standardized instruments generally are based on an explicit model of organiza- tion, group, or individual effectiveness and contain a predetermined set of questions that have been developed and refined over time. For example, Table 6.2 presents a stan- dardized questionnaire for measuring the job-design dimensions identified in Chapter 5: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback about results. The questionnaire includes three items or questions for each dimension, and a total score for each job dimension is computed simply by adding the responses for the three rele- vant items and arriving at a total score from 3 (low) to 21 (high). The questionnaire has wide applicability. It has been used in a variety of organizations with employees in both blue-collar and white-collar jobs. Several research organizations have been highly instrumental in developing and refining surveys. The Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan (http:// home.isr.umich.edu) and the Center for Effective Organizations at the University of Southern California (http://ceo.usc.edu) are two prominent examples. Two of the Insti- tute’s most popular measures of organizational dimensions are the Survey of Organiza- tions and the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Few other instruments are supported by such substantial reliability and validity data.7 Other exam- ples of packaged instruments include Weisbord’s Organizational Diagnostic Question- naire, Dyer’s Team Development Survey, Cameron and Quinn’s Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument, and Hackman and Oldham’s Job Diagnostic Survey.8 In fact, so many questionnaires are available that rarely would an organization have to create a totally new one. However, because every organization has unique problems and special jargon for referring to them, almost any standardized instrument will need to have organization-specific additions, modifications, or omissions. On the other hand, customized questionnaires are tailored to the needs of a particu- lar organization. Typically, they include questions composed by OD practitioners or organization members, receive limited use, and do not undergo longer-term develop- ment. They can be combined with standardized instruments to provide valid and reliable data focused toward the particular issues facing an organization. Questionnaires, however, have a number of drawbacks that need to be taken into account in choosing whether to employ them for data collection. First, responses are limited to the questions asked in the instrument. They provide little opportunity to probe for additional data or to ask for points of clarification. Second, questionnaires tend to be impersonal, and

128 PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT TABLE 6.2 Job-Design Questionnaire Here are some statements about your job. How much do you agree or disagree with each? Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly My Job: Disagree Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Agree Agree 1. provides much variety … [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] 2. permits me to be left on my [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] own to do my own work … 3. is arranged so that I often have [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] the opportunity to see jobs or projects through to completion … 4. provides feedback on how well I [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] am doing as I am working … 5. is relatively significant in our [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] organization … 6. gives me considerable opportunity [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] for independence and freedom in how I do my work … 7. gives me the opportunity to do a [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] number of different things … 8. provides me an opportunity to find [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] out how well I am doing … 9. is very significant or important in [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] the broader scheme of things … 10. provides an opportunity for [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] independent thought and action … 11. provides me with a great deal of [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] variety at work … 12. is arranged so that I have the [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] opportunity to complete the work I start … 13. provides me with the feeling that I [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] know whether I am performing well or poorly … 14. is arranged so that I have [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] the chance to do a job from the beginning to the end (i.e., a chance to do the whole job) … 15. is one where a lot of other people [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] can be affected by how well the work gets done … Scoring: Skill variety ......................................................................................................................... questions 1, 7, 11 Task identity ....................................................................................................................... questions 3, 12, 14 Task significance ............................................................................................................... questions 5, 9, 15 Autonomy .......................................................................................................................... questions 2, 6, 10 Feedback about results ..................................................................................................... questions 4, 8, 13 SOURCE: Reproduced by permission of E. Lawler, S. Mohrman, and T. Cummings, Center for Effective Organizations, University of Southern California.