Good day writer,
Please see the assignment instructions in the attachments. If anything additional is needed, please let me know.
Core Values:
Integrity, Respect, Teamwork, Open-Mindedness.
Chapter 3: Core Values and Ethics in Organization Development
1
What Are Values? (1 of 2)
“An enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence.” (Rokeach, 1973, p. 5)
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
2
2
What Are Values? (2 of 2)
“OD is value-based and more importantly its core values provide the guiding light for both the OD process and its technology. The very identity of the field is reflected in the existence and application of the values it advocates. Without them, OD represents nothing more than a set of techniques.” (Margulies & Raia, 1990, p. 39)
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
3
3
Why Are OD Values Important? (1 of 2)
They guide choices about how to proceed.
They provide a larger vision that extends. beyond any individual intervention or project.
They distinguish OD from other methods of consulting and change.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
4
4
Why Are OD Values Important? (2 of 2)
They can help to prompt dialogue and clarify positions.
They can help us evaluate how we did.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
5
5
Core Values of Organization Development
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
6
| Away From . . . | Toward . . . |
| A view of people as essentially bad | A view of people as essentially good |
| Avoidance of negative evaluation of individuals | Confirming them as human beings |
| Seeing individuals as fixed | Seeing them as being in process |
| Resisting and fearing individual differences | Accepting and utilizing them |
| Utilizing an individual primarily with reference to his or her job description | Viewing him or her as a whole person |
| Walling-off the expression of feelings | Making possible both appropriate expression and effective use |
| Game-playing | Authentic behavior |
| Use of status for maintaining power and personal prestige | Use of status for organizationally relevant purposes |
| Distrusting people | Trusting them |
| Avoiding facing others with relevant data | Making appropriate confrontation |
| Avoidance of risk taking | Willingness to risk |
| View of process work as being unproductive effort | Seeing process work as essential to effective task accomplishment |
| Primary emphasis on competition | Greater emphasis on collaboration |
Table 3.1 Organization Development Values
Source: Tannenbaum, R., & Davis, S. A. (1969). Values, man, and organizations. Industrial Management Review, 10(2), 67–86.
© 1969 from MIT Sloan Management Review/Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Table 3.1: Organization Development Values
6
Values, Assumptions, Beliefs of OD (1 of 3)
Participation:
Involvement, leadership style.
Groups and teams:
Value of teams; let teams flourish.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
7
7
Values, Assumptions, Beliefs of OD (2 of 3)
Growth, development, and learning:
People, groups, and organizations are “in process.”
Fulfill human potential.
Whole person.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
8
8
Values, Assumptions, Beliefs of OD (3 of 3)
Dialogue and collaboration:
Create cooperative, rather than competitive, systems.
Traditional hierarchy is obsolete.
Win-win is possible.
Authenticity, openness, trust:
Keys to healthy collaboration.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
9
9
Challenges to OD Values (1 of 2)
Financial and economic tensions:
Practitioners may accept projects or actions for a paying client.
The push to see OD as technology/tools:
Practitioners may be pressured to implement fad or quick fix techniques.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
10
10
Challenges to OD Values (2 of 2)
Management culture and expectations:
A push for speed may result in skipping data gathering; appearing out of touch when discussing values.
Research:
Academic research that seeks to evaluate outcomes sees OD as a set of techniques rather than being values-based.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020.
11
11
,
Chapter 4: Foundations of Organizational Change
Levels and Characteristics of Organizational Change
Changes occur at many levels.
Changes vary in several ways.
Planning.
Magnitude.
Continuity.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
2
Changes occur at many levels: Changes can occur at the individual level when people learn new skills or develop new ways of working through mentoring, coaching, or education and training. Changes can occur at the group or team level as teams develop new ways of working with one another, define their goals and objectives, and learn ways of addressing conflict. Changes occur at the organizational level through the development of new strategies and processes, visions for a new desired future, and major system practices that affect all organizational members. Changes can also occur at suprasystem levels, where multiple organizations are implicated.
Changes vary in several ways: Practitioners and scholars have noticed that organizational changes differ on a number of dimensions.
Planning: Organizational change can be planned or unplanned. Organizational members can be conscious and intentional about the changes that they want to make, often due to environmental factors, strategic or market needs, or other influences. Changes can also be unplanned, perhaps in response to an immediate threat or crisis.
Magnitude: First-order changes tend to be alterations or changes to existing practices rather than a rethinking or reinvention of the practice. First-order change reflects an evolution of existing definitions rather than a revolution or redefinition. Rethinking how the entire organization used the computer system, including redefining roles, processes, values, and implicit meanings, would be considered second-order change. Others refer to differences in magnitude of organizational change by the labels transactional or transformational, evolutionary or revolutionary, and incremental or transformational.
Continuity: Episodic change is defined as distinct periods of change, usually infrequent and explicitly defined. When seen in this way, episodic change is usually framed as a response to a stable condition in which adverse conditions are present that force a change. Continuous change, on the other hand, reflects the idea that the organization is never truly out of a state of change, and that even in minute ways, change is always occurring.
2
Organizations as Systems (1 of 21)
First lens to look at organization.
Living organisms and environment.
Subparts related to one another.
Perspective to organizational theory.
Open versus closed systems.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
3
First lens to look at organization: Systems theory can be traced to an Austrian biologist, Ludwig von Bertlanffy, who wrote a series of books and articles beginning in the 1940s about the systemic interconnections of the natural world.
Living organisms and environment: General systems theory, according to Bertlanffy, was about understanding the characteristics of natural systems and the underlying laws that defined their interconnections.
Subparts related to one another: Rather than investigate only the subparts of these organisms in isolation from one another, general systems theory tried to understand how the subparts related to one another.
Perspective to organizational theory: Katz and Kahn (1966) were among the first to adapt this perspective to organizational theory. “All social systems, including organizations,” they wrote, “consist of the patterned activities of a number of individuals.”
Open versus closed systems: Systems theorists refer to these systems as “open” versus “closed” because the system is interconnected with its environment. Most theorists emphasize, however, that the natural system metaphor for organizations can be taken too far, since “social structures are essentially contrived systems.”
3
Organizations as Systems (2 of 21)
System maintains equilibrium.
Roles and procedures for proper functioning.
Open systems thinking.
Systems theory is popular approach.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
4
System maintains equilibrium: Systems theorists call this property of systems “negative entropy,” meaning the system needs to cope with expended energy without any incoming energy to assist the system in surviving. Moreover, all of these parts and functions are internally interdependent, so that changes in one part of the system will result in changes in other parts of the system.
Roles and procedures for proper functioning: Within these systems, certain functional specialized roles and procedures exist to aid the system in functioning properly. Procedures help the system to reproduce its processes in standardized ways. The overall organizational system also consists of a variety of interconnected subsystems that depend on one another.
Open systems thinking: Process of considering how people, processes, structures, and policies all exist in an interconnected web of relationships. Whereas events are single occurrences of an episode, patterns are the multiple and repetitive “archetypes” that allow events to happen in the same way time after time. These patterns exist in structures that support and reinforce them. Systems thinking consists of seeing the interrelationship of structures and components rather than simple and “linear cause-effect chains.” Correcting organizational problems requires systems thinking rather than simple linear thinking (A caused B to happen) in order to solve the root of the problem rather than correcting the immediate, surface-level symptoms of the problem (asking questions such as “What caused A? Are there other causes?”). In other words, it requires analyzing structures and patterns rather than isolated events.
Systems theory is popular approach: Systems theory has been a popular approach in organizational studies because it resonates with how we understand organizations to work at the most general level. Changes in the environment, such as legislative or regulatory changes, cause organizations to adapt to new rules. Poor quality inputs lead to problems in transformation processes and result in poor quality outputs. Erroneous information in the feedback process creates unnecessary or problematic changes in the system. Aspects of the system are interdependent on one another, and problems in one part of the system create problems in other parts of the system.
4
Organizations as Systems (3 of 21)
The Value of Systems Theory for OD Practitioners
Systems theory offers benefits.
Attention on training was common error.
Causes of problems and interconnections.
Taking systemic issues into account.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
5
Systems theory offers benefits: First, it can offer useful explanations for human behavior in organizations with attention to roles and structures rather than individual idiosyncrasies. Instead of seeing individual differences, OD practitioners can note where systems may encourage certain behavior patterns, usually subtly and without conscious decision. The systems theory perspective helps us see role-based interactional patterns rather than isolated actions of single individuals. Second, understanding the system and its dynamics gives OD practitioners a more appropriate place to begin interventions for change, since the object of change is often best directed at the system level rather than the individual level. Third, because changing one part of the system also results in changes to another part of the system, OD practitioners can be more deliberate about changes that are being proposed, and possible negative results can be predicted.
Attention on training was common error: Katz and Kahn (1966) wrote that this attention on training was a common error in organizations—and little change results from it: It is common practice to pull foremen or officials out of their organizational roles and give them training in human relations. Then they return to their customary positions with the same role expectations from their subordinates, the same pressures from their superiors, and the same functions to perform as before their special training.
Causes of problems and interconnections: OD practitioners can delve more deeply into the causes of problems and interconnections among groups, looking at systemic problems rather than at individuals or individual components of the system as the primary sources of error. This can lead to more fruitful targets for change.
Taking systemic issues into account: It may mean a more successful organizational change, as undesirable or “downstream” outcomes can be predicted and addressed before they become problems of their own. The organization as a whole can be internally consistent about the changes it wants to make.
5
Organizations as Systems (4 of 21)
Models of Organizational Change Consistent With a Systems Theory Approach
Predominant approaches.
Patterns and their relationships.
Possible areas for change.
Models are like colored lenses.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
6
Predominant approaches: As might be expected given its popularity as a theoretical model for organizations, models of organizational change consistent with a systems theory approach predominate.
Patterns and their relationships: They can help us see possible relationships that we may have missed, and they can help us see missing pieces that we might have expected to see but did not.
Possible areas for change: The model may point out the influence of one area on another that may prompt us to note that we devote too much attention to the first topic and not enough to the latter.
Models are like colored lenses: They highlight some aspects of the terrain while they may obscure others, but in any case, they will help us see new things that we may not have seen before.
6
Organizations as Systems (5 of 21)
Models of Organizational Change Consistent With a Systems Theory Approach: Lewin’s Three-Phase Model of Change and Force Field Analysis
Unfreezing, moving, and refreezing.
Forces promoting change and status quo.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
7
Unfreezing, moving, and refreezing: Kurt Lewin (1951) offered a three-phase model of organizational change in which he described change as a process of (1) unfreezing, (2) moving, and (3) refreezing. Current organizational practices need to be released (or unfrozen) to be changed. Once they are changed, they need to be refrozen as newly adopted regular practices.
Forces promoting change and status quo: Change can occur only when forces of change are greater than forces maintaining the status quo. This can happen in two ways: if forces promoting change are increased or if forces maintaining the status quo are decreased.
7
Organizations as Systems (6 of 21)
Models of Organizational Change Consistent With a Systems Theory Approach: Lewin’s Three-Phase Model of Change and Force Field Analysis
Easily grasped description of change.
Concept of force field analysis.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
8
Easily grasped description of change: The organization must be freed from prior practices and must work to sustain the change when it is implemented. The model also reminds us that organizational members must be prepared for a change, and that levels of resistance can mean that the organization remains in a frozen state until we work to unfreeze it. A popular adaptation of Lewin’s model refers to an organization’s current state, a transition state, and a desired state. Despite its popularity among practitioners, many scholars have noted that an “organization-as-ice-cube” model is, however, an oversimplification of a much more complex process, particularly since organizational practices are never exactly frozen.
Concept of force field analysis: The tool can help organizational members understand what factors would support a given change effort and what resistance might prevent the change from being adopted. Some practitioners use the model as a formal assessment, asking team members to rate the strength of the forces for and against change on a scale from 1 to 5 to prioritize actions where energy should be directed.
8
Organizations as Systems (7 of 21)
Kurt Lewin’s Force Field Analysis
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
9
Lewin’s model points out that change will not occur if the training, cost, and resistance are greater than the benefits that the system offers.
9
Organizations as Systems (8 of 21)
Models of Organizational Change Consistent With a Systems Theory Approach: The Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model
Useful for organizational change.
Interaction between components or parts.
Congruence model of organizational behavior.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
10
Useful for organizational change: Nadler (1981) also explains that this model is particularly useful for organizational change. The premise behind the model is this: The model puts its greatest emphasis on the transformation process and in particular reflects the critical system property of interdependence.
Interaction between components or parts: These components exist in states of relative balance, consistency, or “fit” with each other. The different parts of an organization can fit well together and thus function effectively, or fit poorly, thus leading to problems, dysfunctions, or performance below potential.
Congruence model of organizational behavior: Given the central nature of these “fits” among components in the model, we will talk about it as a congruence model of organizational behavior, since effectiveness is a function of the congruence among the various components. Together, these four elements are defined as the primary components of the organization. They interact together in more or less consistent ways as the organization produces its outputs. Nadler (1981) writes about a fundamental notion of the congruence model: At the core of this systems-based perspective is the assumption that the interaction among the organizational components is perhaps more critical than the characteristics of the components themselves, and that as systems, organizations fundamentally work better when the pieces fit together.
10
Organizations as Systems (9 of 21)
Models of Organizational Change Consistent With a Systems Theory Approach: The Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model
Congruence hypothesis.
Other parts noted and controlled.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
11
Congruence hypothesis: Nadler and Tushman refer to this as the “congruence hypothesis,” or the idea that the better the congruence between components, the more effective the organization. When an organization has a market demand to produce a new product (new input and new output), that demand requires a specific task to produce the output. If the task’s demands require skills and knowledge that individuals do not possess, then there will be a congruence gap (or low “fit”) between task and individuals. Organizational effectiveness can be achieved only if the fit is increased.
Other parts noted and controlled: The model points to areas that affect one another so that changes in other parts of the system can be noted and controlled. Nadler (1981) explains that when parts of a system are changed, they may increase or decrease the “fit” or congruence with other parts of the system. When change happens, other components of the organization may resist the change and encourage regression to the prior state. Nadler points to the need to motivate change (the individual component), manage transitions, and pay attention to political dynamics of change as well.
11
Organizations as Systems (10 of 21)
The Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
12
Noting that systems theory is “too abstract to be used for day-to-day organizational behavior-problem analysis,” Nadler and Tushman have offered an expanded version of systems theory that contains additional concepts intended to be more useful to practitioners.
Like the traditional model of systems theory described earlier, notice that inputs, transformation processes, outputs, and feedback are also included as part of the congruence model. Each of these has been expanded in this model.
Inputs include environment, resources, and history, and are merged with organizational strategy to influence transformation processes. Market demands, human resources, technology, capital, information, and prior patterns all comprise the organization’s inputs. Strategy is included in the congruence model as it determines what the organization will work on and how the organization must work to achieve its outputs. Outputs are now more specifically defined not only as the “tangible” product of the organization’s processes, but outputs also consist of organizational, group, and individual performance. Nadler and Tushman include job satisfaction, stress, and other individual outputs as products of the work environment as well. Transformation processes have been expanded in the congruence model to include four important elements that relate to one another: task, individual, formal organizational arrangements, and informal organization.
The task component encompasses the work to be done, but also the skills and knowledge required to do it and the degree of independence or judgment required. The individual component includes employees’ knowledge and skills, engagement and motivation, preferences and attitudes, and other influences on individual behavior. Formal organizational arrangements include explicitly defined processes and organizational structures, job definition, metrics, the physical layout and environment, and other officially specified aspects of the work. Informal organization is defined as the less explicitly defined or tacit understandings, processes, methods, and norms that comprise how work is actually done.
SOURCE: Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1997). Competing by Design. Oxford, p. 38.
12
Organizations as Systems (11 of 21)
Models of Organizational Change Consistent With a Systems Theory Approach: The Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change
Intended to follow basic tenets.
Observers remark its complexity.
External environment.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
13
Intended to follow basic tenets: Some prior models could not, however, predict the impact of an organizational change with certainty on other elements of the organization, and other models lacked empirical testing. Burke’s and Litwin’s is explicitly a model of organizational change based in systems theory that is intended to follow from its basic tenets.
Observers remark its complexity: Burke and Litwin acknowledge that the model is complex but state that change is such a complex phenomenon, the model is still likely a simplified version of what actually occurs during change. They define each component as follows:
External environment: any outside condition or situation that influences the performance of the organization.
13
Organizations as Systems (12 of 21)
Models of Organizational Change Consistent With a Systems Theory Approach: The Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change
Mission and strategy.
Leadership.
Culture.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
14
Mission and strategy: What employees believe is the central purpose of the organization and how the organization intends to achieve that purpose over an extended period of time.
Leadership: executive behavior that provides direction and encourages others to take needed action.
Culture: “The way we do things around here”; culture is the collection of overt and covert rules, values, and principles that guide organizational behavior and that have been strongly influenced by history, custom, and practice.
14
Organizations as Systems (13 of 21)
Models of Organizational Change Consistent With a Systems Theory Approach: The Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change
Structure.
Management practices.
Systems.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
15
Structure: the arrangement of functions and people into specific areas and levels of responsibility, decision-making authority, and relationships
Management practices: what managers do in the normal course of events to use the human and material resources at their disposal to carry out the organization’s strategy.
Systems: standardized policies and mechanisms that are designed to facilitate work.
15
Organizations as Systems (14 of 21)
Models of Organizational Change Consistent With a Systems Theory Approach: The Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change
Climate.
Task requirements and individual abilities.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
16
Climate: the collective current impressions, expectations, and feelings of the members of local work units.
Task requirements and individual skills/abilities: the behavior required for task effectiveness, including specific skills and knowledge required for people to accomplish the work assigned and for which they feel directly responsible.
16
Organizations as Systems (15 of 21)
Models of Organizational Change Consistent With a Systems Theory Approach: The Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change
Individual needs and values.
Motivation.
Individual and organizational performance.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
17
Individual needs and values: the specific psychological factors that provide desire and worth for individual actions or thoughts.
Motivation: aroused behavioral tendencies to move toward goals, take needed action, and persist until satisfaction is attained.
Individual and organizational performance: the outcomes or results, with indicators of effort and achievement; such indicators might include productivity, customer or staff satisfaction, profit, and service quality.
17
Organizations as Systems (16 of 21)
The Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
18
Burke and Litwin developed their model of organizational performance and change as a causal model that could be empirically tested, that would specify the variables that would be affected by a given change, and that would take into account both first-order (transactional) and second-order (transformational) change.
Similar to systems theory, the external environment at the top of the model represents inputs, the individual and organizational performance box at the bottom of the model represents the output, and all other boxes between these represent the throughput processes. Arrows indicate the greatest directions of influence among the variables, but the downward arrows, they believe, have greater influence on lower boxes than do the upward arrows to the variables above them. All boxes generally affect all others, but the arrows in the model represent the most important causal links.
Burke and Litwin write that the model attempts to integrate notions of transformational and transactional change. The factors most influential in transformational change are due to environmental causes, so the top four boxes (external environment, mission and strategy, leadership, and organization culture) have the greatest influence on performance. During transactional change, the other boxes below this level (structure, management practices, and so on) are the major factors of interest.
SOURCE: Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal mode of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18, 523–545. Reprinted with permission from SAGE Publications, Inc.
18
Organizations as Systems (17 of 21)
Models of Organizational Change Consistent With a Systems Theory Approach: Weisbord’s Six-Box Model
Popular diagnostic model.
Referred to as radar screen.
Purposes.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
19
Popular diagnostic model: In later years, however, Weisbord’s model has become a popular diagnostic model to illustrate elements of a system that are out of sync with other parts of the system, in particular to explore how formal and informal systems are often misaligned or contradictory. Consequently, it has become a popular model among practitioners for analyzing and conducting organizational change.
Referred to as radar screen: Weisbord refers to the model as a “radar screen” depicting the interrelationships among six of an organization’s component parts. Based on his experience, the model categorizes six common problem areas in an organization and helps to illustrate how symptoms can be seen in a systemic light. The model’s six boxes are as follows:
Purposes: This box includes formal goal clarity (how well the goals are explained) and informal goal agreement (how well the goals are truly understood and acted upon).
19
Organizations as Systems (18 of 21)
Models of Organizational Change Consistent With a Systems Theory Approach: Weisbord’s Six-Box Model
Structure.
Rewards.
Relationships.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
20
Structure: How well does the organizational structure match the needed outputs? Is the organizational structure followed or undermined in daily practice?
Rewards: Does a (formal) reward system exist, and does it actually produce results, making employees feel as if their contributions are being rewarded (informal)?
Relationships: This concerns the degree to which people can work interdependently and manage conflict successfully.
20
Organizations as Systems (19 of 21)
Models of Organizational Change Consistent With a Systems Theory Approach: Weisbord’s Six-Box Model
Helpful mechanisms.
Leadership.
Formal and informal component alignment.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
21
Helpful mechanisms: What formal mechanisms exist to facilitate work, such as budget processes, meetings, reviews, or other communications? How well do these helpful mechanisms meet their objectives?
Leadership: How do leaders lead? What do they state as their formal expectations? What norms do leaders informally role model or informally communicate?
Formal and informal component alignment: When formal and informal components of the boxes are not in alignment, the organization may be expending energy maintaining both a formal system and an informal one that may or may not be functioning as needed. It is not the case that one of these systems is better than the other, but understanding how these six boxes function formally and informally can give insight into why an organization may be experiencing problems and where to begin interventions for change.
21
Organizations as Systems (20 of 21)
Models of Organizational Change Consistent With a Systems Theory Approach: Weisbord’s Six-Box Model
Formal and informal gap analysis.
Advantage itself may be drawback.
Dominant approach in OD and theory.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
22
Formal and informal gap analysis: Additional gaps may exist between the organization and its environment, between individual work and the organization’s goals, or between different organizational units. It is this formal and informal gap analysis that Weisbord and others have noted is an especially important aspect of the model.
Advantage itself may be drawback: Weisbord’s Six-Box Model thus gives great insight into the internal functioning of a system. As some have noted, this advantage of the Six-Box Model may be its drawback as well, as it attends less to elements of the external environment and issues such as scarce resources or demands of external stakeholders. It also gives less insight into which gaps may be more serious than others. By placing leadership in the center of the model, it may also overemphasize the role of leadership and understate the role of individual employees in the functioning of the organization.
Dominant approach in OD and theory: Consistent with the approach suggested by systems theory, this model suggests that an organization exists in interaction with its environment, and that managing problems, misalignments, and holes between various components is a key to successful organizational functioning. Assumptions about organizational components and analysis of “fit” remain a key feature of diagnostic recommendations in the practitioner literature.
22
Organizations as Systems (21 of 21)
Weisbord’s Six-Box Model
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
23
Each of the boxes has both formal (espoused and official) and informal (how things work in practice) components, and a complete diagnosis must attend to both. Strictly speaking, Weisbord’s Six-Box Model, first elaborated in a 1976 article, was not explicitly articulated as a model of organizational change.
SOURCE: Weisbord, M. R. (1976). Organizational diagnosis: Six places to look for trouble with or without a theory. Group & Organization Studies, 1, 430–447. Reprinted with permission.
23
Organizations as Socially Constructed (1 of 7)
Recent evolution in organizational theory.
Organizations are not exactly things.
Boundaries between organization and environment.
Differs sharply from systems perspective.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
24
Recent evolution in organizational theory: The intellectual history of the idea of social construction in organizational studies is usually traced to Berger and Luckmann’s seminal work The Social Construction of Reality. Consider that in our everyday language, or even in texts such as this one, organizations are frequently personified as actors in their own right. Classical organizational theory actually considered organizations to be “living things” with “a concrete social environment, a formal structure, recognized goals, and a variety of needs.” Yet organizations are not people, and a number of important ideas are obscured when we personify them.
Organizations are not exactly things: The social construction view argues that organizations are not exactly things at all, but that the organization is really a concept developed out of our own actions and language.
Boundaries between organization and environment: From this perspective, the boundary between the organization and its environment is not a sharp or easily defined one, and can even sometimes be fluid from interaction to interaction. Weick writes that “environment and organization conceal the fact that organizing is about flows, change, and process.” The terms organization, boundary, and environment in systems theory become more complex and perhaps less meaningful when we start to delve more deeply into how to define them.
Differs sharply from systems perspective: It challenges the prevailing assumptions of systems theory that organizational environments, inputs, processes, outputs, feedback, and so on are self-evident concepts and categories with predefined singular meanings on which we all agree. Instead, it sees those concepts and categories as created, developed, and infused with meaning by organizational members. To say, as systems theory does, that the environment specifies how the organization must act to achieve equilibrium omits the process of making and creating meaning, and developing and sharing interpretations, that explains how and why organizational members decide to take action.
24
Organizations as Socially Constructed (2 of 7)
Environment is invented and invested.
Interactions and language are important.
Respects ambiguity and multiple meanings.
Missing elements of systems theory.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
25
Environment is invented and invested: Indeed, an incredible amount of information exists in organizational environments that must be given meaning. Instead, information is selectively gathered, made sense of, and shared to create a socially constructed truth that organizational members will use for decisions and action. The category of “environment” is thus invented and invested with meaning by organizational members, and it does not exist outside of their interpretation. Weick calls this concept sensemaking, which he defines as “placement of items into frameworks, comprehending, redressing surprise, constructing meaning, interacting in pursuit of mutual understanding, and patterning.”
Interactions and language are important: It is through regular interaction and dialogue that organizations are developed and change can occur. Thus, sensemaking is an ongoing process, not something with a defined beginning or ending.
Respects ambiguity and multiple meanings: The social construction perspective has become an attractive one for both researchers and practitioners because it resonates with what we experience in organizations as we make sense of our activities and the actions of others. Decisions are considered and rationalized based on complex and contradictory facts. Roles are negotiated and enacted, not predetermined by job descriptions. Press releases and executive communications are scrutinized, debated, and examined for hidden meanings. We leave conversations with colleagues to begin other conversations, sharing information and interpretations in each conversation. Multiple contexts and facts can be brought to bear on any situation to result in ambiguous and inconsistent interpretations.
Missing elements of systems theory: For many students of organizational studies, the social construction perspective fills in the missing elements of systems theory to provide a richer and more dynamic view of how organizations work. It describes how members experience organizations as social environments where interaction is fundamentally how work is accomplished and sensemaking is how it is understood and experienced.
25
Organizations as Socially Constructed (3 of 7)
The Value of the Social Construction Approach for OD Practitioners
Explanation for human behavior.
Emphasizes members’ active role.
Importance of communication in change.
Change in meaning: Sensemaking logic.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
26
Explanation for human behavior: Instead of seeing a decision as one-dimensional based on input from the environment, the social construction perspective helps to articulate the complexities in collecting, interpreting, and sharing the information used to make and communicate the decision. The social construction perspective directs the OD practitioner’s attention to the cultural processes of sensemaking that result in action.
Emphasizes members’ active role: While an individual member may not have the choice to change a certain policy, the policy is one developed by organizational members and created for the organization’s benefit. The social construction perspective illustrates the active choice that we make in creating systems and relationships. This implies that OD practitioners should create situations in which people can choose a different organization to create. Accepting this adaptability gives practitioners and organizational members the freedom to create changes that they desire to see. While this does not deny the importance of leadership in change or the financial or environmental realities, it places an equal emphasis on everyday conversations that occur in the organizational network among all participants.
Importance of communication in change: Words and their context are important, and the interpretive processes that we use to make sense of words often go unexplored. OD practitioners can become attuned to context, language, and interpretation mechanisms and help organizational members become more explicit about their interpretations. They can understand the context for interpretation of any particular message and make better recommendations about how communication will be received.
Change in meaning: Sensemaking logics lie beneath values, beliefs, and attitudes, as well as organizational practices, identities, and processes. Simply changing a practice, a role, a title, or a department name does not always change the underlying interpretive processes that members have adopted. Change can best be accomplished when organizational members have the opportunity to work together to define new practices.
26
Organizations as Socially Constructed (4 of 7)
Approaches to Organizational Change Consistent With a Social Construction Perspective
Change in interpretive mechanisms.
Change has multiple parts.
Change means different to people.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
27
Change in interpretive mechanisms: Instead of locating organizational change in categories such as leadership, strategy, or rewards, the social construction perspective explains change as a change in interpretive mechanisms, conversations, communication, meaning, and cognitive schema.
Change has multiple parts: Most change models tend to presume that a change is a single, easily identifiable phenomenon that members could point to and identify as “the change.” Most practitioners and organizational members, however, recognize that change has multiple parts, some of which may or may not be successful, and that these have multiple meanings for various audiences.
Change means different to people: Instead, as we have learned, the social construction approach is interested in what the change means to people, recognizing that this meaning may shift and adapt at various points in time.
27
Organizations as Socially Constructed (5 of 7)
Approaches to Organizational Change Consistent With a Social Construction Perspective
Emphasize continuous change.
Jeffrey Ford’s shifting conversations.
Kegan’s and Lahey’s language shifts.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
28
Emphasize continuous change: Consequently, social construction approaches to change tend to emphasize continuous change rather than episodic change, privileging the role of language and discourse in change.
Jeffrey Ford’s shifting conversations: Jeffrey and Laurie Ford (1995) describe four different kinds of conversations that occur during organizational change: conversations that initiate change, conversations that seek to understand change, conversations for performance, and conversations for closure. No one mix of conversational types is right for every change. This approach can explain how, when change does not proceed as expected, certain conversations may not have taken place at all, or may have taken place unsuccessfully.
Kegan’s and Lahey’s language shifts: Also proposing a social construction model for change in their popular work How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work, Kegan and Lahey (2001) have written about seven new language shifts that leaders can encourage to support change. They argue that these seven languages play a role in conversations that we have at individual, team, and organizational levels, and that they often inhibit us from making the changes we seek to make. New conversations can encourage greater learning and achieve change.
From the language of complaint to the language of commitment.
From the language of blame to the language of personal responsibility.
From the language of “New Year’s Resolutions” to the language of competing commitments.
From the language of big assumptions that hold us to the language of assumptions that we hold.
From the language of prizes and praising to the language of ongoing regard.
From the language of rules and policies to the language of public agreement.
From the language of constructive criticism to the language of deconstructive criticism.
28
Organizations as Socially Constructed (6 of 7)
Approaches to Organizational Change Consistent With a Social Construction Perspective
Appropriate conversation environment.
Multiple levels of conversation exist.
Fords’ conversational profile.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
29
Appropriate conversation environment: The role of the change agent implied by social construction models of change is to facilitate an appropriate environment for these conversations. Managing change in this vein is more like coaching an improvisational jazz band than turning a series of levers and dials on a machine. Creating change does not mean rigidly following the same set of rules through a well-defined process no matter what is trying to be changed, but being inventive and creative with how it is achieved, negotiating among different stakeholders to produce the dialogues that need to happen for change to succeed. How effective change is depends on how well new conversations are initiated and adopted.
Multiple levels of conversation exist: Marshak and Grant (2011) argue that multiple levels of conversation exist at which to intervene to accomplish change: the intrapersonal (cognitive frames and schema), the personal (one’s own language choices), the interpersonal and the small group (conversations occurring between individuals or in groups), and the organizational level (official discourses and statements of mission and values). Each of these conversations is in some way implicated in effective change.
Fords’ conversational profile: Jeffrey and Laurie Ford (2008) have developed a practical tool called the conversational profile for change managers to use in analyzing and interpreting the four kinds of change conversations described earlier. Managers write, as in a journal, who participated in the conversation and what was said, as close to a verbatim record of the conversation as they can recollect. Managers then identify which types of change conversations they have engaged in most frequently, and they can then alter their approach if the results of those conversations have not resulted in the outcome they expected or desired. After seeing analysis of their conversations and results, managers come to their own conclusions about what might be missing or not working; that is, develop a hypothesis, which they can then test by altering either the type of conversations they use or the content of those conversations. Managers might realize, for example, that they engage in conversations for understanding, assuming that action will follow, but that they have not been explicitly engaging in conversations for performance in which actions are discussed.
29
Organizations as Socially Constructed (7 of 7)
New Paradigms in OD
Complex adaptive systems perspective.
Dialogic approach to OD.
Role of the OD practitioner.
Using multiple models may help.
Anderson, Organizational Development, Fifth Edition. © SAGE Publications, 2020
30
Complex adaptive systems perspective: Influenced by the study of self-organizing systems in biology and other disciplines, the complex adaptive systems perspective rejects the notion of the organization as a machinelike set of interconnected and systematized parts that form a predictable whole. Instead, this view sees the organization as ever-changing based on emerging patterns of self-organization created by the interactions of those agents acting as part of it. This approach rejects the belief inherent in systems theory that systems are generally alike and general principles can be applied to predict how they will react and respond. Instead, complex adaptive systems thinking believes that individuals and organizations respond differently depending on the circumstances, so behavior cannot be predicted and controlled so systematically.
Dialogic approach to OD: Another of emerging paradigms, it similarly supports the notion that changes in an organization can be continuous and emergent, and that they are based in the narratives and changing conversations of organizational members. This view also takes seriously the notion that the organization and its changes are not objectively real phenomena that exist apart from the reality defined and ascribed to them by organizational members. In fact, there are likely to be multiple and competing discourses about change circulating at any given time.
Role of the OD practitioner: Each offers benefits and contains drawbacks, making some elements of the organization visible while it obscures others. From a philosophical perspective, there are some fundamentally incongruous assumptions between the two schools of thought, so buying into multiple perspectives would seem impossible. From a practitioner’s pragmatic view, however, each of these models offers unique insight into a client’s environment. For some, what matters is not so much which model is right, but instead which model helps to facilitate additional understanding and is most consistent with both a practitioner’s approach and the client’s need.
Using multiple models may help: Using multiple models may also help to illuminate new aspects of a situation, since being overly wedded to one particular model may blind the practitioner to important information. What is important is to be conscious of the assumptions of the approach being taken and the consequences of those assumptions.
30
