Anda di halaman 1dari 9

Q-1.A.Wendell L.

French has identified four trunk stems under which the process Organizational Development can be carried out. These stems include:
1. Laboratory Training 2. Survey Research and Feedback Methodology 3. Action Research 4. Socio-technical and socio-clinical approach to organizational development

Socio-clinical approach to organizational development


A fourth stem in the history of OD is the evolution of socioclinical and sociotechnical approaches to helping groups and organizations. The clinic was founded in 1920 as an outpatient facility to provide psychotherapy and insights from the treatment of battle neurosis in World War-I. A group focus emerged early in the work of Tavistock in the context of family therapy in which the child and the parent received treatment simultaneously. The action research mode also emerged at Tavistock in attempts to give practical help to families, Organizations, and communities

Q.1.B. APPLIED BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCE The foundation of OD relates to the primary knowledge base of the field, behavioral science knowledge. OD is the application of behavioral science knowledge, practices, and skills in ongoing systems in collaboration with system members. Technology, applied science or practice, the object of which is knowledge to solve practical, pressing problems. And OD emphasizes the latter!!! The problem that confronts a practitioner is customarily a state of disequilibrium that requires rectification. The practitioner examines the problem situation on the basis of which he or she prescribes a solution that hopefully reestablishes the equilibrium, thereby solving the problem. OD is both a result of applied behavioral science and a form of applied behavioral science. CONTRIBUTION FROM BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE THEORY: 1. Increase the productivity and performance of the employees 2. Help in analyzing and predicting the behavior of the employees while they work.

3. The importance of social norms and values in assessing the perceptions motivations and behavior of people in an Oz. 4. The importance and role of accounting for equilibrium and change in behavior of the employee 5. The impact of social cognitive theory of learning impact of reward and punishment and the use of change theories in understanding Oz culture.

CONTRIBUTION FROM BEHAVIOURAL SCIENCE RESEARCH:


1. Research on variables relevant for Oz health

2. Study about the impact of Ozal and managerial climate on the leadership behavioral and style 3. Studies about the group dynamic, cooperative and competitive group goal structures on causes and discrepancies of conflicts within the groups. 4. Studies on the effects of Ozal and managerial climate on leadership style 5. Studies on different communication networks causes and consequences of conformity, group problem solving and group dynamics.

Q-2. PLANNED CHANGE: Planned organizational change is normally targeted at


improving effectiveness at one or more of four different levels: human resources, functional resources, technological capabilities, and organizational capabilities.

MODELS AND THEORIES OF PLANNED CHANGE: 1. LEWINS CHANGE MODEL


2. Burke-Litwin Change Mode 3. SYSTEMS THEORY Let us discuss Burke-Litwin Change Model:

Developed by Warner Burke and George Litwin, shows how to create First order and second order change.

FOC = transactional, evolutionary, adaptative change. SOC= Transformational, revolutionary, radical, discontinuous etc.

ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE: Peoples perceptions and attitudes about the Oz. Whether it is good, bad place to work, friendly or unfriendly etc, These are easy to change because they are built on

employees reactions to current managerial and Oz practices.

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE: is defined as deep seated assumptions, values and beliefs that are enduring, often unconscious, and difficult to change. (Changing culture is very very difficult (not impossible)

TRANSACTIONAL LEADER: are leaders who guide or motivate their followers in the directions of established goals bny clarifying role and task requirement, a fair exchage between leader and follower that lead to NORMAL PERFORMANCE

TRANSACTIONAL FACTORS INVOLVED IN FIRST ORDER CHANGE.

Changing structure, management practices, and systems causes changes in work unit climate. Which changes motivation and in turn individual and Oz performance, Transactional leadership is required to make this change in Oz climate.

TRANSFORMATIONAL FACTORS INVOLVED IN SECOND ORDER CHANGE :


For second order change, we must change mission and strategy, leadership styles, and Oz culture, Interventions directed toward theres factors transforms the Oz and cause permanent chaining in Oz culture. Bruke himself said THERE ARE 2 DIFFERENT SET OF OZ DYNAMICS, ONE SET AT TRANSACTIONAL LEVEL OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR TO CHANGE CLIMATE AND THE SECOND DYNAMIC RELATES TO SUDDEN HUMAN TRANSFORMATION SUDDEN.

We consider the BL model to be more advanced in thinking and planning change. OD practitioners size up the change situations, determine the change required T or T and then target interventions.

CONCLUSION

Q-3.Action research
Wendell L French and Cecil Bell define organization development (OD) at one point as "organization improvement through action research".If one idea can be said to summarize OD's underlying philosophy, it would be action research as it was conceptualized by Kurt Lewin and later elaborated and expanded on by other behavioral scientists. Concerned with social change and, more particularly, with effective, permanent social change, Lewin believed that the motivation to change was strongly related to action: If people are active in decisions affecting them, they are more likely to adopt new ways. "Rational social management", he said, "proceeds in a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of action".

Figure 1: Systems Model of Action-Research Process Lewin's description of the process of change involves three steps: "Unfreezing": Faced with a dilemma or disconfirmation, the individual or group becomes aware of a need to change. "Changing": The situation is diagnosed and new models of behavior are explored and tested. "Refreezing": Application of new behavior is evaluated, and if reinforcing, adopted. Figure 1 summarizes the steps and processes involved in planned change through action research. Action research is depicted as a cyclical process of change. The cycle begins with a series of planning actions initiated by the client and the change agent working together. The principal elements of this stage include a preliminary diagnosis, data gathering, feedback of results, and joint action planning. In the language of systems theory, this is the input phase, in

which the client system becomes aware of problems as yet unidentified, realizes it may need outside help to effect changes, and shares with the consultant the process of problem diagnosis. The second stage of action research is the action, or transformation, phase. This stage includes actions relating to learning processes (perhaps in the form of role analysis) and to planning and executing behavioral changes in the client organization. As shown in Figure 1, feedback at this stage would move via Feedback Loop A and would have the effect of altering previous planning to bring the learning activities of the client system into better alignment with change objectives. Included in this stage is action-planning activity carried out jointly by the consultant and members of the client system. Following the workshop or learning sessions, these action steps are carried out on the job as part of the transformation stage. The third stage of action research is the output, or results, phase. This stage includes actual changes in behavior (if any) resulting from corrective action steps taken following the second stage. Data are again gathered from the client system so that progress can be determined and necessary adjustments in learning activities can be made. Minor adjustments of this nature can be made in learning activities via Feedback Loop B (see Figure 1). Major adjustments and reevaluations would return the OD project to the first, or planning, stage for basic changes in the program. The action-research model shown in Figure 1 closely follows Lewin's repetitive cycle of planning, action, and measuring results. It also illustrates other aspects of Lewin's general model of change. As indicated in the diagram, the planning stage is a period of unfreezing, or problem awareness.The action stage is a period of changing, that is, trying out new forms of behavior in an effort to understand and cope with the system's problems. (There is inevitable overlap between the stages, since the boundaries are not clear-cut and cannot be in a continuous process). The results stage is a period of refreezing, in which new behaviors are tried out on the job and, if successful and reinforcing, become a part of the system's repertoire of problemsolving behavior. Action research is problem centered, client centered, and action oriented. It involves the client system in a diagnostic, active-learning, problem-finding, and problem-solving process. Data are not simply returned in the form of a written report but instead are fed back in open joint sessions, and the client and the change agent collaborate in identifying and ranking specific problems, in devising methods for finding their real causes, and in developing plans for coping with them realistically and practically. Scientific method in the form of data gathering, forming hypotheses, testing hypotheses, and measuring results, although not pursued as rigorously as in the laboratory, is nevertheless an integral part of the process. Action research also sets in motion a long-range, cyclical, self-correcting mechanism for maintaining and enhancing the effectiveness of the client's system by leaving the system with practical and useful tools for self-analysis and self-renewal. Q.4.A.

RESISTANCE TO CHANGE

SOURCES OF RESISTANCE Sources of resistance could be at the individual level or at the organizational level. Sometimes the sources can overlap. Individual Factors

Individual sources of resistance to change reside in basic human characteristics such as perceptions, personalities and needs. There are basically four reasons why individuals resist change.

Habit : Human beings are creatures of habit. Life is complex enough; we do not need to consider the full range of options for the hundreds of decisions we have to make every day. To cope with this complexity, we all rely on habits of programmed responses. But when confronted with change, this tendency to respond in our accustomed ways become a source of resistance. So when your office is moved to a new location, it means youre likely to have to change many habits, taking a new set of streets to work, finding a new parking place, adjusting to a new office layout, developing a new lunch time routine and so on. Habit are hard to break. People have a built in tendency to their original behaviour, a tendency to stymies change.

Security: People with a high need for security are likely to resist change because it threatens their feeling of safety. They feel uncertain and insecure about what its outcome will be. Worker might be given new tasks. Role relationships may be reorganized. Some workers might lose their jobs. Some people might benefit at the expense of others. Workers resistance to the uncertainty and insecurity surrounding change can cause organizational inertia. Absenteeism and turnover may increase as change takes place and workers may become uncooperative, attempt to delay or slow the change process and otherwise passively resist the change in an attempt to quash it. Selective Information Processing: Individuals shape their world through their perceptions. They selectively process information in order to keep their perceptions intact. They hear what they want to hear. They ignore information that challenges the world they have created. Therefore, there is a general tendency for people to selectively perceive information that is consistent with their existing views of their organizations. Thus, when change takes place workers tend to focus only on how it will affect them on their function or division personally. If they perceive few benefits they may reject the purpose behind the change. Not surprisingly it can be difficult for an organization to develop a common platform to promote change across the organization and get people to see the need for change in the same way.

Economic Factors : Another source of individual resistance is concern that change will lower ones income. Changes in job tasks or established work routines also can arouse economic fears if people are concerned they wont be able to perform the new tasks or routines to their previous standards, especially when pay is closely tied to productivity. For example, the introduction of TQM means production workers will have to learn statistical process control techniques, some may fear theyll be unable to do so. They may, therefore, develop a negative attitude towards TQM or behave dysfunctionally if required to use statistical techniques.

Group Level Factors

Much of an organizations work is performed by groups and several group characteristics can produce resistance to change :

Group Inertia : Many groups develop strong informal norms that specify

appropriate and inappropriate behaviours and govern the interactions between group members. Often change alters tasks and role relationships in a group; when it does, it disrupts group norms and the informal expectations that group members have of one another. As a result, members of a group may resist change because a whole new set of norms may have to be developed to meet the needs of the new situation.

Structural Inertia : Group cohesiveness, the attractiveness of a group to

its members, also affects group performance. Although, some level of cohesiveness promotes group performance, too much cohesiveness may actually reduce performance because it stifles opportunities for the group to change and adapt. A highly cohesive group may resist attempts by management to change what it does or even who is a member of the group. Group members may unite to preserve the status quo and to protect their interests at the expense of other groups. Organizations have built-in mechanism to produce stability. For example, the selection process systematically selects certain people in and certain people out. Training and other socialization techniques reinforce specific role requirements and skills. Formalization provides job descriptions, rules and procedures for employees to follow. The people who are hired into an organization are chosen for fit; they are then shaped and directed to behave

in certain ways. When an organization is confronted with change, this structural inertia acts as a counter balance to sustain stability. Group think is a pattern of faulty decision making that occurs in cohensive groups when members discount negative information in order to arrive at a unanimous agreement. Escalation of commitment worsens this situation because even when group members realize that their decision is wrong, they continue to pursue it because they are committed to it. These group processes make changing a groups behaviour very difficult. And the more important the groups activities are to the organization, the greater the impact of these processes are on organizational performance.

Power Maintenance : Change in decision-making authority and control to resource allocation threatens the balance of power in organizations. Units benefiting from the change will endorse it, but those losing power will resist it, which can often slow or prevent the change process. Managers, for example, often resist the establishment of self-managed work teams. Or, manufacturing departments often resist letting purchasing department control input quality. There are even occasions when a CEO will resist change, denying that it is his responsibility to promote socially responsible behaviour through out a global network.

Functional Sub-optimisation : Differences in functional orientation, goals and resources dependencies can cause changes that are seen as beneficial to one functional unit to be perceived as threatening to other. Functional units usually think of themselves first when evaluating potential changes. They support those that enhance their own welfare, but resist the ones that reduce it or even seem inequitable.

Organizational Culture : Organizational culture, that is, established values, norms and expectations, act to promote predictable ways of thinking and behaving. Organisational members will resist changes that force them to abandon established assumptions and approved ways of doing things. Managers sometimes mistakenly assume that subordinates will perceive the desired changes as they do; thus, they have difficulty in understanding the resistance. A key task is to determine and understand the reasons behind peoples resistance when it occurs. Then the challenge is to find ways to reduce it or overcome that resistance.

Q.4.B. Overcoming Resistance to Change: Kotter and Schelsinger (1979) have identified six general strategies for overcoming resistance to change.

Education and Communication: Resistance can be reduced through communicating with employees to help them see the logic of a change. This tactic basically assumes that the source of resistance lies in misinformation or poor communication. If employees receive the full facts and get any misunderstanding cleared up, resistance will subside. Communication can be achieved through one-to-one discussions, memos, group presentations, or reports. Does it work? It does, provided the source of resistance is inadequate communication and that management-employee relations are characterized by mutual trust and credibility. If these conditions dont exist, the change is unlikely to succeed.

Participation and Involvement: It is difficult for individuals to resist a change decision in which they would have participated. Prior to making a change, those opposed can be brought into the decision process. People can be encouraged to help design and implement the change in order to draw out their ideas and to foster commitment. Participation increases understanding, enhance feelings of control, reduces uncertainty and promotes a feeling of ownership when change directly affects people.

Facilitation and Support: If employees are provided with encouragement, support, training, counseling and resources adapt to new requirements easily. By accepting peoples anxiety as legitimate and helping them cope with change, managers have a better chance of gaining respect and the commitment to make it work.

Negotiation and Agreement: Management can bargain to offer incentives in return for agreement to change. This

tactic is often necessary while dealing with powerful resistance, like bargaining units. Sometimes specific things can be exchanged in return for help in bringing about a change. Other times, general perks can be widely distributed and facilitate to implement the change.

Manipulation and Cooperation: Manipulation is framing and selectively using information and implied incentives to maximize the likelihood of acceptance. An example would be if the management tells employees that accepting a pay cut is necessary to avoid a plant shut down, when plant closure would not really have to occur. Cooptation is

influencing resistant parties to endorse the change effort by providing them with benefits they desire and noninfluential role in the process.

Explicit and Implicit Coercion: Sometimes management might use authority and the threat of negative incentives to

force acceptance of the proposed change. Management might decide that if employees do not accept proposed changes, then it has to shut the plant down, decrease salaries or layoff people. Examples of coercion can be also transfer, loss of promotion, negative performance evaluations and poor letter of recommendation. The advantages and drawbacks of coercion are approximately the same as that of manipulation and cooptation.
OTHER METHODS FOR DEALING WITH RESISTANCE TO CHANGE y y y y y y

Compulsion Threats and Bribery Persuasion, Rewards and Bargaining Security and Guarantees Understanding and Discussions Time and Timing Involvement and Participation

Q.6.A. PARALLEL LEARNING STRUCTURES (PLS):

Parallel learning structures are specially created orgizational structures for planning, guiding change programs, constitutes another important foundation of OD. Dale Zand introduced this concept in 1974 under the label collateral Organization. And defined it as A supplemental Oz co existing with the usual, for ill- structured problems the formal Oz is unable to Resolve. Gervase Bushe and Abraham used the term Parallel learning structures to refer to this structural interventation. PLS are a mechanism to facilitate innovation in large bureaucratic Oz where the forces of inertia, hierarchical, communication patters and standard ways of addressing problems inhibit learning, innovation and change IN SHORT, PLS ARE A VEHICLE FOR LEARNING HOW TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM, AND THEN LEADING THE CHANGE PROCESS. Additional refinements include having a steering committee plus idea groups, action groups, work groups, or implementation groups, with the group serving specific functions designed by the steering committee. One or more top executive should be member of the steering committee to give the PLS authority,legitimacy, and clout. According to Bushe and Shani, The key thing about PLS is that they create a bounded space and time for thinking, talking, deciding, and acting differently than normally takes place at work. If you dont implement different norms and procedures, you dont have PLS.

Role of PLS: PLS help people break free of the normal constraints imposed by the Oz, engage in genuine inquiry and experimentation, and initiate needed changes. High performances Oz often use PLS to coordinate self directed teams. At Ford Motor Company, a steering committee and working groups were use to coordinate the employee involvement teams.

Q.6.B

Beckhards Confrontation Meeting:

Concept: One day meeting of entire management of an organization in which they take the reading of
their original health.

y y

y y y y y y y y

The confrontation meeting is a one-day meeting of the entire management of an organization in which they take reading of their own organization health . After the confrontation meeting, the team would have had gathered data regarding the problems and concerns about the change (OD) program, prioritized the problems and a well laid action plan for improvement. Real confrontation type Within the first week of the first confrontation meeting.,All the problems at individual level, team level and at organization level should be addressed and noted down. Atleast two sessions are required. The outcomes will tell the higher ups whether the current scenerio of the organization is alligned with the vision, mission and objectives of the overall orgnaization. At this level most of the problems would still be unidentified specifically by the younger staff and faculty members. This problem can be mitigated by individual and team interviews. Individual and Team Interviews The OD team should interview each and every individual. Individual of each category will have different problems pertaining to nature, attitude and qualitifactoin, job responcibility, etc.