1

MODULE 1 ON ORGANIZATIONS AND SYSTEM

Submitted to

SOUTHEAST ASIA INTERDISCIPLINARY DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE School of Organization Development (SAIDI School of OD)

By

FR. JUBLAS NOLASCO, APRIL 20, 2012

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

Chapter 1. The Development of OD?-------------------------------------------4

1.2 - The Forerunner of OD? --------------------------------------------------------5 1.3 - The Early Practioners of OD? -------------------------------------------------6 1.4 - Definition of OD?---------------------------------------------------------------6-8 1.5 Various Definitions of OD-------------------------------------------------------8 1.6 OD as Science----------------------------------------------------------------------9

Chapter 2. What is organization?----------------------------------------------10

2.2 Types of Organization-------------------------------------------------------10-11 2.3 Classification of Organization------------------------------------------------11 2.4 The core and elements of Organization----------------------------------11-12 2.5 - The Images of Organization------------------------------------------------12-14 2.6 - The Dream Foundation as an Organism Organization---------------14-16 2.7 - The Organizational Life cycle and the Current State of Dream Foundation ----------------------------------------------------------17-19 2.8 - The difference between Organizational development vs Organization development?--------------------------------------------------20 2.9 Organization Theory and Various Systematic Theories-------------21-23

Chapter 3. What is Theory?---------------------------------------------23-24

3.2 - The Various Theories on Organizational Development------------24-26

Chapter 4. System approach and its relevance to the Dream to Study Foundation-----------------------------------------------------------26-31
Bibliography-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------32

INTRODUCTION The (SAIDI) Southeast Asia Interdisciplinary Development Institute School of OD is using a modular approach in a self-directed program of study on Organization Development. As a student, I received a module 1 and 2. This module 1 introduces my learning to organization development by pointing out two purposes: First is to discover, analyze and synthesize the origin and development of OD. Second is to learn, appreciate and relate the basic principles of General systems theory and applicability to the particular orientation of my profession as a priest and the Dream To Study Foundation as an organization.1 As a student of OD, it is presupposed that any scientific study underlies an understanding of philosophy to any theory. This module will discuss the concept of organization development, the various definitions of OD, the precursor to OD and trends affecting organizations from which OD as a concept developed into a scientific endeavor. Generally, the understanding on OD is relatively new. It is common knowledge that the field is an open arena of experimentations, discoveries and realizations of organizational processes that delve into the complexity of relations of multiple influencing factors affecting organization. Therefore, OD is an evolving science. It is constantly demanding adaptability to changes in time and situations. In OD, there are various theories applied to effect change in an organization. This module will discover, analyze, and synthesize the meaning of an organization, types, classification and images of an organization. Specifically, the generally system theory or systemic approach will be given importance and light in this module as a significant theory that will be applicable and useful in the organization of Dream to Study Foundation, Inc.

DOD 1 or MOD 1 MODULE ORGANIZATIONS AND SYSTEMS. SAIDI MODULE PROGRAM:1

4 Chapter 1: Development of Organizational Development The Discovery of OD can be clearly linked to different historical trend some time in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. This timeline emerged from the different backgrounds and perspectives in the claim of one theory according to Thomas Cummings & Edgar Huse. They say that OD has emerged from four major developments: 1. Laboratory Training: The National Training laboratories (NTL) development of training groups known as sensitivity training or T-groups. Laboratory Training began in 1946 when Kurt Lewin and his staff at the Research Center for Group Dynamics at Massachusetts of Technology MIT were asked by the Connect Interracial Commission and the Committee on Community Interrelations of the American Jewish Congress for help on training community leaders. A workshop was developed for the leaders to learn about leadership and to discuss problems. At the end of each day, the researchers discussed privately what behaviors and group dynamics they had observed. The leaders asked permission to sit in on these feedback sessions. Reluctant at first, the researchers finally agreed. Thus the first T-group was formed in which people reacted to information about their own behavior. T-group is the first discovery on the intervention of an organizational development. It is called now in our modern language team building 2.Survey Research Feedback: Kurt Lewin formed the Research Center for Group Dynamics at MIT in 1945. After he died in 1947, his staff moved to the University of Michigan to join the Survey Research Center as part of the Institute for Social Research. It was headed by Rensis Likert, a pioneer in developing scientific approaches to attitude surveys.2 Survey feedback premised that a development of an organization itself is highly influenced by industrial psychology. The method of survey feedback seeks to determine perception and attitude towards leadership and management; motivation to work and environment in the workplace.3 3.Action Research: In the 1940s, Kurt Lewin discovered that research needed to be closely linked to action if organizational members were to use it to manage change. Action research has two results: 1) organizational members use research on themselves to guide action and change, while 2) researchers were able to study the process to gain new information. There are two noted action research studies was the work of Lewin and his students at the Hardwood Manufacturing Company and Lester Coch and John French's classic research on overcoming resistance to change.4 4.Productivity and Quality-of-Work-Life (QWL): This was originally developed in Europe during the 1950s at the period of the rise of technical innovations and inventions that gave way to the use of machineries. Kurt Lewin and his colleagues at the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London developed system theory. This approach examined both the technical and the human sides of organizations and how they are interrelated. The premise was that an organization is simultaneously both a social and
2

Thomas Cummings & Edgar Huse, Organization Development and Change (St Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1989): Pp. 5-13. 3 Thomas Cummings & Edgar Huse (1989): Pp. 5-13.
4

Thomas Cummings & Edgar Huse (1989): Pp. 5-13

5 technical system. This meant that the workers comprised of the people and machines which is the technology are integral in the system approach of an organization.5 OD on the Emergence of Space Age Another concept on the development of OD is from the emergence of space age according to Leonard Nadler in his book The Handbook of Human Resource Development. He claimed that 1960-1970 was a period of rapid movement in high technology because of the space battle due to Soviet Sputnik challenge. In the history of the Human Resource Development, this was the time when their efforts increased as they moved into project groups and task forces to cope with the challenge of new technologies. Behavioral science was brought into the work place, and a new term appeared Applied behavioral science. This provoked a term that became known as OD, due in part to the reaction HRD programs appeared to be effective, but had little or no impact on the work place. That is, HRD programs were based upon sound learning principles, and people learned, but the learning often failed to be applied to the work place.6 Therefore, understanding this historical trend, the term OD has its roots linked to the human relations movement that existed in 1950s, 60s, or 70s. In general point of view, OD existed because of the emergence of self-expression, the release of human potential, expectations for human growth in the work, individual group or team group in line of the development in behavioral sciences. It is worthy to note that in the development of OD, an important figure arose in the person of Kurt Lewin known to be the forerunner of OD. 1.2. The Forerunner of OD Few social scientists can have received the level of praise that has been heaped upon Kurt Lewin. Tolman, in giving his memorial address for Kurt Lewin, stated that Freud the clinician and Lewin the experimentalist these are the two men whose names will stand out before all others in the history of our psychological era. Edgar Schein referred to Lewin as: the intellectual father of contemporary theories of applied behavioural science.7 At the heart of Lewins work is his humanitarian commitment to build civil society by resolving conflict whether religious, racial, marital or industrial. The key to resolving social conflict, according to him, was to facilitate planned change through learning, and so enable individuals to understand and restructure their perceptions of the world around them. His first major theory is Action Research. Other concepts he contributed are group dynamics and force field analysis.
5 6

Thomas Cummings & Edgar Huse (1989): Pp. 5-13 Leonard Nadler. The Handbook of Human Resource Development. (New York: John Wiley & Sons,

1984): p.12.
7

Joan V. Gallos. Organization Development. (CA:John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 2006) P: 2:1

1. 3. The Early Practitioners of OD in their perspectives It is noteworthy that academics and early practitioners in the field of OD in the persons of: Chris Argyris, Abraham Maslow, Douglas MacGregor, Edgar Schein, and Rensis Likert. These brilliant men supported the value of learning from experience and framed the significance of ideas and action. That is why, OD has distinctive dual focus on understanding how organizations can and should operate by working to improve them. Today, the study in the field of organization development requires knowing something about this history.8 Curious as a researcher, the question is lingering on how was the word organizational development was coined. Richard Beckhard and his colleague, Robert Tannenbaum gave the field its name in the 1950s while sitting around a kitchen table according to the legend. Their reasoning went something like this: if individual development is the term for human growth and change in response to challenge and opportunities, then the growth and development of organizations and large social systems logically should be called organizational development. 1.4. Definition of Organizational Development In the early 1960s, organizational development was implemented in organizations through consultants. However, OD was relatively not popular as a theory of practice and no common definition among its practitioners. The classic definition that has been used and popular until now is taken from Richard Beckhard, an authority on organizational development and change management. Organizational development is as " (1) a planned effort; (2) organization-wide; (3) managed from the top; (4) to increase organization effectiveness and health; (5)through planned interventions in the organization's processes, using behavioralscience knowledge".9 1. It is a planned change effort. An OD program involves a systematic diagnosis of the organization, the development of a strategic plan for improvement, and the mobilization of resources to carry out the effort. 2. It involves the total "system" as organization-wide. An OD effort is related to a total organization change such as a change in the culture or the reward systems or the total managerial strategy. There may be tactical efforts that might change the subparts of the organization but the "system" to be changed is a total and what affects the parts affect the whole relatively autonomous organization. This is not necessarily a total corporation, or an entire government, but refers to a
8 9

Gallos, P: 1:3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Beckhard

7 system, which is relatively free to determine its own plans and future within very general constraints from the environment. 3. It is managed from the top. In an OD effort, the top management of the system has a personal investment in the program, process and its result. They actively participate in the management of the effort. This means that they must have both knowledge and commitment to the goals of the program and must actively support the methods used to achieve the goals.10 4. It is planned to increase organization effectiveness and health. An ODs effectiveness should come from a right understanding of its goals of what an "ideal" effective, healthy organization should be. An effective organization should be the following: 1. The total organization, the significant subparts, and individuals manage their work against goals and plans for achievement of these goals. 2. Form follows function (the problem, or task, or project determines how the human resources are organized). 3. There is a shared value and management strategy to support it, of trying to help each person (or unit) in the organization maintain his (or its) integrity and uniqueness in an interdependent environment. 4. The organization and its members operate in an "action research" way. General practice is to build in feedback mechanisms so that individuals and groups can learn from their own experience. 5. It is planned interventions using behavioral-science knowledge. A tactic is developed of intervening or moving into the existing organization to examine its present ways of work, norms, and values, and look at alternative ways of working, or relating, or rewarding. The interventions used draw on the knowledge and technology of the behavioral sciences about such processes as individual motivation, power, communications, perception, cultural norms, problem-solving, goal-setting, interpersonal relationships, intergroup relationships, and conflict management.11 It is important to understand that all organizations, regardless of size and type, face two types of Problems: First; continuous external adaptation to a rapidly changing environment; Second; corresponding internal integration that will support the success of the external adaptation according to Edgar Schein. He declared the organizations ability to cope with changes and adapt effectively the adaptive coping cycle, which is a sign of organization effectiveness.12
10

Richard Beckhard. Organizational Development: Strategies and Models. (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 1969) P.9 11 Beckhard, p.9 12 Edgar H. Schein. Organizational Psychology (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, NJ, 1988) P.27

1.5. The Various Definitions of OD: The following definitions uncover the heart of the practice of OD, which is to develop the working of individuals, teams and the total organization: OD is a systematic process for applying behavioural science principles and practices in organizations to increase individual and organization effectiveness (French and Bell,1999). OD is a complex strategy intended to change the beliefs, attitudes, values, and structure of organization so that they can better adapt to a new technologies, markets and challenges. (Warren) OD is a process (and its associated technology) directed at organization improvement (Margulies,1978). OD is about building and maintaining the health of the organization as a total system (Schein, 1988). Organization revitalization is achieved through synthesizing individual, group and organizational goals so as to provide effective service to the client and community while furthering quality of product and work life (Lippitt and Lippitt, 1975) The goal of OD is to enhance organizational effectiveness by attending to both human and organizational needs (Rainey Tolbert and Hanafin, 2006). OD is an organizational process for understanding and improving any and all substantive processes an organization may develop for performing any tasks and pursuing any objectives (Vaill, 1989)13 Now, I will attempt to put together a set of characteristics of OD based on the discussion above and its enumerated definitions in a simplistic way by the basic question WHAT is OD and its acronym WHAT? What, How, Action, Time/Treasure or Values: What is OD: A behavioral science or a field of knowledge that guides the development of organization effectiveness. HOW? Using a group and dynamic processes from behavioral applied method, research, theories to facilitate movement of groups and organizations. Action? To improve the effectiveness and health of an organization and the people that work within in a sustainable way Values? Respect for human differences and belief in a lifelong learning on the renewal of self and the organization. 1.6. OD as a SCIENCE
13

Gallos: P: 2:3

9 A remarkable transformation in prevailing views about how organizations can improve their effectiveness has occurred in recent decades. Organization development is as a top management-supported, long-range effort to improve an organizations problemsolving renewal processes, particularly through more effective and collaborative diagnosis and management of organization culture, with special emphasis on formal work team, temporary work team, and intergroup culture - using the assistance of a consultant facilitator and the theory and technology of applied behavioral science, including action research. Unlike many of the approaches of planned change for solving immediate and specific problems, OD is a longer term, more encompassing and complex approach to moving the organization to a higher level of functioning while greatly improving its members performance and well being given changing problems and opportunities. Although OD frequently includes structural and technological changes, its primary focus is on changing people and the nature and quality of their working relationships. OD ought to be a top management-supported effort. Therefore, leaders awareness of change and renewal is necessary for its success. Subsequent to this felt need comes effective and collaborative diagnosis of management culture. Greater subordinate involvement in decision-making toward effective teamwork is acknowledged as an important ingredient of modern participatory management.14 OD has come to occupy commanding heights in behavioral science literature as theorists and practitioners appear to be unfailing in their zest to design strategies to improve organizational effectiveness in various parts of the world. Interestingly, OD now represents the finer points of applied behavioral sciences. In fact, the foundations of OD are an amalgam of interpretative contributions made by some of the best-known behavioral scientists in areas like psychology, social anthropology, sociology, psychiatry, economics, and political science. It is therefore in this context we can say that OD as a behavioral science, it concerns with the application of psychological, sociological and anthropological theories, research methods, and intervention strategies to workplace issues. This inter-discipline is generally called Industrial and Organizational Psychology. It focuses organizational productivity and efficiency while ensuring workers are able to lead physically and psychologically healthy lives. It deals on the areas of motivation, personality, learning theories, group dynamics, general system theory, leadership and power, research and experimentation on organizational design. It is based on relatively well-established principles about individual, groups, and people in organization.15 Chapter 2: What is an organization? Organization is a general term that has created different definition from various authors and discipline. For Academic purposes, we will understand organization on different concepts:
14 15

French and Bell, P.85

Edgar F. House. Organization Development and Change; 2nd Edition. (West Publishing Company; St. Paul Minnesota, 1980): P. 29-30

10

The etymological meaning of Organization came from the Greek work organon, which means a compartment for a particular job. Wikipedia defines organization as a social group, which distributes tasks for a collective goal.16 A new-classical point of view, organization is a group of persons with common objectives. According to Herbert Hick, organization is a structure process in which individuals interact for objectives.17

The OD authors defined organization as a social entity, goal directed, designed and deliberately structured, and coordinated activity system is linked to the external environment. When people interact with one another to perform essential functions that help attain goals, organization thrives. In an organization, they have to adapt to and influence rapidly in changing environment. They have to cope with and accommodate challenges of workforce diversity, growing concerns over ethics and social responsibility to motivate the workers to accomplish their organizational goals.18 It is therefore a logical idea to postulate that there are various reasons for the existence of an organization. This need or limitation of individuals might be emotional, intellectual, spiritual, economic or other valid social reasons. According to Chester Barnard, organizations are designed by people to overcome individual limitations and this is bet met collectively.19 2.2 Types of Organizations Organizations are basically classified on the basis of relationships. There are two types depending upon the degree to which they are structured. 1. Formal Organization means a structure of well-defined jobs. Each bearing a measure of authority and responsibility. There is a conscious determination by the people to accomplish their goals through observing the norms laid down by structure. This kind of organization is subjective set up in which each person is responsible for his performance. The formal organization has a formal set up to achieve pre-determined goals. 2. Informal Organization is a network of personal and social relationships, which spontaneously originates within the formal set up. It is loose, flexible, and ill defined. It develops relationships that could be built on likes, dislikes, feelings and emotions. Therefore, the network of social groups based on friendships can be called informal organizations. There is no conscious effort made to have informal organization. It emerges from the formal organization and it is not based on any rules and regulations as in case of formal organization.20
16 17

http://wikipedia.org/organization

Herbert Hicks and Ray Gullett. Management of Organizations. 3rd Edition (USA: McGraw-Hill Inc. 1976): P.13 18 Richard L. Daft Organization Theory and Design. (South-Western College Publishing, Ohio, 1998.) P: 25
19

Hicks and Gullet, Pp.6-8

11

Another way to clarify organizations as primary or secondary ones, according to the emotional involvement of its members: Primary organizations claim the complete, personal and emotional involvement of their members. They are characterized by personal, direct, spontaneous, face-to-face relationships. They are based on mutual expectations rather than upon precisely defined obligations. The members are willing to commit total personal efforts. In Secondary organizations, relationships are intellectual, rational and contractual. Relationships tend to be formal and impersonal with explicitly defined obligations. In secondary organizations, personal involvement is only partial. 2.3 Classification of Organization Organizations are classified according to their principal objective. Every organization is formed to achieve some purposes, which can be broadly described as satisfying the wants, needs, desires, or objectives of its members. 1. Service organizations stand ready to assist persons without requiring full pay of their services (charities, public school boards, parks, others). 2. Economic organizations provide goods and services in return for some form of payment (corporations, proprietors, partnership, enterprises). 3. Religious organizations provide for the spiritual needs of members (churches, sects, congregations or orders). 4. Protective organizations protect persons from harm (police departments, the military, fire departments, rescue teams). 5. Government organizations satisfy the need for order and continuity (federal governments, states, cities, courts, parliament, congress). 6.Social organizations that serve the social needs of persons for contact with others, identification, and mutual support (fraternities and sororities, clubs, teams). Generally, organizations have synergetic effect. Their outputs may differ from the sum of their inputs. These classification scheme overlap and an organization can be place in all three categories.21 2.4. The core and elements of Organization

20 21

http://organization_classification.htm Hicks and Gullet, P15

12 Every organization has a system of human activities acted by persons. The working elements are: 1. The human resources are the members, their talents and personal influences (human resources are abilities and capabilities in managing organizations) 2. The Non-human resources are the free and economic goods; and the conceptual resources of a group by members and managers. Non-human resources include the nature itself that are tangible by human nature like assets, capital and etc. Chester Bernard said that without human intervention and participation in setting goals for non-human resources, an organization does not exist. Thus, the persons are the core elements of all organizations. All persons have personal objectives, and organization are both result of these objectives and the mean by which person attain them.22

2.5. The Images of Organization Gareth Morgan, in his book Images of Organization contributes to our understanding of organizations by suggesting that it is vital to view organizations through multiple metaphors or images. He articulates, Metaphors create insight. But they also distort. They have strengths. But they also have limitations. In creating ways of seeing, they create ways of not seeing. Hence there can be no single theory or metaphor that gives an all-purpose point of view. There can be no 'correct theory' for structuring everything we do."23 1. Organization as machines this meant that an organization is viewed as rational, clear, and effectively structured to attain the goals and objectives: (a) when there is a straightforward task to perform; (b) when the environment is stable enough to ensure that the products produced will be appropriate ones; (c) when one wishes to produce exactly the same product time and again; (d) when precision is at a premium; and (e) when the human "machine" parts are compliant and behave as they have been designed to do."24

This image of an organization was popular since the industrial revolution and it has brought enormous benefits and growth in productions of goods. In fact, this image of mechanistic model has spectacular success in some organization like McDonalds
22 23

Hicks and Gullet, Pp.13-32 Gareth Morgan. Images of Organization: The Executive Edition. (Berrett-Koehler publishers, Inc. and SAGE Publications, Inc. 1998): P.17
24

Morgan, P.17

13 and many firms in the fast-food industry.

2. Organization as organisms. This meant that the organization is viewed on the adaptability in a changing environment. This image is helpful in an organization that allows free flowing in view of change. This image helps us understand that organization is a cluster of interconnected human, business and technical needs, inspires people to learn the art of survival and develops vibrant organic system open for new challenges. This metaphor articulates the powerful ways of thinking about strategy and organizational design.25

3. Organization as Brains. This meant the brain has been compared with a holographic system. When it comes to brain functioning it seems that there is no center of point of control. The brain seems to store and process data in many parts simultaneously. Pattern and order emerge from the process; it is not imposed. But the holographic explanation can go too far in that it underplays the fact that despite the distributed character there is also a strong measure of system specialization. The brain, it seems, is both holographic and specialized.

The metaphor (brain) invites us to rethink key management principles in a way that lays the foundation for a completely new theory of management. Consider, for example, how an understanding of the functioning of the brain challenges traditional assumptions about the importance of strong central leadership and control; about the wisdom of setting clear goals and objectives; about the role of hierarchy; and about the concept of organizational design; and the wisdom of trying to develop and impose systems from the top down.26

4. Organizations as Cultures. This meant simply that the societys values, rituals, ideologies, beliefs, traditions and practices play an important role in the shape of an organization. In this metaphor, we see variations in cultural style, we see individual organizations may also have their own unique cultures, and we realize that the growth of an organization is the product of the reflections of the cultural mindset of people. This metaphor will teach us to rethink the corporate functioning, strategy, structure, design and nature of leadership. It is important that upon understanding of cultures influence on workplace behavior, we can approach in

25 26

Morgan, P.35 Morgan, P.69

14 this metaphor.27

5. Organizations as Political Change. This meant that organizations are being viewed in the lens of politics like the patterns of competing interests and powerplays dominate scene. In this metaphor, we see different styles of government management process, we observe that organizations becomes politicized because of divergent interest of individuals and groups, and we analyze organizational politics in a systematic way by focusing on relations among interests, conflicts, and power.28

6. Organizations as Psychic Prisons. This meant that organizations are being seen in psychic level. Psychoanalytic behavior such as; obsessions, narcissism, fear of the unknown, strong emotions and defense mechanism are common observations that can come out in an organization. This metaphor articulates the concept that organizations are created and sustained by the conscious and unconscious process with the belief that people can become imprisoned in and confined in images, ideas, and thoughts and actions that such processes arise.29

7. Organization as flux and transformation. This meant that organizations are expressions of deeper processes of transformation and change. This is not just by their external appearances through the fundamental nature of change and the new and powerful views on intervention, images of spirals, loops, and contradictions to help organizations shift from one pattern of operation to another. The whole idea that change is an emergent phenomenon offers a powerful mind-set for managing change. It encourages us to gain a reflective understanding of the logic driving the flux around us and to nudge and shape the logic wherever we can. Yet it also requires us to recognize that we can never be "in control." The message is that, even though our actions shape and are shaped by change, we are just part of an evolving pattern.30
27 28 29 30

Morgan, Pp.111-112 Morgan, Pp.147-153 Morgan, Pp. 213-214 Morgan, P.259

15 2.6. - The Image of Organization as Organisms in the Dream Foundation Morgan explores the metaphor of organizations as organisms that view organizations as living or open systems. Organizations as organisms recognize the impact and importance of the environment to organizations. Morgan examines three variations of the organism metaphor. The first is the Contingency Theory, which focuses on adapting the organization to fit the environment. Here leaders are trying to find a good fit, ever conscious of the dynamic environment and understanding there is no one way to best organize. The second theory of organizations as organisms is that of Natural Selection, an application of Darwins theory. This theory focuses on the dependence of adequate resources and engages in competition. In this view, the environment has more control over the outcomes than individual organizations. Third theory is the organizational ecology perspective focuses on the idea of a web of organizations not as individual organizations separate from the environment. An ecology perspective embraces complexity and seeks out patterns of evolution, thus recognizing that organizations affect and interact with environments at the same time environments affect and interact with organizations. Organism as a theory What motivates one person doesn't always motivate the next. To look at an organization as if it were an organism is an interesting theory. An organism is a living thing that is always changing and growing. An organism is one part of a complex system. People who work in an organization are one part of what can also be said to be a complex system. Just as organisms have complex needs to survive, people also have complex needs to survive and thrive. I believe that what motivates most people hinges on allowing people to achieve rewards and to develop interpersonal relationships along with leadership roles that are meaningful to them and to the organization as a whole. In Peter Senges, The Fifth Discipline, Senge outlines five key disciplines that are needed to create a learning organization. Senge states that learning organizations are organizations in which people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire. Senge speaks to the idea of interdependency where he states we live our lives in webs of interdependence. If Senge is correct when he says that we live our lives in webs of interdependence then I believe that individuals depend on other individuals, just like biological organisms, within the system for many types of support and motivation. Senge speaks to a systems theory where I believe the leader needs to understand the system in which they are operating from within.31 Roles of environment in an Organization
31

http://www.audubon-area.org/NewFiles/sengesum.pdf

16

In the metaphor of organizations as organisms, the environment plays a significant role in the success of an organization. Environment plays the only role in the Natural Selection sub-metaphor, whereas the Contingency and Organizational Ecology metaphors recognize the organization as having a role in the outcomes of the organization. In contrast to organizations as machines where roles are tightly defined within the organization, the organism metaphor treats roles as dynamic, changing in order to meet the needs of the organization in order to achieve survival. Role of a leader in an organization as organism Using the metaphor of organizations as organisms requires a different leadership mode. The leadership must be dynamic in order to find the best fit in changing environments. In finding a best fit in terms of hiring or adding to the organization the leader must know the strengths and weaknesses with in the organization. Organizations consist of organizational subsystems that pose the question of what the best fit is. For example: In the Dream Foundation as an organization has many subsystems. We have different committees. Those committees are one piece of the organization. The committees can sometimes work as separate entities of the whole in terms of the organization. Within committees we typically have committees chairpersons who oversee that aspect of the organization and act as a type of conduit for disseminating information and decision-making when combined with other committee chairpersons and the board of directors. One job of the leader is having the ability to diagnose problems with in the organization. Just as a doctor will diagnose an ailment when dealing with a person, the leader must also have this ability. When diagnosing a problem the leader must be able to look at the organizational subsystems, gather data, and look at how these subsystems are working together toward the greater good of the organizational whole. The culture in an organization I believe that the culture of the organization may be one of the most important variables in the success of the organization. The culture of an organization is many times created by those who lead it. It is a caring culture or one where the focus is strictly on the end result where strategies that are employed are a means to an end. The culture of an organization speaks directly to the beliefs and practices that it holds to be true. When thinking about culture a leader must help define why the organization exists and to lead by example. The relations between organizational and environmental characteristics will also define what type of culture an organization has. The task of the leader in developing the culture of an organization will depend on how the variables of core values, beliefs, and organizational structure are in alignment. Organizational harmony relies on human decision making, action, and the ability of its leaders in developing shared or common values.

17 The environment in which one works will also shape the culture and will play a role in which organizations will succeed. The culture of an organization is a socially constructed idea. Organizations are products of visions, ideas, and beliefs, which fundamentally depend on each other for life and success. The image of Organization as organisms in the Dream Foundation The image of Organization as organisms is fitted in the Dream Foundation as discussed in the presentation on the three varied theories on organism. Obviously, Dream Foundation is new and it is still adapting to its environment for survival. Morgan said: this image suggests that different environment favors different species of organization based on different methods of organizing. Therefore, congruence with the environment is the key to success. For example; a stable environment needs a more rigid bureaucratic environment likely will prosper. However, in a more fluid environment, a less structured type of organization will likely survive. This is exactly image of Dream Foundation as an organization that allows free flowing in view of change. This image helps us understand that organization is a cluster of interconnected human, business and technical needs, inspires people to learn the art of survival and develops vibrant organic system open for new challenges.32 2.7 The Organizational Life Cycle and the current state of Dream Foundation Most organizations evolve through a life cycle, a series of developmental stages that can be traced through four stages: 1.Entrepreneurial stage 2. Collectivity 3. Formalization 4.Elaboration. This life cycle will demonstrate the current state of the Dream to Study Foundation. 1. Entrepreneurial stage - this is a stage of new ideas that is put together to make an Organization. As the founder of the Dream Foundation, we have gone through this stage and still perhaps in this stage and hoping that will continue to grow. As a young priest, I was assigned in the mission. I have experienced the poverty of the people in the Mountains. I have witnessed young boys and girls in the Mountains of San Carlos in Negros Occidental are not schooled. In fact, some girls are already carrying babies at ages 16 to 20. Some have finished elementary and have never been in high school. The reasons why these kids dont go to school: 1. The Public High School is only offered in the city. 2. Their parents are very poor. In other words, poverty, lack of t motivation, and other factors are the valid reasons that these kids would stay in the mountains and have let go of their dream to finish school. Considering this alarming situation, I have thought that there is a need to create a group who believe in helping out
32

Morgan, Pp.35-40

18 this young boys and girls for a more descent life through education. Education is a way to alleviate poverty. The young boys and girls will have better opportunities once they are educated. Believing in this dream, in this vision, in this mission, and in this goal; we created a DREAM and a HOPE FOR THE CHILDREN. This is the NEW IDEA and thus, we created a new organization that will make a commitment to a particular direction and begin our initial planning to make it operational. As a founder, there are many things I have to consider in the implementations; such as; the committees, the volunteers, the school, the funds, and many other factors to implement our objectives: eventually, we have established and expressed in the following: 1. To provide financial assistance to poor but deserving students who are willing to obtain education in High School and College levels. 2. To economically assist the student beneficiaries by providing them financial assistance. As needed; pay their tuition fees, buy them school uniforms & school supplies and give them monthly allowances for food and lodging. 3. To extend to them values formation seminar and other necessary trainings that will enhance their preparedness and be able to be competent students in their schools so that they will be socially responsible and become future leaders of the society. 4. To provide parents of the beneficiaries technical assistance and skills trainings on cooperatives, cosmetology, dressmaking, computer literacy, construction works and other livelihood projects that will help them earn extra income for their food, education of their other children and other expenses needed by their child-scholar. 5. To work hand in hand with local, regional, national and international agencies and non-government organizations with regards to financial assistance program for economically depressed and poor children. 6. To receive gifts, donations, contributions and financial assistance from any source whatsoever subject to the provisions of existing laws and to make use of them in operating and maintaining activities and programs necessary to carry out the objectives of the organization. 7. To raise funds from time to time in order to support the different activities, projects and programs of the organization.

Therefore, the Dream Foundation is new and still adapting to the challenges of the environment. We cannot claim any success because we are still learning and continue to develop our ideas.

19

2. Collectivity Stage this stage an organization typically experience rapid growth known as success stage. While innovation and expansion continue, some attempts to stabilize and routinize the organization begin. In the case of a business company, normally the owner decides whether to stabilize the company at its present size or strive for more growth. Although the founding and early members of the organization remain committed to it, over time their involvement depends on the non-financial incentives offered: like challenging varied tasks, growth opportunities in the organization, and receive frequent, quality communication from top management. 3. Formalization Stage the maturation of the organization signals its complete movement from entrepreneurial to professional. In this takeoff stage, the director or founder or manager must address the structured level of responsibility from top to the bottom and acquiring enough resources and funds for the growth of an organization. This stage emphasizes formal planning and goal setting. Increased formalization may cause more entrepreneurial, innovative workers to leave the organization to seek new outlets for their creativity. Employees whose goals and orientations fit better with the stabilization and formalization processes replace them. 4. Elaboration stage this stage is the maturation of an organization as it strives to adapt to changing conditions, renew itself, and seek continued growth opportunities. The organization must consolidate its growth. It expands its management staff and capabilities. Diagnosing an organizations position in its life cycle provides managers with data to use in designing an effective structure. Young organization requires flexible structure that can accommodate innovation and respond to uncertainty. Looking at the view point of the Dream Foundation, there is awareness that when the organization moves into the collective or success stage, the founder or director consider the formal procedures and policies that will be expressed and articulated, but overall the organization likely retains relatively informal communication and structure. As the organization matures and formalizes, top management typically introduces systematic planning, evaluation, and rewards systems. Functional structures with centralized decision making often fit with the control, specialization of tasks, authority, and stability required at this stage. An organizations ultimate survival, however, increasingly depends on having adaptable and flexible structure.33 This Figure will illustrate the organizational life cycle
Elaboration
Domain Expansion Decentralization Adaption/renewal

Formalization
Stable Structure Institutional Judith R. Gordon. Organizational: A Diagnostic Approach, 7th Edition. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002): Procedures P.444 Efficiency/Maintena
33

nce

20

Collectivity
Informal Communication and Structure/Sense of mission Innovation/High Commitment

Entrepreneurial
Marshalling of resources Lots of Ideas Formation of a niche

The Dream Foundation is Entrepreneurial Stage and moving forward to the Organizational Life Cycle 2.8 - What is the difference between Organizational Development vs Organization Development?

Organization Development practitioner is to an organization as a physician is to a human body. The practitioner "diagnoses" (or discovers) the most important priorities to address in the organization, suggests a change-management plan, and then guides the organization through the necessary change. There are different definitions and views on how the change should occur. The difference between "organizational development" and "Organization Development." The former phrase refers to the nature and scope of change in organizations, i.e., the change is to the entire organization or to a significant portion of the organization. The latter phrase refers to a field of well-trained people with expertise in guiding successful organizational development. The system of organizations is very similar, if not the same as, the system of human beings -- after all, organizations are made up of humans! Therefore, when trying to understand the field of organization development, it might be useful to compare aspects of the field of organization development to aspects of the field of medicine. For example, the study of the theories and structures of organizations (often in courses called "organizational theory") is similar to the study of anatomy and physiology of human systems. Similarly, the study of organizational behavior is similar to the study of psychology and sociology in human systems. Finally, the study and field of organization development compares to the study and field of medicine regarding human systems. That is, in OD, practitioners might work in a manner similar to "organizational physicians" intending to improve the effectiveness of people and organizations by: 1) Establishing relationships with key personnel in the organization (often called "entering" and "contracting" with the organization); 2) Researching and evaluating systems in the organization to understand dysfunctions and/or goals of the systems in the organization ("diagnosing" the systems in the organization);

21 3) Identifying approaches (or "interventions") to improve effectiveness of the organization and its people; 4) Applying approaches to improve effectiveness (methods of "planned change" in the organization), 5) Evaluating the ongoing effectiveness of the approaches and their results.34

2.9 - Organization Theory and Various Systematic Theories We view the world as a complex organization where impact of changes has affected our culture and views, values both personal and as a group and stance on issues. We become more aware of our roles in a given situation or in an organization. In the process of becoming more aware of our roles in an organization, theories are in placed to explain and predict organizational situation. Rubenstein and Haberstroh articulated, that useful theories of organization should help us explain, observe organization behavior, predict future organizational behavior and influence it.35 Theories of organizations are attempts to present a systematic view of organized systems, or some of its dimensions through development of concepts, which appropriates elements of organization, its relations to each other and its connection to the output of the organization. Some theories of organizations are compatible with and built upon others explanation or prediction on the aspects of organizations they consider important, the methods for studying organizations that work well, and their assumptions about organizations and the world at large from which they are created. They use the same language or jargon. These groupings of compatible theories and theorists usually are called alternately schools, perspectives, traditions, frameworks, models, paradigms, or occasionally, eras of organization theory. Organization Theory Organization theory is descriptive and or predictive. It is concerned with what an organization is and what will occur under certain kinds of structural or structuralinterpersonal arrangements. It tells what is and/or what will be. It tells what to do. Organization theory may then be described as a set of related statements and hypothesis about 1) a set of variables which describe the parameters of organization, and perhaps organization behavior, and 2) a series of if and then statements which predict the effect
34 35

http://managementhelp.org/organizationdevelopment/od-defined.htm Henry L. Tosi, Theories on Organization. (Chicago:St. Clair Press, 1974.) P: 5

22 of certain structural arrangements on performance and behavior. Organization Theory is a macro-examination of organizations. It analyzes the whole organization as a unit. It is concerned with people aggregated into departments and organizations and with the differences in structure and behavior of the organizational level of analysis. Having explained above, it is sufficient to say that organization theory is a set of interrelated products (concepts), definitions, and propositions that present a systematic view of behavior of individuals, groups, and subgroups interacting in some relatively patterned sequences of activity, the intent of which is goal oriented.36 Various Theories of Organization As Henry Tosi said organization theory is not a homogeneous science based on generally accepted principles. Various theories of organization have been, and are being evolved.37 There are three concepts that have considerable influenced in the management of thought and practice. 1.Classical Doctrine as its name implies, was the first theory of its kind, is considered traditional, and continues to be the base upon which other schools of organization theory have built. An understanding of the classical organization theory is essential not only because of its historical significance but also more importantly, because subsequent analyses and theories presume knowledge of it. There are four pillars in the classical organization theory namely: the division of labor, the scalar and functional processes, the structure and the span of control from which elements of classical organization theory can be derived. 1) The division of labor, as the word implies, pertains to the specific task assigned to an individual or a group. It is without doubt the cornerstone among the four pillars. From it, other elements flow as corollaries. Organization structure is naturally dependent upon the direction which specialization of activities travels in company development. 2) The scalar and functional process deals with the vertical and horizontal growth of the organization. The scalar process refers to the growth of the chain of command, the delegation of authority and responsibility, unity of command, and the obligation to report. The division of the organization into specialized parts and the regrouping of the parts into compatible units are matters pertaining to the functional process. This process focuses in the horizontal evolution of the line and staff in a formal organization. 3) Structure is the logical relationship of functions in an organization; arranged to accomplish the objectives of the company efficiently. Structure implies system and pattern. Classical organization theory usually works with two basic structures, the line and the staff.
36 37

Tosi, P7 Tosi, P11

23 However, such activities as committee and liaison functions fall quite into the purview of structural considerations. Again, structure is the vehicle for introducing logical and consistent relationships among the diverse functions comprising the organization. 4) The span of control concept relates to the number of subordinates a manager can effectively supervise. The span of control directs attention to the complexity of human and functional interrelationships in an organization.38 2. Neo-Classical theory of organization. The neo-classical theory of organization embarks on the task of compensating for some of the deficiencies in classical doctrine. The neo-classical school is commonly identified with the human relations movement. Generally, the neo-classical approach takes the postulates of the classical school, regarding the pillars of organization as givens. But these postulates are regarded as modified by people, acting independently or within the context of the informal organization. The introduction of behavioral sciences in an integrated fashion into the theory of organization is the main contribution of the neo-classical school. Using these sciences, behavioral scientists demonstrate how the pillars of the classical doctrine are affected by the impact of human actions, which thereby influence the formal structure. The neoclassical approach to organization theory gives evidence of accepting classical doctrine, but superimposing on it the modifications resulting from individual behavior, and the influence of the informal group.39 3. Modern organization theory. The distinctive qualities of modem organization theory are its conceptual-analytical base, its reliance on empirical research data and, above all, its integrating nature. These qualities are framed in a philosophy, which toes the premise that the only meaningful way to study organization is to study it as a system. According to Henderson, the study of system must rely on a method of analysis involving simultaneous variations of mutually dependent variables. System analysis has its own peculiar point of view and treats organization as a system of mutually dependent variables. As a result, modem organization theory, which accepts system analysis, shifts the conceptual level of organization study above the classical and neo-classical theories. Modem organization theory asks a range of interrelated questions which are not seriously considered by the two theories. Key among these questions are: what are the strategic part of the system? What is the nature of their mutual dependency? What are the main process that link the parts together? What are the goals set by the system?40

Chapter 3. What is Theory?

38 39

Tosi, pp12-13 Tosi, pp13-14 40 Tosi, pp17-18

24 We learned already different concepts on the development of OD, the trend of OD? And what is OD? We also explained what is organization, types of organizations and the images of an organization? Now, we are going to understand the theories in OD? First, OD is an applied behavioral science field. This simply means we accumulate our knowledge base from a wide range of theories. Each theory offers a certain perspective to guide our work based on the practioners of OD. We must realize however that few practitioners are pure subscribers to one theory. It is common knowledge that the every client situation is so unique that we take whatever we need from various theoretical perspectives in order for us to create a composite perspective to work. According to Richard Burke, in his work on OD theories, Burke said that there is no single theory or conceptual model that is representative or by itself encompasses the conceptual field or the practice of OD. Instead a series of mini theories have made an impact on OD consultative practice. He made reference to the word mini not because he thinks these theories are conceptually small or light.41 As a matter of personal opinion, each helps to explain only a portion of organizational behavior and effectiveness. So, if one is being asked to explain generally the theories, the researcher could not just imagine that it takes lots of effort to be able to explain in details all these theories. So where does one start? As a neophyte student of OD, he believes that to discover theories on OD, he identified theories that have significant impact on OD. For academic purposes, the researcher has no intention of declaring exclusivity, except to say these theories are for my academic requirements. He is sure that as he continues to study and research on OD, his theoretical basket gets fuller as many other theories offer unique insights to help him get a better grasp of human nature and system dynamics and offer him psychological insights in supporting people through tough changes. In this context, he will try to discuss briefly the Action Research Theory, then, Lewins change theories on Field Theory, Group Dynamics and Three-Step Model of Change. Most importantly, he will focus the discussion on the General System Theory. 3. 1 - Various Theories in OD Action Research Theory Kurt Lewins planned approach to change comprised four elements: Field theory, Group Dynamics, Action Research and the Three-step Model of Change. His first major theory is Action Research theory, which became a cornerstone of Organization Development, underlying both the theory and practice of the field. Lewin believed Action Research would address several needs an individual has during change simultaneously.42
41 42

Gallos, pp.13-38

Kurt Lewin. Frontiers in group dynamics II: Channels of group life: Social planning and Action Research, Human Relations (New York: 1947): Pp 14353

25 the pressing need for greater knowledge about the causes and dynamics of social issues; the need to understand the laws of social change; the need for greater collaboration and joint inquiry between the practitioners and those who are experiencing the change (system members); the need for richer data about real-world issues to increase motivation for change; the need to discover workable, practical solutions to problems that are owned by those who are affected; the importance of staying in the learning stance throughout the change In this theory, action research is reiterative, cyclical, four-step process: diagnosing, planning, action research and evaluating action. This process proceeds in a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of circle planning, action, and fact-finding of the results of the action. It is in this iterative process that research leads to action, and action leads to evaluation and further action. In practice, the words action research are reversed. The research is conducted first and followed by action as the direct result of what the research data are interpreted to indicate. Therefore, action research attempts to meet the dual goals of making action more effective and creating or building a solid foundation on the knowledge around the action. The action here refers to the interventions, the programs, the systems designed to enhance the conditions and solve the problems. Therefore, the process is collaborative. Those who are consulting will work with members of the organization in a joint democratic inquiry. Importantly, the leaders, members and people around the organization can create a master plan that will be able to discuss in a proper context. Lewin advised, no action without research; no research without action. The significance of this theory is hard to comprehend until you come face to face with its practical utility in intervention. Almost nothing works as well as interventions derived from this theoretical perspective.43 3.2 Lewins change theories Field Theory; Group Dynamics; Three-Step Model of Change Lewin was the first psychologist to write about group dynamics and the importance of the group in Shaping the behavior of its members. The word dynamics comes from a Greek word meaning forces. So Group Dynamics refers to the forces operating in groups. It is the studying of these forces what gives rise to them, what conditions modify them, what consequences they have, etc, that makes up the theory of Group Dynamics. Lewins pioneering work on Group Dynamics not only laid the foundations for our understanding of groups but also helped us recognize the need to provide a process
43

Lewin, Pp. 14353

26 whereby the members could be engaged in and committed to changing their behavior. Field theory is an approach to understand group behavior by trying to map out the totality and complexity of the field in which the behavior takes place. Lewin defines the term force from a psychological construct. He believes that individual behavior is a function of the group environment or field. Consequently, changes in behaviour will stem from changes in the forces within the field.44 Lewins Three-step Model unfreezing, movement, refreezing is highly related to Field theory. Lewin believes that our behaviour was based on a quasi-stationary equilibrium supported by a complex field of driving and restraining forces. The equilibrium needs to be destabilized first (unfreezing) before new behavior can be adopted. So the concept includes unfreezing (destabilizing the status quo), movement (creating the motivation to learn aided by Action Research approach), and then refreezing (seeks to stabilize the group at a new quasi-stationary equilibrium in order to ensure that the new behaviors are relatively safe from regression).45 Chapter 4 The General System Theory Ludwig Von Bertalanffy first articulated the principles of general Systems theory in 1950. , and Katz and Kahn were the first to apply open Systems theory to organizations in 1966. According to French and Bell, Systems theory is one of the most powerful conceptual tools available for understanding the dynamics of organizations and organizational change.46 It is therefore important to understand basic concepts and we ask the most basic question to put us into proper perspective; what is a system? In OD terminology, it can be an individual, a team, a sub-unit, a unit, a division or a total organization. However, in order to study and understand how systems operate, we have to see them in relationship to each other. The following definitions of system help to clarify the concept. A set of objects together with relationships between the objects and between their attributes (Hall and Fagen, 1956). An organized, unitary whole composed of two or more interdependent parts, components, or subsystems, and delineated by identifiable boundaries from its environmental suprasystem (Kast and Rosenzweig, 1985). A system is an arrangement of interrelated parts. The words arrangement and interrelated describe interdependent elements forming an entity that is the system. Thus, when taking a systems approach, one begins by identifying the individual parts and then seeks to understand the nature of their collective interaction (Hanna, 1988). A system is defined by von Bertalanffy as "a set of elements standing in interaction" -- in
44

Lewin, Pp. 143-53 Lewin, Pp 143-53 Wendell L. French and Cecill H. Bell, Jr., Organization Development (Englewood:Prenctice Hall, 1984)p.84

45

46

27 other words, a group of things which have something in common. This includes any grouping with any sort of relationship - a collection of people, a forest, the planets, rabbits on a hill-side, a pile of rocks, or anything else -- if it is possible to identify a group of things, this cluster can be seen as a "system.47 Having this concept all together, we can understand system theory is a series of interrelated and interacting technologies used to analyze, evaluate, design and engineer a total system. Therefore, system approach is a way of thinking about the dynamism of complex human relations and endeavors. It is a process of breeding the whole to enable the change person to acquire a better understanding of the behavior of the whole system by studying the behavior and interactions of its parts. 48 To state this simply, system theory maintains that everything is related to everything else. A good example is the human body made up of a digestive system, a circulatory system, a respiratory system, a nervous system, etc. When the environment is warm, a variety of sub-systems come into play and the body perspires. It does not take much imagination to see that closing down the nervous system will have a big impact on the other parts of the body or system. Therefore, system theory can be conceptualized as an organization made up of systems and sub-systems. Within in this context there are inputs, a transformation process and an output. All of this takes place within the framework of an interacting environment. To understand this better: we will explain terminologies that will be used on system theory: Environmental Factors: the environment could be either external or internal and includes a social, political, technological and economic forces. The environment could be broad and general or very specific and task related. Sub-system: all systems have sub-systems; a sub-system is a part of the whole system Inputs: every system or sub-system has inputs and outputs. Inputs are usually thought of as resources such as financial, human, material, information or technology. Transformation: The transformation process is the most easily illustrated as a business which various resource inputs and transforms them through operations, management, efforts of labor or technology into outputs of goods or services. Transformation can come in many ways but usually means some action upon the input. Outputs: outputs can be more than goods or services and are usually the results of action taken upon some input.
47

Mee-Yan Cheung-Judge and Linda Holbeche, Organization Development: A Practitioners Guide for OD and HR. (Philadelphia: Kogan Page Limited, 2011): ebook thru Vancouver public library: 2;33 http://library.books24x7.com/assetviewer.aspx?bookid=43122&chunkid=1&rowid=2 (accessed on April 11, 2012)
48

Saidi Module 1

28 Close vs Open system: An open system is one that responds to its environment and the other does not. Feedback: the open system receives feedback from its environment as a result of its output. In most instances, feedback is a form of communication. For example; a customer survey. Boundaries: the concept of boundaries helps us define how to keep our system open. Boundaries can be concrete, clearly defined and determined by an organization, or they may be abstract, artificial or unauthorized. It may be thought of as limits or barriers. Entropy: entropy is a process by which systems decay. Entropy is best understood as a process of slowing down or breakdown.

As stated very generally, a system is defined by a boundary that contains many subsystems and that also separates the system from its environment.49 (See Figure 1)

Figure 1: Visual Depiction of a System

49

Gary N. McLean, Organization Development: Principles, Processes, Performance. (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2006.) P:3:4

29

Within any system or subsystem, we will find inputs, being acted on by processes, producing outputs, with a continuous feedback loop to the inputs,50 as depicted in Figure 2

The inputs are human or other resources like information, energy, and materials coming into the system or subsystem. Input may directly come from the environment or suprasystem or from one or more subsystems within the system; Operations are the processes of transforming inputs into other forms; and, Outputs are the result of the processes done to inputs, which are ready to leave the system. This is precisely every system is open and dynamic. Using this system theory in the context of Dream to study Foundation, Inc., the scholarship organization is the system and comprised of interrelated and interacting subsystem. We constantly interact with the surrounding environment. For example, we have a president and the board of directors interacts with marketing or outsourcing department and screening and evaluating committees are interacting with other committees. Now, we have agreed among the board of directors and members to consolidate our resources, such as people, money, time, and other fundraising activities to finance the objectives. In system theory, this is called inputs. Now, every system transforms inputs into outputs. Since one of the objectives of the foundation is to help the poor but deserving students. These inputs are the resources will be combined or transformed into having a beneficiary student in a school. This now becomes the output in the process of the system theory.

50

McLean, p.3:4

30

The figure 3 below shows the inputs into outputs in Dream to study Foundation, Inc.

GENERAL ENVIRONMENT
Economic Factors Techonology Political and Legal Considerations Sociocultural factors

INPUT ---------------------Transformation Process ----------------- Output

Resource s: Money Time Talents People People/Staff combine all resources Beneficia ry Student/ Scholarsh ip Program in Mission

DREAM FOUNDATION
More Demands for Scholars and their needs Problem experience/ complaints

FEEDBACK

Every system seeks to maintain balance. An organizations that receive new inputs and transformation seek stability because when they become unbalanced, such as when changes in the environment or organizational practices make current resources inadequate, the organizations attempt to return to the original. They use information about their outputs, called feedback, to modify their resources to result in more desirable outcomes.51

This figure shows the Dream Foundation Organizational System

51

Judith R. Gordon. Organizational: A Diagnostic Approach, 7th Edition. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002): P.21

31

POLITICAL ECONOMIC

ENVIRONMENT
ENVIRONMENT

FINANCE
COMMITTEE S

COMMUNICATI ON COMMITTEES

DREAM FOUNDATION PRES/BOARD DIRECTOR

EDUCATIO N
COMMITTEES

SCREENI NG
COMMITTEE S

TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIO ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT

CULTURAL

An organization as a system composed if interacting subsystems exist in an environment or suprasystems and is characterized by management in its inputs, operations, outputs, and feedback mechanisms within a defined organizational boundary. The illustration provided above gives an idea of the interactions or interrelations of these characteristics in a given organization. Thus, the Dream Foundation as an organization and as system allows the interaction of system and subsystems. For example, the economic conditions will certainly have influenced in the finance committees and the finance is interconnected with other committees as well. Therefore, we can conclude that there is a need of complete understanding of the interrelationships between organizations and their environments. It is essential, when applying system approach to study of an organizations and their management, that we begin with an understanding of the external and internal environment. Action based on this understanding will be productive.

Bibliography Beckhard, Richard. Organizational Development: Strategies and Models. Addison-Wesley

32 Publishing Company, 1969. Cummings, Thomas & Huse, Edgar. Organization Development and Change. St Paul, MN: West Publishing Company, 1989. House, Edgar F. Organization Development and Change, 2nd Edition. West Publishing Company; St. Paul Minnesota, 1980. Judith R. Gordon. Organizational: A Diagnostic Approach, 7th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002. Lewin, Kurt. Frontiers in group dynamics II: Channels of group life: Social planning and Action Research, Human Relations. New York: New York Press, 1947. Nadler, Leonard, The Handbook of Human Resource Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1984. Newstrom, John & Davis, Keith Organization Behavior: Human Behavior at Work. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993. Schein, Edgar H. Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, Nj: Prentice Hall, 1988. Tosi, Henry L., Theories on Organization. St. Clair Press, 1974 Wendell L. French and Cecil H. Bell, Jr., Organization Development. Englewood: Prentice Hall, 1984. EBOOKS SOURCES: Gallos, Joan V. Organization Development. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 2006 McLean, Gary, Organization Development: Principles, Processes, Performance. BerrettKoehler Publishers, 2006. Mee-Yan Cheung-Judge and Linda Holbeche, Organization Development: A Practitioners Guide for OD and HR. Philadephia: Kogan Page Limited, 2011. SAIDI Module 1 INTERNET SOURCES http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Beckhard http://organization http://www.audubon-area.org/NewFiles/sengesum.pdf Peter M Senge http://managementhelp.org/organizationdevelopment/od-defined.htm