mgmnt dev. and org. development

Management Development and Organization Development
Contents
Acknowledgement
Introduction
Chapter:1
Management development and Organization development (1- 11)
Introduction; The Background; OD Frameworks; ‘Seven-S’ Model;
Summary
Chapter: 2
Foundations Of Organization Development (12- 18)
Introduction; Stream analysis; System Theory; Participation and
empowerment; Team and teamwork; Parallel learning structures;
Applied behavioural Science; Summary
Chapter: 3
Managing The Organizational Development Process
(19- 27)
Introduction; Diagnosis; Diagnosing the system, its subunits and
process; The Six-box Model; Third wave consulting; The action
component; OD interventions; The nature of OD interventions;
Analyzing discrepancies; Phase of OD programs; Model for managing
change; Summary
Chapter: 4
Organization Development and role of Management Techniques.
(28- 44)
Introduction; TQM as Large-Scale Systems Change; People's
Expectations and Perceptions; Sources of Resistance; Dealing with
Resistance; Exhibit I provides an exam; Exhibit II: Resistance to
Change; Implementation Principles and Processes; Current Reality
and Preconditions; Exhibit III; Visionary Leadership; Steps in
Managing the Transition; Institutionalisation of TQM; Some Do's and
Don'ts; Summary
Chapter: 5
Organization development In Tata Group
(45- 49)
Introduction; Pioneers; About Tata SSL;
Chapter: 6
(50- 55)
Tata Business Excellence Model (TBEM)
Introduction; Leader ship at Tata SSL; Strategy Development; Strategy
Deployment; Summary;
1

Analysis
New Organization Structure
Annexure
Bibliography
2

Acknowledgement
I Miss.Trupti. A. Rane of Ghanshyamdas Saraf Girls
College wish to thanks my Guide Mrs. Bhanu Krishnan and
S.G. Rane Head of Supply Management of Tata Iron and Steel
Company who spared there precious time for my project and
provided me with all the information required, it is due to their
efforts that I was able to complete my project with such a
success. I would also like to thank all my other professors
who provided me a helping hand. A Special thanks to Prof.
Ramnath Subramanian.
3

4

Chapter: 1
Management development and Organization development
Introduction
In this world turned upside down, organization development as a distinct
discipline appears to have faded even further from view, while some of the underlying
assumptions and values of management development have been opened up to some
serious questioning, as the organization in which the develop vie with one another to
see which can operate with the leanest corporate office of them all.
5

As if all this were not sufficient, the focus of attention has begun to fall
increasingly upon smaller and medium sized enterprise, encouraging the question,
‘what have organization and management ever done for them?’ While such business
have always represented a major slice of most western economies, it is really only the
conspicuous failure of so many big organization which has drawn their smaller
fellows into the sights of management and organization development practitioners. As
the Russian proverb puts it, ‘ When the devil is hungry, he will eat files.’
However, the mind-sets of many of us who provide advice and guidance to
managers on how they might improve their own or organization’s performance. As
mind-set lead to action which are guided by assumptions lurking somewhere below
the conscious level, it is as well to have them articulated and made explicit,
particularly if economic circumstances may have served to drive them even deeper
below the level of surface awareness.
The Background
Huczynski (1987) has suggested that organizational development (OD) is:
…now generally regarded as being concerned with helping the members of an
organization to improve its total ability to manage and develop itself, so it is able to
respond to the environment pressures it faces. Development implies that the
organization needs to learn how to adapt and change its culture so that it can continue
to survive and achieve its core purpose. If an organization’s members are to develop
and learn how to adapt and change they need to acquire skills additional to, or other
than, those they already posses.
First however it is necessary to be clear about the terms. The following
quotation is from Kilmann to place OD in its current context:
The field of OD, as it first emerged in 1950’s,was envisaged as offering
methods for system wide change that would significantly improve the functions of
entire organizations. For the most part, however, this majestic vision has been lost and
forgotten…. Today, however as many organization are coming to realize that ‘ future
6

shock’ is upon them, the need for fundamental, system wide change is being voiced
more and more frequently. Now entire organization must be transformed into market-
driven, innovative, and adaptive system if they are to survive and prosper in the
highly competitive, global environment to the next decades. Given this situation, there
is an urgent need to rejuvenate the theory and practice of OD- to supply programmes
for system wide change.
Many of new approaches used to achieve organizational transformation, such
as performance management, total quality management, and investor in People
initiative, do borrow heavily and appropriately from ‘the theory and practice of
organizational development’ but, having been tempered by economic turmoil, with
somewhat less of the latter’s idealism and naïveté. At the same time there has been
recognition of the requirement for managers to be able to develop and learn with less
of the perspective arrogance that characterized many of the traditional, centralized,
specialist-owned programmes of management development.
Management development has been described as ‘an attempt to increase
managerial effectiveness through planned and deliberate learning process.’
The customers for such process, client managers, have tended to have fairly
clear views about management development within their organizations, and they
usually had few problems in making a distinction between their perceptions of
management development on the one hand and management training on the other
hand. While the latter has been perceived as a process necessary to the acquisition of
skills (such as budgetary development and control), management development tend to
viewed as a broadening educational process by means of which the individual is
initiated, shaped or fitted to the attitudes, values rites and rituals of successively
higher levels within the organization. As, much, management development may or
may not encompass formal training, and it may be self-managed. Many organizations
have attached especially high values to process of management self-development,
even to the extent of welcoming back the prodigal mangers who having resigned ‘to
gain experience in another environment’, now the returns to the fold with renewed
vigour. Other stress the value of a broad base of experience, but tend to reward
7

‘loyalty and long service.’ This automatically places severe constrains on the
perceived benefits and wisdom of pursuing opportunities for such broadening.
To an extend, then the client managers would relate management training to a
process by means of which the individual acquires the skills associated with a specific
management job or level. They would tend to regard management development as
having much more to do with career development and progression.
This difference in perception tends to throw into much sharper relief in
organizations where responsibility for management training is assigned to the training
function, while management development is assigned as a personnel responsibility.
This distinction is further reinforced where there is real, or perceived, competition
between the two functions over which is accountable for what and as to where the
senior status lies.
The single, learner function that has succeeded separate training and personnel
functions in a great many organizations, under the title of human resource
management, has narrowed the gap somewhat. But, as with management development
and OD, the separate mind-sets associated with skills training on one hand, and with
personnel growth and development on the other, still linger on.
There was a fundamental difference in the antecedents of management
development and OD. Management development was always a process ‘owned’ by
the organization itself. It may not have been done particularly well, but the managers
within the organization could identify what is as a process that had specific meaning
for him, within the context of the norms and values of the organization by which he
was employed. Organization development, on the other hand, was more specialized,
more specific and, in aspiration at east more scientific. It tended to be domain of the
business school and the research institute rather than the incorporate into the
organization itself. Kilmann provided a possible insight as to why the values and
concepts of organization development have rarely been incorporated into the
organizations that it was meant to be serving:
8

A PhD straight out of graduate school who had never in his or her life even
been near a business organization could teach write and do research on business and
management. While they thus achieved greater prestige in their own network, they
increasingly lost touch with the business community and the world at large.
Intentionally or unintentionally, they shut out from the halls of academia the very
reality they where supposedly in the business of studying.
The Mitroff and Kilmann argument may tend towards the extreme and, as
noted above, they are not referring to OD as such but to relationship between the
business schools and business in general. It does, however, provide a backdrop for the
image of OD practitioner as ‘outsider’. The practitioners themselves have tended to
prefer the role, as facilitator change agent as consultant and catalyst, as opposed to
that of integrated participant in the hurly-burly of the organizations, which they have
aspired to develop.
With the dramatic economic changes, which commenced in the 1980s, the
increase in uncertainty at all organization levels and reduction in confidence in the
ability of Cartesian logic to produce the right answers to the complex problems of an
organizational and business life, there began a process of challenge to the contribution
offered by all the specialisms which had developed so rapidly and with such promise
in the 1960s. Line managers tended to become much more suspicious of operation
research, other than in those areas to complexity where it had an established track
record (vehicle scheduling, stock control and reordering, life cycles forecasting, etc.).
It tends to be perceived as ‘esoteric, back room stuff’, highly mathematical and
largely beyond the comprehension of the managers whom it is there to serve. O&M
too has lost much of its gloss that it had in 1960s, not least because its emphasis on
rationalism leads to a natural (tough not always fair) association with organization
which in turn means ‘putting the squeeze on my department’. OD has suffered in its
turn from its identification with outsiders to the organization. It emphasis on humanist
values has had a rough ride in organizations forced by economic necessity to
experience the massive employee shake-outs of the late 1970s, 1980s and now again
in early 1990s. At the same time there is much greater awareness of the limitations to
the skills that managers have at their disposal to enable them to tackle the challenges
that new circumstances present. Therefore, of four specialism methods (operational
9

research, organizations methods, organization development and management
development), managers might naturally be expected to identify more closely with the
latter than with the others.
OD Frameworks:
The word ‘frameworks’ is used, rather than ‘definition’ or ‘frame of
references’, because the field has become too imprecise for any one of the many
attempts at definition to be entirely adequate.
Bennis (1969) described OD as ‘a response to change, a complex educational
strategy intended to change the beliefs, attitudes, values and structure of
organizations so that they can be better adapt to new technologies, markets and
challenges, and the dizzying rate of change itself’. Such descriptions places OD at the
apex of the organizational pyramid. It is strategic, it is concerned with values, and it is
concerned with structure. If OD interventions are to be effective in terms of Bennis’s
description, then they must be made with the full participation and commitment top
management.
Beckhard wrote (1969):
In an organization-development effort, the top management of the system has
a personal investment in the programme and its outcomes. They actively participate in
the management effort. These doses not mean that they must participate in the same
activities as the others, but it does mean that they must actively support the methods
used to achieve goals.
Perhaps less elegantly, but with a shrewd eye for the realities of organization
life, Reddin (19770) wrote:
When change agents tell me that they plan to attempt a change from the bottom up, I
remind them of the military dictum that the penalty for mutiny is death.
But in this insistence on top management involvement realistic? In the current
climate such involvement is usually the result of massive and usually externally
induced change, such a merger take-over or bottom line crisis. There are great many
examples where such involvement has been the springboard for the initiation of
successful OD-type interventions. But in the majority of organizations, the demands
of running the operation in a difficult, but necessary catastrophic, environment may
10

make the demand for such involvement unrealistic. Highly motivated teams operating
just below, but with the blessing of, such top managers may provide a more realistic
driving-force for organizational transformation and development (Katzenbach and
Smith, 1933). Bennis himself goes on to suggest that its description of OD may be to
provide ‘an abstract and perhaps, useless, definition’. In order to clarify his position,
therefore, he goes on to provide four examples of OD in practice:
1. Team development.
2. Inter-group conflict resolution.
3. Confrontation meetings.
4. Feedback.
Each of these examples is concerned with ‘process’ issues having an impact on
the effectiveness achieved by particular work-groups, either internally or at the
interface between groups. Each is also concerned with the intervention of a third-party
‘change agent’ or facilator. Margersion (1978), writing ten years after Bennis, picks
upon this latter point to suggest a simpler framework for OD than that of the earlier
writers:
The term ‘organization development’… means the skills and methods used by people
to facilitate organizational improvement.
While Margerison’s description may reflect what OD has often become (and
many provide an explanation as to why client managers have a hard time in
recognizing the term ‘organization development’ at all), it has lost two key elements
of the Bennis and Bechard requirements. The first of these is strategy and second is
top-level commitment. While the earlier writers’ aspirations may have been too high
(reflecting Mitroff and Kilmann’s concern about business schools’ distance from
organizational realities, Margerison’s organization developers do when it is
successful. When it is not, it is what the client mangers did and, therefore, is not OD.
A really useful framework would probably lie somewhere between two and
would include a reference to the areas of knowledge and the particular skills and
methods the organization developer would characteristically employ. Margulies and
Raia (1972) went a long way towards meeting this requirement when they stated that:
Organization development borrows from a number of disciplines, including
Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology and Economics. It generally involves the use of
11

concepts and data from the behavioural science to attempt to facilitate the process of
planned change.
The tool tag is specified with the references to the disciplines upon which OD
practitioner draw, and the stress upon planned change goes some way to meet Bennis’
emphasis upon OD as a strategic activity (though it will not be argued here that a
strategy and a plan are one and the same thing). Maguiles and Raia again:
Organization development is essentially a system approach to the total set of
functional and interpersonal role relationships in organizations. An organization can
be viewed as a system of coordinated human activities, a complex whole consisting a
number of interacting and interrelated elements or subsystems. A change in any one
part will have an impact on one or more of the other parts… organization
development itself can be viewed as system of three related elements- values, process
and technology.
They than provide examples what these three elements might comprise.
These examples are summarized here.
Values:
1. Providing opportunities for people to function as
human beings rather than as resource in the productive
process.
2. Providing opportunities for each organization
member, as well as for the organization itself, to
develop to his or her full potential.
3. Seeking to increase the effectiveness of the
organization in terms of its goals.
4. Attempting to create an environment in which it is
possible to find exciting and challenging work.
5. Providing opportunities for people for people in
organization to influence the way in which they relate to
work, the organization, and the environment.
12

6. Treating each human being as a person with a
complex set of needs, all of which are important in his
or her work and in his or her life.
Process:
1. Data-gathering.
2. Organization diagnosis
3. Action intervention.
Technology:
1. New ways of organizational learning.
2. New ways of coping.
3. New ways of problem-solving.
The set of values provided by Margulies and Raia are essential humanist in
orientation. This provides another clue to the externalization of OD from the
organization within which it is practiced. The values as listed are desirable to most of
the people, but the experience of recent life in large organizations has not done much
to suggest that these values are shared within the organizations themselves. More
difficult still, because organizational members can identify within them at an
individual level, they are easily espoused by the organization in formalized
expressions of its values: ‘ Our greatest asset is our people and there unswerving
commitment to company goals.’ But, to paraphrase Argyris the values in use are
demonstrably different. ‘Despite the best endeavours of Senior Management the
economic pressures have meant that we have had to realise five hundred valued
members of the workforce’. Thus, the experience of organizational members during
the 1980s and early 1990s has tended to be at odds with the stated values of
organizational, functionalist or pragmatic values concerned with being clear with the
terms and conditions of staff (or, increasingly, subcontractors), equipment, finance
and time. These values place emphasis upon effective and efficient delivery as
opposed to the more general values of human potential and satisfaction.
Galbraith (1977) does not start from the same, humanist, standpoint that
characterizes the writers referred to so far. He is, however, very much in tune with the
systems orientation espoused by Margulies and Raia, and places great emphasis upon
the importance of strategy in common with Bennis. But perhaps the most significant
13

differences in style in Galbraith’s work from those alluded to previously is the sense
that he is writing for the manager who owns the problem rather than for the OD
practitioner who can analyse and understand the problem. Indeed, he refers to
organization to design as the key issue and not to OD:
Organization design is conceived to be a decision process to bring about coherence
between the goals or purposes for which the organization exists, the patterns of
division of labour and interunit coordination, and the people who do the work. The
notion of strategic choice suggests that there are choices of goals and purpose,
choices of different organizing models, choices of process for integrating individuals
into the organization, and finally, a choice as to whether goals, organization,
individuals or some combination of them should be changed in order to adapt to
changes in environment. Organization design is concerned with maintaining the
coherence over time.
These choices are fundamental and control the manager with increasing
frequency.
Writing sometime later, Galbraith (1983) developed his system orientation further to
indicate that organizations
………. Consists of structure, process that cut the structural lines like budgeting,
planning teams, and so on, reward systems like promotions and compensation, and
finally, people practices like selection and development.
This approach is considerably more in harmony with the prevailing,
functionalist orientation that is characteristic of Bennis, Margulies, Raia, etc.
Emphasis upon the notion of choice and, in particular, strategic choice would also
find favour with Mitroff and Kilmann (1984) who berate the business school and their
academic antecedents for their post 1960s emphasis upon training students to tackle
exercises rather than to solve problems:
It is vital as a culture that we come to appreciate that there is a vast difference
between structured-bounded exercise and unstructured- unbounded problems… In a
phrase we have bred a nation of certainty-junkies. We have trained the members of
our culture to expect a daily dosage of highly structured-bounded exercises. The
14

difficulty is that problems of organizations and society have become highly
unstructured and unbounded.
‘Seven-S’ Model
The Mckinsey ‘Seven-S’ model offered by Peters and waterman in 1982 has
some close affinity with the systems model offered by Galibrath:
Strategy
Structure
Systems
Staff
Skills
Shared Values
Style
The key to opening the door of management practice to the process of OD lies
in strategic focus emphasized by Bennis, reinforced by Galbraith, and central to the
McKinsey ‘Seven-S’ model. Unless the OD process (and, indeed, the management
development process) is closely related to, and in keeping with, the organization’s
driving strategy it cannot be effective. This may well mean that the practitioner may
have to forego the lucrative assignment where the strategy espoused (or used) by the
client organization is inconsistent with those humanist values referred to by Margulies
and Raia. He will certainly have an obligation to make them explicit, change his
values, or play lago to his client’s Othello.
It is currently fashionable to describe those organizations, which do adapt,
change and, perhaps, even flourish in times of economic adversity as ‘learning
organizations’. There is a risk, of course, that the embattled manager may dismiss the
term as just another example of specialist, consultant-speak (like management
development or OD). On the other hand, the term might just be indicative of a much
needed shift in emphasis as a developers all being to recognize and appreciate the
value of their various, different contributions and to demonstrate an enthusiasm and
willingness to learn, really learn, from one another to the benefit to themselves and of
their organizations.
15

Summary:
This definitions and views given by founders of OD clarify the distinctive features of
the field of OD and suggest why it is such a powerful change strategy. The
participative, collaborative, problem-focused nature of OD marshals the experience
and expertise of organization members as they work on their most important problems
and opportunities in ways designed to lead to successful outcomes.
16

Chapter 2
Foundations Of Organization Development
Introduction
This chapter describes the foundations that underlie organization development
theory and practice, art and science. These foundations the knowledge base upon
which OD is constructed. The knowledge base of OD is extensive and constantly
being upgraded. In this chapter we describe what we think are the most important
upgrading for the field. We will examine the following concepts;
Models and theories of planned change
System theory
Participation and empowerment
Team and teamwork
Parallel learning structures and
Applied behavioral science.
Organization development is planned change in an organization context.
Planned change theories are rather rudimentary as for as explaining relationships
between variables, but pretty good in terms of identifying the important variables
involved in change.
Kurt Lewin introduced new two idea of change. The first idea that what is occurring
at any point in time is a resultant in a field opposing forces. The status quo- whatever
happening right now is the result of forces pushing in opposite directions. This can be
identified by force field analysis. Whereas Lewins second idea was a model of the
change process itself. He suggested that change is a three-stage process: unfreezing
the old behavior (or situation), moving to a new level of behavior and refreezing the
behavior at new level. Change entails moving from one equilibrium to another point
of equilibrium. Lewins three-stage model is a powerful cognitive tool for
understanding change situation which are explained below
There are various stages:
1st
Stage: Unfreezing i.e. creating motivation and readiness to change through
1. Disconfirmation or lack of conformation
2. Creating guilt or anxiety.
17

3. Provision for psychological safety.
2nd
Stage: Changing through Restructuring:
Helping the client to see things, judge things, feel things, and react to things
differently based on a view obtained through:
1. Identifying with a new role model, mentor, etc.
2. A scanning the environment for new relevant information.
3rd
Stage: Refreezing:
Helping the clients to integrate the new point of view into:
1. The total personality and self-concept
2. Significant relationships
Stream analysis:
Another useful model is “stream analysis” developed by Jerry Porras. Which
is system for graphically displaying the problems of an organization examining
interconnections between the problems, identifying core problems and graphically
tracking the corrective actions taken to solve the problems. Stream analysis is a
complicated and somewhat difficult to use, but as a model for thinking about change
and method for managing change, it is quite valuable. It can also be compared to
Deminng Edwards fishbone diagram or Pareto Chart or any other graphical
representation discovered by him in recent ages.
Next a thorough diagnosis of organization problems and barriers to
effectiveness is performed via, brainstorming session, interviews, questionnaire and
other methods. A task force of representatives from all parts of the organization
review the problems and barriers and discuss them until there is agreement on what
they mean, and categorizes each problem into one of the ‘streams’. Four columns are
drawn on paper; the column headings are labeled “organization arrangements”, “
social factors”, “technology”, and “physical setting”.
Next the interconnections between the problems are noted; problems that have
many interconnections are identified as core problem. Action plans are developed to
correct the core problems. The action plan and their results are tracked on stream
chart. This helps to solve the core plan and simultaneously other interconnected
problems making OD by itself.
18

System Theory:
A second foundation of OD is “system theory”. Which views organization as
open system in active exchange with their surrounding environments. The aim of this
section is to explain systems theory, describe the characteristics of systems, and show
how system theory enhances the practice of OD.
Laudwig Von Bertalanffy first articulated the principle of general system theory in
1950.
‘System’ denotes interdependency, interconnectedness, and interrelatedness of
a set of elements that constitute an identifiable Whole or gestalt. Organizations are
open systems; hence all open systems are input-throughput- output mechanisms.
Systems take in inputs from the environment in the form of energy, information,
money, people, raw materials and so on. They do something to inputs via throughput,
conversions or transformation process that change the inputs: and they export
products to environment in form of outputs. Each of these three systems process must
work well if the system is to be effective and survive. Annexure 3 shows a system in
diagrammatic form:
Participation and empowerment:
One of the most important foundations of organization is its use of a
participation empowerment model. Research on group dynamics began in the 1940s
and achieved exponential growth in the 1950s and 1960s. It demonstrates people, had
ability to energize greater performance, produce better solutions to problems and
greatly enhanced acceptance of decisions. Participation is a powerful elixir- its good
for people, and it dramatically improves individual and organizational performance.
Whereas to empower is to give someone power. This is done by giving their ideas, to
exert influences, and to be responsible. That is why participation is such an effective
form of empowerment. A good manual for implementing empowerment strategies is
James Bellasco’s. Teaching the Elephant to Dance: The Managers Guide to
Empowering Chang.
Belesco presented numerous examples in which leaders reap extraordinary gains by
empowering their employees. Belesco uses a simple four- step model to describe the
empowerment process;
A) Preparation
B) Create tomorrow
19

C) Vision
D) Change.
He believes
1. That only massive change will suffice to keep organizations
available in the future.
2. That people will not naturally embrace the needed changes, and
3. The empowerment is the key to getti9ng people to want to
participate in change.
It is believed that one of the most important ingredients of empowerments is
vision- Developing a clear vision, devising a strategy to achieve the vision and
unleashing the intelligence and energy of the work force to accomplish the vision are
what empowerment is all about, according to Belesco.
Team and teamwork:
Team and teamwork are the “hottest” thing happening in organizations today-
gurus extol the virtues of teams; the noun team has become a verb, teaming and team
related acronyms abound-SDTs (self directed teams), QCs (Quality Circles), HPOs
(high performance Organizations), HPWs (high Performances Work Systems), STS
(Sociotechnical Systems) to name just a few.
Teams are important for number of reasons. First, much individual behavior is
rooted in socio culture norms and values of the work team. Second, many tasks are so
complex, they cannot be performed by individuals: Third, teams create synergy, i.e.,
the sum of the effort of people working alone. Fourth, teams satisfy people’s needs for
social interactions, status, recognition and respect- teams nurture human nature.
Investigators discovered the reason why a particular team performs well while others
don’t. Larson and La Fasto studied number of higher performance teams including
collegiate football national champions, heart transplant surgical teams, and the crew
of the USS Kitty Hawk, and others to determine the characteristics that make them
successful. They found 8 characteristics that are always present:
1. A clear, elevating goal;
2. A result – driven structure;
3. Competent team members;
20

4. Unified commitment
5. A collaboration climate;
6. Standards of excellence;
7. External support and recognition;
8. Principled leadership.
This eight feature makes up a top team; and when any one feature is lost, team
performance declines. High performance teams regulate the behavior of team
members, help each other, find innovative ways around barriers, and set- higher goals.
Larsen and La Fasto also discovered that most frequent cause of team failure was
letting personal or political agendas take precedence over the clear and elevating team
goal.
Parallel learning structures:
Parallel learning structures, specially created organizational structures
developed to plan and guide change programs, constitute another important
foundation of organization development. Dale Zand introduced this concept under the
label “collateral organization” in 1974, and defined it as “a supplementary
organization consisting with the usual, formal organization”. The purpose o9f
collateral organization is to deal with ill structured problems that the formal
organization is unable to resolve. Considerable experimentation with collateral
organizations occurred in the 1970s and 1980s.
Bushe and Shani describes the idea as follows “ We offer the team ‘parallel
learning structure’ as a generic label to cover interventions where (a) a ‘structure’
(that is, a specific division and coordination of labor) is created that (b) operates
‘parallel’ (that is, tandem or side-by-side) with the formal hierarchy and structures
and (c) has the purpose of increasing an ‘organizational learning’ (that is, the creation
and/or implementation of new thoughts and behaviors by employees). In its most
basic form, a parallel learning structure consists of a steering committee and a number
of working groups that study what chances are needed, make recommendations for
improvement, and monitor the change efforts. Additional refinements including
having a steering committee, plus idea groups, action groups, work groups or
implementation groups, with the groups serving specific functions as designated by
steering committee. The parallel structure should be a microcosm of the larger
organization, that is, it should have representatives from all parts of the organization.
21

One or more top executives should be members of the steering committee, to give the
parallel structure authority, legitimacy and clout. We believe parallel learning
structures are a foundation of OD because they are prevalent in so many different OD
programs. The quality of work life programs of the 1970s and 1980s used parallel
structures composed of union leaders, managers and employees. Most sociotechnical
systems redesign efforts and open system planning programs used parallel structures.
Parallel structures are often used to coordinate the self-directed teams in high-
performance organization. A steering committee and working groups were used to
coordinate the employee involvement teams at Ford Motor Company. Parallel
Learning Structures are often the best way to initiate change involves a fundamental
shift in the organization methods of work and/or culture. Bushe and Shani recount a
number of examples from a variety of settings where this intervention was used to
great advantage. Parallel learning structures are a powerful organization change.
Applied behavioral Science:
The foundation of OD relates to the primarary knowledge based on the,
behavioral science knowledge. OD programs apply scientific and practice principles
from the behavioral science to intervene in the human and social process of
organization.
A convectional distinction in usually made between, 1) “Pure” or basic science, the
object of which knowledge for its own sake and 2) “Technology”, applied science, or
practice the object of which is knowledge to solve practical, pressing problems.
According to Greenwood:
“ The diagnostic and treatment typologies are employed together. Each type
description of the diagnostic typology contains implications for a certain type of
treatment. The practitioner uses treatment as the empirical test in his diagnosis,
success corroborating the diagnosis, failure negativity and thus requiring rediagnosis.
The principles of diagnosis and of treatment constitute the principles of practice i.e.
with their elaborations and implications constitute practice theory.
OD is both a result of applied behavioral science perhaps more accurately; it is
a program of applying behavioral science to organization. Annexure 4 shows some of
the inputs to applied behavioral science. The two bottom inputs, behavioral science
research and behavioral science theory are intended to represent contributions from
22

pure or basic science; the two top inputs, practice research and practice theory, are
intended to represent contributions from applied science.
(Annexure 4 Composition of Applied Behavioral Science)
Summary:
These foundations of organization Development from the theoretical and
practice underpinning of the field. Taken separately, each is a powerful conceptual too
for thinking about and implementing change. Taken collectively, they constitute the
beginning of a theory of organization development and change that has enormous
potential for improving organizational performance and individual development.
These foundations are solid, valid, and of great value to OD theorist and practitioners.
They are also of great value to OD to organization leaders and members who stand to
benefit from the change programs erected on this collective foundation.
23

Chapter 3
Managing The Organizational Development Process
Introduction:
In this chapter we examine what leaders, organization members, and OD
practitioners do as they implement and manage OD programs. First we take an in
depth look at diagnosis from several different perspectives or approaches. This is
followed by an examination of the considerations that go into selecting and
implementing interventions. Finally, guidelines for the overall management of OD
programs are presented and explained.
Diagnosis:
There are three basic components of all OD programs: diagnosis, action and
program management. The diagnosis component represents a continuous collection of
data about the total system or its subunits, and about system process culture and other
targets of interest. The action components consist of all the activities and
interventions designed to improve the organization functioning. The programs
management encompasses all activities design to ensure the success of the program
such as a developing the overall OD strategy, monitoring events along the way, and
dealing with the complexities and surprise inherent in all programs. Annexure 5
shows what we mean when we describe the OD process in terms of diagnosis, action
and program management components.
The first step to diagnosis the state of the system regarding the client’s focus of
interest. Whether the total system or some part of the whole. This can be done by
doing SWOT analysis i.e.
(Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats). (Annexure 5 Components of the
OD process: Diagnosis, Action, and Program Management).
In second step action plans are developed to correct problems, by seizing the
opportunities, and by maintaining areas of strengths. These action plans are OD
interventions specifically tailored to address issues at all levels of organization. Step
three consists of facts finding concerning the results to the action taken. If the answer
is positive than members initiate new action plans and interventions to resolve the
24

issue (this is considered to be forth step). Again this process looks logical and linear
in Annexure 4 but in practice it is more complicated.
Diagnosing the system, its subunits and process:
Organization development is at heart an action programs based on valid
interest about the status quo, current problems and opportunities, and effects of
actions as they relate to goal achievement. An OD program thus starts with diagnosis
and continuously employs data collection and data analyzing throughout. The
requirement for diagnostic activities- activities designed to provide an accurate
account of things as they really are-stems from two needs: the first is to know the state
of things or “what is”; the second is to know the effects or consequences of actions.
The important of diagnostic activities is emphasized by Bechard as follows;
The development of strategy for systematic improvement of an organization
demands an examination of the present state of things such an analysis usually looks
at two broad areas. One is a diagnosis of various subsystems that make up the total
organization. These subsystems may be natural “teams” such as top management.
The production department or a research group; or they may be levels such as top
management, middle management, or the work force.
The second area of diagnosis is the organization process’s that are occurring.
These include decision-making process, communications pattern and styles,
relationship between interfacing groups, the management of conflict, the setting of
goals, and planning methods.
Continual diagnosis is thus a necessary ingredient of any planned change effort. Such
diverse activities as getting rich, managing your time and losing weight, for e.g., all
being with an audit “what is”- the status quo- and then require continual monitoring of
the changing status quo over time. From compassion of “what is” with “what should
be” comes a discovery of the gap between actual and desired condition. Action plans
are than developed to close the gap between the actual and the desired conditions; and
the effects of these action plans are continuously monitored to measure process or
movement towards goal. Diagnostic values are therefore basic to all goals seeking
behavior. See Annexure 5
25

The Six- Box Model:
Another diagnostic tool is Marvin Weisbord’s Six-box model, a diagnostic
framework published in 1976, and still widely used by OD practitioners. This model
tells practitioners where to look and what to look for in diagnostic organizational
problem. As shown in (Annexure 6) Weisbord identifies six crucial areas-purposes,
structure rewards help, full mechanisms, relationships and leadership- where things
must go right if the organization is to be successful. Practioniers use this model as a
cognitive map, systematically examining the process and activities of each box,
looking for signs of trouble. Assume there are problems with major product produced
by the organization. These problems will have their cause in dysfunctional process
located in one or more of the six boxes. The problem could be caused by ill-advise
structures, poor leadership, unclear purpose or purpose at variance with the product,
lack of helpful mechanism, and so on. The six-box model is a simple but powerful
diagnostic tool. (Annexure 6).
According to Weisbord, the consultant must attend to both the formal and
informal aspects of each box. The formal system represents the official ways things
are supposed to happen; the informal system represents the ways things really happen.
The formal/informal distinctions, that is, what supposed to happen versus what is
really happening, is a powerful element of OD practice theory and of organization the
secrets to understanding organization dynamics. Weisbord recommends a thorough
diagnosis, looking at multiple boxes before choosing interventions.
“Third-Wave Consulting”:
About ten years after the Six-Box model appeared, Weisbord wrote an article
titled, “Towards Third-Wave Managing and Consulting”, in which he reconsiders the
issues of diagnosis and intervention. “Third wave” refers to the assertion by futurist
Alvin Toffler that the world has progressed through the agricultural revolution (the
first wave), and the industrial revolution (second wave), and is poised on the brink of
an information and technological revolution (the third wave), in which the hallmark
will be rampant change in virtually all institutions of society. Weisbord belives this
requires new paradigms for managing and consulting. As far as diagnosis and
interventions are concerned, Weisbord no longer likes a problem-centered, “sickness”
model of organizational diagnosis where diagnosis leads to list of problems, and
26

interventions are designed to cure the problems. Instead, he prefers to focus on
“wellness”, to help people achieve the desired futures chosen by them, and to create
workplaces that have meaning and community. Operationally, this means moving
from one view of consultant as an expert on diagnosis and interventions, to a view of
the consultant as a stage manager of events to help people do what they are trying to
do.
Weisbord identifies four “useful practices” for third-wave consultant:
1. Asses the potential for action (look for condition where there are committed
leadership, good business opportunities, and energized people;
2. Get the “whole system” in the room;
3. Focus on the future; and
4. Structure tasks that people can do for themselves. This optimistic, goal-
oriented view for helping people in organization is a valuable perspective on
diagnosis.
The Action component; OD Interventions:
Organization development is a process for improving organizational
performance by causing changes in organization’s culture and process. Improving
process and culture is done through OD interventions, which are sets of structured
activities in which selected organizational units engage with a task or sequence to
tasks where the task goals are related to organizational improvement. Interventions
are actions taken to produce desired changes.
Typically, one of four conditions gives rise to need for OD interventions. First,
there is problem; something is “broken”. Corrective actions-interventions- are
implemented to “fix” the problem. Second, there is an unrealized opportunity;
something we want is beyond our reach. Enabling actions-interventions-are developed
to seize the opportunity. Third features of the organization are out of alignment; parts
of the organization are working at cross-purpose. Alignments activities-interventions-
are developed to get things back “in sync.” Fourth, the vision that guides the
organization changes; yesterday’s vision is no longer enough. Actions to build the
necessary structures, process, and culture to support the new vision-interventions-are
developed to make the new vision a reality. In summary, interventions are planned
sets of actions to change those situations the organization members want to change.
27

Interventions have been developed to solve most problems related to the human side
of organizations. Thus, when problem are discovered in organizational system,
subsystems, or processes, intervention activities can be initiated to remedy the
problems.
The Nature of OD interventions:
A well-designed OD program unfolds according to strategy or game plan,
called to overall OD strategy. This strategy may be planned in advance or may
emerge over time as events dedicate. The strategy is based on answer to such
questions as the following: what are overall change/ improvements goals of the
programs? What parts of the organization are most ready and respective to the OD
program? Answer to those questions lead the practitioners to develop a game plan for
where to intervene in the system, what to do, the sequencing of interventions, and as
forth.
OD interventions tend to focus on real problems rather than on abstract
problems. The problems facing organization members are real, not hypothetical; the
problems members get rewards for solving are real, not hypothetical; and the
problems central to needs of organization members are real, not hypothetical.
Developing the skills and knowledge to solve real problems as they arise in their
“natural state” means that the educational problem of “transfer of learning” from
one situation to another is minimized (all though the problem of generalization, that
is, knowing the appropriate times and places to apply this particular set of skills and
knowledge, is still present.)
An additional features of working on real problems in OD interventions is that
real set of individuals involved in problem is the group the problem solves work with.
Organization development program rely on several learning models. For example if
“learning how to” do something precedes “doing” it, then we have a “deficiency”
model of learning in which the learning comes primarily from critiquing the actions
after the fact to see how they could have been done differently and, presumably,
better. Both models are viable learning modes, and both are used extensively in
organization development.
28

Analyzing Discrepancies:
A useful model for thinking about diagnosis and intervention could be termed
discrepancy analysis-examination of the discrepancies or gaps between what is
happening and what should be happening, and discrepancies between where one is
and where one wants to be. Discrepancies, therefore, define both problems and goals.
A discrepancy requires study and action if the gaps are to be eliminated. We believe
that good part of OD programs solving, hence, discrepancies analysis. Action research
describes an iterative problem- solving process that is essentially discrepancy
analysis- the study of problems and opportunities (goals) or the study of the
discrepancies between where one is and where one wants to be. Organization
development provides technologies for studying and closing gaps.
Charles Kepner and Benjamin Tregoe present this simple but powerful
analytical model clearly and effectively in The Rational manager and The new
Rational Manager. Their ideas have been translated into training seminars to improve
problem-solving and decision making skills. Kepner and Tergoe stated,” The problem
analyzer has an expected standard of performance, a ‘should’ against which to
compare actual performance… A problem is a deviation from a standard of
performance.” According to these authors, a problem is a gap; problem solving is
discovering a solution-a set of actions-to close the gap.
Just as OD practitioners apply behavioral science principles and practice to
improve organizational functioning and individual development, they apply these
same principles and practice as they plan, implement, and manage OD programs.
They attend equally to task and process, consider system ramifications of the
program, involve organization member in planning and execution, use an action
research model, create feedback loops to ensure relevance and timeliness, and so
forth. Managing the OD program effectively means the difference between success
and failure. The aim of this section is to provide guidelines to help ensure success in
managing OD programs. Specifically, we examine the phase involved in OD program,
a change management model, and a procedure for creating parallel learning structures.
29

Phase of OD programs:
OD programs follow a logical progression of events- a series of phases that
unfolds over time. An important part of managing OD programs well is to execute
each phase well. Warner Burke describes the following phases of OD:
1. Entry
2. Contracting
3. Diagnosis
4. Feedback
5. Planning Change
6. Intervention
7. Evaluation
Entry present the initial contact between consultant and client, exploration of the
situation that stimulated the client to seek a consultant, and exploration aimed at
determining whether the problem or opportunity, the client, and the consultant
constitute a good match. Contracting involves establishing mutual expectations,
reaching agreement on expenditure of time, money, resources, and energy, and
generally clarifying what each part expects to get from the other and give to other.
Diagnosis is the fact-finding phase in which a picture of the situation is gained
through interviews, observations, questionnaires, examination of organization
documents and information, and the like. Burke observes that there are two steps
within the diagnostic phase-gathering information and analyzing it. Feedback
represents the return of the analyzed information to the client system; exploration of
the information by the clients for understanding, clarification, and accuracy; and the
beginning of ownership of the data by the clients as their data, their picture of the
situation, and their problems and opportunities. Planning change involves the clients
deciding what action steps to take based on the information they have just learned.
Alternatives possibilities are explored and critiqued; plans for action are selected and
developed. Interventions implements sets of actions designed to correct the problems
or seize the opportunities. Evaluation represents assessing the effects of the program:
what is successful? What changes occurred? What were the casual mechanisms? Are
we satisfied with the results?
These phases are straightforward and logical in description, but in practice they often
overlap a great deal and look more like an evolving process than a linear progression.
30

But the most important point is that emphasis builds the foundation for subsequent
phases; therefore, each phase must be executed with care and precision. These phases
of OD serve as an overall roadmap for practitioners.
A Model for Managing Change:
Cummings and Worley identify five sets of activities required for effective
change management:
1. Motivating change
2. Creating a vision
3. Developing political Support
4. Managing the transition, and
5. Sustaining momentum. These are shown in Annexure 7
Getting people to want to change, believe change is necessary, and to commit to
abandoning the status quo for an uncertain future is the first step. Cummings and
Worley suggests three methods for creating readiness to change: sensitize people
about the pressure to change, that is why change must occur; show discrepancies
between the current state of affairs and the future state of affairs (which are more
desirable); and communicate positive, realistic expectations for the advantages to
change. The next set of activities, overcoming resistance to change, is achieved
through three methods: dealing empathetically with feelings of loss an anxiety,
providing extensive communication about change effort and how it is proceeding, and
encouraging participation and involvement by organization members is planning and
executing the change. As the other write: “one of the oldest and most effective
strategies for overcoming resistance to involve organization members directly in
planning and implementing change”.
Creating a vision provides a picture of the future and shows how individuals
and groups will fit into that future. Vision reduces uncertainty, serve as goals to
energize the future, show that the future will be beneficial, and demonstrates that the
future is attainable. The mission, values, and conditions provide tangible goals to
which organization members direct their energies. Developing political support is a
critical factor in successful change efforts. Powerful individuals and groups must be
convinced that the change is good for them or at least will not significant harm them,
or else they will resist and even sabotage the effort. Cummings and Worley suggest
that the practitioners should asses his or her own power in the situation, identify the
31

key players whose support is required for success, and persuade those key players that
the change will have positive benefits from them.
Activities related to managing the transition are extremely important. Richard
Bechard and Reuben Harris addressed this topic in their book Organizational
Transitions: Managing Complex Change. Bechard and Harris proposed that change
efforts move through three states: the current state, the transition state, and the desired
future state in that order, and they suggest three sets of activities for managing the
transition state. “Activity planning” involves specifying the sequence of activities,
events, and milestones that must occur during the transition. This serves as a road map
for the organization members and as a checklist for measuring progress.
“Commitment planning” involves getting the support commitment from those key
players in the organizations whose leaderships; resources and energy are needed to
make the transition succeed. “Management structures” involve setting up parallel
learning structures to initiate, lead, monitor, and facilitate the change. Finally, the
Cummings and Worley model lists several methods for sustaining momentum in order
to complete and stabilize the change. I think this model is valuable for managing OD
programs.
Summary:
Three components – diagnosis, interventions, and program management-
critical to all organization development programs have been explored in this chapter.
Each is important in its own right; all are vital to success. The more effective they will
become in their organization improvement efforts. Organization development is
complex blend of art, science, and craft that is gained through the study and mastery
of these three components.
32

Chapter: 4
Organization Development and role of Management
Techniques
Introduction
While Total Quality Management has proven to be an effective process for
improving organizational functioning, its value can only be assured through a
comprehensive and well thought out implementation process. The purpose of this
chapter is to outline key aspects of implementation of large-scale organizational
change, which may enable a practitioner to more thoughtfully and successfully
implement TQM. First, the context will be set. TQM is, in fact, a large-scale systems
change, and guiding principles and considerations regarding this scale of change will
be presented. Without attention to contextual factors, well-intended changes may not
be adequately designed. As another aspect of context, the expectations and
perceptions of employees (workers and managers) will be assessed, so that the
implementation plan can address them. Specifically, sources of resistance to change
and ways of dealing with them will be discussed. This is important to allow a change
agent to anticipate resistances and design for them, so that the process does not bog
down or stall. Next, a model of implementation will be presented, including a
discussion of key principles. Visionary leadership will be offered as an overriding
perspective for someone instituting TQM. In recent years the literature on change
management and leadership has grown steadily, and applications based on research
findings will be more likely to succeed. Use of tested principles will also enable the
change agent to avoid reinventing the proverbial wheel. Implementation principles
will be followed by a review of steps in managing the transition to the new system
and ways of helping institutionalize the process as part of the organization's culture.
This section, too, will be informed by current writing in transition management and
institutionalization of change. Finally, some miscellaneous do's and don’ts will be
offered.
Members of any organization have stories to tell of the introduction of new
programs, techniques, systems, or even, in current terminology, paradigms. Usually
33

the employee, who can be anywhere from the line worker to the executive level,
describes such an incident with a combination of cynicism and disappointment: some
manager went to a conference or in some other way got a "great idea" (or did it based
on threat or desperation such as an urgent need to cut costs) and came back to work to
enthusiastically present it, usually mandating its implementation. The "program"
probably raised people's expectations that this time things would improve, that
management would listen to their ideas. Such a program usually is introduced with
fanfare, plans are made, and things slowly return to normal. The manager blames
unresponsive employees, line workers blame executives interested only in looking
good, and all complain about the resistant middle managers. Unfortunately, the
program itself is usually seen as worthless: "we tried team building (or organization
development or quality circles or what have you) and it didn't work; neither will
TQM". Planned change processes often work, if conceptualized and implemented
properly; but, unfortunately, every organization is different, and the processes are
often adopted "off the shelf" "the 'appliance model of organizational change': buy a
complete program, like a 'quality circle package,' from a dealer, plug it in, and hope
that it runs by itself" (Kanter, 1983, 249). Alternatively, especially in the under
funded public and not for profit sectors, partial applications are tried, and in spite of
management and employee commitment do not bear fruit. This chapter will focus on
ways of preventing some of these disappointments.
In summary, the purpose here is to review principles of effective planned
change implementation and suggest specific TQM applications. Several assumptions
are proposed: 1. TQM is a viable and effective planned change method, when
properly installed; 2. Not all organizations are appropriate or ready for TQM; 3.
Preconditions (appropriateness, readiness) for successful TQM can sometimes be
created; and 4. Leadership commitment to a large-scale, long-term, cultural change is
necessary. While problems in adapting TQM in government and social service
organizations have been identified, TQM can be useful in such organizations if
properly modified (Milakovich, 1991; Swiss, 1992).
34

TQM as Large-Scale Systems Change
TQM is at first glance seen primarily as a change in an organization's
technology its way of doing work. In the human services, this means the way clients
are processed the service delivery methods applied to them and ancillary
organizational processes such as paperwork, procurement processes, and other
procedures. But TQM is also a change in an organization's culture its norms, values,
and belief systems about how organizations function. And finally, it is a change in an
organization's political system: decision making processes and power bases. For
substantive change to occur, changes in these three dimensions must be aligned: TQM
as a technological change will not be successful unless cultural and political
dimensions are attended to as well (Tichey, 1983).
Many (e.g., Hyde, 1992; Chaudron, 1992) have noted that TQM results in a
radical change in the culture and the way of work in an organization. A fundamental
factor is leadership, including philosophy, style, and behavior. These must be
congruent as they are presented by a leader. Many so-called enlightened leaders of
today espouse a participative style which is not, in fact, practiced to any appreciable
degree. Any manager serious about embarking on a culture change such as TQM
should reflect seriously on how she or he feels and behaves regarding these factors.
For many managers, a personal program of leadership development (e.g., Bennis,
1989) may be a prerequisite to effective functioning as an internal change agent
advocating TQM.
Other key considerations have to do with alignment among various
organizational systems (Chaudron, 1992; Hyde, 1992). For example, human resource
systems, including job design, selection processes, compensation and rewards,
performance appraisal, and training and development must align with and support the
new TQM culture. Less obvious but no less important will be changes required in
other systems. Information systems will need to be redesigned to measure and track
new things such as service quality. Financial management processes may also need
attention through the realignment of budgeting and resource allocation systems.
Organizational structure and design will be different under TQM: layers of
management may be reduced and organizational roles will certainly change. In
particular, middle management and first line supervisors will be operating in new
35

ways. Instead of acting as monitors, ordergivers, and agents of control they will serve
as boundary managers, coordinators, and leaders who assist line workers in getting
their jobs done. To deal with fears of layoffs, all employees should be assured that no
one will lose employment as a result of TQM changes: jobs may change, perhaps
radically, but no one will be laid off. Hyde (1992) has recommended that we
"disperse and transform, not replace, midlevel managers." This no layoff principle
has been a common one in joint labor management change processes such as quality
of working life projects for many years.
Another systems consideration is that TQM should evolve from the
organization's strategic plan and be based on stakeholder expectations. This type of
planning and stance regarding environmental relations is receiving more attention but
still is not common in the human services. As will be discussed below, TQM is often
proposed based on environmental conditions such as the need to cut costs or demands
for increased responsiveness to stakeholders. A manager may also adopt TQM as a
way of being seen at the proverbial cutting edge, because it is currently popular. This
is not a good motivation to use TQM and will be likely to lead to a cosmetic or
superficial application, resulting in failure and disappointment. TQM should be
purposeoriented: it should be used because an organization's leaders feel a need to
make the organization more effective. It should be driven by results and not be seen as
an end in itself. If TQM is introduced without consideration of real organizational
needs and conditions, it will be met by skepticism on the part of both managers and
workers. We will now move to a discussion of the ways in which people may react to
TQM.
People's Expectations and Perceptions
Many employees may see TQM as a fad, remembering past "fads" such as
quality circles, management by objectives, and zerobased budgeting. As was noted
above, TQM must be used not just as a fad or new program, but must be related to
key organizational problems, needs, and outcomes. Fortunately, Martin (1993) has
noted that TQM as a "managerial wave" has more in common with social work than
have some past ones such as MBO or ZBB, and its adaptations may therefore be
easier.
36

In another vein, workers may see management as only concerned about the
product, not staff needs. Management initiatives focused on concerns such as budget
or cost will not resonate with beleaguered line workers. Furthermore, staff may see
quality as not needing attention: they may believe that their services are already
excellent or that quality is a peripheral concern in these days of cutbacks and multi
problem clients. For a child protective service worker, just getting through the day
and perhaps mitigating the most severe cases of abuse may be all that one expects.
Partly because of heavy service demands, and partly because of professional training
of human service workers, which places heavy value on direct service activities with
clients, there may be a lack of interest on the part of many line workers in efficiency
or even effectiveness and outcomes (Pruger & Miller, 1991; Ezell, Menefee, & Patti,
1989). This challenge should be addressed by all administrators (Rapp & Poertner,
1992), and in particular any interested in TQM.
Workers may have needs and concerns, such as lower caseloads and less
bureaucracy, which are different from those of administration. For TQM to work,
employees must see a need (e.g., for improved quality from their perspective) and
how TQM may help. Fortunately, there are winwin ways to present this. TQM is
focused on quality, presumably a concern of both management and workers, and
methods improvements should eliminate wasteful bureaucratic activities, save money,
and make more human resources available for core activities, specifically client
service.
Sources of Resistance
Implementation of largescale change such as TQM will inevitably face
resistance, which should be addressed directly by change agents. A key element of
TQM is working with customers, and the notion of soliciting feedback/expectations
from customers/clients and collaborating with them, perhaps with customers defining
quality, is a radical one in many agencies, particularly those serving involuntary
clients (e.g., protective services). Historical worker antipathy to the use of statistics
and data in the human services may carry over into views of TQM, which encourages
the gathering and analysis of data on service quality. At another level, management
37

resistance to employee empowerment is likely. They may see decision making
authority in zerosum terms: if employees have more involvement in decision making,
managers will have less. In fact, one principle in employee involvement is that each
level will be more empowered, and managers lose none of their fundamental
authority. There will undoubtedly be changes in their roles, however. As was noted
above, they will spend less time on control and more on facilitation. For many
traditional managers, this transition will require teaching/training, self reflection, and
time as well as assurances from upper management that they are not in danger of
being displaced.
Resistance in other parts of the organization will show up if TQM is
introduced on a pilot basis or only in particular programs (Hyde, 1992). Kanter (1983)
has referred to this perspective as segmentalism: each unit or program sees itself as
separate and unique, with nothing to learn from others and no need to collaborate with
them. This shows up in the "not invented here" syndrome: those not involved in the
initial development of an idea feel no ownership for it. On a broader level, there may
be employee resistance to industry examples used in TQM terms like inventory or
order backlog (Cohen and Brand, 1993, 122).
Dealing with Resistance
There are several tactics which can be helpful in dealing with resistance to
TQM implementation. Generally, they have to do with acknowledging legitimate
resistance and changing tactics based on it, using effective leadership to enroll people
in the vision of TQM, and using employee participation.
A useful technique to systematically identify areas of resistance is a force field
analysis (Brager & Holloway, 1992). This technique was originally developed by
Kurt Lewin as an assessment tool for organizational change. It involves creating a
force field of driving forces, which aid the change or make it more likely to occur, and
restraining forces, which are points of resistance or things getting in the way of
change. Start by identifying the change goal, in this case, implementation of TQM.
Represent this by drawing a line down the middle of a piece of paper. Slightly to its
left, draw a parallel line which represents the current state of the organization. The
change process involves moving from the current state to the ideal future state, an
38

organization effectively using TQM. To the left of the second line (the current state),
list all forces (individuals, key groups, or conditions) which may assist in the
implementation of TQM. These may include environmental pressures leading to
reduced funds, staff who may like to be more involved in agency decision making,
and the successful applications of TQM elsewhere. On the other side, list restraining
forces which will make the change implementation more difficult. Examples may be
middle management fear of loss of control, lack of time for line workers to take for
TQM meetings, and skepticism based on the organization's poor track record
regarding change. Arrows from both sides touching the "current state" line represent
the constellation of forces. Each force is then assessed in two ways: its potency or
strength, and its amenability to change. More potent forces, especially restraining
ones, will need greater attention. Those not amenable to change will have to be
counteracted by driving forces.Exhibit I provides an example. See Annexure 1
The analysis of the force field involves looking at which driving forces may be
strengthened and which restraining forces may be eliminated, mitigated, or
counteracted. If it appears that, overall, driving forces are strong enough to move back
restraining forces, adoption of TQM would be worth pursuing. The change plan
would include tactics designed to move the relevant forces.
It is also important to note and validate any points of resistance which are, in
fact, legitimate, such as the limited amount of staff time available for TQM meetings.
Klein (cited in Bennis, Benne, & Chin, 1985) encouraged change agents to validate
the role of the "defender" of the status quo and respond to legitimate concerns raised.
This will allow appropriate adaptations of the TQM process to account for unique
organizational circumstances. Sell TQM based on the organization's real needs, note
legitimate risks and negatives, and allow improvements in your own procedures. This
should enhance your credibility and show your openness to critically looking at the
process.
Another way to address resistance is to get all employees on the same side, in
alignment towards the same goal. Leadership is the mechanism for this, and specific
models known as transformational or visionary leadership (Bennis & Nanus, 1985)
are most effective. Research on change implementation (Nutt, cited in Robey, 1991)
has identified four methods. The first, "intervention," involves a key executive
39

justifying the need for change, monitoring the process, defining acceptable
performance, and demonstrating how improvements can be made. This was found to
be more successful than "participation," in which representatives of different interest
groups determine the features of the change. Participation was found to be more
successful than "persuasion" (experts attempting to sell changes they have devised) or
"edict," the least successful. Transformational or visionary leadership, the approach
suggested here, is an example of the intervention approach. This would involve a
leader articulating a compelling vision of an ideal organization and how TQM would
help the vision is actualized. These principles will be discussed in more detail in a
later section, as a framework for the change strategy.
A powerful way to decrease resistance to change is to increase the
participation of employees in making decisions about various aspects of the process.
There are actually two rationales for employee participation (Packard, 1989). The
more common reason is to increase employee commitment to the resultant outcomes,
as they will feel a greater stake or sense of ownership in what is decided. A second
rationale is that employees have a great deal of knowledge and skill relevant to the
issue at hand (in this case, increasing quality, identifying problems, and improving
work processes), and their input should lead to higher quality decisions. A manager
should consider any decision area as a possibility for employee participation, with the
understanding that participation is not always appropriate (Vroom and Yetton, 1973).
Employees or their representatives may be involved in decision areas ranging from
the scope and overall approach of the TQM process to teams engaging in quality
analysis and suggestions for improvements. They may also be involved in ancillary
areas such as redesign of the organization's structure, information system, or reward
system. Involvement of formal employee groups such as unions is a special
consideration which may also greatly aid TQM implementation.
A change agent should understand that, overall, change will occur when three
factors (dissatisfaction with the status quo, desirability of the proposed change, the
practicality of the change) added together are greater than the "cost" of changing (time
spent in learning, adapting new roles and procedures, etc.) (Beckhard and Harris,
1987). This is represented in the formula in Exhibit II. Any key group or individual
will need a level of dissatisfaction with the status quo, must see a desired improved
state, and must believe that the change will have minimal disruption. In other words,
the change (TQM) must be seen as responding to real problems and worth the effort
40

or cost in getting there. Conditions favoring change may be created by modifying
these variables. The change agent may try to demonstrate how bad things are, or
amplify others' feelings of dissatisfaction; and then present a picture of how TQM
could solve current problems. The final step of modifying the equation is to convince
people that the change process, while it will take time and effort, will not be
prohibitively onerous. The organization as a whole and each person will be judging
the prospect of TQM from this perspective. A variation of this is the WIIFM
principle: "What's in it for me?" To embrace TQM, individuals must be shown how it
will be worth it for them.
Exhibit II: Resistance to Change
C = (A + B + D) > X
C = Change
A = Level of dissatisfaction with the status quo
B = Desirability of proposed change
D = Practicality of the change
X = Cost of changing
A final possible area of resistance, the "not invented here" syndrome may be
seen after TQM is successfully adopted in one part of the organization and attempts
are made to diffuse it, or spread it to other areas. Such resistance may be prevented or
reduced in three ways. First, the general techniques mentioned above should be
helpful. Second, each new area (program, division, department) should have a new
assessment and contracting process: different circumstances should be expected in
each part of the organization (Chaudron, 19). Finally, a general principle of TQM
implementation mentioned below is relevant here: every TQM application should be
uniquely adapted: don't use "off the shelf" models or try to standardize all aspects of
the process.
41

Implementation Principles and Processes
Specifics of TQM implementation will be discussed in two ways. First, a
model for organizational transformation through visionary leadership will be
presented. A full implementation of TQM does, as was emphasized earlier, represent
a significant change in the culture and political economy of an organization, and a
comprehensive change strategy is therefore required. After discussion of a change
model, several do's and don’ts culled from the literature on TQM in the public sector
and the human services will be reviewed.
Current Reality and Preconditions
A preliminary step in TQM implementation is to assess the organization's
current reality: relevant preconditions have to do with the organization's history, its
current needs, precipitating events leading to TQM, and the existing employee quality
of working life. If the current reality does not include important preconditions, TQM
implementation should be delayed until the organization is in a state in which TQM is
likely to succeed. The force field analysis discussed above is one useful tool in
reviewing the current situation.
If an organization has a track record of effective responsiveness to the
environment, and if it has been able to successfully change the way it operates when
needed, TQM will be easier to implement. If an organization has been historically
reactive and has no skill at improving its operating systems, there will be both
employee skepticism and a lack of skilled change agents. If this condition prevails, a
comprehensive program of management and leadership development may be
instituted. A management audit (Sugarman, 1988) is a good assessment tool to
identify current levels of organizational functioning and areas in need of change. An
organization should be basically healthy before beginning TQM. If it has significant
problems such as a very unstable funding base, weak administrative systems, lack of
managerial skill, or poor employee morale, TQM would not be appropriate.
However, a certain level of stress is probably desirable to initiate TQM:
people need to feel a need for a change. Kanter (1983) addresses this phenomenon is
describing building blocks, which are present in effective organizational change.
These forces include departures from tradition, a crisis or galvanizing event, strategic
42

decisions, individual "prime movers," and action vehicles. Departures from tradition
are activities, usually at lower levels of the organization, which occur when
entrepreneurs move outside the normal ways of operating to solve a problem. A crisis,
if it is not too disabling, can also help create a sense of urgency which can mobilize
people to act. In the case of TQM, this may be a funding cut or threat, or demands
from consumers or other stakeholders for improved quality of service. After a crisis, a
leader may intervene strategically by articulating a new vision of the future to help
the organization deal with it. A plan to implement TQM may be such a strategic
decision. Such a leader may then become a prime mover, which takes charge in
championing the new idea and showing others how it will help them get where they
want to go. Finally, action vehicles are needed: mechanisms or structures to enable
the change to occur and become institutionalized. TQM processes and models of
employee participation are such mechanisms.
Essential or desirable preconditions may be identified in two areas: macro and
micro. Macro factors include those, which are concerned with issues such as
leadership, resources, and the surrounding infrastructure. Micro issues have to do with
internal issues such as employee training and empowerment and organizational
processes such as quality assurance. These are listed in Exhibit III: See Annexure 2
At the macro level, Osborne and Gaebler (1992, 3267) have listed several
"factors supportive of fundamental change" which showed up in their research on
reinventing government. These factors, summarized in Exhibit III, are consistent with
research cited earlier about effective organizational change. It should be noted that
Osborne and Gaebler researched governmental organizations only; but several factors,
including leadership and a longterm perspective, are relevant in not forprofit settings
as well. The first factor, a crisis, was also identified by Kanter as a driving force for
change. Next, Osborne and Gaebler noted the importance of leadership. Such leaders
are usually at the executive level of the organization, where they can champion new
ideas and protect risk takers. At the political level, a continuity of leadership is
desirable: a longterm commitment is necessary, and politicians are often not willing to
adopt this perspective. A healthy civic infrastructure is also valuable: an organization
in a community with citizens, community organizations, and businesses committed to
the public welfare is more likely to be able to engage in largescale change.
Furthermore, key leaders in the community having a shared vision and goals, and a
level of trust among those in power (e.g., executives and union leadership), are
43

valuable. Outside resources, in the form of help from foundations, consultants, civic
organizations, or other governments, will usually be necessary. Finally, while there is
no one best way to implement particular change efforts, it does help to have models to
follow: other organizations who have implemented change can offer useful guidance
and reassurance that change is possible. At least half of these factors were present
when "wholesale reinvention" occurred. Many of these factors are present in
successful case studies of TQM and other largescale change.
On the micro level, the US Federal Quality Institute identified several key
factors related to successful TQM. First, as many researchers have noted, top
management support is necessary. This is typically represented partly through
strategic planning regarding TQM. Second, a customer focus is an important
precondition, since TQM often involves improving quality from a customer's point of
view. Employees or their representatives (i.e., unions) must be involved early,
particularly in addressing employee training and recognition and employee
empowerment and teamwork issues. Attention to these issues is important in changing
the organization's culture in the direction of teamwork and a customer and quality
focus. The measurement and analysis of products and processes and quality assurance
are final elements which need attention (cited in Hyde, 1992). Assessing these factors
and private sector applications, Hyde (1992) listed the following implications
regarding TQM implementation in the public sector. First, basic quality measurement
systems have to be developed. These need to be accessible to all levels, and, in fact,
must be designed and implemented with employee involvement. More specifically,
any unions in the organization must be substantively involved. Consistent with a
systems perspective, budgeting and resource allocation systems will need to be
realigned to fit with the TQM culture: TQM cannot be used as a mechanism to simply
cut costs or rationalize cutbacks. The same is true of human resource management
systems: work may be redesigned to implement self directed work teams;
performance appraisal and compensation systems may be change to reward team
based performance; and massive training for managers, supervisors, and workers will
be necessary. Finally, thoughtful attention needs to be paid to the ways in which
customer feedback is used.
44

Visionary Leadership
With these principles and preconditions in mind, the following implementation
steps will be discussed: using leadership to articulate a vision of the future for the
organization and how TQM fits into it, designing a comprehensive change process,
implementing TQM & related new systems, and ensuring institutionalization.
As was emphasized earlier, leadership is a key element in successful implementation
of largescale change (Norman & Keys, 1992): the leader shows the need and sets the
vision, defining the basic purpose, goals, and parameters or requirements of TQM.
The leader needs to take a longterm perspective, and must be able to motivate others
to stick with the process during early stages when resistance and obstacles may seem
insurmountable. The preferred leadership style would be a participative one, so that
staff may be involved in the design of the specific system elements. This may seem in
contradiction to the earlier stated preference for an "intervention" approach as
opposed to traditional participative decision-making. In the former, the leader is, in
fact directive regarding the big picture and overall goals, i.e., establishing PDM. Once
that strategic direction has been determined, a participative style may be used on
implementation details. Prior to this decision, of course, the manger should study
TQM, talk to others who have used it, and perhaps attend a preliminary training
session. This is important in order for the manager to accurately assess the fit between
TQM and her/his style. This will be necessary in establishing an organizational
culture, which is compatible with TQM, nurturing and reinforcing continuous quality
improvement (Cohen and Brand, 1993, 118).
In designing a comprehensive change process, the leader must acknowledge
the existing organizational culture (norms and values, managers' leadership
philosophies and styles at all levels) to ensure a good fit. TQM also needs to be
congruent with or aligned with other organizational processes, including reward
systems, financial & information systems, and training systems.
Implementing TQM essentially involves organizational transformation:
beginning to operate in new ways, developing a new culture. This also includes
redesigning other systems, as has been described above. Such change, while difficult,
45

is possible in the public sector, in spite of Swiss's (1992) reservations (Packard and
Reid, 1990).
Steps in Managing the Transition
Beckhard and Pritchard (1992) have outlined the basic steps in managing a
transition to a new system such as TQM: identifying tasks to be done, creating
necessary management structures, developing strategies for building commitment,
designing mechanisms to communicate the change, and assigning resources.
Task identification would include a study of present conditions (assessing
current reality, as described above); assessing readiness, such as through a force field
analysis; creating a model of the desired state, in this case, implementation of TQM;
announcing the change goals to the organization; and assigning responsibilities and
resources. This final step would include securing outside consultation and training and
assigning someone within the organization to oversee the effort. This should be a
responsibility of top management. In fact, the next step, designing transition
management structures, is also a responsibility of top management. In fact, Cohen and
Brand (1993) and Hyde (1992) assert that management must be heavily involved as
leaders rather than relying on a separate staff person or function to shepherd the
effort. An organization wide steering committee to oversee the effort may be
appropriate. Developing commitment strategies was discussed above in the sections
on resistance and on visionary leadership.
To communicate the change, mechanisms beyond existing processes will need
to be developed. Special all staff meetings attended by executives, sometimes
designed as input or dialog sessions, may be used to kick off the process, and TQM
newsletters may be an effective ongoing communication tool to keep employees
aware of activities and accomplishments.
Management of resources for the change effort is important with TQM,
because outside consultants will almost always be required. Choose consultants based
on their prior relevant experience and their commitment to adapting the process to fit
unique organizational needs. While consultants will be invaluable with initial training
of staff and TQM system design, employees (management and others) should be
46

actively involved in TQM implementation, perhaps after receiving training in change
management which they can then pass on to other employees. A collaborative
relationship with consultants and clear role definitions and specification of activities
must be established.
Institutionalization of TQM
Ledford (cited in Packard & Reid, 1990) has proposed a model including four
processes which are forces which determine whether a change will persist through the
phases of institutionalization. These processes are concerned with congruence among
these variables: the change (TQM) with the organization, the change with other
changes initiated at the time, the change with environmental demands, and with the
level of slack resources in the organization. TQM needs to be congruent with the
organization's current culture, and with other changes occurring in the organization. In
this period of diminishing resources, organizations are likely to be trying to cope, by
downsizing or other methods. In some organizations there are increasing demands for
quality or client service improvements. Many such changes are likely to be driven by
environmental demands, and TQM may be more likely to be successful than at times
of less environmental pressure. Unfortunately, the fourth element, slack resources, is
less likely to be present: under current conditions, extra resources (money and staff
time) are less likely to be easily available. The challenge is to find a way to make the
initial investment outlay to start a process which will pay off in the long term.
Institutionalization may also be enhanced by overlaying another, but compatible,
change model: the learning organization (Senge, 1990). This involves, at both the
micro and systems levels, staff always learning how to do better and management
learning how to be more responsive to staff and the community. Leaders help staff
develop their own visions and align these with the organization's vision of quality.
Beckhard and Pritchard (1992) emphasized top management commitment to
the change, and Cohen and Brand (1993) apply this specifically to TQM by
recommending finding and nurturing a core group, which is, interested in
organizational change. They also emphasize the importance of personal leadership
and example: managers need to apply TQM in their daily work and to get people to
think about and use the concepts and tools. Ongoing monitoring, and action research
to make changes as needed, will be required. And, once again, the systems
47

perspective must be noted: TQM must be built into other systems, particularly those
involving planning and rewards. Leaders should expect a long term process, including
a transition period. They will need to be persistent, using constant reinforcement, for
example, through continuous training. Cohen and Brand suggest that TQM should
eventually be made an "invisible" part of the organization, permeating all areas and
the responsibility of everyone. TQM may be instituted organization wide or started in
one unit or program and then expanded. Diffusion occurs as TQM is spread from its
initial application to other units. Dynamics of resistance mentioned earlier will have
to be addressed at this stage.
Some Do's and Don'ts
Following are some miscellaneous do's and don'ts which are based on
experiences with TQM in the public sector and the human services. Many are drawn
from Cohen and Brand (1993), Hyde (1992), and Chaudron (1992).
First, don't "do TQM": a canned approach is likely to be met with skepticism
and ultimately fail because it is not adapted to the uniqueness of a particular
organization. TQM is particularly susceptible to this phenomenon, because some
adherents adopt almost a religious fervor, (they have been described by one observer
as "Deming lemmings" (Reid, 1992). "Deming as demigod" is another way this
phenomenon has been described: a statement takes on an added aura when prefaced
by "Dr. Deming said..." (Chaudron, 1993). Don't copy any particular model but use
relevant basic principles such as an emphasis on quality, continuous analysis of tasks
to improve performance, and work with suppliers to enable the organization to start
with high quality supplies. TQM should be seen as a process, not a program. It should
be integrated into ongoing agency operations, and the focus should be on how an
organization can better accomplish its goals and objectives. At the tactical level, don't
overemphasize techniques such as statistical process control and the use of charts.
Focus instead on the systems the analysis and improvement of processes not on
statistics or individual variations.
Whereas some large-scale organizational change efforts are often driven by a
centralized steering committee or group of executives, in TQM it may be best to not
centralize the effort and establish a separate quality management bureaucracy
("qualiticrats", according to Hyde). Don't believe that top management support is
48

necessary at first, as is axiomatic in organization development. While an organization
needn't start TQM at the top, successes in particular units or programs should set the
stage for diffusion in other directions. Change from below may be appropriate for
those at lower levels who want to initiate TQM. It may work best to start TQM with a
temporary task force and then hire trainers, expose staff, and hope that managers will
be motivated to learn more. People responsible for leading shouldn't devote full time
to TQM; they should maintain their regular work as well. Cohen and Brand believe
that TQM is best taught by people doing it day to day in their work. Implement it
gradually to ensure meaningful culture change, and use frequent feedback to ensure
that change isn't just superficial. There is no need for a "grand plan" (a quality
council, etc.); just start where the organization is.
Perhaps the most important "do" worth repeating is to involve employees in
the decision making process, at whatever stages and levels possible. As a specific
aspect of this, advance negotiations and discussions with any unions present should
occur. Create "atmosphere of amnesty" (Cohen & Brand, 1993, 202) so workers and
managers feel free to share improvement needs. Tell people what the quality
standards are so that inspection and review isn't necessary. Emphasize client feedback
and both quantitative and qualitative performance tracking. Make sure quality teams
have the necessary tools and resources, such as training, facilitation, and time to meet.
In large organizations, regional offices in particular will need lots of support in order
to keep the process alive and thriving.
Several suggestions may be offered to managers. First, understand the direct
service work of your organization. "Management by walking around" is a useful way
to stay in touch with direct service workers and their needs. Practice what you preach:
use TQM on your own processes. Meet frequently with middle managers regarding
their personal efforts to use TQM. Focus on the nature of the work and try to establish
in employees' minds excitement about a new way of working. TQM training will be
needed for all involved work groups. Also, horizontal and vertical communication
training may be useful to get groups communicating with each other. Team building is
a core element of the process, to ensure employee involvement and effective problem
solving. Build analysis into the culture: "stop and think about how we work,"
according to Cohen and Brand. Insist on objective measures of results. Look for
visible improvement, but not optimization; and try to generate some quick results in
terms of time or money saved. Constantly check with employees to assess their
49

mgmnt dev. and org. development

mgmnt dev. and org. development

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (9)

Ähnlich wie mgmnt dev. and org. development

Ähnlich wie mgmnt dev. and org. development (20)

Mehr von umesh yadav

Mehr von umesh yadav (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

mgmnt dev. and org. development