Month: September 2020

I would start with the 7-S McKinsey framework; not only is it pretty comprehensive, it has a great reputation in the consulting world and offers a degree of credibility and “hardness” to a discipline that many business types would see as “soft.” The seven “s” terms are strategy, structure, systems, skills, style, staff, and shared values. These dimensions cover everything ranging from the makeup of the organization to the culture to the actual personnel, and from the system in which they interact to the shared goals and company values that dictate decision-making processes along the way. The 7-S framework, I feel, offers a credible, comprehensive approach to analyzing and understanding the interplay of all aspects of an organization; as stated in the lesson, though, it tends to be administered from a doctor-patient perspective of consulting; to tweak it to a more OD-centered perspective, an OD practitioner can include the client organization members in the gathering of the data, as well as the analysis of the data gathered, conclusions drawn, and solutions proposed. This approach ensures a more bottom-up, OD, comprehensive change effort where the organization’s members are included in all levels of the change effort for maximum effect. It also mitigates any bias or misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the OD practitioner, providing feedback as part of an iterative process.

With the 7-S framework as the foundation, I would add a dash of the Harrison Open Systems Model. While the 7-S framework focuses a lot on congruence and how the aspects of a company interact with one another, the Harrison Open Systems Model takes a look at the external and internal forces that influence the actual transformation process – the inputs and outputs. I like the consideration of external elements like culture, market, remote environment, etc. that all have a role to play – no organization is an island, after all, and many processes or cultural aspects within an organization will be influenced by, or have evolved in response to, external factors. Harrison’s model also looks at the industry and market forces via the close environment, and looks at the culture, as does the 7-S model. I feel that the strong consideration of specific inputs (resources, human capital, financial resources, tangible and intangible, etc.) and how they lead to outputs (products, goods, services, and more abstract results like employee satisfaction and wellbeing) in specific terms makes the Harrison model a strong complementary model. It also includes a consideration of technology as a vessel for the Input to Output process, as opposed to a static entity, which I like.

To make the model easier to “sell” and explain to the client organization members, I would also use the Force Field Analysis; the FFA lends itself nicely to a pretty diagram or chart that can visualize the meat of the change goals and the forces acting on them. It also provides a great opportunity to use the Appreciative Inquiry (Dream Phase) and OD principle of identifying the ideal scenario and what the organization looks like in its post-transformational identity. Using the diagram, I think that participants have the opportunity to really visualize the change effort and the goals therein, as well as really consider and provide input for their views of the negative forces.

So… my customized amalgam model combines elements of the McKinsey 7-S framework, the Harrison Open Systems Model, and the Force Field Analysis. What it looks like is hopefully fairly clear by now; in application, I would gather data for it by many interviews, observations (not unlike what the main character does in Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team), and by looking at the organization’s influences and resources that impact the change effort, as well as the feasibility, proposed outcomes, and direction of the change.

This model would work well, I think, in many different kind of organizations, but requires a degree of buy-in and “desire to change.” I am from a Lean and Design Thinking background, and those are not kind perspectives to many of the trappings of some businesses, especially in the legacy realm; company politics, power dynamics for their own sake, outdated ideologies, Darwinian competitive and motivational models for employees, etc. do not mesh well with my perspective, or with my proposed model. Something I have encountered too often, as well, is a lack of attention paid to company culture and real change in lieu of a focus on highly present, tangible goals; for example, rather than really thinking about “what is the identity of our company and how does our product/ service portray  our unique value proposition in this field,” I’ve worked with many managers or C-level executives who just want to “push harder.” As a personal anecdote, we used to laugh internally in the company because the CEO’s solution to EVERY problem was “more calls!” He could be heard stating “we need to make more calls” multiple times a week in his thick Ukrainian accent. The concepts of ROI and targeted services were largely lost on him – he was all about the hard sell. That did not work very well, and curtailed many opportunities.

Leavitt’s model involves assessing four variables within organizations: task, structure, technological, and human variables. Leavitt’s model functions similarly to the congruence model (defined below) in that it focuses on the transformation of each facet and its interplay with the other aspects of the model; the variables are highly interdependent.

McKinsey’s 7-S model, also featuring congruence strongly, features a more holistic perspective of an organization, looking at strategy, structure, systems, skills, style, staff, and shared values. It is similar to Leavitt’s and the Nadler-Tushman congruence model in the focus on congruence. The 7-S model is more strategic consultation in nature, and more from a “doctor-patient” perspective than the OD mindset, and the other models, would advocate.

The Nadler-Tushman congruence model is focused on, as the name would suggest, congruence between the elements it assesses, looking at the input and transformation among environment, resources, history, strategy, task, individual, formal organizational arrangements, and informal organization. Unlike Leavitt’s model, it considers environmental factors and inputs/outputs.

I feel like the easy answer is “I would use a combination of all the models in my OD approach,” but that is not really helpful nor feasible. In reality, I think I would use the McKinsey 7-S model because of its established brand name and trust factor outside of academic circles; creating buy-in is difficult enough as it is, and I would guess business-type folks who are dishing out significant cash for consulting services would love to see the name McKinsey attached to what they are paying for. I also like the interrelated, holistic nature of the 7-S model. However, I would, as the course recommends, involve the organization’s members more than the 7-S model typically does, ensuring they are part of the OD and change process. The client organization should be involved in analyzing its own data and generating the conclusions.

In the “10 communication secrets” article, many of the “secrets” are intertwined. I was especially struck with #3 (Get Specific), a trait which I have always valued in communicators – it makes it so much easier for me to know exactly where people stand on issues, what their expectations are, and what they actually want. Of course, as the article references, this is required from all parties to be successful – I’ve been in situation where I, or others, are really trying to be specific and concrete, and the other part[ies] insist on holding back (perhaps ambiguity is safer) or being taken aback by candor / refusing to return that same energy. Ideally, though, being straightforward empowers others to do the same.

Following a model like Kotter’s 8 steps can be helpful in a change initiative through providing structure and maintaining a holistic approach for the change effort. Some of the steps require actions that may otherwise be forgotten; for example, a sense of urgency is crucial if a change effort is actually going to accomplish any real change. After all, in order to change, a change needs to be recognized as needed. I also appreciated the model’s emphasis on the strategy and vision, and communicating that to the point of understanding and empowerment so the change can continue beyond direct effort from the OD professional. “Leading by example” is something that I think is ignored all too frequently in change efforts. The final step, anchoring new approaches in the culture, I find very important as far as providing the means for employees and stakeholders the reinforcement to keep progressing with the established change.
In a nutshell, while there are many models that one can choose, the use of a model is helpful in providing a structure and keeping the change effort focused without getting caught up in the inevitably messy nature of a change effort. It’s also useful to avoid skipping steps and important actions, whether unintentionally or intentionally as a way to “speed things up.”

For me, it seems that the main differences between the TNA and Organizational Diagnosis are the scope and methodology. TNA is more about discovering the most important competencies and best practices for a specific role, and defining what are the critical tasks and performance requirements for that role. This can then be used to create a training program for that role.
Organizational Diagnosis may be used as a methodology for more specific objectives, but as a whole it is far broader in scope and involves the processes, strategy, relationships, systems, environment, culture, etc. of an entire organization and involves all members of that client organization. The analysis is more of an ongoing, collaborative process that affects multiple roles (i.e. the entire organization).
Organizational Diagnosis also requires more of a facilitator role that empowers the organization to take ownership of its own solutions and enact them.
Both processes, however, involve data collection, analysis, closing the gap between “what we want to be” in a given context and “where we are now,” formulating creative action paths to achieve results, and determining the key, underlying aspects of a role(s) (in the case of Organization Diagnosis, a whole organization) and the most salient and important strengths therein.