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.
