Alejandro J Gutierrez’s site

I agree with the authors’ presented context of the Newtonian paradigm – one can see in the rhetoric of politics, management, etc. that many are largely concerned with preserving the peace, or “keeping things copasetic” as the article asserts, rather than ushering in or embracing change. As change has vastly accelerated with development and new technology, I side with the authors that a leadership model better suited to ambiguity and change is in order. I appreciate also their redefining of the term “chaos”into more of an “orderly disorder” concept.
I have long contended, after being inspired reading David Brooks’ “The Social Animal” shortly after undergrad, that the Descartian “reason vs emotion” dichotomy is heavily flawed, misguided, and roundly exposed as unwarranted by scientific research – yet it continues to guide much of our assumptions in viewing organizations, management, and relationships. Organizations and people are far more complex than we’d like to believe, we do not always act logically or in our best interests (the budding field of behavioral economics shows this), and we certainly do not operate along linear, clean lines.

This new leadership paradigm presented by the authors sounds good to me; with constant flux of power and “flattening” of knowledge barriers, a leadership concept that embraces the change and myriad of factors present in today’s world – while letting go of the need for control and stability and status quo maintenance characteristic of the past – seems like the answer to fostering innovation and a healthy, agile organization in the modern era. The name of the game is not looking at yesterday to do the same thing tomorrow, it is constantly involving more and more talent to try to get ahead of trends, and testing assumptions until something hits to find a new truth.

With the added considerations of diversity and constantly emerging technology and a very flat world, an outdated concept of organizational leadership based on stability is only seeking to “put the cat back in the bag,” so to speak, and is not going to be a mindset that ushers any organizations into existing too far into the future.

1. What did Betty do wrong prior to the meeting, and what could have been done to avoid missing the deadline?

Prior to the meeting, Betty should have checked in with Don (about a week out) and seen what the status of the report was. Since she missed returning Don’s call about problems with getting the report done in time, it does not appear she checked in about the report at all until it was already behind schedule.

A few things that could have been done to avoid missing the deadline would be to have Don give continual updates on the status of the report, perhaps weekly, and to make sure that he had the adequate support that he needed. Don is perhaps excessively tedious, so a weekly check-in to keep him moving would be helpful.

2. What did Betty do wrong in the meeting itself, and what could have been done to make the meeting more effective?

She interrupted Don and her feedback was largely personal, attacking his character traits, as well as questioning his future with the company. She even made fun of his messy office and used sarcasm with things like “nothing is ever your fault.” She did not let him adequately explain what was going on at first. All her feedback was retroactively punishing instead of “what can we do now moving forward to make this a more successful relationship?” and was decidedly unhelpful with getting the report finished from the current standpoint. Her feedback was not particularly specific or helpful and did not offer an opportunity to grow and move forward.

She also did not provide any recognition for Don actually catching a crucial error in the report. She also got on his case for not taking responsibility, but took none at all for not returning his call.

3. What should Don have done to be more effective?

Don should have updated Betty at regular intervals regarding the report. He should have requested the necessary help right away, and then asked for more if needed at the time it was needed instead of just letting things fall behind. He should also remind himself that although accuracy is important, so is the deadline and he needs to stay on schedule better. He has resources he needs to leverage or request to be able to use to help him along. While he had some valid excuses, him rattling them off after the fact sounds just like avoiding responsibility and he should have been more proactive about it.

I feel that ideologically, it’s “easy” to decide what to do to become a “great place to work,” but how that works in the real life, and that process, can be quite complex indeed. That being said, organizations should seek to be collaborative and participative in nature, allowing members to feel as if they are a part of making decisions and determining the direction of the organization, as well as (and resulting from this) taking ownership of their work. Organization members must also feel supported, so that they are free to be vulnerable with one another, thus creating trust within the organization. Trusting working relationships are worlds better than fearful, competitive ones. Communication must be clear, with consistent and reliable follow-through on decisions, to foster trust within and of the organization; employees must also feel free to communicate and provide feedback without fear of retribution. Ideas must be able to be shared and constructive, caring criticism offered. Good work cannot be forced, and employees must voluntarily buy into the long-term vision, values, and culture of a company in order to produce their best work of their own volition; self-direction and empowerment must be fostered and bestowed to allow employees to be creative and maximize their work and roles.

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.

Lessons Learned

Outside parties may have very little knowledge in the diagnosis process, and so be driven to make judgments accurately, and quickly use feelings and information gathered regarding how the organization works, boundaries (internal and external), and how the different parts of the organizations work with and relate to each other. A crucial aspect is then figuring out how to deliver information, services, etc. in a HELPFUL manner to the organization as part of a learning process. Key stakeholders need to be identified to “receive” the information and, essentially, the “consulting.” It’s important to make sure the right people are involved and ask, honestly, “does the group that [the consultant] is working with have the power to enact change?”

One potential issue in the process occurs if the client organization feels that they have already diagnosed the problem, and won’t really allow the consultant to do their job outside fixing what the client organization has already decided the problem is. The organization cannot, alone, diagnose the problem because of their bias and limited perspective; instead, they need to be involved in the process of identifying the problems, settling on the solutions, and enacting the process of change in conjunction with the change professional. The client must have a degree of autonomy, as the biggest waste is from untapped human resources. The biggest issue, often, is the complication resulting from the presenting problem vs. the real problem (the client organization will frequently SAY they know what the problem is – whether out of deception or ignorance – but in reality, it’s something else). The main issue here is finding out why the organization is not aware of the real problem, and “leading them to water” so to speak to allow effective change to occur.

• What have you learned about the evaluation of projects/events/processes from the course?
• What tools will you take from this course and use in your career—now or in the future?

I have always been interested in behavioral neuroscience and economics; looking at how that applies to work and industry is what led me to pursue the OD Masters. In the United States especially (and some countries are even more drastic), we spend an enormous chunk of our lives, and derive so much personal meaning and identity, from what we do for work – why would we not take it seriously and try to make it as productive, fulfilling, and impactful as possible? Especially with COVID-19 shaking things up so much in the sense of re-defining work as not necessarily linked to an office, and forcing questions of innovation and work-life balance, the business world is becoming increasingly ripe for change.
This course really helped me with being able to visualize and execute the process of making the intangible tangible. I am from a startup background, and so am used to the concept of “soft” skills and KPIs on company culture and design and whatnot; however, this is an entirely different ballgame when your company is not just 4 people sitting at a table and you can talk to the CEO whenever you want. Being able to bridge the gap between being able to identify what needs to be improved, and being able to measure them, has been the biggest gift of this course to me. I’ve always been analytical and been able to identify improvements in process and culture that are not necessarily “on paper” but are important; however, learning how to translate those into KPIs with metrics (through concepts like the business scorecard) has been a great addition to my skill set.

Understanding the different models for measuring the things that I already knew were important for companies and organizations – but did not know how to really define, discuss, or assign values to – is undoubtedly the biggest tool I can use moving forward from this course. The quick dip into HR metrics in Lesson 9 was very informative, as were the models discussed throughout the class (Kirkpatrick’s, CIPP, 7 Rs, etc.).