Month: September 2021

Briefly compare and contrast Leavitt’s model, the McKinsey 7-S model, and the congruence model. Then, propose a model that you want to use for OD efforts and explain why (150–250 words).

Summary of Leavitt’s model:

• Leavitt’s model specifies four important variables to assess within organizations.  These variables include task, structure, technological, and human variables.
  • Task variables refer to activities that employees are expected to perform in order to deliver products and services.
  • Structure variables refer to any structure (organizational chart, communication norm, work process, etc.) that employees are expected to follow within the organization.
  • Technological variables refer to all tools, machines, and equipment that support employees’ tasks.
  • Human variables refer to the people who implement the tasks that are relevant to the organization’s goals.  (PSU WC, 2021, L. 4).

Summary of McKinsey 7-S Model:

• The 7-S framework examines the elements that give a holistic understanding of an organization, including:
  • strategy, a course of anticipated actions that allow an organization to achieve a competitive advantage.
  • structure, the way in which tasks or chains of command are distributed.
  • systems, which support the structure’s effective functioning (for example, a performance management system allows management to ensure that outcomes are delivered in a quality manner.
  • skills, or the individual and institutional skills within the organization.
  • style (sometimes referred to as organizational culture), the way in which work is done in the organization.
  • staff, the employees in the organization.
  • shared values, or what the organization is exerting to achieve. Shared values represent the essence of what the members in the organization believe.  (PSU WC, 2021, L. 4).

Summary of Congruence Model:

• The Nadler-Tushman congruence model (1980) is an open systems model that involves inputs, transformation processes, and outputs.
• This model emphasizes congruence among the elements in the model.
  • environment: The environment is composed of any variables that are outside of the organization but that have potential impact on the organization. Examples include demand in the market, clients, customers, and government policies.
  • resources: Resources are assets to which the organization has access, including human resources, capital, information, technology, and brand recognition in the market.
  • history: Previous events can affect an organization’s current operation, including key strategic decisions, key leaders’ behavior, core values, and coping strategies/reactions to a crisis.
  • strategy: This component is derived from the organization’s environment, resources, and history. To be specific, it is a way of matching resources to the environment considering the organization’s identity (Nadler & Tushman, 1980).  Strategy includes the organization’s mission, goals, and tactics.
  • task: Tasks are the basic work to be completed by the organization and its subsets. Understanding the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required for each task, as well as the task’s consequences and constraints, is critical.
  • individual: The characteristics of the people who will carry out the tasks (such as their readiness, expectations, and needs) must be considered.
  • formal organizational arrangements: Formal organizational arrangements refer to procedures and policies set by the organization, including HR policies, standard operating procedures, job specifications, organizational designs, and the physical working environment.
  • informal organization: This is the organization’s informal norms with respect to working and communicating; the informal organization includes procedures, relationships among groups, and work hours.  (PSU WC, 2021, L. 5).

Compare:

When comparing the 7-S model with Leavitt’s model, you will notice that most of the models’ elements overlap, though the 7-S model addresses more elements from a strategic perspective. Both models emphasize the congruence among elements (PSU WC, 2021, L. 4).  It’s noticed that Leavitt’s model is almost ‘basic’ and the McKinsey 7-S model increases the focus areas of the process and finally the Congruence Model goes into even greater detail.  All include focus on structure and strategy in some manner.

Contrast:

Leavitt’s Model includes a focus on technological which is a bit different from others.  I find this interesting as at times technology could be more of a focus on Research and Development and New Product Introduction compared to organizations and people.  The Congruence Model includes a deeper focus perhaps on the organizational arrangement and history along with events and procedures that may impact decisions in an informal and unseen way.

OD Preferred Model Usage:

In reflecting upon OD models and my preferred usage I have become very mindful of the Action Research Model (ARM) and its well-defined process and steps.  Giving thought to Entry, Start-up, Assessment and Feedback, Action Planning, Intervention, Evaluation, Adoption, and Separation has been such a great learning and the ability to see how other methods (like Weisbord’s Six-Box Model) can be used within the framework of ARM shows the linkage of OD processes.  I’ve also strived to use the mindset Appreciative Inquiry on an almost daily basis.  Many times, within the groups I work with the focus is immediately placed on what ‘went wrong’ or what ‘could be improved’.  My teams have begun to take notice of how I often note what went well and how we can accentuate the areas of positivity.

In thinking thru the models of Leavitt, the McKinsey 7-S, and the Congruence I’m most drawn to the Congruence model based upon its inclusion of History (Previous events can affect an organization’s current operation, including key strategic decisions, key leaders’ behavior, core values, and coping strategies/reactions to a crisis).  Many times, within the teams I work with we focus on trying to learn from the past … learning form history.  In summary, I appreciate how this model goes into greater detail with processes and is mindful to evaluate the history within an organization.

References:

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). WF ED 582 Lesson 4: Organizational diagnosis model I.  https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2146039/modules/items/32769949

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). WF ED 582 Lesson 5: Organizational diagnosis model II. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2146039/modules/items/32769956

 

https://youtu.be/LxtF4OXzhyI

How could following such a model be helpful to OD practitioners in making a change initiative successful?

Kotter’s 8 Step Process for Leading Change could be seen as an excellent model for OD practitioners to follow in ensuring a change initiative is successful.  The video notes how change is often met with resistance in an organization and that 70% of change processes fail.  His process, which was broadcast in 1995, was designed for 21^st century and could be widely used.

First reviewed are the 10 contributing factors to the failure of change management including: 1) lack of a PLAN to guide the change, 2) Failure to define clear rationale for the change, 3) Ignoring the current culture, 4) weakness of follow-thru by sponsors, 5) Not investing the proper resources required for change, 6) Gaps in change agent skills, 7) Spotty communication, 8) Fear of obtaining feedback, 9) Declaring success too early, and 10) Neglecting to reinforce the change.

Next in the video, the 8 Steps were reviewed and noted was the sense that the process requires time and skipping steps is devastating.

• Establishing a Sense of Urgency: This will express need for change for practitioners and gets discussions going about the change along with getting an outside perspective to add merit.
• Create the Guiding Coalition by assigning 3-5 people as leaders: They must be trusted and be leaders that show respect for others and range mix of departments.  This gives a wide swath throughout the organization with less tension.
• Developing a Vision and Strategy for the key reasons for change: The OD practitioner will benefit from a mission statement and knowing it can be executed along with being explained easily.
• Communicating the Change Vision: Incorporates talking about change often, addressing concerns and anxieties, and lead by example.
• Empowering Employees for broad based actions: The practitioner making known the main goal to implement change and making sure elements are in line with vision or change is needed. Identify those resisting the change and seeing what’s needed will remove barriers and bring more efficacy and efficiency to the process.
• Generating short term wins will showcase momentum: The leaders should not choose early targets that are expensive which could be troublesome.  Reward people who meet targets will get others involved and form cohesion.
• Consolidating gains and producing more changes: After wins reflect on what went right/wrong and continue building momentum.  The practitioner could benefit from bring in new change leaders and fresh views.
• Anchoring new approaches in the culture is the final step: It includes talking about and broadcasting the successes.  Create succession plan as team members change will continue the positive change and allow newcomers time to adapt to the process and contribute.

Similarities and differences between training needs assessment (TNA) and organizational diagnosis.

Training Needs Assessment

“The purpose of a training needs assessment is to identify performance requirements and the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed by an agency’s workforce to achieve the requirements” (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, n.d., para. 1)

Organizational Diagnosis

“Organizational diagnosis is a method used for analyzing the organization in order to identify organizational shortcomings so they would be neutralized through organizational change” (Janićijević, 2010, p. 85). According to the above definition, the term diagnosis involves discovering a problem, which can be considered a deficit-based perspective. The following quote exemplifies the preference of using the term assessment over diagnosis in the OD context: “We have been won over to the assessment side of the street because diagnosis comes more from a disease and medical model looking for something that is sick or problem-related. We would prefer to look on the bright side of life” (Rothwell & Sullivan, 2010, p. 58).

Assessment and feedback and training needs assessment share some core commonalities centered on data collection methods. However, they are different in terms of purpose, scope, outcome, and the way the assessment is conducted (PSU WC, 2021, L. 2).  A Training Needs Assessment (TNA) end goal is to develop objectives for a training program and designing the program (PSU WC, 2021, L. 2).  In an assessment and feedback Organizational Diagnosis the objective is to develop ideas for intervention via involving all members of the client group (PSU WC, 2021, L. 2).  Both processes involve identifying key stakeholders, gathering data, and analyzing the data however there are differences related to why the data is being obtained and what to do with the findings.  In a TLA, a member of Organization’s Human Resources Team generally leads the exercise whereas in an Organizational Diagnosis an OD Practitioner facilitates working with all members of the organization.  A TNA focuses on a specific job or position compared to an Organizational Diagnosis that focuses on the entire organization to understand issues or strengths and it engages all of the organization to have ownership.  A TNA has a scope that incorporates identifying performance issues, causes, and seeking ways to achieve desired outcomes.  In an Organizational Diagnosis the facilitator is looking to gather data about any area of the organization (not always pinpointed to one specific topic), including purpose, strategy, systems, motivations, culture, and processes.  Although the naming appears to show many similarities between the two methods there are many differences related to the processes and desired outcomes.

References

Janićijević, N. (2010). Business processes in organizational diagnosis. Management, 15(2), 85–106

Rothwell, W., & Sullivan, A. (2010). Change process and models. In W. Rothwell, J. Stavros, R. Sullivan, & A. Sullivan (Eds.), Practicing organization development: A guide for leading change (3rd ed., pp. 43–77). Pfeiffer

U.S. Office of Personnel Management (n.d.). Training Needs Assessment. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/training-and-development/planning-evaluating

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021). WF ED 582 Lesson 2: Fundamentals of organizational diagnosis/assessment and feedback. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2146039/modules/items/32769934