Month: October 2021

Describe potential situations where the five different qualitative data collection methods can be used. 

This is a particularly fun assignment as I have used most all of the five methods in my work and most often times have used in the context of products rather than services or organizational change.  It has been interesting to reflect on my organization change work with my company regarding the methods below and usage.

One-on-one interviews

Appropriate when you need to obtain sensitive information and discuss complex issues (Gupta, 2007, p. 65).  Interviews allow flexibility, enable the researcher to solicit assistance and support for the project, and offer more in-depth information than written responses Rossett (1987).  This method allows for interaction between the interviewer and interviewee and can allow for relationship building to occur and the interview to either feel comfortable in the setting or guarded.  I have found that these have been beneficial however challenging because they lack anonymity.  Additionally, it takes time to schedule and coordinate and I’ve found it difficult to review my notes when asking follow-up questions that are not on the survey … it’s been difficult to align responses when different questions are asked.

Focus group interviews

Focus groups can address specific concerns, build upon others’ opinions, and be a good starting point in data collection, generating rich data extracted from real voices.  Participants often collaborate to determine the categories and priorities of answers (PSU WC, 2021, L.9).  I’ve had the opportunity to be a part of focus groups for interviews and be the administrator.  One of the major drawbacks I’ve found is that often times certain members of the group can be overbearing and have a desire to answer first and to all questions.  At times group think occurs.  What has worked best perhaps is an interview that rotates questions and manages the respondents for maximum interaction.

Open-ended questionnaires

Open-ended questionnaires are used, in general, when data needs to be collected from a lot of people.  Open-ended questionnaires are significantly less expensive than other qualitative data collection methods (PSU WC, 2021, L.9).  At times this has been the most enjoyable part of surveying as some unique, creative, and organic responses can generate positive action and follow-up.  What can be challenging is describing each question for best understanding and managing interviewees who stray from the question or begin to ramble.

Observations

Observations can be an effective data collection method, as they do not rely on employee perceptions. Please note that the answers from interviews and surveys are based on perceptions that may or may not accurately describe reality. In this regard, observations allow OD practitioners to understand issues first-hand (PSU WC, 2021, L.9).  This has been maybe the most rewarding work I have done and best if the observations are not known.  I have done observatory research both in person and behind two-way glass and both provide benefits and drawbacks.  What has been best is the ability to ask ‘why’ things were done in a certain way and follow-up probing questions.  Both methods can be structured and unstructured and at times doing unstructured (what I call environmental research where as an observer I’m in the interviewees environment) has been most beneficial.

Documents

While conducting organizational diagnosis, practitioners collect a number of documents related to the project (PSU WC, 2021, L.9).  They include the organizations mission and value statement, org charts, strategic goals, products and services, HR policies and procedures, the employee handbook, and other forms the company uses to conduct business and set objectives.  What I find most unique is the non-people interaction aspect of this data collection.  Numbers, org charts, statements, goals and objectives … all can be reviewed an assessed without the need to schedule interviews and make questionnaires.  Most times I’ve found it best to attempt to gather these materials early on during the interaction as stated in the lesson.

References

Gupta, K., Sleezer, C. M., & Russ-Eft, D. F. (2007). A practical guide to needs assessment (2nd ed.). Pfeiffer.

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021).  WF ED 582 Lesson 9: Data Collections Methods, Part Two.  https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2146039/modules/items/32769983

Rossett, A. (1987). Training needs assessment (2nd ed.). Educational Technology Publications.

Describe your own experience with organizational diagnosis using a standardized assessment tool and reflect on your experience, regarding both its positive and its challenging aspects. (If you do not have any previous experience with a standardized organizational diagnosis tool, write about your experience administering your chosen tool for the review paper.)

Summary of Methods

The summary of methods for organizational diagnosis could be divided into two approaches: quantitative and qualitative approaches:

The ‘qualitative approach’ is implemented in the following forms:

• one-on-one interviews,
• (focus) group interviews,
• observations, and
• document analyses (PSU WC, 2021, L.8).

The ‘quantitative approach’ typically involves distributing a survey, which could be further classified into the following three forms:

• standardized instruments,
• non-standardized questionnaires, and
• secondary data (PSU WC, 2021, L.8).

When implementing a ‘quantitative approach’ and using standardized instruments, In order to ensure reliability, the following methods could be applied:

• the ‘test-retest method’, or administering a test twice to the same group within an interval of time and looking at correlations;
• the ‘equivalent-forms method’, or administering a test along with a similar measure and looking at correlations;
• the ‘split-halves method’, or administering a test by dividing it into two sets and looking at correlations; or
• the ‘internal consistency method’, or looking at consistency (correlations) among items for an intended construct (PSU WC, 2021, L.8).

Personal Experience

Throughout the past 20 years of employment I have taken many qual/quant organizational diagnosis surveys along with administering some of my own.  I have found that meshing both qual and quant surveys proves best as a means of gathering more information and having the ability to compare the data for a better sense of non-scientific validity.  Each method has positives and drawbacks and one could think that if time permits that utilization of both is the best way to administer organizational diagnosis.  Our company and I rely on quant mainly for mass surveying in a short amount of time and to get a general pulse on topics from employees/customers/influencers in decisions.  This often leads to focus areas that involve qual surveying for more personalized and openness of opinions.

Positive Aspects

By administering quant diagnosis and evaluating the data there is a desire and ability to compare the results with other organizations using norm scores (PSU WC, 2021, L.8).  Often times our company has used an outside hired company to administer surveys which than allows comparisons to be drawn.  This has resulted in the ability to show where our company may be seen as succeeding and meeting goals in certain areas along with areas that we can improve based on the results of other similar companies.  Another benefit of quant surveying is the ability to collect data from a large number of people.  This potential boosts the sample size and perhaps gives greater validity to the results.  It’s also a bit more convincing when sharing data with employees to see the large number of folks questioned.  In addition, quant studies better allow attempts to study causal relationships among the areas of concern and outcome variables.  History has shown that at times employees want ‘the hard data’ which is best gained from quant surveys compared to qual that could be more emotional and cause assumptions to be made from the results of questioning.

Challenging Aspects

One challenge from quant surveying regarding organizational diagnosis is that results from standardized scales may give practitioners a false sense of confidence from assuming that all elements are covered  (PSU WC, 2021, L.8).  Whenever presenting quant numbers there tends to be questioning of how the question was phrased, what questions were asked, who was asked the questions, the timeframe the survey was given, etc.  Experience has shown that in just presenting quant there could be a lot of ‘pushback’ or non-acceptance of results if it is not what the audience felt would be the outcome.  Those giving the surveys must be aware of this and not be overconfident in making changes solely based upon quant results.  One of the largest drawbacks experienced has been that due to cultural differences, participants may not understand the phrases in a questionnaire as originally intended.  It is imperative for surveys to be translated and verified they are translated correctly.  All of the time invested in surveying may be wasted once feedback is giving that the questions may not be understood due translation.

References

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021).  WF ED 582 Lesson 8: Data Collections Methods, Part One.  https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2146039/modules/items/32769976

Likert Model Summary

The Likert model addresses an organization’s readiness using Systems 1 through 4. The ultimate goal of an organization is to reach System 4 (PSU WC, 2021, L.7).

• In System 1 (exploitive authoritative), management forces employees to follow decisions and generates fear to get employees to work.
• In System 2 (benevolent authoritative), management provides rewards for work done, but the employees do not assume responsibility or exhibit teamwork.
• In System 3 (consultative), management pays attention to some employees’ ideas and provides consultation on issues raised, but there is a lack of responsibility among employees.
• In System 4 (participative), management engages and empowers employees to solve problems using teamwork, and members in the organization share the responsibility to achieve the organization’s goals.

Likert’s model could be used during an organization development initiative to see the extent to which management is ready for a participatory change and to plan for a transformation from a lower level of participation to a higher level (PSU WC, 2021, L.7).

High Performance Programming Model Summary

Nelson and Burns (1984) created a model called the high-performance programming model, which allows OD practitioners to identify (based on various levels) an organization’s progress toward a high performance (PSU WC, 2021, L.7).

• Stages in High Performance Programming Model

Level 1: Reactive, Level 2: Responsive, Level 3: Proactive, and Level 4: High-Performing

• Areas in High Performance Programming Model

Organizational Focus, Locus of Control, Organizational Structure, Management & Leadership Focus, Employee Focus, and Communication within the Organization.

• Interview Protocol Assessment Topics to survey

Time frame (past, present, future, and flow), focus (diffused, output, results, and excellence), planning (justification, activity, strategy, and evolution), change mode (punitive, adaptive, planned, and programmed), management (fix blame, coordination, alignment, and navigation), structure (fragmented, hierarchy, matrix, and networks), perspective (self, team, organization, and culture), motivation (avoid pain, rewards, contribution, and actualization), development (survival, cohesion, attunement, and transformation), communication (force feed, feedback, feed forward, and feed through), and leadership (enforcing, coaching, purposing, and empowering) (PSU WC, 2021, L.7).

Steps Level 1 organizations can take in order to reach a Great Place to Work status (Level 4).

A Level 1: Reactive Organization is one that from an Organizational Focus, reacts to urgency or threats.  This could be improved by developing more short term goals that lead to incremental change to focus on longer term initiatives.  More goal setting, commitment communication from leadership, and visionary planning could move the company into Level 3: Proactive.  By outlining an ideal future state and empowering employees to find ways to solve problem and work together could lead to Level 4: High Performing Great Place to Work.

A Level 1: Reactive Organization is one that from a Locus of Control Area may tend to be more externally motivated.  Employees may see themselves as not owning or being a part of the strategy rather it is being dictated to them.  Rewarding work accomplished that drives creative thinking and instilling more Internal Ownership could result in a move to Level 4.

A Level 1: Reactive Organization is one that has a hieratical but loosely built Organizational Structure.  Movement to construct a flatter organization with empowered groups/departments where management pays attention to employee’s ideas could allow movement towards Great Place to Work Status.

Management and Leadership Focus should be at a Level where employees are self-directed because they know the long term vision of the company and short terms steps to achieve the ideal state.  They are voluntarily committed to the company’s goals.

For A Level 1: Reactive Organization to move Level 4: High Performing in the area of Employee Focus, employees must have a shared direction to a well communicated and leadership enacted culture.

To achieve Level 4: High Performing Great Place to Work status companies must use teamwork and share the responsibility to meet the desired goals.  These aspects must be communicated vigorously at every level.

References

Farkas, M. G., & Hinchliffe, L. J. (2013). Library faculty and instructional assessment: Creating a culture of assessment through the high-performance programming model of organizational transformation. Collaborative Librarianship, 5, 177–188.

 

Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2021).  WF ED 582 Lesson 7: Organizational Diagnosis Model IV.  https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2146039/modules/items/32769968

Introduction

For this assignment I choose to integrate Tichy’s Technical-Political-Cultural (TPC) Framework with the Force Field Analysis as depicted in the graphic below.  I was drawn to both models separately and feel this mesh well together in identifying the current state, proposed/goal state, and future state of organizations as they go through Change Processes.  I chose to integrate these two models based on prior experience thru integration and organizational restructuring.

Explanation

In explaining the model further, I am mindful of the tracking and success metrics that should be built into any transforming.  These are markers, ratings, and assessments used to gauge and score if goals were met and if the desired outcome has taken place.  In forming metrics, the current state of the organization should be detailed.  This involves the TPC Framework of Time A and the elements systems, strategy, structure, and human resources.  A goal state, seen below in the center is green as the target and its during this time I’ve shown the Force Field Model used.  It cinches neatly within the TPC framework as after the current state is detailed and goal state is identified there is normally driving forces for change and restraining forces again the change.  The TPC Model takes hold here in the center as well.  After the TPC Current State and Force Field Goal State, a Future State will be formed.  In this future state is where the metrics and assessment could be used going back to the initial start of the change process.

Justification

To justify the usage of the model, the Force Field analysis can be an easy way to assess the goal state of the change efforts and those forces working towards the change and against the change helping the facilitators understand the detailed prompts that are needed.  Showing the Force Field Change at the center could better allow meshing of the Current State of the Organization and Proposed State driving priorities for a Future State as close to the Goal State as possible or perhaps some of the Forces pressing against change could be justified and built into the change effort therefore leading to a Future State that may differ from the Proposed State. Here is where a maximum level of employee engagement will lead to consensus being made and ideally the goal state being adopted.

This combine model could be used in OD initiatives because, based on experience, the goal/proposed state is never fully embraced and embedded as intended.  There are changes based up the forces for/against change and those forces are generally housed with the technical systems, political systems, and cultural systems.  The forces are also derived from the organization’s mission/strategy, structure, can human resource management.  The current state and TPC model outlines these attributes along with the transition state were work and forces interacting with one another take place.  The outcome is the future state that should be changed from the current state and look like the proposed state.  Most likely though, based on the forces at play, it is variation of both.

In critiquing the combined model, it could work well in situations where companies have gone thru multiple change efforts in the past.  This may involve a company like the one I work in where new acquisitions are being made frequently folding new companies into the parent company.  The TPC framework could nicely look at the current state of the separate organizations.  For the proposed/goal state in the center a mix of the two companies could be woven and over time the future state becomes reality.

It may not work well in situations where in smaller companies that don’t have such large systems, structures, missions, technical systems.  An example here could be a friend of mines Bar/Restaurant that does not have the enormity of structure in place however has had to go thru change management due to COVID and needed a faster/quicker method of change, communication, and adaptation.

Situational Context

An OD context to situate the combined model could be the acquisition of a company and integration of the purchased company into the new parent company.  This context works well related to the TPC Framework as it is transformational, and it also works with the Force Field Analysis as it gives a framework to compare the different forces affecting change and how they will impact the identified goal state of the 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 6: Organizational Diagnosis Model III.  https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2146039/modules/items/32769962