Monthly Archives: September 2017

Identify two to three models that you have reviewed in Lessons 4–6 and come up with ideas on how you can integrate these models into one. Explain the model, justify it, and explain how to use it for OD initiatives. Then critique it and brainstorm conditions under which the model will or will not work.

In reviewing all of the models that were included in the previous 4 lessons, there were 2 that I feel would create a really strong Organizational Diagnosis approach:  The Force Field Analysis  and the Burke Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change.

What I liked about the force field analysis was that it is fairly simple to understand, which would make it very easy to facilitate with a client.  It defines the current state as the baseline, and then examines all of the driving (helping) factors (or forces) and the restraining (hurting) factors (or forces) for the current state.  It then compares the difference forces and then prioritizes their impact.  From here, it is fairly evident what the goal should be.  I believe that this would be a great exercise to go through with a client organization and that it would help them to support and champion the actions that are outlined.  It would be easier to engage the client in sustaining the momentum around the change as well.

What I liked about the Burke Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change is that I found it to be the most comprehensive method of Organizational Diagnosis.  It includes a good mix of Transactional factors- (Structure, Management Practices, Systems (policies and procedures), work unit climate, tasks / individual skills, motivation, individual needs and values- and Transformational factors (Mission and Strategy, Leadership, and Organizational Culture.  As the readings indicate, it would be critical to first consider the transformational factors before moving onto the transactional ones because the transformational factors are the driving forces.

My “combination model” would first start with the Burke Litwin elements.  I would conduct an interview with the client and first assess the transformational factors that are contained.  Some questions might include:

• How would you  describe the mission and strategy of the organization?  Do you believe that this mission and strategy might change in the near future?
• What is the prototype of leaders in the organization?  What are the key competencies that you expect from your leaders?
• How would you define the organizational culture?  How would your customers define the culture?  How would your associates define the culture?

I would then assess the transactional factors from the model.  Some questions might include:

• Do you have a set of policies and procedures?  Are they widely communicated?  If so, how?
• How are your associates held accountable to the policies and procedures?
• Can you provide me with your organizational charts?  Are the work units organized similarly throughout the organization?
• How are decisions made in the organization?
• What training programs are accessible for your associates?  What competencies are focused on in these programs?

All of the information that I would be provided from this interview would be used to go into a Force Field Analysis.

After obtaining the information in this interview, I would then populate each of the “as is” factors that the client just provided to me on a flipchart, which would be in the middle of the room.  I would have a separate flipchart on the left side of it and a separate flipchart on the right side of it.  This is where I would transition into force field analysis.  I would go through each of the major factors and ask questions about the driving and restraining forces around them.  The Driving Forces would be captured on the flipchart to the right, and the Restraining Forces would be captured on the flipchart to the left.  Once we examine all of the driving and restraining forces, I would facilitate the prioritization of the, by assessing a “weight” to each of them.  This would help us to develop some strategies around minimizing the restraining and increasing the driving forces.

I think that this “combo” model would be a great way to transition from current state into possible future state, which would help the change effort come into better focus for both the OD consultant and the client.  I think that the only possible downfall of this type of model might be that it would be too overwhelming to the client to go through this entire exercise in one meeting.  Another possible downside is that a driving or restraining factor may be missed because it wasn’t uncovered specifically during the Burke Litwin part of the assessment.

In the past 2 weeks, we have reviewed several Organization Diagnosis models.

The Congruence Model is an open systems model and focuses on congruence between all of the variables: environment, resources, history, strategy, task, individual, formal organizational arrangements, and informal organization. Factors that are included at the input phase and transformation phase should align together. If there is a mismatch, further work should be done to identify the reason(s) for the mismatch.  A review of the mismatches allows the OD practitioner to come up with a hypothesis.

Leavitt’s model has 4 variables that are assessed: Task, Structure, Technological, and Human.  Like the Congruence Model, there is a focus on how the variables interact with each other.  Unlike the Congruence Model, environmental factors, inputs, and outputs are not considered.

McKinsey’s 7S model explores 7 elements: Strategy, Structure, Systems, Skills, Style, Staff, and Shared Values. Exploring these variables provides the OD practitioner with a holistic view of the organization. This model is very similar to Leavitt’s, but there are more elements and some that focus on strategy.  Similar to the Congruence Model and Leavitt’s model, there is a focus on congruence between the variables.  This model also tends to demand more interaction and involvement from the organization’s members.

All of the above mentioned models are used in Organizational Diagnosis and Assessment. They are models that identify various elements that need to be explored in the organization.  Further, elements in the models are explored in how they interact with each other.  In other words, the congruence between the variables is reviewed).  There are also some similarities in the variables that are included in the model.  For example, “structure” is a part of both McKinsey’s 7S Model and Leavitt’s model.  Although, not specifically listed as “structure” in the Congruence Model, the idea of structure is explored within the “formal organizational arrangements and informal organization elements.

I tend to gravitate most to the McKinsey model. I feel that it is the most holistic and by asking questions to the client that covers all 7 variables, I believe that it will successfully discover areas of strength and opportunity. I also like the element of “shared values”, I think that this variable forces the organization to probe further into the “feelings” of their employees and what they hold to be important in the organization.  I also think that this model has a stronger focus on strategy than the others, and that would undoubtedly align appropriately to actions that are identified.  I also think a focus on strategy will help to strengthen buy-in and commitment from key leaders since it has a “bigger picture” view.

John Kotter’s 8 step change process was introduced in 1955.  The video that we were assigned to watch this week reviewed each of the 8 steps and gave insight on how this model could used to produce a successful change initiative.

Step 1:  Establishing a sense of urgency- The OD Practitioner needs to “get people talking and thinking” during this stage.  It stresses the importance of involving the client in the change from the beginning.

Step 2:  Creating the Guiding Coalition – Kotter stresses the importance of organization wide participation in the change initiative.  He further indicates that the OD practitioner should consider a good mix of members from different departments.

Step 3:  Developing a vision and strategy- In this step, it’s important to draw clear picture of what the future will look like and illustrate it in a way that appeals to the entire organization

Step 4:  Communicating the change vision – Kotter indicates that “success hinges on the ability to communicate the vision”.  In order to solidify commitment from the organization, it’s important to talk often about the vision,  and openly.

Step 5:  Empowering employees for broad based action- This is a critical step to help lead the change.  Employees need to feel empowered and a part of the change if the change has a hope for being sustained.

Step 6:  Generating Short Term wins- This can be a “long and empowering process”, and it’s important for the OD practitioner to consider breaking it into short term segments and celebrating the wins along the way.  This is key so that the members of the client can see and feel the accomplishment involved along the way.

Step 7:  Consolidating Gains and Producing more change- Kotter stresses the importance of analyzing every win (from the above step) in a way that the OD Practitioner can identify areas for continuous improvement.

Step 8:  Anchoring new approaches in the culture- It’s critical for the client to understand that the change needs to be imbedded into the culture, and not just as the flavor of the month”.   The culture needs to be prepared to accept and embrace the change.  Leaders in the client organization need to be adopting the competencies needed to demonstrate the change in culture and, essentially, “walk the talk”.

From my experience with various change efforts at the organization -wide level, the reason why Kotter’s 8 step approach is so successful is because it demands strong communication and involvement with the leaders in the client organization during every step.