Monthly Archives: October 2017

Describe potential situations where the five different qualitative data collection methods:

One-on-one interviews:  I believe that one-on-one interviews are best served when confidentiality is valued based upon the nature of the discussion.  For example, if the interview intends to collect specific feedback (positive and negative) about a specific leader.  The person being interviewed is more likely to provide candid feedback if they feel that their confidentiality will be preserved.  A one-on-one interview can provide that.

Focus group interviews:– This could be beneficial to gather feedback regarding a new training curriculum.  A group of associates who have completed the training could make up a focus group, where the facilitator could ask questions regarding the effectiveness of the training program and evaluate their collective feedback.

Open-ended questionnaires:  This could be beneficial to use in a situation where a department head is trying to collect recommendations from their associates about ways to improve team meetings for the department.

Observations, and documents:  This could be beneficial for observing a team-building activity.  An OD Consultant could observe and document their observations in an environment where members of a team were working together on something.  Things like verbal communication, leadership, non-verbal communication, postures, etc. could be observed and could provide feedback to the OD Consultant on group / team dynamics that exist and opportunities to improve any areas.

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.

My experience with standardized assessment tools relates to our organization’s global associate survey.  I have been with the company for 13 years, and every 2 years, the company conducts a survey for all associates in order to assess the level of job satisfaction.  We work with a vendor, Willis Towers Watson, a leader in the industry, to create the survey and then to produce the results.  As an associate, taking the survey, I find the survey to be easy to understand and take.  There are 42 statements which associates are asked to responds to on a 5 point likert scale with responses ranging “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree”.  The statements fall into one of approximately 8 categories, including, Sustainable Engagement, Supervisor, Communication, Recognition and Appreciation, Safety, Benefits and Compensation, and Work / Life Balance.

I am on the project team in my current role and am involved in interpreting the results.  We communicate the results to the field locations and then also work with our corporate leaders to analyze and interpret the results and create action plans from the results.  Two areas of improvement from the last survey administration include the creation of 2 indexes.   One is the Union Vulnerability Index (UVI), includes 5 questions.  Locations who have associates that score “high” on questions that make up the UVI, will create separate action plans around union avoidance.  Another improvement is the creation of a Diversity and Inclusion Index.  The D&I group will analyze the results around these 5 questions that make up the D&I index in order to identify organizational opportunities with respect to D&I initiative.

Given your understanding of the Likert model and the high performance programming model, discuss the steps Level 1 organizations can take in order to reach a Great Place to Work status (Level 4).

An organization that is in a Level 1 status according to the High Performance Number would need to undergo drastic changes, not just tactically, but also strategically. This would be difficult change because it would require a transformation of their culture.  In order to obtain Great Place to work status, the OD consultant would need to first work with senior leadership in order to obtain buy-in to begin applying a participative approach towards several key initiatives.  First, they should scrutinize the organization structure and consider ways to flatten any hierarchies that exist.  This would begin to allow for a shift in the management and leadership focus from authoritarian to a focus where associates are more empowered to make decisions.  I would then recommend a shift in communication approach that accompanies the new organization structure.  In this approach, leaders would need to be trained on ways to invite 2 way-communications from their associates. Finally, I would encourage key leaders to be present and vocal during all of these changes in order for trust to be built with the associates.  Respect and credibility would begin to grow.  Execution of initiatives in this new approach should be celebrated in order to impact associate pride in their personal achievement and their contribution to the team.