:

UM BUSINSS SCHL

SMSTR JANUARY 2017

BMD5103
RGANISATINAL DEVELPMENT AND CHANGE

ASSIGNMNT 1

NAME : ZULKIFLY BIN ABDULLAH

IDNTITY CARD : 830609 04 - 5499
N.
TLPHN N. : 013 6526083
-MAIL : zulkifly17286@gmail.cm
LARNING : JHR LARNING CNTR
CNTR
1.0 Intrductin

rganizatin develpment is bth a prfessinal field f scial actin and an

area f scientific inquiry. The practice f D cvers a wide spectrum f activities,
with seemingly endless variatins upn them. Team building with tp crprate
management, structural change in a municipality, and jb enrichment in a
manufacturing firm are all examples f D. Similarly, the study f D addresses a
brad range f tpics, including the effects f change, the methds f rganizatinal
change, and the factrs influencing D success (Cummings & Warley, 2014).

A number f definitins f D exist and are presented in Table 1.1. Each

definitin has a slightly different emphasis. Fr example, Burkes descripti n fcuses
attentin n culture as the target f change; Frenchs definitin is cncerned with
Ds lngterm interest and the use f cnsultants; and Beckhards and Beers
definitins address the prcess f D. Mre recently, Burke and Bradfrds
definitin bradens the range and interests f D. Wrley and Feyerherm (2013)
suggested that fr a prcess t be called rganizatin develpment, (1) it must fcus
n r result in the change f sme aspect f the rganizatinal system; (2) there
must be learning r the transfer f knwledge r skill t the client system; and (3)
there must be evidence f imprvement in r an intentin t impr ve the
effectiveness f the client system.

Definitins f rganizatin Develpment

Burke (2013) rganizatin develpment is a planned prcess f change in

an rganizatins culture thrugh the utilizatin f behaviral
science technlgy, research, and thery.

French (1969) rganizatin develpment refers t a lng-range effrt t

imprve an rganizatins prblem-slving capabilities and its
ability t cpe with changes in its external envirnment with
the help f external r internal behaviral-scientist cnsultants,
r change agents, as they are smetimes called.
Beckhard (1969) rganizatin develpment is an effrt (1) planned, (2)
rganizatin-wide, and (3) managed frm the tp, t (4)
increase rganizatin effectiveness and health thrugh (5)
planned interventins in the rganizatins prcesses, using
behaviral science knwledge.

Killman (1982) rganizatin develpment is a systemwide prcess f data

cllectin, diagnsis, actin planning, interventin, and
evaluatin aimed at (1) enhancing cngruence amng
rganizatinal structure, prcess, strategy, peple, and culture;
(2) develping new and creative rganizatinal slutins; and
(3) develping the rganizatins selfrenewing capacity. It
ccurs thrugh the cllabratin f rganizatinal members
wrking with a change agent using behaviral science thery,
research, and technlgy.

Bradfrd & Based n (1) a set f values, largely humanistic; (2)

Burke, (2004) applicatin f the behaviral sciences; and (3) pen systems
thery, rganizatin develpment is a systemwide prcess f
planned change aimed tward imprving verall rganizatin
effectiveness by way f enhanced cngruence f such key
rganizatin dimensins as external envirnment, missin,
strategy, leadership, culture, structure, infrmatin and reward
systems, and wrk plicies and prcedures.
Table 1: Definitin f rganizatin Develpment

Diagnsing rganizatins is the secnd majr phase in the general mdel f

planned change. It fllws the entering and cntracting stage and precedes the
planning and implementatin phase. When dne well, diagnsis clearly pints the
rganizatin and the D practitiner tward a set f apprpriate interventin
activities that will imprve rganizatin effectiveness.

Diagnsis is the prcess f understanding a systems current functining. It

invlves cllecting pertinent infrmatin abut current peratins, analyzing thse
data, and drawing cnclusins fr ptential change and imprvement. Effective
diagnsis prvides the systematic knwledge f the rganizatin needed t design
apprpriate interventins. Thus, D interventins derive frm diagnsis and include
specific actins intended t imprve rganizatinal functining.

The rganizatin level f analysis is the bradest systems perspective

typically taken in diagnstic activities. The mdel shwn in Figure 5.2(A) is similar
t ther ppular rganizatin-level diagnstic mdels. These include Weisbrds
six-bx mdel, Nadler and Tushmans cngruency mdel (Tushman & Rmanelli,
2008), Galbraiths star mdel (Galbraith, 1995), and Ktters rganizatin dynamics
mdel. Figure 5.2(A) prpses that an rganizatins transfrmatin prcesses, r
design cmpnents, represent the way the rganizatin psitins and rganizes itself
within an envirnment (inputs) t achieve specific utputs. The cmbinatin f
design cmpnent elements is called a strategic rientatin.

T understand hw a ttal rganizatin functins, it is necessary t examine

particular inputs, design cmpnents, and the alignment f the tw sets f
dimensins. Figure 5.2(A) shws that tw key inputs affect the way an rganizati n
designs its strategic rientatin: the general envirnment and the task envirnment r
industry structure.

2.0 Galbraiths star mdel

The rganizatin design framewrk prtrayed in Figure 1 is called the Star

Mdel. In the Star Mdel, design plicies fall int five categries. The first is
strategy, which determines directin. The secnd is structure, which determines the
lcatin f decisin-making pwer. The third is prcesses, which have t d with
the flw f infrmatin; they are the means f respnding t infrmatin
technlgies. The furth is rewards and reward systems, which influence the
mtivatin f peple t perfrm and address rganizatinal gals. The fifth
categry f the mdel is made up f plicies relating t peple (human res urce
plicies), which influence and frequently define the emplyees mind-sets and skills.
 Figure 1: The Star Mdel

2.1 Cmpnents f Galbraiths star mdel

2.1.1 Strategy

Strategy is the cmpanys frmula fr winning. The cmpanys strategy

specifies the gals and bjectives t be achieved as well as the values and missins
t be pursued; it sets ut the basic directin f the cmpany. The strategy specifically
delineates the prducts r services t be prvided, the markets t be served, and the
value t be ffered t the custmer. It als specifies surces f cmpetitive
advantage. Traditinally, strategy is the first cmpnent f the Star M del t be
addressed. It is imprtant in the rganizatin design prcess because it establishes the
criteria fr chsing amng alternative rganizatinal frms (Galbraith, Dwney &
Kates, 2001).

Each rganizatinal frm enables sme activities t be perfrmed well, ften

at the expense f ther activities. Chsing rganizatinal alternatives inevitably
invlves making trade-ffs. Strategy dictates which activities are mst necessary,
thereby prviding the basis fr making the best trade-ffs in the rganizatin design.
Matrix rganizatins result when tw r mre activities must be accmplished
withut hindering the ther. Rather than chsing the r, matrix requires an
embracing f the and. Cmpanies want t be glbal and lcal.
2.1.2 Structure

The structure f the rganizatin determines the placement f pwer and

authrity in the rganizatin. Structure plicies fall int fur areas:

Specializatin
Shape
Distributin f pwer
Departmentalizatin

Specializatin refers t the type and numbers f jb specialties used in

perfrming the wrk. Shape refers t the number f peple cnstituting the
departments (that is, the span f cntrl) at each level f the structure. Large numbers
f peple in each department create flat rganizatin structures with few levels.
Distributin f pwer, in its vertical dimensin, refers t the classic issues f
centralizatin r decentralizatin. In its lateral dimensin, it refers t the mvement
f pwer t the department dealing directly with the issues critical t its missin.
Departmentalizatin is the basis fr frming departments at each level f the
structure. The standard dimensins n which departments are frmed are functins,
prducts, wrkflw prcesses, markets, custmers and gegraphy. Matrix structures
are nes where tw r mre dimensins reprt t the same leader at the same level.

2.1.3 Prcesses

Infrmatin and decisin prcesses cut acrss the rganizatins structure; if

structure is thught f as the anatmy f the rganizatin, prcesses are its
physilgy r functining. Management prcesses are bth vertical and hrizntal.

Figure 2: Vertical Prcess

 Vertical prcesses, as shwn in Figure 2 allcate the scarce res urces f
funds and talent. Vertical prcesses are usually business planning and budgeting
prcesses. The needs f different departments are centrally cllected, and pririties
are decided fr the budgeting and allcatin f the resurces t capital, research and
develpment, training, and s n. These management prcesses are central t the
effective functining f matrix rganizatins. They need t be supprted by dual r
multidimensinal infrmatin systems.

Figure 3: Hrizntal Ptcess

Hrizntalals knwn as lateralprcesses, as shwn in Figure 3, are

designed arund the wrkflw, such as new prduct develpment r the entry and
fulfillment f a custmer rder. These management prcesses are becming the
primary vehicle fr managing in tdays rganizatins. Lateral prcesses can be
carried ut in a range f ways, frm vluntary cntacts between members t
cmplex and frmally supervised teams.

2.1.4 Rewards

The purpse f the reward system is t align the gals f the emplyee with
the gals f the rganizatin. It prvides mtivatin and incentive fr the
cmpletin f the strategic directin. The rganizatins reward system defines
plicies regulating salaries, prmtins, bnuses, prfit sharing, stck ptins, and
s frth. A great deal f change is taking place in this area, particularly as it supprts
the lateral prcesses. Cmpanies are nw implementing pay-fr-skill salary practices,
alng with team bnuses r gainsharing systems. There is als the burgening
practice f ffering nnmnetary rewards such as recgnitin r challenging
assignments.
 The Star Mdel suggests that the reward system must be cngruent with the
structure and prcesses t influence the strategic directin. Reward systems are
effective nly when they frm a cnsistent package in cmbinati n with the ther
design chices.

2.1.5 Peple

This area gverns the human resurce plicies f recruiting, selectin,

rtatin, training, and develpment. Human resurce plicies in the apprpriate
cmbinatins prduce the talent required by the strategy and structure f the
rganizatin, generating the skills and mind-sets necessary t implement the chsen
directin. Like the plicy chices in the ther areas, these plicies wrk best when
they are cnsistent with the ther cnnecting design areas.

Human resurce plicies als build the rganizatinal capabilities t execute

the strategic directins. Flexible rganizatins require flexible peple. Crss-
functinal teams require peple wh are generalists and wh can cperate with
each ther. Matrix rganizatins need peple wh can manage cnflict and influence
withut authrity. Human resurce plicies simultaneusly develp peple and
rganizatinal capabilities.

2.2 Implicatins f the Star Mdel

As the layut f the Star Mdel illustrates, structure is nly ne facet f an

rganizatins design. This is imprtant. Mst design effrts invest far t much
time drawing the rganizatin chart and far t little n prcesses and rewards.
Structure is usually veremphasized because it affects status and pwer, and a change
t it is mst likely t be reprted in the business press and annunced thrughut the
cmpany. Hwever, in a fast-changing business envirnment, and in matrix
rganizatins, structure is becming less imprtant, while prcesses, rewards, and
peple are becming mre imprtant.

Anther insight t be gained frm the Star Mdel is that different strategies
lead t different rganizatins. Althugh this seems bvius, it has ramificatins that
are ften verlked. There is n ne-size-fits-all rganizatin design that all
cmpaniesregardless f their particular strategy needsshuld subscribe t. There
will always be a current design that has becme all the rage. But n matter what the
fashinable design iswhether it is the matrix design r the virtual c rp rati n
trendiness is nt sufficient reasn t adpt an rganizatin design. All designs have
merit but nt fr all cmpanies in all circumstances. The design, r cmbinatin f
designs, that shuld be chsen is the ne that best meets the criteria derived fr m the
strategy.

A third implicatin f the Star Mdel is in the interweaving nature f the lines
that frm the star shape. Fr an rganizatin t be effective, all the plicies must be
aligned and interacting harmniusly with ne anther. An alignment f all the
plicies will cmmunicate a clear, cnsistent message t the cmpanys emplyees.

The Star Mdel cnsists f plicies that leaders can cntrl and that can
affect emplyee behavir, as suggested in Figure 4. It shws that managers can
influence perfrmance and culture, but nly by acting thrugh the design plicies
that affect behavir.

Figure 4: Hw rganizatin Design Affects Behavir and Culture

2.3 vercming Negatives Thrugh Design

ne f the uses f the Star Mdel is t use it t vercme the negatives f

any structural design. That is, every rganizatinal structure ptin has psitives and
negatives assciated with it. If management can identify the negatives f its preferred
ptin, the ther plicies arund the Star Mdel can be designed t cunter the
negatives while achieving the psitives. Centralizatin can be used as an example.
When the internet became ppular, many units in sme rganizatins began their
wn initiatives t respnd t it. These rganizatins experienced the psitives f
decentralizatin. They achieved speed f actin, invlvement f peple clsest t
the wrk and tailring f the applicatin t the wrk f the unit.

They als experienced the negatives f decentralizatin. The many initiatives

duplicated effrts and fragmented the cmpany's respnse. There were multiple
interfaces fr custmers and suppliers. They ran int difficulty in attracting talent and
smetimes had t settle fr less than tp peple. Mst cmpanies have respnded by
centralizing the activities surrunding the internet int a single unit. In s d ing, they
have reduced duplicatin, achieved scale ecnmies and presented ne face t the
custmer. They have cmbined many small internet units int ne large ne which is
attractive fr prfessinal internet managers. But at the same time, decisi n making
mves farther frm the wrk, the central unit becmes an internal mn p ly and the
result can be lack f respnsiveness t ther rganizatinal departments wh are
using the internet.

T minimize the negatives f the central unit, the management f the

cmpany can design the apprpriate prcesses, rewards and staffing plicies. Fr
example in the planning prcess, the central unit can present its plan t service the
rest f the rganizatin. The leadership team can debate the plan and arrive at an
apprved level f service. The plan can be prepared by peple frm the central unit
and a hrizntal team f peple frm thrughut the cmpany. Alng with its gals
f reducing duplicatins and achieving scale, the central unit will als be expected t
meet the planned service levels that were agreed. The central unit's perfrmance will
be measured and rewarded n the basis f meeting planned gals. And finally t keep
the
central unit cnnected t the wrk, it can be staffed by a mix f permanent
prfessinals and rtating managers frm the rest f rganizatin n ne rtw
year assignments. This cmplete design increases the chances that the central unit will
achieve its psitives while minimizing the usual negatives.

2.4 Advantage & Disadvantage f Galbraiths star mdel

Galbraiths Star Mdel design requires rganizatins t use a chsen strategy

t infrm structure decisins. Figure 5 belw highlights the five basic structure
ptins intrduced n the previus page and cnnects them with the strategy
characteristics they facilitate. rganizatins can use this figure t make design trade-
ffs depending n the strategy characteristics and gals they find mst critical:

Structure Descriptin Advantages Disadvantages Characteristics f

Type Strategy
Supprted by this
Structure

Functinal rganized Gathering Creates barriers Small-size, single-

Structure arund wrkers f ne between different prduct line
activities r type allws functins
Undifferentiated
functins them t transfer
verwhelming market
ideas and
if there are a
knwledge Scale r expertise
variety f
Allws fr within the functin
prducts,
greater scale,
channels, r Lng prduct
specializatin,
custmers develpment life
and
standardizatin cycles
Presents a
Cmmn
single face t
standards
vendrs t
exercise buying
leverage

Prduct Multiple Cmpresses Divisins want Prduct fcus

 Structure functinal the prduct autnmy, s Multiple prducts
rganizatins, develpment they reinvent the fr separate
each with its cycle because wheel and custmers
wn prduct each unit duplicate
Shrt prduct
line fcuses n a resurces
develpment life
single prduct
rganizatin cycle
line
lses ecnmies
f scale

Challenging
when custmers
buy frm mre
than ne prduct
divisin

Market rganized Cmpanies Tendency t Imprtant market

Structure arund with superir duplicate segments
custmers, knwledge and activities and
Prduct r service
markets, r infrmatin develp
unique t segment
industries abut market incmpatible
segments have a systems Buyer strength
cmpetitive
Difficulty Custmer
advantage
sharing cmmn knwledge
Helps service prducts r advantage
businesses that services
must fcus n Rapid custmer
market service and prduct
segments cycles

Gegraphica rganized Minimize Becming less Lw value-t-

l Structure arund csts f travel imprtant nw transprt cst rati
districts, and distributin that technlgy Service delivery
regins, r when clse t allws n-site
territries the custmer cmpanies t be
Clseness t
anywhere and
Helpful if custmer fr
seek the best
rganizatin delivery r supprt
glbal lcatin
 needs t be Perceptin f the
lcated near a rganizatin as
surce f lcal
supply

Prcess rganized Allws a Creates barriers Ptential fr new

Structure arund a renewed lk, in handffs prcesses and
cmplete flw frm end t between varius radical change t
f wrk end, at an entire prcess grups prcesses
prcess
Reduced wrking
Prcesses capital
with end-t-end
Need fr reducing
cverage lend
prcess cycle times
themselves t
measurement
mre easily
than ther
functins

3.0 McKinsey 7S Framewrk

Accrding t Hayes (2014), the McKinsey 7S Framewrk is a management

mdel develped by well-knwn business cnsultants Rbert H. Waterman, Jr. and
Tm Peters (wh als develped the MBWA-- "Management By Walking Arund"
mtif, and authred In Search f Excellence) in the 1980s. This was a strategic visin
fr grups, t include businesses, business units, and teams. The 7 Ss are structure,
strategy, systems, skills, style, staff and shared values.

The mdel is mst ften used as an rganizatinal analysis tl t assess and

mnitr changes in the internal situatin f an rganizatin. The mdel is based n
the thery that, fr an rganizatin t perfrm well, these seven elements need t be
aligned and mutually reinfrcing. S, the mdel can be used t help identify what
needs t be realigned t imprve perfrmance, r t maintain alignment (and
perfrmance) during ther types f change. Whatever the type f change
restructuring, new prcesses, rganizatinal merger, new systems, change f
leadership, and s n the mdel can be used t understand hw the rganizatinal
elements are interrelated, and s ensure that the wider impact f changes made in ne
area is taken int cnsideratin.

Since the intrductin, the mdel has been widely used by academics and
practitiners and remains ne f the mst ppular strategic planning tls. It s ught
t present an emphasis n human resurces (Sft S), rather than the traditinal mass
prductin tangibles f capital, infrastructure and equipment, as a key t higher
rganizatinal perfrmance. The gal f the mdel was t shw hw 7 elements f
the cmpany: Structure, Strategy, Skills, Staff, Style, Systems, and Shared values, can
be aligned tgether t achieve effectiveness in a cmpany. The key pint f the
mdel is that all the seven areas are intercnnected and a change in ne area requires
change in the rest f a firm fr it t functin effectively.

Belw is the McKinsey mdel, which represents the cnnectins between

seven areas and divides them int Sft Ss and Hard Ss. The shape f the mdel
emphasizes intercnnectedness f the elements.

Figure 5: Mckinsey Mdel

The mdel can be applied t many situatins and is a valuable tl when

rganizatinal design is at questin. The mst cmmn uses f the framewrk are:

T facilitate rganizatinal change.

 T help implement new strategy.
T identify hw each area may change in a future.
T facilitate the merger f rganizatins.

3.1 Cmpnents f Galbraiths star mdel

In McKinsey mdel, the seven areas f rganizatin are divided int the
sft and hard areas. Strategy, structure and systems are hard elements that are much
easier t identify and manage when cmpared t sft elements. n the ther hand,
sft areas, althugh harder t manage, are the fundatin f the rganizatin and are
mre likely t create the sustained cmpetitive advantage.

3.1.1 Strategy

Strategy is a plan develped by a firm t achieve sustained c mpetitive

advantage and successfully cmpete in the market. What des a well-aligned strategy
mean in 7s McKinsey mdel? In general, a sund strategy is the ne thats clearly
articulated, is lng-term, helps t achieve cmpetitive advantage and is reinf rced by
strng visin, missin and values. But its hard t tell if such strategy is well-aligned
with ther elements when analyzed alne. S the key in 7s mdel is nt t lk at
yur cmpany t find the great strategy, structure, systems and etc. but t lk if its
aligned with ther elements. Fr example, shrt-term strategy is usually a pr
chice fr a cmpany but if its aligned with ther 6 elements, then it may pr vide
strng results.

3.1.2 Structure

the frm f the rganisatinal chart and intercnnectins between psitins

in the rganisatinal hierarchy.
3.1.3 Systems

Systems are the prcesses and prcedures f the cmpany, which reveal
business daily activities and hw decisins are made. Systems are the area f the
firm that determines hw business is dne and it shuld be the main f cus f r
managers during rganizatinal change.

3.1.4 Staff

Staff element is cncerned with what type and hw many emplyees an

rganizatin will need and hw they will be recruited, trained, mtivated and
rewarded.

3.1.5 Style

Style represents the way the cmpany is managed by tp-level managers, h w

they interact, what actins d they take and their symblic value. In ther wrds, it is
the management style f cmpanys leaders.

3.1.6 Skills

Skills are the abilities that firms emplyees perfrm very well. They als
include capabilities and cmpetences. During rganizatinal change, the questin
ften arises f what skills the cmpany will really need t reinfrce its new strategy
r new structure.

3.1.7 Shared Values

Shared Values are at the cre f McKinsey 7s mdel. They are the nrms and
standards that guide emplyee behavir and cmpany actins and thus, are the
fundatin f every rganizatin.
3.2 Advantage & Disadvantage f McKinsey 7S Framew rk
4.0 rganizatinal Diagnsis
Advantage
The mdel is easy t apply as an
analytical framewrk. Since it cmbines
bth ratinal and hard elements with
emtinal and sft elements, the analysis
is brad enugh t encmpass the key
characteristics f an rganisatin.
The mdel can be used t asses the
impact f strategic change n the client
rganisatin thrugh crss-analysis. The
strengths and weaknesses f an
rganisatin can be identified by
cnsidering the links between each f the
Ss. N S is a strength r a weakness in
itself, but is a relative measure. Each
factr's degree f supprt fr the ther
Ss is relevant. A S that harmnises with
the ther Ss is cnsidered a strength, and
a dissnance a weakness.
The mdel vercame the limited view f
Chandler's "Structure fllws Strategy".
Peters saw excellence as a cultural issue
where ambiguity and paradx are
required t bind peple's need fr
cnfrmity with their desire t be
regarded as individuals. He went even
further by pleading that a strng reliance
n ratinal decisin making is nt nly
wrng, but dangerus.
Disadvantage
The 7 S mdel was used as a framewrk
t research excellent cmpanies. The
result was Peters and Waterman's
management hit, 'In Search f
Excellence' in which 62 excellent
cmpanies shwed the fllwing
cmmn attributes: 1) a bias fr actin
2) clse t the custmer 3) autnmy
and entrepreneurship 4) prductivity
thrugh peple 5) hands-n, value
driven leadership 6) stick t the knitting
7) simple frm, lean staff 8)
simultaneus tight-lse prperties. The
empirical validity f the mdel became
dubtful when many f the cmpanies
identified as excellent did nt survive in
the 1990s.
The mdel can help guide rganisatinal
change. Managers must act n all Ss in
parallel, and understand that the fact rs
are interrelated. This intercnnectivity
creates a dynamic system where ne
change requires the system t adapt t a
new equilibrium. The human brain finds
it ntriusly difficult t predict the
effects f changes in cmplex systems.
The mdel has limited use as a real-time,
numerical maintenance and mnitring
tl.
The authrs d nt view the
rganisatin as a plitical arena. The
authrs viewed that cnflicts between
individuals and departments had t be
avided by adpting strng and uniting
shared values
4.1 ASP Sftware Analysis

Accrding t Susan, Internal client managers the internal custmers f the

department havent been very happy with the service they have been receiving frm
the HR department, belw are the prblems and causes:

Prblem Causes

Difficulties in hiring prcess Every time hiring, manager need t refer

t Pulas rganizatin t get the psitin
pened, then deal with Lindas team t
figure ut the cmpensatin.

Recruiting issue T many psitins t be recruited by

each recruiters every year.

Need t cmpensate the wrker t Sftware industry are mving fast, s

maximize lyalty, retentin and they als have t mve with the flw.
prductivity

I think that Susan thinks that the change has been managed very well, this is
shw in her enthusiasm t create rganizatinal charts. She nly really wants
Nathans guidance abut hw t prceed that is implementing her plan. She wants t
knw hw t make the team wrk tgether well and hw t get them t be mre
efficient in their new psitins. I have a feeling that the emplyees are mre anxius
than she thinks. She published the new chart which left ut Stevens name. She said
that Steven was very ppular amng the emplyees and by leaving ut his name she
may have them wrried that he is getting fired. Frm the sund f it Steven may n t
be allwed t share his prmtin yet until it is annunced in the meeting.
Management team prbably feels uncertain because things are changing and peple
fear uncertainty.

4.2 Suggestin
 ASP rerganized their Human Resurces Department, this change tk place
t facilitate the current full functinal mdel t a full client management services
mdel. ASP wishes t maximize the value the teams add t the rganizatin by
rganizing teams t serve internal custmers instead f primarily fcusing n day-
t-day activities. An rganizatin design and structure change interventin strategy is
necessary when emplyees receive new jb titles, departments are created r
cmbined, r when an rganizatin utgrws its previus design structure
(Andersn, 2015). I wuld recmmend Stanfrds five-phase methd fr
rganizatinal design change is as fllws:

First yu shuld prepare fr change which includes evaluating the

rganizatinal structure currently being used and utlining bjectives fr the
new prpsed design.
Next, yu shuld chse t redesign, which fcuses n minimizing the
disruptiveness f the change by getting feedback frm stakehlders n criteria
fr the new dessin t help facilitate a successful transitin.
Create a high-level design; this is where yu cme up with different
circumstances and test them against hw the new structure will affect different
aspect f the business.
Handle the transitin, which includes cmmunicatin with emplyees abut
upcming changes and guiding them thrugh the changes.
Lastly, review the change. This is where yu shuld evaluate the new structure
and its effectiveness, measure utcmes, and make changes as needed. The
interventin activities

I wuld recmmend t Susan frm the new teams and build chesiveness in
the new teams are team develpment, teambuilding exercise, team startup and
transitin meetings, rle negtiatin and rle analysis (Andersn, 2015).
REFERENCE

Beckhard, R. (1969). rganizatin develpment: Strategies and mdels.

Burke, W. W. (2013). rganizatin change: Thery and practice. Sage Publicatins.

Bradfrd, D. L., & Burke, W. W. (2004). Intrductin: Is D in crisis?.

Cghlan, D. (1994). rganizatin develpment thrugh interlevel dynamics. The

Internatinal Jurnal f rganizatinal Analysis, 2(3), 264-279.

Cummings, T. G., & Wrley, C. G. (2014). rganizatin devel pment and change.
Cengage learning.

French, W. (1969). rganizatin develpment bjectives, assumptins and strategies.

Califrnia Management Review, 12(2), 23-34.

Galbraith, J. R. (1995). Designing rganizatins: An executive briefing n strategy,

structure, and prcess. Jssey-Bass.

Galbraith, J., Dwney, D., & Kates, A. (2001). Designing dynamic rganizatins: A
hands-n guide fr leaders at all levels. AMACM Div American Mgmt
Assn.

Kilmann, R. H. (1982). rganizatin Change and Develpment: A Systems View.

Academy f Management. The Academy f Management Review (pre-1986),
7(000002), 315.

Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1980). A mdel fr diagnsing rganizatinal

behavir. rganizatinal Dynamics, 9(2), 35-51.

Nadler, D., Tushman, M., & Nadler, M. B. (1997). Cmpeting by design: The p wer
f rganizatinal architecture. xfrd University Press.

Tushman, M. L., & Rmanelli, E. (2008). rganizatinal evlutin. rganizatin

change: A cmprehensive reader, 155(2008), 174.
Weisbrd, M. R. (1976). rganizatinal diagnsis: Six places t lk fr truble
with r withut a thery. Grup & rganizatin Management, 1(4), 430-447.

Wrley, C. G., & Feyerherm, A. E. (2003). Reflectins n the future f rganizatin

develpment. The Jurnal f Applied Behaviral Science, 39(1), 97-115.