1.

Need-technique mismatch
This problem occurs so often it isn’t funny any more. A manager hires a consultant to help
implement buzzword X. After conducting a thorough analysis, the consultant says, “You don’t
need X. You need buzzword Y instead. The manager then replies, “That may be, but I already
told my boss that we are implementing X?” A common example of this is when an organization
hires someone to conduct a skills training course, but the lack of skill isn’t what is causing the
organization’s problems. Many organizations put in one IT system after another to solve specific
issues, but never realize the lack of integration among the systems they have is the primary
cause of their problems.

More fundamentally, however, is the mismatch that occurs on a larger scale. Organizations often
use small-scale, incremental techniques such as Six Sigma, when instead they need to evaluate
their reactions to future scenarios of a radically changed business climate. They may need to
divest themselves of a money-losing division instead of pouring more money into an industry that
is dying a slow death.

Not making systemic changes

Management must realize that to fully implement change, satisfy its customers, and promote
teamwork in the entire organization, often wrenching systemic changes must be made: Profit
sharing may be introduced; individual performance appraisals may be radically changed or
eliminated; organizational structure may be realigned away from functions (production, quality,
engineering) to a customer-, process- or geographic-based structure; information may be given to
employees formerly reserved for senior management; and significantly more authority may be
given to line employees.

If management does not align these systems, the effect will be like Dr. Doolittle's Pushme-
Pullyou” animal (a horse with two heads, each pulling in the opposite direction). Each system
(rewards, structure, information, etc.) is tugging the organization in a different direction. The result
will be much struggle and confusion, but little success.

Overuse of process teams

Some organizations treat Six Sigma teams (SSTs) like candy: They want dessert before having
dinner.

I know of a 3000-person organization with over 70 current SSTs) working on a variety of issues.
The organization avoids measuring their success, provides them little technical support, and still
has not addressed "dinner" of the systemic changes (see next section) needed to support them.
This implementation strategy has a high risk of failure, and organizational change will probably
not become an integral part of their culture.

This problem occurs when, paradoxically enough, an organization achieves successes with its
first teams, or hears about wild successes of other companies. They then buy a canned training
program, or hire a trainer to setup their programs. Much training occurs and many SSTs formed.
With various degrees of management support, these SSTs attack a variety of problems.
Unfortunately, because of unclear long-term plans, and the lack of system changes, (see next
section) many of these SSTs fail. As a result, the organizational change effort may stagnate, and
once ardent supporters become disillusioned.

In addition, management often delegates a problem to a team as a way of avoiding hard

management or personnel decisions. For example, one manager in
a software company assembled a SST because the customer complained of too many bugs in
the product. In addition, the manager needed a reporting system to evaluate the progress of
the bug fixes. The SST quickly realized that this was not a "process" problem, but a personnel
problem: One employee of the manager just wasn't doing his job. The SST knew this, and the
manager knew it. Unfortunately, the manager was unwilling the confront the problem, and hoped
the SST would find away around it.

Not making decisions up front

Many organizations need to design the architecture of their quality effort. If they do not, they risk
pouring time and dollars into an effort that will eventually collapse. Among the decisions that
should be made up-front, before implementing a quality effort are: the measures of success; the
degree of employee involvement; the depth and breadth of implementation; and the techniques to
be used. As someone once said, If you don't know where you are going, you may not like getting
there.”

Caught between the square peg and NIH diseases

Many organizations buy canned implementation efforts that describe for them, step by step, what
to do. This square peg approach is often not appropriate for the round hole of the organization.
This kind of effort can often lead to the overuse of SST's and the problems with mass training
(see the section on training).

On the other hand, organizations can also become infected with the not invented here (NIH)
disease. They insist in reinventing the wheel when it isn't necessary to do so. I know one
consultant who made a lot of money because of this disease. The rivalry between two
manufacturing plants belonging to the same company was so fierce that they refused to talk to or
learn from each other. This is despite the fact that they were located only a few miles apart. The
consultant made his money by helping one plan with organizational change, and then driving to
the other plant to do the same thing. The secret to implementation is not to choose between one
disease and the other, but to decide what aspects of implementation can be bought, and what
aspects need unique solutions agreed upon by management and employees.

Mass training
If you wish employees to use their training, organizations must train them in skills specific to their
needs just in time to use them. Too many organizations have spent untold thousands of dollars
and hours on training employees on concepts they may never need. If they do need these
concepts, they will need refresher courses because their training was long ago. Because mass
training puts such a burden on organizational resources, not all members of work teams are
trained at once. As a result, some know what to do but others do not, which causes more
confusion.

The no top management support excuse

Supervisors and line employees have often complained that they do not receive management
support for their efforts. I believe all parties are at fault for this problem. Management may not
fully realize what they specifically need to do to support SSTs, and SSTs choose to 1) work on
problems that don't interest management or 2) don't get the proper authority and specific support
from management before they start their efforts. This no management support is caused by
unclear or unknown expectations.

Labelitis
An interesting problem in organizational change is hero worship. There are Deming
worshippers, Crosby worshippers and Covey worshippers. These cults of personality often get in
the way because any concept not uttered by one's hero is suspect and probably not true.
Organizations can often get into this labelitis by swallowing a buzzword and avoiding any concept
not labeled as such. One example of this happened earlier this month: A client said he wasn't
interested in becoming a “team-based” organization because it wasn't “Six Sigma.”

Much the same thing has happened in Latin America with the word “reengineering”. The word
has been misapplied so much that any mention of it is returned by a look of disgust. To properly
implement organizational change, organizations must look beyond the label, and ask serious
questions about what changes are needed and what they should do about them.
Not measuring results
No only do organizations not measure results, they often desperately try to figure out if they were
successful after organizational change has already taken place. This is the messiest way to
determine if change happened, because sometimes 1) the data should have been gathered
before the organizational change happened and can’t be collected afterwards; 2) politics play
their role as those asking if the change was successful may have hidden agendas seeking to
either justify what has already been done or destroy what is taking shape.

2.
Organization development (OD) is a planned, organization-wide effort to increase an
organization's effectiveness and viability. Warren Bennis has referred to OD as a response
to change, a complex educational strategy intended to change the beliefs, attitudes, values,
and structure of organization so that they can better adapt to new technologies, marketing
and challenges, and the dizzying rate of change itself. OD is neither "anything done to better
an organization" nor is it "the training function of the organization"; it is a particular kind of
change process designed to bring about a particular kind of end result. OD can involve
interventions in the organization's "processes," using behavioural science knowledge[1] as
well as organizational reflection, system improvement, planning, and self-analysis.

The term "Organization Development" is often used interchangeably with Organizational

effectiveness, especially when used as the name of a department within an organization.
Organization development is a growing field that is responsive to many new approaches
including Positive Adult Development.

Change management is a structured approach to transitioning individuals, teams,

and organizations from a current state to a desired future state. It is an organizational
process aimed at empowering employees to accept and embrace changes in their current
business environment[1]. In project management, change management refers to a project
management process where changes to a project are formally introduced and approved. [2].

[edit]Examples of Organizational Change

1. Strategic changes
2. Technological changes
3. Structural changes
4. Changing the attitudes and behaviors of personnel

As a multidisciplinary practice, Organizational Change Management requires for example:

creative marketing to enable communication between change audiences, but also deep
social understanding about leadership’s styles and group dynamics. As a visible track on
transformation projects, Organizational Change Management aligns groups’ expectations,
communicates, integrates teams and manages people training. It makes use of metrics, such
as leader’s commitment, communication effectiveness, and the perceived need for change to
design accurate strategies, in order to avoid change failures or solve troubled change
projects. An effective change management plan needs to address all above mentioned
dimensions of change. This can be achieved in following ways:

1. Putting in place an effective Communication strategy which would bridge any

gap in the understanding of change benefits and its implementation strategy.
2. Devise an effective skill upgrading scheme for the organization. Overall these
measures can counter resistance from the employees of companies and align them
to overall strategic direction of the organization.
3. Personal counseling of staff members (if required) to alleviate any change
related fears.

3.
The ability to achieve positive transformative change is dependent on clarity of
communication, appropriate empowerment, and understandable accountability
within the organizational construct (Becker, 2007). These three drivers for
successful transformative change are also catalysts for unfreezing current
thinking (Schein, 1990) that enable creativity (Gharajedaghi & Ackoff, 1984) and
allow for its sustenance. Unfreezing current thinking requires certain levels of
functional maturity within the organization in order to institutionalize innovation
(Curtis, Hefley, & Miller, 2002; Van de Ven, 1986). Recent research has supported
the ability for more mature functional units within the organizational construct to
leverage innovation, while less mature functions provide potential obstacles for
innovation and sustaining transformational change (Becker).

Unleashing creativity can be accomplished through the instigation of multi-

minded systems (Gharajedaghi, 2006). Evolving uniminded systems such as
experienced in continuous improvement initiatives may provide the foundation
for transformative change to multi-minded systems depending on the maturity of
the functional units. Mature functional units greatly assist less mature functions
in understanding a sense of urgency to change, as well as the need for timelines
and deliverables (Becker, 2007). Timelines and deliverables contribute to the
required levels of accountability inherent in successful transformations.
Institutionalizing innovations with a sense of accountability for results leads to a
more empowered culture that is fertile for multi-minded systems approaches.
This results in the evolution of an environment capable of sustaining
transformative change.
Conversely, a lack of communication, empowerment, and accountability
evidenced in less mature functions provide obstacles for experiencing or
sustaining successful transformations. Less mature functions exhibit amorphous
standards of excellence, a lack of pressure to perform, and uncertain result
expectations (Larson & La Fasto, 1989). In recent research this was manifested in
a lack of role clarity within less mature functions resulting in obstacles for
sustaining positive transformational change (Becker, 2007). Lack of role clarity
reinforced inconsistent communication, nebulous empowerment, and uncertain
results expectations. This creates an unfertile environment for multi-minded
systems and sustained transformative change.

4.

The following 7 steps outline how to identify candidates for

Standard Changes, implement them, and ensure they function
properly.

1. Create a Process for Authorizing Standard

Changes. Create a Request For Change (RFC), involve the
Change Advisory Board (CAB), and create a formal process for
the identification, definition, implementation and management
of Standard Changes.
a. The Standard Change requires pre-approval by Change
Management before authorization. Once approved, they
no longer require change management approval on a
case-by-case basis.
b. Establish regular audit and review to make sure that as
the organization changes, Standard Changes remain
appropriate. Change Management is a dynamic process
and should itself be under Change Management control!
c. Establish specific authorizations for an approved group.
Be specific here, only the authorized group has
permission to perform the Standard Change under
certain conditions.
d. All standard changes require reporting on a regular
basis. Put in place regular reporting, audit and review
 processes. First to track work completed; and secondly
to evaluate ‘b’ above.
e. Create and agree to a definition of those change types
that are candidates for Standard Changes, for example,
"Customer Service Requests as documented in Service
Level Agreements," or other similar definitions.
2. Identify Candidates for Standard Changes. While not all-
inclusive, the following steps can help to identify candidates
for Standard Changes.
a. Ask IT Staff what changes or activities they think ought
to become Standard Changes.
b. Review the change log and history for the Changes done
most often. Be sure to involve functional management
as well as technical staff in this evaluation.
c. Look for tasks that are well known, proven, and "done
every day." These are the ones you should document
and institutionalize.
d. Consider who is to perform work. Many Standard
Changes begin at the Service Desk in response to
Service Requests.
e. If cost is a factor, seek those changes where budgetary
approval lies with requester.
3. Document a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The
SOP lies at the heart of the Standard Change. The SOP defines
when (and when not), where, how, by whom and under what
circumstances the Standard Change occurs.
a. Define the scope and timeframe for authorization.
b. Allow the group approved to perform the Standard
Change to drive the SOP creation. This captures their
organization skill-set and their buy-in to the Standard
Change. Failure to perform this step will almost certainly
result in the exact opposite of what you desire.
c. Do not forget to include procedures for failed Standard
Changes. Change Management, and the designated lead
 or contact from the technical functional group that
“owns” the Standard Change must examine every
occurrence of failures when performing the Standard
Change.
d. The approved group must record, track and report all
changes made to Change Management.
4. Authorize the Standard Change as Low in Organization
as Appropriate. After establishing the SOP for the Standard
Change, review it to see if it a lower level of the organization
can perform the task. The goal is to empower the lowest
appropriate level of IT staff to perform the task. Over time as
the ability to perform the Standard Change increases, it
becomes "part of what we do here" -- and becomes
institutionalized as the "new normal."
5. Train, Test, and Release. Communicate as the SOP and the
Standard Change process evolves. Keep those who will do the
work up to date on status.
a. Before releasing, train staff in how to use the SOP; and if
required, how to perform the tasks contained within the
SOP.
b. Have involved staff perform supervised tests to ensure
their capability and success.
c. Publish a date when the new process and the SOP "goes
live".
6. Put the SOP (and the Standard Change Process) Under
Change Management Control. That is, allow no changes or
modifications to the SOP without formal Change Management
review.
7. Manage, Monitor, Audit and Report. Review the success
of the SOP, and of the Standard Change process, to make sure
they are indeed appropriate.
a. Reporting should show no adverse impact due to the
Standard Changes.
 b. Reporting should show a percent reduction in change
backlog.

ndividual Resistance

Individual sources of resistance to change reside in basic human characteristics such as

perceptions, personalities, and needs. The following summarizes five reasons why
individuals may resist change.

HABIT As human beings, we're creatures of habit. Life is complex enough; we don't need to
consider the full range of options for the hundreds of decisions we have to make every day.
To cope with this complexity, we all rely on habits or programmed responses. But when
confronted with change, this tendency to respond in our accustomed ways becomes a
source of resistance. So when your department is moved to a new office building across
town, it means you're likely to have to change many habits: waking up ten minutes earlier,
taking a new set of streets to work, finding a new parking place, adjusting to the new office
layout, developing a new lunchtime routine, and so on.

SECURITY People with a high need for security are likely to resist change because it
threatens their feeling of safety. When General Dynamics announces personnel cutbacks or
Ford introduces new robotic equipment, many employees at these firms may fear that their
jobs are in jeopardy.

ECONOMIC FACTORS Another source of individual resistance is concern that changes will
lower one's income. Changes in job tasks or established work routines also can arouse
economic fears if people are concerned that they won't be able to perform the new tasks or
routines to their previous standards, especially when pay is closely tied to productivity.

FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN Changes substitute ambiguity and uncertain¬ty for the known. If,
for example, the introduction of word processors means that departmental secretaries will
have to learn to operate these new pieces of equipment, some of the secretaries may fear
that they will be unable to do so. They may, therefore, develop a negative attitude toward
working with word processors or behave dysfunctionally if required to use them.

SELECTIVE INFORMATION PROCESSING Individuals shape their world through their

perceptions. Once they have created this world, it resists change. So individuals are guilty of
selectively processing information in order to keep their perceptions intact. They hear what
they want to hear. They ignore information that challenges the world that they've created. To
return to the secretaries who are faced with the introduction of word processors, they may
ignore the arguments that their bosses make in explaining why the new equipment has been
purchased or the potential benefits that the change will provide them.
Organizational Resistance

Organizations, by their very nature, are conservative. They actively resist change. You don't
have to look far to see evidence of this phenomenon. Government agencies want to continue
doing what they have been doing for years, whether the need for their service changes or
remains the same. Organized religions are deeply entrenched in their history. Attempts to
change church doctrine require great persistence and patience. Educational institutions,
which exist to open minds and challenge established doctrine, are themselves extremely
resistant to change. The majority of business firms, too, appear highly resistant to change.

Six major sources of organizational resistance have been identified.

STRUCTURAL INERTIA Organizations have built-in mechanisms to produce stability. For

example, the selection process systematically selects certain people in and certain people
out. Training and other socialization techniques reinforce specific role requirements and
skills. Formalization provides job descriptions, rules, and procedures for employees to follow.
The people who are hired into an organization are chosen for fit; they are then shaped and
directed to behave in certain ways. When an organization is confronted with change, this
structural inertia acts as a counterbalance to sustain stability.

LIMITED FOCUS OF CHANGE Organizations are made up of a number of interdependent

subsystems. You can't change one without affecting the others. For example, if management
changes the technological processes without simultaneously modifying the organization's
structure to match, the change in technology is not likely to be accepted. So limited changes
in sub¬systems tend to get nullified by the larger system.

GROUP INERTIA Even if individuals want to change their behavior, group norms may act as
a constraint. An individual union member, for instance, may be willing to accept changes in
his job suggested by management. But if union norms dictate resisting any unilateral change
made by management, he's likely to resist.

THREAT TO EXPERTISE Changes in organizational patterns may threaten the expertise of

specialized groups. The introduction of decentralized personal computers, which allow
managers to gain access to information direct¬ly from a company's mainframe, is an
example of a change that was strongly resisted by many information systems departments in
the early 1980s. Why? Because decentralized end-user computing was a threat to the
specialized skills held by those in the centralized information systems departments.

THREAT TO ESTABLISHED POWER RELATIONSHIPS Any redistribution of decision-

making authority can threaten long-established power relationships within the organization.
The introduction of participative decision making or self-managed work teams is the kind of
change that is often seen as threatening by supervisors and middle managers.

5.

Organization Development
Interventions
Organization Development (OD) interventions techniques are the methods created
by OD professionals and others. Single organization or consultant cannot use all the
interventions. They use these interventions depending upon the need or
requirement. The most important interventions are,

1. Survey feedback
2. Process Consultation
3. sensitivity Training
4. The Managerial grid
5. Goal setting and Planning
6. Team Building and management by objectives
7. Job enrichment, changes in organizational structure and participative
management and Quality circles, ISO, TQM

Survey feedback: The intervention provides data and information to the managers.
Information on Attitudes of employees about wage level, and structure, hours of
work, working conditions and relations are collected and the results are supplied to
the top executive teams. They analyse the data, find out the problem, evaluate the
results and develop the means to correct the problems identified. The team are
formed with the employees at all levels in the organization hierarchy i.e, from the
rank and file to the top level.

Process Consultation : The process consultant meets the members of the

department and work teams observes thie interaction, problem identification skills,
solving procedures et. He feeds back the team eith the information collected through
observations, coaches and counsels individuals & groups in moulding their behavior.

Goal setting and planning : Each division in an organization sets the goals or
formulates the plans for profitability. These goals are sent to the top management
which in turn sends them back to the divisions after modification . A set of
organization goals thus emerge there after.

Managerial grid: This identifies a range of management behavior based on the

different ways that how production/service oriented and employee oriented states
interact with each other. Managerial grid is also called as instrumental laboratory
training as it is a structured version of laboratory training. It consists of individual
and group exercises with a view to developing awareness of individual managerial
style interpersonal competence and group effeciveness. Thus grid training is related
to the leadership styles. The managerial grid focuses on the observations of
behaviour in exercises specifically related to work. Participants in this training are
encouraged and helped to appraise their own managerial style.
There are 6 phases in grid OD:
First phase is concerned with studying the grid as a theoretical knowledge to
understand the human behavior in the Organization.
Second phase is concerned with team work development. A seminar helps the
members in developing each member’s perception and the insight into the problems
faced by various members on the job.
Third phase is inter group development. This phase aims at developing the
relationships between different departments
Fourth phase is concerned with the creation of a strategic model for the organization
where Chief Executives and their immediate subordinates participate in this activity.

Fifth phase is concerned with implementation of strategic model.. Planning teams are
formed for each department to know the available resources, required resources,
procuring them if required and implementing the model Sixth Phase is concerned
with the critical evaluation of the model and making necessary adjustment for
successful implementation.

Management by Objectives (MBO) is a successful philosophy of management. It

replaces the traditional philosophy of “Management by Domination”. MBO led to a
systematic Goal setting and Planning. Peter Drucker the eminent management Guru
in 1959 has first propagated the philosophy since then it has become a movement.

MBO is a process by which managers at different levels and their subordinates work
together in identifying goals and establishing objectives consistent with
Organizational goals and attaining them.

Team building is an application of various techniques of Sensitivity training to the

actual work groups in various departments. These work groups consist of peers and
a supervisor.
Sensitivity training is called a laboratory as it is conducted by creating an
experimental laboratory situation in which employees are brought together. The
Team building technique and training is designed to improve the ability of the
employees to work together as teams.

Job enrichment is currently practiced all over the world. It is based on the
assumption in order to motivate workers, job itself must provide opportunities for
achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement and growth. The basic idea is
to restore to jobs the elements of interest that were taken away. In a job enrichment
program the worker decides how the job is performed, planned and controlled and
makes more decisions concerning the entire process.

Assignment b

1.
OD efforts basically entail two groups of activities: "action research" and "interventions."
Action research is a process of systematically collecting data on a specific organization,
feeding it back for action planning, and evaluating results by collecting and reflecting on
more data. Data gathering techniques include everything from surveys and questionnaires to
interviews, collages, drawings, and tests. The data is often evaluated and interpreted using
advanced statistical analysis techniques.

Action research can be thought of as the diagnostic component of the OD process. But it also
encompasses the intervention component, whereby the change agent uses action plans to
intervene in the organization and make changes, as discussed below. In a continuous process,
the results of actions are measured and evaluated and new action plans are devised to effect
new changes. Thus, the intervention process can be considered a facet of action research.

OD interventions are plans or programs comprised of specific activities designed to effect

change in some facet of an organization. Numerous interventions have been developed over
the years to address different problems or create various results. However, they all are geared
toward the goal of improving the entire organization through change. In general,
organizations that wish to achieve a high degree of organizational change will employ a full
range of interventions, including those designed to transform individual and group behavior
and attitudes. Entities attempting smaller changes will stop short of those goals, applying
interventions targeted primarily toward operating policies, management structures, worker
skills, and personnel policies. Typically, organization development programs will
simultaneously integrate more than one of these interventions. A few of the more popular
interventions are briefly described below.

INTERPERSONAL INTERVENTIONSInterpersonal interventions in an OD program are designed to

enhance individual skills, knowledge, and effectiveness. This type of program utilizes group
dynamics by gathering individuals together in loosely structured meetings. Subject matter is
determined by the group, within the context of basic goals stipulated by a facilitator. As
group members try to exert structure on fellow members, group members gain a greater
awareness of their own and other's feelings, motivations, and behaviors. Other types of
interpersonal interventions include those designed to improve the performance review
process, create better training programs, help workers identify their true wants and set
complementary career goals, and resolve conflict.

GROUP INTERVENTIONSOD group interventions are designed to help teams and groups within
organizations become more effective. Such interventions usually assume that the most
effective groups communicate well, facilitate a healthy balance between both personal and
group needs, and function by consensus as opposed to autocracy or majority rule.

Group diagnostic interventions are simply meetings wherein members of a team analyze
their unit's performance, ask questions about what the team needs to do to improve, and
discuss potential solutions to problems. The benefit of such interventions is that members
often communicate problems of which their co-workers were unaware. Ideally, such
communication will spur problem-solving and improved group dynamics.

Role analysis technique (RAT) is used to help employees get a better grasp on their role in an
organization. In the first step of a RAT intervention, people define their perception of their
role and contribution to the overall company effort in front of a group of coworkers. Group
members then provide feedback to more clearly define the role. In the second phase, the
individual and the group examine ways in which the employee relies on others in the
company, and how they define his or her expectations. RAT interventions help people to
reduce role confusion, which can result in either conflict or the perception that some people
are not doing their job. A popular intervention similar to RAT is responsibility charting,
which utilizes a matrix system to assign decision and task responsibilities.

INTERGROUP INTERVENTIONSIntergroup interventions are integrated into OD programs to

facilitate cooperation and efficiency between different groups within an organization. For
instance, departmental interaction often deteriorates in larger organizations as different
units battle for limited resources or become detached from the needs of other units.

Conflict resolution meetings are one common intergroup intervention. First, different group
leaders are brought together to secure their commitment to the intervention. Next, the teams
meet separately to make a list of their feelings about the other group(s). Then the groups
meet and share their lists. Finally, the teams meet to discuss the problems and to try to
develop solutions that will help both parties. This type of intervention, say supporters, helps
to gradually diffuse tension between groups that has arisen because of faulty communication.

Rotating membership interventions are used by OD change agents to minimize the negative
effects of intergroup rivalry that arise from employee allegiances to groups or divisions. The
intervention basically entails temporarily putting group members into their rival groups. As
more people interact in the different groups, greater understanding results.

OD joint activity interventions serve the same basic function as the rotating membership
approach, but these involve melding members of different groups to work together toward a
common goal. Similarly, common enemy interventions achieve the same results by finding
an adversary common to two or more groups and then getting members of the groups to
work together to overcome the threat. Examples of common enemies targeted in such
programs include competitors, government regulation, and economic conditions.

COMPREHENSIVE INTERVENTIONSOD comprehensive interventions are used to directly create

change throughout an entire organization, rather than focusing on organizational change
through subgroup interventions. One of the most popular comprehensive interventions is
survey feedback. This technique basically entails surveying employee attitudes at all levels of
the company and then disseminating a report that details those findings. The employees then
use the data in feedback sessions to create solutions to perceived problems. A number of
questionnaires developed specifically for such interventions have been developed.

Structural change interventions are used by OD change agents to implement organizational

alterations related to departmentalization, management hierarchy, work policies,
compensation and benefit incentives programs, and other cornerstones of the business.
Often, the implemented changes emanate from feedback from other interventions. One
benefit of change interventions is that companies can often realize an immediate and very
significant impact in productivity and profitability (provided the changes are warranted and
implemented appropriately).

Sociotechnical system design interventions are similar to structural change techniques, but
they typically emphasize the reorganization of work teams. The basic goal is to create
independent groups throughout the company that supervise themselves. This administration
may include such aspects as monitoring quality or disciplining team members. The theoretic
benefit of sociotechnical system design interventions is that worker and group productivity
and quality is increased because workers have more control over (and subsequent
satisfaction from) the process in which they participate.

A fourth OD intervention that became extremely popular during the 1980s and early 1990s is
total quality management (TQM). TQM interventions utilize established quality techniques
and programs that emphasize quality processes, rather than achieving quality by inspecting
products and services after processes have been completed. The important concept of
continuous improvement embodied by TQM has carried over into other OD interventions.

2.

One of the foundational definitions in the field of organizational development (aka OD) is planned change:
“Organization Development is an effort planned, organization-wide, and managed from the top, to increase

organization effectiveness and health through planned interventions in the organization's 'processes,' using

behavioral-science knowledge.”

-- Richard Beckhard, “Organization development: Strategies and Models”, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969, p.

9.

To understand the practice of OD, some of the key terms, embedded in Beckhard's formulation, include:

 Planned - carefully thought through; based on data; documented

 Effectiveness - as measured by actual organizational performance versus desired organizational

performance

 Health - as measured by the organization's ability to respond, grow and adapt in its environmental

context

 Intervention - the specific action(s) selected for implementation that are intended to bring about the

envisioned change

 Processes - how work gets done in an organization; e.g. delivery of service, billing, repair, etc.

Create a Clear, Compelling Vision that Shows People How Their Lives Will Improve

Management must present a vision to its employees that is grounded in reality. The
vision must have meaning and it must be achievable. Visions that include slogans or
buzz words are going to cut it. It must be apparent that the vision comes from the
heart and success in realizing that vision will be supported by management.

Approach #3: Go For True Performance Goals and Create Early Wins

Rome wasn't created in a day, but it was created. The daily motivation back in
Roman times was simple; work hard today or die tonight! Fortunately we don't work
that way anymore, but we do need daily feedback to stay motivated. In any change
initiative there should be benchmarks along the road to completion. Recognize and
reward arrival at those benchmarks instead of waiting to celebrate at the very end of
the project. Some initiatives may last for years and with projects of this magnitude it
may be tough seeing that light at the very far end of the tunnel. By providing short
term victories, evidence is provided that prove the sacrifices are worth it and they
undermine those opposed to change. Change agents are rewarded and examples for
the benefits of following the program are demonstrated. Momentum can thus be built
by turning "neutrals" into change supporters.
Approach #4: Communicate, Communicate, Communicate...

John Kotter (Leading Change; Harvard Business School Press, 1996) states 7
Principles for Successfully Communicating a Vision:

1) Keep it Simple: use jargon free information disseminated to large groups

2) Use metaphors, analogies and examples

3) Use many different forums, and keep the same message

4) Repeat, repeat, repeat. Let the workers know there is commitment behind this
concept and it's not going to go away

5) Walk the talk or lead by example: All the top executives and managers must
display that they are a part of this vision and not just the conductors of it.

6) Explicitly address seeming inconsistencies: if you can't walk the talk in some
instance, explain to employees why this inconsistency exists. If you can't explain it
see Principle #5 and ask yourself how badly you want this change.

7) Listen and be listened to. People will listen to you better if they believe they are
being heard.

Approach #5: Build a Strong, Committed, Guiding Coalition That Includes Top
Management

Another vehicle to assist in the dissemination of information is to create Change

Coalitions that include representatives from every level of the organization. This will
allow the executives to learn first hand about the fears or the employees, and allow
the employees to see first hand and understand better the vision of the organization.

Approach #6: Keep It Complex, Stupid

If it were easy everybody would be doing it. In order for true change to be effective
it needs to be complicated and on a grand scale. But this is where Approach #3
comes into play, break this large scale, reengineering process down into bite-sized
goals and increments. Don't be afraid to create and elaborate, long range vision, but
be sure to create a road map that shows the marker, benchmarks and rewards along
the way.

Approach #7: People Do Not Resist Their Own Ideas

Of course you don't have to be a leadership guru to know that including people right
from the beginning in the planning process helps build ownership of the plan from
the ground up. But despite having this knowledge, this is one of the first mistakes
organizations undertaking a change process make. When initiating change, consider
Approach #5 when assembling task forces, process teams and work groups to get
the ball rolling and acquire early buy-in from the masses.
3.