UNIT 11 DIAGNOSTIC METHODOLOGY: QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE

Objectives
From this unit you will be able to understand: different models of diagnosis, methods of diagnosis.

Structure
1 1.1
1 1.2
1 1.3

Introduction Open Systems Analysis: Assessing Effectiveness and Ineffectiveness Key Features of the Model The Model as a Diagnostic Guide Weisbord's Six Box Model Porras's Stream Analysis Diagnosis of the Methods of Diagnosis Diagnosing Organizational Subsystems 1 1.7.2 Organizational Process Identifying Remarks and Explanation Typical Information Sought Common Methods of Diagnosis
1 1.7.1

1 1.4

1 1.5

1 1.6 1 1.7

I 1.8
1 1.9

Self-AssessmentQuestions Further Readings

1 1 . INTRODUCTION
The whole range of organizational and managerial theories is potentially useful for diagnosis. Each theoretical approach brings particular insights and by employing divergent methods, managers or consultantscan effectively mirror the complexity of organizational life and discover solutions. However, there are strong reasons to conclude that no single model or method fully captures the complexity and multifaceted nature of organizational reality (Morgan, 1986; Bolman & Deal, 1991). In view of this, an attempt is made to present different models and methods of organizational diagnosis.

11.2 OPEN SYSTEMS ANALYSIS: ASSESSING EFFECTIVENESS AND INEFFECTIVENESS

During the 1960s and 1 970s, tlie Open Systems ( 0 s ) approach (Katz & Kahn, 1978) swept through the organization and social structures. According to the OS perspective, organization/group is viewed as a system of input-through put-output. Inputs from tlie erivironlnent are processed to produce outputs. Organizational success depends on adapting to external change both for inputs and outputs that are valued by customers (internal and external).

E ~ ~ 1 R-........ ....... ~ & 7 . ................. O N M

.... ........ ... ........

a...... .

............ .....

f'

;.-

..zZ

\ .........................-............................
." a

Culture

.. *-.. .......
f..

Figure 1: Framework for Open-Systems Analysis

The main elements in the model and their key subcomponents are: Input$; Resources): ~ e f eto Raw material, money, people (human resources), (or r equipment, information, knowledge, and legal authorizations that an organization obtain:; from its environment and that contribute to the creation of its outputs. O u t p ~ ~ tRefer to Products, services, and ideas that arise out of organizational s: actions. An organization transfers its main outputs back to the environment and uses others internally. Technology: Refers to Tools, machines, and techniques for transforming resources ir.itooutputs. I:nvir~onment:The task environment includes all the external factors and conditions that are directly related to an organization's main operations and its technologies. They include funding sources, suppliers, distributors, unions, customers, clients, regulators, competitors, collaborative partners (e-g., in joint manufacturing ventures), markets for products and resources, and the state of knowledge concerning the organization's technologies. The general Environment includes institutions and conditions having infrequent or long-berm impacts on the organization and its task environment, including the e:conoIny, the legal system, the state of scientific and technical knowledge, social institutions such as the family, population distribution and composition, the political cysteni, and the local or national culture within which the organization operates. (Zoals and strategies: Goals are desired end-stateslfuture states sought by the organl~zation defined by its decision makers. (e.g., becoming the leading as construction firm in the country), while objectives are specific targets and indicators of goa I attainment (e.g., 5% growth per year). Sfrategies are overall routes to goals, including ways of dealing with the environment (e.g., strategy for expanding operal.ions into shopping-mall construction business) and making use of the resources. lDlunsspecify courses of action toward an end. Goals and strategies are the outcomes of conflict and negotiation among powerful parties within and outside the organization i ~ l the competitive environment. Goals and other desired future states can be d explicitly stated by decision-makers. Where they are not explicit, they could be inferred from managers actions.
7

Behaviour and Processes: Prevailing patterns of behaviour, interactions, and relations among individuals, intra-and inter-groups as seen in the extent of: cooperation, conflict,coordination, communication, controlling and rewarding behaviour, influence and power relations, supervision, leadership, decision making, problem solving, goal setting, information gathering, self-criticism,evaluation, and group learning.
-

Diagnostic ~tluthudulogy: Qualitative and Quantitative

Culture: Sllared norms, values, beliefs and assumptions, and the behaviour and artifacts that express these orientations-includingsymbols, rituals, stories, and language. Culture includes norms and understandings about the nature and identity of the organization, the way work is done, and the prevailing values and the pattern of relat io~~sl~ips noticeable at different hierarchical levels Structure: Refers to enduring relationshipsbetween individuals, groups. and subsystems and systems, grouping of positions in to divisions, departments, and other units; hierarchy (organizational levels as defined and made distinct by role, responsibility and authority relationships),standard operating procedures; established mechanis~ns handling key processes such as coordination (e.g., committees, weekly for meetings); and actual patterns that may differ from officially mandated ones (e.g., infonnal relations, cliques, coalitions, power distribution).

11.3 KEY FEATURES OF THE MODEL

The model contains several important ideas for diagnosis:
1)

'

2)

External conditions influence the flow of inputs (resources), intcm:rl operations and the reception of outputs. For instance, regulatory agencies determine standards for safety, packaging, or advertising. Figure 1 depicts the possibility for direct effects on internal operations by showing a broken, permeable boundary around the organization.The external feedback loop depicts environmental responses to products or services that affect inputs- example, for reduced demand for the products Organizations use many of their Products, Services, and Ideas as inputs to Organizational Maintenance or Growth. This feature is shown in Figure 1 by tlie feedback loop within the organizational boundary.
A computer firm uses its own machines and software; auniversity enlplvys some of its doctoral students as instructors. Individual and group outcomes :tlso get fed back into the organization. Organizations are influenced by their Members as well as their Environments. Employee actions can reinforce or alter current practices. Change can result from visible pressure (e.g., union protests) and from hidden deals and alliances. Change can also occur incrementally and almost imperceptibly as people reinterpret theirjobs and their work environments.

3)

4)

5)

The eight system elements and their sub-componentsare interrelated and influence one another: Thus developments within one element, such as tech~~ology, have consequences for other elements (e.g., Employability of call current employees, downsizing, union-management relations). Even links between elements need not be obvious or intended-for example, the acquisition of new computer networking capacity leads to'redefinitionof departmental objectives, tasks, and job descriptions. Organizationsare constantly changing: Reactive change occurs in response to internal or external problems, while anticipatory (proactive) change aims at improving organization's environmental standing or internal operations before

Diagnosis and Intervention

system elements, whereas strategic changes entail basic changes in one or more critical elements such as goals, environment, or culture-and relations among these elements (Harrison & Phillips, 1991; Newman, Nadler, & Tushman, 1988). Both types of changes contribute to system dynamics-growth, contraction, and changing levels of efficiency and effectiveness.
6)

7)

An organization's success depends heavily on its ability to adapt to its environment or to find a favourable environment in which it could operate, as well as to tie people into their roles in the organization to conduct its transformative processes and manage its operations (Katz & Kahn, 1978). An:y level or unit within an organization can be viewed as a system. When the system model is applied to a division or even a single oper~ting within a unit larger organization, other units within the organization will constitute the focal unit's entire task environment. Viewing units as systems facilitates diagnostic comparisons between them.
- - -

--

- -

1 4 --THE MODEL AS A DIAGNOSTIC GUIDE

The OS perspective can contribute to diagnosis in several important ways. First, the OS framework is widely applicable. It is possible to analyze any or:ganization, sub-unit, or set oforganizations in terms ofthe flows of inputs-such as the cash, personnel, and infornlat~on; processing of these inputs, and the creation of goods, services, and other outputs, Similarly, it is possible to trace links among basic system componentsof environment, technology, structure, culture, and behaviour (we Figure 1) and among their sub-components. The OS framework thus provides a usefitl ctqrting point for C:.+ ,sis regardless ofthe focal organization's size, complexity, pulpose, technology, :ife cycle stage, ownership, or cukural and institutional context.
A second contribution of the OS frame to diagnosis is that it permits a holistic

approach (Jackson, 1992) of examining the overall environmentaland organizational context within which problems arise and within which steps towards organizational improvement are enacted. The OS approach can thus help practitioners of diagnosis to consider all components of the organizational system and their interactions, rather than just examining specific issues and problems that are easy to study pr are widely discussed within the organization. Holism can also help consultants and managers avoid seizing on popular or readily available change techniques that are not likely to provide required leverage to bring about system-widechange. Third, the OS frame can help consultants and clients deal with the complexity of organizational performance and change and thereby resist the temptations of management fads. Many fads encourage simplistic thinking: say, introduce Program X and you will achieve the outcomes you desire--excellence, quality, client satisfaction, profits, and organizational prestige. In contrast, the systems approach encourages illinking characterized by more of analysis and synthesis of recognizing contingent ' relations and examining interactions between units, levels, and subsystems within an (organization. Fourth, systems-based diagnosis can help consultants and clients distinguish symptoms of ineffectiveness from underlying systemic causes (Senge, 1990). Fifth, the OS perspective alerts consultants and their clients to Iook for possible side effects of actions-unanticipated and hard-to-diagnose consequences-that can alter the status quo within the system (Senge, 1990). These unanticipated outcomes can occur.when changes in one system component lead to developments somewhere, even in a distant, but interdependent part of the system. For example, the introduction of computer networking capacity can create opportunities for some people and groups to

obtain and communicate information that was previously unavailable to diem and thereby increase their influence over communicationand decision-making processes. The change in computer technology can unintentionally lead to unanticipated shifts in the distribution of power within the organization and can gradually alter decision processes and outcomes.

Dr l-

#rLlr.ddogy:

*a'hm

*rsUtrthd

11.5 WEISBORD'S SIX BOX MODEL

Weisbord's (1976)"six-box" model is considered to beone of the most straightforward and easy-teuse system models. In presenting it, Weisbord sought to distill years of consulting experience and to provide users yvith"Six Places to Look for Trouble with or without Theory." The model is easy to comprehend, has an intuitive appeal to managers, a potential application for manqgement developmentand hence considered the most popular diagnostic model. This model is widely cited in organization development texts (e.g., French & Bell, 1995,) and is the preferred diagnostic model under time constraintsor when organizational participants have no prior knowledge of the concept of open-systems (Burke, 1982).

r
Relationships Cooperation among interdependent role players? Constructive resolution of conflicts? Are coordinating technologies, like planning, budgeting and controlling

Structures How do we divide the

Are rewards allocated fairly and equitably? Do important tasks have incentives?

ENVIRONMENT
Figure 2:
Weisbord's Six-Box Model

This model differs from others as it begins initially with identification of those organizational outputs with which both the external customers and the internal "producers"are dissatisfied. Identification of such outputs is followed by the diagnosis ofthe sources of dissatisfaction inside the model. Internal producers are the

~ia~no'iis and Intervention

relevant set of key decision-makers in the focal organization.This model has parallels (1984) model of organizational ineffectiveness, which also focuses on in ~Can~cron's dissatisihction u ith key organizational outcomes. The six boxes shown in Figure 2 are postulated to contain the possible causes of di~;satisFaction ith organizatilonal products or services. Each box represents a cluster n of freq~~ently occurring organizational problems. The box labelled Helpful Mechalrisms refers to internal procedures for coordination, control, communication, ar~d inii)rmation management that are intended to help employees in their work roles. The box labelled Relationships covers relations both within and among organizational units, ~~lcluding conflict resoli~tion arrangements. For each of these boxes, consultants are encouraged to diagnose gaps: (a) gaps between what exists now and what ought to be; (b) gaps between what is actually done and what employees and managers say that they do; (i.e. gaps between the official and emergent aspects of organizational behaviour); and (c) gaps among organi.zationa1units and layers-including gaps within and between boxes. Greater the extent ofthese gaps, the more problematic the functioning ofthe organization is. I'he leadership box in Figure 2 appears as a hub connecting the other five boxes. lveisbord assumes that leaders and their concerns and choices regarding clrganization's mission and strategy exert pivotal influence on organizational effectiveness. Who are the leadcrs? Leaders are defined as key decision-makers ortop managers. They are assigned responsibility for reducing diagnosed gaps and for realigrling relations between the areas defined by the surrounding boxes. The consultant's role in diagnosis is likened to that of an air traffic controller watching a radar screen (i.e., the model shown in Figure 2)' which shows blips when gaps occur. 13zra on these blips d i p ovtdei to organizational leaders, who then decide what :ict~ol~s should be taken to reduce/minimize gaps. 'The central position ofthe leadership makes the six-box model very appropriate iftop ~nanagement's leadership style or behaviour is diagnosed as primary to organization's ills. However, where consultants question the validity ofthe model's assumptions about the role and influence of top management alone determining organizational effecr:iveness, they probably may not to use the model. Although there is some empirical support for the model's assumptions about the impacts of leadership (Gersick, 199 l), many scholars question these premises. Organizational ecologists (e.g., Hannan & Freeman, 1983)' for instance, argue that managerial choices have only slight impact on organizational outcomes and that it is very difficult for top managers alone to plan and bring about changes that contribute to organizational survival and enhance performance. Mintzberg (1 984), for example, argues that the impact of leadership and the effectiveness of particular leadership styles depend on the life cycle stage in which the organization exists. The crux of the model lies in identifying gaps, but the major weakness of it lies in the lack of a firm theoretical foundation concerning them. Weisbord did not provide clear guidelines for determining whether a gap exists, which gaps exercise greater influence over organizational effectiveness/ineffectiveness,and how consultants should cull and intel:rate data on gaps. The model remains, therefore, deceptively simple (Burke, 1994).To apply it, consultants need to analyze and synthesize findings on a complex array of different types of gaps.
An even more serious threat to the model's robustness is the lack of acle'ar-cut appr-oachfor a syste~natic explanation of intra-organizational causes of dissatisfactionsfrom the statcd dissatisfactions regarding organization's products or

of organizational effectiveness. While the agreed-upon goals and objectives and smooth internal coordination among system components are important for organizatiorial effectiveness, tlie model downplays the significance of resource acquisition and adaptation criteria, along wltli criteria favoured by powerful internal and external stakeholders. Moreover, t!le model takes a more optimistic view ofthe possibilities for attaining smooth internal coordination and consensus tlian most current approaclies to organizational politics do. A further limitation oftlie model is its failure to encourage users to examine several poteritially crucial areas for diagnosis. These include an organization's economic foundations and resource flows, its technology, and its culture. Tlie environment remains unspecified in tlie model, arid linkages among the boxes and environmental factors are underdeveloped.Given the importance ofthe ever turbulent and competitive environments that most organizations face, and the interests ofthe multiple stakeliolders in the environments, lack of serious attention to environment is regarded as a severe handicap.

Diagnostic Methodology: Qualitative and Quantitative

11.6 PORRAS'S STREAM ANALYSIS

- -- - - --

- -

Porras's ( 1987) diagnostic approach is embedded in acomprehensive theory of organizational diagnosis and planned change and is known as Stream Analysis. The main steps in Stream Analysis are: diagnosis of organizational problems, construction of interventions to bring about planned changes, and evaluation ofthe interventions' outcomes. The evaluation phase is intended to enable organizational members to learn effective change approaclies and techniques. Tlie diagnostic model and Stream Analysis as a wliole is grounded in systems theory. How is the lnodel used? Diagnosis is initiated by collecting and classifying symptoms of ineffectiveness and tracing linkages among these symptoms. Problems and syrnptoliis are categorized into one or more of four system components, or streams, that characterize the organization under study: organizing arrangements, social and factors, tecl~nology, physicalsetting. Construction of the diagnostic model then progresses to identitication of core problems that cause or affect symptoms and proble~ns throughout tlie system. These core problems then become targets for planned clia~ige efforts. Action planning and management of planned change focus on the four streams listed above. Streal11Analysis requires active participation in diagnosis by key organizational decision-makers and internal stakeholders. Porras (1987) suggests forming a steering committee whose membership reflects a cross-section of all the orga~iization's functions, levels, and product lines. This committee guides the diagnosis, gathers the data, and carries out tlie analysis. It may or may not be assisted by an outside consi~ltant. However Porras, reco~nmends using consultants because of their expertise, their broader perspective, and their skills in facilitating a wholistic diagnosis. An external consultant could also facilitate tlie managers to think "out-of-the-box", and build in them tlie necessary skills to carry out future diagnoses independently ofthe external consultants. The major components of the diagnostic model are portrayed in Figure 3. Two of the streams in tlie figure-3 portray process components. These ellcompass social factors processes, and technology. The other two streams represent the also implying liuma~i structi~ral components-organizatio~ial arrangements and physical setting. The relative size of tlie sectors in tlie figure-3 can be adjusted to reflect the diagnostic importance assigned to them by tlie steering committee.

Diagnorir and lrtervention

Figure 3: Stream Diagnostic Chart

Key: S = Symptom; P = Problem; CP = Core Problem

The four streams shown in Figure 3 are given special attention in diagnosis because they can be changed through planned change interventions(Porras & Silver, 1991). These streams, in turn, affect individual organizationalmembers, shape their job behtiviourand consequently influenceorganizational outcomes. According tothis logic, at any given point in time, the streams reflect previous interventions and also form targets for future interventions. The steering committee begins its diagnosis by sorting out current problems into the four streams or sectors. After the sorting, they reach consensus on relations among the problems identified in each sector. To do so, they discuss each problem and decide whether it is a symptom or a basic problem. Some of the identified problems (and symlptoms)may be reciprocally related, whereas others may be arranged in a causal chain, with one problem leading to another. The diagnostic skills of the members lie in the identification of core problems, which are at the root of a majority or all of the organizational problems. Figure 3 denotes symptoms by the letter S, problems by P, and core problems by CP. A double-headedarrow symbolizes a reciprocal relation between symptoms and protblems, whereas a single-headed arrow represents a unidirectional path of influence. In Figure 3, the second core problem (CP2), which is located in the Social factors sector, directly and indirectly leads to other problems and symptoms among social factors, along with problems and symptoms in other sectors. This assists in identifying the core problem underlying a number of symptoms, and addressing the core problem thrcagh appropriate OD intervention(s) will produce effects throughoutthe orgimization.

Construction of the stream diagnostic chart is rather a straightforward procedure. The steering committee identifies problems within the four streams and gathers data on them; organizes problems into categories (i.e.. Ss. Ps, and CPs); identifies interconnectionsamong symptoms and problems; and portrays these relations in a chart like that shown in Figure 3. The findings can then be shared with others in the organization and can serve as input into action planning and implementation. The process of planning specific change activities, implementing planned changes, and evaluating the results of these actions can all be undertaken within the analytical framework just presented. The stream diagnostic chart helps leaders of planned change activities to identify those change levers that seem most important aild relevant to the focal organization. The diagnostic model and chart can also provide a framework for analyzing the outcomes of planned change. The merits and demerits of stream analysis: Any technique/model in social sciences has its relative strengths and weaknesses. There cannot be a completely foolproof model. Some of the strong advantages of the technique are, it: Assists in assessirfg ineffectivenesswithin organizational structures and processes. Serves as a visual aid to diagnosis and feedback ofthe complex system relations between symptoms, problems, and other organizational features. Contributes to collaborative activity in which consultants and managers construct the diagnostic chart and engage in diagnostic discussions. Is theoretically integrated with other phases of consultation and planned change. Can be used for both the intervention and evaluation phases of the consultation pro-ject. Is part of a theory of planned organizational change (Robertson, Roberts, & Porras, 1993) and has received some support from studies designed to evaluate a few of the theory's main tenets (Robertson et al., 1993). Contains insights and practical features that consultants recommend for organizational study Despite its strengths, the model contains some limitations. Seemingly, there appears to be a basic flaw in the theoretical rationale underlying the selection of the four streams or system components. In Stream Analysis, diagnosis starts by examining variables that can be manipulated through planned change and may have been subject to past interventions. These variables that are contained within the four streams are assumed a priori to be the ones that can and should be changed to solve problems and to enhance critical outcomes for the organization.This assumption prejudges the causes ofeffectivenessand ineffectiveness. Furthermore, this assumption may lead to the selection of change levers without taking into account oftheir feasibility and appropriateness to the problems at hand and the organization. Contrarily, diagnosis may begin with examining the critical ineffective outcomes, followed by analysis of causes of these outcomes, and decisions made subsequently. the underlyi~lg Another serious weakness of the model is that it is limited to the four streams and hence misses on other critical system features that could be equally or more signifibant. For example, they could be critical aspects relating to organizational inputs and outputs and the stakeholder positions. They could also be environmental changes, external constraints, and 'organization-environment fit' to which sufficient attention is not paid. Though, Porras, does cite environmental shifts as triggers for organizatio~ial change (Porras & Silver, 199 1), the model however, does not lead to a systematic study of how organizationscope with environmental threats and opportunities.

Diagnostic Methodology: Qualibfive Quantibtive and

I)iagnor~\ r1nt1 Intcr\cntinn

The exam illation of interdependenciesamong system elements and componentsare significant to the model. Yet, envrronmental interchangesare not focussed upon and interr~al interdependenciesremain cursorily examined. Yet another disadvantage ofthe model is its limited application ofdiagnostic principle5 and procedures-the model hardly examines gapsor fits. It looks simpler, but d~fficult apply. Considerableexperience and knowledge in the area of to orga~~izational behaviour is needed for users to distinguish symptoms from problems and to idcr~tify core problems. For this reason, organizational members who take part i n di;i3nosis may find the model hard to use.-In the end, the model may be better suited for consul ,ant-led diagnosis than for client-centered diagnosis or for self-diagnosis by orgall17at1~nal members.

11.'7 - 1)IAGNOSIS OF THE METHODS OF DIAGNOSIS With regard to the data collection methods there is no single method that is applicable to a particular context. It may require a combination of methods to ensure appropriate mirrorins of the complex reality of the organization. Therefore, an attempt ismade to present the process of organizationaldiagnosis (W.L.French & C.H.Bel1 jr, 1990) whic:Ii reflects the targets for diagnosis, typical information desired and common metliocls of obtaining the information.

1 1.7.1 Tliagnosing Organizational Subsystems

Diagnw~ic Focus or Target Explanation and IndentifyingExamples Typical /nfor:nn~!on Sought Common Methods of Diagnosis
'The IOII; rbr:.trnization (having a common "charter" or mission and a common power : s t r ~ z ). The total system is the entity assessed and analyzed. The diagnosis might ct:! :

also i ~ ~ c i i l\i!here relevant, systems external to theorganization (environmental d~. forces), :;LICII as customers, suppliers, and governmental regulations. Examples are a manufncturing firm, a hospital, a school system, a department store chain, or a church del-ro~nination. What are the norms ('cultural oughts') ofthe organization? What is the org.anization's culture? What are the attitudes, opinions and feelings of system men1hers toward various organizational factors, such as organizational goalsltask goi~ls. ccrmpensation, supervision, and top management? etc. Are organization goals unclcrstc~od accepted? What is the organization climate? - Open vs. closed, and a 111!l!)i.ii<)l-i:~n democratic, repressive vs. developmental, trusting vs. suspicious, vs. coc:p~;-riiit~c competitive? How well do critical organizational processes, such as vs. del:iiiori malting and goal setting, function? What kind and how effective are the orjr;~niz:~tio~i's "sensing mechanisms"to monitor internal and external forces1 i l ~ ' ! ~ l !\I Ql~rstionnaire a11 surveys are most popular with a large organization. In:.i:rvii\::--~ro~~p individual, are useful for getting detailed information, based and on i.ili.,ti! c .vrm~pling techniques. A panel of representative members interviewed pel-iocti,:nlly io clzart changes overtime. Examination of organizational" rules, re ::~l;itioil . po!icies, symbols etc., yields insight into the organization's culture. D.;.:e~v -,,rc>!il~g.r at various levels at regular intervals yield a gzeat amount of :: '5 held inH!r-!~::i?i~!:i short time period. ir? a
I.:::':qc ,.;ubsytcmsthat are by nature coniplex and heterogeneous. This target group sta1> i'roii~ .makingdifferent "slices" ofthe organization, could be by hierarchical IevcI. f.~nctiou territory etc. Two criteria help to identify this set of sub-systems: or first thi:mselves or others view them as a subsystem, and second, they are 1ic:tero::eneous in their makeup. Examples would be the middle-management group, ccirlsisting of managers from diverse functional groups. All of the above, plus: system E-.: 2nd intersystem interactions. For example: How does this subsystem view
ci!11;1~:

Diagnostic Methodology: the whole and vice versa? How do the members ofthis subsyste~n relate to each Qualitative and Quantitative other? Wliat are the ~~nique de~nands this subsyste~n how do these demands fit of and in within the organizational structure and processes? Are there sub-units within the subsyste~n with significant differences in performance and Why? What are the major proble~ns co~ifro~itirig subsyste~n its sub-units? Are the subsystem's goals this and compatible with organization goals? Does the heterogeneity of role demands and fu~ictional identity get in the way of effective subsystem performance? And so on. If the subsyste~ns large or widely dispersed, questionnaire and survey techniques are are recommended. hterviews and ob.servations may be could provide additional supporting or evaluating information.

S~nall subsystems that are simple and relatively homogeneous. These are typically formal work groups or teams that have frequent face-to-face interaction. This may be permanent groups, temporary task forces, or newly constituted groups (e.g., the group charged with tlie "start-up" of a new operation, or the group formed by an acquisition or merger). Exa~nples the top-management team, com~nittees a permanent or are of temporary nature, task force teams, etc. Tlie questions on culture, climate, attitudes, and feelings are relevant here, plus: what are the major problems ofthe team? How can team effectiveness be improved? What do people do that hinders wittingly or unwittingly what others do? What are memberlleader relations? Do individuals know how their jobs relate to the role set, department and organizational goals? Are the group's working processes, i.e., tlie way things get done are effective? How well the resources-both of individual and group are made good use of? Typical methods include the following: irldividual interviews followed byagroup meeting to review the interview data; short que.stionnaires:observation of staff meetings and other day-today operations; and a family group meeting forself-diagnosis. Small, total organizations that are relatively simple and homogeneous. An example would be a local professional organization. Typical problems as seen by officers might be declining membership, low attendance, or difficulty in manning special task forces. How do tlie officers and the members see the organization and its goals? What do they like and dislike about it? What do they want it to be like? What is the competition like? What significant external forces are impacting on the organization? etc. Questionnaires or intervien,.~ frequently used. Descriptive adjective are questionnaires can be used to obtain a quick reading on the culture, "tone", and health ofthe organization. Diagnostic family group meetings can be useful. Interface or inter-group subsystems. These consist of subsets ofthe total system that contain members oftwo subsystems working together. Example is that of a matrix organizational structure requiring an individual or a group having two reporting lines. But more often this target consists of members of one subsystem having common proble~ns responsibilities with members ofanother subsystem, such as production and and ~nainte~~ance overlaps, marketing and production overlaps etc.How does each subsystem see the other? What problems do the two groups have in working together? In what ways do tlie subsystems get in each other's way? How can they collaborate to improve the performance of both groups? Are goals, sub-goals, areas of authority and responsibility clear? What is the nature of the formal and informal climate between the groups? What do the members want it to be? Confrontation meetings between both groups are often the method for data gathering and planning corrective actions. Orgunizution mirroring meetings are used when three or more groups are involved. Interviews of each subsyste~n followed by a "sharing the data" meeting or observation of interactions can be used. Dyads andlor triads Superiorlsubordinatepairs, interdependent peers, linking pins i.e., persons who have multiple group me~n berships- all these are sub-systems worthy of analysis. What is the quality ofthe relationships? Do the parties have the necessary skills for task accomplishment? Are they collaborativeor competitive? Are they

Diagnosis rtnd Intervention

effective as a subsystem? Does the addition of third party facilitate or inhibit their pi-ogress?Are they supportiv~e each other? etc Separate interviews followed by a of 1n.eetingof the parties to view any discrepancies in the interview data are often used. Checking their perceptions ofeach other through face to face situations may be useful. Ohser17ation is an important way to assess the dynamic quality of tlie interaction. I~ndivitluals:Any individual within the organization, such as president, division heads, occupzints of key positions in a work flow process, e.g., quality control, R&D. Do people perform according to the organization's expectations? How do they view their position and performance? 110certain kinds of problems typically arise? Do people meet standardsand norms of the organization? Do they need particular knowledge, skills, or ability? What career development opportunitiesdo they havelwantlneed? What pains are they experiencing? Interviews, information derived form diagnostic work team meetings, or problems identified by the personnel department are sources of information. Self-assessment growing out of team or subsystem interventions is another source. Etoles: A role is a set of behaviours enacted by a person as a result of his occupying a certair~ position within the organization. All persons in the organization have roles requiring certain behaviours, such as the secretaries, production supervisors, accountants. Should the role behaviours be addedto, subtracted from, or changed? Is tlie role defined adequately? What is the "fit" between the person and role? Should tlie role performer be given special skills and knowledge? Is this the right person for this role? ITsually, informatifon comes from observation, interviews, role analysis techn~que, team approach to "'management by objectives". Career planning a activi1:iesyield this information as an output. 13etwt:en organizational sxJr,kms constituting a suprasystem An example might be the :iysit:~ af I ~ W d order i l l a r p ~ ; ' . ~including local, country, state, federal police or c a , investigative and enforcement agencies, prosecuting off~cers grand juries. Most and such suprasystems are so complex that change efforts tend to focus on a pair or a trio of sut~parts. How do the key people in one segment of the suprasystem view the whole and the subparts? Are there frictions or incongruities between subparts? Are there Iiigh-performing and low-performing sub-units? Why? Organizational mirroring, or developing lists of how each group sees each other, is a common method ofjoint {diagnosis, questionnairesand interviews are useful in extensive long-range i~iterventions.

11.7.2 Organisational Process Identifying remarks and explanation typical information sought common methods of diagnosis
Communication patterns, styles and flows Who talks to whom, for how long, about what'?Who initiates the interaction? Is it two-way or one-way? Is it top-down; down up; la.teral?Etc. Communication flow and communication patternsIs colnmunication directed upward, downward, or both? Are commu~iications filtered? Why? In what ways? Do communications patterns 'fit" the nature of the jobs to be acco~nplished? What is the "climate" of communication?What are the techniques of cornrnunication mostly used? Observations, especially in meetings; questionnaires for large-sized samples; interviews and discussionswith group members - all these methods may be used to collect the desired information. Analysis of videotaped sessions by all concerned i!; especially useful. As a cop at the traffic signal, a conslultant could monitor/o$serve the communication process as it flows. Also leave a tracer element and see how it travels through the communication process. Goal setting Setting task objectives and determining criteria to measure accomplishment ofthe objectives at all organizational levels. Do they set goals? How is this done? Who all participate in goal setting? Do they possess the necessary skills

for effective goal setting? Are they able to set long-range and short-range objectives? Questionnaires, interviews and observation all afford ways ofassessing goal-setting ability of individuals and groups within the organization. Decision making, problem solving, and action planning Evaluating alternatives and choosing an appropriate one and the plan of action are integral and central functions for most organization members. This includes getting the necessary information, establishing priorities, evaluating alternatives, and choosing one best alternative over all the others. Who makes decisions? Are they effective? Are all available sources utilized? Are additional problem-solvingskills needed? Are organization members satisfied with the problem-solving and decision-making processes?--The way it is done. Observation of problem-solvingmeetings at various organizational levels is particularly valuable in diagnosing this process. Analysis ofvideotaped sessions by all concerned is especially useful. Conflict resolution and management Conflicts-interpersonal, intra-personal, intragroup and inter-group- frequently exists in organizations. Does the organization have effective ways of dealing with these conflicts? Where does conflict exist? Who are the involved parties? How is it being managed? What are the system norms for dealing with conflict? Does the reward system promote conflict? Interviews, thirdparty observations and observation meetings are common methods for diagnosing these processes. Managing interface relations Interfaces represent these situations wherein two or more groups (sub-systems) face common problems or overlapping responsibilities. This is most often seen wlle~l members of two separate groups are interdependently related in achieving an objective but have separate accountability. What is the nature of the relations between two groups? Are goals clear? Is responsibility clear? What major problems do the two groups face? What structural conditions promotefinhibit effective interface management? Interviews, third-party observations,and observation of group meetings are common methods for diagnosing these processes. Superior-subordinate relations Formal hierarchical relations in organizationsdictate that some people lead and others follow: these situations are often a source of many organizational problems What are the extant leadership styles? What problems arise between superiors and subordinates? Questionnaires can show overall leadership climate and norms. interviews and questionnaires reveal the desired leadership behaviours. Technological and engineering systems. All organizations rely on multiple technologies- for production and operations, for information processing, for planning, for marketing, etc., to produce goods and services. Are the technologies adequate for satisfactory performance? What is the state of the art and how does the organization's technology compare with that? Should any changes in technology be planned and implemented? Generally this is not an area of expertise of the OD consultant. He or she must then seek help from "experts" either inside or outside the orga~lizatio~l. Interviews and group discussions focussed on technology are among the best ways to deterrn ine the adequacy of technological systems. Sometimes outside experts conduct an audit and make recommendations; Internal auditors can also make recommendations. Strategic management and long-range planning Monitoring the environme3g adding and deleting "products"/processes, predicting future events, and making decisions that affect the long-term viability of the organization is a necessity for the organization to remain competitive and effective. Who is responsible for "looking ahead" and for making long-range decision? Do they have adequate tools and support? Have recent long-range decisions been effective? What is the nature of current and future environmental demands? What are the unique strengths or core competencies ofthe

Diagnostic Methodology: QualifPtive and Quantitntive

27

Diagnosis and intervention

organization? What are the threats to the organization. Interviews of key policymakers, group discussions, and examination of historical records give insight to this dime:nsion.

1 - SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS 1
-- - - p p

1)

Discuss the open system analysis and explain the utility of this system. Describe the Weisbord's six box model and its advantages in diagnosis. Describe Porra's stream analysis and its merits and demerits. Explain as to what factors to be taken into consideration for diagnosis.

2)
3)
4)

Beclchard, R. (1969). Organization development: Strategies and models. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bolrnan, I,.G., & Deal, T. (1991), Reframing organizations:Artist~, choice and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Budse W. W. (1982). Organization development, Boston: Little, Brown Bur:ke, W. W. (1994). Diagnostic models for organizational development. In A Howard & Associates (Eds.), Diagnosis for organizational Change: Methods and models (pp.53-85). Nevv York: Guildford. Cameron, K.(1984). The effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Research in Organizational Behaviou,r,6,235-285. Freeman, H., & Rossi, P. (1 984). Furthering the applied side of sociology. American Sociological Review, 49, 560-585. French, W., & Bell, C. (1995). Organization development (5Ihed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Gel.sick,C. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration to be pun~ctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16: 10-36. Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociologl'cal Review, 49, 149-164. Harigopal, K. Management of organizational change: leveraging Transformation, Sage Publications, New Delhi, 200 1 Hairrison.,M., & Phillips, B. (1991). Strategic decision making: An integrative explanation. Research in the Sociology of Organizations,9, 319-358. Hennesteid B. (1988). Inculture: the organizational culture of INC. In S. Tyson, K.F. Ackermann, M. Domsch, & P. Joynt (Eds.), Appraising and exploring organisations. London: Croom Helm. Jackson, M.C., (1992). @stem methodology for the management sciences. New York: Plenum. Judd, C..,Smith, E., & Kidder, L. (1991). Research methods in social relatiom (6'" ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & winston. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology oforganizations (2"ded.,.). New York: W:iely. Lawler, Nadler, & Cammann, (Eds.). (1980). Organizational assessment. New York: Wiley. Mintzberg, H. (1984). Power and organizational life cycles. Academy of Management Review, 9,207-224. Morgan.,G. (1986). Images of organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Nadler, D. (1977). Feedback and organization development: Using data-based methods. Reading, MA: Addison -Wesley. Porras, J.I. (1987). St/-eamanalysis. Reading, M.A: Addison-Wesley. Porras. J., & Silver, R. (1991). Organization development and transformation. Annual Review of'Psychology, 42, 51-78. Ramirez, I. L., & Bartunek, J. (1989). The multiple realities and experiences of organization development consultation in health care. Journal ofOrganizationa1 Change Munup~cnt, 2(1), 40-57. Robertson, P.J., Roberts, D.R., & Porras. J.I. (1993). An evaluation of a model of planned organizational change: -Evidence from a meta-analysis. Research in Organizational Change and Development,7, 1-39. Rossi. P., & Whyte, W.F. (1983). The applied side of sociology. In H.Freeman, R.Dynes, P Rossi, & W.F. Whyte (Eds), Applied sociology. (pp. 5-31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Senge, P. ( 1 990). The fifth discipline: The art andpractice ofthe learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Turner, 1982. Consulting is more than giving advice. Harvard Business Review,60, 120-129. Tushman, M., Newman, W. & Nadler, D. (1988). Appraising and exploring organizations. London: Croom Helm. Tyson, Ackerman, Domsch, & Joynt, (1988). Appraising and exploring organizations. .Londot!: Crooin Helm. Weisbord, M.R., (1976). Diagnosing your Organization: Six places to look for trouble with or without theory. Group & Organization Studies. 1, 430-477.

Diagnostic Methodology: Qualitative and Qusrtihtive