An organisational diagnosis of Nestl-UK using the Weisbord six-box model - Essay Example

? Project Proposal & Plan ID Number: Provisional An organisational diagnosis of Nestle-UK using the Weisbord six-box model : Understanding diversity towards organisational effectiveness Supervisor: Project’s overall aims and objectives In a general sense, organisational diagnosis is defined as a tool by which specific knowledge pertaining to reality in an organisation may be established in order to guide managers and other decision makers in understanding the organisation as well as its essential elements, and in formulating necessary interventions (Grave, Gimenez, MendezA & Crubellate, 2001). As applied in this proposed study, however, the organisational diagnosis will be used as an instrument to examine whether or not the components of an organization are synchronous with the other components in order to facilitate the exploration of formal and informal systems, towards the promotion of greater organisational effectiveness as envisioned in Anderson (2010). The motivation to carry out this proposed research study was prompted by a generalization posited in Ely (1999) that “organizations are not simply gendered; they are also raced and classed” (p. 2). However, none of the studies surveyed during the preliminary review of literature and studies ventured to perform any method of organizational diagnosis to investigate relationships between the outcome of the diagnosis and the profile of the respondents who participated in the exercise. This is a gap in knowledge which this proposed study hopes to address. Hence, this study will attempt to perform an organisational diagnosis of Nestle, UK to identify problems or issues confronting the organization with the end in view of proposing interventions or alternative courses of action. Specifically, the objectives of the proposed study are to: (1) describe the profile of the members of the organisation in terms of gender, age, civil status, ethnicity, socio-economic status, position, and work experience; (2) examine the following organisational variables in terms of central tendency and dispersion : purposes, structure, leadership, relationships, rewards, helpful mechanisms, and attitude towards change; (3) identify the strong points of the organization based on the empirical results of the diagnosis; (4) identify the weak points of the organization based on the empirical results of the diagnosis; (5) investigate significant associations between the ratings generated in each of the organisation variables from the diagnosis and the respondents’ profile variables; (6) formulate strategies / interventions based on the outcome of the organizational diagnosis. The proposed study will be conducted with the Nestle UK headquarters as research locale, situated at St. Georges House, Croydon, Surrey, CR9 1NR. There are about 300 employees working in the Nestle Croydon office. A minimum sample of 119 is required for the office population, based on a web-based sample sized calculator (Raosoft, 2004). A screenshot of the calculation output is presented as Appendix A. An organisational diagnostic questionnaire adapted from Preziosi (1980) will serve as the main research instrument. The complete questionnaire is presented with this proposal as Appendix B. The independent variables in this study are the profile variables, namely: gender, age, civil status, ethnicity, socio-economic status, position, and work experience. On the other hand, the dependent variables are the components of the organization as enunciated in Weisbord (2011) and Preziosi (1980) namely: purposes, structure, leadership, relationships, rewards, helpful mechanisms, and attitude towards change. Literature review From a preliminary survey of existing knowledge in this area, there were at least 20 researches carried out since the 1970s, with the pioneering works of Preziosi (1972, 1980) and Weisbord (1976). However, not all the 20 studies utilized Weisbord’s six-box model. Some of the earlier studies like that of Armenakis, Bedeian and Niebuhr (1979), Pond, Armenakis and Green (1984), and Eden (1986) looked at the micro-level of organizational diagnosis in terms of socio-psychological situations and employee expectations, respectively. The six-box model designed by Weisbord (1976, 2011) presents a number of ideas in a simple framework which is applicable to a variety of settings, as will be discussed from the findings of researches in the latter part of this literature review. The six-model gathers an assemblage of concepts pertaining to an organisation and its environment, socio-technical, formal and informal systems. The six-box model posited six broad categories in any organisation where problem areas may be detected – purposes, structure, relationshis, rewards, leadership and helpful mechanisms. Weisbord (1976, 2011) demonstrated how the six factors affect each other and offer hints as to what may be diagnosed in each catergory. This study revealed a groundbreaking theory which suggest that process issues are actually obstruction in the workflow in an organisation which may be decongested with an understanding of the boxes. Such understanding will allow an organisational facilitator or an organisational development (OD) specialist to intervene in one or more of the boxes to enhance productivity or effectiveness of procedures in the organisation. Meanwhile, the instrument developed by Preziosi (1980) was published in one if the Pfeiffer annuals along with three other instruments featured in the issue. The instrument is called the Organisational Diagnosis Questionnaire (ODQ) which is based on Weisbord’s practitioner-oriented theory framed after the six-box model. Since an ODQ was designed to facilitate planned change in an organisation, Preziosi added another factor or area for use of an OD specialist or any other person involved in the organisational diagnosis – attitude toward change. The work of Kahn (1989) stirred quite an interest in its treatment of organization diagnosis towards a sense of organization humor. Meanwhile, Denison and Spreitzer (1991) examined organizational development from a competing values approach; while Burke and Litwin (1992) designed a causal model of organizational performance and change. On the other hand Postma and Kok (1999) performed organizational diagnosis based on a cross-classification analysis with the DEL-technique developed by Hildebrande, et al. during the 1970s. The technique presented an alternative for classical statistical procedures, which is independent of sample size and enjoys robustness even for small samples. In the Postma and Kok (1999) study, the DEL-technique was found to be more useful that the chi-square test, since the former is applicable in the bivariate analysis where the state of a dependent variable is forecasted using the state of the independent variable. In one of the ground-breaking researches on organizational diagnosis, Ely (1999) suggested that “organizations are not simply gendered; they are also raced and classed” (p. 2). This became the primary motivation for this proposal. Ely (1999) contended that “a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of power in the organization ... increases the possibilities for organisational learning, change, and renewal” (p. 2). Ely (1999) concluded that attending to broader diversity issues require a number of preconditions and the most important of which is the recognition of different perspectives and approaches to work from a diverse workforce. In similar vein, Lok and Crawford (2000) investigated the association between organization effectiveness and responses in Preziosi’s (1980) organizational diagnosis questionnaire (ODQ) among 349 employees from two Australian companies. Using factor analysis and regression techniques, Lok and Crawford (2000) demonstrated differences in effectiveness ratings are partially explained by the differences in the responses to the ODQ. This presents evidence that interventions for problems diagnosed using the ODQ can help improve organisational effectiveness. Research on organizations diagnosis in the new millennium took on various sub-themes. The Di Pofi (2002) study revolutionized organizational diagnosis research with their adaptation of mixed methodology. More than 26 years after Weisbord (1976) first published the six-box model, Di Pofi (2002) conducted an organisational diagnosis enhanced with current practices on theory-based models and illustrated the advantages of analysis both quantitative and qualitative data. Di Pofi (2002) also touched on problems encountered during the change process which an organisation needs to undergo and discussed the implications of readiness or resistance of organizations to change efforts. . Following the trend established by Lok and Crawford (2000) and Di Pofi (2002), Moates, Armenakis. Gregory, Arbritton and Field (2005) uncovered new ground in their use of action groups in organizational diagnosis. In this study, Moates, et al. (2002) involved 42% of an organisation in an action research where action groups were created to facilitate content representativeness of the data gathered. The best part of the action research was that teams were employed during the actual organisational diagnosis in order to guarantee the anonymity of the respondents. Meanwhile, Vijayakumar (2007) examined organizational climate, work values and management within the framework of a structural equation model similar to the elements of the Weisbord model. On the other hand, De Bono and Jones (2008) presented case studies modeling best practices in organizational development and change. More recent studies on organizational diagnosis recommended inclusion of business process in the process of change management and utilization of more advanced technology such as cloud computing as in the case of Janicijevic (2010) and Hsu (2010), respectively. It was also observed from the initial survey of literature and studies that Weisbord’s six-box model was widely adapted not only in business but in various fields such as nursing and healthcare, higher education, police work (Stahl, 1997; Verghese, 2007; Nolon, 2007). The following literature discusses in sufficient detail the theoretical background of the six-box model of organisational diagnosis. Marvin, Weisbord, an organizational diagnosis expert developed a high level framework to describe the various interacting variables involved in understanding an organisation during the 1970s. A knowledge of such factors, according to Weisbord (as cited in Shapiro, 2011), is instrumental not only in understanding the elements of the organisation, but in transforming it towards greater effectiveness. Weisbord called his framework the six-box model to represent the six interacting variables, namely: purpose, structure, relationships, rewards, helpful mechanisms and leadership. Preziosi (1972) added a seventh box into the six-box organisational model when he prepared the diagnostic questionnaire to provide inputs on readiness for change among the members of organisation. The six-box model offers a method of examining the structure of an organisation and how the organisation functions in order to determine how a planned change effort can happen within such organisation (Shapiro, 2011). Weisbord (2011) visualizes the model as a radar screen. When issues surface in any one of the seven factors (including attitude toward change), such as process, blips appear not just in the process component but among two or more boxes where work on important tasks are blocked because of process issues. Weisbord (2011) explained that an analogy with a radar screen was used to depict how air traffic management controllers utilize the radar to manage one or more of the following air transport factors such as aircraft –height, speed, distance apart and to avoid bad weather conditions. Organisational diagnosis experts manage organisations in similar fashion. As explained by Weisbord (2011), “a blip in any one of the box(es) cannot be managed independently if its relationship to the other boxes” (para. 4). However, during the intervention phase of the organisational diagnosis, each of the six boxes present themselves as potential starting points from which alternative courses of action for strategy formulation may be developed. In the six-box model, purpose has something to do with the clarity of the organisation goals. Structure includes both infrastructure and systems or protocol which have been established in the organisation as a means to achieve organisational goals. Relationships involve inter-departmental as well as relationships among people in the organization (Shapiro, 2011). Rewards consist of the system of incentives and punishments within the organisation. Meanwhile, helpful mechanisms are those basic process in the company which facilitates the achievement of the goals of the organisation. Leadership in the six-box model assumes a specialized role of monitoring all the components in the organisation (i.e., the boxes) and maintaining smooth interaction within these components. Attitude for change serves as inputs which can be used to implement an intervention for planned change (Shapiro, 2011). The six-box model is widely used not only in the diagnosis of organisational problems. Weisbord (2004) identified other application of his model, including advancement of organisational learning and assessing how the components fit in the organisation as a whole. The aforementioned applications of the six-box model depicts its strength over other organisational diagnostic model. Preziosi (1980) designed an instrument based on the Weisbord six-box model called the Organization Diagnosis Questionnaire (ODQ). The questionnaire generates data in each of the seven (including attitude for change) areas in the model. The instrument consists of 35 questions, broken down into five questions each for the seven areas where responses are indicated using a 7-point Likert scale. Methodology The study will follow a descriptive-quantitative methodology anchored on the Weisbord (1976, 2011) six-box model. Participants for the study will be selected using simple random sampling1 or systematic sampling2. Initial calculations have been carried out facilitated by a Web-based sample size calculator (Raosoft, 2004). The parameters used in the calculation are: (1) a margin of error of 7%; (2) a level of confidence of 95%; (3) a population size of 300; and (4) a response distribution of 50%. The minimum sample size recommended 199. A screenshot of the output is shown as appendix 1. However, in recognition of contingency, an additional 10% is being contemplated to take care of possible non-retrieval, invalid questionnaires and incompletely answered questionnaire (10 or more questions). Hence, a total of 130 questionnaires will be administered among the workforce of Nestle, UK at its head office in Croydon, Surrey. The method of data collection will be discussed in the next section. The research instrument was adapted largely from the organisational diagnostic questionnaire prepared by Presiozi (1980) based on the six-box model enunciated by Weisbord (1976, 2011). A brief respondent profile questionnaire developed by this researcher (i.e., myself) will be attached to the main questionnaire. The profile questionnaire will inquire about the participants’ gender, age, civil status, ethnicity, socio-economic status, position, and work experience. The main instrument will be the organisational diagnosis questionnaire consisting of five statements each from the six elements of an organisation identified by Weisbord (1976, 2011) and one additional element added by Preziosi (1980): purposes, structure, leadership, relationships, rewards, helpful mechanisms, and attitude towards change. Study participants will be requested to share their current views of their organization based on the 35 statements using a scale of 1 to 7, where 4 represents a neutral point. The following scale based on Preziosi (1980) was revised by this researcher to include arbitrary statistical limits for each point of the scale, together with an interpretation guide to indicate strong and weak areas, based on the diagnosis. Table 1: Interpretation scale for the organisational diagnosis. Response/ Rating Scale Verbal Interpretation Statistical Limits Area Strength / Area Weakness Indicator 7 Disagree strongly 6.70 – 7.00 Extremely weak 6 Disagree 5.51– 6.69 Very weak 5 Disagree Slightly 4.31 – 5.50 Moderately weak 4 Neutral 3.70 – 4.30 Neither strong nor weak 3 Agree Slightly 2.51 – 3.69 Moderately Strong 2 Agree 1.31 – 2.50 Very strong 1 Agree strongly 1.00 – 1.30 Extremely strong Based on the interpretation scale shown in Table 1, an area or element of the organisation which garners an overall mean rating in the range 1.00 – 3.69 is considered strong, whereas weak areas are those with an overall mean rating in the range 4.31 – 7.00. Elements in the organisation with ratings from 3.70 – 4.30 are grey areas in the organisation. Strategies and interventions will be proposed for the weak areas so that these may be reinforced to enhance the effectiveness of the organisation. In the same vein, strategies will be designed for the strong areas to further fortify their strength and help sustain the efficacy of organisational processes. The grey areas observed in the organisational diagnosis will be recommended as take-off points from which further research may be performed to identify possible means of transformational change towards improved organisational effectiveness. Strategies and interventions will be formulated based on the observed associations between the profile variables and the ratings garnered in each area. For example, if significant associations were found between the participants’ age level and the ratings in a specific area, different interventions will be recommended to target various age ranges. While the Weisbord-Preziosi organisational diagnostic questionnaire may be considered a packaged instrument as indicated in Cummings and Worley (2009), there is no information available to date as its reliability. In this regard, Cronbach’s alpha will be used in this to assess the internal consistency or reliability of the research instrument. Cronbach’s alpha was developed during the second half of the 20th century to measure the split half reliability of items with more than two alternatives, such as the seven-point Likert scale used in this proposed study (Gravetter & Forzano, 2009). The Cronbach’s alpha test generates values between 0 and 1.00. Higher values of Cronbach’s alpha indicate higher degree of internal consistency reliability (Gravetter & Forzano, 2009). The instrument will be pilot tested among 20 respondents from the Nestle UK factory situated in Hayes, Middlesex using purposive sampling. Data collection The following data collection procedure will be adopted during the pilot testing stage of the study: 1. Permission will be sought from Nestle, UK at Hayes Middlesex for the pilot testing of the instrument. 2. Once permission is granted, the instrument will be administered on site to willing volunteers after being given informed consent. 3. Responses during the pilot test will be processed and encoded in suitable form so that reliability analysis can be performed using SPSS3 Statistics Version 17 (2008). 4. If the Cronbach’s alpha generated by the reliability analysis is at least 0.70, the instrument is deemed reliable and suitable for administration among the participants in the research locale (Kent, 2001). Otherwise, the instrument will have to be improved, by consultation with the dissertation tutor and other available experts in the field. Meanwhile, the following data collection procedure will be adopted during the research proper: 1. Permission will be sought from Nestle, UK at Croydon in Surrey for the conduct of an onsite questionnaire survey and for access to a list of employees/ or a list of employee number. 2. Once permission is granted, and access to a list of employee names is allowed, systematic sampling will be used will be used by selecting every third person in the list until 130 respondents are chosen4. 3. If only a list of the employee numbers are granted, the fishbowl technique will be used as described in (Altares, Copo, Gabuyo, Laddaran, Mejia, Policarpio, et al., 2005). The numbers will be reproduced in separate smaller sheets, and placed in a fishbowl or a similar container where 130 respondents are manually picked like in a lottery. 4. Respondents will be asked to sign informed consent and will be given copies of which. The principles of anonymity, confidentiality, privacy and protection from risk of harm will be ensured in observance of the research ethics. 5. The research instrument will be administered on site; since the research instrument can be filled out in 10 minutes or less, this researcher will wait until the end of office hours to retrieve the questionnaires. 6. The researcher will come back to the research locale everyday for one week before the end of office hours to receive answered questionnaires; answer question from the participants, if any; verify if unanswered items were deliberately left blank; or follow-up unretrieved questionnaires, particularly during the last 2 days of the week. In the case of unanswered items which were accidentally missed by the participant, the participant will be given the chance to go over the questionnaire and respond to items accidentally missed. 7. A coding guide for the responses will be prepared prior to processing of survey data. The following coding guide will be used: Table 2: Coding Guide for the Survey Responses Instru- ment Variable Number Coding / Responses P A R T N U M B E R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 1 Gender Female Male - - - - - 3 Civil Status Single Married Divorced Widowed Separated - - 4 Ethnicity White British White Other Asian Black African Black Caribbean Black British - 5 Socio-Economic Status Less than ?1000 ?1000 - ?1250 ?1251 - ?1500 ?1501 - ?1750 ?1751 - ?2000 ?2000 - ?2250 Over ?2250 6 Position1 Factory worker Messenger / Utility Clerk Secretary Supervisor Department Manager 2 Age 2 To be INITIALLY coded AS IS. 7 Work Expe-rience 3 To be INITIALLY coded AS IS. 2 1 - 35 Organisa- tional diagnosis Number Coding / Responses 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Agree Strongly Agree Agree Slightly Neutral Disagree Slightly Disagree Disagree Strongly 1 Positions which are not among the choices are coded as is until all the questionnaires have been accounted for. Additional categories will then be added to accommodate these responses. 2 Responses under age will later be presented as grouped data and will be coded as follows: 21 – 25 years old, 1; 26 – 30 years old, 2; 31 – 35 years old, 3; 36– 40 years old, 4; 41 – 45 years old, 5; 46 – 50 years old, 6; 51- 55 years old, 7; 56 years and older, 8. 3 Responses under work experience will later be presented as grouped data and will be coded as follows: less than 1 year, 1; 1 – 2 years, 2; 3 – 5 years, 3; 6-10 years, 4; 10-15 years, 5; more than 15 years, 6. 8. Completed questionnaires retrieved each day will be processed and encoded using Microsoft Excel (2003) to come up with a data matrix. 9. The completed data matrix will be inputted to SPSS Statistics Version 17 (2008) for data analysis. Data analysis Data will be analyzed quantitatively using both descriptive and inferential statistics. The first four objectives will be accomplished using descriptive statistics – frequency distribution (first objective); simple mean and standard deviation (second objective); and simple ranking (third and fourth objectives). The fifth objective will be carried out using inferential statistics such as the t-test and one-way analysis of variance. Data analysis will be performed using SPSS Statistics Version 17 (2008). The profile of the members of the organisation will be described primarily by a frequency distribution. The mean and the standard deviation of the profile variables age and work experience, which are both expressed in terms of years, will also be indicated. The organisational variables will be examined by looking at the mean and standard deviation of ratings obtained in the diagnosis. From the mean of the organisational variables and using the interpretation scale in Table 1, the strong and weak areas of the organisation will be identified For the main part, data will be analyzed in terms of significant differences (if any) in the ratings given by the respondents when they are grouped according to the profile variables outlined in the first objective: gender, age, civil status, ethnicity, socio-economic status, position, and work experience. From this analysis, significant relationships can be observed, if any, between the ratings given in the diagnosis and the profile variables. The following hypotheses will be tested: 1. There is no significant relationship between and the organisational variables: purposes, structure, leadership, relationships, rewards, helpful mechanisms, attitude towards change, and the profile variable gender. 2. There is no significant relationship between the organisational variables: purposes, structure, leadership, relationships, rewards, helpful mechanisms, attitude towards change, and the profile variables: age, civil status, ethnicity, socio-economic status, position, and work experience. Relationships between the following pairs of variables will be verified through hypothesis testing using non-directional or two tailed analysis and a 0.05 level of significance (? = 0.05): 1. Organizational variables and gender. Independent samples t-test will be used to find significant association between each of the seven organisational variables and gender. Independent samples t-test is useful when the difference between two group means is being investigated (Smith, Gratz and Bousquet, 2009). The normality assumption which has to be satisfied to carry out the t-test will be confirmed using Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance. Levene’s test compares variances of the groups involved in the analysis and generates a p-value less than 0.05 when the variances are significantly different, indicating non-homogeneity in the sample (O’Donoghue, 2010). 2. Organization variables, and the profile variables age, civil status, ethnicity, socio-economic status, position, and work experience. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be utilized to examine whether the profile variables (except gender) may be significantly associated with any of the organisational variable considered in this study. ANOVA is a statistical procedure determines the existence of differences between the means of two or more groups (Keller, 2009). The normality assumption which should be satisfied to perform ANOVA will be confirmed using Levene’s test for homogeneity of variance. Should significant differences be detected in the mean ratings in any one of the organisational variables, and the profile variables (except gender), post hoc analyses or multiple comparisons tests will be performed. When variance is homogeneous, Bonferroni multiple comparison test will be adopted, otherwise Tamhane’s T2 will be used. Multiple comparisons tests like the Bonferroni method minimizes the overall risk of a type 1 error, or rejecting the null the hypothesis when it is actually true. Specifically, the Bonferroni method is capable og controlling family error rate in any multiple testing situation (Mathews, 2010). On the other hand, Tamhane’s T2 is used for situations where group variances differ. Like its counterpart in the parametric methods, Bonferroni, Tamhane’s T2 is also a conservative method (Field, 2000). Time scale & Plan To save time, even if the securing of permissions for running a pilot test and administering the actual instrument in two different Nestle factories are two separate stages of the data collection procedure, the requests will be sent to the offices in the same week that the proposal is approved. The letters will be hand-carried to both factories. In the letter for the Croydon office, both the request for floating the instrument and access for names of the employees for the sampling procedure will be made. The pilot-testing among 20 respondents at the Nestle Hayes factory in Middlesex may take about a week at the most. Processing the results of the pilot test may take 3 days if the Cronbach alpha of the reliability analysis will generate a value of at least 0.70. Otherwise, another two weeks will be spent in refining the questionnaire, further and pilot testing to another comparable Nestle office. The actual administration and retrieval of the diagnostic questionnaires for 130 respondents may take from one week to a month depending on the rate of retrieval of the questionnaires and the usability of the retrieved questionnaires. Data processing will commence as soon as the first set of questionnaires are retrieved. Hence, Questionnaire administration, retrieval and processing may be considered as simultaneous activities. Data analysis will take about three weeks, while the writing up of the complete research from Chapters 1 to 5 may take from 2 months to 3 months. The Gantt chart in Table 3 depicts the plan for the completion of the proposed study and the time scale with Week 1 reckoned from the day that this proposal is approved. The estimated minimum time required to carry out the research process from the time that the requests are delivered to the two Nestle offices to the completion of the write up is 24 weeks or about 6 months . Table 3: Time Scale and Plan Activities Weeks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21-24 Requests Approval of Requests Pilot Testing Instrument Finalization Questionnaire Administration and Retrieval Processing Data Analysis Writing-up Bibliography Altares, P. S., Copo, A. R. I., Gabuyo, Y. A., Laddaran, A. T., Mejia, L. D. P., Policarpio, I, A., et al. (2005), Elementary Statistics with Computer Applications, Rex Publishing, Quezon City, PHI. Anderson, D. L. (2010), Organization Development: The Process of Leading Organizational Change, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Armenakis, A. A., Bedeian, A. G. & Niebuhr, R. E. (1979), Planning for organisational intervention: the importance of existing socio-psychological situations in organization diagnosis. Group Organization Management, 4(1), 59-70. Berenson, M. L, Levine, D. M. & Krehbiel, T. C. (2003), Basic Business Statistics: Concepts & Applications, Pearson / Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Burke, W. W. & Litwin, G. H. (1992), A causal model of organisational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523-545. Cummings, T. G. & Worley, C. G. (2009), Organisational Development & Change, 9th edn, South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH. De Bono, S. & Jones, S. (2008), Organisational development & change, in Remme, J., Jones, S., Van Der Heijden, & De Bono, S. (eds), Leadership Change and Responsibility, Oxford: Meyer & Meyer – pp. 112 – 128. Denison, D. R. & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991), Organisational culture and organisational development: a competing values approach. Research in Organisational Change and Development, 5, 1-21. Di Pofi, J. A. (2002), Organisational diagnosis: integrating qualitative & quantitative methodology. Journal of Organisational Change Management, 15(2), 156-168. Eden, D. (1986), OD and self-fulfilling prophecy: boosting productivity by raising expectations. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 22(1), 1-13. Ely, R. J. (1999), Integrating gender into a broader diversity lens in organisational diagnosis & intervention. Linking Gender and Organisational Effectiveness Insights, 4, 1-4. Field, A. P (2000), Discovering Statistics: Using SPSS for Windows, Sage Publications, London. Grave, P. S., Gimenez, F. A., Mendez, A. A. & Crubellate, J. M. (2001), E-diagnosis: Knowledge management and organizational change in virtual times, in Camarinha-Matos, L. M., Afsarmanesh, H. & Rabelo, R. J. (eds), E-Business & Virtual Enterprises: Managing Business-to-Business Cooperation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA – pp. 29 – 36. Gravetter, F. J. & Forzano, L. A. B. (2009), Research Methods for the Behavioural Sciences, 3rd edn, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA. Griffin, R. W. & Moorhead, G. (2010), Organisational Behavior: Managing People & Organisations, Mason, OH: South-Western / Cengage Learning. Hsu, C. J. (2010), Research of technology industry organizational diagnosis: a case study of Q Company, Master’s thesis, North Central University, Taiwan. Janicijevic, N. (2010), Business processes in organisational diagnosis. Management, 15(2), 85-106. Kahn, W. A. (1989), Toward a sense of organisational humour: implications for organisational diagnosis & change. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 25(1), 45-63. Keller, G. (2009), Statistics for Management & Economics, 8th edn, South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH. Kent, R. (2001), Data Construction and Data Analysis for Survey Research, Palgrave, Hampshire. Lok, P. & Crawford, J. (2000), The application of diagnostic model and surveys in organizational development. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(2), 108-124. Mathews, P. (2010), Sample Size Calculations: Practical Methods for Engineers & Scientists, Mathews, Balnar & Bailey, Fairport Harbor, OH. Moates, K. N., Armenakis, A. A., Gregory, B. T., Albritton, M. D., & Field, H. S. (2005), Achieving content representativeness in organisational diagnosis: use of action groups for successful organizational change. Action Research, 3(4), 403-416. O’ Donoghue, P. (2010), Research Methods for Sports Performance Analysis, Routledge, Oxon. Pond, S. B., Armenakis, A. A. & Green, S. B. (1984), The importance of Preziosi, Weisbord expectations in organizational diagnosis. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 20(2), 167-180. Postma, T. & Kok, R. (1999), Organisational diagnosis in practice: a cross-classification analysis using the DEL-technique. European Management Journal, 17(6), 584-597. Preziosi, R.(1980), Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire, The 1980 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators, University Associates, New Jersey. Shapiro, A. (2011), Creating Contagious Commitment: Applying the Tipping Point to Organisational Change, 2nd edn, Strategy Perspective, Hillborough, NC. Smith, L. F., Gratz, Z. S. & Bousquet, S. G. (2009), The Art & Practice of Statistics, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. SPSS Statistics (2008), [CD-ROM], Version 17, IBM Corporation, Chicago, IL. Stahl, D. A. (1997), Organisational diagnosis: a six-box model. Nursing Management, 28(4), 18-20. Verghese, A. (2007), OD interventions for sustainable excellence in higher education, Proceedings of the Conference on Global Competition and Competitiveness of Indian Corporate, Kozhikode, 18-19 May, 2007, Indian Institute of Management, India. Weisbord, M. R. (1976), Six places to look for trouble with or without a theory. Group Organisation Management, 1(4), 430-447. Weisbord, M. R. (2004). Productive Workplaces Revisited: Dignity, Meaning & Community in the 21st Century, Jossey-Bass / Wiley, San Francisco, CA. Vijayakumar, V. S. R. (2007), Management styles, work values & organisational climate. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 33(2), 249-260. Websites 2009 Nestle Annual Report. (2010), viewed 1 March 2011, http://www.nestle.com/Common/NestleDocuments/Documents/Library/Documents/Annual_Reports/2009-Annual-Report-EN.pdf. Nolon, A. J. (2007), The management of change in An Garda Siochana. An Garda Siochana Management Journal, 15-26. viewed 28 February 2010, http://garda.ie/Documents/User/communiquesep2007.pdf#page=17 Preziosi, R.(1972), Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire, viewed 28 February 2010 http://g-rap.org/docs/ICB/Preziosi%20-%20Organ.%20 Diagnosis %20Questionnaire%20ODQ.pdf Raosoft (2004), Sample Size Calculator, viewed 1 March 2011, http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html Weisbord, M. R. (2011), Six-Box Model, viewed 28 February 2011, http://www.marvinweisbord.com/index.php/six-box-model/ Appendix 1 Screenshot of the Output of the Web-Based Sample Size Calculator (Raosoft, 2004) Appendix 2 The Research Instrument Part 1. Respondent Profile Kindly indicate the following information about you by marking the appropriate box or writing on the response on the space provided for : 1. Gender: ? Female ? Male 2. Age: _____ years old 3. Civil Status: ? Single ? Married ? Divorced ? Widowed ? Separated 4. Ethnicity: ? White British ? White-Other ? Asian ? Black-African ? Black-Caribbean ? Black-British 5. Socio-Economic Status: Average monthly family income ? Less than ?1000 ? ?1501 - ?1750 ? ?1000 - ?1250 ? ?1751 - ?2000 ? ?1251 - ?1500 ? ?2000 - ?2250 ? Over ?2250 6. Position ? Factory worker ? Secretary ? Messenger/Utility ? Supervisor ? Clerk ? Department Head ? Manager ? Other, please specify:___________ 7. Work Experience: Years of service with Nestle Croydon Office ________ Part 2. The Weisbord Organization Diagnosis Questionnaire. From time to time organisations consider it important to analyze themselves. It is necessary to find out from the people who work in the organization what they think if the analysis is going to be of value. This questionnaire will help the organization that you work for analyze itself. Directions: Do not put your name anywhere on this questionnaire. Please answer all thirty-five questions. Be open and honest. For each of the thirty-five statements circle only one (1) number to indicate your thinking. Statements Agree Strongly Agree Agree Slightly Neutral Disagree Slightly Disagree Disagree Strongly 1 The goals of this organization are clearly stated. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 The division of labour of this organization is flexible. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 My immediate supervisor is supportive of my efforts. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 My relationship with my supervisor was a harmonious one. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 My job offers me the opportunity to grow as a person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 My immediate supervisor has ideas that are helpful to me and my work group. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 This organization is not resistant to change. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I am personally in agreement with the stated goals of my work unit. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 The division of labour in this organization is intended to help it reach its goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 The leadership norms of this organization help its progress. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11 I can always talk with someone at work if I have a work-related problem. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 The pay scale and benefits of this organization treat each employee equitably. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Statements Agree Strongly Agree Agree Slightly Neutral Disagree Slightly Disagree Disagree Strongly 13 I have the information that I need to do a good job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 This organization introduces enough new policies and procedures. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15 I understand the purpose of this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16 The manner in which work tasks are divided is a logical one 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17 This organization’s leadership efforts result in the organization’s fulfillment of its purposes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18 My relationships with members of my work group are friendly as well as professional. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19 The opportunity for promotion exists in this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20 This organization has adequate mechanisms for binding itself together. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21 This organization favours change. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22 The priorities of this organization were understood by its employees. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23 The structure of my work is well designed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24 It is clear to me whenever my boss is attempting to guide my work efforts. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Statements Agree Strongly Agree Agree Slightly Neutral Disagree Slightly Disagree Disagree Strongly 25 I have established the relationships that I need to do my job properly. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26 The salary I receive is commensurate with the job that I perform. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27 Other work units are helpful to my work unit whenever assistance is requested. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28 Occasionally I like to change things about my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29 I had enough input in deciding my work-unit goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30 The division of labour in this organization actually helps it to reach its goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31 I understand my boss’s efforts to influence me and other members of the work unit. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 32 There is no evidence of unresolved conflict in this organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33 All tasks to be accomplished are associated with incentives. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 34 This organization’s planning and control efforts are helpful to its growth and development. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35 This organization has the ability to change. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Read More