Research Methods for Managers - Dissertation Example

?Table of Contents 0. Introduction 1 Background 1.2. Rationale for the study 3 3. Research aims objectives, research questions and hypotheses Research aims and objectives 4 Research hypotheses 6 2.0. Literature Review and Conceptual Framework 2.1. Literature Review 7 2.2. Theoretical Framework 10 2.3. Conceptual Framework 12 3.0. Methodology 3.1. Research design 14 3.2. Instrumentation 14 3.3. Reliability and Pilot Testing 15 3.4. Variables Used in the Study 16 3.5. Data Collection Procedure 16 3.6. Data Analysis 18 Organizational variables and gender 19 Organizational variables and the profile variables: age, civil status, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, position and work experience 19 3.7. Resources Needed 20 4.0. Timetable and References 4.1. Timetable 21 4.2. References 22 4.3. Bibliography 25 5.0. Appendices 5.1. The Research Instrument 26 5.2. Coding Guide for the Survey Responses 30 5.3. Interpretation Guide for the Organizational Diagnosis 31 An organisational diagnosis of General Guardian Insurance Limited using the Weisbord six-box model : Inputs for internal strategy formulation 1.0. Introduction In a general context, organisational diagnosis may be 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, Mendez & Crubellate, 2001). An organizational diagnosis may be likened to a general medical check-up where individuals submit themselves to, not because there are perceptible or felt symptoms, but as a precautionary measure for health promotion. However, more often than not, people undergo a medical examination just a little too late when symptoms of illnesses are already apparent. In this regard, the old cliche that “an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure” also proves true not only for humans but also for organizations. Organizational diagnostics, like medical doctors, are applicable both for routinary check-up or as inputs for the formulation of interventions when issues arise which tend to compromise the overall efficacy of an organization. 1.1. Background Guardian General Insurance Limited (GGIL) was established some nine years ago as a purely property and casualty insurer. GGIL is not, however, a newbie in the insurance market. In fact, GGIL can boast of its 50-year experience under the wings of Guardian Holdings Limited (GHL). As the new millennium dawned, GHL acquired a couple of big insurance companies in Trinidad – the NEM Insurance Limited, which specialized in property and casualty insurance in Trinidad and Tobago; and the Caribbean Home Insurance, which also maintained health insurance portfolio in addition to their property and casualty business in Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados. To date, GGIL is the largest property and casualty insurer which is purely Caribbean owned (GGIL, 2010). In the most recent statement published by GGIL top executives, management straightforwardly reported a loss of 821 million dollars, the organization’s biggest loss in history (Jack & Mack, 2010). The two executives, however, assured their clients that the GGIL board of directors “have the ability to analyze, and the skill to execute, on good acquisitions” (Jack & Mack, 2010, p. 6). Additionally, Jack and Mack (2010) affirmed that experiencing losses in any business is not acceptable and that the size of the loss is definitely painful. The loss was also admitted to be self-inflicted as a consequence of poor judgement on one acquisition. In spite of these developments, GGIL was declared to remain ‘solid as a rock’. Meanwhile, Tam-Marks (2006) maintained that the insurance industry in Trinidad and Tobago is now being regulated through risk-based examinations, as opposed to the previous practice of compliance-based and transaction-testing examinations. The present regulatory framework in Trinidad and Tobago’s insurance industry was described to be a combination of supervisory techniques which are globally accepted. Among the techniques is the continuous evaluation of the quality of operational processes and financial condition of insurers. The board of directors and the managers of concerned entities in the industry are also guided to comply with standards to guarantee ample awareness of inherent risks, as well as judicious handling of such risks (Tam-Marks, 2006). Whether the executives of GGIL acknowledge or not, hundred millions of dollars in losses connote internal issues in the organization which requires immediate and sound resolution. For sure, GGIL would not want a repeat of the CL Financial liquidity crisis and eventual breakdown in 2009. But GGIL needs to take sagacious action in this regard. 1.2. Rationale for the study Jack and Mack (2010) admit that that GGIL’s greatest loss in company history was self-inflicted. Yet, this was not the fault of one person or one department alone. The judgment which favored acquisition of a losing investment may have been pronounced by a single individual, but such judgment was informed based on the collective inputs of the organization as a whole. What was now inked in the company history as poor judgment involved research, analysis and processing of data from various sectors of the organization. Something did go wrong somewhere and whatever this was, organizational effectiveness was compromised. Financial results are considered to be lagging indicators of organizational effectiveness (Blazey, 2008). Some managers, however, tend to over focus their efforts on financial indicators that they fail to look at the overall picture of the organization. This was observed with GGIL, both in the joint statement of their top two executives and their latest available annual report which devoted more than a hundred pages solely to financial indicators (GGIL, 2010). It would be a prudent move for GGIL if it will avoid over-reliance on the financial aspects. In a general sense, Blazey (2008) supports this stance and recommends a revisit of operational performance. The most commonly used tool for organizational diagnosis is Weisbord’s six-box model (Noolan, 2006). The organisational diagnosis, in this regard, will be used as an instrument to examine whether or not the components of GGIL as 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). This is the most important rationale for the conduct of this proposed study. 1.3. Research aims, objectives, research questions, and hypotheses Research aims and objectives. This research study will attempt to perform an organizational diagnosis of Guardian General Insurance Limited to identify problems or issues confronting the organization in the light of the big financial loss it incurred, with the end in view of proposing interventions or alternative courses of action to enhance organizational efficacy in their acquisition / disposal of investments. Specifically, the objectives of the proposed study are to: 1. Describe the profile of the members of the organization in terms of the following demographic variables: gender, age, civil status, ethnicity, socio-economic status, position, and work experience; 2. Evaluate the following organizational variables: purposes, structure, leadership, relationships, rewards, helpful mechanisms, and attitude towards change; 3. Identify the strengths and limitations of the organization based on the empirical results of the diagnosis; 4. Perform inferential statistical procedures to detect significant associations between the ratings generated in each of the organization components from the diagnostics and the profile variables; and 5. Formulate strategies / interventions for improved organizational effectiveness on the basis of the findings from the organizational diagnosis. Research questions. The proposed study hopes to address the following research questions: 1. What is the profile of the members of the organization in terms of the following demographic variables: gender, age, civil status, ethnicity, socio-economic status, position, and work experience? 2. What is the result of the organizational diagnosis on the following components: purposes, structure, leadership, relationships, rewards, helpful mechanisms, and attitude towards change? 3. What are the strengths and limitations of the each component of the organization and the organization as a whole? 4. Are there significant associations between the ratings generated in each of the organization components and the profile variables? 5. What strategies / interventions may be recommended to enhance organizational effectiveness on the basis of the findings from the organizational diagnosis? Research hypotheses. The following hypotheses, stated in the null form will be tested using non-directional or two-tailed analysis and a 0.05 level of significance (? = 0.05): 1. There is no significant relationship between and the organizational variables: purposes, structure, leadership, relationships, rewards, helpful mechanisms, attitude towards change, and the demographic variable gender. 2. There is no significant relationship between the organizational variables: purposes, structure, leadership, relationships, rewards, helpful mechanisms, attitude towards change, and the demographic variables: age, civil status, ethnicity, socio-economic status, position, and work experience. 2.0. Literature Review and Conceptual Framework 2.1. Literature Review There were at least 20 researches carried out since the 1970s on the theme ‘organizational diagnosis’. The pioneering works of Weisbord (1976) and Preziosi (1972, 1980) set the trend for a genre of scientific inquiries aimed at using organizational diagnostics to enhance organizational efficacy and / or resolve organizational issues. The studies reviewed, however, did not necessarily made use of Weisbord’s six-box model. This literature review is written by timeline from 1970s to the most recent. The six-box model enunciated by Weisbord (1976, 2011) presents a a simple framework applicable to a variety of settings. The model presents a collection of concepts pertaining to an organization and its environment, socio-technical, formal and informal systems. It identified at least six broad categories in any organization where problem areas may be discovered – purposes, structure, relationshis, rewards, leadership and helpful mechanisms. Some of the earlier studies like that of Armenakis, et al. (1979), Pond, et al. (1984), and Eden (1986) investigated at the micro-level of organizational diagnosis in terms of socio-psychological situations and employee expectations, respectively. The work of Kahn (1989) interestingly piloted organizational diagnosis towards a sense of organization humor. Meanwhile, Denison and Spreitzer (1991) examined organizational development from a competing values approach; whereas Burke and Litwin (1992) designed a causal model of organizational performance and change. In another pioneering research on organizational diagnosis, Ely (1999) suggested that “organizations are not simply gendered; they are also raced and classed” (p. 2). The Ely (1999) study sparked the 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. 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. Similarly 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. Di Pofi (2002) pioneered the use of mixed methodology in organizational diagnosis research enhanced with current practices on theory-based models and demonstrated the advantages of analysis both quantitative and qualitative data. In the tradition established by Lok and Crawford (2000) and Di Pofi (2002), Moates, et al. (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. 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 change management and the 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 review of literature and related 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). 2.2. Theoretical framework The following literature discusses in sufficient detail the theoretical background of the six-box model of organisational diagnosis, which serves as a component of the conceptual framework of the study. 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). Figure 1 shows the Weisbord model. As depicted in Figure 1, 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. Figure 1: The Weisbord Six-Box Model (Weisbord, 2011, para. 4) Weisbord (2011) explained that “a blip in any one of the box(es) cannot be managed independently of 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. 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 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). 2.3. Conceptual framework The conceptual framework of the study was tailored after the Input–Process–Output (IPO) Model of Team Effectiveness as proposed by Landy and Conte (2010). This model provides links among the organizational inputs, processes and outputs to facilitate an understanding of team or organizational performance towards performance optimization. The broken arrow in Figure 2 representing feedback indicates that the feedback loop is not part of the protocol for the current study, but will constitute a significant measure for future diagnostic cycles. The feedback loop also depicts an important aspect of successful organizations – dynamism, which permits the organization to adapt and change over time. Figure 2: The Conceptual Paradigm of the Study (adapted from Landy & Conte, 2010, p. 595; Weisbord, 2011) 3.0. Methodology 3.1. Research design The study will follow a descriptive-quantitative methodology anchored on the Weisbord (1976, 2011) six-box model and the IPO model of team effectiveness (Landy & Conte, 2010). The research locale is the Westmoorings head office of Guardian General Insurance Limited in Trinidad and Tobago. In as much as the head office employs only 31 personnel, total enumeration will be adopted as the sampling design. In a total enumeration, the researcher involves every member or element of the population to draw conclusion(s) for a research (Zikmund & Babin, 2010). 3.2. Instrumentation The research instrument was adapted largely from the organizational diagnostic questionnaire prepared by Presiozi (1980) based on the six-box model developed by Weisbord (1976, 2011). A respondent profile questionnaire was constructed by this researcher and attached to the main questionnaire. The profile questionnaire will inquire about the participants’ gender, age, civil status, ethnicity, socio-economic status in terms of the average monthly family income, position, and work experience in terms of years of service with Guardian General Insurance Limited. The main instrument will be the organizational diagnosis questionnaire consisting of five statements each from the six elements of an organization identified by Weisbord (1976, 2011) and one additional element added by Preziosi (1980). Respondents 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. An interpretation shown in the appendix was patterned after Preziosi (1980). As shown in the conceptual paradigm of the study, 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. 3.3. Reliability and pilot testing While the Weisbord-Preziosi organizational diagnostic questionnaire may be considered a packaged instrument as indicated in Cummings and Worley (2009), there is no information available to date regarding its reliability. Hence, Cronbach’s alpha will be used in this study to assess the internal consistency or reliability of the research instrument. Cronbach’s alpha measures 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 10 respondents from a comparable insurer in Trinidad and Tobago using purposive sampling. 3.4. Variables used in the study. 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. 3.5. Data collection procedure. The following data collection procedure will be adopted during the pilot testing stage of the study: 1. Permission will be sought from an insurance firm in Trinidad and Tobago for the pilot testing of the instrument. 2. Once permission is granted, the instrument will be administered on site to willing volunteers after explanation of informed consent and subsequent signing of informed consent forms. 3. Responses during the pilot test will be processed and encoded in suitable form so that reliability analysis can be performed using SPSS1 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 adapted during the research proper: 1. Permission will be sought from Guardian General Insurance Limited in Westmoorings, Trinidad and Tobago for the conduct of an onsite questionnaire survey. 2. Once permission is granted, the research questionnaire will be floated to all personnel in the GGIL office. 3. Respondents will be offered an explanation regarding informed consent and will be asked to sign the informed consent form. All respondents will be given copies of the signed informed consent forms. The principles of anonymity, confidentiality, privacy and protection from risk of harm will be ensured in observance of ethical research requirements. 4. The research instrument will be administered on site. 5. The researcher will come back to the research locale everyday for one week before the end of office hours to receive answered questionnaires; answer questions 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. 6. For unanswered items which were accidentally missed by the participant, participant will be allowed 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: 8. Completed questionnaires will be processed and encoded using Microsoft Excel (2003) for the preparation of a data matrix. The completed data matrix will be inputted to SPSS Statistics Version 17 (2008) for data analysis. 3.6. Data analysis Data will be analyzed quantitatively using both descriptive and inferential statistics. 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 the interpretation guide, the strong and weak areas of the organisation will be identified 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): Organizational variables and gender. Independent samples t-test will be used to verify 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). 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 similar to that of the t-test. 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 of 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. Tamhane’s T2 is also a conservative method (Field, 2000). 3.6. Resources The minimum resources needed in the conduct of the proposed study include the following: 31 sets of the five-page research instrument; 31 sets of the informed consent forms; personal computer for automated data analysis; operating system for the personal computer; word processing and spreadsheet programs; a licensed CD-ROM of SPSS Statistics Version 17 or higher; and a ream of bond paper for printing the study and the output of the data analysis. 4.0. Timetable and References 4.1. Timetable The Gantt chart below depicts the plan for the completion of the proposed study and the time scale which was 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 GGIL and another insurance company to the completion of the write up is 24 weeks or about 6 months. Additional time was given in the plan for the data gathering procedure. Timetable 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 4.2. References 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. 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. Guardian General Insurance Limited (GGIL). (2011). Our History,viewed 15 March 2011, http://www.ggil.biz/aboutus/history Hsu, C. J. (2010), Research of technology industry organizational diagnosis: a case study of Q Company, Master’s thesis, North Central University, Taiwan. Jack, K. L. & Mack, J. (2010). ‘Chairman’s & CEO’s statement’, In 2009 Annual Report, Guardian Holdings Limited, Westmoorings, TTO. 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. Landy, F. J. & Conte, J. M. (2010), Work in the 21st Century: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Wiley – Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ. 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. 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 Noolan, J. A. C. (2006), ‘Organizational diagnosis phase’, In B. B. Jones & M. Brazzel (Eds.), The NTL handbook of organization development & change: Principles, practices & perspectives, Pfeiffer / Wiley, San Francisco, CA, pp. 192-211. 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.(1972), Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire, viewed 28 February 2010 http://g-rap.org/docs/ICB/Preziosi%20-%20Organ.%20 Diagnosis %20Questionnaire%20ODQ.pdf 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. Tam-Marks, M. (2006), ‘Regulation of the insurance industry in the Caribbean: Trinidad & Tobago’, 16th Annual Conference of the Caribbean Actuarial Association. Paramaribo, Suriname. 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. (2011), Six-Box Model, viewed 15 March 2011, http://www.marvinweisbord.com/index.php/six-box-model/ Vijayakumar, V. S. R. (2007), Management styles, work values & organisational climate. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 33(2), 249-260. Zikmund, W.G. & Babin, B. J. (2010), Essentials of Marketing Research, 4th edn, South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH. 4.3. 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. Berenson, M. L, Levine, D. M. & Krehbiel, T. C. (2003), Basic Business Statistics: Concepts & Applications, Pearson / Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Griffin, R. W. & Moorhead, G. (2010), Organisational Behavior: Managing People & Organisations, Mason, OH: South-Western / Cengage Learning. Weisbord, M. R. (2004). Productive Workplaces Revisited: Dignity, Meaning & Community in the 21st Century, Jossey-Bass / Wiley, San Francisco, CA. 5.0. Appendices 5.1. Appendix 1: 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 ? Manager ? Board Director / Secretary ? Agent ? Other, please specify:___________ 7. Work Experience: Years of service with GGIL ________ Part 2. The Weisbord Organization Diagnosis Questionnaire. From time to time organizations 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 labor 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 labor 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 favors 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 labor 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 5.2. Appendix 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 Manager Board Director/ Secretary Agent ­Other _ _ _ 2 Age 2 To be INITIALLY coded AS IS. 7 Work Expe-rience 3 To be INITIALLY coded AS IS. 2 1 - 35 Organiza- 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. 5.3. Appendix 3: Interpretation Guide for the Organizational Diagnosis Response/ Rating Scale Verbal Interpretation Statistical Limits Area Strength / Area Weakness Indicator 1 Agree strongly 1.00 – 1.30 Extremely strong 2 Agree 1.31 – 2.50 Very strong 3 Agree Slightly 2.51 – 3.69 Moderately Strong 4 Neutral 3.70 – 4.30 Neither strong nor weak 5 Disagree Slightly 4.31 – 5.50 Moderately weak 6 Disagree 5.51– 6.69 Very weak 7 Disagree strongly 6.70 – 7.00 Extremely weak Based on the interpretation scale shown in Table 1, an area or element of the organization 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 organization with ratings from 3.70 – 4.30 are grey areas in the organization. Read More