Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization Improvement - Term Paper Example

This paper aims to study the purposefulness of Organizational Diagnosis to determine if ABC Company and Whole Foods Market have strategically aligned its inputs, resources, productivity, throughput effort, outputs, performance, and strategies. It is also aimed at ascertaining the issues of Whole Foods Market that might affect the integration of these corporations. Explicating organizational diagnosis could help us understand the empirical applications that could make the evaluation truly relevant and meaningful. Organization development (OD) strategies aim to improve organizational ability to diagnose and assess its effectiveness to provide appropriate remedy or interventions to problems and issues (Tichy, Hornstein, & Nisberg, 1977). These utilized open systems which optimized a transparent explication of the inputs, throughputs, and outputs of the organization’s feedback loop. This is hoped to motivate organizational members to participate in change processes (Burke, Coruzzi, & Church in Kraut, 1996; French & Bell, 1995; Harrison, 1987). Organizational development involved some models (Howard and Associates, 1994) that could facilitate the enhancement of deepening the understanding of organizational organization; of categorizing organizational data; interpret these data to generate meanings; and to develop common organizational language. It can also identify vital variables of the organization and depict its relations and impacts. This is an empirical method of evaluation. It also uses comprehensive kind of analyses. The latter cover: 1. Force Field Analysis (1951)- This is developed by Kurt Lewin developed this model of analysis. It is perceived as relatively simple and can be creatively visualized because it can depict the driving and retraining forces of an organization (Leadership Sphere, 2012). These driving forces encompass environmental factors and change management while the restraining forces may include limited resources and demotivated human resources that could bar organizational sustainability and development (Leadership Sphere, 2012). When these hindering and driving forces are identified, the organization can proceed to formulate recommendations to solve the problems and regain organizational balance. This model aims to bring about the state of equilibrium of driving forces to eliminate the restraining factors (Leadership Sphere, 2012). 2. Leavitt’s Model (1965) – This refers to authority systems, communication systems, and work flow within the organization. This includes the use of technology (or machinery), tasks, and subtasks that are embed in organization’s product and services (Leadership Sphere, 2012). This will also include the human resources designated to perform roles and tasks to attain organizational goals (Leadership Sphere, 2012). These variables are dynamic, interrelated, and interdependent. Any changes in each of the variable will impact to the other variables in a chained effect. Sometimes, the change in variables may produce compensatory or retaliatory change in the other variables. However, this model does not address the concerns on external environment that may affect the variables of the organization (Leadership Sphere, 2012). 3. Likert System Analysis (1967) – This fundamentally addresses the concern on organizational motivation, communication, interaction, decision-making, goal-setting, control, and performance (Likert, 1967). While there is no illustration to depict this is as an analytical tool but this can be addressed by enhancing or using recommended systems of organizational management. This encourage democratization of decision-makings, participation, consultation, exercise of benevolent leadership and transformational leadership (Leadership Sphere, 2012). The framework originally has no standard scale: “strongly agree,” “agree,” “neither agree nor disagree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” It used to have a customized scale labels for each question raised in a survey (Leadership Sphere, 2012). 4. Open Systems Theory (1966)- refers to organizational social systems or environment (Katz & Kahn, 1978). It permits repeated cycles of input, transformation (i.e., throughputs), output, and revived input within organizations. Modern organizational theories junk a closed system that is perceived independent from the environment where it’s operating (Katz & Kahn, 1978). The organizational variables are largely emphasized on variables of the organization. 5. Weisbord’s Six-Box Model (1976) - refers to the six broad categories of organizational cycle that cover purposes, structures, relationships, leadership, rewards, and related mechanisms (Leadership Sphere, 2012). The organizations mission, goals, structure, and systems are clarified because this system is interested on the interrelation of programs, projects, human resources and how these contribute to the fulfillment of goals (Leadership Sphere, 2012). Consultancy services can be exacted to generate expertise opinion in the evaluation of product, program and projects (Leadership Sphere, 2012). The teams of workers are expected to have strong relation with information technology and the human resources are expecting intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in their works. The model will also delve how helpful are the mechanisms used by the organization in the planning, controlling, budgeting, and in optimizing information system (Leadership Sphere, 2012). The organizational environmental condition will also be subject for evaluations. Leadership is also reviewed if it has served its purpose and have facilitated the accomplishment of organizational goals (Leadership Sphere, 2012). 6. Congruence Model for Organization Analysis (1977) - is a model developed by Nadler-Tushman (Leadership Sphere, 2012). It is perceived as comprehensive model, specifying inputs, throughputs, and outputs, which is consistent with open systems theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978). It is akin to Leavitt’s model and has the formal and informal systems of the Weisbord six-box model. This diagnostic model assumed that the organization is an open system with larger environment; it’s dynamic and changing; the organizational behaviors occur at the individual, the group, and the systems level; and that interactions are evident between the individual, group, and systems (Leadership Sphere, 2012). This diagnostic model will also delve on organizational environment, resources, and history. Through this, it will be determined if the organization is able to attain high or low total system congruence (Leadership Sphere, 2012). 7. McKinsey 7S Framework (1981-82) – this diagnostic model evaluates the organization’s styles, human resources, systems, strategy, structure, skills using its standard shared values (Leadership Sphere, 2012). This is dubbed by experts as managerial molecule. This model for analysis is very significant to determine the organization’s capacity to manage structures, bear strategies and implement systems (Leadership Sphere, 2012). 8. Tichy’s Technical Political Cultural (TPC) Framework (1983)- like prior models, this diagnostic analysis is also consistent in using inputs, throughputs, and outputs in maintaining an open systems and as key variables for change management (Tichy, 1983). The environment and history are important categories of organizational inputs. Throughput variables are the organization’s mission/strategy, tasks, networks, stakeholders, organizational processes, and emergent networks. These are considered as essential for organizational effectiveness (Leadership Sphere, 2012). Motivations, decision making, communication system, control, reward system are quintessential system. 9. High-Performance Programming (1984)- this diagnostic model will use survey instrument to determine the “eleven variables are time frame, focus, planning, change mode, management, structure, perspective, motivation, development, communication, and leadership (Leadership Sphere, 2012, p. 8).” Like the Likert type scale, the survey instrument can use “strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, agree and strongly disagree.” It will determine too if the organization’s leadership is high performing, proactive, responsive, and/or reactive using its standards (Nelson & Burn, 1984) 10. Diagnosing Individual and Group Behavior (1987)- is an instrument to diagnose the individual and group behavior within organizations. It will analyze the organizational performance and quality of life amongst its workers. It also include environment in mapping out organizational situations (Leadership Sphere, 2012). 11. Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance & Change (1992)- this model determines the issues of the culture and climate of organization; the transformational and transactional dynamics; influences of organizational variables; and its empirical studies and organizational development practices (Leadership Sphere, 2012). This model investigates “the external environment, mission and strategy, leadership, organizational culture, structure, management practices, systems, work unit climate, task requirements and individual skills, motivation, individual needs and values, and individual and organizational performance (Leadership Sphere, 2012, p. 26). Using these models, the board of directors of ABC Company and Whole Foods Market can decide which of these models that can be used comfortably and effectively for organizational analysis and development. As all of these are instrument to qualitatively but this researcher believed that the TPC model is most applicable for the evaluations because it will engage everyone to assess the performance capacity of the organization, evaluate its decision-making process, its networks, tasks, communication systems, control in management and in improving its system. It will also assess the motivation of human resources and the strategies of its leadership. References Burke, W. W. & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18 (3), 523-545. Tichy, N. M. (1983). Managing strategic Change: Technical, political, and cultural dynamics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Tichy, N. M., Hornstein, H. A., & Nisberg, J. N. (1977). Organization diagnosis and intervention strategies: Developing emergent pragmatic theories of change. In W. W. Burke (Ed.), Current Issue and Strategies in Organization Development (pp. 361-383). New York, NY: Human Sciences Press. French, W. L. & Bell, C. H. (1995). Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for organization improvement. Fifth Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Harrison, M. I. (1987). Diagnosing organizations: Methods, models, and processes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Howard, A. (Ed.) (1994). Diagnosis for organizational change: Methods and models. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social psychology of organizations. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York, NY: McGrawHill. Leadership Sphere (2012). HR Intelligence Report: Organizational Diagnostic Models: A review and synthsis, Sacramento, CA. http://www.leadersphere.com/img/OrgmodelsR2009.pdf Accessed: 30 Jan. 2013. Read More