Organization Development: Carl Taylor

Organization Development
A quiet revolution is happening in organizations. As we move ever deeper into a connected world, it is the relationships between people and systems that is becoming the essential focus of our attention rather than the traditional approach of focusing on the people/systems themselves. To be effective, organization development must meet a growing demand to address complexity. Carl Taylor
www.cpmtaylor@msn.com
arl Taylor
carl@the!nowledge.biz
"
Organization Development
". The #oundations of $rganization %evelopment "." The #our 'ey $rientations and (even (s of $% ".) Typical *recedes to an $% +ntervention ".& An -xploration of .otivations and -xpectations Associated with $% "., Approaches to .anaging .otivations and -xpectations 0eginning an $% -ffort )." 0uilding an $% (trategy ).) 1or!ing with the $rganization2s %ynamics ).& (electing an Approach ).& $vercoming #ailure *atterns The design of $% +nterventions &." +mplementing $% at the 4evel of Team (tructure and #unction &.) +mplementing $% at the 4evel of $rganization (tructure and #unction &.& (upporting $% +mplementations Action *lanning 6 The -nd of the 0eginning ,." The quality and use of action plans ,.) -nsuring follow7through and ob8ectivity ,.& $% practitioner orientations ,., %irective vs. non7directive practitioner styles ,.3 The competencies of the effective practitioner -volution and 9evolution as $rganizations :row 0ibliography/9eading 4ist Appendix "= -volution and 9evolution as $rganizations :row Appendix )= 9evolution is (till +nevitable Appendix &= omplexity and $rganization %evelopment & & , , / ") ") "& "3 "/ )" )) &, ,5 3, 3, 3, 33 33 35 3; 3< 3/ ;> ;)
).
&.
,.
3.
arl Taylor
ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT
1. The o!n"ation# o$ Organization Development
Intro"!%tion
$rganization %evelopment ?$%@ is the systematic application of behavioural science to bring about planned change in organizations. +ts ob8ectives are improved adaptability, productivity, effectiveness and a higher quality of wor!7life. +t accomplishes this by changing values, attitudes, strategies, behaviours, procedures and structures so that organizations can adapt to the ever7increasing pace of change, technological advancement and competitive forces. %uring this first part of the module we will= $utline the #our 'ey $rientations and the ;7( model of $%A 9eview typical precedes to an $% interventionA -xplore the motives and expectations that may be associated with $%A 9eview approaches to managing motivations and expectations.
1.1
The o!r &e' Orientation# an" (even (# o$ OD
$% is a complex behavioural science that has four !ey orientations= A #'#temi% orientation= The understanding that all parts of an organization ?structure, technology, processes, people@ are highly connected. *roblems can occur at one or more levels and have far reaching consequences throughout the organizationA A pro)lem*#olving orientation= A focus on problem identification, data gathering, option generation, cost/benefit analysis, decision7ma!ing, action planning, monitoring, review and adaptability 7 in the light of sub8ective experienceA A h!mani#ti% orientation= A positive belief about the potential of people, their rights, their need for autonomy and support in varying measures, and the value of their sub8ective experienceA An e+periential learning orientation= An acceptance that training, development and organizational learning should be based on the sub8ective experiences of all those involved.
$% also influences a wide range of organizational factors. To illustrate this, *eters and 1aterman ?"/<)@ developed an analytical tool termed B The Seven Ss2 7 more latterly referred to as the ;7( .odel. 0y way of an outline= (tr!%t!re The framewor! in which the activities of the organizationCs members are coordinated. The four basic structural forms are the functional form, divisional structure, matrix structure, and networ! structureA (trateg' The route that the organization has chosen for its future growth and to gain a sustainable competitive advantageA ('#tem# The formal and informal procedures, including, management information systems, capital allocation systems, reward systems, quality systems and innovation systemsA
arl Taylor
&
(,ill# 1hat the company does bestA the distinctive capabilities and competencies that reside in the organizationA (hare" val!e# The guiding concepts and principles of the organization 7 values and aspirations, often unwritten 7 that go beyond the conventional statements of corporate ob8ectivesA the fundamental ideas around which a business is builtA the things that influence a group to wor! together for a common aimA (ta$$ The organizationCs human resources and the ways they are developed, trained, socialized, integrated, motivated, and managedA (t'le The leadership approach of top management and the organizationCs overall operating approach, including the way in which the organizationCs employees present themselves to the outside world, to suppliers and customers.
To be effective, organizations must have a high degree of alignment among the ;7(s. -ach ( must be consistent with and reinforce the other (s, with all (s being interrelated such that change in one has a ripple effect on all the others. +t is impossible to ma!e sustainable progress on one without ma!ing progress on all the others. 1ithin a comprehensive $% effort, all four orientations would be used to bring about an improved alignment between all seven (s. Dow, given the complexity that these orientations and factors encompass, effective $% interventions will typically consist of a number of interdependent steps or phases, each of which builds on the previous one. -ach step of an $% process provides new data, which can then be evaluated and incorporated into data generated previously and, in the light of this process flow, ob8ectives are reassessed and decisions are made regarding the next steps. Thus, $% is an evolutionary process that responds to emerging organizational needs as the process unfolds.
1.-
T'pi%al Pre%e"e# to an OD Intervention
$% interventions usually have as their starting point a client2s felt need. This can manifest itself in a variety of ways, ranging from frustration with poor operating results to perceptions of Bpeople problems.2 The initial role of the $% practitioner is one of wor!ing with organizational leaders to assist them in the appropriate analysis of their felt need. 0ut in order to establish collaboration and ensure support for eventual change processes, good practice dictates that all those potentially affected by change should be included in this initial phase, i.e. it is not enough only to include those that first perceive, sub8ectively, the need. 9egarding sub8ectivity vs. ob8ectivity, $% is a science that strives 6 in the first instance 6 for an ob8ective analysis of an organization2s state. Although sub8ective experience is valued ?the humanistic and experiential learning orientations@, the closest possible approximation towards ob8ectivity is the foundation upon which full value is based ?the systemic and problem7solving orientations@. The practitioner can use any of a number of different methods in his/her 8ourney towards ob8ectivity. #or example, s/he can administer questionnaires, conduct surveys, employ observational techniques, as! employees to generate on7the7spot data, or analyse the various performance indicators that are found in organizational records ?e.g. absenteeism, turnover, service levels@. Then, after shared analysis has revealed some of the realities underpinning the client2s felt need, and some indication has emerged as to the desired change being sought, it is necessary to establish the degree to which each of the ;7(s need to be targeted.
1..
An E+ploration o$ Motivation# an" E+pe%tation# A##o%iate" /ith OD

arl Taylor carl@the!nowledge.biz ,
A factor that is crucial to the success of an $% effort is the managerial motivation for becoming involved. .anagers who lac! an adequate understanding of what $% can and cannot be expected to accomplish may become involved for the wrong reasons. #or example, the motive for engaging in an $% effort may be to Bsort out2 staff that are Bmisguided.2 This view is li!ely to cause considerable trouble during an $% effort. +n contrast, a positive motivation for launching an $% effort would be a willingness to engage in self7examination to build realistic expectations for change within a climate of openness, trust and authenticity. #rom this, we can categorize motivations as either= Those that are questionable in that they tend to impair the success of an $% effortA Those that are supportive and tend to enhance the success of an $% effort.
4et2s explore this in a little more detail. 0a1 Motive# that impair the #!%%e## o$ an OD e$$ort +n each of the following motivations, the manager described has begun an $% effort based on an inappropriate set of expectations, or as an indirect means to achieve an alternative agenda. To key into a new form of training for staff This manager characteristically believes that $% is a new type of training program designed to bring about a change in staff attitudes to the benefit of the team or organization as a whole. The general image of the $% practitioner is that of an inspiring lecturer who provides insight, advice and a clear path forward. This type of manager is li!ely to have little awareness of real organizational problems or the challenges of change. To offer OD as an extra reward This motive is characteristic of a manager who has some unused budget and wants to use it ?rather than loose itE@. (/he believes that an off7site $% event would ma!e a good Breward2 in the form of a reprieve from the regular wor! routine. Thus, $% is seen as a recreational and/or social event run by a practitioner with good social s!ills. As a result the effort is not ta!en seriously in terms of operational priorities or for the contribution it can ma!e to change efforts. To boost staff morale This may be lin!ed to the previous motive. The manager who manifests this motive feels that some activity is needed to raise the spirits of staff, to convince them of their importance, and to show them that the organization really cares about them. The assumption is that an $% effort will persuade staff that their managers are not as insensitive as they perceive. +n effect, $% is thought of as a form of rally that will stress the positive aspects of change and generate support. An $% practitioner is thus seen as a motivational expert who stimulates enthusiasm. To be included in the trend towards OD This motive is indicative of political game7playing as well as a desire to !eep up with management and organizational trends. .anagers who are motivated in this way may believe it is fashionable to demonstrate concern for staff, and often they underta!e an $% effort in response to pressure from various sources to adopt new practices ?because the old ones aren2t wor!ing@. $% is viewed in terms of a fashionable event at which the
arl Taylor carl@the!nowledge.biz 3
practitioner is expected to serve as an articulate and witty Bmaster of ceremonies2 as part of the change programme. To gain personal approval and advancement An extension of the previous motive, this one centres on the manager2s desire to ma!e the right impression with more senior managers, to appear progressive and concerned, and to ensure that his or her image is consistent with what is expected. (uch a manager may view $% as a gimmic! that is part of a career7advancement strategy. A practitioner who participates in this fantasy becomes a potential co7conspirator in furthering the manager2s career. To learn how to be nicer This motive is characteristic of managers who have been conditioned by years of autocratic leadership and suddenly become aware that top management no longer supports this style 6 at least in theory. The message they receive is that they need to show more appreciation for and interest in their staff and to improve human relations. Although such managers may view this trend as pampering staff, they resign themselves to co7operating as instructed. The $% process is thus perceived as a form of innocuous charm school, with the practitioner serving as a human7relations theorist who facilitates activities for the purpose of improving wor! etiquette. To sell unpopular changes The belief underlying this motive is that staff members are not mature enough to understand organizational needs and it is a waste of time to consult with them about related changes. +nstead, management should ma!e decisions independently and then win support for actions to be ta!en. A further assumption is that efforts to build staff loyalty will pay off in terms of less questioning of change determined by management. The $% process is thus viewed as a form of advertising conducted by a practitioner who acts as a promoter of carefully orchestrated strategies. To promote staff conformance The manager who see!s to promote staff conformance characteristically clings to Theory7F beliefs ?.c:regor@. ertain staff members are seen as unproductive and malad8usted and $% is viewed as a useful control device for manipulating or even shoc!ing them into acceptable behaviour. The practitioner, therefore, becomes therapist, trouble7shooter, or Bhired gun.2 .anagers thus motivated are often acutely aware of morale problems and believe that the solution lies in an $% effort to communicate the organizational facts of life and to rehabilitate Bdinosaurs2 by forcing them to change their attitudes. The probable results of such an effort are fear and its related consequences, including a closed atmosphere, a lac! of trust and further Bhidden2 resistance. To avert personal disaster This motive is characteristic of managers who are under great pressure either to change or to produce results that are not forthcoming. They see $% as a panacea, a last7chance miracle cure to save them from any number of punishments, including the loss of their 8obs. $ften they feel the need to improve costs, quality or profits quic!ly and to be able to show measures of improvement immediately. $% is perceived as a means to achieve quic! payoffs and the practitioner is thought of as a saviour. $% efforts based on any of the above motivations will almost certainly produce unrealistic expectations and eventual scepticism when nothing concrete or permanent occurs in the way of organizational and behavioural change.
0)1
Motive# that #!pport the #!%%e## o$ an OD e$$ort +n contrast to the negative motives 8ust discussed, those that follow represent a more legitimate motivational foundation that can provide the appropriate support for an $% effort. These motivation categories are indicative of more realistic views of $% and the practitioner2s role. onsequently, the chances of success based on these motives are much higher than those associated with the negative motives outlined above. To investigate problems This motive and the two that follow are oriented towards Blearning2. The manager who enters an $% effort to investigate problems recognizes that the organization is not resolving its problems. (/he is li!ely to be aware that current statements of these problems are couched in terms that ma!e solution improbable and wonders whether the real problems are, in fact, not being voiced. This type of manager relies heavily on intuition and wants to explore the situation to see whether $% can help to define the real problems. $% is thus viewed as an exploratory, analytical device, with $% activities perceived as cautious, 8udicious efforts to increase available data by opening communication and generating upward feedbac! within the organization. 1hen an effort is conducted on this basis, the practitioner becomes a co7investigator. To test OD as a helpful approach The manager whose motive is to test the usefulness of $% will see human problems as the underlying cause for other problems being experienced by the organization, but is uncertain whether $% will confirm this perception. (uch a manager generally feels that s/he has never been able to brea! through to the real problem areas, that staff are holding bac! and hesitant to say what they really thin! and that all staff should be more involved in problem7solving and decision7ma!ing processes. Thus, an $% effort is initiated as a test pro8ect to determine whether real problem7solving will occur. -ach activity is fully supported and carefully monitored. The practitioner is viewed as a potential source of creativity, a catalyst and a resource. To undergo an educational process This motive, li!e the two preceding ones, is based on an observed need for learning. +t is also indicative of a genuine respect for education and a strong belief in the connection between learning and problem7solving. +n this case the manager wants to achieve a full understanding of basic $% values, the rationale behind activities, the commitments that must be made and the consequences 7 before launching an effort. (/he feels that $% may be helpful but wants to be certain about the practitioner2s assessment of limitations. Thus, the $% process is seen as an un!nown but potentially valuable management strategy. Activities are thought of as including learning and planning events as well as careful evaluations of various process options. The practitioner is considered to be both teacher and co7assessor. To shape change This motive, and the two that follow, are orientated towards Bdoing2. The motivation to shape change reflects a clear realization that changes are necessary and that they will affect many people. (uch a manager has a genuine desire to receive staff input about contemplated changes and wishes to reduce the fear associated with these changes. (/he wants to involve staff at all levels in the process of defining, implementing, and
arl Taylor carl@the!nowledge.biz ;
promoting commitment to change. This manager views $% as a respected strategy for bringing about change, and individual activities are seen as proactive steps that reduce the anxiety associated with change. The practitioner is thought of as a sensitive change agent whose responsibility is to help the manager to unfreeze communications. To assist with preventive maintenance A manager who manifests this motive believes that the organization is doing well, that interpersonal relationships are generally good and that these positive conditions should be preserved through some mechanism that ensures ongoing future commitment. (/he is aware of the constant need to develop plans for the future and to involve staff at as many levels as possible in maintaining a state of alertness for early7warning signals of deterioration in processes such as communication, delegation and 8oint problem7solving. (uch a manager also recognizes the consequences of maintaining a fast pace in the organization without periodic chec!s on staff feelings about such matters as involvement and commitment. $% is seen as offering various ways to accomplish such maintenance chec!s. The practitioner becomes an ob8ective resource, a co7analyst and a helpful critic. To build organizational strength This motive is characteristic of the manager who realizes that the organization is functioning well but that vehicles must be established for continual re7examination in order to sustain excellence in performance. An additional goal is to identify and to tap human resources that have not been used to an optimum level. This type of manager also supports the inclusion of as many staff as possible in problem7solving, decision7 ma!ing and planning. Thus, the manager views the practitioner as a co7analyst and catalyst. To help remedy human resource problems This motive and the two that follow tend to be oriented toward reinforcing both the Blearning2 and Bdoing2 aspects of $%. .anagers who display this motive recognize organizational difficulties in the human7resource area that may be worsening but are not unsolvable. Gsually such a manager admits that people are not addressing these difficulties. $% activities are viewed as necessary, sometimes painful or challenging steps required to fully analyse issues. The practitioner2s role is seen as being that of an expert in interpersonal relations, a confronter, and a human7systems analyst. To change the organizational climate .anagers of this type are anxious to ensure that the climate of the organization facilitates the meeting of organizational ob8ectives. They express a genuine desire to build trust between individuals and groups in order to reduce Bbac!biting2 and destructive conflict. +n addition, they want to increase commitment to ob8ectives, build greater ownership of personal behaviour, and reduce defensive behaviours. (uch a manager see!s to enhance collaborative and problem7solving capabilities throughout the organization. $% is thought to be both a philosophy and a strategy for examining current behaviour patterns and influencing norms. Activities are viewed as interrelated steps aimed at long7 range improvements in climate. The practitioner is seen as a strategist, an analyst and an interpersonal7behaviour expert. To revitalize the organization The chief concerns of this type of manager are lac!lustre performance and mediocrity in the organization. (/he wants to revitalize staff interest and involvement in the organization2s structure, tas!s, ob8ectives, philosophy and vision. $% is believed to
arl Taylor carl@the!nowledge.biz <
represent a strategy for improving the organization2s use of resources, particularly through emphasis on staff self7assessment. Activities are seen as steps that are ta!en to build awareness of problem performance patterns and to elicit support for changes related to these patterns. The practitioner serves as a catalyst and a guide in the process of change assessment.
1.2
Approa%he# to Managing Motivation# an" E+pe%tation#
Although no one has the ability to fully determine the motives and expectations of another person, it is possible to gain sufficient information to provide a wor!able assessment. To a certain extent, motivations and expectations can be screened during the preliminary contracting session. +t is wise to request that this session be attended by the potential client manager, his or her immediate line manager, and at least some of his or her staff. +f the manager seems reluctant to schedule a meeting with both the line manager and staff present, the practitioner can interpret this reluctance as a significant sign of inappropriate motivation. (ufficient time should be allotted for this meeting to allow for a discussion of reasonable depth about felt needs, important issues, reactions and concerns regarding the ideas expressed. To inquire into motives and expectations, the practitioner can as! questions such as these= 1hat is it that interests you in exploring $% as an activity for your team/organizationH +f such an effort were launched, what end results would you expect or hope to achieveH 1hat past developmental activities have you felt good about and whyH 1hat past developmental activities have you viewed as poor investments and whyH +f you had complete organizational power, what would you change and whyH 1hat concerns do you have about the possibility of engaging in an $% effortH 1hat contributed to me being chosen to assist in this effort rather than someone elseH 1hat is your understanding of the motives of others in the organization for considering this effortH Iow do you feel about these motivesH 1hat specific role would you expect me to play in this effortH
1hile those attending the session are answering these questions, the practitioner should exercise active7listening s!ills. +n responding to these answers it is appropriate to concentrate on reflecting, which consists of restating, in one2s own words, what has 8ust been suggested. This technique helps the practitioner to maintain a supportive atmosphere during the question7 and7answer part of the meeting. 0y uncovering the motives for considering the use of $% processes, the practitioner can determine whether those present have a reasonably clear and realistic understanding of $% and what it might be expected to achieve. As a practitioner, it is important not only to express concerns about motives but also to ma!e one2s own position as clear as possible. Therefore, the following information should be shared with potential clients= *ersonal views and concerns about appropriate and inappropriate motivationA 9eactions to client expectations regarding what can and cannot be accomplished through an $% effortA The potential negative consequences of $% efforts that are poorly motivated, poorly conceived and/or poorly executedA *ersonal expectations and requirements for launching an $% effort.
arl Taylor
Although using this candid approach with potential clients may create short7term pressure for the practitioner, in the long7term it can pay dividends by laying the basis for the authentic and mutually supportive relationship necessary to achieve success in an $% effort. The form that such short7term pressure ta!es depends on the following factors= The level of openness achieved during the discussionA The perceived receptiveness to feedbac! on the part of those presentA The apparent level of credibility en8oyed at this point by the practitionerA The practitioner2s opinion as to whether any negative motives are susceptible to influence and change.
1ithout question some intuition is involved here. Iowever, intuition and personal 8udgement are integral to the practice of $%, and the successful practitioner learns to rely heavily on his or her feelings and evaluations of circumstances. The practitioner can confront a negative motive by offering direct and immediate feedbac! if it seems li!ely that the recipient will react with acceptance and a willingness to do what is necessary for the success of the effort. Iowever, such feedbac! should not be given in an accusatory manner. 9ather, the practitioner should use active7listening techniques to reduce the possibility of a defensive reaction and open the way for co7operation. To deliver such feedbac! effectively, the practitioner must explain clearly why the motive is inappropriate, how it might damage an $% effort and how to safeguard against potentially damaging effects by including specific actions and on7going 8oint analysis. Thereafter the design of the intervention should explicitly guard against the potential consequences of the identified inappropriate motivation. 1hen dealing with the negative motives of clients who do not seem receptive to feedbac!, delayed confrontation may be more appropriate. This approach allows time for the organization2s representatives to reflect on the discussion and for the practitioner to develop a strategy for avoiding the consequences of the negative motive. $ptions include= +ndicating a desire to thin! about what has been said and to meet again at a later date to discuss a proposal for a pro8ect that will ensure that the determined needs are met. +n this way the practitioner can formulate the challenge into a presentation, thereby increasing the probability of client acceptance of any necessary actions. (uggesting the client summarizes in writing his or her understanding of the pro8ect as discussed so far. This option allows the practitioner to confront the motive as clearly as possible in terms of design recommendations.
To illustrate what is meant by Bdesign recommendations,2 the situation in which the practitioner is faced with the impairing motive BTo boost staff morale2 ?see earlier@ will be considered. To recap, the manager who manifests this motive feels that some activity is needed to raise the spirits of staff, to convince them of their importance, and to show them that the organization really cares about them. +n such a case, the approach suggested by the practitioner may be= ?a@ ?b@ Gse a diagnostic7based intervention to confirm or otherwise the assumption that the problem is, in fact, related to staff morale, then J *lan the response for the fuller intervention only after additional data have been obtained and 8ointly interpretedA
carl@the!nowledge.biz ">
arl Taylor
0y ta!ing this approach, the practitioner confronts the questionable motivation in a productive manner. +f, in response to this suggestion, the organizational representatives react negatively, this hesitancy provides the practitioner with an opportunity to deal with the impairing motive on the basis of data rather than impressions.
arl Taylor
""
-.
3eginning an OD E$$ort
Intro"!%tion
A successful long7term, $% pro8ect invariably begins with, and is guided by, a comprehensive and carefully planned strategy. The purpose of this section is= To outline the concepts behind strategy buildingA To present some options for an overall approachA To suggest ways to avoid, or at least minimize, the probability of failure patterns developing.
As a general point, the term Bpractitioner2 has been used, and will continue to be used, to cover the manager, leader or consultant that is leading the $% effort.
-.1
3!il"ing an OD (trateg'
An $% strategy is a comprehensive plan based on a thorough analysis of organizational needs and goals. +t is designed to bring about specific changes and to ensure that appropriate steps are ta!en to secure those changes. +ncluded in it are= %esired ob8ectivesA (pecific interventions aimed at achieving ob8ectivesA Time scalesA A monitoring, review and evaluation system.
The strategy must specify contingencies as well as primary interventions and ta!e into account the power and influence dynamics of the organization. (pecific interventions, such as team building and 8ob redesign, are not strategies. +nterventions, unli!e strategies, are simple activities with limited end ob8ectives. *ractitioners who confuse interventions with strategies seldom exert significant, long7term impact on organizational performance. +f real organizational change is to be achieved and organizational performance improved, interventions must be seen only as parts of, and be embedded within, an overall strategy. 0ecause circumstances vary between organizations, organizational7change strategies will vary as well. 4i!ewise, the steps to strategy7building may differ from organization to organization. Iowever, it is possible to identify six general steps in this process. Step 1 Defining the change !OD" problem +n this step, information is gathered regarding the performance of the organization and barriers to desired performance levels. #actors that might be identified as barriers include 8ob designs, reward structures, s!ill levels, organizational structure, value systems, etc. are must be ta!en at this stage not to confuse symptoms with causes. #or example, absenteeism may reduce performance levels but, before progress can be made, the reasons for absenteeism must be determined. Step # Determining appropriate OD ob$ectives +n this step, $% ob8ectives are clearly and specifically defined, in both behavioural and quantitative terms, so that they are appropriate to, and consistent with, the particular
arl Taylor carl@the!nowledge.biz ")
organization. Too often a practitioner initiates standard interventions without having identified clearly what needs to be accomplished or changed. (pending time in determining ob8ectives increases the probability for success and enhances the practitioner2s image as a contributor to the organization. Step % Determining the systems and subsystems readiness and capacity to change Dothing is more discouraging to a change effort than reaching the middle of a pro8ect and discovering that the organization or a specific group within it is not ready or able to change. Analyzing readiness, willingness, and capacity before pro8ect initiation can help the practitioner to determine where to start and which interventions to use. .any change efforts fail because the practitioner starts with the wrong part of the system or does not ta!e into account the relationships among readiness, willingness, and capacity. +t will pay dividends to evaluate each !ey manager in this respect, as well as each ma8or area or function. Step & Determining key subsystems +n this step, the total organization is reviewed to determine its !ey parts and its !ey personnel. To be successful in an $% effort, the practitioner must focus on those groups within the organization that exert the greatest impact on organizational performance and on those managers who influence the direction of the organization. Step ' (ssessing ones own resources Assessing personal s!ills, talents, and emotional and social needs is not only consistent with meeting real organizational needs, it also assists the practitioner in maintaining an ethical stance. Do practitioner can do well in all situations or with all interventions. Iowever, the practitioner who ta!es stoc! of personal strengths and wea!nesses before selecting a strategy is better able to determine which pro8ects Bfit2 his or her abilities and which do not. onsequently, it is easier to determine which activities to conduct oneself and which to refer to other practitioners, thereby matching the right resources with particular organizational needs. Step ) Selecting an approach and developing an action plan for reaching ob$ectives +n selecting an approach to an effort and in planning the individuals steps for implementation, the practitioner must be concerned with which interventions to use, where in the organization to start, who is to be involved in the effort, how much time is required and how the effort will be monitored. +n view of the fact that $% is a process and that the practitioner must remain flexible and responsive to new developments, it is helpful to establish a flow diagram that accounts for each step. This practice enables the practitioner to analyse the progress of the effort and whether it is leading where intended. +n addition, it enables managers to become closely involved in the process and convinces them that the practitioner is committed to reaching specific ob8ectives that will benefit the organization.
-.-
4or,ing /ith the Organization5# D'nami%#
1hile building a strategy, the practitioner should !eep in mind the following organizational dynamics or change requirements. *onsideration 1 +elt needs or goals The selection of specific interventions should be based on client responses regarding problems that are not being solved or goals that are not being reached. .anagers and organizations readily respond to proposals that address felt needs.
arl Taylor
"&
*onsideration # Support system $f ma8or importance in the success of an $% pro8ect is the practitioner2s initial identification of supportive forces in the organization and his or her subsequent commitment to wor!ing with those forces. A pro8ect is seldom successful when an attempt is made to influence the total organization at once. *onsideration % *hance for success The entire $% effort, as well as each related activity, should hold a realistic chance for success. This sounds obvious, but many pro8ects are launched on the basis of little or no hope for success. To change an organization, a series of early wins must be achieved. The practitioner is seldom given a second chance if the first activity is not at least moderately successful. *onsideration & ,ultiple entry $rganizations of any size have a tremendous capacity to withstand change. 1hen an organization experiences a short disturbance of the status quo as a result of an $% effort, it will naturally tend to settle bac! into its original patterns. This problem of inertia can be dealt with through the use of multiple entry points. Although care must be ta!en and planning must be deliberate, change in a larger organization is more li!ely to be accomplished if pressure is exerted on several different facets of its operation. *onsideration ' *ritical mass $ne of the purposes for using multiple entry points is to bring about a critical mass. Kust as a chain reaction builds sufficient force to produce a ma8or result, so an organization is changed through the development of a strong and building effort. A strategy must be built in such a way as to plan for, and cause, the occurrence of a critical mass. *onsideration ) Organization control The chances for success in an $% effort are greater when the practitioner wor!s with individuals or groups that have some autonomy or control over their own operations. *onsideration - (ppropriate levels of involvement areful consideration must be given to developing and providing for the appropriate involvement of managers and other individuals who will be affected by the proposed changes. Attention must be centered on those who need to be active in decision ma!ing, those who need to be given information, and those who need to provide input for action and evaluation. *onsideration . *ommunication at all levels +t is useful to develop plans for communicating intentions, goals, and progress to the entire organization. +n one ma8or pro8ect in the social housing sector, a monthly, two7page update was given to all staff. This update had a mar!ed impact on reducing resistance to the pro8ect and opening doors for suggestions and input. *onsideration / Determination of feasibility .echanisms must be established not only for letting !ey people !now about $% plans, but also for enlisting the aid of these people in determining the feasibility of plans. $ne of the biggest traps in building $% strategies is planning in a vacuum. *onsideration 10 1inking with internal change agents .ost client organizations include staff who are responsible for organizational change and improvement. A practitioner2s strategy is much more li!ely to succeed if s/he establishes ways to co7ordinate efforts with those of personnel such as designers, engineers, quality7control
arl Taylor
",
experts, financial analysts, etc. .a8or organizational change is greatly enhanced by lin!ing change teams from several disciplines or functions.
-..
(ele%ting an Approa%h
After building a strategy and considering organizational dynamics, the practitioner is ready to select an approach for initiating the effort. (everal options exist, and combinations of these options may be appropriate in some situations. -ach option has, of course, certain advantages and disadvantages. Option 1 Selection of a winner 1ith this approach the practitioner selects a pro8ect that is associated with a high probability of success and little chance of failure. Advantages 4ow ris! for the practitioner as well as the organizationA A potentially high, quic! returnA The opening of doors to other opportunities as a result of early success. %isadvantages The practitioner may be perceived as simply being in the right place at the right time rather than as wor!ing diligently on the organization2s behalfA The problems addressed by the pro8ect may be seen as minor or of relatively little impactA Those involved in the pro8ect may be perceived as special or as Bdifferent2 from the rest of the employees. Option # 2se of a power play This approach involves starting with the most influential and powerful group in the organization. A suitable pro8ect might be a team7building activity conducted with the manager of this group and his or her staff. Advantages A high potential for change because of the target group2s power to implement the changeA A high return or impact attributable to the group2s control over numerous variablesA The fact that if the pro8ect is successful, the practitioner gains a great deal of credibility, as does the $% process. %isadvantages This approach may ma!e an overly powerful group even more so, thereby threatening the rest of the organizationA The practitioner may be seen as part of the organization2s power structureA +f such a pro8ect fails, there is high ris! to the organization and to the future of other $% pro8ects. Option % 1imitation through a pilot pro$ect +n using this approach the practitioner proposes and gains acceptance for completing a pro8ect that is limited to one or two areas of the organization. -xamples include a 8ob7development pro8ect accomplished in one department or a team7s!ills wor!shop conducted for a particular level within the organization.
arl Taylor carl@the!nowledge.biz "3
Advantages +t is often more acceptable to !ey managers than a large7scale effortA +ts limitation in scope affords greater manageabilityA +t gives the practitioner an opportunity to demonstrate what can be doneA +f the initial effort is successful, the practitioner will find it easier to intervene in other parts of the organization on the strength of this success. %isadvantages (uch a pro8ect may be seen as successful only because it is Bspecial2A +t may be re8ected on the basis that it is threatening to the rest of the organizationA #urther intervention may become difficult due to scepticism about activities that were Bnot invented here.2 Option & *oncentrating on a business problem 1ith this approach an attempt is made to concentrate on attac!ing an ac!nowledged business problem such as turnover, absenteeism, poor quality, high waste or deteriorating relationships. An example of such a pro8ect might be the use of problem7solving groups to improve service quality. Advantages The effort is perceived as legitimate because it is directed toward an ac!nowledged problemA As with the pilot7pro8ect approach, the chance for success is enhanced because the effort is limited in scopeA +f such a problem is successfully resolved, everyone benefitsA The organization gains a solution to the problem, and both the practitioner and $% itself gain credibility. %isadvantages (uccess may be limited because of the many variables that influence business problemsA The organization2s personnel may be impatient with the time required to obtain visible resultsA +f the pro8ect is unsuccessful, the practitioner may lose the opportunity to gain entry into other parts of the organization. Option ' *ontrol through action research +n this situation the practitioner institutes a controlled experiment in which some aspect of the organization is changed and the impact is then monitored and evaluated. This type of activity is similar to the pilot pro8ect, but it is generally even more tightly controlled and limited in scope. Advantages +t is often more acceptable to !ey managers than a large7scale effortA +ts limitation in scope affords greater manageabilityA +t gives the practitioner an opportunity to demonstrate what can be doneA +f the initial effort is successful, the practitioner will find it easier to intervene in other parts of the organization on the strength of this success. %isadvantages (uch a pro8ect may be seen as successful only because it is Bspecial2A
arl Taylor carl@the!nowledge.biz "5
+t may be re8ected on the basis that it is threatening to the rest of the organizationA #urther intervention may become difficult due to scepticism about activities that were Bnot invented here2A The practitioner may be viewed as a Bresearcher2 who is separated from the mainstream of the organization.
Option ) 3eduction of organizational pain This approach is similar to concentration on a business problem except that Bpain2 is defined more broadly than is Bproblem.2 $rganizational pain might include poor decision7ma!ing or problem7solving, the inability to obtain valid information from staff, excessive time spent in initiating and/or implementing change efforts, the unwillingness of staff to ta!e the initiative in directing their own activities, and so on. Advantages The effort is perceived as legitimate because it is directed toward an ac!nowledged Bpain2A As with the pilot7pro8ect approach, the chance for success is enhanced because the effort is limited in scopeA The organization gains a relief from the pain, and both the practitioner and $% itself gain credibility. .anagers who receive help in reducing the !inds of pain illustrated can become intense supporters of the practitioner. %isadvantages (uccess may be limited because of the many variables that influence the pain that develops in organizationsA The organizational personnel may be impatient with the time required to obtain visible reliefA +f the pro8ect is unsuccessful, the practitioner may lose the opportunity to gain entry into other parts of the organizationA The pain may be social or psychological in nature, therefore improvement may be viewed as Bsoft2 or Bfuzzy2 by personnel in other parts of the organization who are not actively involved in the effort. Option - 4nvolvement in an imposed change This approach consists of becoming involved in a pro8ect or change that the organization has already mandated. -xamples might include the promotion of a manager, a merger between two departments, the initiation of a new service procedure, or the launching of a new department or division. This type of pro8ect might involve such interventions as a transition meeting, a merger meeting, or a new7division start7up. Advantages The need for change is already establishedA The change itself is the natural process employed in the intervention, which may ma!e the organization more receptive to other $% activitiesA The practitioner is seen as assisting in a natural and/or legitimate process and thus is considered to have a relevant, helpful functionA The potential for success with such a pro8ect is relatively high, and the practitioner shares with others the responsibility for success.
arl Taylor
";
%isadvantages The practitioner may be seen as a meddlerA (uccess in the pro8ect may be attributed to factors other than the $% interventionsA The reasons for the change may not be consistent with $% values, therefore, the practitioner may be seen as hypocritical or unethical. Option . (ssociation with the influence leader This approach is similar to the power play except that the focus is on an individual rather than a group. Advantages A high potential for change because of the influence leader2s power to implement the changeA The fact that if the pro8ect is successful, the practitioner gains a great deal of credibility, as does the $% process. %isadvantages This approach may ma!e an overly powerful influence leader even more soA The practitioner may be seen as part of the influence leader2s power structureA +f such a pro8ect fails, there is high ris! to the organization and to the future of other $% pro8ectsA +t may be extremely difficult for the practitioner to wor! in other areas of the organization in which the influence leader2s wor! is envied or suspect. Option / (ssociation with OD support 1ith this approach, activities are initiated in those parts of the organization that are already supportive of $% values and activity. Advantages *ro8ects can be initiated quic!lyA The potential for their success is highA The employees involved feel a strong sense of ownership of these pro8ects and perceive the practitioner as valuable. %isadvantages (uccess with such pro8ects may be viewed by personnel in other parts of the organization as merely perceived rather than realA (uccess may accomplish little in the way of opening doors into other parts of the organizationA The practitioner may be seen by the rest of the organization as 8ust Bone of those $% people2A +f the practitioner2s support comes from a low7influence group, his or her own influence may actually diminish elsewhere. Option 10 Total5system intervention The ob8ective of this approach is to affect all parts of the organization almost simultaneously. (uch a pro8ect might be a new7division start7up in which the practitioner or a team of practitioners is involved in every aspect of planning and implementation. Advantages
arl Taylor carl@the!nowledge.biz "<
0eing involved in every aspect of the organizationA Iaving more control of the variablesA +f the pro8ect is successful, the practitioner gains great credibility and influence.
%isadvantages #ailure in this type of pro8ect has an extremely negative impact on the practitioner2s credibilityA #ew managers consider this approach to be a viable starting point for $%.
-.2
Over%oming ail!re Pattern#
As alluded to in earlier comments, many $% efforts achieve limited or no success due to organizational or managerial circumstances. +n addition, certain types of practitioner behaviour may precipitate the brea!down of an $% effort. These behaviours include failing to J $btain and wor! through a contract ?applicable to both external and internal practitioners@A -stablish specific goals for efforts and interventionsA %emonstrate sufficient courage to confront the organization and !ey managers in particularA 0e willing to try something newA %etermine the identity of the real clientA 1or! with real organizational needsA %evelop viable optionsA 1or! with the organization as it is rather than as the practitioner would li!e it to beA .easure or evaluate $% activitiesA *lan for and avoid managerial abdicationA (olve problems ?by becoming involved in Bquic! fixes2@A (pecify both short7 and long7term goals for the effortA 0e honest about what needs to be done and whyA %etermine whose needs are being metA *lan for and build toward the client managers2 ownership of the $% effort.
+n reviewing these behaviours, a practitioner might feel overwhelmed or discouraged. Iowever, simply being aware that certain negative behavioural patterns are potentially damaging to $% efforts can help a practitioner to avoid such behaviours. +n addition, the practitioner who conscientiously attends to the following activities may have greater success in overcoming failure patterns. (ctivity 1 6uilding a strategy As discussed earlier ?(ection )."@, one of the practitioner2s primary responsibilities is to formulate a strategy. The systematic building of a strategy for specific activities and pro8ects protects against failure by forcing the practitioner to consider and deal with such issues as developing a contract, establishing goals for the entire pro8ect and related interventions, and avoiding Cquic! fixes.C +n fact, a comprehensive strategy focuses attention on each of the failure patterns. (ctivity # 7stablishing a flow diagram of activities
arl Taylor
"/
Another practice that forces consideration of the issues involved in failure patterns is establishing a flow diagram covering all activities of the $% effort. A flow diagram provides an illustration of the ways in which the various interventions tie together and build on each other, the perceptions of the practitioner and the client personnel regarding progress at various points, and aspects related to the critical question of timings. (ctivity % 7ngaging in $oint planning with prospective clients %uring proposal development and prior to the launching of a long7term effort, the practitioner should engage in 8oint planning with the prospective client. 1ithout sufficient 8oint planning and exploration, the practitioner tends to proceed with a high ris! of falling into at least one, if not several, of the failure patterns. (ctivity & 4ncorporating review and evaluation sessions $f great help in avoiding failure patterns is the practice of incorporating into a contract a provision for periodic review and evaluation sessions. (uch a meeting allows the practitioner and appropriate organizational participants and managers to examine the immediate activity and to as! such questions as the following= Are we on trac!H Are the expected results materializingH 1hat feelings are we experiencing about our wor!ing relationshipH 1hat modifications or changes need to be madeH Are any failure patterns beginning to appear in the pro8ectH +f so, what can we do to eliminate themH (ctivity ' 2sing consulting teams %irectly or indirectly involving one or more fellow professionals enables the practitioner to be more aware of, and sensitive to, potential failure patterns. (uch involvement generates more analysis, the sharing of different perceptions, the use of more specialized s!ills and experience in given interventions, increased feedbac! and constructive confrontation. (ctivity ) 8articipating in OD activities #requently, practitioners attempt to guide clients through $% activities that they themselves have not experienced as participants. 0eing a Bdisinterested observer2 does not allow the practitioner to experience the dynamics and feelings of the Bowner.2 #irsthand experience can be invaluable in planning $% activities for others.
arl Taylor
)>
..
The De#ign o$ OD Intervention#
Intro"!%tion
Iaving considered precedes, motives, strategies, organizational dynamics and approaches, this section details a range of interventions that may be used within the wider context of a full $% strategy. As such, it is intended to be a source of reference, to be scanned in the first instance and then considered in depth when a specific $% intervention is being developed. The interventions are arranged under three broad categories 6 the first focusing on implementation at the level of teams, the second at the total organization level and the third around the sub8ect of supporting interventions. .ore specifically= +mplementing $% at the level of team structure and function 7 Dew Team (tart7up 7 Team Transitions 7 Team 0uilding 7 +ssue onsensus 7 .ulti7team .irror 7 +nter7team Team 0uilding +mplementing $% at the level of organization structure and function 7 (trategic *lanning 7 (urvey7guided %evelopment 7 Team :oal (etting 7 Kob %evelopment 7 9ole %evelopment 7 Dew %ivision (tart7up (upporting $% implementations 7 The $% (eminarA 7 Team (!ills TrainingA 7 4eadership (tyle AnalysisA 7 %iversity Awareness Training.
The overall intention here is to provide a broad ban! of material that can be used to stimulate further thought when considering the specifics of an $% intervention, i.e. it is not expected that the illustrations provided in the following pages be used unchanged. Iowever, in !eeping with reality, although each and every $% effort should be geared towards to the unique needs of the client, all successful $% practitioners develop, over time, a large repertoire of Btools2 that have wor!ed well in certain situations and are used frequently. +t can be argued legitimately that, because client needs are often ali!e in important ways, drawing on a repertoire of tried and tested tools is appropriate. This is not to suggest that emergent conditions will not require the development of new combinations of techniques or that a practitioner should Bmar!et2 a previously successful intervention as universally applicable. The issue is, as ever, one of awareness and balance.
arl Taylor
)"
..1
Implementing OD at the Level o$ Team (tr!%t!re an" !n%tion
..1.1 Ne/ Team (tart*!p Key Objectives To accelerate the process by which individual team members coordinate their efforts and become an efficient and effective team. To ma!e explicit, and practice, the desired norms for the team2s interactions. Developmental Focus The collective vision and mission for the team. +ndividual roles and responsibilities. The coordination of strategies, plans and measures of success for the team. .ethods for conflict resolution. Participants All members of a newly formed group ?pro8ect team, matrix organization, new business start7up, etc.@, including managers and, possibly, close external sta!eholders. Benefits An atmosphere is established for dealing openly with team membership issues. Team members are provided with an opportunity to wor! together on understanding their vision, mission, roles and interaction processes. When to Implement 1hen the team if first brought together to begin the process of developing its goals and ob8ectives. Timescale Three to four days, depending on the ambiguity and complexity of the team2s mission.
arl Taylor
))
New Team tart!up ! Detail of Process 1. -. .. 2. 8. 9. :. ;. <. Planning #e##ion %eveloping a contract and ground rules. (haring and clarifying general session goals and expectations. *lanning the meeting agenda. Getting to ,no/ ea%h other (haring aspects of personal history and own experience, traits and values. 9esponding to related questions. E#ta)li#hing the vi#ion6 mi##ion an" goal# %eveloping or reaffirming the team2s vision and mission. +dentifying team goals and general ob8ectives. E+ploration o$ 7!e#tion# an" %on%ern# (urfacing specific questions and concerns. 4isting related desires, expectations and/or recommendations. I##!e #!mmar' +ntegrating !ey issues. %eveloping a !ey issue summary. Preliminar' role negotiation +dentifying and clarifying specific roles within the team. %iscussing and agreeing roles. A%tion planning +dentifying specific ob8ectives. %eveloping associated action plans. Intervention +mplement *lans. 9eview and revise as appropriate. Eval!ation -valuating the group from a process perspective. %iscussion the development and evolution of group norms.
arl Taylor
)&
..1.- Team Tran#ition# Key Objectives To provide the opportunity for a team to analyse the impact of, and plan its ad8ustment to, a new team leader. To give a newly appointed team leader the opportunity to become familiar with group activities, goals and team member resources. To allow both the incoming team leader and the team members the opportunity to share and explore wor!ing styles and preferred practices. Developmental Focus The team2s goals, tas!s, methods and priorities. The team2s structure and operating procedures. Team member2s roles and contributions to the team2s performance. The incoming team leader2s experience, priorities and goals. 4eadership, communication and decision7ma!ing styles. 9ole conflict and ambiguity, and resistance to change. Participants All members of an existing team and the incoming team leader. Benefits All participants are given the opportunity to analyse the team2s historical performance and use of resources. Ieightened awareness of teamwor! needs during the period of transition. $pen affirmation, or re7affirmation, of the team2s goals, priorities and norms. Assistance in accelerating the path through forming, storming, norming and performing. When to Implement (uitable for a group that has never experienced an $% intervention before. Timescale Three to five days, depending on group size and information7collection methods.
arl Taylor
),
Team Transitions ! Detail of Process 1. -. .. 2. 8. 9. :. ;. Preparator' #e##ion 0all parti%ipant#1 %eveloping a contract and ground rules. (haring and clarifying purpose, procedure and content. Agreeing information collection items and procedures. In$ormation %olle%tion :athering information from individuals ?through questionnaires and interviews@. ompiling information into handouts. Operation# revie/ 0all parti%ipant#1 larifying current goals and ob8ectives as well as current pro8ects and activities. Lea"er#hip*#t'le revie/ 0all parti%ipant#1 +dentifying similarities and potential differences in the leadership styles of the outgoing and incoming team leaders. In$ormation $ee")a%, an" anal'#i# 0all parti%ipant#1 (haring, clarifying and analysing information regarding concerns about the change. I##!e %en#!# 0Ne/ Team * i.e. o!t*going manager no longer involve"1 +dentifying !ey issues. %eveloping plans to deal with !ey issues. Role %lari$i%ation 0Ne/ Team1 9edefining/reaffirming roles. 9eviewing goals and ob8ectives to establish trade7offs between old ones and new ones. Eval!ation 0Ne/ Team1 Assessing the meetings. *lanning the follow7up.
arl Taylor
)3
..1.. Team 3!il"ing Key Objectives To review and improve the team2s effectiveness. To provide an opportunity for the team to analyse its processes, performance, strengths and wea!nesses. To identify problem areas of team behaviour and corrective actions to be ta!en. Developmental Focus Team performance. +ndividual contributions to performance. Team goals, long and short term strategies, goal7setting processes. (pecific plans for individuals connected to team goals. Team composition, structure, operating procedures and efficiency. Team norms, culture and feedbac! processes. Participants The team leader and all team members ?from three to fifteen for practical purposes@. Benefits The process provides a setting for a realistic self7appraisal of team processes and team member relationships. The use of anonymous, topic7related information facilitates problem7centred rather than person7centred analysis. The team leader has an opportunity to model the type of behaviour preferred for effective team wor!ing. Teamwor! is enhanced as team members get to !now each other better, particularly with regard to wor!7style preferences and in the context of current wor! pressures and priorities. When to Implement Gsually not the first step for a team unless its members are familiar with $% interventions. Gseful as an early step for the senior management team in an organization, prior to a more comprehensive $% effort throughout the organization. The initial session?s@ to be followed by a session & to / months later to evaluate progress on action plans. Timescale #ive to seven days, depending on team size.
arl Taylor
)5
Team Buil"in# ! Detail of Process 1. -. .. 2. 8. 9. :. ;. <. 1>. 11. =ontra%t #e##ion %eveloping a contract. %iscussing needs and expectations. Pre*/or, #e##ion %eveloping ten to twenty interview questions and arranging interviews. In$ormation %olle%tion onducting individual interviews. ompiling responses into a handout. In$ormation $ee")a%, %istributing copies of the handout to all group members for review. In$ormation anal'#i# Analysing the responses in the handout ?either in sub7groups or the whole group@. +dentifying !ey strengths and !ey wea!nesses/problems. Agen"a "evelopment 9an! ordering !ey wea!nesses/problems according to importance. Pro)lem e+amination %iscussing each !ey wea!ness/problem in depth. Option generation :enerating ideas for solving each !ey wea!ness/problem. A%tion Planning %eveloping a written plan of action for each wea!ness/problem identified. (cheduling a session for review/follow7up. A##e##ment -valuating the meeting in terms of content and process. Revie/?$ollo/*!p #e##ion .eeting to examine follow7up, as planned.
arl Taylor
);
..1.2 I##!e =on#en#!# Key Objectives To examine and improve the effectiveness of a hierarchical organizational system. To identify !ey issues undermining effectiveness. To explore ways to resolve priority issues. To generate specific goals and action commitments. Developmental Focus $rganizational goals, priorities, long and short term strategies, and related goal7setting procedures. $rganizational performance. $rganizational structure, operating procedures and efficiency. (pecific plans for achieving organizational ob8ectives. Participants The entire organization if possible. +f not, representatives from all organizational levels. *articipation should only be limited by the constraints of time and the ability to deal with the processing of the information. Benefits The intervention emphasises honest organizational self7appraisal in an open setting with all organizational levels being present. +mproved communication, a better understanding of organization7wide issues, and a related action plan that enhances commitment among top, middle and front7line staff. When to Implement This intervention should follow other $% activities, i.e. not be an initial intervention. Timescale Approximately three days depending on group size.
arl Taylor
)<
Issue $onsensus ! Detail of Process 1. =ontra%t #e##ion0#1 %iscussing the following with organizational leaders= 7 felt needs 7 mutual expectations 7 overall strategy 7 format and content 7 related logistics. In$ormation %olle%tion an" i##!e i"enti$i%ation %ividing into sub7groups to determine organizational strengths and wea!nesses. (creening information in sub7groups to select ma8or issues that require wor!. In$ormation $ee")a%, (ummarising the results of the wor!. Agen"a )!il"ing 9eviewing overall information and developing an agenda of priority issues requiring resolution. In$ormation anal'#i# (haring feelings about the agenda items. Analysing each item in detail. Option generation 0rainstorming issue resolutions in sub7groups. A%tion planning (haring brainstormed ideas. .odifying suggestions until consensus is reached on all solutions. %eveloping action plans to ensure the implementation of solutions. (etting a date for a review session. A##e##ment -valuating the session from the standpoint of both content and process. Revie/ #e##ion 9econvening to evaluate progress to date. %eveloping further plans to ensure continued implementation.
-. .. 2. 8. 9. :. ;. <.
arl Taylor
)/
..1.8 M!lti*team Mirror Key Objectives To review the interactions of three or more interdependent teams with an emphasis on improving the effectiveness of the team that is designated as the Bhost2 team. To provide an opportunity for these teams to share individual and mutual goals. To provide an opportunity for these teams to share their perceptions of each other in term of the contributions each ma!e to the others2 effectiveness. To identify areas for improvement in the host team2s relationship with each of the other team, and develop action plans for addressing these areas. Developmental Focus The performance of the host team as it interacts with each of the other, interdependent, teams. -ach team2s contribution to overall performance. :oals and strategies for improving each interacting team2s relationship with the host team. Participants All members or representatives of at least three interacting teams ?the host team plus at least two others selected by either the host team or as a result of needs assessment@. Benefits The host team receives constructive feedbac! on its activities with interacting teams. All involved teams have the opportunity to thin! through and analyse their wor!ing relationships. The emphasis on positive improvement prevents a defensive reaction on the part of the host team. When to Implement This intervention should follow other $% activities, i.e. not be an initial intervention. Timescale 0etween & and , days, depending on the number of participants.
arl Taylor
&>
%ulti!team %irror ! Detail of Process 1. -. .. 2. 8. 9. :. ;. <. 1>. 11. =ontra%t #e##ion -stablishing a contract with the team leaders of all the participating teams. (etting goals for the host team. Preliminar' meeting .eeting with all participants to describe the ob8ectives and process, and to answer related questions. In$ormation %olle%tion ollecting information from the host team about its relationship with each interacting team. ollecting information from each interacting team about its relationship with the host team. In$ormation $ee")a%, *osting information collected. $utlining of information by reporters from the various teams. Team normalizing .eeting in original teams to express reactions to information received. O)#erve" team "i#%!##ion# +nterviewing each interacting team separately about the information while all other participants observe. Assisting the host team in discussing learning so far, while all other participants observe. Agen"a )!il"ing +dentifying important issues to be resolved ?in mixed groups, each consisting of an interacting team and one or more members from the host team@. (haring issues in the whole group. 9an! ordering issues to establish a wor!ing agenda. Mi+e"*gro!p planning #orming mixed groups to wor! on designated issues. %eveloping preliminary proposals for resolution. @oint a%tion planning *resenting proposals for resolution to the entire group. .odifying and accepting the proposals. Assigning responsibilities for follow7up. Agreeing deadlines for action Agreeing a date for the review session. A##e##ment -valuating the intervention in terms of content and process. Revie/ #e##ion
carl@the!nowledge.biz &"
arl Taylor
.eeting as planned to review progress to date and re7affirm or modify original plans.
arl Taylor
&)
..1.9 Inter*team Team 3!il"ing Key Objectives To examine and improve the total effectiveness of two interdependent teams. To identify problem areas and corrective actions for each team and for 8oint remedies. Developmental Focus Team performance ?considered separately and together@. Team goals, long7 and short7 term strategies, and goal setting processes. (pecific plans for individuals in connection with team and inter7team roles. +nter7team operating procedures and efficiency. Participants All members of two interacting teams. Benefits The teams engage in an honest appraisal of their interactions. Teamwor! is enhanced when team members become better acquainted, especially in terms of wor!7style preferences and particular wor!ing conditions and pressures. +nter7team planning ta!es place. When to Implement Gsually follows other $% interventions, i.e. may not be suitable as a first intervention. Timescale Three to four days.
arl Taylor
&&
Inter!team Team Buil"in# ! Detail of Process 1. -. .. 2. 8. 9. :. ;. <. 1>. 11. =ontra%t #e##ion %iscussing needs, expectations and the details of the intervention with the group leaders. Preparator' meeting# .eeting with each group separately to outline the process and ob8ectives and to answer questions. In$ormation %olle%tion .eeting with each group separately to collect information on perceptions of each other and inter7group relations. (electing representatives from each group to present their own group2s information during the feedbac! session. In$ormation $ee")a%, *resenting the results of the information collection sessions and clarifying as necessary. Team normalizing +ndividual teams meet briefly to share reactions to the information. O)#erve" gro!p "i#%!##ion# Assisting each team in turn to discuss the information while the other teams observe. Agen"a )!il"ing +dentifying !ey issues to be resolved. Mi+e"*gro!p planning #orming mixed groups to wor! on designated issues. %eveloping preliminary proposals for resolution. @oint a%tion planning *resenting proposals for resolution to the entire group. .odifying and accepting the proposals. Assigning responsibilities for follow7up. Agreeing deadlines for action Agreeing a date for the review session. A##e##ment -valuating the intervention in terms of content and process. Revie/ #e##ion .eeting as planned to review progress to date and re7affirm or modify original plans.
arl Taylor
&,
..-
Implementing OD at the Level o$ Organization (tr!%t!re an" !n%tion
..-.1 (trategi% Planning Key Objectives To identify strengths and wea!nesses, both current and future, in relation to accomplishing the mission of the organization. To identify environmental factors that presently influence the organization2s effectiveness 6 forecasting their future impact. To generate specific strategies, plans, goals and ob8ectives to which the organization is committed to ensure that the problems identified are resolved. Developmental Focus The team2s awareness of future issues and factors li!ely to affect performance. The team2s goals, long7 and short7term strategies, and goals setting processes. (pecific plans and ob8ectives for individuals, departments and/or functions as they relate to team action plans. %evelopment of contingency plans and solutions to forecasted problems. Participants All members of the organization2s management if possible. +f not, representatives from all levels of management. Benefits -ffective medium7 to long7term strategies can be developed with the maximum involvement of those who are expected to commit themselves to their implementation. .inimizes time7wasting digressions during planning by separating facts from assumptions. Allows managers to develop effective change plans by examining constraints and environmental contexts that will affect their organization. When to Implement An excellent starting point for an $% intervention. Timescale Three to five days.
arl Taylor
&3
trate#ic Plannin# ! Detail of Process 1. -. .. 2. 8. 9. :. ;. Development o$ an organizational mi##ion #tatement %efining the organizational mission in two or three sentences. I"enti$i%ation o$ #trength# an" /ea,ne##e# 4isting Bassets2 and Bliabilities2 ?including the less obvious psychological ones@ that affect mission accomplishment. A##e##ment o$ operational %on#traint# an" environmental in$l!en%e# 4isting !ey constraints and influences within which the organization must operate. Determining the $a%t# an" a##!mption# 4isting facts as well as assumptions about the future for each !ey constraint and environmental influence. Goal i"enti$i%ation +dentifying goals related to the organization2s mission, strengths and wea!nesses, and current assessments of !ey constraints and environmental influences. Generation o$ o)Ae%tive# %etermining individual ob8ectives for the more complex goals identified in step 3. A%tion planning 1riting a plan of action for achieving each goal and each ob8ective. Agreeing a date for the review session. Revie/ #e##ion 9eviewing progress towards achieving each goal. %eveloping further action plans or modifying original ones as appropriate.
arl Taylor
&5
..-.- (!rve'*g!i"e" Development Key Objectives To improve organizational performance by surveying all employees, feeding bac! resulting information through individual teams, and developing analysis and problem7 solving plans in response to the information obtained. To ta!e a measurement of an entire organization. Developmental Focus +nformation that covers organizational effectiveness across the whole span of its operations. *atterns in information that reveal particular strengths and wea!nesses. The development of solutions to problems affecting the whole organization. Participants The entire organization. Benefits Allows organizational climate to be assessed at a particular point in time. The survey method offers a relatively quic!, efficient method of gathering information on attitudes. All teams, including the least influential, are given the opportunity to review information that is relevant to them, to interpret the information for themselves and to assess how they compare with the overall organization. They can then develop their own requests, recommendations and plans. When to Implement *rovides an indication of areas of concern that may be addressed by localized $% interventions. As such, it can be useful as a first step towards $% 6 assuming the organization has not previously misused attitude surveys. Gseful as a follow7up to initial s!ill7building activities. Timescale (ix to ten days.
arl Taylor
&;
urvey!#ui"e" Development ! Detail of Process 1. -. .. 2. 8. 9. :. ;. <. 1>. =ontra%t #e##ion larifying the characteristics of survey7guided development. $utlining the ob8ectives and expectations of the intervention. -stablishing the need for a survey7planning team. (!rve' planning (electing appropriate dimensions and questions for the survey. (!rve' a"mini#tration Administering the survey to all participants. =on#oli"ation o$ in$ormation *rocessing survey results. *reparing information pac!ages for participants. Training o$ team $a%ilitator# Teaching facilitators how to conduct survey7feedbac! meetings with their teams and how to help teams respond to the information. ee")a%, meeting# %istributing and discussing information pac!ages in each team. larifying relevant team issues. %ealing with issues within the team2s control. .a!ing suggestions on issues beyond the team2s control for referral to higher levels. Revie/ o$ item# re$erre" !p/ar" %etermining appropriate responses to suggestions submitted by lower7level teams. Development o$ a %omm!ni%ation# #trateg' -stablishing a constructive method of conveying decisions made in the previous step. =omm!ni%ation o$ "e%i#ion# onveying decisions via the method determined in step <. A##e##ment (urveying participant reactions to the intervention.
arl Taylor
&<
..-.. Team Goal (etting Key Objectives To generate goals and a related action plan to which a team is committed. To clarify the team2s mission and related accountabilities, focusing group energy and reducing role confusion. Developmental Focus Team mission, structure, accountabilities and procedures. Team goals, ob8ectives and processes. (pecific plans for accomplishing goals, including individual action plans. An analysis of the related facts, assumptions and potential problems associated with team ob8ectives. Participants A full team ?team leader and all members@, but ideally between three and twenty for practical purposes. Benefits *rovides teams with the essential component of clear goals to ensure they focus their energies, ownership and commitment. Ielps avoid dysfunctional competition and ensure cooperation. +ncreases commitment to team goals. 9eviews the inter7relationships between individuals and allows these to be improved through planned actions. When to Implement An excellent starting point for an $% intervention, but can be initiated at almost any point during a team2s life. Timescale Approximately two days.
arl Taylor
&/
Team &oal ettin# ! Detail of Process 1. -. .. 2. 8. 9. :. ;. <. Development o$ a team mi##ion #tatement omposing a statement regarding the team2s purpose, customers and unique attributes. Development o$ team a%%o!nta)ilitie# %etermining the results and/or conditions for which the team will be accountable. I"enti$i%ation o$ %a#%a"e" a%%o!nta)ilitie# +dentifying accountabilities that should be delegated to individuals or sub7teams. %etermining the parameters for each accountability that is cascaded. -stablishing a method for communicating these accountabilities to individuals or sub7 teams. Goal )rain#torming :enerate possible goals associated with accountabilities, feedbac! and related team concerns. Development o$ team5# goal %riteria %eveloping criteria for identifying final team goals. Goal i"enti$i%ation -mploying criteria to screen goals brainstormed in step ,. Determination o$ %ooperative goal# %eciding which goals require wor!ing with other individuals/sub7teams. Goal*in$ormation )rain#torming :enerating information pertinent to achieving each goal. A%tion planning -stablishing a plan of action ?containing (.A9T ob8ectives@ for each goal.
arl Taylor
,>
..-.2 @o) Development Key Objectives To systematically redesign an existing 8ob such that the conditions for motivation are improved along with attendant performance. To identify the components of a 8ob that under7utilize talent. Developmental Focus The impact of 8ob content on performance. The impact of technology on 8ob content and process. The motivational potential of an existing 8ob. The sources of variance in desirable vs. actual performance. The specific conditions that create the conditions for motivation. Participants A 8ob7design intervention team consisting of all employees in the organization who hold the 8ob in question as well as their line managers. Typically six to eight participants. Benefits Those best qualified to redesign 8obs are those doing the 8obs along with their line managers. -mployees will more readily accept changes when they are involved in, or are represented in, change development. 0oth psychological and technical needs must be addressed in an effective re7design of wor!. When to Implement 1hen evidence suggests the development or emergence of a problem related to 8ob content. Timescale Typically half7day sessions wee!ly for two to three months, depending on 8ob complexity.
arl Taylor
,"
'ob Development ! Detail of Process 1. -. .. 2. 8. 9. :. ;. Orientation o$ Ao)*"e#ign intervention team +ntroducing the members of the Kob7design +ntervention Team to basic principles of 8ob development. Development o$ a Ao)*p!rpo#e #tatement 1riting a statement that specifies the reason for the 8ob2s existence. I"enti$i%ation o$ ,e' a%%o!nta)ilitie# -stablishing the end results or desired conditions for which a 8ob holder will be responsible. I"enti$i%ation o$ #'#tem# an" operation# +dentifying the target system. %escribing the operations of that system. +dentifying related systems. %eveloping a flow diagram of wor! performed in all of these systems. 3rain#torming o$ Ao) "imen#ion# :enerating ideas for increasing feedbac! about performance and for increasing autonomy. :enerating ways to complete entire tas!s and determining ways to deal with barriers to the accomplishment of those tas!s. (%reening o$ in$ormation (electing and eliminating brainstormed items according to criteria agreed by the Kob7 design +ntervention Team. Development o$ $inal Ao) "e#%ription 4isting items retained after screening. :rouping items into wor! modules. omparing items with the purpose statement and the !ey accountabilities. %eveloping an integrated 8ob description. Development o$ training plan -stablishing an action plan for training and orienting employees. 9eviewing problems that might be encountered with the 8ob description.
arl Taylor
,)
..-.8 Role Development Key Objectives To clarify the definitions and expectations of a specific role. To identify the obligations of the interdependent members of a wor! group. To resolve conflict associated with role confusion and ambiguity. Developmental Focus The clarification of a target role. The expectations of others regarding the behaviour associated with the target role. The development of a consensus regarding individual accountabilities and related authorities. Participants All members of the target team and members of interacting teams as desired. Benefits .inimising role conflict with a team. Addressing interpersonal tensions and conflicts that are often the result of role ambiguity. *romoting a more supportive environment for the target 8ob, as team members gain a clear understanding of that 8ob. When to Implement 4i!ely to follow other $% interventions that have revealed role conflict or role ambiguity as a !ey issue. An excellent follow7up to $% interventions for new7team start7up, transition planning, new division start7up and 8ob development. Timescale Two to three days.
arl Taylor
,&
(ole Development ! Detail of Process 1. -. .. 2. 8. 9. :. =ontra%t #e##ion .eeting with appropriate team members to discuss and plan the intervention. Target*role #ele%tion Agreeing the specific role to be examined and developed. Target*role anal'#i# Analysing the purpose, accountabilities and tas!s of the target role. I"enti$i%ation o$ the target*role Ao)*hol"er5# e+pe%tation# %etermining what the 8ob7holder expects of those in interacting roles. Achieving agreement on legitimate expectations. I"enti$i%ation o$ other#5 e+pe%tation# %etermining what those in interacting roles expect from the target role. Achieving agreement on legitimate expectations. omparing final expectations with those established in step ,. Role*pro$ile "evelopment +ncorporating all information into a profile of the target role ?prepared by the 8ob holder after the meeting@. ollo/*!p #e##ion .eeting to review and approve the 8ob holder2s 8ob profile.
arl Taylor
,,
..-.9 Ne/ Divi#ion (tart*!p Key Objectives To ensure the implementation of a comprehensive organizational plan to meet identified start7up goals. To develop, amongst employees, a high level of ownership and commitment to organizational principles that are li!ely to meet technical, social and cost/profit ob8ectives. Developmental Focus $verall organizational performance as a function of design. 4ong7 and short7term organizational goals and priorities. $rganizational structure, operating procedures and performance efficiency. +ndividual and group performance planning and implementation. Participants All managers, if possible. +f not, representatives from as many functional groups and organizational levels as practical. All members of other groups participating in the start7up. Benefits $rganizational members can best develop in, and become behaviourally committed to, a system that they themselves have designed. Koint planning, shared expectations and the development of teams that are aligned with the development of systems that will meet goals related to cost, quality and productivity. When to Implement %uring the planning and implementation of a new division.
arl Taylor
,3
New Division tart!up ! Detail of Process 1. -. .. 2. 8. 9. :. ;. <. 1>. 11. Preliminar' planning %eveloping initial agreements regarding the scope of the pro8ect, the nature of the processes to be employed, the role of the practitioner and timing. (trategi% planning %eveloping a divisional mission statement. 4isting strengths and wea!nesses. -stablishing an overview of the pro8ect. +dentifying !ey planning ob8ectives. %eveloping related action plans. (o%io*#'#tem an" pro%e##*#'#tem "evelopment 4isting the system characteristics that are consistent with the organization2s values and ob8ectives. 4isting beliefs about people that are consistent with system characteristics, values and ob8ectives. Te%hno*#'#tem "evelopment *lanning technical systems that are consistent with earlier plans and decisions ?involving outside resources as necessary@. (trategi% planning !p"ate 9eviewing planning to date ?presentation from top managers to middle managers@. *roviding an opportunity for middle managers to offer input and to increase ownership. Team )!il"ing 0#enior management1 -xplore experience to date as a team. .a!ing related plans to improve effectiveness. Management*pra%ti%e# #eminar .eeting to establish management practices and policies consistent with plans and decisions made so far ?all managers@. Team )!il"ing 0mi""le an" $ir#t*line management1 -xploring team experience to date. .a!ing plans to enhance effectiveness and ensure congruency. @o) "evelopment %eveloping 8ob content and structure consistent with systems characteristics and management/people principles. Pro)lem*#olving training oaching in problem identification and solution to enhance the on7going contribution and participation of all participants. Operating*i##!e revie/ -xploring issues and concerns related to the implementation of the start7up plans ?all participants@.
carl@the!nowledge.biz ,5
arl Taylor
(etting dates for follow7up session as deemed necessary.
arl Taylor
,;
...
(!pporting OD Implementation#
....1 The OD #eminar Key Objectives To provide managers with information on the ob8ectives and methods of $%. To assist managers in ma!ing decisions regarding the use and potential of $% in their organization. To clarify the types of organizational issues and problems that can be addressed by $%. To increase the potential for $% being implemented for legitimate reasons. Developmental Focus $rganizational analysis ?including climate@. .anagement style and philosophy. (ystemic thin!ing. Dorms, values and inter7group dynamics. onsulting approaches, s!ills and sources. Participants The entire management system if possible. +f not, representatives from all levels of management. Do more than twenty for maximum effectiveness. Benefits .anagers are provided with a common base of !nowledge about $%. A setting is provided for a candid appraisal of the potential for $% before activities are initiated within the organization. The seminar process helps to ensure that managers implement $% in a rational, appropriate manner. 9ealistic outcomes for $% are discussed. When to Implement Gsually a first step in a situation in which the organization is new to $% and/or when interventions are li!ely to affect the entire organization in a relatively short period of time. onducted several times in a large organization, starting with senior management and proceeding through the hierarchy. Timescale $ne evening plus two full days.
arl Taylor
,<
The OD seminar ! Detail of process 1. -. .. 2. 8. 9. :. ;. <. Intro"!%tor' #e##ion :etting acquainted. -xplaining the seminar format. :eneral definition of $%. General overvie/ larifying the history and bac!ground of $%. *resenting further definitions and a basic process model. Intervention revie/ -xplaining the basic process model by specifying the steps involved in typical interventions. Intervention a%tivitie# onducting activities that illustrate the content of steps ). and &. -xploring wor!place relevance. Pre#entation o$ %a#e #t!"ie# (haring case studies from the practitioner2s own experiences, including an example of large system change and an example of inter7group team building. =lari$i%ation o$ the role o$ management :eneral data regarding the participants2 perceptions of the role of the manager in the $% process. Adding the practitioner2s thoughts on the sub8ect. Di#%!##ion o$ )eginning an OD e$$ort %iscussing resource requirements, strategy and analysis, pitfalls, initiating options, ways to sustain the effort, and the role of internal and external consulting resources. Appli%ation to /or,pla%e (it!ation# %ividing the participants into sub7groups to discuss wor!place applications. (haring with the whole group and presenting any unanswered questions. Eval!ation Assessing the seminar. .a!ing suggestions for improvement.
arl Taylor
,/
....- Team*#,ill# training Key Objectives To introduce a range of teamwor! concepts. To develop !nowledge, s!ills and competencies in group dynamics, group influence, personal leadership style, self7assessment and interpersonal awareness in individual and group relationships. Developmental Focus (trategy and goal setting. *roblem solving and creativity. 9esource utilization and coordination. +nfluencing. Participants .embers of a single wor! group or peers from a range of groups, but no more than sixteen for maximum effectiveness. Benefits An analysis of group behaviour is actively achieved. +ndividual assessment of behaviour and results is achieved by= ". Active learningA ). The analysis of a range of activities in terms of their relevance to the wor!ing contextA &. -ncouraging individual and group feedbac!A ,. Allowing participants to share responsibility for their learningA 3. %rawing effectively on the model for experiential learning illustrated below.
Mo"el o$ E+periential Learning When to Implement A !ey first step in situations where the organization is new to $%. 1here conflict or non7 cooperative behaviour is evident. Timescale Two to three days.
arl Taylor
3>
Team!s)ills trainin# ! Detail of process 1. -. .. 2. 8. 9. :. ;. <. 1>. 11. 1-. Planning meeting .eeting with designated members of management to outline content, format and rationale, answer related questions, determine logistics, etc. Intro"!%tion %rawing out feelings and expectations of participants regarding the training experience. -stablishing the ground7rules. +ntroducing the concept of experiential learning. Orientation Administering instruments to assess present !nowledge and use of team s!ills. onducting an activity that introduces and reinforces the need for team s!ills. Team/or, Gsing an activity, simulation or discussion to reinforce the importance of teamwor! in organizations. Gro!p "e%i#ion*ma,ing an" pro)lem*#olving Gsing an activity and a discussion to expose participants to the issues of participation and involvement in relation to problem7solving and decision7ma!ing. Val!e# an" per%eption# Gsing a presentation, simulation or an activity to illustrate the ways in which people2s value systems affect their perceptions and their behaviour in groups. =ooperation an" %omm!ni%ation Gsing activities and a discussion to raise group awareness of issues and dynamics involving cooperation and communication s!ills as applied in group settings. Eval!ation an" re%onne%tion (haring perceptions of the first day of training. -valuating adherence to the ground7rules. Po/er an" %on$li%t management Gsing an activity, simulation and/or presentation to explore the issues of power dynamics and conflict management in and between groups. Inter*gro!p team/or, Gsing a simulation and a discussion to illustrate the ways in which team s!ills affect inter7 group relations. ee")a%, an" /or,pla%e planning Gsing instruments and/or feedbac! discussions to provide the participants with data concerning their wor!shop behaviour. %eveloping plans to experiment with new behaviours bac! in the wor!place. A##e##ment :enerating data about the training experience.
carl@the!nowledge.biz 3"
arl Taylor
9elating the training to wor!place situations and other $% events. ..... Lea"er#hip #t'le anal'#i# Key Objectives To provide an opportunity for leaders to examine their own personal preferences, tendencies and values concerning leadership style. To increase understanding of the strengths associated with different leadership styles. To help leaders explore different ways of developing their leadership styles and effectiveness. Developmental Focus *ersonal awareness of the nature, tendencies and strengths associated with various leadership7behaviour styles under both favourable and unfavourable wor! conditions. -xploring the impact of various leadership styles on staff and wor! environments. 0roadening behavioural options through exposure to alternative leadership styles. Participants 4eadership peers. .anagement teams. 0oards of %irectors. Do more than sixteen for maximum effectiveness. Benefits +mproved organizational effectiveness through the improved application of leadership by those in positions of influence and control. The creation of an environment for supportive self7analysis. +ncreased self7awareness and ability to employ appropriate situational leadership. When to Implement A good initiating or follow7up event for team7s!ills training, team building or inter7group team building. Timescale Three full7day sessions over a period of three wee!s.
arl Taylor
3)
*ea"ership style analysis ! Detail of process 1. -. .. 2. 8. 9. :. ;. <. 1>. 11. Orientation an" pre*/or, 9eviewing the wor!shop ob8ectives. %istributing instruments on leadership style and giving instructions for completion. Pre#entation o$ )a#i% lea"er#hip mo"el *resenting a model of leadership based on contingencies. +ntroducing the concept of authenticity. =on#i"eration o$ val!e #'#tem# %iscussing the completed instruments and helping the participants to understand their leadership profiles. onducting an activity that demonstrates the impact of values on leadership behaviour. Integration o$ val!e# an" lea"er#hip -xplaining the theories behind the instruments. %iscussing the organizational variables associated with various leadership styles. E+periential a%tivit' onducting an experiential activity that stresses the interconnections of personal needs, value systems, and leadership style options. Di#%!##ion o$ #tre## %iscussing primary sources of organizational stress. Anal'#i# o$ the %on#e7!en%e# o$ $ear :enerating data about fear7producing leader behaviours. Pre#entation o$ a!thenti% lea"er#hip *resenting the benefits of developing an authentic, unique and internalised leadership style. Rein$or%ement o$ a!thenti% lea"er#hip onducting experiential activities that illustrate authentic leadership theory. Di#%!##ion o$ /or,pla%e i##!e# an" opport!nitie# %iscussing, in small groups, real7life concerns about style options and related consequences. :iving and receiving feedbac! about individual styles. (!mmar' an" %on%l!#ion (ummarising the !ey points of the intervention. %iscussing the transfer of learning. -valuating the wor!shop.
arl Taylor
3&
....2 Diver#it' a/arene## training Key Objectives To examine diversity issues as well as opportunities at wor! to improve the climate for the assimilation, upward mobility and full utilisation of human resources. To foster a proactive approach to diversity as a way of life in the organization. Developmental Focus +ndividual and group awareness of the nature and consequences of diversity issues at wor!. Gnderstanding diversity as it relates to individual effectiveness, team performance and organizational policy. Participants An existing team, including manager. I9 personnel from outside the team. Benefits A setting is provided for supportive and realistic discussion, self7appraisal and feedbac! concerning the negative consequences of discrimination in the organization. A constructive, controlled environment is needed to raise awareness and facilitate discussion of diversity at wor!. .embers of staff who may be exposed to the negative consequences of a poor approach to diversity can best explore issues about career development discrimination, stereotyping and attitudes towards diversity by exchanging perceptions, sharing ideas and exploring solutions with each other. The climate for, and ownership of, diversity and full human resource utilisation will eventually be enhanced as people with different experiences develop ob8ectives. When to Implement -ither as an initiating or a follow7up event for affirmative action on diversity. Timescale $ne or two days.
arl Taylor
3,
Diversity awareness trainin# ! Detail of process 1. -. .. 2. 8. 9. :. ;. <. 1>. 11. 1-. Pre*/or, #e##ion .eeting with the participants to exchange ob8ectives, clarify the wor!shop design, and giving a pre7wor! assignment to collect data via interviews. Intro"!%tion 1elcoming the participants and human resource personnel. 9eaffirming the support for the wor!shop. (haring concerns and expectations. Diver#it' poli%' a$$irmation %iscussing the organization2s current policy, application and affirmative action activities. E+%hange o$ intervie/ "ata #orming mixed sub7groups to share the data collected as a pre7wor! assignment. =on#i"eration o$ val!e# 4aying a foundation for the connection between value7system formation and diversity attitudes. (!rve' o$ attit!"e# (urveying the participants2 attitudes towards incidents in their lives involving members of different groups. #orming mixed7group sub7groups to share answers to survey questions. Di#%!##ion o$ %areer a"van%ement #orming homogeneous7group sub7groups to determine opinions regarding the way to get ahead in the organization. (haring opinions in the whole group. Mi"*%o!r#e eval!ation -valuating wor!shop progress so far. Data generation an" e+%hange #orming sub7groups to discuss the behaviour of the ma8orities and minorities at wor!. %eveloping questions to as! other sub7groups. Gsing a group7on7group configuration to allow minority and ma8ority participants to obtain answers to questions. @oint $or%e*$iel" "evelopment +dentifying !ey issues, barriers and hindrances in the system. A%tion planning 0rainstorming solutions to problems. 1riting action plans that reflect the specifics of the chosen solutions. -xamining the organization2s formal affirmative action plan. *lanning a review session. inal eval!ation
carl@the!nowledge.biz 33
arl Taylor
oncluding the wor!shop and evaluating the entire experience.
2.
A%tion Planning B The En" o$ the 3eginning
Intro"!%tion
The content of this section is largely based on the experience of the author and the reflections of fellow $% practitioners. They are included to encourage further reflection 6 an essential part of ontinuing *rofessional %evelopment for the $% practitioner.
2.1
The 7!alit' an" !#e o$ a%tion plan#
+t is essential that the action plans that are developed during an $% intervention contain (.A9T-9 ob8ectives at all levels ?(pecific, .easurable, Agreed, 9ealistic, Timely, -valuated and 9evised when necessary@. +t may ta!e the novice practitioner by surprise to find that the action planning stage of an $% intervention is often accompanied by anxiety and negative reactions. *otential contributors here include= The client2s realization of the amount of time required to bring about changeA The tendency to attempt to address all of the issues that have arisen during the data gathering, analysis and problem7solving stagesA The emotional Brebound2 that follows the enthusiasm associated with Bseeing the light2 and having wor!ed through difficult issues.
%uring this phase, the practitioner must ensure s/he is not part of the problemE +t is essential to as!= Am + getting caught up in the Bspirit of the moment2H %o + believe the group can deal effectively with all the surfaced issues during the timeframe setH
0eyond this, there are actions the practitioner can ta!e to reduce anxiety and negative reactions. These include= Allowing a cooling7off period between analysis and solution to ensure a degree of realism that might otherwise be over7riddenA 9eminding the group that there will be the usual competition for their time when they return bac! to their normal wor!ing environmentA $ffering own experience and opinions if it is felt that plans are of questionable quality and feasibility.
2.-
En#!ring $ollo/*thro!gh an" o)Ae%tivit'
The establishment of what appear to be realistic action plans doesn2t guarantee follow7throughE *ossible causes here include= +ncomplete buy7in by all members of the group 6 particularly prevalent if peer pressure has been a feature of the action7planning processA +nappropriate motivations for $% ?refer bac! to (ection ".&@A
carl@the!nowledge.biz 35
arl Taylor
+nability to gain appropriate control over the resources that are critical to the implementation of the action planA +nsufficient attention being paid to evaluation and revision sessionsA A lac! of understanding around the amount of maintenance wor! required to follow7 though on an $% effort.
These causes, and their symptoms, may only reveal themselves once an implementation is underway. This, again, highlights the importance of seeing $% as being composed of 9: a number of interdependent steps or phases; each of which builds on the previous one ?(ection "."@.
2..
OD pra%titioner orientation#
As practitioners, we all have our preferences, and these will colour the way we see our interventions 6 and the world in general. A practitioner who is comfortable with team building may over7represent this focus during an $% intervention. (imilarly, a practitioner who believes that structural design is the !ey to producing lasting change may overly focus on 8ob or role development. learly, the more aware we are of our preferences, the less li!ely they are to interfere in our quest for ob8ectivity and/or a truly client7centred approach. 0eing non7directive in our approach ?see next (ection@ may further help. 1hat is required, in any intervention, is an appropriate migration around, and balance of, different orientations as the $% intervention evolves. The attention of the practitioner should not, therefore, stray too far away from the understanding that no single orientation is always, or even usually, the correct one. The best approach is contingent upon a number of factors that include= lient readinessA Analysed needsA .otivationA 9esources.
2.2
Dire%tive v#. non*"ire%tive pra%titioner #t'le#
The nature of the $% process, emerging as it does from the applied behavioural sciences, suggests the practitioner should adopt a non7directive style in his or her relationships with clients. The differences between directive and non7directive styles are illustrated below.
Dire%tive 0Pra%titioner a# te%hni%al e+pert1
The client2s statement of the problem is either accepted at face value or verified by the practitioner on the basis of his/her technical expertise with regard to the problem. 4ittle time is spent on developing the practitioner7client relationship. The connection is generally short7term and problem7oriented. The solution to the problem is generally developed by the practitioner and implemented by the client. The practitioner brings technical expertise to bear on the client2s problem. The practitioner is primarily concerned with increasing the client2s !nowledge and s!ill with regard to the stated problem. +n general, the practitioner accomplishes the 8ob for the client. arl Taylor
Non*"ire%tive 0Pra%titioner a# pro%e## $a%ilitator1

The client2s statement of the problem is treated as informationA the problem is verified 8ointly by the client and the practitioner. The practitioner7client relationship is viewed as essential to the process, and considerable attention is given to its development. The practitioner2s responsibility is to help the client to discover and implement appropriate solutions. The practitioner helps to analyse and facilitate organizational processes. The practitioner is primarily concerned with improving the client2s analytical and problem7solving s!ills. +n general, the practitioner helps the client accomplish the 8ob. 3;
Dire%tive an" non*"ire%tive %on#!ltan%' #t'le# #!mmari#e"
+n reality, a mature client7centred approach may recognise the need for occasionally being directiveE The following continuum, drawn from coaching practice, is more representative of the space in which the $% practitioner finds him/herself.
The #pe%tr!m o$ %oa%hing #,ill#
2.8
The %ompeten%ie# o$ the e$$e%tive pra%titioner
+t would be overly ambitious to attempt a comprehensive review of the competencies of the $% practitioner. 9ather, what follows are a few pointers that may stimulate thin!ing around what it ta!es to be effective. 1< #< %< &< '< )< +amiliarity with current thinking and application 8sychological maturity Sensitivity in listening and observing (wareness of personal impact on others Technical background derived from training with an experienced practitioner =nowledge of both large5 and small5system change strategies and creativity in adapting them to felt needs -< (bility to express oneself simply and clearly .< (bility to confront and be confronted /< (bility to demonstrate confidence without being arrogant 10< >illingness to take risks These guidelines, along with others you may find researched in the literature or establish for yourself from your own experience, can form the basis for continuing professional development.
arl Taylor
3<
8.
Evol!tion an" Revol!tion a# Organization# Gro/
0y way of completing the notes for this .odule, Appendix " contains a paper written by 4arry :reiner in "/;). %espite its age, it reads as a contemporary document and holds value as an overview of the organizational challenges often encountered by the $% practitioner. Appendix ) contains :reiner2s further reflections, written in "//<. Appendix & is for those who are still left standingE
The OD (t!"ent5# Lament

+2ve read all the course notes but still + can2t see 1hat exactly is meant by this thing called L$%L M(ystemic application of behavioural scienceL 4eaves me feeling cold and a little as!ance. + see there are four orientations and then J The ;( .odel is thrown in the pen And what should + ma!e of these Mtypical precedesLH Are they related to Mclient felt needsLH + explore the next concept and understand now M.otivationL is !ey to the Bwhat2 and the Bhow2 And client involvement in my interventions + see must be grounded in honest intentions. $% is clearly something that must 0e based on a firm bed of mutual trust. (electing approaches that fit with Bfelt need2 +s part of the s!ill set +2ll need to succeed. The design of $% is both science and art 0ut Bob8ective reality2 is where + must start B os half7coc!ed attempts at the process of Bchange2 1ill place true success way outside of my range. .y orientation is well understood 1hich means ?with some luc!@ + feel that + could -ngage with this .odule and then + might be A great practitioner of this thing called B$%2.
arl Taylor
3/
3i)liograph'?Rea"ing Li#t
arter, 9., .artin, K., .ayblin, 0, .unday, .. ?"/<<@. Systems; ,anagement and *hange ? a graphic guide< *aul hapman *ublishing 4td in association with the $pen Gniversity. #rame, 9..., Iess, 9.'., and Dielsen, 1.9., "/<), The OD Source 6ook ( 8ractitioners @uide, *feiffer N ompany, (an %iego. Ioc!, %. ?)>>3@. One from ,any, 0errett7'oehler *ublishers, (an #rancisco )>>3. .organ, :. ?"//5@. 4mages of Organization. (age. $2 onnor, K., .c%ermott, +. ?"//;@. The (rt of Systems Thinking ? 7ssential Skills for *reativity and 8roblem Solving< Thorsons. (eddon, K. ?)>>&@. +reedom from *ommand and *ontrol ( 6etter >ay to ,ake the >ork >ork, Oanguard. (enge, *... ?"//>@. The +ifth Discipline The (rt and 8ractice of the 1earning Organization< Dew Por!= urrency7%oubleday. (enge, *..., et al. ?"//,@. The +ifth Discipline +ieldbook, 4ondon= Dicholas 0realey *ublishing. (herwood, %. ?)>>)@. Seeing the +orest for the Trees ? ( ,anagers @uide to (pplying Systems Thinking< Dicholas 0realey *ublishing. (tewart, K. "//5, .anaging *hange Through 1earning and Development , 'ogan *age, 4ondon. *eters,T. "/<;; Thriving on *haos ? Aandbook for a ,anagement 3evolution , .acmillan, 4ondon. *eters,T. and 1aterman, K., "/<); 4n Search of 7xcellence, Iarpers and 9ow, 4ondon. 1heatly, ..K. ?)>>"@. 1eadership and the Bew Science Discovering Order in a *haotic >orld< 0errett7'oehler *ublishers +nc.
arl Taylor
5>
APPENDIC 1
-volution and 9evolution as $rganizations :row

LARRY E. GREINER
__________________________________________________________________________________ Harvard Business Review. Extracts from Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Gro ! "# Larr# E. Greiner$ %ul#&August '()*. +o,#rig-t . '()* "# t-e /resident and 0ello s of 1arvard +ollege2 all rig-ts reserved.
345 Intro"!%tion A small researc- com,an# c-ooses too com,licated and formalized an organization structure for its #oung age and limited size. It flounders in rigidit# and "ureaucrac# for several #ears and is finall# ac6uired "# a larger com,an#. 7e# executives of a retail store c-ain -old on to an organizational structure long after it -as served its ,ur,ose$ "ecause t-eir ,o er is derived from t-is structure. 8-e com,an# eventuall# goes into "an9ru,tc#. A large "an9 disci,lines a re"ellious! manager -o is "lamed for current control ,ro"lems$ -en t-e underl#ing cause is centralized ,rocedures t-at are -olding "ac9 ex,ansion into ne mar9ets. :an# #ounger managers su"se6uentl# leave t-e "an9$ com,etition moves in$ and ,rofits are still declining. 8-e ,ro"lems of t-ese com,anies$ li9e t-ose of man# ot-ers$ are rooted more in ,ast decisions t-an in ,resent events or outside mar9et d#namics. 1istorical forces do indeed s-a,e t-e future gro t- of organizations. Yet management$ in its -aste to gro $ often overloo9s suc- critical develo,mental 6uestions as; <-ere -as our organization "een= <-ere is it no = And -at do t-e ans ers to t-ese 6uestions mean for -ere e are going= Instead$ its gaze is fixed out ard to ard t-e environment and t-e future > as if more ,recise mar9et ,ro?ections ill ,rovide a ne organizational identit#. +om,anies fail to see t-at man# clues to t-eir future success lie it-in t-eir o n organizations and t-eir evolving states of develo,ment. :oreover$ t-e ina"ilit# of management to understand its organization develo,ment ,ro"lems can result in a com,an# "ecoming frozen! in its ,resent stage of evolution or$ ultimatel#$ in failure$ regardless of mar9et o,,ortunities. :# ,osition in t-is article is t-at t-e future of an organization ma# "e less determined "# outside forces t-an it is "# t-e organization!s -istor#. In stressing t-e force of -istor# on an organization$ I -ave dra n from t-e legacies of Euro,ean ,s#c-ologists @t-eir t-esis "eing t-at individual "e-aviour is determined ,rimaril# "# ,revious events and ex,eriences$ not "# -at lies a-eadA. Extending t-is analog# of individual develo,ment to t-e ,ro"lems of organization develo,ment$ I s-all discuss a series of develo,mental ,-ases t-roug- -icgro ing com,anies tend to ,ass. But first$ let me ,rovide t o definitions;
arl Taylor
5"
'. 8-e term evolution is used to descri"e ,rolonged ,eriods of gro t- -ere no ma?or u,-eaval occurs in organization ,ractices. *. 8-e term revolution is used to descri"e t-ose ,eriods of su"stantial turmoil in organization life. As a com,an# ,rogresses t-roug- develo,ment ,-ases$ eacevolutionar# ,eriod creates its o n revolution. 0or instance$ centralized ,ractices eventuall# lead to demands for decentralization. :oreover$ t-e nature of management!s solution to eac- revolutionar# ,eriod determines -et-er a com,an# ill move for ard into its next stage of evolutionar# gro t-. As I s-all s-o later$ t-ere are at least five ,-ases of organization develo,ment$ eac- c-aracterized "# "ot- an evolution and a revolution. &e' $or%e# in "evelopment Curing t-e ,ast fe #ears a small amount of researc- 9no ledge a"out t-e ,-ases of organization develo,ment -as "een "uilding. Dome of t-is researc- is ver# 6uantitative$ suc- as timeEseries anal#ses t-at reveal ,atterns of economic ,erformance over time.' 8-e ma?orit# of studies$ -o ever$ are caseE oriented and use com,an# records and intervie s to reconstruct a ric- ,icture of cor,orate develo,ment.* Yet "ot- t#,es of researc- tend to "e -eavil# em,irical it-out attem,ting more generalized statements a"out t-e overall ,rocess of develo,ment. A nota"le exce,tion is t-e -istorical or9 of Alfred C. +-andler$ %r.$ in -is "oo9 Strategy and Structure.F 8-is stud# de,icts four ver# "road and general ,-ases in t-e lives of four large GD com,anies. It ,ro,oses t-at outside mar9et o,,ortunities determine a com,an#!s strateg#$ -ic- in turn determines t-e com,an#!s organization structure. 8-is t-esis -as a valid ring for t-e four com,anies examined "# +-andler$ largel# "ecause t-e# develo,ed in a time of ex,losive mar9ets and tec-nological advances. But more recent evidence suggests t-at organization structure ma# "e less mallea"le t-an +-andler assumed2 in fact$ structure can ,la# a critical role in influencing cor,orate strateg#. It is t-is reverse em,-asis on -o organization structure affects future gro t- -ic- is -ig-lig-ted in t-e model ,resented in t-is article. 0rom an anal#sis of recent studies$H five 9e# dimensions emerge as essential for "uilding a model of organization develo,ment; '. *. F. H. I. Age of t-e organization. Dize of t-e organization. Dtages of evolution. Dtages of revolution. Gro t- rate of t-e industr#.
I s-all descri"e eac- of t-ese elements se,aratel#$ "ut first note t-eir com"ined effect as illustrated in 0igure *I.'. Note es,eciall# -o eac- dimension influences t-e ot-er over time2 -en all five elements "egin to interact$ a more com,lete and d#namic ,icture of organizational gro t- emerges. After descri"ing t-ese dimensions and t-eir interconnections$ I s-all discuss eacevolutionar#&revolutionar# ,-ase of develo,ment and s-o @aA -o eac- stage of evolution "reeds its o n revolution$ and @"A -o management solutions to eac- revolution determine t-e next stage of evolution.
arl Taylor
5)
Evolution stages
Large
Revolutionn stages
+om,an# in -ig-Egro tindustr# +om,an# in mediumEgro tindustr#
Dize of Organisation
+om,an# in lo Egro tindustr#
Dmall Young Age of Organization :ature
IGDRE -8.1 Mo"el o$ organization "evelopment Age o$ the organization 8-e most o"vious and essential dimension for an# model of develo,ment is t-e life s,an of an organization @re,resented as t-e -orizontal axis in 0igure *I.'A. All -istorical studies gat-er data from various ,oints in time and t-en ma9e com,arisons. 0rom t-ese o"servations$ it is evident t-at t-e same organization ,ractices are not maintained t-roug-out a long time s,an. 8-is ma9es a most "asic ,oint; management ,ro"lems and ,rinci,les are rooted in time. 8-e conce,t of decentralization$ for exam,le$ can -ave meaning for descri"ing cor,orate ,ractices at one time ,eriod "ut loses it descri,tive ,o er at anot-er. 8-e ,assage of time also contri"utes to t-e institutionalization of managerial attitudes. As a result$ em,lo#ee "e-aviour "ecomes not onl# more ,redicta"le "ut also more difficult to c-ange -en attitudes are outdated. (ize o$ the organization 8-is dimension is de,icted as t-e vertical axis in 0igure *I.'. A com,an#!s ,ro"lems and solutions tend to c-ange mar9edl# as t-e num"er of em,lo#ees and sales volume increase. 8-us$ time is not t-e onl# determinant of structure2 in fact$ organizations t-at do not gro in size can retain man# of t-e same management issues and ,ractices over lengt-# ,eriod. In addition to increased size$ -o ever$ ,ro"lems of coEordination and communication magnif#$ ne functions emerge$ levels in t-e management -ierarc-# multi,l#$ and ?o"s "ecome more interrelated.
arl Taylor
5&
(tage o$ evol!tion As "ot- age and size increase$ anot-er ,-enomenon "ecomes evident; t-e ,rolonged gro t- t-at I -ave termed t-e evolutionar# ,eriod. :ost gro ing organizations do not ex,and for t o #ears and t-en retreat for one #ear2 rat-er$ t-ose t-at survive a crisis usuall# en?o# four to eig-t #ears of continuous gro tit-out a ma?or economic set"ac9 or severe disru,tion. 8-e term evolution seems a,,ro,riate for descri"ing t-ese 6uieter ,eriods "ecause onl# modest ad?ustments a,,ear necessar# for maintaining gro t- under t-e same overall ,attern of management. (tage# o$ revol!tion Dmoot- evolution is not inevita"le2 it cannot "e assumed t-at organization gro t- is linear. Fortunes IJJ! list$ for exam,le$ -as -ad significant turnover during t-e last IJ #ears. 8-us e find evidence from numerous case -istories -ic- reveals ,eriods of su"stantial tur"ulence s,aced "et een smoot-er ,eriods of evolution. I -ave termed t-ese tur"ulent times t-e ,eriods of revolution "ecause t-e# t#,icall# ex-i"it a serious u,-eaval of management ,ractices. 8raditional management ,ractices$ -ic- ere a,,ro,riate for a smaller size and earlier time$ are "roug-t under scrutin# "# frustrated to, managers and disillusioned lo erElevel managers. Curing suc- ,eriods of crisis$ a num"er of com,anies fail > t-ose una"le to a"andon ,ast ,ractices and effect ma?or organization c-anges are li9el# eit-er to fold or to level off in t-eir gro t- rates. The critical tas! for management in each revolutionary period is to find a new set of organization practices that will become the basis for managing the next period of evolutionary growth. +nterestingly enough, these new practices eventually sow their seeds of decay and lead to another period of revolution. ompanies therefore experience the irony of seeing a ma8or solution in one time period become a ma8or problem at a later date. Gro/th rate o$ the in"!#tr' 8-e s,eed at -ic- an organization ex,eriences ,-ases of evolution and revolution is closel# related for t-e mar9et environment of its industr#. 0or exam,le$ a com,an# in a ra,idl# ex,anding mar9et ill -ave to add em,lo#ees ra,idl#2 -ence$ t-e need for ne organization structures to accommodate large staff increases is accelerated. <-ile evolutionar# ,eriods tend to "e relativel# s-ort in fastEgro ing industries$ muc- longer evolutionar# ,eriods occur in mature or slo l# gro ing industries. Evolution can also "e ,rolonged$ and revolutions dela#ed$ -en ,rofits come easil#. 0or instance$ com,anies t-at ma9e grievous errors in a re arding industr# can still loo9 good on t-eir ,rofit and loss statements2 t-us t-e# can avoid a c-ange in management ,ractices for a longer ,eriod. 8-e aeros,ace industr# in its infanc# is an exam,le. Yet revolutionar# ,eriods still occur$ as one did in aeros,ace -en ,rofit o,,ortunities "egan to dr# u,. Revolutions seem to "e mucmore severe and difficult to resolve -en t-e mar9et environment is ,oor. Pha#e# o$ gro/th <it- t-e foregoing frame or9 in mind$ let us no examine in de,t- t-e five s,ecific ,-ases of evolution and revolution. As s-o n in 0igure *I.*$ eacevolutionar# ,eriod is c-aracterized "# t-e dominant management style used to ac-ieve gro t-$ -ile eac- revolutionar# ,eriod is c-aracterized "# t-e dominant management problem t-at must "e solved "efore gro t- can continue. 8-e ,atterns ,resented in 0igure *I.* seem to "e t#,ical for com,anies in industries it- moderate gro t- over a long time
arl Taylor carl@the!nowledge.biz 5,
,eriod2 com,anies in faster gro ing industries tend to ex,erience all five ,-ases more ra,idl#$ -ile t-ose in slo er gro ing industries encounter onl# t o or t-ree ,-ases over man# #ears. It is im,ortant to note t-at each phase is both an effect of the previous phase and a cause for the next phase. 0or exam,le$ t-e evolutionar# management st#le in /-ase F of 0igure *I.* is delegation!$ -icgro s out of$ and "ecomes t-e solution to$ demands for greater autonom#! in t-e ,receding /-ase * revolution. 8-e st#le of delegation used in /-ase F$
/1ADE ' /1ADE * /1ADE F /1ADE H /1ADE I
Large
Evolution stages Revolution stages
I; +risis of = H; +risis of REC 8A/E
Dize of Organisationn
*; +risis of AG8ONO:Y
F; +risis of +ON8ROL
I; Gro t- t-roug+OLLABORA8IONN H; Gro t- t-roug+OEORCINA8ION
'; +risis of LEACERD1I/
F; Gro t- t-rougCELEGA8ION *; Gro t- t-rougCIRE+8ION
Dmall Youngg
'; Gro t- t-roug+REA8IKI8Y
:ature Age of Organization
+4@237 #'<# The five phases of growth -o ever$ eventuall# ,rovo9es a ma?or revolutionar# crisis t-at is c-aracterized "# attem,ts to regain control over t-e diversit# created t-roug- increased delegation. 8-e ,rinci,al im,lication of eac- ,-ase is t-at management actions are narro l# ,rescri"ed if gro t- is to occur. 0or exam,le$ a com,an# ex,eriencing an autonom# crisis in /-ase * cannot return to directive management for a solution > it must ado,t a ne st#le of delegation in order to move a-ead. Pha#e 1E =reativit' F In t-e "irt- stage of an organization$ t-e em,-asis is on creating "ot- a ,roduct and a mar9et. 1ere are t-e c-aracteristics of t-e ,eriod of creative evolution; 8-e com,an#!s founders are usuall# tec-nicall# or entre,reneuriall# oriented$ and t-e# disdain management activities2 t-eir ,-#sical and mental energies are a"sor"ed entirel# in ma9ing and selling a ne ,roduct. +ommunication among em,lo#ees is fre6uent and informal. Long -ours of or9 are re arded "# modest salaries and t-e ,romise of o ners-i, "enefits.
+ontrol of activities comes from immediate mar9et,lace feed"ac92 t-e management acts as t-e customer reacts.
4 & the leadership crisis All of t-e foregoing individualistic and creative activities are essential for t-e com,an# to get off t-e ground. But t-erein lies t-e ,ro"lem. As t-e com,an# gro s$ larger ,roduction runs re6uire 9no ledge a"out t-e efficiencies of manufacturing. Increased num"ers of em,lo#ees cannot "e managed exclusivel# t-roug- informal communication2 ne em,lo#ees are not motivated "# an intense dedication to t-e ,roduct or organization. Additional ca,ital must "e secured$ and ne accounting ,rocedures are needed for financial control. Thus the founders find themselves burdened with unwanted management responsibilities. (o they long for the Bgood old days2, still trying to act as they did in the past. And conflicts between the harried leaders grow more intense. At t-is ,oint a crisis of leaders-i, occurs$ -ic- is t-e onset of t-e first revolution. <-o is to lead t-e com,an# out of confusion and solve t-e managerial ,ro"lems confronting it= Luite o"viousl#$ a strong manager is needed -o -as t-e necessar# 9no ledge and s9ill to introduce ne "usiness tec-ni6ues. But t-is is easier said t-an done. 8-e founders often -ate to ste, aside even t-oug- t-e# are ,ro"a"l# tem,eramentall# unsuited to "e managers. Do -ere is t-e first critical develo,mental c-oice > to locate and install a strong "usiness manager -o is acce,ta"le to t-e founders and -o can ,ull t-e organization toget-er. Pha#e-E Dire%tion F 8-ose com,anies t-at survive t-e first ,-ase "# installing a ca,a"le "usiness manager usuall# em"ar9 on a ,eriod of sustained gro t- under a"le and directive leaders-i,. 1ere are t-e c-aracteristics of t-is evolutionar# ,eriod; A functional organization structure is introduced to se,arate manufacturing from mar9eting activities$ and ?o" assignments "ecome more s,ecialized. Accounting s#stems for inventor# and ,urc-asing are introduced. Incentives$ "udgets$ and or9 standards are ado,ted. +ommunication "ecomes more formal and im,ersonal as a -ierarc-# of titles and ,ositions "uilds. 8-e ne manager and -is 9e# su,ervisors ta9e most of t-e res,onsi"ilit# for instituting direction$ -ile lo erElevel su,ervisors are treated more as functional s,ecialists t-an as autonomous decisionE ma9ing managers.
4 & the autonomy crisis Alt-oug- t-e ne directive tec-ni6ues c-annel em,lo#ee energ# more efficientl# into gro t-$ t-e# eventuall# "ecome ina,,ro,riate for controlling a larger$ more diverse and com,lex organization. Lo erElevel em,lo#ees find t-emselves restricted "# a cum"ersome and centralized -ierarc-#. 8-e# -ave come to ,ossess more direct 9no ledge a"out mar9ets and mac-iner# t-an do t-e leaders at t-e to,2 conse6uentl#$ t-e# feel torn "et een follo ing ,rocedures and ta9ing initiative on t-eir o n. 8-us t-e second revolution is imminent as a crisis develo,s from demands for greater autonom# on t-e ,art of lo erElevel managers. 8-e solution ado,ted "# most com,anies is to move to ards greater delegation. Yet it is difficult for to, managers -o ere ,reviousl# successful at "eing directive to give u, res,onsi"ilit#. :oreover$ lo erElevel mangers are not accustomed to ma9ing decisions for t-emselves. As a result$ numerous com,anies flounder during t-is revolutionar# ,eriod$ ad-ering to centralized met-ods -ile lo erElevel em,lo#ees gro more disenc-anted and leave t-e organization.
arl Taylor
55
Pha#e .E Delegation F 8-e next era of gro t- evolves from t-e successful a,,lication of a decentralized organization structure. It ex-i"its t-ese c-aracteristics; :uc- greater res,onsi"ilit# is given to t-e managers of ,lants and mar9et territories. /rofit centers and "onuses are used to stimulate motivation. 8-e to, executives at -ead6uarters restrain t-emselves to managing "# exce,tion$ "ased on ,eriodic re,orts from t-e field. :anagement often concentrates on ma9ing ne ac6uisitions -ic- can "e lined u, "eside ot-er decentralized units. +ommunication from t-e to, is infre6uent$ usuall# "# corres,ondence$ tele,-one$ or "rief visits to field locations.
The delegation stage proves useful for gaining expansion through heightened motivation at lower levels. %ecentralized managers with greater authority and incentive are able to penetrate larger mar!ets, respond faster to customers, and develop new products. 4 & the control crisis A serious ,ro"lem eventuall# evolves$ -o ever$ as to, executives sense t-at t-e# are losing control over a -ig-l# diversified field o,eration. Autonomous field managers ,refer to run t-eir o n s-o s it-out coEordinating ,lans$ mone#$ tec-nolog#$ and man,o er it- t-e rest of t-e organization. 0reedom "reeds a ,aroc-ial attitude. Ience, the *hase & revolution is under way when top management see!s to regain control over the total company. (ome top managements attempt a return to centralized management, which usually fails because of the vast scope of operations. Those companies that move ahead find a new solution in the use of special co7ordination techniques. Pha#e 2E =o*or"ination F Curing t-is ,-ase$ t-e evolutionar# ,eriod is c-aracterized "# t-e use of formal s#stems for ac-ieving greater coEordination and "# to, executives ta9ing res,onsi"ilit# for t-e initiation and administration of t-ese ne s#stems. 0or exam,le; Cecentralized units are merged into ,roduct grou,s. 0ormal ,lanning ,rocedures are esta"lis-ed and intensivel# revie ed. Numerous staff ,ersonnel are -ired and located at -ead6uarters to initiate com,an#E ide ,rograms of control and revie for line managers. +a,ital ex,enditure are carefull# eig-ted and ,arceled out across t-e organization. Eac- ,roduct grou, is treated as an investment center -ere return on invested ca,ital is an im,ortant criterion used in allocating funds. +ertain tec-nical functions$ suc- as data ,rocessing$ are centralized at -ead6uarters$ -ile dail# o,erating decisions remain decentralized. Dtoc9 o,tions and com,an# ide ,rofit s-aring are used to encourage identit# it- t-e firm as a -ole.
All of these new co7ordination systems prove useful for achieving growth through more efficient allocation of a company2s limited resources. They prompt field managers to loo! beyond the needs of their local units. 1hile these managers still have much decision7ma!ing responsibility, they learn to 8ustify their actions more carefully to a Bwatchdog2 audience at headquarters.
arl Taylor carl@the!nowledge.biz 5;
& the red tape crisis But a lac9 of confidence graduall# "uilds "et een line and staff$ and "et een -ead6uarters and t-e field. 8-e ,roliferation of s#stems and ,rograms "egins to exceed its utilit#2 a redE ta,e crisis is created. Line managers$ for exam,le$ increasingl# resent -eav# staff direction from t-ose -o are not familiar it- local conditions. Dtaff ,eo,le$ on t-e ot-er -and$ com,lain a"out uncoE o,erative and uninformed line managers. 8oget-er "ot- grou,s criticize t-e "ureaucratic ,a,er s#stem t-at -as evolved. /rocedures ta9e ,recedence over ,ro"lem solving$ and innovation is dam,ened. In s-ort$ t-e organization -as "ecome too large and com,lex to "e managed t-roug- formal ,rograms and rigid s#stems. 8-e /-ase H revolution is under a#. Pha#e 8E =olla)oration F 8-e last o"serva"le ,-ase in ,revious studies em,-asizes strong inter,ersonal colla"oration in an attem,t to overcome t-e redEta,e crisis. <-ere /-ase H as managed more t-roug- formal s#stems and ,rocedures$ /-ase I em,-asizes greater s,ontaneit# in management action t-roug- teams and t-e s9ilful confrontation of inter,ersonal differences. Docial control and selfEdisci,line ta9e over from formal control. 8-is transition is es,eciall# difficult for t-ose ex,erts -o created t-e old s#stems as ell as for t-ose line managers -o relied on formal met-ods for ans ers. 8-e /-ase I evolution$ t-en$ "uilds around a more flexi"le and "e-avioural a,,roac- to management. 1ere are its c-aracteristics; 8-e focus is on solving ,ro"lems 6uic9l# t-roug- team action. 8eams are com"ined across functions for tas9Egrou, activit#. 1ead6uarters staff ex,erts are reduced in num"er$ reassigned$ and com"ined in interdisci,linar# teams to consult it-$ not to direct$ field units. A matrixEt#,e structure is fre6uentl# used to assem"le t-e rig-t teams for t-e a,,ro,riate ,ro"lems. /revious formal s#stems are sim,lified and com"ined into single multi,ur,ose s#stems. onference of !ey managers are held frequently to focus on ma8or problem issues. Educational ,rograms are utilized to train managers in "e-avioural s9ills for ac-ieving "etter team or9 and conflict resolution. RealEtime information s#stems are integrated into dail# decision ma9ing. Economic re ards are geared more to team ,erformance t-an to individual ac-ievement. Ex,eriments in ne ,ractices are encouraged t-roug-out t-e organization.
& the ! crisis <-at ill "e t-e revolution in res,onse to t-is stage of evolution= :an# large GD com,anies are no in t-e /-ase I evolutionar# stage$ so t-e ans ers are critical. <-ile t-ere is little clear evidence$ I imagine t-e revolution ill center on t-e ,s#c-ological saturation! of em,lo#ees -o gro emotionall# and ,-#sicall# ex-austed "# t-e intensit# of team or9 and t-e -eav# ,ressure for innovative solutions. :# -unc- is t-at t-e /-ase I revolution ill "e solved t-roug- ne structures and ,rograms t-at allo em,lo#ees to ,eriodicall# rest$ reflect$ and revitalize t-emselves. <e ma# even see com,anies it- dual organization structures; a -a"it! structure for getting t-e dail# or9 done$ and a reflective! structure for stimulating ,ers,ective and ,ersonal enric-ment. Em,lo#ees could t-en move "ac9 and fort- "et een t-e t o structures as t-eir energies are dissi,ated and refueled. 345 Impli%ation o$ hi#tor' Let me no summarize some im,ortant im,lications for ,racticing managers. 0irst$ t-e main features of t-is discussion are de,icted in 8a"le *I.'$ -ic- s-o s t-e s,ecific management actions t-at c-aracterize
arl Taylor carl@the!nowledge.biz 5<
eac- gro t- ,-ase. 8-ese actions are also t-e solutions -ic- ended eac- ,receding revolutionar# ,eriod. In one sense$ I -o,e t-at man# readers ill react to m# model "# calling it o"vious and natural for de,icting t-e gro t- of an organization. 8o me t-is t#,e of reaction is a useful test of t-e model!s validit#. But at a more reflective level I imagine some of t-ese reactions are more -indsig-t t-an foresig-t. 8-ose ex,erienced managers -o -ave "een t-roug- a develo,mental se6uence can em,at-ize it- it no $ "ut -o did t-e# react -en in t-e middle of a stage of evolution or revolution= 8-e# can ,ro"a"l# recall t-e limits of t-eir o n develo,mental understanding at t-at time. /er-a,s t-e# resisted desira"le c-anges or ere even s e,t emotionall# into a revolution it-out "eing a"le to ,ro,ose constructive solutions. Do let me offer some ex,licit guidelines for managers of gro ing organizations to 9ee, in mind. &no/ /here 'o! are in the "evelopmental #e7!en%e Ever# organization and its com,onent ,arts are at different stages of develo,ment. 8-e tas9 of to, management is to "e a are of t-ese stages2 ot-er ise$ it ma# not recognize -en t-e time for c-ange -as come$ or it ma# act to im,ose t-e rong solution. 8o, leaders s-ould "e read# to or9 it- t-e flo of t-e tide rat-er t-an against it2 #et t-e# s-ould "e cautious$ since it is tem,ting to s9i, ,-ases out of im,atience. Eac- ,-ase results in certain strengt-s and learning ex,eriences in t-e organization t-at ill "e essential for success in su"se6uent ,-ases. A c-ild ,rodig#$ for exam,le$ ma# "e a"le to read li9e a teenager$ "ut -e cannot "e-ave li9e one until -e ages t-roug- a se6uence of ex,eriences. I also dou"t t-at managers can or s-ould act to avoid revolutions. Rat-er$ t-ese ,eriods of tension ,rovide t-e ,ressure$ ideas$ and a areness t-at afford a ,latform for c-ange and t-e introduction of ne ,ractices. Re%ognize the limite" range o$ #ol!tion# In eac- revolutionar# stage it "ecomes evident t-at t-is stage can "e ended onl# "# certain s,ecific solutions2 moreover$ t-ese solutions are different from t-ose -ic- ere a,,lied to t-e ,ro"lems of t-e ,receding revolution. 8oo often it is tem,ting to c-oose solutions t-at ere tried "efore$ -ic- ma9es it im,ossi"le for a ne ,-ase of gro t- to evolve. :anagement must "e ,re,ared to dismantle current structures "efore t-e revolutionar# stage "ecomes too tur"ulent. 8o, managers$ realizing t-at t-eir o n managerial st#les are no longer a,,ro,riate$ ma# even -ave to ta9e t-emselves out of leaders-i, ,ositions. A good /-ase * manager facing /-ase F mig-t "e ise to find anot-er /-ase * organization t-at "etter fits -is talents$ eit-er outside t-e com,an# or itone of its ne er su"sidiaries. 0inall#$ evolution is not an automatic affair2 it is a contest for survival. 8o move a-ead$ com,anies must consciousl# introduce ,lanned structures t-at not onl# are solutions to a current crisis "ut also are fitted to t-e next ,-ase of gro t-. 8-is re6uires considera"le selfEa areness on t-e ,art of to, management$ as ell as great inter,ersonal s9ill in ,ersuading ot-er managers t-at c-ange is needed.
arl Taylor
5/
TA04- )3." $rganization practices during evolution in the five phases of growth "ategory :anagement focus Organization structure 8o, management st#le +ontrol s#stem :anagement re ard em,-asis #hase $ :a9e and sell Informal Individualistic and entre,reneurial :ar9et results O ners-i, #hase % Efficienc# of o,erations +entralized and functional Cirective Dtandards and cost centers Dalar# and merit increases #hase & Ex,ansion of mar9et Cecentralized and geogra,-ical Celegative Re,orts and ,rofit centers Individual "onus #hase ' +onsolidation of organization LineEstaff and ,roduct grou,s <atc-dog /lans and investment centers /rofit s-aring and stoc9 o,tions #hase ( /ro"lem solving and innovation :atrix of teams /artici,ative :utual goal setting 8eam "onus
arl Taylor
;>
*articipants Dotes on $rganization %evelopment v., Realize that #ol!tion# )ree" ne/ pro)lem# :anagers often fail to realize t-at organizational solutions create ,ro"lems for t-e future @i.e. a decision to delegate eventuall# causes a ,ro"lem of controlA. 1istorical actions are ver# muc- determinants of -at -a,,ens to t-e com,an# at a muc- later date. An a areness of t-is effect s-ould -el, managers to evaluate com,an# ,ro"lems it- greater -istorical understanding instead of ,inning t-e "lame! on a current develo,ment. Better #et$ managers s-ould "e in a ,osition to predict future ,ro"lems$ and t-ere"# to ,re,are solutions and co,ing strategies "efore a revolution gets out of -and. A management t-at is a are of t-e ,ro"lems a-ead could ell decide not to gro . 8o, managers ma#$ for instance$ ,refer to retain t-e informal ,ractices of a small com,an#$ 9no ing t-at t-is a# of life is in-erent in t-e organization!s limited size$ not in t-eir congenial ,ersonalities. If t-e# c-oose to gro $ t-e# ma# do t-emselves out of a ?o" and a a# of life t-e# en?o#. And -at a"out t-e managements of ver# large organizations= +an t-e# find ne solutions for continued ,-ases of evolution= Ore are t-e# reac-ing a stage -ere t-e government ill act to "rea9 t-em u, "ecause t-e# are too large= =on%l!"ing note +learl#$ t-ere is still muc- to learn a"out ,rocesses of develo,ment in organizations. 8-e ,-ases outlined -ere are onl# five in num"er and are still onl# a,,roximations. Researc-ers are ?ust "eginning to stud# t-e s,ecific develo,mental ,ro"lems of structure$ control$ re ards$ and management st#le in different industries and in a variet# of cultures. One s-ould not$ -o ever$ ait for conclusive evidence "efore educating managers to t-in9 and act from a develo,mental ,ers,ective. 8-e critical dimension of time -as "een missing for too long from our management t-eories and ,ractices. 8-e intriguing ,aradox is t-at "# learning more a"out -istor# e ma# do a "etter ?o" in t-e future. 345 Note# '. Dee$ for exam,le$ <illiam 1. Dtar"uc9$ Organizational :etamor,-osis!$ in #romising Research )irections$ edited "# R. <. :illman and :. /. 1ottenstein @8em,e$ Arizona$ Academ# of :anagement$ '(MNA ,. ''F. *. Dee$ for exam,le$ t-e *rangesberg case series$ ,re,ared "# +. Roland +-ristensen and Bruce R. Dcott$ +ase +learing 1ouse$ 1arvard Business Dc-ool. F. Strategy and Structure+ "hapters in the History of the ,merican -ndustrial .nterprise @+am"ridge$ :assac-usetts; :I8 /ress$ '(M*A. H. I -ave dra n on man# sources for evidence; @aA numerous cases collected at t-e 1arvard Business Dc-ool2 @"A /rgani0ation *rowth and )evelopment$ edited "# <illiam 1. Dtar"uc9 @1armonds ort-; /enguin$ '()'A$ -ere several studies are cited$ and @cA articles ,u"lis-ed in ?ournals$ suc- as La rence E. 0oura9er and %o-n :. Dto,ford$ Organization Dtructure and t-e :ultinational Dtrateg#!$ ,dministrative Science 1uarterly$ vol. 'F$ no. '$ '(MN$ ,. H)2 and :alcolm D. Dalter$ :anagement A,,raisal and Re ard D#stems!$ 2ournal of Business #olicy$ vol. '$ no. H$ '()'.
;"
*articipants Dotes on $rganization %evelopment v.,
APPENDIC -
9evolution is (till +nevitable

LARRY E. GREINER
__________________________________________________________________________________
Iarvard 0usiness 9eview, .ay/Kun "//<. 4arry -. :reiner is a professor of management and organization at the Gniversity of (outhern aliforniaCs .arshall (chool of 0usiness in 4os Angeles.
I rote t-e first draft of t-is article -ile I as felled "# a "ad leg during a s9i vacation in D itzerland. At t-e time$ t-e "usiness orld as "uzzing it- numerous faddis- tec-ni6ues. /er-a,s it as t-e size and -eig-t of t-e mountains t-at made me feel t-at t-ere ere dee,er and more ,o erful forces at or9 in organizations. 0our "asic ,oints still seem valid a"out t-e model. 0irst$ e continue to o"serve ma?or ,-ases of develo,ment in t-e life of gro ing com,anies$ lasting an# -ere from F to 'I #ears eac-. Alt-ougsc-olars de"ate t-e ,recise lengt- and nature of t-ese ,-ases$ ever#one agrees t-at eac- ,-ase contains its o n uni6ue structure$ s#stems$ and leaders-i,. 8-e gro t- rate of t-e industr# seems to determine t-e ,-asesO lengt-. Decond$ transitions "et een develo,mental ,-ases still do not occur naturall# or smoot-l#$ regardless of t-e strengt- of to, management. All organizations a,,ear to ex,erience revolutionar# difficult# and u,-eaval$ and man# of t-ese organizations falter$ ,lateau$ fail$ or get ac6uired rat-er t-an gro furt-er. IB: "efore Lou Gerstnet and General Electric "efore %ac9 <elc- "ot- suffered "adl# at t-e end of t-e fourt- ,-ase of coordination$ -en so,-isticated management s#stems evolved into rigid "ureaucracies. 8-ird$ t-e logic of ,aradox underl#ing t-e model continues to ring true$ alt-oug- it often -aunts and confuses t-e managerial ,s#c-e. :anagers -ave difficult# in understanding t-at an organizational solution introduced "# t-em ,ersonall# in one ,-ase eventuall# so s t-e seeds of revolution. 0ourt-$ t-e greatest resistance to c-ange a,,ears at t-e to, "ecause revolution often means t-at units under eac- senior executive ill "e eliminated or transformed. 8-at is -# e so often see ne c-ief executives recruited from t-e outside and -# senior managers fre6uentl# leave com,anies. Executives de,art not "ecause t-e# are P"adP managers "ut "ecause t-e# ?ust donOt fit it- -ere t-e com,an# needs to go. As for t-e differences t-at I -ave o"served since t-e articleOs original ,u"lication$ t-ere is o"viousl# mucmore Pdeat-P in t-e life of organizations toda#. 0e organizations ma9e it t-roug- all t-e ,-ases of gro t-. If t-e# donOt fail$ as most do in t-e initial ,-ase of creativit# and entre,reneurs-i,$ t-e# often get ac6uired "# com,anies t-at are in a later ,-ase. 8-e ,-ases are not as cleanl# mar9ed off as I de,icted t-em. 8-e vestiges of one ,-ase remain as ne a,,roac-es are introduced. Duc- overla,s are most nota"le in t-e case of t-e firstE,-ase entre,reneur -anging on -en ,rofessional management is added in t-e second ,-ase of direction. 8-ere are also mini,-ases it-in eacevolutionar# stage. 8-e delegation ,-ase$ for exam,le$ does not t#,icall# "egin it- t-e com,lete decentralization of t-e entire organization into multi,le ,roduct units$ as t-e article im,lies. Gsuall# one ,roduct grou, is launc-ed$ and t-en ot-ers are added over time. Also$ as delegationEor decentralization$ as I no ,refer to call t-is ,-aseEadvances$ senior managers at t-e cor,orate office are not as -andsEoff as I de,icted t-em. 8-e addition of multi,le ,roduct or geogra,-ic units over time re6uires a so,-isticated level of involvement "# senior management to revie strategies$ evaluate results$ and communicate t-e organizationOs valuesE"ut not to micromanage t-e units under t-em.
;)
*articipants Dotes on $rganization %evelopment v., I ould c-ange some of t-e t-ings I said a"out t-e fift- ,-ase of colla"oration. :# original descri,tion of t-is ,-ase suggests t-at t-e entire organization is turned into a matrix of teams. I no see t-e matrix as confined largel# to senior management$ -ere t-e -eads of geogra,-ic areas$ ,roduct lines$ and functional disci,lines colla"orate as a team in order to ensure t-at t-eir decisions are coordinated and im,lemented across glo"al mar9ets. 8-e most significant c-ange in t-is ,-ase occurs -en t-e ,reviousl# "ureaucratic /-ase H controlEoriented staff and s#stems are re,laced "# a smaller num"er of consulting staff ex,erts -o -el, facilitate$ rat-er t-an control$ decisions. :# s,eculation t-at P,s#c-ological saturationP is t-e crisis ending /-ase I no seems rong. Instead$ I t-in9 t-e crisis is one of realizing t-at t-ere is no internal solution$ suc- as ne ,roducts$ for stimulating furt-er gro t-. Rat-er$ t-e organization "egins to loo9 outside for ,artners or for o,,ortunities to sell itself to a "igger com,an#. A sixt- ,-ase ma# "e evolving in -icgro t- de,ends on t-e design of extraEorganizational solutions$ suc- as creating a -olding com,an# or a net or9 organization com,osed of alliances and crossE o ners-i,. GE ma# -ave develo,ed a similar model in -ic- a ,eri,-er# of com,anies is "uilt around a core Pmone#P com,an# or "an9 @GE +a,italA t-at attracts ca,ital$ earns -ig- returns$ and feeds t-e gro tof ot-er units. I dou"t t-at t-e advancement of information tec-nolog# -as made muc- of a difference in t-e "asic as,ects of t-e model. Information tec-nolog# a,,ears useful as a tool t-at evolves in different forms to fit eac- ,-ase. 0or exam,le$ t-e /-ase * functional organizational structure re6uires data t-at reflect revenue and cost centers$ -ereas /-ase F decentralization needs data t-at measure ,rofit center ,erformance. I rote t-e article mainl# a"out industrial and consumer goods com,anies$ not a"out 9no ledge organizations or service "usinesses$ -ic- -ad #et to come into ,rominence. After recentl# stud#ing a num"er of consulting$ la $ and investment firms$ our researc- team found t-at t-ose organizations also ex,erience evolution and revolution as t-e# gro . In t-e first$ entre,reneurial ,-ase$ t-e ,rofessional service firm ,ursues and tests a variet# of mar9et ,at-s. 8-e ,-ase ends it- t-e ,artners arguing a"out -et-er or not to sta# toget-er to concentrate on one ,artnerOs vision for t-e future. In t-e second ,-ase$ t-e firm focuses on one ma?or service and eventuall# finds itself it- a de"ate among t-e ,artners a"out -et-er to continue focusing on t-e current ,ractice or to o,en anot-er office or add additional services. A t-ird ,-ase of geogra,-ic or service ex,ansion t#,icall# ends it- a struggle over o ners-i,; -o muc- e6uit# are t-e original ,artners illing to s-are it- t-e #ounger ,artners -o led t-e ex,ansion and "roug-t in ne clients= 8-e fourt,-ase involves institutionalizing t-e firmOs name$ re,utation$ and its standard a# of o,erating$ and ends in a crisis of cultural conformit# in t-e face of -ic- t-e firm must restore innovation and flexi"ilit#. 0inall#$ as a strong caveat$ I al a#s remind m#self and ot-ers t-at t-e Pev and revP model de,icted in t-is article ,rovides onl# a sim,le outline of t-e "road c-allenges facing a management concerned itgro t-. It is not a coo9ieEcutter solution or ,anacea. 8-e rate of gro t-$ t-e effective resolution of revolutions$ and t-e ,erformance of t-e com,an# it-in ,-ases still de,end on t-e fundamentals of good management; s9illful leaders-i,$ a inning strateg#$ t-e -eig-tened motivation of em,lo#ees$ and a dee, concern for customers.
;&
APPENDIC . Complexity & Organization Development: An Introduction

Accessed through J http=//www.new7paradigm.co.u!/complex7od.htm J on )"st (eptember )>>5 A man was walking home one dark and foggy night. As he groped his way through the murk he nearly tripped over someone crawling around by a lamp post. "What are you doing?" asked the traveller. "Im looking for my keys." Replied the other. "Are you sure you lost them here?" asked the first man. "Im not sure at all " came the reply "but if I havent lost them near this lamp I dont stand a chance of finding them." Most people know this story. For me it is metaphor of science. Normal science in Kuhns (1962 terms! consists of lookin" as assi#uously as possi$le in the lit area! perhaps e%plorin" those e#"es where the "loom is not &uite impenetra$le. From time to time someone mana"es to switch on a new li"ht'a para#i"m shift! in Kuhns terms' an# a new area of e%ploration is opene# up. (cience is a$out the art of the possi$le) it #oes not #eny that the keys may lie in the #arkness! it simply #oes not consi#er that its *o$ consists of feelin" aroun# $lin#ly. +ntil recently! the li"ht $y which science was workin" was only a$le to illuminate simple! linear! systems. ,he a#-ent of the computer chan"e# thin"s. .t is now possi$le to look at comple% systems in two ways/ computers can sol-e pre-iously0impossi$le nonlinear e&uations an# they can simulate of comple% systems $y means of mo#els known -ariously as cellular automata! "enetic al"orithms! neural nets an# so on. (o what is a comple% system1 ,he fiel# is still -ery new an# there is no a"reement a$out terms an# terminolo"y $ut the followin" &uotes start to "i-e a fla-our/ a system that is comple%, in the sense that a great many independent agents are interacting with each other in a great many ways. (2al#rop 1993/11 to understand the behaviour of a complex system we must understand not only the behaviour of the parts but how they act together to form the whole. (4ar05am! 1996/1 you generally find that the basic components and the basic laws are quite simple; the complexity arises because you have a great many of these simple components interacting simultaneously. The complexity is actually in the organizationthe myriad possible ways that the components of the system can interact. ((tephen 2olfram! &uote# in 2al#rop 1993/76 omplex adaptive systems consist of a number of components, or agents, that interact with each other according to sets of rules that require them to examine and respond to each other!s behaviour in order to improve their behaviour and thus the behaviour of the system they comprise. ((tacey/ 1996/18 the complex whole may exhibit properties that are not readily explained by understanding its parts. The complex whole, in a completely non"mystical sense, can often exhibit collective properties, #emergent# features that are lawful in their own right. (Kauffman 1996/-ii0-iii The tas$ of formulating theory for 9:( ;comple% a#apti-e system< is more than usually difficult because the behaviour of a whole 9:( is more than a simple sum of the behaviours of its parts; 9:( abound in nonlinearities (=ollan# 199>/> complexity is not located at a specific, identifiable site in a system. %ecause complexity results from the interaction between the components of a system, complexity is manifested at the level of the system itself. There is neither something at a level below &a source', nor at a level above &a meta"description', capable of capturing the essence of complexity. (9illiers 1997/203 .
;,

Complex system characteristics .n the early #ays of comple% systems theory the emphasis was on lar"e networks of simple a"ents with simple interactions. More recently there has $een a realisation that smaller networks of comple% a"ents can show the same kin#s of $eha-iour an# can $e e&ually comple%. 9omple% systems ha-e a num$er of properties! some of which are liste# $elow/ (mergence 2hat #istin"uishes a comple% system from a merely complicate# one is that some $eha-iours an# patterns emerge in comple% systems as a result of the patterns of relationship $etween the elements. ?mer"ence is perhaps the key property of comple% systems an# a lot of work is $ein" #one to try to un#erstan# more a$out its nature an# the con#itions which will help it to occur. )elationships are short"range ,ypically! the relationships $etween elements in a comple% system are short0ran"e! that is information is normally recei-e# from near nei"h$ours. ,he richness of the connections means that communications will pass across the system $ut will pro$a$ly $e mo#ifie# on the way. )elationships are non"linear ,here are rarely simple cause an# effect relationships $etween elements. : small stimulus may cause a lar"e effect! or no effect at all. )elationships contain feedbac$ loops 4oth ne"ati-e (#ampin" an# positi-e (amplifyin" fee#$ack are key in"re#ients of comple% systems. ,he effects of an a"ents actions are fe# $ack to the a"ent an# this! in turn! affects the way the a"ent $eha-es in the future. ,his set of constantly a#aptin" nonlinear relationships lies at the heart of what makes a comple% system special. omplex systems are open 9omple% systems are open systems'that is! ener"y an# information are constantly $ein" importe# an# e%porte# across system $oun#aries. 4ecause of this! comple% systems are usually far from e&uili$rium/ e-en thou"h there is constant chan"e there is also the appearance of sta$ility. The parts cannot contain the whole ,here is a sense in which elements in a comple% system cannot know what is happenin" in the system as a whole. .f they coul#! all the comple%ity woul# ha-e to $e present in that element. 5et since the comple%ity is create# $y the relationships $etween elements that is simply impossi$le. : corollary of this is that no element in the system coul# hope to control the system. omplex systems have a history ,he history of a comple% system is important an# cannot $e i"nore#. ?-en a small chan"e in circumstances can lea# to lar"e #e-iations in the future. omplex systems are nested :nother key aspect of comple% a#apti-e systems is that the components of the system'usually referre# to as agents'as themsel-es comple% a#apti-e systems. (o an economy is ma#e up of or"ani@ations which are ma#e up of people which are ma#e up of $rains! which are ma#e up of cells'all of which are comple% a#apti-e systems. %oundaries are difficult to determine .t is usually #ifficult to #etermine the $oun#aries of a comple% system. ,he #ecision is usually $ase# on the o$ser-ers nee#s an# pre*u#ices rather than any intrinsic property of the system itself. For instance! the $oun#ary of an in#i-i#ual human $ein" may appear easy to #etermine $ut a little more thou"ht will show some of the am$i"uities. For instance! are clothes insi#e or outsi#e the $oun#ary1 .f someone stares at you across a room or crow#e# train! especially in a lustful or a""ressi-e way! ha-e they in-a#e# your $oun#ary1 2hen #o waste pro#ucts! such as hair or nail clippin"s! cease to $e part of the $o#y (certainly! those who practice ma"ic feel that they remain within the $oun#aries 1 2e often hear of "roups ha-in" stron" or weak $oun#aries $ut without any clear sense of the meanin". . $elie-e that it is possi$le to "ain some clarity $y consi#erin" connectivity. . hypothesi@e that an in#i-i#ual a"ent can only ha-e a certain num$er of connections to other a"ents (with human a"ents this num$er will chan"e accor#in" to the state of the in#i-i#ual an# also the state of the en-ironment . 2e can then think of the stren"th of a "roups $oun#aries as the proportion of connections which are ma#e within the "roup'the "reater ;3

the proportion! the stron"er the "roup $oun#aries. .f all connections are ma#e within the "roup it forms a close# system Are organizations complex adaptive systems? :t this point it is worth askin" whether comple%ity theory has anythin" useful to say a$out or"ani@ations. .s an or"ani@ation a comple% system1 Aareth Mor"an offers comple%ity as *ust one of his metaphors for or"ani@ation. ,here are many who woul# ar"ue that comple%ity is not *ust a metaphor for or"ani@ations! it is an a#e&uate an# accurate #escription of or"ani@ations. Mor"an himself appears not to #iscriminate $etween the #ifferent kin#s of metaphor he offers. 9onsi#er the followin"/ Br"ani@ation as machine. Br"ani@ation as culture. Br"ani@ation as comple% system. . $elie-e that these three likenesses are ontolo"ically #istinct. 2hen we speak of an or"ani@ation as a machine we are employin" an o$-ious analo"y'no0one coul# confuse the two. 2hen we speak of an or"ani@ation as a culture . will ar"ue later that this is an inappropriate fi"ure of speech. 9ulture is a property of (human or"ani@ations) al$eit an interestin" an# per-asi-e property. 9ulture emer"es as a result of the interactions $etween the a"ents in a human system an# it is simply not appropriate to compare an entity an# its epiphenomenon in a metaphorical manner. Finally! to speak of an or"ani@ation as a comple% system is to a#opt a theoretical stance. .t is to assert that an or"ani@ation is more or less appropriately #escri$e# in terms of the insi"hts $ein" #e-elope# $y comple%ity theorists. .t is my $elief that these approaches "i-e us the $est insi"ht we currently ha-e into the nature of or"ani@ational $eha-iour. =owe-er! it must $e reco"nise# that comple%ity theory is at present still -ery tentati-e an# un#e-elope#! especially in the fiel# of human or"ani@ations. =uman $ein"s! as a"ents in a comple% system! are si"nificantly more comple% than those usually consi#ere# $y the theory. ,hey ha-e -olition! they are mem$ers of many #ifferent comple% systems simultaneously! an# so on. :ll of this sets them apart from the systems e%plore# $y the computer simulations (o my current position is to continue to e%plore the implications of comple%ity for or"ani@ation consultancy while remainin" open to other mo#els! approaches an# metaphors which may supplement or challen"e these perspecti-es. Implications of complexity theory for organizations ,here are a num$er of implications which comple%ity theory may potentially ha-e for or"ani@ations. . can only mention a few of them here. *nability to predict Bne of the features of comple% systems is that they ha-e what is known as sensitivity to initial conditions. ,his means that a -anishin"ly small #ifference in the initial con#itions (whene-er you choose to start can make a sta""erin"ly lar"e #ifference as time "oes on. ,he classical formulation of this comes from meteorolo"y (?#war# Coren@! a meteorolo"ist! was one of the first (1963 to in-esti"ate the properties of comple% systems such as weather systems . .t states that e-en such a small pertur$ation as a $utterfly flappin" its win"s coul#'$ecause of the nonlinear nature of the system'lea# to a torna#o some months or years later. Bf course! the chances are that it wont) the real issue is that it is theoretically impossi$le to pre#ict whether or not it will. ,his has o$-ious ma*or implications for strate"y! most of which are consistently i"nore# $y or"ani@ations. Not that we shoul# a#-ocate that or"ani@ations cease to plan) as a piece of ritual the annual plannin" roun# has a si"nificant part to play in or"ani@ational life. :lso! the fact that fully accurate pre#iction is impossi$le is actually a commonplace'e-eryone knows that the only certainty is that the plan will $e wron". 2hat is important is that the focus shoul# $e on DElannin" as Cearnin"D (#e Aeus 1977 . :pproaches such as en-ironmental scannin" an# scenario plannin" (see! e.". -an #er =ei*#en! 1996 shoul# $e use# to help the or"ani@ation raise awareness an# increase connecti-ity with the outsi#e worl# (to re#uce the stren"th of its $oun#ary . Inability to control Eerhaps the most crucial! $ut to clients the most contro-ersial! perspecti-e from comple%ity theory is that it is impossi$le to control what happens to the system. (o much mana"ement literature focuses on the role of the ;5

lea#er'an# . #ont want to un#erplay his or her importance as an ena$ler of chan"e'that most lea#ers (an# mana"ers aspirin" to $ecome lea#ers $elie-e that they can make thin"s happen. Mechanical metaphors still #ominate most mana"ement thinkin") or"anic approaches may ha-e a hi"her feel0"oo# factor $ut they cut little ice with those char"e# with satisfyin" sharehol#ers. 5et a fun#amental result of systems thinkin" in "eneral an# comple%ity theory in particular! is that no one element can ha-e enou"h comple%ity to $e a$le to comprehen# the system as a whole. .f it can! the system is not comple%. dge of chaos : key concept in much writin" a$out comple%ity an# or"ani@ations is the edge of chaos. .t has $een popularise# $y (tuart Kauffman (199> of the (anta Fe .nstitute! the lea#in" centre for the stu#y of comple% a#apti-e systems. ,he term was actually coine# $y 9hris Can"ton! another worker at (anta Fe who was workin" with a kin# of computer simulation calle# a cellular automaton. Can"ton #isco-ere# that as he chan"e# the -alue of a particular -aria$le his simulation su##enly e%hi$ite# or#ere# $eha-iour an# then $ecame #isor#ere# a"ain. ,he re"ion where chan"es occurre#! he calle# the edge of chaos. ,his concept may help to #eal with a key &uestion in or"ani@ation #e-elopment/ Dhow can we know if an or"ani@ation is rea#y to chan"e1D ,he answer is that we cannot know (thou"h intuition may often $e a relia$le "ui#e $ut there are some key -aria$les which ha-e a si"nificant effect on rea#iness an# a$ility to chan"e. .f there is too much sta$ility in the system chan"e is unlikely) if there is too much ran#omness the system will not $e a$le to form any coherent patterns. Kaufmann an# other researchers (see e.". Kauffman 199>! =ollan# 199>! 4ak 1996 ! workin" with computer simulations! su""est that there are three -aria$les which are si"nificant in mo-in" systems to the e#"e of chaos/ connecti-ity! #i-ersity an# information flow. 4asically! sta$le systems can mo-e towar#s the e#"e of chaos if their a"ents $ecome $etter connecte#) if there is more #i-ersity (either in the a"ents themsel-es or in the nature of the relationships $etween them ) an# if the amount of information transferre# is increase#. 9on-ersely! an unsta$le system! one with too much ran#omness! nee#s to re#uce some or all of these -aria$les. Falph (tacey! #rawin" on Kleinian perspecti-es! ar"ues (1996/166ff that in human systems two other -aria$les are also si"nificant/ le-el of containe# an%iety an# the power #ifferentials in the system. .f the an%iety in an or"ani@ation is too containe# there will $e no possi$ility of chan"e or creati-ity) if there is too much an%iety aroun# there will $e a ten#ency for hea#less chicken $eha-iour or else for the $uil#in" of spurious an# unhelpful #efences. (imilarly! if there is too much control! in the form of hi"h power #ifferentials $etween #ifferent parts of the or"ani@ation! creati-ity an# rea#iness for chan"e are likely to $e stifle#. 9ontrariwise! if the control mechanisms are too weak the system can #issol-e into chaotic or ran#om $eha-iour. ,hese fi-e influences can $e summarise# as follows/
!tability Fate of .nformation Flow Ge"ree of Gi-ersity Fichness of 9onnecti-ity Ce-el of 9ontaine# :n%iety Ge"ree of Eower Gifferentials low low low low hi"h
dge of Chaos optimum optimum optimum optimum optimum
Instability hi"h hi"h hi"h hi"h low
My own more recent thinkin" #raws on (taceyHs approach an# takes it further.
;;

.nter-entions such as system0wi#e in&uiries (see $elow for appreciati-e in&uiry or Marshall I McCean 197> or Feason 199J for #ifferent forms of colla$orati-e in&uiry can help to $uil# connecti-ity an# mo-e an or"ani@ation towar#s the e#"e of chaos. :r"ua$ly! it is the e%istence of the connections rather than the content of the messa"es which is more important. .nitiati-es such as that of Eatricia (haw (1996 an# 4ill 9ritchley (1997 who #escri$e how they worke# in the sha#ow system of a local authority also ser-e to increase connecti-ity an# #i-ersity. ,hey saw their role as ena$lin" people to meet an# share concerns an# also to pro-oke e%istin" "roups to e%amine an# &uestion their assumptions an# the structures of meanin" they were creatin". ,he intro#uction of #i-ersity is more pro$lematic. .f it is too #ifferent it may $e re*ecte#) if it is too similar it may make no #ifference. ,he challen"e! especially for the consultant! is to $e similar enou"h to $e listene# to! an# #ifferent enou"h to $e hear#. .n my own work with the 4ritish Eost Bffice . use the phrase support an# su$-ert to summarise one aspect of my own approach to intro#ucin" #i-ersity. !elf"organization & emergence Eerhaps the most interestin" aspect of comple% systems is their a$ility to self"organise) for or#ere# patterns to emerge simply as a result of the relationships an# interactions of the constituent a"ents! without any e%ternal control or #esi"n. 2hen a comple% system is at the e#"e of chaos it is in a state where chan"e may occur easily an# spontaneously. (tuart Kauffman refers to this as order for free. .t #oesnt arise throu"h conscious #esi"n $ut is somethin" immanent within the system'a property of the relationships $etween the elements rather than the elements themsel-es. (.t is worth notin" that or#er in this conte%t is not the same as sta$ility or e&uili$rium) rather! it refers to $eha-iours which can often $e &uite #ynamic an# in-ol-e unpre#icta$le thou"h patterne# chan"es. 2hen an or"ani@ation is poise# at the e#"e of chaos e-en a small stimulus may cause ma*or chan"e to ripple throu"h! like some kin# of #omino effect. ,he work of Eer 4ak (1996 is interestin" here. =e su""ests that chan"e in such a system will take the form of a power law. ,hat is! most of the time a small stimulus will cause a small effect! that some of the time a small stimulus will cause a me#ium si@e# effect! an# occasionally a small stimulus will cause a hu"e effect. +nfortunately! there is no way to pre#ict the si@e of the effect at any "i-en time.
?mer"ent or#er/ Forms spontaneously. 9annot $e #irecte#. May $e influence#. Fesists chan"e. Maintains its $oun#aries. +bility to influence :nother way of lookin" at emer"ence is to think a$out the #ynamics of a comple% system. .f all states were e&ually likely! then emer"ence woul# not occur. .nstea#! it appears that a relati-ely few confi"urations are pri-ile"e# in some way. ,hese confi"urations are sometimes known as attractors. ,here is a lot of misun#erstan#in" of this term $ut it can $e useful in helpin" to make sense of comple% $eha-iour. 9apra (1996/126ff an# 9asti (199J/2>ff $oth offer reasona$ly accessi$le intro#uctions. (o we coul# say that a comple% system will self0or"anise onto an attractor. .t is not possi$le to dictate the nature of the attractor $ecause a comple% system is intrinsically unpre#icta$le an# uncontrolla$le. ,he &uestions is! can we influence the nature of the attractor which the system chooses1
;<

. $elie-e that there is some e-i#ence to su""est that this may $e the case! at least with systems in-ol-in" human $ein"s. Bne e%ample woul# $e the place$o effect. .f we assume that the immune system is a self0or"anisin" system which can $e assiste# $y me#icinal #ru"s then it woul# seem that a place$o can help it self0or"anise onto the same attractor as a #ru"'as lon" as the human host $elie-es that the #ru" has $een a#ministere#. (imilarly! la$ellin" theory offers e%amples of $eha-iours which emer"e as a result of $eliefs) a"ain the choice of attractor is influence# ($ut not #etermine# $y the min# set. .t is well0known that chil#ren who are la$elle# as slow or stupi# at school ten# to conform to that la$el! un#erachie-in" compare# to those with similar innate a$ility who are positi-ely la$elle#. .nter-entions such as :ppreciati-e .n&uiry'often known as :.'(9ooperri#er 1998! 2hitney I (chau 1997 try to influence the way chan"e can emer"e in or"ani@ations. : central tenet of :. is that! or"ani@ations chan"e in the #irection in which they in&uire. .f this is true then the simple fact of "reater connecti-ity is not sufficient) the content also counts. ,mall set of simple rules 9ellular automata! such as Cife or 9ella$! show that &uite simple rules! applie# a"ain an# a"ain! can lea# to comple% $eha-iour. (imilar approaches ha-e $een use# to mo#el $eha-iours in the natural worl#. Bne of the pioneers was 9rai" Feynol#s (1976 who mo#elle# flockin" $eha-iour usin" a small set of rules/ (eparation/ steer to a-oi# crow#in" local flockmates. :li"nment/ steer towar#s the a-era"e hea#in" of local flockmates. 9ohesion/ steer to mo-e towar# the a-era"e position of local flockmates. ,hese three simple rules can chan"e a ran#om assem$ly of a"ents into a cohesi-e "roup! lookin" *ust like a flock of $ir#s or shoal of fish. ,he +( Marines are usin" this principle to increase fle%i$ility when comman# lines may "et $roken (keep mo-in"! use surprise! take hi"h "roun# where-er possi$le! for instance . :nother e%ample is the Ehoeni% Fire Gepartment where the *u#"ement that fire0fi"hters must e%ercise in any situation is now "o-erne# $y fi-e wor#s/ DEre-ent harm. (ur-i-e. 4e nice.D .t is ama@in" how much comple% $eha-iour these simple rules permit! as well as how much a#aptation. -itness landscapes 4ecause the en-ironment of a 9:( is ma#e up of other 9:(s! all competin" for resources! the #ynamic $etween them is constantly chan"in" in a nonlinear fashion. .n fact! $oth competition an# co0operation are at work simultaneously! lea#in" not *ust to e-olution $ut to co"evolution. 9onsi#er why an or"ani@ation chan"es (or wants to chan"e! or nee#s to chan"e . .t is usually in response to a chan"e in its en-ironment. .n other wor#s! as an a#apti-e response to en-ironmental chan"e. 4ut why #oes the en-ironment chan"e1 +sually $ecause the or"ani@ations which make up the $usiness ecosystem ha-e chan"e#. .n other wor#s! as an a#apti-e response to or"ani@ational chan"e. ,his comple% chicken0e""0chicken form of co0e-olution is a$solutely key for un#erstan#in" comple% systems an# or"ani@ational chan"e. 9ompanies are neither masters nor sla-es of their #estinies. New competiti-e an# colla$orati-e strate"ies are now $ein" e%plore# in response to these insi"hts (Moore 1996! Nale$uff I 4ran#en$ur"er 1996 . :nother way of lookin" at this wi#er en-ironment is to consi#er the notion of fitness. :t any "i-en time some or"ani@ations are more successful than others) they are fitter than others. ,he fitness of a system chan"es o-er time $ecause of the constantly chan"in" en-ironment! which is $ein" rema#e from moment to moment as an emer"ent result of the interactions $etween the systems. ,his means that a confi"uration which has a fitness f 1 at time t1 (relati-e to the other systems in the en-ironment is most unlikely to ha-e the same fitness at time t 2. (tuart Kauffman (1996/1J9ff) c.f. McMaster 1996/1>6ff has #e-elope# the notion of the fitness lan#scape! ori"inally su""este# $y (ewell 2ri"ht in the 1938s (Cewin 1993/>6 . .t offers a mo#el of what mi"ht $e happenin" in this comple% #ynamic. Kauffman su""ests that a snapshot of an en-ironment at a "i-en time t 1 coul# $e thou"ht of as a lan#scape. .f all points in the en-ironment are e&ually fit! the lan#scape will $e flat like Norfolk ;/

or .llinois. .f there are #ifferences in fitness $etween systems! with some -ery fit an# others -ery unfit! the lan#scape will resem$le the =imalayas. .f one system is -ery much fitter than all the others we "et what is sometimes known as a Fu*iyama lan#scape'one enormous peak in an otherwise relati-ely flat lan#scape.
,he system at the top of a peak en*oys an a#-anta"e o-er its fellows. ,hus the system at 18 K the fittest of all the systems in its en-ironment/
L is currently
=owe-er! $ecause of the co0create# nature of the lan#scape! to#ays mountains may easily turn into tomorrows molehills. : system! $y stan#in" still! may fin# itself no lon"er on a peak/
,he system at 18 is no lon"er as fit as it coul# $e! since the new local peaks are at 6 an# 13 an# it is a lon" way $ehin# any system which coul# reach 19. =owe-er! it is not entirely stuck an# coul# mana"e to impro-e its fitness $y followin" what Kauffman calls an a#apti-e walk (199>/166ff . ,his is a strate"y in which a system mo-es one step on the lan#scape an# tests its fitness. .f the new location is fitter than the ol#! it takes another step. .f the new location is less fit than the ol# it returns to its pre-ious location. ,hus $y "oin" ri"ht $y three steps our system coul# a#apti-ely walk to the peak at 13. =owe-er! the a#apti-e walk coul# ne-er "et our system to the $est peak at 19 $ecause it woul# ha-e to walk #ownhill from 13 to 16! si"nificantly #ecreasin" its own fitness. .n practice it is likely to "et stuck on what Kauffman calls a local peak an# may fin# itself left $ehin# as the lan#scape #eforms.
<>

:ctually! thin"s are e-en more complicate# $ecause as a system mo-es across a fitness lan#scape it chan"es the nature of the lan#scape $y -irtue of its interactions with other systems. Kauffman says that its a $it like try to walk across a sheet of ru$$er. ?ach step #eforms the sheet in a #ifferent way. 9o0e-olution has two messa"es for us/ that we can ne-er control our en-ironment an# also that we nee# ne-er $e passi-e spectators as the lan#scapes chan"e. 2hat we #o $oth affects an# is affecte# $y others. .atching 4ecause the only way to "et to a #istant fitness peak will in-ol-e "ettin" less fit $efore "ettin" $etter! or"ani@ations are often reluctant to un#ertake such a *ourney. ?-en those chief e%ecs who intuiti-ely know what has to $e #one sel#om ha-e mo#els which will help them articulate an# communicate their -ision. .ts also pretty #e0moti-atin" to ha-e to say to people that you want them #o make the or"ani@ation worseM (harehol#ers mi"ht not $e too impresse# either. (o they try to optimise the whole system which often lea#s to it "ettin" stuck on a low peak $ecause no0one wants thin"s to "et worse ("o #own a -alley . =owe-er! Kauffman #isco-ere# a techni&ue! which he calle# patchin"! which seems to offer a way forwar#. Eatchin" $reaks a system into connecte# chunks which then try to self0optimise. (o an or"ani@ation mi"ht $e $roken into work "roups! $usiness units! profit centres! etc. ?ach is then "i-en the free#om an# encoura"ement to #o as well as it can'to impro-e its own fitness. ,he si#e effect of success for any "i-en patch may $e to cause nei"h$ourin" patches to $e worse off ("o #own a -alley an# this may lea# to the or"ani@ation $ecomin" worse off for a time. 4ut if the process is allowe# to continue it will lea# to e-entual impro-ement as the system clim$s a new peak! one that coul# not ha-e $een reache# $y a simple a#apti-e walk. Kauffman also foun# that for any "i-en system which he mo#elle# that there is an optimum num$er of patches to help the system mo-e to a new fitness peak. +nfortunately! there is currently no known way to pre#ict that num$er e-en for a simple computer simulation! let alone a human or"ani@ation. Organizational culture . ha-e foun# some insi"hts from comple%ity theory useful in thinkin" a$out or"ani@ational culture. My D9ulture I 9omple%ityD "i-es more on this work. Conclusion ,here is much more. 9omple%ity theory is an immature fiel#! still #e-elopin". .t offers "reat challen"e to the or"ani@ation theorist an# some tantalisin" possi$ilities an# mo#els for the or"ani@ational practitioner. For some it is too flaky! too counter to common sense) for others it is an ine%hausti$le source of stimulus an# e%citement.
Annotated #ibliography
9omple%ity science is new) its practitioners still ha-e no common lan"ua"e or a"ree# set of concepts. ,he concepts are $ein" #e-elope# in a #i-erse ran"e of su$*ects! from e-olutionary $iolo"y to a#apti-e computin". (o there is no sin"le #efiniti-e te%t. . ha-e inclu#e# $elow a num$er of sources which seem useful an# rele-ant to me. ,he $ooks $y Cewin an# 2al#rop are the $est "eneral intro#uctions to the su$*ect) :rthur 4attramHs $ook "i-es a "oo# o-er-iew of how comple%ity theory may relate to or"ani@ations. (,his list is not e%hausti-e) there are a num$er of other $ooks which . ha-e not yet ha# a chance to rea# which are e&ually important. For con-enience . ha-e inclu#e# links to :ma@on for those who woul# like more #etails on a particular -olume. :$raham! Falph =. I (haw! 9hristopher G. 1992. /ynamics0 The 1eometry of %ehaviour. (2n# e# Fe#woo# 9ity! 9a/ :##ison02esley. + pictorial introduction to dynamics, state spaces, attractors and so on. 2ot an easy read but great for those who hate maths and have a little perseverance. 4ak! Eer 1996. 3ow 2ature 4or$s0 The ,cience of ,elf"5rganized riticality . B%for#/ +ni-ersity Eress. )acy and opinionated boo$, offering a particular perspective on complex systems. 3is experiments with sand piles lead to lin$s between avalanches, dinosaur extinctions, stoc$ mar$et prices and many other phenomena in a state of 6self"organised criticality.! 4ar05am! 5aneer 1996. /ynamics of omplex ,ystems. Fea#in"! Mass/ :##ison02esley. <"

3ighly technical account of some approaches to modelling complexity. 4askin! Ken 1997. orporate /2+0 7earning from 7ife. 4oston/ 4utterworth =einemann. /rawing on perspectives from genetics and complexity, 8en %as$in loo$s at organizational change 4attram! :rthur 1999. 2avigating omplexity0 The (ssential 1uide to omplexity Theory in %usiness and 9anagement. Con#on/ .n#ustrial (ociety. %ased on +rthur:s earlier D9omple%iconD, this boo$ gives a good introduction to complexity concepts and to their possible application to organizations. 9apra! Frit*of 1996 (1996 . The 4eb of 7ife0 + 2ew ,ynthesis of 9ind and 9atter. Con#on/ Flamin"o. +n individual attempt to use systems thin$ing and complexity to offer a new perspective on the universe. Thought"provo$ing and accessible. 9asti! Nohn C. 199J. omplexification0 (xplaining a .aradoxical 4orld Through the ,cience of ,urprise . Con#on/ :$acus. + popular mathematical loo$ at some aspects of complexity. 9illiers! Eaul 1997. omplexity and .ostmodernism0 ;nderstanding omplex ,ystems . Con#on/ Foutle#"e. +n interesting loo$ at complexity from a philosophical perspective. illiers ma$es lin$s between some approaches to complexity and the post"structuralism of <acques /errida 9lippin"er! Nohn =enry ... 2888! The %iology of %usiness. (an Francisco/ Nossey04ass. +n anthology of complexity theory applied to business. + bit patchy &the :contribution: from %rian +rthur was actually given as a tal$ in =>>?'. * found the contributions from +ndy lar$ and .hilip +nderson particularly interesting. 9ohen! Nack I (tewart! .ain 199> (199J . The ollapse of haos0 /iscovering ,implicity in a omplex 4orld . =armon#sworth/ Een"uin. 4ritten by a reproductive biologist and a mathematician, this boo$ gives both a popular introduction to aspects of complexity and also introduces some new thin$ing on the sub@ect by the authors. 9ritchley! 4ill 1997. D,he Fole of a 9han"e :"ent.D in Ehilip (a#ler (e# 9anagement onsultancy0 + 3andboo$ of %est .ractice. Con#on/Ko"an Ea"e. 1ives an account of a complexity"based intervention ritchley did with .atricia ,haw &q.v.'. 9-itano-ic! Ere#ra" 197J. ;niversality in haos. 4ristol/ :#am =il"er. 9ontaines reprints of some of the seminal works in the #e-elopment of chaos theory! inclu#in" papers $y Coren@! May! Fei"en$aum! 9rutchfiel# an# Fuelle. Not for the faint0hearte#. Gennett! Ganiel 9. 199>. /arwin:s /angerous *dea0 (volution and the 9eanings of 7ife. =armon#sworth/ Een"uin. /ennett gives a philosophical perspective on /arwinism. The boo$ includes a good exposition of )ichard /aw$ins: notion of :memes:. ?-e! Faymon# :.! =orsfall! (ara I Cee! Mary ?. (e#s 1996. haos, omplexity A ,ociology0 9yths, 9odels A Theories. ,housan# Baks! 9a/ (a"e. +n anthology of papers, growing out of an *nternet discussion group, which concentrates on the relationship between complexity theory and the social sciences. Aeert! Eaul -an 199J. /ynamic ,ystems of /evelopment0 hange %etween omplexity A haos . New 5ork/ =ar-ester 2heatsheaf. 5ffers a complex systems approach to issues in developmental psychology. + really useful feature of this boo$ is the large number of examples of wor$ed models which you can run on your spreadsheet &7otus ="B"C is used <)

but it:s fairly easy to translate the into other formats'. %eing able to play with dynamical models can give a real insight into chaotic systems. Aeuss! :rie #e 1997. DElannin" as Cearnin"D. 3avard %usiness )eview March0:pril. +rie de 1euss was head of planning at )oyal /utchD,hell. *n this paper he is concerned with planning as an aid to adaptive learning. 3e also introduces the notion of consultant as transitional ob@ectE ,cenario planning was developed at ,hell and it is an approach which fits better with complexity perspectives than most traditional planning methods. Aoo#win! 4rian 1996 (199J . 3ow the 7eopard hanged its ,pots0 The (volution of omplexity . Con#on/ Ehoeni%. %rian 1oodwin is a biologist whose views are considered a bit heretical by orthodox neo"/arwinists such as )ichard /aw$ins. This boo$ loo$s at complexity from a biological and evolutionary perspective. =ollan#! Nohn =. 1997. (mergence0 -rom haos to 5rder. Fea#in"! Mass/ =eli%. 3olland!s latest boo$. * found it tougher"going than 63idden 5rder!. 3e advocates the use of computer models to study emergent phenomena and shows some of his thin$ing about generalised models. =ollan#! Nohn =. 199>. 3idden 5rder. Fea#in"! Mass/ =eli%. 3olland is a computer scientist who has developed models of the ways in which interactions between agents in a complex adaptive system might wor$. 3is wor$ has been influential although there is little reference in this boo$ to organizational studies. Nohnson! =. ,homas I 4roms! :n#ers 2888! .rofit %eyond 9easure0 (xtraordinary )esults Through +ttention to 4or$ and .eople. Con#on/ Nicholas 4realey. ,omewhat disappointing boo$ which gives some interesting information on Toyota and ,cania. The attempt to lin$ their practices with complexity theory is wea$. Kauffman! (tuart 1996 (199> . +t 3ome in the ;niverse0 The ,earch for 7aws of omplexity. =armon#sworth/ Een"uin. 7i$e <ohn 3olland, ,tuart 8auffman is connected with the ,anta -e *nstitute, one of the leading centres for the study of complexity. + well"written boo$, though not an easy read, it follows 8auffman!s struggle to discover the conditions for emergence to occur at the edge of chaos6order for free!, as 8auffman calls it. Kelly! (usanne I :llison! Mary :nn 1997. The omplexity +dvantage0 3ow the ,cience of omplexity can 3elp Four %usiness +chieve .ea$ .erformance. New 5ork/ 4usiness 2eek 4ooks. +n interesting attempt to apply complexity to organizationsalbeit in a rather +merican 6business boo$! way. There is some interesting good stuff here, together with some provocative speculations, but the overall effect is rather prescriptive and mechanistic. Cewin! Fo"er 1999 (2n# e# . omplexity0 7ife on the (dge of haos. Con#on/ Ehoeni%. + readable introduction to the sub@ect, focusing especially on the wor$ and personalities of the ,anta -e *nstitute. McMaster! Michael G. 1996. The .raxis (quation0 /esign .rinciples for *ntelligent 5rganization . Gou"las .BM/ Knowle#"e 4ase# Ge-elopment. 9i$e 9c9aster develops a number of ideas from 8auffman, 3olland and others and considers their possible application to organizations. Merry! +ri 199>. oping 4ith ;ncertainty0 *nsights from the 2ew ,ciences of haos, ,elf"5rganization, and omplexity. 2estport! 9onn/ Erae"er. ,omewhat disappointing boo$, although a good introductory piece. * find ;ri!s articles more interesting and stimulating. Moore! Names 1996. The /eath of ompetition0 7eadership A ,trategy in the +ge of %usiness (cosystems . Con#on/ Nohn 2iley. <&

2ot about complexity as such, but applies ideas from ecology to suggest new ways of strategic collaboration and development. Mor"an! Aareth 1999 (2n# e# . *mages of 5rganization. :ltamira Eress. The classic on metaphors as approaches to organization development and consulting. *t includes a section on attractors and complexity but contains some fundamental misconceptions. Nale$uff! 4arry I 4ran#en$ur"er! :#am 1996. o"opetition. Con#on/ =arper9ollins. /rawing on perspectives from game theory, presents a win"win approach to corporate strategy. Erice! .f I (haw! Fay 1997. ,hifting the .atterns0 %rea$ing the 9emetic odes of orporate .erformance . 9halfor#! Aloucs./ Mana"ement 4ooks 2888. .rice A ,haw adopt a systemic approach to organizational change, coupled with an emphasis on memesthe hypothetical 6genes of culture! proposed by )ichard /aw$ins. Feynol#s 9rai" 2. 1976 DFlocks! =er#s! an# (chools/ : Gistri$ute# 4eha-ioural Mo#elD omputer 1raphics! $%(J ! Nuly! pp. 2>03J. raig )eynolds original paper on boids and floc$ing. *t can also be found via his web site " http/OOhmt.comOcwrO$oi#s.html 0 as can many <ava implementations of floc$ing and swarming behaviours. (an#ers! .rene 1999. ,trategic Thin$ing and the 2ew ,cience0 .lanning in the 9idst of haos, omplexity, and hange. New 5ork/ ,he Free Eress. 3as a very limited understanding of complexity, with some ma@or misunderstandings of attractors. *nteresting approach to planning, but little to do with complexity. &The ma@ority of +mazon reviewers seem to disagree with my rather negative assessment of this boo$.' (eel! Fichar# 2888! D9ulture I 9omple%ity/ New .nsi"hts into Br"ani@ational 9han"e.D 5rganizations A .eople &(2 / 209 (emler! Ficar#o 1993! 9averic$E0 The ,uccess ,tory %ehind the 4orld:s 9ost ;nusual 4or$place . Con#on/ 9entury. 2ot a word about complexity theory but many of ,emler:s practices seem to show an intuitive grasp of many of its principles. + great read, very easy to absorb and will stimulate much thought. (haw! Eatricia 1996. D.nter-enin" in the (ha#ow (ystems of Br"ani@ations/ 9onsultin" from a 9omple%ity Eerspecti-e.D <ournal of 5rganizational hange 9anagement %'(3 / 23>02>8. +n account of a consulting assignment using perspectives developed by )alph ,tacey. (tacey! Falph 1996. omplexity and reativity in 5rganizations. (an Francisco/ 4errett0Koehler. ,tacey combines thin$ing from ,anta -e with the 8leinian perspectives of the Tavistoc$ *nstitute. ,ome good ideas but not easy to read. (tewart! .an 1996 (2n# e# . /oes 1od .lay /iceG0 The 2ew 9athematics of haos. =armon#sworth/ Een"uin. + popular, but mind"stretching, introduction to the mathematics behind chaos theory. -an #er =ei*#en! Kees 1996. ,cenarios0 The +rt of ,trategic onversation. 9hichester/ Nohn 2iley. /escribes the approach to scenario planning developed during his time at ,hell. 2a##in"ton! 9. =. 1966. Tools for Thought. Con#on/ Eala#in. + classic. 4ritten before :complexity: became fashionable it offers some ways of thin$ing about complex systems. 2al#rop! M. Mitchell 1993 (1992 . omplexity0 The (merging ,cience at the (dge of 5rder and haos . Con#on/ Pikin". <,

+n excellent popular account of complexity and its development. 1ives some good insights into the thin$ing behind complexity as well as the personalities of those most deeply involved. 2heatley! Mar"aret N. 199J (1992 . 7eadership and the 2ew ,cience0 7earning +bout 5rganization from an 5rderly ;niverse. (an Francisco/ 4errett0Koehler. + much"cited but rather disappointing boo$. /eals mainly with chaos theory rather than complexity
<3

Organization Development: Carl Taylor

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Organization Development: Carl Taylor

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Organization Development

The o!r &e' Orientation# an" (even (# o$ OD

T'pi%al Pre%e"e# to an OD Intervention

An E+ploration o$ Motivation# an" E+pe%tation# A##o%iate" /ith OD

Approa%he# to Managing Motivation# an" E+pe%tation#

4or,ing /ith the Organization5# D'nami%#

Over%oming ail!re Pattern#

The De#ign o$ OD Intervention#

Implementing OD at the Level o$ Team (tr!%t!re an" !n%tion

Implementing OD at the Level o$ Organization (tr!%t!re an" !n%tion

(etting dates for follow7up session as deemed necessary.

oncluding the wor!shop and evaluating the entire experience.

A%tion Planning B The En" o$ the 3eginning

The 7!alit' an" !#e o$ a%tion plan#

En#!ring $ollo/*thro!gh an" o)Ae%tivit'

Dire%tive v#. non*"ire%tive pra%titioner #t'le#

Non*"ire%tive 0Pra%titioner a# pro%e## $a%ilitator1

Dire%tive an" non*"ire%tive %on#!ltan%' #t'le# #!mmari#e"

The #pe%tr!m o$ %oa%hing #,ill#

The %ompeten%ie# o$ the e$$e%tive pra%titioner

Evol!tion an" Revol!tion a# Organization# Gro/

The OD (t!"ent5# Lament

-volution and 9evolution as $rganizations :row

+om,an# in lo Egro tindustr#

Dmall Young Age of Organization :ature

I; +risis of = H; +risis of REC 8A/E

I; Gro t- t-roug+OLLABORA8IONN H; Gro t- t-roug+OEORCINA8ION

'; +risis of LEACERD1I/

F; Gro t- t-rougCELEGA8ION *; Gro t- t-rougCIRE+8ION

'; Gro t- t-roug+REA8IKI8Y

:ature Age of Organization

*articipants Dotes on $rganization %evelopment v.,

9evolution is (till +nevitable

*articipants Dotes on $rganization %evelopment v.,

APPENDIC . Complexity & Organization Development: An Introduction

*articipants Dotes on $rganization %evelopment v.,

*articipants Dotes on $rganization %evelopment v.,

*articipants Dotes on $rganization %evelopment v.,

dge of Chaos optimum optimum optimum optimum optimum

Instability hi"h hi"h hi"h hi"h low

*articipants Dotes on $rganization %evelopment v.,

*articipants Dotes on $rganization %evelopment v.,

*articipants Dotes on $rganization %evelopment v.,

*articipants Dotes on $rganization %evelopment v.,

*articipants Dotes on $rganization %evelopment v.,

*articipants Dotes on $rganization %evelopment v.,

*articipants Dotes on $rganization %evelopment v.,

*articipants Dotes on $rganization %evelopment v.,

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi