mgmnt dev. and org. development


Published on

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

mgmnt dev. and org. development

  1. 1. Management Development and Organization Development Contents Acknowledgement Introduction Chapter:1 Management development and Organization development (1- 11) Introduction; The Background; OD Frameworks; ‘Seven-S’ Model; Summary Chapter: 2 Foundations Of Organization Development (12- 18) Introduction; Stream analysis; System Theory; Participation and empowerment; Team and teamwork; Parallel learning structures; Applied behavioural Science; Summary Chapter: 3 Managing The Organizational Development Process (19- 27) Introduction; Diagnosis; Diagnosing the system, its subunits and process; The Six-box Model; Third wave consulting; The action component; OD interventions; The nature of OD interventions; Analyzing discrepancies; Phase of OD programs; Model for managing change; Summary Chapter: 4 Organization Development and role of Management Techniques. (28- 44) Introduction; TQM as Large-Scale Systems Change; People's Expectations and Perceptions; Sources of Resistance; Dealing with Resistance; Exhibit I provides an exam; Exhibit II: Resistance to Change; Implementation Principles and Processes; Current Reality and Preconditions; Exhibit III; Visionary Leadership; Steps in Managing the Transition; Institutionalisation of TQM; Some Do's and Don'ts; Summary Chapter: 5 Organization development In Tata Group (45- 49) Introduction; Pioneers; About Tata SSL; Chapter: 6 (50- 55) Tata Business Excellence Model (TBEM) Introduction; Leader ship at Tata SSL; Strategy Development; Strategy Deployment; Summary; 1
  2. 2. Management Development and Organization Development Analysis New Organization Structure Annexure Bibliography 2
  3. 3. Management Development and Organization Development Acknowledgement I Miss.Trupti. A. Rane of Ghanshyamdas Saraf Girls College wish to thanks my Guide Mrs. Bhanu Krishnan and S.G. Rane Head of Supply Management of Tata Iron and Steel Company who spared there precious time for my project and provided me with all the information required, it is due to their efforts that I was able to complete my project with such a success. I would also like to thank all my other professors who provided me a helping hand. A Special thanks to Prof. Ramnath Subramanian. 3
  4. 4. Management Development and Organization Development 4
  5. 5. Management Development and Organization Development Chapter: 1 Management development and Organization development Introduction In this world turned upside down, organization development as a distinct discipline appears to have faded even further from view, while some of the underlying assumptions and values of management development have been opened up to some serious questioning, as the organization in which the develop vie with one another to see which can operate with the leanest corporate office of them all. 5
  6. 6. Management Development and Organization Development As if all this were not sufficient, the focus of attention has begun to fall increasingly upon smaller and medium sized enterprise, encouraging the question, ‘what have organization and management ever done for them?’ While such business have always represented a major slice of most western economies, it is really only the conspicuous failure of so many big organization which has drawn their smaller fellows into the sights of management and organization development practitioners. As the Russian proverb puts it, ‘ When the devil is hungry, he will eat files.’ However, the mind-sets of many of us who provide advice and guidance to managers on how they might improve their own or organization’s performance. As mind-set lead to action which are guided by assumptions lurking somewhere below the conscious level, it is as well to have them articulated and made explicit, particularly if economic circumstances may have served to drive them even deeper below the level of surface awareness. The Background Huczynski (1987) has suggested that organizational development (OD) is: …now generally regarded as being concerned with helping the members of an organization to improve its total ability to manage and develop itself, so it is able to respond to the environment pressures it faces. Development implies that the organization needs to learn how to adapt and change its culture so that it can continue to survive and achieve its core purpose. If an organization’s members are to develop and learn how to adapt and change they need to acquire skills additional to, or other than, those they already posses. First however it is necessary to be clear about the terms. The following quotation is from Kilmann to place OD in its current context: The field of OD, as it first emerged in 1950’s,was envisaged as offering methods for system wide change that would significantly improve the functions of entire organizations. For the most part, however, this majestic vision has been lost and forgotten…. Today, however as many organization are coming to realize that ‘ future 6
  7. 7. Management Development and Organization Development shock’ is upon them, the need for fundamental, system wide change is being voiced more and more frequently. Now entire organization must be transformed into market- driven, innovative, and adaptive system if they are to survive and prosper in the highly competitive, global environment to the next decades. Given this situation, there is an urgent need to rejuvenate the theory and practice of OD- to supply programmes for system wide change. Many of new approaches used to achieve organizational transformation, such as performance management, total quality management, and investor in People initiative, do borrow heavily and appropriately from ‘the theory and practice of organizational development’ but, having been tempered by economic turmoil, with somewhat less of the latter’s idealism and naïveté. At the same time there has been recognition of the requirement for managers to be able to develop and learn with less of the perspective arrogance that characterized many of the traditional, centralized, specialist-owned programmes of management development. Management development has been described as ‘an attempt to increase managerial effectiveness through planned and deliberate learning process.’ The customers for such process, client managers, have tended to have fairly clear views about management development within their organizations, and they usually had few problems in making a distinction between their perceptions of management development on the one hand and management training on the other hand. While the latter has been perceived as a process necessary to the acquisition of skills (such as budgetary development and control), management development tend to viewed as a broadening educational process by means of which the individual is initiated, shaped or fitted to the attitudes, values rites and rituals of successively higher levels within the organization. As, much, management development may or may not encompass formal training, and it may be self-managed. Many organizations have attached especially high values to process of management self-development, even to the extent of welcoming back the prodigal mangers who having resigned ‘to gain experience in another environment’, now the returns to the fold with renewed vigour. Other stress the value of a broad base of experience, but tend to reward 7
  8. 8. Management Development and Organization Development ‘loyalty and long service.’ This automatically places severe constrains on the perceived benefits and wisdom of pursuing opportunities for such broadening. To an extend, then the client managers would relate management training to a process by means of which the individual acquires the skills associated with a specific management job or level. They would tend to regard management development as having much more to do with career development and progression. This difference in perception tends to throw into much sharper relief in organizations where responsibility for management training is assigned to the training function, while management development is assigned as a personnel responsibility. This distinction is further reinforced where there is real, or perceived, competition between the two functions over which is accountable for what and as to where the senior status lies. The single, learner function that has succeeded separate training and personnel functions in a great many organizations, under the title of human resource management, has narrowed the gap somewhat. But, as with management development and OD, the separate mind-sets associated with skills training on one hand, and with personnel growth and development on the other, still linger on. There was a fundamental difference in the antecedents of management development and OD. Management development was always a process ‘owned’ by the organization itself. It may not have been done particularly well, but the managers within the organization could identify what is as a process that had specific meaning for him, within the context of the norms and values of the organization by which he was employed. Organization development, on the other hand, was more specialized, more specific and, in aspiration at east more scientific. It tended to be domain of the business school and the research institute rather than the incorporate into the organization itself. Kilmann provided a possible insight as to why the values and concepts of organization development have rarely been incorporated into the organizations that it was meant to be serving: 8
  9. 9. Management Development and Organization Development A PhD straight out of graduate school who had never in his or her life even been near a business organization could teach write and do research on business and management. While they thus achieved greater prestige in their own network, they increasingly lost touch with the business community and the world at large. Intentionally or unintentionally, they shut out from the halls of academia the very reality they where supposedly in the business of studying. The Mitroff and Kilmann argument may tend towards the extreme and, as noted above, they are not referring to OD as such but to relationship between the business schools and business in general. It does, however, provide a backdrop for the image of OD practitioner as ‘outsider’. The practitioners themselves have tended to prefer the role, as facilitator change agent as consultant and catalyst, as opposed to that of integrated participant in the hurly-burly of the organizations, which they have aspired to develop. With the dramatic economic changes, which commenced in the 1980s, the increase in uncertainty at all organization levels and reduction in confidence in the ability of Cartesian logic to produce the right answers to the complex problems of an organizational and business life, there began a process of challenge to the contribution offered by all the specialisms which had developed so rapidly and with such promise in the 1960s. Line managers tended to become much more suspicious of operation research, other than in those areas to complexity where it had an established track record (vehicle scheduling, stock control and reordering, life cycles forecasting, etc.). It tends to be perceived as ‘esoteric, back room stuff’, highly mathematical and largely beyond the comprehension of the managers whom it is there to serve. O&M too has lost much of its gloss that it had in 1960s, not least because its emphasis on rationalism leads to a natural (tough not always fair) association with organization which in turn means ‘putting the squeeze on my department’. OD has suffered in its turn from its identification with outsiders to the organization. It emphasis on humanist values has had a rough ride in organizations forced by economic necessity to experience the massive employee shake-outs of the late 1970s, 1980s and now again in early 1990s. At the same time there is much greater awareness of the limitations to the skills that managers have at their disposal to enable them to tackle the challenges that new circumstances present. Therefore, of four specialism methods (operational 9
  10. 10. Management Development and Organization Development research, organizations methods, organization development and management development), managers might naturally be expected to identify more closely with the latter than with the others. OD Frameworks: The word ‘frameworks’ is used, rather than ‘definition’ or ‘frame of references’, because the field has become too imprecise for any one of the many attempts at definition to be entirely adequate. Bennis (1969) described OD as ‘a response to change, a complex educational strategy intended to change the beliefs, attitudes, values and structure of organizations so that they can be better adapt to new technologies, markets and challenges, and the dizzying rate of change itself’. Such descriptions places OD at the apex of the organizational pyramid. It is strategic, it is concerned with values, and it is concerned with structure. If OD interventions are to be effective in terms of Bennis’s description, then they must be made with the full participation and commitment top management. Beckhard wrote (1969): In an organization-development effort, the top management of the system has a personal investment in the programme and its outcomes. They actively participate in the management effort. These doses not mean that they must participate in the same activities as the others, but it does mean that they must actively support the methods used to achieve goals. Perhaps less elegantly, but with a shrewd eye for the realities of organization life, Reddin (19770) wrote: When change agents tell me that they plan to attempt a change from the bottom up, I remind them of the military dictum that the penalty for mutiny is death. But in this insistence on top management involvement realistic? In the current climate such involvement is usually the result of massive and usually externally induced change, such a merger take-over or bottom line crisis. There are great many examples where such involvement has been the springboard for the initiation of successful OD-type interventions. But in the majority of organizations, the demands of running the operation in a difficult, but necessary catastrophic, environment may 10
  11. 11. Management Development and Organization Development make the demand for such involvement unrealistic. Highly motivated teams operating just below, but with the blessing of, such top managers may provide a more realistic driving-force for organizational transformation and development (Katzenbach and Smith, 1933). Bennis himself goes on to suggest that its description of OD may be to provide ‘an abstract and perhaps, useless, definition’. In order to clarify his position, therefore, he goes on to provide four examples of OD in practice: 1. Team development. 2. Inter-group conflict resolution. 3. Confrontation meetings. 4. Feedback. Each of these examples is concerned with ‘process’ issues having an impact on the effectiveness achieved by particular work-groups, either internally or at the interface between groups. Each is also concerned with the intervention of a third-party ‘change agent’ or facilator. Margersion (1978), writing ten years after Bennis, picks upon this latter point to suggest a simpler framework for OD than that of the earlier writers: The term ‘organization development’… means the skills and methods used by people to facilitate organizational improvement. While Margerison’s description may reflect what OD has often become (and many provide an explanation as to why client managers have a hard time in recognizing the term ‘organization development’ at all), it has lost two key elements of the Bennis and Bechard requirements. The first of these is strategy and second is top-level commitment. While the earlier writers’ aspirations may have been too high (reflecting Mitroff and Kilmann’s concern about business schools’ distance from organizational realities, Margerison’s organization developers do when it is successful. When it is not, it is what the client mangers did and, therefore, is not OD. A really useful framework would probably lie somewhere between two and would include a reference to the areas of knowledge and the particular skills and methods the organization developer would characteristically employ. Margulies and Raia (1972) went a long way towards meeting this requirement when they stated that: Organization development borrows from a number of disciplines, including Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology and Economics. It generally involves the use of 11
  12. 12. Management Development and Organization Development concepts and data from the behavioural science to attempt to facilitate the process of planned change. The tool tag is specified with the references to the disciplines upon which OD practitioner draw, and the stress upon planned change goes some way to meet Bennis’ emphasis upon OD as a strategic activity (though it will not be argued here that a strategy and a plan are one and the same thing). Maguiles and Raia again: Organization development is essentially a system approach to the total set of functional and interpersonal role relationships in organizations. An organization can be viewed as a system of coordinated human activities, a complex whole consisting a number of interacting and interrelated elements or subsystems. A change in any one part will have an impact on one or more of the other parts… organization development itself can be viewed as system of three related elements- values, process and technology. They than provide examples what these three elements might comprise. These examples are summarized here. Values: 1. Providing opportunities for people to function as human beings rather than as resource in the productive process. 2. Providing opportunities for each organization member, as well as for the organization itself, to develop to his or her full potential. 3. Seeking to increase the effectiveness of the organization in terms of its goals. 4. Attempting to create an environment in which it is possible to find exciting and challenging work. 5. Providing opportunities for people for people in organization to influence the way in which they relate to work, the organization, and the environment. 12
  13. 13. Management Development and Organization Development 6. Treating each human being as a person with a complex set of needs, all of which are important in his or her work and in his or her life. Process: 1. Data-gathering. 2. Organization diagnosis 3. Action intervention. Technology: 1. New ways of organizational learning. 2. New ways of coping. 3. New ways of problem-solving. The set of values provided by Margulies and Raia are essential humanist in orientation. This provides another clue to the externalization of OD from the organization within which it is practiced. The values as listed are desirable to most of the people, but the experience of recent life in large organizations has not done much to suggest that these values are shared within the organizations themselves. More difficult still, because organizational members can identify within them at an individual level, they are easily espoused by the organization in formalized expressions of its values: ‘ Our greatest asset is our people and there unswerving commitment to company goals.’ But, to paraphrase Argyris the values in use are demonstrably different. ‘Despite the best endeavours of Senior Management the economic pressures have meant that we have had to realise five hundred valued members of the workforce’. Thus, the experience of organizational members during the 1980s and early 1990s has tended to be at odds with the stated values of organizational, functionalist or pragmatic values concerned with being clear with the terms and conditions of staff (or, increasingly, subcontractors), equipment, finance and time. These values place emphasis upon effective and efficient delivery as opposed to the more general values of human potential and satisfaction. Galbraith (1977) does not start from the same, humanist, standpoint that characterizes the writers referred to so far. He is, however, very much in tune with the systems orientation espoused by Margulies and Raia, and places great emphasis upon the importance of strategy in common with Bennis. But perhaps the most significant 13
  14. 14. Management Development and Organization Development differences in style in Galbraith’s work from those alluded to previously is the sense that he is writing for the manager who owns the problem rather than for the OD practitioner who can analyse and understand the problem. Indeed, he refers to organization to design as the key issue and not to OD: Organization design is conceived to be a decision process to bring about coherence between the goals or purposes for which the organization exists, the patterns of division of labour and interunit coordination, and the people who do the work. The notion of strategic choice suggests that there are choices of goals and purpose, choices of different organizing models, choices of process for integrating individuals into the organization, and finally, a choice as to whether goals, organization, individuals or some combination of them should be changed in order to adapt to changes in environment. Organization design is concerned with maintaining the coherence over time. These choices are fundamental and control the manager with increasing frequency. Writing sometime later, Galbraith (1983) developed his system orientation further to indicate that organizations ………. Consists of structure, process that cut the structural lines like budgeting, planning teams, and so on, reward systems like promotions and compensation, and finally, people practices like selection and development. This approach is considerably more in harmony with the prevailing, functionalist orientation that is characteristic of Bennis, Margulies, Raia, etc. Emphasis upon the notion of choice and, in particular, strategic choice would also find favour with Mitroff and Kilmann (1984) who berate the business school and their academic antecedents for their post 1960s emphasis upon training students to tackle exercises rather than to solve problems: It is vital as a culture that we come to appreciate that there is a vast difference between structured-bounded exercise and unstructured- unbounded problems… In a phrase we have bred a nation of certainty-junkies. We have trained the members of our culture to expect a daily dosage of highly structured-bounded exercises. The 14
  15. 15. Management Development and Organization Development difficulty is that problems of organizations and society have become highly unstructured and unbounded. ‘Seven-S’ Model The Mckinsey ‘Seven-S’ model offered by Peters and waterman in 1982 has some close affinity with the systems model offered by Galibrath: Strategy Structure Systems Staff Skills Shared Values Style The key to opening the door of management practice to the process of OD lies in strategic focus emphasized by Bennis, reinforced by Galbraith, and central to the McKinsey ‘Seven-S’ model. Unless the OD process (and, indeed, the management development process) is closely related to, and in keeping with, the organization’s driving strategy it cannot be effective. This may well mean that the practitioner may have to forego the lucrative assignment where the strategy espoused (or used) by the client organization is inconsistent with those humanist values referred to by Margulies and Raia. He will certainly have an obligation to make them explicit, change his values, or play lago to his client’s Othello. It is currently fashionable to describe those organizations, which do adapt, change and, perhaps, even flourish in times of economic adversity as ‘learning organizations’. There is a risk, of course, that the embattled manager may dismiss the term as just another example of specialist, consultant-speak (like management development or OD). On the other hand, the term might just be indicative of a much needed shift in emphasis as a developers all being to recognize and appreciate the value of their various, different contributions and to demonstrate an enthusiasm and willingness to learn, really learn, from one another to the benefit to themselves and of their organizations. 15
  16. 16. Management Development and Organization Development Summary: This definitions and views given by founders of OD clarify the distinctive features of the field of OD and suggest why it is such a powerful change strategy. The participative, collaborative, problem-focused nature of OD marshals the experience and expertise of organization members as they work on their most important problems and opportunities in ways designed to lead to successful outcomes. 16
  17. 17. Management Development and Organization Development Chapter 2 Foundations Of Organization Development Introduction This chapter describes the foundations that underlie organization development theory and practice, art and science. These foundations the knowledge base upon which OD is constructed. The knowledge base of OD is extensive and constantly being upgraded. In this chapter we describe what we think are the most important upgrading for the field. We will examine the following concepts; Models and theories of planned change System theory Participation and empowerment Team and teamwork Parallel learning structures and Applied behavioral science. Organization development is planned change in an organization context. Planned change theories are rather rudimentary as for as explaining relationships between variables, but pretty good in terms of identifying the important variables involved in change. Kurt Lewin introduced new two idea of change. The first idea that what is occurring at any point in time is a resultant in a field opposing forces. The status quo- whatever happening right now is the result of forces pushing in opposite directions. This can be identified by force field analysis. Whereas Lewins second idea was a model of the change process itself. He suggested that change is a three-stage process: unfreezing the old behavior (or situation), moving to a new level of behavior and refreezing the behavior at new level. Change entails moving from one equilibrium to another point of equilibrium. Lewins three-stage model is a powerful cognitive tool for understanding change situation which are explained below There are various stages: 1st Stage: Unfreezing i.e. creating motivation and readiness to change through 1. Disconfirmation or lack of conformation 2. Creating guilt or anxiety. 17
  18. 18. Management Development and Organization Development 3. Provision for psychological safety. 2nd Stage: Changing through Restructuring: Helping the client to see things, judge things, feel things, and react to things differently based on a view obtained through: 1. Identifying with a new role model, mentor, etc. 2. A scanning the environment for new relevant information. 3rd Stage: Refreezing: Helping the clients to integrate the new point of view into: 1. The total personality and self-concept 2. Significant relationships Stream analysis: Another useful model is “stream analysis” developed by Jerry Porras. Which is system for graphically displaying the problems of an organization examining interconnections between the problems, identifying core problems and graphically tracking the corrective actions taken to solve the problems. Stream analysis is a complicated and somewhat difficult to use, but as a model for thinking about change and method for managing change, it is quite valuable. It can also be compared to Deminng Edwards fishbone diagram or Pareto Chart or any other graphical representation discovered by him in recent ages. Next a thorough diagnosis of organization problems and barriers to effectiveness is performed via, brainstorming session, interviews, questionnaire and other methods. A task force of representatives from all parts of the organization review the problems and barriers and discuss them until there is agreement on what they mean, and categorizes each problem into one of the ‘streams’. Four columns are drawn on paper; the column headings are labeled “organization arrangements”, “ social factors”, “technology”, and “physical setting”. Next the interconnections between the problems are noted; problems that have many interconnections are identified as core problem. Action plans are developed to correct the core problems. The action plan and their results are tracked on stream chart. This helps to solve the core plan and simultaneously other interconnected problems making OD by itself. 18
  19. 19. Management Development and Organization Development System Theory: A second foundation of OD is “system theory”. Which views organization as open system in active exchange with their surrounding environments. The aim of this section is to explain systems theory, describe the characteristics of systems, and show how system theory enhances the practice of OD. Laudwig Von Bertalanffy first articulated the principle of general system theory in 1950. ‘System’ denotes interdependency, interconnectedness, and interrelatedness of a set of elements that constitute an identifiable Whole or gestalt. Organizations are open systems; hence all open systems are input-throughput- output mechanisms. Systems take in inputs from the environment in the form of energy, information, money, people, raw materials and so on. They do something to inputs via throughput, conversions or transformation process that change the inputs: and they export products to environment in form of outputs. Each of these three systems process must work well if the system is to be effective and survive. Annexure 3 shows a system in diagrammatic form: Participation and empowerment: One of the most important foundations of organization is its use of a participation empowerment model. Research on group dynamics began in the 1940s and achieved exponential growth in the 1950s and 1960s. It demonstrates people, had ability to energize greater performance, produce better solutions to problems and greatly enhanced acceptance of decisions. Participation is a powerful elixir- its good for people, and it dramatically improves individual and organizational performance. Whereas to empower is to give someone power. This is done by giving their ideas, to exert influences, and to be responsible. That is why participation is such an effective form of empowerment. A good manual for implementing empowerment strategies is James Bellasco’s. Teaching the Elephant to Dance: The Managers Guide to Empowering Chang. Belesco presented numerous examples in which leaders reap extraordinary gains by empowering their employees. Belesco uses a simple four- step model to describe the empowerment process; A) Preparation B) Create tomorrow 19
  20. 20. Management Development and Organization Development C) Vision D) Change. He believes 1. That only massive change will suffice to keep organizations available in the future. 2. That people will not naturally embrace the needed changes, and 3. The empowerment is the key to getti9ng people to want to participate in change. It is believed that one of the most important ingredients of empowerments is vision- Developing a clear vision, devising a strategy to achieve the vision and unleashing the intelligence and energy of the work force to accomplish the vision are what empowerment is all about, according to Belesco. Team and teamwork: Team and teamwork are the “hottest” thing happening in organizations today- gurus extol the virtues of teams; the noun team has become a verb, teaming and team related acronyms abound-SDTs (self directed teams), QCs (Quality Circles), HPOs (high performance Organizations), HPWs (high Performances Work Systems), STS (Sociotechnical Systems) to name just a few. Teams are important for number of reasons. First, much individual behavior is rooted in socio culture norms and values of the work team. Second, many tasks are so complex, they cannot be performed by individuals: Third, teams create synergy, i.e., the sum of the effort of people working alone. Fourth, teams satisfy people’s needs for social interactions, status, recognition and respect- teams nurture human nature. Investigators discovered the reason why a particular team performs well while others don’t. Larson and La Fasto studied number of higher performance teams including collegiate football national champions, heart transplant surgical teams, and the crew of the USS Kitty Hawk, and others to determine the characteristics that make them successful. They found 8 characteristics that are always present: 1. A clear, elevating goal; 2. A result – driven structure; 3. Competent team members; 20
  21. 21. Management Development and Organization Development 4. Unified commitment 5. A collaboration climate; 6. Standards of excellence; 7. External support and recognition; 8. Principled leadership. This eight feature makes up a top team; and when any one feature is lost, team performance declines. High performance teams regulate the behavior of team members, help each other, find innovative ways around barriers, and set- higher goals. Larsen and La Fasto also discovered that most frequent cause of team failure was letting personal or political agendas take precedence over the clear and elevating team goal. Parallel learning structures: Parallel learning structures, specially created organizational structures developed to plan and guide change programs, constitute another important foundation of organization development. Dale Zand introduced this concept under the label “collateral organization” in 1974, and defined it as “a supplementary organization consisting with the usual, formal organization”. The purpose o9f collateral organization is to deal with ill structured problems that the formal organization is unable to resolve. Considerable experimentation with collateral organizations occurred in the 1970s and 1980s. Bushe and Shani describes the idea as follows “ We offer the team ‘parallel learning structure’ as a generic label to cover interventions where (a) a ‘structure’ (that is, a specific division and coordination of labor) is created that (b) operates ‘parallel’ (that is, tandem or side-by-side) with the formal hierarchy and structures and (c) has the purpose of increasing an ‘organizational learning’ (that is, the creation and/or implementation of new thoughts and behaviors by employees). In its most basic form, a parallel learning structure consists of a steering committee and a number of working groups that study what chances are needed, make recommendations for improvement, and monitor the change efforts. Additional refinements including having a steering committee, plus idea groups, action groups, work groups or implementation groups, with the groups serving specific functions as designated by steering committee. The parallel structure should be a microcosm of the larger organization, that is, it should have representatives from all parts of the organization. 21
  22. 22. Management Development and Organization Development One or more top executives should be members of the steering committee, to give the parallel structure authority, legitimacy and clout. We believe parallel learning structures are a foundation of OD because they are prevalent in so many different OD programs. The quality of work life programs of the 1970s and 1980s used parallel structures composed of union leaders, managers and employees. Most sociotechnical systems redesign efforts and open system planning programs used parallel structures. Parallel structures are often used to coordinate the self-directed teams in high- performance organization. A steering committee and working groups were used to coordinate the employee involvement teams at Ford Motor Company. Parallel Learning Structures are often the best way to initiate change involves a fundamental shift in the organization methods of work and/or culture. Bushe and Shani recount a number of examples from a variety of settings where this intervention was used to great advantage. Parallel learning structures are a powerful organization change. Applied behavioral Science: The foundation of OD relates to the primarary knowledge based on the, behavioral science knowledge. OD programs apply scientific and practice principles from the behavioral science to intervene in the human and social process of organization. A convectional distinction in usually made between, 1) “Pure” or basic science, the object of which knowledge for its own sake and 2) “Technology”, applied science, or practice the object of which is knowledge to solve practical, pressing problems. According to Greenwood: “ The diagnostic and treatment typologies are employed together. Each type description of the diagnostic typology contains implications for a certain type of treatment. The practitioner uses treatment as the empirical test in his diagnosis, success corroborating the diagnosis, failure negativity and thus requiring rediagnosis. The principles of diagnosis and of treatment constitute the principles of practice i.e. with their elaborations and implications constitute practice theory. OD is both a result of applied behavioral science perhaps more accurately; it is a program of applying behavioral science to organization. Annexure 4 shows some of the inputs to applied behavioral science. The two bottom inputs, behavioral science research and behavioral science theory are intended to represent contributions from 22
  23. 23. Management Development and Organization Development pure or basic science; the two top inputs, practice research and practice theory, are intended to represent contributions from applied science. (Annexure 4 Composition of Applied Behavioral Science) Summary: These foundations of organization Development from the theoretical and practice underpinning of the field. Taken separately, each is a powerful conceptual too for thinking about and implementing change. Taken collectively, they constitute the beginning of a theory of organization development and change that has enormous potential for improving organizational performance and individual development. These foundations are solid, valid, and of great value to OD theorist and practitioners. They are also of great value to OD to organization leaders and members who stand to benefit from the change programs erected on this collective foundation. 23
  24. 24. Management Development and Organization Development Chapter 3 Managing The Organizational Development Process Introduction: In this chapter we examine what leaders, organization members, and OD practitioners do as they implement and manage OD programs. First we take an in depth look at diagnosis from several different perspectives or approaches. This is followed by an examination of the considerations that go into selecting and implementing interventions. Finally, guidelines for the overall management of OD programs are presented and explained. Diagnosis: There are three basic components of all OD programs: diagnosis, action and program management. The diagnosis component represents a continuous collection of data about the total system or its subunits, and about system process culture and other targets of interest. The action components consist of all the activities and interventions designed to improve the organization functioning. The programs management encompasses all activities design to ensure the success of the program such as a developing the overall OD strategy, monitoring events along the way, and dealing with the complexities and surprise inherent in all programs. Annexure 5 shows what we mean when we describe the OD process in terms of diagnosis, action and program management components. The first step to diagnosis the state of the system regarding the client’s focus of interest. Whether the total system or some part of the whole. This can be done by doing SWOT analysis i.e. (Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats). (Annexure 5 Components of the OD process: Diagnosis, Action, and Program Management). In second step action plans are developed to correct problems, by seizing the opportunities, and by maintaining areas of strengths. These action plans are OD interventions specifically tailored to address issues at all levels of organization. Step three consists of facts finding concerning the results to the action taken. If the answer is positive than members initiate new action plans and interventions to resolve the 24
  25. 25. Management Development and Organization Development issue (this is considered to be forth step). Again this process looks logical and linear in Annexure 4 but in practice it is more complicated. Diagnosing the system, its subunits and process: Organization development is at heart an action programs based on valid interest about the status quo, current problems and opportunities, and effects of actions as they relate to goal achievement. An OD program thus starts with diagnosis and continuously employs data collection and data analyzing throughout. The requirement for diagnostic activities- activities designed to provide an accurate account of things as they really are-stems from two needs: the first is to know the state of things or “what is”; the second is to know the effects or consequences of actions. The important of diagnostic activities is emphasized by Bechard as follows; The development of strategy for systematic improvement of an organization demands an examination of the present state of things such an analysis usually looks at two broad areas. One is a diagnosis of various subsystems that make up the total organization. These subsystems may be natural “teams” such as top management. The production department or a research group; or they may be levels such as top management, middle management, or the work force. The second area of diagnosis is the organization process’s that are occurring. These include decision-making process, communications pattern and styles, relationship between interfacing groups, the management of conflict, the setting of goals, and planning methods. Continual diagnosis is thus a necessary ingredient of any planned change effort. Such diverse activities as getting rich, managing your time and losing weight, for e.g., all being with an audit “what is”- the status quo- and then require continual monitoring of the changing status quo over time. From compassion of “what is” with “what should be” comes a discovery of the gap between actual and desired condition. Action plans are than developed to close the gap between the actual and the desired conditions; and the effects of these action plans are continuously monitored to measure process or movement towards goal. Diagnostic values are therefore basic to all goals seeking behavior. See Annexure 5 25
  26. 26. Management Development and Organization Development The Six- Box Model: Another diagnostic tool is Marvin Weisbord’s Six-box model, a diagnostic framework published in 1976, and still widely used by OD practitioners. This model tells practitioners where to look and what to look for in diagnostic organizational problem. As shown in (Annexure 6) Weisbord identifies six crucial areas-purposes, structure rewards help, full mechanisms, relationships and leadership- where things must go right if the organization is to be successful. Practioniers use this model as a cognitive map, systematically examining the process and activities of each box, looking for signs of trouble. Assume there are problems with major product produced by the organization. These problems will have their cause in dysfunctional process located in one or more of the six boxes. The problem could be caused by ill-advise structures, poor leadership, unclear purpose or purpose at variance with the product, lack of helpful mechanism, and so on. The six-box model is a simple but powerful diagnostic tool. (Annexure 6). According to Weisbord, the consultant must attend to both the formal and informal aspects of each box. The formal system represents the official ways things are supposed to happen; the informal system represents the ways things really happen. The formal/informal distinctions, that is, what supposed to happen versus what is really happening, is a powerful element of OD practice theory and of organization the secrets to understanding organization dynamics. Weisbord recommends a thorough diagnosis, looking at multiple boxes before choosing interventions. “Third-Wave Consulting”: About ten years after the Six-Box model appeared, Weisbord wrote an article titled, “Towards Third-Wave Managing and Consulting”, in which he reconsiders the issues of diagnosis and intervention. “Third wave” refers to the assertion by futurist Alvin Toffler that the world has progressed through the agricultural revolution (the first wave), and the industrial revolution (second wave), and is poised on the brink of an information and technological revolution (the third wave), in which the hallmark will be rampant change in virtually all institutions of society. Weisbord belives this requires new paradigms for managing and consulting. As far as diagnosis and interventions are concerned, Weisbord no longer likes a problem-centered, “sickness” model of organizational diagnosis where diagnosis leads to list of problems, and 26
  27. 27. Management Development and Organization Development interventions are designed to cure the problems. Instead, he prefers to focus on “wellness”, to help people achieve the desired futures chosen by them, and to create workplaces that have meaning and community. Operationally, this means moving from one view of consultant as an expert on diagnosis and interventions, to a view of the consultant as a stage manager of events to help people do what they are trying to do. Weisbord identifies four “useful practices” for third-wave consultant: 1. Asses the potential for action (look for condition where there are committed leadership, good business opportunities, and energized people; 2. Get the “whole system” in the room; 3. Focus on the future; and 4. Structure tasks that people can do for themselves. This optimistic, goal- oriented view for helping people in organization is a valuable perspective on diagnosis. The Action component; OD Interventions: Organization development is a process for improving organizational performance by causing changes in organization’s culture and process. Improving process and culture is done through OD interventions, which are sets of structured activities in which selected organizational units engage with a task or sequence to tasks where the task goals are related to organizational improvement. Interventions are actions taken to produce desired changes. Typically, one of four conditions gives rise to need for OD interventions. First, there is problem; something is “broken”. Corrective actions-interventions- are implemented to “fix” the problem. Second, there is an unrealized opportunity; something we want is beyond our reach. Enabling actions-interventions-are developed to seize the opportunity. Third features of the organization are out of alignment; parts of the organization are working at cross-purpose. Alignments activities-interventions- are developed to get things back “in sync.” Fourth, the vision that guides the organization changes; yesterday’s vision is no longer enough. Actions to build the necessary structures, process, and culture to support the new vision-interventions-are developed to make the new vision a reality. In summary, interventions are planned sets of actions to change those situations the organization members want to change. 27
  28. 28. Management Development and Organization Development Interventions have been developed to solve most problems related to the human side of organizations. Thus, when problem are discovered in organizational system, subsystems, or processes, intervention activities can be initiated to remedy the problems. The Nature of OD interventions: A well-designed OD program unfolds according to strategy or game plan, called to overall OD strategy. This strategy may be planned in advance or may emerge over time as events dedicate. The strategy is based on answer to such questions as the following: what are overall change/ improvements goals of the programs? What parts of the organization are most ready and respective to the OD program? Answer to those questions lead the practitioners to develop a game plan for where to intervene in the system, what to do, the sequencing of interventions, and as forth. OD interventions tend to focus on real problems rather than on abstract problems. The problems facing organization members are real, not hypothetical; the problems members get rewards for solving are real, not hypothetical; and the problems central to needs of organization members are real, not hypothetical. Developing the skills and knowledge to solve real problems as they arise in their “natural state” means that the educational problem of “transfer of learning” from one situation to another is minimized (all though the problem of generalization, that is, knowing the appropriate times and places to apply this particular set of skills and knowledge, is still present.) An additional features of working on real problems in OD interventions is that real set of individuals involved in problem is the group the problem solves work with. Organization development program rely on several learning models. For example if “learning how to” do something precedes “doing” it, then we have a “deficiency” model of learning in which the learning comes primarily from critiquing the actions after the fact to see how they could have been done differently and, presumably, better. Both models are viable learning modes, and both are used extensively in organization development. 28
  29. 29. Management Development and Organization Development Analyzing Discrepancies: A useful model for thinking about diagnosis and intervention could be termed discrepancy analysis-examination of the discrepancies or gaps between what is happening and what should be happening, and discrepancies between where one is and where one wants to be. Discrepancies, therefore, define both problems and goals. A discrepancy requires study and action if the gaps are to be eliminated. We believe that good part of OD programs solving, hence, discrepancies analysis. Action research describes an iterative problem- solving process that is essentially discrepancy analysis- the study of problems and opportunities (goals) or the study of the discrepancies between where one is and where one wants to be. Organization development provides technologies for studying and closing gaps. Charles Kepner and Benjamin Tregoe present this simple but powerful analytical model clearly and effectively in The Rational manager and The new Rational Manager. Their ideas have been translated into training seminars to improve problem-solving and decision making skills. Kepner and Tergoe stated,” The problem analyzer has an expected standard of performance, a ‘should’ against which to compare actual performance… A problem is a deviation from a standard of performance.” According to these authors, a problem is a gap; problem solving is discovering a solution-a set of actions-to close the gap. Just as OD practitioners apply behavioral science principles and practice to improve organizational functioning and individual development, they apply these same principles and practice as they plan, implement, and manage OD programs. They attend equally to task and process, consider system ramifications of the program, involve organization member in planning and execution, use an action research model, create feedback loops to ensure relevance and timeliness, and so forth. Managing the OD program effectively means the difference between success and failure. The aim of this section is to provide guidelines to help ensure success in managing OD programs. Specifically, we examine the phase involved in OD program, a change management model, and a procedure for creating parallel learning structures. 29
  30. 30. Management Development and Organization Development Phase of OD programs: OD programs follow a logical progression of events- a series of phases that unfolds over time. An important part of managing OD programs well is to execute each phase well. Warner Burke describes the following phases of OD: 1. Entry 2. Contracting 3. Diagnosis 4. Feedback 5. Planning Change 6. Intervention 7. Evaluation Entry present the initial contact between consultant and client, exploration of the situation that stimulated the client to seek a consultant, and exploration aimed at determining whether the problem or opportunity, the client, and the consultant constitute a good match. Contracting involves establishing mutual expectations, reaching agreement on expenditure of time, money, resources, and energy, and generally clarifying what each part expects to get from the other and give to other. Diagnosis is the fact-finding phase in which a picture of the situation is gained through interviews, observations, questionnaires, examination of organization documents and information, and the like. Burke observes that there are two steps within the diagnostic phase-gathering information and analyzing it. Feedback represents the return of the analyzed information to the client system; exploration of the information by the clients for understanding, clarification, and accuracy; and the beginning of ownership of the data by the clients as their data, their picture of the situation, and their problems and opportunities. Planning change involves the clients deciding what action steps to take based on the information they have just learned. Alternatives possibilities are explored and critiqued; plans for action are selected and developed. Interventions implements sets of actions designed to correct the problems or seize the opportunities. Evaluation represents assessing the effects of the program: what is successful? What changes occurred? What were the casual mechanisms? Are we satisfied with the results? These phases are straightforward and logical in description, but in practice they often overlap a great deal and look more like an evolving process than a linear progression. 30
  31. 31. Management Development and Organization Development But the most important point is that emphasis builds the foundation for subsequent phases; therefore, each phase must be executed with care and precision. These phases of OD serve as an overall roadmap for practitioners. A Model for Managing Change: Cummings and Worley identify five sets of activities required for effective change management: 1. Motivating change 2. Creating a vision 3. Developing political Support 4. Managing the transition, and 5. Sustaining momentum. These are shown in Annexure 7 Getting people to want to change, believe change is necessary, and to commit to abandoning the status quo for an uncertain future is the first step. Cummings and Worley suggests three methods for creating readiness to change: sensitize people about the pressure to change, that is why change must occur; show discrepancies between the current state of affairs and the future state of affairs (which are more desirable); and communicate positive, realistic expectations for the advantages to change. The next set of activities, overcoming resistance to change, is achieved through three methods: dealing empathetically with feelings of loss an anxiety, providing extensive communication about change effort and how it is proceeding, and encouraging participation and involvement by organization members is planning and executing the change. As the other write: “one of the oldest and most effective strategies for overcoming resistance to involve organization members directly in planning and implementing change”. Creating a vision provides a picture of the future and shows how individuals and groups will fit into that future. Vision reduces uncertainty, serve as goals to energize the future, show that the future will be beneficial, and demonstrates that the future is attainable. The mission, values, and conditions provide tangible goals to which organization members direct their energies. Developing political support is a critical factor in successful change efforts. Powerful individuals and groups must be convinced that the change is good for them or at least will not significant harm them, or else they will resist and even sabotage the effort. Cummings and Worley suggest that the practitioners should asses his or her own power in the situation, identify the 31
  32. 32. Management Development and Organization Development key players whose support is required for success, and persuade those key players that the change will have positive benefits from them. Activities related to managing the transition are extremely important. Richard Bechard and Reuben Harris addressed this topic in their book Organizational Transitions: Managing Complex Change. Bechard and Harris proposed that change efforts move through three states: the current state, the transition state, and the desired future state in that order, and they suggest three sets of activities for managing the transition state. “Activity planning” involves specifying the sequence of activities, events, and milestones that must occur during the transition. This serves as a road map for the organization members and as a checklist for measuring progress. “Commitment planning” involves getting the support commitment from those key players in the organizations whose leaderships; resources and energy are needed to make the transition succeed. “Management structures” involve setting up parallel learning structures to initiate, lead, monitor, and facilitate the change. Finally, the Cummings and Worley model lists several methods for sustaining momentum in order to complete and stabilize the change. I think this model is valuable for managing OD programs. Summary: Three components – diagnosis, interventions, and program management- critical to all organization development programs have been explored in this chapter. Each is important in its own right; all are vital to success. The more effective they will become in their organization improvement efforts. Organization development is complex blend of art, science, and craft that is gained through the study and mastery of these three components. 32
  33. 33. Management Development and Organization Development Chapter: 4 Organization Development and role of Management Techniques Introduction While Total Quality Management has proven to be an effective process for improving organizational functioning, its value can only be assured through a comprehensive and well thought out implementation process. The purpose of this chapter is to outline key aspects of implementation of large-scale organizational change, which may enable a practitioner to more thoughtfully and successfully implement TQM. First, the context will be set. TQM is, in fact, a large-scale systems change, and guiding principles and considerations regarding this scale of change will be presented. Without attention to contextual factors, well-intended changes may not be adequately designed. As another aspect of context, the expectations and perceptions of employees (workers and managers) will be assessed, so that the implementation plan can address them. Specifically, sources of resistance to change and ways of dealing with them will be discussed. This is important to allow a change agent to anticipate resistances and design for them, so that the process does not bog down or stall. Next, a model of implementation will be presented, including a discussion of key principles. Visionary leadership will be offered as an overriding perspective for someone instituting TQM. In recent years the literature on change management and leadership has grown steadily, and applications based on research findings will be more likely to succeed. Use of tested principles will also enable the change agent to avoid reinventing the proverbial wheel. Implementation principles will be followed by a review of steps in managing the transition to the new system and ways of helping institutionalize the process as part of the organization's culture. This section, too, will be informed by current writing in transition management and institutionalization of change. Finally, some miscellaneous do's and don’ts will be offered. Members of any organization have stories to tell of the introduction of new programs, techniques, systems, or even, in current terminology, paradigms. Usually 33
  34. 34. Management Development and Organization Development the employee, who can be anywhere from the line worker to the executive level, describes such an incident with a combination of cynicism and disappointment: some manager went to a conference or in some other way got a "great idea" (or did it based on threat or desperation such as an urgent need to cut costs) and came back to work to enthusiastically present it, usually mandating its implementation. The "program" probably raised people's expectations that this time things would improve, that management would listen to their ideas. Such a program usually is introduced with fanfare, plans are made, and things slowly return to normal. The manager blames unresponsive employees, line workers blame executives interested only in looking good, and all complain about the resistant middle managers. Unfortunately, the program itself is usually seen as worthless: "we tried team building (or organization development or quality circles or what have you) and it didn't work; neither will TQM". Planned change processes often work, if conceptualized and implemented properly; but, unfortunately, every organization is different, and the processes are often adopted "off the shelf" "the 'appliance model of organizational change': buy a complete program, like a 'quality circle package,' from a dealer, plug it in, and hope that it runs by itself" (Kanter, 1983, 249). Alternatively, especially in the under funded public and not for profit sectors, partial applications are tried, and in spite of management and employee commitment do not bear fruit. This chapter will focus on ways of preventing some of these disappointments. In summary, the purpose here is to review principles of effective planned change implementation and suggest specific TQM applications. Several assumptions are proposed: 1. TQM is a viable and effective planned change method, when properly installed; 2. Not all organizations are appropriate or ready for TQM; 3. Preconditions (appropriateness, readiness) for successful TQM can sometimes be created; and 4. Leadership commitment to a large-scale, long-term, cultural change is necessary. While problems in adapting TQM in government and social service organizations have been identified, TQM can be useful in such organizations if properly modified (Milakovich, 1991; Swiss, 1992). 34
  35. 35. Management Development and Organization Development TQM as Large-Scale Systems Change TQM is at first glance seen primarily as a change in an organization's technology its way of doing work. In the human services, this means the way clients are processed the service delivery methods applied to them and ancillary organizational processes such as paperwork, procurement processes, and other procedures. But TQM is also a change in an organization's culture its norms, values, and belief systems about how organizations function. And finally, it is a change in an organization's political system: decision making processes and power bases. For substantive change to occur, changes in these three dimensions must be aligned: TQM as a technological change will not be successful unless cultural and political dimensions are attended to as well (Tichey, 1983). Many (e.g., Hyde, 1992; Chaudron, 1992) have noted that TQM results in a radical change in the culture and the way of work in an organization. A fundamental factor is leadership, including philosophy, style, and behavior. These must be congruent as they are presented by a leader. Many so-called enlightened leaders of today espouse a participative style which is not, in fact, practiced to any appreciable degree. Any manager serious about embarking on a culture change such as TQM should reflect seriously on how she or he feels and behaves regarding these factors. For many managers, a personal program of leadership development (e.g., Bennis, 1989) may be a prerequisite to effective functioning as an internal change agent advocating TQM. Other key considerations have to do with alignment among various organizational systems (Chaudron, 1992; Hyde, 1992). For example, human resource systems, including job design, selection processes, compensation and rewards, performance appraisal, and training and development must align with and support the new TQM culture. Less obvious but no less important will be changes required in other systems. Information systems will need to be redesigned to measure and track new things such as service quality. Financial management processes may also need attention through the realignment of budgeting and resource allocation systems. Organizational structure and design will be different under TQM: layers of management may be reduced and organizational roles will certainly change. In particular, middle management and first line supervisors will be operating in new 35
  36. 36. Management Development and Organization Development ways. Instead of acting as monitors, ordergivers, and agents of control they will serve as boundary managers, coordinators, and leaders who assist line workers in getting their jobs done. To deal with fears of layoffs, all employees should be assured that no one will lose employment as a result of TQM changes: jobs may change, perhaps radically, but no one will be laid off. Hyde (1992) has recommended that we "disperse and transform, not replace, midlevel managers." This no layoff principle has been a common one in joint labor management change processes such as quality of working life projects for many years. Another systems consideration is that TQM should evolve from the organization's strategic plan and be based on stakeholder expectations. This type of planning and stance regarding environmental relations is receiving more attention but still is not common in the human services. As will be discussed below, TQM is often proposed based on environmental conditions such as the need to cut costs or demands for increased responsiveness to stakeholders. A manager may also adopt TQM as a way of being seen at the proverbial cutting edge, because it is currently popular. This is not a good motivation to use TQM and will be likely to lead to a cosmetic or superficial application, resulting in failure and disappointment. TQM should be purposeoriented: it should be used because an organization's leaders feel a need to make the organization more effective. It should be driven by results and not be seen as an end in itself. If TQM is introduced without consideration of real organizational needs and conditions, it will be met by skepticism on the part of both managers and workers. We will now move to a discussion of the ways in which people may react to TQM. People's Expectations and Perceptions Many employees may see TQM as a fad, remembering past "fads" such as quality circles, management by objectives, and zerobased budgeting. As was noted above, TQM must be used not just as a fad or new program, but must be related to key organizational problems, needs, and outcomes. Fortunately, Martin (1993) has noted that TQM as a "managerial wave" has more in common with social work than have some past ones such as MBO or ZBB, and its adaptations may therefore be easier. 36
  37. 37. Management Development and Organization Development In another vein, workers may see management as only concerned about the product, not staff needs. Management initiatives focused on concerns such as budget or cost will not resonate with beleaguered line workers. Furthermore, staff may see quality as not needing attention: they may believe that their services are already excellent or that quality is a peripheral concern in these days of cutbacks and multi problem clients. For a child protective service worker, just getting through the day and perhaps mitigating the most severe cases of abuse may be all that one expects. Partly because of heavy service demands, and partly because of professional training of human service workers, which places heavy value on direct service activities with clients, there may be a lack of interest on the part of many line workers in efficiency or even effectiveness and outcomes (Pruger & Miller, 1991; Ezell, Menefee, & Patti, 1989). This challenge should be addressed by all administrators (Rapp & Poertner, 1992), and in particular any interested in TQM. Workers may have needs and concerns, such as lower caseloads and less bureaucracy, which are different from those of administration. For TQM to work, employees must see a need (e.g., for improved quality from their perspective) and how TQM may help. Fortunately, there are winwin ways to present this. TQM is focused on quality, presumably a concern of both management and workers, and methods improvements should eliminate wasteful bureaucratic activities, save money, and make more human resources available for core activities, specifically client service. Sources of Resistance Implementation of largescale change such as TQM will inevitably face resistance, which should be addressed directly by change agents. A key element of TQM is working with customers, and the notion of soliciting feedback/expectations from customers/clients and collaborating with them, perhaps with customers defining quality, is a radical one in many agencies, particularly those serving involuntary clients (e.g., protective services). Historical worker antipathy to the use of statistics and data in the human services may carry over into views of TQM, which encourages the gathering and analysis of data on service quality. At another level, management 37
  38. 38. Management Development and Organization Development resistance to employee empowerment is likely. They may see decision making authority in zerosum terms: if employees have more involvement in decision making, managers will have less. In fact, one principle in employee involvement is that each level will be more empowered, and managers lose none of their fundamental authority. There will undoubtedly be changes in their roles, however. As was noted above, they will spend less time on control and more on facilitation. For many traditional managers, this transition will require teaching/training, self reflection, and time as well as assurances from upper management that they are not in danger of being displaced. Resistance in other parts of the organization will show up if TQM is introduced on a pilot basis or only in particular programs (Hyde, 1992). Kanter (1983) has referred to this perspective as segmentalism: each unit or program sees itself as separate and unique, with nothing to learn from others and no need to collaborate with them. This shows up in the "not invented here" syndrome: those not involved in the initial development of an idea feel no ownership for it. On a broader level, there may be employee resistance to industry examples used in TQM terms like inventory or order backlog (Cohen and Brand, 1993, 122). Dealing with Resistance There are several tactics which can be helpful in dealing with resistance to TQM implementation. Generally, they have to do with acknowledging legitimate resistance and changing tactics based on it, using effective leadership to enroll people in the vision of TQM, and using employee participation. A useful technique to systematically identify areas of resistance is a force field analysis (Brager & Holloway, 1992). This technique was originally developed by Kurt Lewin as an assessment tool for organizational change. It involves creating a force field of driving forces, which aid the change or make it more likely to occur, and restraining forces, which are points of resistance or things getting in the way of change. Start by identifying the change goal, in this case, implementation of TQM. Represent this by drawing a line down the middle of a piece of paper. Slightly to its left, draw a parallel line which represents the current state of the organization. The change process involves moving from the current state to the ideal future state, an 38
  39. 39. Management Development and Organization Development organization effectively using TQM. To the left of the second line (the current state), list all forces (individuals, key groups, or conditions) which may assist in the implementation of TQM. These may include environmental pressures leading to reduced funds, staff who may like to be more involved in agency decision making, and the successful applications of TQM elsewhere. On the other side, list restraining forces which will make the change implementation more difficult. Examples may be middle management fear of loss of control, lack of time for line workers to take for TQM meetings, and skepticism based on the organization's poor track record regarding change. Arrows from both sides touching the "current state" line represent the constellation of forces. Each force is then assessed in two ways: its potency or strength, and its amenability to change. More potent forces, especially restraining ones, will need greater attention. Those not amenable to change will have to be counteracted by driving forces.Exhibit I provides an example. See Annexure 1 The analysis of the force field involves looking at which driving forces may be strengthened and which restraining forces may be eliminated, mitigated, or counteracted. If it appears that, overall, driving forces are strong enough to move back restraining forces, adoption of TQM would be worth pursuing. The change plan would include tactics designed to move the relevant forces. It is also important to note and validate any points of resistance which are, in fact, legitimate, such as the limited amount of staff time available for TQM meetings. Klein (cited in Bennis, Benne, & Chin, 1985) encouraged change agents to validate the role of the "defender" of the status quo and respond to legitimate concerns raised. This will allow appropriate adaptations of the TQM process to account for unique organizational circumstances. Sell TQM based on the organization's real needs, note legitimate risks and negatives, and allow improvements in your own procedures. This should enhance your credibility and show your openness to critically looking at the process. Another way to address resistance is to get all employees on the same side, in alignment towards the same goal. Leadership is the mechanism for this, and specific models known as transformational or visionary leadership (Bennis & Nanus, 1985) are most effective. Research on change implementation (Nutt, cited in Robey, 1991) has identified four methods. The first, "intervention," involves a key executive 39
  40. 40. Management Development and Organization Development justifying the need for change, monitoring the process, defining acceptable performance, and demonstrating how improvements can be made. This was found to be more successful than "participation," in which representatives of different interest groups determine the features of the change. Participation was found to be more successful than "persuasion" (experts attempting to sell changes they have devised) or "edict," the least successful. Transformational or visionary leadership, the approach suggested here, is an example of the intervention approach. This would involve a leader articulating a compelling vision of an ideal organization and how TQM would help the vision is actualized. These principles will be discussed in more detail in a later section, as a framework for the change strategy. A powerful way to decrease resistance to change is to increase the participation of employees in making decisions about various aspects of the process. There are actually two rationales for employee participation (Packard, 1989). The more common reason is to increase employee commitment to the resultant outcomes, as they will feel a greater stake or sense of ownership in what is decided. A second rationale is that employees have a great deal of knowledge and skill relevant to the issue at hand (in this case, increasing quality, identifying problems, and improving work processes), and their input should lead to higher quality decisions. A manager should consider any decision area as a possibility for employee participation, with the understanding that participation is not always appropriate (Vroom and Yetton, 1973). Employees or their representatives may be involved in decision areas ranging from the scope and overall approach of the TQM process to teams engaging in quality analysis and suggestions for improvements. They may also be involved in ancillary areas such as redesign of the organization's structure, information system, or reward system. Involvement of formal employee groups such as unions is a special consideration which may also greatly aid TQM implementation. A change agent should understand that, overall, change will occur when three factors (dissatisfaction with the status quo, desirability of the proposed change, the practicality of the change) added together are greater than the "cost" of changing (time spent in learning, adapting new roles and procedures, etc.) (Beckhard and Harris, 1987). This is represented in the formula in Exhibit II. Any key group or individual will need a level of dissatisfaction with the status quo, must see a desired improved state, and must believe that the change will have minimal disruption. In other words, the change (TQM) must be seen as responding to real problems and worth the effort 40
  41. 41. Management Development and Organization Development or cost in getting there. Conditions favoring change may be created by modifying these variables. The change agent may try to demonstrate how bad things are, or amplify others' feelings of dissatisfaction; and then present a picture of how TQM could solve current problems. The final step of modifying the equation is to convince people that the change process, while it will take time and effort, will not be prohibitively onerous. The organization as a whole and each person will be judging the prospect of TQM from this perspective. A variation of this is the WIIFM principle: "What's in it for me?" To embrace TQM, individuals must be shown how it will be worth it for them. Exhibit II: Resistance to Change C = (A + B + D) > X C = Change A = Level of dissatisfaction with the status quo B = Desirability of proposed change D = Practicality of the change X = Cost of changing A final possible area of resistance, the "not invented here" syndrome may be seen after TQM is successfully adopted in one part of the organization and attempts are made to diffuse it, or spread it to other areas. Such resistance may be prevented or reduced in three ways. First, the general techniques mentioned above should be helpful. Second, each new area (program, division, department) should have a new assessment and contracting process: different circumstances should be expected in each part of the organization (Chaudron, 19). Finally, a general principle of TQM implementation mentioned below is relevant here: every TQM application should be uniquely adapted: don't use "off the shelf" models or try to standardize all aspects of the process. 41
  42. 42. Management Development and Organization Development Implementation Principles and Processes Specifics of TQM implementation will be discussed in two ways. First, a model for organizational transformation through visionary leadership will be presented. A full implementation of TQM does, as was emphasized earlier, represent a significant change in the culture and political economy of an organization, and a comprehensive change strategy is therefore required. After discussion of a change model, several do's and don’ts culled from the literature on TQM in the public sector and the human services will be reviewed. Current Reality and Preconditions A preliminary step in TQM implementation is to assess the organization's current reality: relevant preconditions have to do with the organization's history, its current needs, precipitating events leading to TQM, and the existing employee quality of working life. If the current reality does not include important preconditions, TQM implementation should be delayed until the organization is in a state in which TQM is likely to succeed. The force field analysis discussed above is one useful tool in reviewing the current situation. If an organization has a track record of effective responsiveness to the environment, and if it has been able to successfully change the way it operates when needed, TQM will be easier to implement. If an organization has been historically reactive and has no skill at improving its operating systems, there will be both employee skepticism and a lack of skilled change agents. If this condition prevails, a comprehensive program of management and leadership development may be instituted. A management audit (Sugarman, 1988) is a good assessment tool to identify current levels of organizational functioning and areas in need of change. An organization should be basically healthy before beginning TQM. If it has significant problems such as a very unstable funding base, weak administrative systems, lack of managerial skill, or poor employee morale, TQM would not be appropriate. However, a certain level of stress is probably desirable to initiate TQM: people need to feel a need for a change. Kanter (1983) addresses this phenomenon is describing building blocks, which are present in effective organizational change. These forces include departures from tradition, a crisis or galvanizing event, strategic 42
  43. 43. Management Development and Organization Development decisions, individual "prime movers," and action vehicles. Departures from tradition are activities, usually at lower levels of the organization, which occur when entrepreneurs move outside the normal ways of operating to solve a problem. A crisis, if it is not too disabling, can also help create a sense of urgency which can mobilize people to act. In the case of TQM, this may be a funding cut or threat, or demands from consumers or other stakeholders for improved quality of service. After a crisis, a leader may intervene strategically by articulating a new vision of the future to help the organization deal with it. A plan to implement TQM may be such a strategic decision. Such a leader may then become a prime mover, which takes charge in championing the new idea and showing others how it will help them get where they want to go. Finally, action vehicles are needed: mechanisms or structures to enable the change to occur and become institutionalized. TQM processes and models of employee participation are such mechanisms. Essential or desirable preconditions may be identified in two areas: macro and micro. Macro factors include those, which are concerned with issues such as leadership, resources, and the surrounding infrastructure. Micro issues have to do with internal issues such as employee training and empowerment and organizational processes such as quality assurance. These are listed in Exhibit III: See Annexure 2 At the macro level, Osborne and Gaebler (1992, 3267) have listed several "factors supportive of fundamental change" which showed up in their research on reinventing government. These factors, summarized in Exhibit III, are consistent with research cited earlier about effective organizational change. It should be noted that Osborne and Gaebler researched governmental organizations only; but several factors, including leadership and a longterm perspective, are relevant in not forprofit settings as well. The first factor, a crisis, was also identified by Kanter as a driving force for change. Next, Osborne and Gaebler noted the importance of leadership. Such leaders are usually at the executive level of the organization, where they can champion new ideas and protect risk takers. At the political level, a continuity of leadership is desirable: a longterm commitment is necessary, and politicians are often not willing to adopt this perspective. A healthy civic infrastructure is also valuable: an organization in a community with citizens, community organizations, and businesses committed to the public welfare is more likely to be able to engage in largescale change. Furthermore, key leaders in the community having a shared vision and goals, and a level of trust among those in power (e.g., executives and union leadership), are 43
  44. 44. Management Development and Organization Development valuable. Outside resources, in the form of help from foundations, consultants, civic organizations, or other governments, will usually be necessary. Finally, while there is no one best way to implement particular change efforts, it does help to have models to follow: other organizations who have implemented change can offer useful guidance and reassurance that change is possible. At least half of these factors were present when "wholesale reinvention" occurred. Many of these factors are present in successful case studies of TQM and other largescale change. On the micro level, the US Federal Quality Institute identified several key factors related to successful TQM. First, as many researchers have noted, top management support is necessary. This is typically represented partly through strategic planning regarding TQM. Second, a customer focus is an important precondition, since TQM often involves improving quality from a customer's point of view. Employees or their representatives (i.e., unions) must be involved early, particularly in addressing employee training and recognition and employee empowerment and teamwork issues. Attention to these issues is important in changing the organization's culture in the direction of teamwork and a customer and quality focus. The measurement and analysis of products and processes and quality assurance are final elements which need attention (cited in Hyde, 1992). Assessing these factors and private sector applications, Hyde (1992) listed the following implications regarding TQM implementation in the public sector. First, basic quality measurement systems have to be developed. These need to be accessible to all levels, and, in fact, must be designed and implemented with employee involvement. More specifically, any unions in the organization must be substantively involved. Consistent with a systems perspective, budgeting and resource allocation systems will need to be realigned to fit with the TQM culture: TQM cannot be used as a mechanism to simply cut costs or rationalize cutbacks. The same is true of human resource management systems: work may be redesigned to implement self directed work teams; performance appraisal and compensation systems may be change to reward team based performance; and massive training for managers, supervisors, and workers will be necessary. Finally, thoughtful attention needs to be paid to the ways in which customer feedback is used. 44
  45. 45. Management Development and Organization Development Visionary Leadership With these principles and preconditions in mind, the following implementation steps will be discussed: using leadership to articulate a vision of the future for the organization and how TQM fits into it, designing a comprehensive change process, implementing TQM & related new systems, and ensuring institutionalization. As was emphasized earlier, leadership is a key element in successful implementation of largescale change (Norman & Keys, 1992): the leader shows the need and sets the vision, defining the basic purpose, goals, and parameters or requirements of TQM. The leader needs to take a longterm perspective, and must be able to motivate others to stick with the process during early stages when resistance and obstacles may seem insurmountable. The preferred leadership style would be a participative one, so that staff may be involved in the design of the specific system elements. This may seem in contradiction to the earlier stated preference for an "intervention" approach as opposed to traditional participative decision-making. In the former, the leader is, in fact directive regarding the big picture and overall goals, i.e., establishing PDM. Once that strategic direction has been determined, a participative style may be used on implementation details. Prior to this decision, of course, the manger should study TQM, talk to others who have used it, and perhaps attend a preliminary training session. This is important in order for the manager to accurately assess the fit between TQM and her/his style. This will be necessary in establishing an organizational culture, which is compatible with TQM, nurturing and reinforcing continuous quality improvement (Cohen and Brand, 1993, 118). In designing a comprehensive change process, the leader must acknowledge the existing organizational culture (norms and values, managers' leadership philosophies and styles at all levels) to ensure a good fit. TQM also needs to be congruent with or aligned with other organizational processes, including reward systems, financial & information systems, and training systems. Implementing TQM essentially involves organizational transformation: beginning to operate in new ways, developing a new culture. This also includes redesigning other systems, as has been described above. Such change, while difficult, 45
  46. 46. Management Development and Organization Development is possible in the public sector, in spite of Swiss's (1992) reservations (Packard and Reid, 1990). Steps in Managing the Transition Beckhard and Pritchard (1992) have outlined the basic steps in managing a transition to a new system such as TQM: identifying tasks to be done, creating necessary management structures, developing strategies for building commitment, designing mechanisms to communicate the change, and assigning resources. Task identification would include a study of present conditions (assessing current reality, as described above); assessing readiness, such as through a force field analysis; creating a model of the desired state, in this case, implementation of TQM; announcing the change goals to the organization; and assigning responsibilities and resources. This final step would include securing outside consultation and training and assigning someone within the organization to oversee the effort. This should be a responsibility of top management. In fact, the next step, designing transition management structures, is also a responsibility of top management. In fact, Cohen and Brand (1993) and Hyde (1992) assert that management must be heavily involved as leaders rather than relying on a separate staff person or function to shepherd the effort. An organization wide steering committee to oversee the effort may be appropriate. Developing commitment strategies was discussed above in the sections on resistance and on visionary leadership. To communicate the change, mechanisms beyond existing processes will need to be developed. Special all staff meetings attended by executives, sometimes designed as input or dialog sessions, may be used to kick off the process, and TQM newsletters may be an effective ongoing communication tool to keep employees aware of activities and accomplishments. Management of resources for the change effort is important with TQM, because outside consultants will almost always be required. Choose consultants based on their prior relevant experience and their commitment to adapting the process to fit unique organizational needs. While consultants will be invaluable with initial training of staff and TQM system design, employees (management and others) should be 46
  47. 47. Management Development and Organization Development actively involved in TQM implementation, perhaps after receiving training in change management which they can then pass on to other employees. A collaborative relationship with consultants and clear role definitions and specification of activities must be established. Institutionalization of TQM Ledford (cited in Packard & Reid, 1990) has proposed a model including four processes which are forces which determine whether a change will persist through the phases of institutionalization. These processes are concerned with congruence among these variables: the change (TQM) with the organization, the change with other changes initiated at the time, the change with environmental demands, and with the level of slack resources in the organization. TQM needs to be congruent with the organization's current culture, and with other changes occurring in the organization. In this period of diminishing resources, organizations are likely to be trying to cope, by downsizing or other methods. In some organizations there are increasing demands for quality or client service improvements. Many such changes are likely to be driven by environmental demands, and TQM may be more likely to be successful than at times of less environmental pressure. Unfortunately, the fourth element, slack resources, is less likely to be present: under current conditions, extra resources (money and staff time) are less likely to be easily available. The challenge is to find a way to make the initial investment outlay to start a process which will pay off in the long term. Institutionalization may also be enhanced by overlaying another, but compatible, change model: the learning organization (Senge, 1990). This involves, at both the micro and systems levels, staff always learning how to do better and management learning how to be more responsive to staff and the community. Leaders help staff develop their own visions and align these with the organization's vision of quality. Beckhard and Pritchard (1992) emphasized top management commitment to the change, and Cohen and Brand (1993) apply this specifically to TQM by recommending finding and nurturing a core group, which is, interested in organizational change. They also emphasize the importance of personal leadership and example: managers need to apply TQM in their daily work and to get people to think about and use the concepts and tools. Ongoing monitoring, and action research to make changes as needed, will be required. And, once again, the systems 47
  48. 48. Management Development and Organization Development perspective must be noted: TQM must be built into other systems, particularly those involving planning and rewards. Leaders should expect a long term process, including a transition period. They will need to be persistent, using constant reinforcement, for example, through continuous training. Cohen and Brand suggest that TQM should eventually be made an "invisible" part of the organization, permeating all areas and the responsibility of everyone. TQM may be instituted organization wide or started in one unit or program and then expanded. Diffusion occurs as TQM is spread from its initial application to other units. Dynamics of resistance mentioned earlier will have to be addressed at this stage. Some Do's and Don'ts Following are some miscellaneous do's and don'ts which are based on experiences with TQM in the public sector and the human services. Many are drawn from Cohen and Brand (1993), Hyde (1992), and Chaudron (1992). First, don't "do TQM": a canned approach is likely to be met with skepticism and ultimately fail because it is not adapted to the uniqueness of a particular organization. TQM is particularly susceptible to this phenomenon, because some adherents adopt almost a religious fervor, (they have been described by one observer as "Deming lemmings" (Reid, 1992). "Deming as demigod" is another way this phenomenon has been described: a statement takes on an added aura when prefaced by "Dr. Deming said..." (Chaudron, 1993). Don't copy any particular model but use relevant basic principles such as an emphasis on quality, continuous analysis of tasks to improve performance, and work with suppliers to enable the organization to start with high quality supplies. TQM should be seen as a process, not a program. It should be integrated into ongoing agency operations, and the focus should be on how an organization can better accomplish its goals and objectives. At the tactical level, don't overemphasize techniques such as statistical process control and the use of charts. Focus instead on the systems the analysis and improvement of processes not on statistics or individual variations. Whereas some large-scale organizational change efforts are often driven by a centralized steering committee or group of executives, in TQM it may be best to not centralize the effort and establish a separate quality management bureaucracy ("qualiticrats", according to Hyde). Don't believe that top management support is 48
  49. 49. Management Development and Organization Development necessary at first, as is axiomatic in organization development. While an organization needn't start TQM at the top, successes in particular units or programs should set the stage for diffusion in other directions. Change from below may be appropriate for those at lower levels who want to initiate TQM. It may work best to start TQM with a temporary task force and then hire trainers, expose staff, and hope that managers will be motivated to learn more. People responsible for leading shouldn't devote full time to TQM; they should maintain their regular work as well. Cohen and Brand believe that TQM is best taught by people doing it day to day in their work. Implement it gradually to ensure meaningful culture change, and use frequent feedback to ensure that change isn't just superficial. There is no need for a "grand plan" (a quality council, etc.); just start where the organization is. Perhaps the most important "do" worth repeating is to involve employees in the decision making process, at whatever stages and levels possible. As a specific aspect of this, advance negotiations and discussions with any unions present should occur. Create "atmosphere of amnesty" (Cohen & Brand, 1993, 202) so workers and managers feel free to share improvement needs. Tell people what the quality standards are so that inspection and review isn't necessary. Emphasize client feedback and both quantitative and qualitative performance tracking. Make sure quality teams have the necessary tools and resources, such as training, facilitation, and time to meet. In large organizations, regional offices in particular will need lots of support in order to keep the process alive and thriving. Several suggestions may be offered to managers. First, understand the direct service work of your organization. "Management by walking around" is a useful way to stay in touch with direct service workers and their needs. Practice what you preach: use TQM on your own processes. Meet frequently with middle managers regarding their personal efforts to use TQM. Focus on the nature of the work and try to establish in employees' minds excitement about a new way of working. TQM training will be needed for all involved work groups. Also, horizontal and vertical communication training may be useful to get groups communicating with each other. Team building is a core element of the process, to ensure employee involvement and effective problem solving. Build analysis into the culture: "stop and think about how we work," according to Cohen and Brand. Insist on objective measures of results. Look for visible improvement, but not optimization; and try to generate some quick results in terms of time or money saved. Constantly check with employees to assess their 49