15 – Diagnostic, Action and Process

Introduction

OD can be defined as the process of altering people and other parts of a company. As a result, it is made up of numerous subprocesses or phases. However, academics and practitioners disagree on the various steps and their order in OD. This is because most theories in OD arose from behaviours, and these practices differed from one organisation to the next. Each organisation doesn’t need to include all phases with the same outcomes from the OD strategy.

Action research aims to achieve the dual goals of increasing the effectiveness of action and establishing a body of scientific understanding surrounding that action. In this sense, action refers to programmes and actions that aim to solve issues and improve situations. Kurt Lewin is a consummate practical social scientist and motivator of behavioural science methods. Lewin believed that research on action programmes, particularly social change programmes, was critical if progress in solving social problems could be made.

15.1 Process Management

As a result, consistency in the steps involved cannot be expected. In OD programmes, Blake and Mouton recommend six steps: analysing the managerial grid as a theoretical framework to understand the behavioural dynamics of an organization’s culture, examining the dynamics of the actual work team, and initiating similar activities in different units. Engaging the top team, implementing strategies for converting the organisation into the model mentioned above, and measuring progress

The defining scope of a particular step is what allows researchers and practitioners to distinguish between the various processes. Furthermore, because OD is a continuing dynamic process—a process is a definable flow of interrelated events moving over time towards some goal—many of the events overlap, making a clear distinction between separate events problematic in practice. Various steps in OD programmes may include problem identification and diagnosis, designing a change strategy, intervening in the system, and evaluation.

5.1.1 Identification and Diagnosis of Problems

Because OD is a means to an end rather than an end in itself, it leads to achieving specific organisational goals. As a result, it aims to address some organisational issues. The issue may be a gap between the desired course of activity and the actual path of action, implying that the organisation fails to accomplish its long-term objectives. The OD programme begins with the identification of organisational problems. The analysis of diverse symptoms, both overt and hidden, may aid in the identification of the issues. Diagnosis establishes the breadth of a future course of action by correctly identifying a problem and its causes. In OD, diagnosis entails a variety of strategies aimed at detecting concerns and issues, setting priorities, and converting them into goals and objectives. Data gathering and analysis are carried out at this stage. The strategies and methods utilised to achieve a desirable organisational system, the relationships between the elements or sub-systems, and methods of recognising significant problems and difficulties are all given careful study.

The examination of the problem follows the identification of the issue very quickly. Once a problem has been detected, an analysis will be performed to determine why the problem exists.

5.1.2 Change Management Strategy

When the problems are identified, the OD practitioner—either a consultant or management, preferably a consultant—plans the various OD courses of action. Attempts are made to convert the problem diagnosis into a proper action plan that includes the overall goals for change, the primary method for achieving these goals, and the sequence of detailed schemes for applying the approach. However, detecting changes after they have occurred is a straightforward task. It is far more difficult to affect the direction and thrust of changes while they are in progress. Thus, change planning and implementation are interconnected; how change is planned has an impact on how it is carried out, and vice versa; problems with implementing change affect how it is intended.

5.1.3 Getting Involved in the System

The term “intervening in the system” refers to executing scheduled activities during an OD programme. These planned activities affect system changes, which is OD’s primary goal. External consultants may intervene in the system through various approaches, including education and laboratory training, process consultation, team development, and so on, which will be described further below.

5.1.4 Evaluating and Making Changes

This step involves evaluating the outcomes of the OD programme so that appropriate actions can be taken. Because OD is a lengthy procedure, As soon as an OD program begins, there is an immediate need for diligent monitoring to provide exact input on what is going on. The utilisation of critique sessions in this regard. Systematic evaluation of change initiatives, as well as pre- and post-training behavioural patterns, are quite beneficial. This step again involves data collection because such data will serve as the foundation for OD effort evaluation and recommend appropriate modifications or continuation of OD efforts in a similar direction. Suppose major organisational improvements are to be made and sustained. In that case, managerial practices concerning many subsystems will need to be modified if these practices are not congruent with the OD efforts because there is the possibility of slipback and regression to old behavioural patterns if adequate changes in other parts integrating behavioural change are not made. In the event of total success, it must be ensured that the client team is skilled enough to manage the new system without the consultant’s assistance, as organisations tend to revert to their former states. At this point, the consultant has the option to withdraw.

OD practitioners, both internal and external consultants, may counsel decision-makers on an individual basis, work to improve working relationships among members of a working group or team, work to improve relationships among interacting and interdependent organisational groups, gather attitudinal data throughout the organization, and feed this data back to selected individuals and groups that use it as a basis for decision-making.

5.2 Action Research: A Method and a Process

Action research can be thought of as a process or continuous set of events and acts. It is defined as follows:

Action research is the process of systematically collecting research data about an ongoing system about some objective, goal, or need of that system, feeding that data back into the system, and taking action by changing selected variables within the system based on both the data and hypotheses, and evaluating the results of action by collecting more data.

This definition defines action research in terms of the actions that occur during the process. First, the researcher obtains a static image of a company. Hunches and hypotheses advise action based on “what exists”; these actions often include modifying variables in the systems under the action researcher’s control, which usually implies doing something different from how it has traditionally been done. The researcher then takes a second static image of the system to investigate the consequences of the action. These procedures are comparable to OD practitioners when implementing OD programmes.

Several scholars have emphasised the significance of approaching action research as a process. William F. Whyte and Edith L. Hamilton characterised their work in a study of the Tremont Hotel in Chicago as follows:

What exactly was the project? It was a management action research initiative. We created a method for applying human relations research findings to modify organisational behaviour. The world process is significant since this was not a one-time event. The project entailed the continual collection and analysis of human relations research data and incorporating the findings into the organisation to modify behaviour.

Whyte and Hamilton’s work is a compelling example of the relationship between action research and OD.

In two senses, action research is a process. It is a sequence of events and actions inside each iteration (data collection, feedback, and action based on the data), and it is a cycle of these activities, sometimes treating the same problem several times and then moving on to different issues.

Action research can also be regarded as a problem-solving strategy, implying its utility as a model, guide, or paradigm. In this context, action research might be defined as follows:

Action research involves applying the scientific approach of fact-finding and experimentation to practical problems needing action solutions, involving the participation and cooperation of scientists, practitioners, and laypeople.

The action research approach seeks to solve current problems while contributing to scientific knowledge and theory. Viewing action research through this lens shows other significant elements.

When considering action research as a problem-solving strategy, we notice the following characteristics: the importance of objectives and the distinct role requirements of the consultant or change agent for the clients. Three other aspects merit discussion: first, the elements of the action research model that connect it to the scientific method of inquiry; second, the collaborative relationship between scientists, practitioners, and laypeople that is frequently a component of action research; and third, the increased richness of knowledge derived from action research programmes.

These steps for the scientific method are the same as Corey’s procedures for action research.

The following are essential elements of an action research design:

1. the identification of a problem area about which an individual or a group is sufficiently concerned to want to take action; the selection of a specific problem and the formulation of a hypothesis or prediction that implies a goal and a procedure for achieving it; and the formulation of a hypothesis or prediction that implies a goal and a procedure for achieving it. This individual goal must be examined in the context of the overall circumstances.

2. The meticulous documentation of actions taken and the compilation of information to establish the degree to which the goal has been met.

3. The conclusion drawn from this evidence of generalisations about the relationship between the acts and the desired aim. The activities taken and the desired outcome

The testing of these generalisations in action settings is constant.

If the problem under attack is one that many people are concerned about, or if the experiment is expected to touch many people, the action study should include these people. It is then transformed into cooperative action research.

An example of using action research to address a common organisational challenge may be helpful. Assume the issue is ineffective staff meetings; they are sparsely attended, members exhibit little dedication and interest in them, and they are widely acknowledged as ineffective. Assume you are the manager in charge of the meetings and the staff and want to make the meetings more critical and productive.

– According to the action research paradigm, the first phase is to collect data regarding the status quo. Assume that the data has been collected and that it indicates that the meetings are usually disliked and seen as ineffective.

– The next stage is to look for reasons for the problem and develop one or more hypotheses from which you may derive the consequences that will allow you to test the hypotheses.

Assume you come up with the four assumptions listed below.

1. It is important to note that an action research hypothesis has two components: a goal and an action or technique for reaching that aim.

2. Staff meetings will be more productive if I solicit and use agenda themes from the staff rather than making up the agenda only by myself. Staff meetings will be more productive if I alternate the chair of the meeting among the staff rather than being the chairperson at all times.

3. Staff meetings will be more productive if held once a week rather than twice a week.

4. I’ve always conducted staff meetings in a brisk “all-business, no-nonsense” manner; perhaps if I promote more conversation and am more transparent about how I’m reacting to what is said, staff meetings will be more effective.

Each action research hypothesis has a goal (improved staff meeting productivity) and an action (or method) for reaching the goal. More work would be needed to define and specify the goal and actions.

Collaboration between those within the system-clients and individuals outside the system-change agents or researchers is another defining aspect of action research.

15.3 An Action Research’s History

Several years later, John Dewey translated the scientific technique of problem resolution into words that practitioners and laypeople could comprehend, and the ideas were adopted into action research.

Collier referred to this type of inquiry as action research. Taking effective action necessitates research into pressing issues. Furthermore, the solutions must be applicable and realistic. Implementing a good action plan requires the client’s cooperation. Action research provided a mechanism to integrate these disparate parts.

Kurt Lewin, another significant source of action research, was deeply engaged in utilising social science knowledge to help solve societal problems. In the mid-1940s and early 1950s, Lewin and his students conducted action research projects in a variety of behavioural domains: Lewin applied action research principles to improving intergroup relations and changing eating habits; action research linked experimentation and application for the Lewin group, as well as people of science and people of action.

15.4 Action Research Varieties

Action research projects can be oriented towards various goals, giving rise to several model variations. Lewin, for example, proposed two main categories of action research: general legal investigation and diagnostic of a specific circumstance. Studying general rules leads to contributions to theory and practice and generalisations about natural events; diagnosing a particular situation leads to immediate, practical problem-solving.

In his refinery action research project, Raymond Katzell recognised three “varieties” of action research. He discovered three scenarios in which research consultant workers provided data input to management. The first case was termed “adventurous,” meaning that the study team had previously obtained data that would benefit someone later. The second circumstance reflected preplanned, systematic data collection on a refinery-wide scale, i.e., a periodic pulse take of the organisation. The third circumstance required active collaboration with a small “demonstration” group, constantly collecting data on various themes and giving it back to the group as needed.

According to Chein, Cook, and Harding, action research is classified into four types: diagnostic, participatory, empirical, and experimental.

In diagnostic action research, the scientist enters a problem situation, diagnoses it, and then recommends corrective action to the client.

Participant action research involves those who will act being involved in the entire research and action process from the start. This involvement increases the likelihood that the actions will be carried out once they have been decided upon and keeps the recommended actions feasible.

An empirical action research study involves an actor who retains a systematic, thorough record of what he or she performed and the consequences.

Experimental action research is a controlled study of the relative effectiveness of various action strategies. There is virtually always more than one way to do anything. The issue is determining which is the best. This is action research in the strictest sense of the term.

Argyris promotes action research under the banner of “action science,” and he argues that action science (action research) is more relevant and successful than “regular science” for investigating social change and social action. He attacks established scientific methods for focusing on trivial problems, warping human subjects and researchers alike, producing untrustworthy data, and failing to answer questions concerning ordinary life.

According to Argyris, Lewin’s action research had six characteristics:

(1) it was problem-driven,

(2) it was client-centered.

(3) it challenged the status quo and was simultaneously concerned with

(4) producing empirically disconfirmed propositions that

(5) could be systematically interconnected into a theory designed to be

(6) usable in everyday life.” All six of these criteria should be present in action research initiatives, however they are not always.

“Appreciative inquiry” is another term for action research. David Cooperrider and Suresh criticise current action research for being too problem-centred, too action-oriented, and unconcerned with developing theory. They propose Appreciative Inquiry (AI) to supplement current action research and begin their article with the words:

For action research to reach its full potential as a vehicle for social innovation, it must advance theoretical knowledge of consequence; that good theory may be one of the best tools humans have for affecting change in a post-industrial world; that the discipline’s unwavering commitment to a problem-solving view of the world acts as a primary constraint on its imagination and contribution to knowledge; and that appreciative inquiry represents a viable complement to action-research.

Appreciative inquiry proposes four principles for organizational research: the study should begin with appreciation and be appropriate, provocative, and collaborative.

There are also different types of action research. In sociological study, the concept of grounded theory looks to be comparable to action research, as does Edgar Schein’s clinical inquiry. Shani and Pasmore, as well as Shani and Bushe, provide excellent assessments of action research.

The quality movement inspired the final variant of action research. The Shewhart cycle of “plan, do, check, act” – a virtual mantra in Total Quality Management (TQM) programmes – is similar to the action research model. Walter A. Shewhart was the “Father” of Statistical Process Control and Total Quality Management.

Shewhart recommended that to enhance quality, you should prepare a test or change intended to improve something, conduct a small-scale test, assess the test’s impacts, and act on the new learning. Then, based on the insights gathered, plan additional tests and repeat the cycle. He believed that this continual practice was the path to constant quality improvement. It appears to be action research.