17 – OD Intervention

Introduction

An intervention is an intentional process that changes people’s beliefs, feelings, and behaviours. The overarching goal of any intervention is to confront individuals, teams, or groups of people in a non-threatening manner and allow them to see their self-destructive behaviour and how it impacts them and their colleagues. It could entail a group of persons prepared to speak with the target group indulging in self-destructive behaviour. They courteously inform the individuals with factual information about their behaviour and how it may have affected them.

The immediate goal of an intervention is for the target to listen and accept assistance. An organizational development (OD) intervention would be a collection of methods a manager might use to influence the productivity of his or her team by understanding how managerial style affects organizational climate and, more significantly, how to build a high-performance workplace.

The majority of organisational development interventions are plans or programmes comprised of particular actions aimed at impacting change in some aspect of an organisation. Over the years, numerous interventions have been devised to address various problems or achieve multiple outcomes. However, they aim to enhance the entire organisation through change in general.

Organizations that want to accomplish a high degree of organisational change will use various interventions, including those meant to transfer individual and group behaviour and attitudes. Smaller-scale adjustments will fall short of those objectives, with interventions focusing primarily on operating policies, management structures, worker skills, and personnel policies. OD interventions can be classified according to their action, the type of group for which they are designed, or the industry in which they are used. W.L. French recognised significant categories of interventions based on their featured activities, such as activity groups that include team-building, survey feedback, structural transformation, and career planning.

17.1 Intervention for Organizational Development

OD interventions are a variety of actions carried out by a consultant and a client organisation to improve organisational performance by enabling organisational members to manage better their behaviour, work groups, and organisational culture. Because they are meant to achieve specific goals, OD interventions are sometimes known as OD tactics or OD strategies. According to French and Bell, OD interventions are “sets of structured activities in which selected organisational units (target groups or people) engage with a task or a sequence of tasks where the task goals are tied directly or indirectly to organisational improvement.” Interventions are the driving force behind organisational development; they make things happen.

An intervention is an intentional process that changes people’s beliefs, feelings, and behaviours. The overarching goal of any intervention is to confront individuals, teams, or groups of people in a non-threatening manner and allow them to see their self-destructive behaviour and how it impacts them and their colleagues. It could entail a group of persons prepared to speak with the target group indulging in self-destructive behaviour. They simply and courteously inform the individuals with factual information about their behaviour and how it may have affected them. The immediate goal of an intervention is for the target to listen and accept assistance. Organizational development (OD) intervention would be a collection of methods a manager might use to influence the productivity of his or her team by understanding how managerial style affects organisational climate and, more significantly, how to build a high-performance workplace.

The majority of organisational development interventions are plans or programmes comprised of particular actions aimed at impacting change in some aspect of an organisation. Over the years, numerous interventions have been devised to address various problems or achieve various outcomes. However, they aim to enhance the entire organisation through change in general. Organizations that want to accomplish a high degree of organisational change will use various interventions, including those meant to transfer individual and group behaviour and attitudes. Smaller-scale adjustments will fall short of those objectives, with interventions focusing primarily on operating policies, management structures, worker skills, and personnel policies. OD interventions can be classified according to their action, the type of group for which they are designed, or the industry in which they are used. W.L. French recognised major categories of interventions based on their featured activities, such as activity groups that include team-building, survey feedback, structural transformation, and career planning.

17.2 Organisational Development Intervention Characteristics

Organizational development initiatives differ from more typical treatments in eight ways:

1. In contrast to substantive material, the focus is on group and organisational procedures; however, this is not exclusive.

2. An emphasis on the work team as the primary unit for learning more effective organisational behaviour types.

3. An emphasis on work-team management and work-team culture. An emphasis on overall system culture management.

4. Pay close attention to system ramifications management.

5. The application of the action research model.

6. Using a behavioural scientist-change agent, often known as a “catalyst” or “facilitator.”

7. A perspective on the transformation endeavour as a continuous process.

8. Another aspect, number, a primary emphasis on human and social interactions, does not necessarily distinguish OD from other change approaches, but it is an essential trait nonetheless.

17.3 OD Intervention Classification

There are many OD interventions, which are characterised in various ways. Furthermore, different consultants and practitioners have varying perspectives on the activities that can be included in interventions.

Based on a classification that M. Kormanik suggested, the following is a brief study of OD interventions:

Significant OD Interventions

Organisational development interventions aim to improve organisational performance and employee well-being. According to Robbins (1994), organisational development (OD) is a collection of planned change interventions based on humanistic and democratic values to improve organisational effectiveness and employee well-being. Respect for people, trust and support, power equality, confrontation, and involvement are all qualities that OD interventions are based on. Kormanik (2005) divides OD interventions into six categories: large-scale, strategic, technologically structural, management and leadership development, team and group processes, and individual and interpersonal processes.

Massive Interventions

Large-scale interventions often entail a large group of stakeholders collaborating to define a future state. These interventions begin at the highest levels of the organisation, with analysis, planning, and definition of the intervention’s outcomes; then, people are involved in the solution, creating a shared commitment and a “contagious of effect” effort that will support the long-term implementation of defined actions. Appreciative inquiry summits, future searches, open space, and real-time strategy change are a few examples. Large-scale interventions are highly structured; each activity is meticulously planned ahead of time. This is especially necessary because the entire system simultaneously participates in the same room.

Cummings and Worley (2001) outline the three steps involved in any large-scale intervention:

(1) preparing for the large group meeting,

(2) conducting the meeting, and

(3) following up on the meeting’s conclusions. Large-scale interventions are more efficient, establish organisational confidence, provide immediate and comprehensive information, develop an entire organisation’s attitude, inspire action, and sustain commitment.

Interventions with a Plan

Strategic interventions help to match the company with its surroundings. These interventions, according to Cummings and Worley (2001), “connect the internal functioning of the organisation to the larger environment, modifying the organisation to keep pace with changing conditions” (p. 105). Strategic intervention assists organisations in gaining a better understanding of their current condition and surroundings, allowing them to target better tactics for competing with or collaborating with other organisations. Strategic interventions, according to Kormanik (2005), include the following: mission/vision/purpose, strategic planning and goal setting, visioning/scenario planning, benchmarking, SWOT, communication audit/strategy, values clarity and commitment, climate survey, and culture transformation.

Interventions in techno-structural Design

By focusing on technology and structure, techno-structural interventions aim to improve organisational effectiveness and human development. These treatments are based on engineering, sociology, psychology, socio-technical systems, job analysis, and design. These therapies are based on a deficit-based approach, aiming to identify problems to remedy. Techno-structural approaches, according to Cummings and Worley (2001), “focus on improving an organization’s technology (for example, task techniques and job design) and structure (for example, division of labour and hierarchy)” (p. 104). Organizational structure, organisational systems, business process redesign, space and physical settings, socio-technical systems, change management, job design and enrichment, competency-based management, knowledge management, and organisational learning are all examples of techno-structural interventions, according to Kormanik (2005).

Interventions for Management and Leadership Development

These OD interventions seek to improve organisational performance by boosting the effectiveness of both formal and informal leaders. Their application is widespread, and almost all firms have programmes in place to identify, measure, and enhance the leadership quality of their employees. Kormanik (2005) gives the following examples: executive and professional development, mentoring, coaching, action learning, action science, MBO, succession planning, 360-degree feedback, participatory management, and technical/skills training.

According to a Corporate Leadership Council (2001) research study, organisations are focusing on the following five actions to strengthen their leadership bench:

(1) redefining leadership profiles to better respond to current business needs,

(2) targeting future leadership needs,

(3) ensuring top management accountability for leadership development,

(4) creating a continuous development culture, and

(5) customising development opportunities.

Interventions in Team Development and Group Processes

Interventions in team development and group processes attempt to improve several areas of group performance, such as goal setting, interpersonal relationships among team members, role clarification and analysis, decision-making, problem-solving, and communities of practice. One of the most significant goals of team-building interventions is to improve team members’ interdependence. The core idea is that the team’s aggregate value is far higher than any individual’s. According to Robbins (1994), team building is relevant where group activities are interdependent. The goal is strengthening member coordination efforts, improving team performance.”

Example: Many see data collection as an intervention, whereas others see it as preliminary work for OD.

As a result, the categorization of OD therapies varies. Nonetheless, OD interventions can be divided into two categories: the approach to using OD interventions and the target of OD interventions.

The approach used in implementing OD interventions is divided into two categories: process interventions and structural interventions. Process interventions highlight the process of bringing about change. Structural interventions entail modifying or changing the structure of an organisation to achieve new aims. Some interventions may concentrate on task modifications. Others, on the other hand, are concerned with setting goals. The table below lists some of the most common processes and structural OD interventions.

OD interventions can be created to increase the efficacy of individuals based on their goals. Dyads, teams, and groups, as well as intergroup connections and overall organisation

The table above shows that treatments overlap greatly because a single intervention can be used for more than one target. Although there are several OD interventions, our discussion will limit itself to the most often employed OD therapies. These are examples of sensitivity training, grid OD, survey feedback, process consulting, team building, and Management by Objectives (MBO).

Individual, interpersonal, group, inter-group, and organisational OD interventions are all possible.

Coaching and counselling, management consultation, training and development, role-playing, transactional analysis, and life and career activities are examples of interventions for the individual.

Shuttle diplomacy, mediation, and process consultation are examples of interventions on a person-to-person, dyad/triad level. OD interventions at the group level include team-building, leadership training, communication training, other educational endeavours, survey feedback, and problem-solving consultation. Organizations use interventions such as shuttle diplomacy, mediation, and team-building at the inter-group level. At the organisational level, interventions may include a combination of the above interventions, strategic planning, problem analysis, interviews and questionnaires, confrontation meetings, and making recommendations for structural or procedural changes (French & Bell, 1984).

17.3.1 Intervention in Structure

Structural interventions try to change organisational tasks and structural and technological subsystems. The category of structural interventions includes job designs, quality circles, and management by objectives fortified by knowledge of OD experiments. Examples of OD elements are finding strategies to adapt to changing contexts while maintaining and improving the organization’s integrity and internal integration. OD entails creating structures, processes, and an atmosphere that allows it to efficiently manage its critical and pressing business (e.g., projects, problems, crises, etc.) while paying enough attention to strategic matters (e.g., long-term development and renewal, planning and envisioning, engaging new opportunities, crisis prevention, etc.)

Structure is a necessary component of any organisation. Nostrum and Starbuck (1981) describe structure as the order and interrelationship of component pieces and positions in an organisation. Structural OD intervention instructs work division into activities, linking different functions, hierarchy, authority structure, authority interactions, and environmental coordination.

Within the same organization, organizational structure may alter depending on the specific requirements. An organization’s structure consists of three components (Robbins, 1989):

The degree to which activities inside an organisation are differentiated is called complexity. There are three dimensions to this distinction:

Horizontal differentiation refers to the degree of differentiation between units based on members’ orientation, the nature of tasks they perform, and their education and training. Vertical differentiation is defined by the number of hierarchical levels in the organisation, and spatial differentiation is determined by the geographical distribution of the organization’s offices, facilities, and personnel.

The degree to which jobs within an organisation are specialised is referred to as formalisation. The level of formalisation varies significantly between and within organisations.

The degree to which decision-making is concentrated at one point in the organisation is called centralization.

17.3.2 Organizational Structure Design

Some significant factors to consider while developing an effective organisational structure are:

Clarity: The organization’s structure should ensure that people’s goals, tasks, working styles, reporting relationships, and information sources are clear.

Understanding: An organization’s structure should help people clearly understand how their work fits into the organization.

Decentralisation: An organization’s design should compel conversations and decisions to be made at the lowest possible level.

Stability and adaptability: The organisational structure should be adaptive to external changes and stable amid adverse conditions.

17.4 Organizational Structure Principles

Modern organisational structures have grown from numerous organisational theories that define certain principles as fundamental to any organisation.

Specialisation

Specialisation allows for the partitioning of work into units for more efficient performance. According to the traditional approach, work can be conducted considerably more efficiently if it is divided into components and employees are encouraged to specialise by component. Work can be divided into horizontal and vertical specialisations (Anderson, 1988). Vertical In a research organisation, specialisation refers to several types of work at various levels, such as project head, scientist, researcher, field personnel, etc. Work is separated horizontally into divisions such as genetics, plant pathology, administration, accounts, and so on.

Specialization allows for the use of specialised knowledge, which increases work quality and organizational efficiency. Simultaneously, it can impact core work attitudes, relationships, and communication. This may make coordination difficult and inhibit the organization’s operation. Four major causative elements might hurt attitudes and work habits. There are distinctions in goal orientation, time orientation, interpersonal orientation, and structural formality (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967).

Coordination

Coordination is merging the goals and actions of specialised divisions to achieve the organization’s broad strategic goals. It contains two fundamental decisions: which units or groups should be grouped and the patterns of relationships, information networks, and communication (Anderson, 1988).

In agricultural research institutions, most research is multidisciplinary but requires specialisation and coordination. Various activities are necessary to attain strategic goals. Efficient coordination can also aid in resolving conflicts and disputes among scientists within a research organisation.

Hierarchies facilitate the vertical coordination of multiple departments and their activities. Organizational theorists have created several principles linked to the hierarchy of authority for coordinating various tasks. Some of the key principles are explained below.

Command Cohesion

Every employee in an organisation should report to one superior and take commands only from that person. According to Fail (1949), this is the most crucial factor for efficient work and greater organisational output.

Scalar

An organisation’s chain of command and decision-making authority should flow straight from the highest level to the lowest. This principle evolved from the unit of command principle. However, this may not always be achievable, especially in large organisations or research institutions. As a result, Fayol (1949) believed that members of such organisations might interact directly at the same level of hierarchy, with advance notice to their superiors.

Authority and accountability

The authority must be sufficient to carry out specific responsibilities properly. Those in charge of task execution should have adequate influence over decision-making.

Control Range

This refers to the number of specialised activities or personnel overseen by a single individual. Choosing the scope of control is critical for adequately coordinating various operations. According to Barkdull Organizational Development and Change (1963), some of the essential situational factors that affect a manager’s span of control are the similarity of functions, the proximity of tasks to each other and the supervisor, the complexity of functions, direction and control required by subordinates; coordination needed within and between units; necessary extent of planning; and organisational help available for decision-making.

17.5 Departmentalization

Departmentalization is the process of horizontally cleaning up various operations and activities at any level of the hierarchy. It is strongly tied to the traditional bureaucratic notion of specialisation (Luthans, 1986). Departmentalization is traditionally based on purpose, product, method, function, personal possessions, and location (Gullick and Urwick, 1937).

Departmentalization of Functions

This is the most fundamental form of departmentalization. It refers to the collection of activities or jobs that share standard functions. Research, production, agricultural engineering extension, rural marketing, and administration are all possible groups in a research organisation.

Product Divisionalization

It refers to collecting employment and activities linked to a particular commodity. Functional departmentalization may become ineffective when organisations grow in size and diversity. The organisational structure should be further subdivided into various divisions to limit a manager’s range of influence to a manageable level (Luthans, 1986). Products and the aim or type of research can further distinguish functional departments of an agricultural research institute.

In contrast to functional departmentalization, product-based departmentalization has the advantages of less conflict between major sub-units, easier communication between sub-units, less complex coordination mechanisms, providing a training ground for top management, more customer orientation, and a greater concern for long-term issues.

On the other hand, functional departmentalisation has the advantages of more accessible communication with sub-units, application of higher technical knowledge for problem-solving, more excellent group and professional identification, less duplication of staff activities, higher product quality, and increased organizational efficiency (Filley, 1978).

Users’ Departmentalization

The grouping of activities and roles makes them compatible with the distinct needs of specific user groups.

Territory or geography-based departmentalization

It entails clustering activities and positions at a specific place to capitalise on local participation in decision-making. A manager in charge of the organization’s operations in that region oversees the territorial units. Regional research stations are established in agricultural research institutions to take advantage of specific agro-ecological environments. Typically, such departmentalization provides an economic gain.

Process or equipment-based departmentalization

Departmentalization refers to professions and activities that require the use of a specific technology, machine, or manufacturing process. It can also be based on time of duty, number of employees, market, distribution route, or services.

17.6 Decentralization vs. Centralization

Decentralisation refers to decision-making at lower levels of the authority hierarchy. In contrast, higher-level decision-making occurs in a centralised organisational structure. The number of hierarchy levels, degree of coordination, specialisation, and breadth of control all influence the degree of centralization and decentralisation. According to Luthans (1986), centralization and decentralisation can be classified according to the following criteria: Geographical or territorial concentration or dispersion of operations; Functions; or Extent of concentration or delegation of decision-making authorities.

17.7 Interventions Strategic

Planning for the Future

A dynamic process that defines an organization’s mission and vision establishes goals and generates action plans to assist an organisation in focusing its current and future resources towards fulfilling its vision. Many organisations nowadays face external challenges to their survival, such as takeovers, “technology obsolescence,” or worldwide rivalry. OD would have responded to such issues in its infancy by advocating participative management, a not-so-subtle method of challenging top management to shift power to lower levels. Later, OD flipped fields to serve the power structure by limiting its approaches to lower levels and the bottom line, such as Quality of Work Life (QWL) programmes.

This submissive role for OD has remained to the present day, where the power structure tolerates and even supports OD as long as it fine-tunes the existing condition without jeopardising the power system’s essence. However, outside forces are now threatening that essence. A “new” OD is emerging to deal more directly with assisting the power structure in transforming itself and the firm’s strategic alignment with its environment. If correctly designed, OD can provide a more effective mechanism than political bargaining for supporting the dominant coalition in addressing significant strategic concerns that have previously escaped formal approaches to strategic planning.

OD must address the power elite’s most prized agenda—the company’s strategy, its top management structure for executing on goal, and how they will lead.

Technology and Organizational Development Solutions

Finding solutions to adapt to changing contexts while maintaining and improving the organization’s integrity and internal integration may be an element of OD. OD entails creating structures, processes, and an atmosphere that allows it to efficiently manage its critical and pressing business (e.g., projects, problems, crises, etc.) while paying enough attention to strategic matters (e.g., long-term development and renewal, planning and envisioning, engaging new opportunities, crisis prevention, etc.). Technology is also employed to facilitate OD intervention and promote human connectivity for more excellent teamwork.

17.8 Training for Sensitivity

Sensitivity training is laboratory training in which an unstructured group of people discuss thoughts and feelings face-to-face. Sensitivity training can help you understand how and why others feel the way they do about subjects that are important to both of you. In small-group training, people gain a sensitive awareness and understanding of themselves and their connections with others. Sensitivity training is based on human behaviour research that arose from World War II efforts to determine whether or not an enemy’s core beliefs and behaviour could be transformed by applying particular psychological tactics. To understand how audiences might grow accustomed to specific types of programming, business and industry leaders have gradually developed these strategies over the years to persuade consumers to buy products, including in the radio and television industries.

Kurt Lewin is widely regarded as the “Father” of sensitivity training in the United States. Kurt Lewin and his colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Research Centre for Group Dynamics began educating community leaders in 1946. A workshop was created for the leaders to learn about leadership and discuss problems. At the end of each date, the researchers had a private discussion about the behaviours and group dynamics they had witnessed. The leaders requested permission to observe these feedback sessions. The researchers’ family accepted, if reluctantly, at first. As a result, the first T-group was formed, in which participants responded to information about their conduct.

The Tavistock Clinic, an offshoot of the Tavistock Institute of Medical Psychology, founded in 1920 in London, pioneered sensitivity training in the United Kingdom in 1932 under the direction of psychiatrist John Rawlings Rees. Dr. Rees tested American and British soldiers to see if groups might be trained to behave unpredictably under generated and controlled stress situations. They were particularly interested in whether people would abandon even deeply held opinions in the face of ‘peer pressure’ to conform to a pre-set set of ‘popular’ beliefs. This Tavistock method was comparable to the procedures employed in mental hospitals to alter criminals’ attitudes, which were known as re-education. Sensitivity training developed in the United States of America, specifically at Stanford’s Research Institute’s Centre for the Behavioural Sciences, the Sloan School at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the various National Training Laboratories (NTLs), where concepts popularly known as ‘T-Groups’ (therapy/groups) and ‘sensitivity training’ were developed.

A group leader (‘facilitator’) creates a controlled stress environment with the apparent objective of attaining a consensus or agreement that is, in truth, premeditated. Weaker individuals were scared into caving in by employing peer pressure in gradually increasing increments, up to and including yelling at, cursing at, and isolating the holdouts; they emerged with a new value system in place, and the aim was achieved. Other behavioural science schools improved and popularised the concept, such as the Ensalen Institute, the NTL Institute for Applied Behavioural Sciences, and the Western Training Laboratories in Group Development.

Sensitivity training is a sort of experience-based learning in which participants work in small groups for a long time to learn by analysing their own experiences. The fundamental setting is the T Group (T for training), in which a staff person creates an ambiguous situation in which participants choose the roles they will play while monitoring and reacting to the conduct of other members and, as a result, having an impact on them. Perceptions and reactions serve as learning data. T-group theory emphasises each participant’s responsibility for his or her learning, the staff person’s role in facilitating examination and understanding, the provision for the detailed examination required to draw valid generalisations, the development of authentic interpersonal relationships that enable honest and direct communication, and the development of new skills in working with people.

Sensitivity training aims to help participants understand their impact on others and promote the study of group dynamics and bigger organisational concepts such as status, influence, division of work, and conflict resolution approaches. Some believe that sensitivity is a talent, while others believe that sensitivity must be allowed to exist rather than developed. It’s a personality attribute known as “empathy.” People’s sensitivity is lacking because they are often so consumed with their concerns that they don’t “have time” for others.

Their anxiety prevents them from paying attention to others or relating to what they are saying. Most people feel that developing empathy for others is possible. Some people have this skill, but the majority of them fake it. Sensitivity training comprises a small group focused on the group’s current behaviour and attitudes. In a nutshell, the people talk about whatever comes up naturally in the group.

For example, one member may criticise another’s opinion, and both the opinion and the criticism may become the focus of the entire group.

The goal of this process, which could last several days at a rate of 12 hours or more each day, is for participants to discover how they impact others and how others affect them. As a result, “sensitivity” learning can assist participants in becoming more adept at assessing interpersonal behaviour and attitudes on the job.

Everyone is entitled to their feelings, no matter how illogical they are; there is no such thing as ‘blame’… everyone involved is equally at fault; a person should not attack but express their feelings about others’ actions, leaving a problem unresolved will make it worse with time; and nobody is perfect, including oneself.

Encounter Groups were alternative psychotherapy approaches that provided short-term treatment to participants without major psychiatric problems. They were also referred to as sensitivity (or sensory) awareness groups and training groups (or T-groups). Kurt Lewin’s investigations at the National Training Laboratories resulted in the formation of encounter groups.

The group’s continuous feedback, involvement, and observation aided in investigating and interpreting their challenges. Gestalt therapy (working with one person at a time to improve awareness of oneself in the moment, also known as holistic therapy) and meditation were also used to address group dynamics. People like Dr. Fritz Perls and Dr. Will Schutz (of the Esalen Institute) promoted encounter groups, which significantly impacted the public populace in the 1960s and 1970s. These groups fell out of popularity with the psychiatric profession due to accusations that many of the group leaders were not educated in standard group therapy at the time and that the groups might sometimes cause significant harm to patients with severe emotional difficulties.

Survey Responses

Survey feedback technology is arguably the most effective approach for OD experts to engage large groups of individuals in diagnosing problems within the organisation and planning and implementing fixes. The overall strategy entails creating trustworthy, valid surveys, collecting data from all personnel, analysing it for patterns, and reporting the findings to everyone for action planning. “Walk the Walk” evaluation: Most organisations have leaders who profess one thing but do another. This potentially dangerous intervention focuses on determining the extent to which people within the organisation are acting with integrity.

The survey results are OD.

The most crucial phase in the diagnostic procedure is providing diagnostic information to the client organisation. Although the data may have been gathered with the client’s assistance, the OD practitioner is usually in charge of structuring and presenting it to the client. Survey feedback is a versatile and potentially powerful tool for data feedback that has emerged due to the widespread use of questionnaires in OD work. Survey feedback is gathering data from an organisation or department through a questionnaire or survey. The data is examined, and feedback is sent to organisation members, who use it to diagnose the organisation and design interventions to improve it.

Survey feedback has played an important role in the history and development of OD. It is an effective intervention strategy that can reach a huge number of people. A typical survey feedback procedure consists of five broad components. The initial step is to gather firm members to prepare the survey. This is the stage at which the survey’s objectives are established. The second phase entails sending a survey to all organisation members rather than just managers and coordinators. The next step would be to examine the survey data. The data is fed back to the organisation in the fourth stage. Finally, the rums should convene to review the input and determine what action is required and how to carry it out. OD practitioners could be more involved in some of these processes by training them to go to the firm and assist with feedback interpretation and action strategies.

Limitations

Survey feedback has limits that OD practitioners should be aware of. Ambiguity of Purpose: There may be a dispute over how the data should be processed and returned.

Distrust: OD practitioners must reassure participants that their contributions will be confidential.

Unacceptable Issues: Some companies do not wish to study specific topics, which limits the scope of the survey.

Organizational Disturbance: This process may cause problems for personnel and, in some cases, the entire company.

17.9 Consultation on Process

The concept of process consultation as a mode of inquiry arose from the realisation that to be helpful, one had to learn enough about the system to understand where it needed assistance, and that this necessitated a period of very low-key inquiry-oriented diagnostic interventions designed to have a minimal impact on the processes being investigated (Schein, 1988). As a theory, process consultation recognises that the consultant is not an expert on anything other than how to be helpful and begins with complete ignorance of what is going on in the client system.

One of the talents of process consulting is to “access one’s ignorance,” to let go of the expert or doctor role and become as intimately acquainted with the client system as possible. Only once one has genuinely comprehended the situation and the type of assistance required can one begin to recommend and prescribe. Even then, they are unlikely to match the client system’s culture and, as a result, will not be refrozen, even if first adopted. Instead, a better model of assistance would begin with the objective of forming an insider/outsider team in charge of diagnostic and all future interventions. When the consultant and the client share ownership of the change process, the validity of the diagnostic and subsequent interventions improves significantly.

The flow of a change or managed learning process is then one of continual diagnosis as one intervenes continuously. The consultants must be acutely aware of their insights into what is happening and their impact on the client system. Stage models that stress upfront contracting fail to address the reality that the psychological contract is always evolving and that the degree to which it has to be formalised is heavily influenced by the organisation’s culture.

Any model of working with human systems must incorporate Lewin’s concept of action research, which is best understood clinically as a series of treatments driven primarily by their anticipated impact on the client system. The immediate implication is that when training consultants and change agents, the clinical criteria of how different interventions will affect client systems should be prioritised over the canons of how to gather scientifically valid information and calculate. Members should be sent into field internships as participant observers and helpers before they are taught all the canons to collect and analyse data. Both are required; however, in most training programmes, the order of importance is reversed.

17.9.1 Process Consultation with Edgar Schein

One cannot comprehend a system until one attempts to alter it. The idea that one first diagnoses a system and then intervenes to improve it is prevalent in the literature. This core paradigm reinforces a fundamental fallacy in thinking, which Lewin learned to avoid in his transformation effort and led to the foundational concept of “action research.” The conceptual error is to separate the concepts of diagnosis and intervention. That distinction stems from scientific pursuits in which there is a greater separation between the researcher and the researcher, especially when physical processes are thought to be independent of psychological processes.

The consulting business has perpetuated this model by including a diagnostic phase as a key component of most projects, in which many interviews, questionnaires, and observations are used to form the basis of a set of recommendations delivered to the client. Consultants disagree on whether they should be held accountable for implementing the recommendations. However, they generally agree that the consultant’s basic duty is completed with a list of recommendations for future intervention. If interviews or surveys are conducted, every effort is taken to collect data in a scientifically impartial manner while interfering as little as possible with the organization’s operations during this phase. It would be impossible to provide an effective diagnosis without interfering if one could not understand an organisation without attempting to change it.

Either the classical model consultants obtain an erroneous picture of the organisation or intervene but deny it by naming it “Just Diagnosis.” This risk demands the diagnostician consider the nature of the “diagnostic intervention” and use clinical criteria to determine what is safe rather than solely scientific criteria to determine what appears to be the most definitive result.

OD specialists must approach consulting work from a clinical perspective, beginning with the assumption that everything to do with a client system is an intervention and that, unless intervened, they will not learn what some of the essential dynamics of the system indeed are. Starting from that assumption, there is a need to develop criteria that balance the amount of information gained from an intervention with the amount of risk to the client from making that intervention.

If the consultant intends to interview all members of top management, he must first determine whether the amount of information gained is worth the risk of disrupting the system by interviewing everyone. If the answer is “yes,” he must then determine what is to be learned from the management’s reactions to being interviewed. That is, the interview process will alter the system, and the nature of that alteration will reveal some of the most significant data on how the system operates.

Because the consultant’s presence is an intervention, the best information regarding the organization’s dynamics will be how the organisation deals with the consultant. However, in many traditional consultation models, the emphasis is on the “objective data gathered in the interview,” referencing how the interviewer felt about the process and what may be deduced from how he or she was treated.

‘Human systems cannot be treated objectively’ is thus a crucial idea that is often overlooked in our change and consultation literature. In practice, change agents have discovered through their own experiences that “diagnostic” activities like observations, interviews, and questionnaires are effective interventions and that the process of learning about a system and altering that system is, in fact, the same. This realisation has far-reaching implications, notably for research and consulting ethics.

Many researchers and consultants believe they can “objectively” gather data and make a diagnosis without changing the system. However, the technique of data collection impacts the system and must, therefore, be carefully studied.

For example, asking someone in a questionnaire how they feel about their boss gets the respondent thinking about an issue that he or she may not have previously focused on, and it may get them talking to others about the question in a way that creates a common attitude that was not previously present.

17.10 Team Development

Richard Beckhard, one of the discipline’s pioneers, provided a systematic framework for the most effective interventions to accomplish positive organisational transformation.

In the 1990s, the project-based, cross-functional work team became the foundation of the industry. Virtual team organisation is gradually becoming the norm for flexibility and agility in swiftly and effectively organising to get work done. In the early stages, new teams usually have a defined work focus and a clear awareness of their short-term goals. The new team members are also often technically skilled, and there is typically a challenge in the project that will require them to apply their technical skills. While the first activities of a team are focused on task and job difficulties, relationship issues develop as they do in any human organisation.

The team may be well into its activities when these interpersonal concerns arise. Later in the game, resolving the issues may become extremely difficult and costly. There is considerable value to a new team taking a short period at the start of its life to analyse how it will function together jointly. Beckhard provides a tool for establishing the best conditions for productive teamwork and high performance.

Team-building and OD interventions can take many different forms. The most frequent pattern is to start with interviews and other preliminary work, then move on to a one- to three-day session.

Various OD interventions addressed thus far have particular consequences for OD and are, therefore, intimately identified with a small number of proponents and practitioners. In comparison, team building is the most essential, widely acknowledged, and widely used OD intervention for organisational improvement.

For example, French and Bell believe that “team-building activities, the aims of which are the improvement and enhanced effectiveness of diverse teams within the organisation,” are “perhaps the most important single group of interventions in the OD.” One probable explanation for this phenomenon is that employees in organisations operate in groups (teams), and the performance of these groups ultimately determines the organisation’s effectiveness.

Before discussing how team-building exercises can be used to develop effective teams, consider a team’s life cycle, how synergy is generated through teamwork, problems in teamwork, and the characteristics of an effective team so that team-building exercises can be more focused on this.

A Team’s Life Cycle

When people start working at interdependent jobs, they frequently go through multiple stages as they learn to work together as a team.

Though not strictly adhered to, they constitute a general pattern that can be observed and predicted in various circumstances throughout the team’s time together. These stages emerge from various problems and issues that team members encounter, such as “Who will be on the team?” “Who will be in charge of what tasks?” “Who is going to contribute what?” “Will the rules be followed?” “How can member conflicts be resolved?” and so on. The following are the typical stages of a team’s life cycle:

1. Formation: If team members have not previously interacted, they are introduced to each other during the first stage of the life cycle. They reveal personal information, begin to accept others and begin to focus on group tasks. Interaction among team members is frequently cautious at this point, especially when they are unfamiliar with one another.

2. Storming: Following the forming stage, which is mainly concerned with perceiving and assessing each other, members begin to interact among themselves by competing for status, jockeying for relative control, and arguing for appropriate strategies to achieve team goals. Due to individual differences, different members may experience varying tension and anxiety due to this interaction pattern.

3. Norming: Team members begin to settle following the storming stage. The team starts to move cooperatively, and a tentative balance between competing forces is also reached. At this point, group norms evolve to guide individual behaviour, the foundation for cooperative feelings and behaviour among members.

4. Performing: When team members communicate among themselves based on team standards, they learn to tackle complicated problems that come before the team. Functional roles are performed and exchanged as needed, and tasks are efficiently completed.

5. Adjourning: Adjourning is the final part of a team’s cycle. Even the most effective teams must adjourn sooner or later since their purpose has been fulfilled. The adjournment phase occurs in the case of teams formed for specific goals, such as task forces, committees, and so on. Other teams, such as a department in an organisation, operate more permanently, even if team members may change. The team’s tight social relationship among members ends after the team’s adjournment.

All teams don’t need to adhere to the rigid pattern outlined above or confront identical challenges at each step because each team differs in certain ways based on the types of members, problems, and functions allocated. However, the concept of stages is important in the context of the problem that team members are likely to face while working together.