DBA-ORGDEV case study and actions taken by organization

The
following
example
given
by
Alderfer9
helps
to
clarify
how
parallel
processes
work:An
organizational
diagnosis
team
had
assigned
its
members
to
each
of
five
departments
in
a
small
manufacturing
company.
Members
of
the
team
had
interviewed
each
depart-
ment
head
and
several
department
members,
and
had
observed
department
meetings.
The
team
was
preparing
to
observe
their
first
meeting
of
department
heads
and
were
280
PART
3
Human
Process
Interventionstrying
to
anticipate
the
group’s
behavior.
At
first
they
seemed
to
have
no
“rational”
basis
for
predicting
the
top
group’s
behavior
because
they
“had
no
data”
from
direct
observa-
tion.
They
decided
to
role-play
the
group
meeting
they
had
never
seen.
Diagnostic
team
members
behaved
as
they
thought
the
department
heads
would,
and
the
result
was
uncanny.
Team
members
found
that
they
easily
became
engaged
with
one
another
in
the
simulated
department-head
meeting;
emotional
involvement
occurred
quickly
for
all
participants.
When
the
team
actually
was
able
to
observe
a
department-head
meeting,
they
were
amazed
at
how
closely
the
simulated
meeting
had
approximated
the
actual
session.

APPLICATION
STAGES
1. Identify an issue. This step involves finding
a systemwide problem to be addressed.
2. Convene the group. Once an issue is
identified, the microcosm group can be
formed.
3. Provide group training. Once the
microcosm group is established, training is
provided in group problem solving and
decision making.
4. Address the issue. This step involves solving
the problem and implementing solutions.
5. Dissolve the group. The microcosm group
can be disbanded following successful
implementation of changes.

Results of
Microcosm Groups
• The microcosm group intervention
derives from an intergroup relations
theory developed by Alderfer, who
has applied it to communications
and race-relations problems. A
microcosm group that addressed
communications issues improved
the way meetings were conducted;
developed a job posting, career
development, and promotion
program; and conducted new-
employee orientations.

Resolving
Intergroup Conflict
• The intergroup conflict intervention is
designed specifically to help two groups
or departments within an organization
resolve dysfunctional conflicts.
• Intergroup conflict is neither good nor
bad in itself, and in some cases, conflict
among departments is necessary and
productive for organizations.
• This applies where there is little
interdependence among departments
and conflict or competition among them
can spur higher levels of productivity.

Application Stage
• A consultant external to the two groups obtains their agreement to work directly on improving intergroup
relationships.
• A time is set for the two groups to meet—preferably away from their normal work situations.
• The consultant, together with the managers of the two groups, describes the purpose and objectives of the
meeting
• The two groups are assigned to separate rooms and asked to write their answers to the three questions.
• After completing their lists, the two groups reconvene. A representative from each group presents the written
statements.
• When it is clear that the two groups thoroughly understand the content of the lists, they separate again.
• The task of the two groups (almost always with a consultant as a process observer) is to analyze and review the
reasons for the discrepancies.
• When the two groups have worked through the discrepancies, as well as the areas of common agreement, they
meet to share both the identified discrepancies and their problem-solving approaches to those discrepancies.
• The two groups are asked to develop specific plans of action for solving specific problems and for improving their
relationships.
• When the two groups have gone as far as possible in formulating action plans, at least one follow-up meeting is
scheduled so that the groups can report on actions that have been implemented, identify any further problems
that have emerged, and, where necessary, formulate additional action plans.

Results of
Intergroup
Conflict
Interventions
• A number of studies have been done on the effects of intergroup conflict resolution. Positive results have
been reported by several researchers in a variety of settings, including union–management relations, an
Indian tribal council, government organizations, and for-profit firms.19 The results include attitudinal
changes such as improved perceptions, increased trust, and less ste- reotyping in addition to improved
operational results. For example, Huse found that bringing representatives of different groups together to
work on common work-related problems had a marked effect, not only on relationships among a number
of different manufacturing groups but also on the quality of the product, which increased 62%.20The
technology for improving intergroup relations is promising. A greater distinc- tion between attitudinal and
behavioral changes needs to be made in planning effective intergroup interventions. A greater variety of
interventions that address the practical difficulties of bringing two groups together is also necessary.
Finally, more knowledge is needed about how culture affects intergroup conflict and how interventions
need to be adjusted in cross-cultural situations.21 Growing knowledge and theory suggest that conflict can
be either functional or dysfunctional, depending on the circumstances. Further research is needed to
identify when conflict should be intensified and when it should be reduced.LARGE-GROUP
INTERVENTIONSThe third systemwide process intervention is called large-group intervention. Such

Application Stages
• Preparing for the Large-Group Meeting A design team comprising OD practitioners and several organization
members is formed to organize the event. The team generally addresses three key ingredients for successful
large-group meetings: a compelling meeting theme, appropriate participants, and relevant tasks to address the
theme.1. Compelling meeting theme. Large-group interventions require a compelling reason or focal point for
change. Although “people problems” can be an important focus, more powerful reasons for large-group efforts
include managing impending mergers or reorganizations, responding to environmental threats and opportuni-
ties, or proposing radical organizational changes.27 Whatever the focal point for change, senior leaders need to
make clear to others the purpose of the large-group meeting. Ambiguity about the reason for the intervention can
dissipate participants’ energy and commitment to change. For example, a large-group meeting that successfully
envisioned a hospital’s future organization design was viewed as a failure by a few key managers who thought that
the purpose was to cut costs from the hospital’s budget. Their subsequent lack of support stalled the change
effort.2. Appropriate participants. A fundamental goal of large-group interventions is to “get the whole system in
the room.” This involves inviting as many people as possible who have a stake in the conference theme and who
are energized and committed to conceiving and initiating change. Senior managers, suppliers, union leaders,
internal and external customers, trade-group representatives, government and regulatory officials, and
organization members from a variety of jobs, genders, races, and ages are potential participants.3. Relevant tasks
to address the conference theme. As described below, these tasks typically are assigned to several subgroups
responsible for examining the theme and drawing conclusions for action. Generally, participants rely on their own
experience and expertise to address systemwide issues, rather than drawing on resources from outside of the
large-group meeting. This ensures that the meeting can be completed within the allotted time and that members
can participate fully as important sources of information.

• Conducting the Meeting The flow of events in a large-group meeting can vary greatly, depending on its
purpose and the framework adopted. Most large-group processes, however, fit within three primary
frameworks: open-systems methods, open- space methods, and positive methods. These various methods
reflect different strategies for dealing with the four key dilemmas of large-group interventions:1. The
dilemma of voice refers to the problem of encouraging participation on the one hand and being
overwhelmed if each individual wants to speak. Even when a large-group event is relatively small in terms
of participants, time would quickly run out if everyone wanted to speak up in the large group. 288
PART 3 Human Process Interventions2. The dilemma of structure refers to how tightly or loosely the
meeting should be orga- nized. Some methods, like the open-systems processes described below, can be
tightly controlled while others, like the open-space methods, are almost unstructured. The dilemma is not
knowing how much structure a particular group prefers, how much they want, or how much anxiety they
are experiencing.3. The egocentric dilemma refers to the problem of people holding on to their own
personal views of right or wrong, better or worse. When individuals hold on too tightly, it makes large-
group decision making difficult. When a large-group event overly represents one stakeholder group, that
group can dominate the conversa- tion and be less open to alternative points of view.4. The dilemma of
emotional contagion refers to a group dynamic where many people take on the frustrations or excitement
of others. When emotional contagion happens, people unconsciously give up their ownership of a
problem, action, or solution and get swept up in the moment. It represents a large-group version of
“groupthink” and can result in solutions that people, upon reflection, cannot support.

• Open-Systems Methods. A variety of large-group approaches, such as search conferences, open-systems planning, decision accelerators, and
real-time strategic change, have their basis in open-systems methods and are among the more structured large- group processes. These
approaches help organizations assess their environments systematically and develop strategic responses to them. They help organization mem-
bers develop a strategic mission for relating to the environment and influencing it in favorable directions. Open-systems methods begin with a
diagnosis of the existing environment and how the organization relates to it. They proceed to develop possible future environments and action
plans to bring them about.28 These steps are described below.1. Map the current environment surrounding the organization. In this step, the
different domains or parts of the environment are identified and prioritized. This involves listing all external groups directly interacting with the
organization, such as customers, suppliers, or government agencies, and ranking them in impor- tance. Participants then are asked to describe
each domain’s expectations for the organization’s behavior.2. Assess the organization’s responses to environmental expectations. This step asks
participants to describe how the organization currently addresses the environmental expectations identified in step 1.3. Identify the core mission
of the organization. This step helps to identify the underlying purpose or core mission of the organization, as derived from how it responds to
external demands. Attention is directed at discovering the mission as it is revealed in the organization’s behavior, not as it is pronounced in the
organization’s official statement of purpose. This is accomplished by examining the organization and environment transactions identified in
steps 1 and 2 and then assessing the values that seem to underlie those interactions. These values provide clues about the actual identity or
mission of the organization.4. Create a realistic future scenario of environmental expectations and organization responses. This step asks
members to project the organization and its environment into the near future, assuming no real changes in the organization. It asks participants
to address the question, “What will happen if the organization continues to operate as it does at present?” Participant responses are combined to
develop a likely organization future under the assumption of no change.5. Create an ideal future scenario of environmental expectations and
organization responses. Members are asked to create alternative, desirable futures. This CHAPTER 13 Organization Process Approaches
289involves going back to steps 1, 2, and 3 and asking what members ideally would like to see happen in the near future in both the
environment and the organization. People are encouraged to fantasize about desired futures without worrying about possible constraints.6.
Compare the present with the ideal future and prepare an action plan for reducing the discrepancy. This last step identifies specific actions that
will move both the environment and the organization toward the desired future. Planning for appropriate interventions typically occurs in three
timeframes: tomorrow, six months from now, and two years from now. Participants also decide on a follow- up schedule for sharing the flow of
actions and updating the planning process.There are a number of variations on this basic model, each of which follows a similar

DBA-ORGDEV case study and actions taken by organization

LARGE-GROUP INTERVENTIONS
• The third systemwide process intervention is called large-
group intervention. Such change programs have been
referred to variously as “search conferences,” “open- space
meetings,” “open-systems planning,” “world cafés,” “future
searches,” “decision accelerators,” and “Appreciative Inquiry
Summits.”22
• Large-group interventions are among the fastest-growing
OD applications in large part because they reflect the core
values of OD, including inclu- sion, participation, and
learning.23

DBA-ORGDEV case study and actions taken by organization

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to DBA-ORGDEV case study and actions taken by organization (20)

More from SherryObenzaGaringo (6)

Recently uploaded (20)

DBA-ORGDEV case study and actions taken by organization

Editor's Notes