Organization Development
Lecture 11
Creating a Climate for Change
Most OD practitioners would agree that an open give-and-take relationship with the client is
desirable. To some extent this depends on the ability of the practitioner to form relationships of
openness and trust. Good relationships do not fit into a formula or equation, but OD
practitioners have noted a number of recognizable characteristics of which the practitioner may
be aware. “The change agent should act congruently, in accordance with the values he or she is
attempting to superimpose upon the client system’s value system. To use an old expression, the
practitioner should practice what he or she preaches. The practitioner must think and act in
ways that will create and enhance a positive climate for participation and learning.
The basic value system of the OD practitioner may not be compatible with the organization’s
culture. As a result, there may be conflicts between the value systems of the practitioner and
the client system. An assessment of the degree of difference and the likelihood of working
these differences through should be part of the OD practitioner’s initial intervention. The
practitioner may desire to create a relationship of openness, authenticity, and trust. The client
system managers, however, may tend not to be open, may have learned not to behave
authentically, and may even feel threatened by an exploration of feelings or confrontation by
the practitioner; the practitioner may have reservations about the probability of a successful
program. The practitioner also examines the degree of conflict and collaboration between
organization units and needs to be aware of this to avoid being party to any existing conflicts.
“One of the most frequent forms of resistance to change,” comments OD authority Ronald
Lippitt, “is the perception by certain subgroups, that the consultant is more closely related to
other subgroups and is ‘on their side’ in any conflict of interests.”
Who is Client?
One may say, the client is….
1. Company president
2. Top management group
3. Employee relations person
4. Total company
5. Parent corporation
6. All of the above
7. None of the above.
1
The correct answer is (7), “none of the above.” The client in OD consultation is never one
individual, regardless of position or role, or any particular group, team, or subsystem of the
organization, or any combination thereof.
The client is the relationship and/or interface between individuals and units within and
related to the system. The arrows in the figure 12 depict the true client.
Figure: 12
The degree to which a consultant is effective is a function of how capable he or she is at
maintaining a certain social distance between self and other individuals in the client
organization and its operating on the boundaries of units rather than exclusively within them.
In these ways, the consultant can more readily maintain an objective stance between persons
and units in conflict rather than being with one or the other.
2
OD Practitioner Styles:
The OD practitioner is the person who initiates, stimulates, or facilitates a change program, and
may come from inside or outside the organization. Change begins with the intervention of the
practitioner in the system to be changed. Intervention refers to the practitioner’s entry into the
client stem and includes several different roles and activities.
Practitioners, be they internal or external, have a variety of practitioner styles or approaches.
One way to view the styles is based on the degree of emphasis the practitioner places upon two
interrelated goals or dimensions of the change process. One of the goals is effectiveness the
degree of emphasis upon goal accomplishment. The other goal is morale, the degree of
emphasis upon relationships and participant satisfaction.
Based upon the two dimensions of accomplishing goals and member satisfaction, five different
types of practitioner styles or roles can be identified (see Figure 13).
The Stabilizer Style:
The goal of the stabilizer style is neither effectiveness nor participant satisfaction. Rather the
practitioner is trying to keep from rocking the boat and to maintain a low profile. The
underlying motivation is often survival, or merely following the directives of top management.
Such a role is typically found in large organizations where development programs may be part
of the staff function and are not highly regarded by top management. This style is usually
forced upon the practitioner by organizational pressures, so that the practitioner has learned to
conform and to suppress any other motivations.
The Cheerleader Style:
The cheerleader style places emphasis on the satisfaction of organization members and is
chiefly concerned with employee motivation and morale. The cheerleader practitioner seeks
warm working relationships and in general is more comfortable in non-confrontational
situations. Effectiveness per se is not emphasized. The assumption being that if member
satisfaction is high, effectiveness will also be high. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of
evidence that contradicts these assumptions. The cheerleader style strongly minimizes
differences and maintains harmony.
3
Figure: 13: Practitioner Styles
The Analyzer Style:
The analyzer style places great emphasis on efficiency, and gives little emphasis to member
satisfaction. The analyzer feels most comfortable with a rational assessment of problem and
assumes that the facts will lead to a solution. Practitioners of this type may be quite
confrontational, usually relying on authority to resolve conflicts and on rational problemsolving processes.
The analyzer style has a background of specialized expertise, knowledge, and experience
applicable to the solution of specific problems. The client needs to have a problem solved, a
service performed or a study made; the analyzer practitioner takes responsibility for providing
these functions. This style is based on the belief that the client does not need to know or cannot
learn the skills to solve its problems. The success of the practitioner is largely dependent on the
client’s having properly diagnosed its problem and called in the right kind of practitioner.
The Persuader Style:
The persuader style focuses on dimensions, effectiveness and morale, yet optimizes neither.
Such a style provides a relatively low-risk strategy, yet avoids direct confrontation with other
forces. This approach may be used when the practitioner has little power or leverage relative to
other participants. It is motivated primarily by a desire to satisfy, that is, to achieve something
that is “good enough.” A great deal of effort is applied in attempting to satisfy the different
forces, thus gaining a majority bloc of support for prepared changes. The resulting change
program is often watered down or weakened to the point where organization improvement is
unlikely.
4
The Pathfinder Style:
The pathfinder style seeks both a high degree of effectiveness and a high degree of member
satisfaction, believing that greater effectiveness is possible when all members are involved and
problem-solving is done through teamwork. There is awareness that confrontation and conflict
are often a means to a more effective organization and to more satisfied individual members.
The pathfinder approach uses collaborative problem solving and challenges the underlying
patterns of member behavior. Harold J, Leavitt uses this term to refer to developing a sense of
value and vision. The pathfinder practitioner helps the organization to focus on its most critical
issues and questions.
A survey of about 1,000 OD practitioners found that listening, integrity, and organizational
diagnosis were rated as the most important OD skills. The pathfinder practitioner uses these
skills to give the client new insights into its activities and to help the client system determine
how it wishes to change and how it might go about implement changes. The practitioner rarely
informs or instructs the client system, but instead tries to discover client system problems and
to challenge the underlying patterns of behavior of organization members. The pathfinder
practitioner focuses on six processes essential for effective organization performance: (1)
communication, (2) member role and functions in groups, (3) group problem-solving and
decision-making, (4) group norms and growth, (5) leadership and authority, and
(6) Inter-group cooperation a competition.
We have identified five different practitioner styles in this section. You will have an
opportunity to find out where your own style fits in this classification system. Most
organizational problems are complex situations, however, and may not neatly fit with any one
change approach but will depend upon the practitioner, the nature of the problem, and the
organizational climate.
In summary, these five practitioner styles are not mutually exclusive. All the styles can be
effective, and they are interrelated. A practitioner may transition from one style to another to
meet changing client system needs and deal with diverse situations. Frequently, some
combination of the styles may be applied.
Practitioner-Client Relationship Modes:
Eric H. Neilson has identified several basic dimensions in the practitioner-client relationship
that can be used as indicators of the climate for change. In order to collaboratively change the
organization’s culture, members need to (1) share their ideas, assumptions, perceptions, and
feelings, and (2) accept personal responsibility for their own behavior. Based upon these two
dimensions, Neilsen has identified four possible modes in the practitioner-client relationship.
(See Figure 14)
5
The apathetic mode: Members keep their true ideas about self-fulfillment and organization
effectiveness to themselves. They assume that sharing this information will not make any
difference, so why bother? They follow established routines, take no responsibility for their
actions, and simply do as they are told. They relate to the practitioner in the same way,
assuming that higher authority has sanctioned the change hut viewing it with skepticism.
The gamesmanship mode: Members keep their true feelings about self- fulfillment and
organizational effectiveness to themselves, under the assumption that sharing information may
threaten personally desired outcomes, They make their own decisions about how to behave,
thus taking responsibility for their behavior. This may include conforming outwardly to any
decision -making procedure hut manipulating strategic factors to gain personal goals. Members
may favor change if they can see ways in which it can serve their personal interest.
The charismatic mode: A limited number of members openly share ideas and feelings with
the rest, based on perceptions of leadership. The followers are looking for cues from their
leaders, so responsibility is low for most members. Members view the change process as
desirable if the leaders approve, but they rely on the leaders to interpret the results.
The consensus mode: Members continuously share perceptions and feelings openly both on
self-fulfillment and organizational effectiveness. Personal viewpoints are seen as relevant to
organization functioning and are expressed. Decisions are made and differences arc resolved
through the sharing of viewpoints, this process involves both sharing of data and maintaining
one’s responsibility for actions. Members see the OD process as consistent with their way of
operating and find the results interesting and useful.
6
Figure 14: Four Practitioner-Client Relationship Modes
The practitioner’s attitudes and behavior make it possible for the client to create a climate
where feelings about the client system can be freely and honestly expressed. The practitioner
also has the ability to listen effectively and express ideas clearly and concisely. The
practitioner is honest with the client, because facades have no place in the relationship. By
operating based on power equalization, the practitioner ensures that the power differential
between practitioner and client is not too great, for otherwise it will be difficult to develop a
collaborative relationship. This is particularly true with internal practitioners, who may be in a
subordinate position in the organization’s power structure? The practitioner also makes certain
that all the key parties in the client system are involved in the OD program to some extent.
Thee practitioner must determine to how much involvement by different individuals or groups
is appropriate. The outcome of ignoring key people is increased resistance and probable
ineffectiveness in the change program.
These are not the only dimensions that are involved in a complex practitioner-client
relationship, but they have been discussed here to provide the beginning practitioner with an
awareness of some of the important dimensions that should be examined and considered. The
practitioner must keep in mind that this relationship is analogous to one’s impact on the total
system. The practitioner’s behavior will actually be a model for the organization between
organization members. In attempting to create a climate of openness and collaboration between
organization members and departments, one strives to develop personal relationships based on
similar qualities.
7
A good relationship increases the probability of a successful OD program. A tenuous or
superficial relationship increases the probability that the OD program will be ineffective or
unsuccessful.
Important dimensions in practitioner-client relationship:
•
The practitioner’s attitudes and behavior make it possible for the client to create a
climate where feelings about the client system can be freely and honestly expressed.
•
Ability to listen effectively and express ideas clearly and concisely.
•
The practitioner is honest with the client, because facades have no place in the
relationship.
•
By operating based on power equalization, - the practitioner ensures that the power
differential between practitioner and client is not too great, for otherwise it will be
difficult to develop a collaborative relationship.
•
This is particularly true with internal practitioners, who may be in a subordinate
position in the organization’s power structure?
•
The practitioner also makes certain that all the key parties in the client system are
involved in the OD program to some extent. The practitioner must determine to how
much involvement by different individuals or groups is appropriate. The outcome of
ignoring key people is increased resistance and probable ineffectiveness in the change
program.
•
A good relationship increases the probability of a successful OD program. A superficial
relationship increases the probability that the OD program will be ineffective or
unsuccessful.
Case: The Grayson Chemical Company
The Grayson Chemical Company manufactured industrial chemicals for sale to other industrial
companies. The company was about 40 years old and had been run by a stable management in
which there had only been two presidents. Within the past few years, however, declining
earnings and sales had brought pressure from the board of directors, investment bankers, and
stockholder groups to name a new president. The company had become increasingly stagnant –
although at Grayson they refer to it as conservative – and had steadily lost market standing and
profitability. Finally, the board decided to go outside the company to find a new CEO and was
able to recruit a dynamic manager from another major corporation, Tom Baker. Baker is 47, an
MBA, and had helped build his former company into a leadership position.
8
Baker was clear about what he needed to do. He knew that he needed to develop a top
management team that could provide the leadership to turn the company around.
Unfortunately, the situation at Grayson was not very favorable.
Decisions were made by the book or taken to the next-higher level. Things were done because
“they have always been done this way,” and incompetent managers were often promoted to
high-level jobs.
The Meeting
Baker met with three members of the board, Robert Temple (chairman), James Allen, and
Hartley Ashford. Each had a different bit of advice to offer.
Robert Temple said: “Look, Tom, you can’t just get rid of the old organization if you want to
maintain any semblance of morale. Your existing people are all fairly competent technically,
but it’s up to you to develop performance goals and motivate them to achieve these standards.
Make it clear that achievement will be rewarded and that those who can’t hack it will have to
go.”
James Allen, puffing on his pipe, noted: “Let’s face it, Tom; you need to bring in a new top
management team. Probably only six or so, but people who know what top performance
means, people who are using innovative methods of managing and, above all, people you trust.
That means people you’ve worked with closely, from ABC or other companies, but people you
know. You can’t retread the old people, and you don’t have time to develop young MBAs, so
you need to bring in your own team even though it might upset some of the old-timers.”
Hartley Ashford smiled and said: “Sure, you’re going to have to bring in a new team from the
outside, but rather than bring in people you’ve worked with before, bring in only managers
with proven track records. People who have proven their ability to lead, motivate, and perform
from different industries. This way you’ll get a synergistic effect from a number of successful
organizations. And the old people will see that favoritism is not the way to get ahead. So get a
top performance team. And if you lose a few old-timers, so much the better.”
9
Case Analysis Form
Name: ____________________________________________
I. Problems
A. Macro
1. ____________________________________________________
2. ____________________________________________________
B. Micro
1. _____________________________________________________
2. _____________________________________________________
II. Causes
1. _____________________________________________________
2. _____________________________________________________
3. _____________________________________________________
III. Systems affected
1. Structural ____________________________________________
2. Psychosocial __________________________________________.
3. Technical ______________________________________________
4. Managerial _____________________________________________
5. Goal and values _____________________________________________
IV. Alternatives
1. _________________________________________________________
2. _________________________________________________________
3. ________________________________________________________
V. Recommendations
1. _________________________________________________________
2. __________________________________________________________
3. __________________________________________________________
10
Case Solution: The Grayson Chemical Company
I. Problems:
A.
Macro
1. Grayson has become stagnant, failed to change, and is no longer competitive.
2. The current people at Grayson are not acceptable to change.
3. There is a culture of doing things by the book.
B. Micro:
1.
Incompetent managers promoted.
2.
Board does not have a consensus of opinion.
II. Causes:
1.
Grayson has not been proactive with its environment.
2.
Corporate culture is very resistant to change.
3.
Board does not speak with one voice. So entire organization is somewhat disorganized
in its operations—no clear direction or focus
III. Systems affected:
The entire organization is affected. The organization is still functioning; however, to be a
healthy company and to grow, changes are needed.
1.
Structural – with major changes, the structure could be radically altered.
2.
Psychosocial – status quo and contentment seems to be prevalent among management.
3.
Technical – though there is evidence that managers are “fairly” competent
technically, but this may not be enough to make the kind of changes that Grayson requires.
4.
Managerial – the management currently seems to be comfortable in their positions and
performance. The changes that Tom Baker may initiate would likely create turmoil in
the management ranks.
5.
Goals and values–the system seems to value putting in your time and you will get
promoted. Excellence in performance is something not present at Grayson, but
complacency seems to be prevalent.
11
IV. Alternatives:
1.
Maintain status quo—do nothing.
2.
Develop a pathfinder style; involve board, and organization members in renewing
the company.
3.
Develop a persuader style and avoid “rocking the boat” by making gradual or slow
changes.
V. Recommendations:
Develop pathfinder style; involve Entire Corporation in change process. Establish open
communications with board and establish a consensus on what the board wants/expects/desires.
Since incompetent managers have often been promoted, personnel changes should be made
after thorough analysis of personnel.
12
13