Professional Documents
Culture Documents
• Technological developments:
• Competitive environment:
• Social and political pressure
Walton has presented a statement of theory and practice for third-party peace
making interventions that is important in its own right and important for its role in
organization development. His method has a lot in common with group
interventions but it is directed more towards, interpersonal conflicts. The basic
feature of this third party peace making intervention is ‘Confrontation’ i.e the two
principals must be willing to confront the fact that conflict exists and that it has
consequences on the effectiveness of the two parties involved. The third party must
know how, when and where to utilize confrontation tactics that surface the conflict
for examination.
Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) is the science of controlling and predicting human
behavior. Behavior analysts reject the use of hypothetical constructs and focus on the
observable relationship of behavior to the environment. By functionally assessing the
relationship between a targeted behavior and the environment, the methods of ABA can
be used to change that behavior. Research in applied behavior analysis ranges from
behavioral intervention methods to basic research which investigates the rules by which
humans adapt and maintain behavior. BA is defined as the science in which the principles
of the analysis of behavior are applied systematically to improve socially significant
behavior, and in which experimentation is used to identify the variables responsible for
change in behavior. It is one of the three fields of behavior analysis. The other two
are behaviorism, or the philosophy of the science; and experimental analysis of behavior,
or basic experimental research.
Role negotiation deals with working relationships – what people do on the job and how
that helps or hinders others. It doesn’t probe into feelings or emotions towards others. It
deals directly with issues of power and authority – issues that are sometimes ignored by
other team building approaches. Although it doesn’t seek to undermine legitimate
authority, it does help people explore the sources of power available to them. It is
oriented towards action and achieving commitment to realistic change, not just
uncovering and understanding of issues. The procedures are clear and simple, and can be
outlined to participants beforehand to minimize the threat and uncertainty of many team
development techniques. Participants realize they have power and are not overly reliant
on the skill of the facilitator. Role negotiation is an economical process that can be
facilitated by internal consultants and team leaders, not exclusively by outside
consultants. It does not rely on extensive training or special credentials. It may only
function as a stopgap to help people live with potentially toxic relationship issues. But
even so, it is a way to make life more bearable in a bad situation. It does not necessarily
replace more complex interpersonal and organizational development processes that help
build trusting relationships over time, but it is a great first step and in many cases may be
a highly effective team development technique by itself. People don’t have to like one
another for this to work. But they often develop more positive feelings towards one
another when dealing from a position of clarity and when they know what to expect. We
perform better in consistent, reasonably predictable environments. Role Negotiation helps
clarify the organizational landscape.
Steps involved in this technique:
1. Contract setting-Consultant sets the climate and establishes the ground rules.
2. Issue diagnosis- Individuals think about how their own effectiveness can be
improved if others change their work behaviors.
3. Influence trade- Negotiation period in which two individuals discuss the
most important behavior changes they want from the other and the changes
they are willing to make themselves.
SIX-BOX DIAGNOSTIC MODEL, MARVIN R. WEISBORD
Relationships refers primarily to the way units are coordinated. This is another way of
saying “conflict management,” for the critical problem in coordinating differentiated
activities is managing inevitable conflict between them. The more complex—i.e., matrix-
like—the required structure, the more conflict management becomes a critical
requirement for effective organization.
Rewards help or inhibit the “fit” between individuals and organizational goals. Ideally,
organizations should offer incentives—e.g., promotions, achievements, money—for
people to do what most needs doing. In practice, reward systems sometimes work against
the organization’s best interest. Piecework incentive plans sometimes have this
unintended consequence and, in medicine, academic promotion may hinge on research,
even though a medical center is under pressure to teach and serve patients.
Cutting across all four issues—Purposes, Structure, Relationships, Rewards—is the
notion of Helpful Mechanisms. These are procedures, policies, systems, forms,
committees, agendas which contribute to appropriate Purposes, Structure, Relationships,
and Rewards. An effective organization continually revises its mechanisms, eliminating
some and adding others as the need arises. Whenever a “gap” between what is and what
ought to be is identified, it is often discovered that no present mechanism exists to close
it. Hence, the creation of new mechanisms is central to the identification and closing of
gaps.
Only Leadership can scan the entire environment and act on behalf of the whole. This is
the appropriate role for top administration—to keep the entire organization in balance,
continually creating mechanisms to articulate Purposes (and change them as the
environment changes), alter Structure, and provide for appropriate Relationships and
Rewards.
8. The model provides a vocabulary and way of thinking about these issues.
In 1951, Kurt Lewin developed a model for analyzing and managing organizational
problems which he has termed Force Field Analysis. A depiction of the model identifies
both driving forces and restraining forces within an organization. These driving forces,
such as environmental factors, push for change within the organization while the
restraining forces, such as organizational factors (e.g., limited resources or poor morale),
act as barriers to change. To understand the problem within the organization, the driving
forces and restraining forces are first identified and, hence, defined. Goals and strategies
for moving the equilibrium of the organization toward the desired direction can then be
planned.
The model relies upon the change process, with the social implications built into the
model (e.g., disequilibrium is expected to occur until equilibrium is reestablished). The
general goal of this model is to intentionally move to a desirable state of equilibrium by
adding driving forces, where important, and eliminating restraining forces, where
appropriate. These changes are thought to occur simultaneously within the dynamic
organization. The strength of this model is its ability to recognize which forces are
working within an organization, and developing methods to encourage driving forces
while minimizing restraining forces. Unfortunately, recognizing the forces at work within
an organization may not clearly reveal the components of those forces. Without a clear
understanding of the makeup of these forces, designing a strategy for successful change
may be difficult.
SURVEY FEEDBACK
• Definition of the change problem includes the probability that shifts in attitudes,
values, norms, and relationships between players in the system and between the
system and its external environment may be required.
• Deeper level assumptions and dynamics of the system (power, privilege, and
personality) are examined as part of the change process.
• A sub-goal of the change process is to improve the overall skills of the system to
direct its own change processes in the future.
• overall organizational problem-solving, personal growth and development of
system members, either as individuals or as part of cadres within the system (such
as executive or middle management groups), and more recently, redesign or
restructuring of organizational systems to maximize member participation and
involvement as noted in Weisbord (1991) and Emery (1999).