Diagnosing Organizational system

(Group and Individual Level)

Chapter 6
Change and OD
By Syed Zafar Mehdi
Diagnosing Organizational system (Group Level )

• When viewed as open systems, organizations can be diagnosed at three levels.

• The highest level is the overall organization and includes the design of the company’s
strategy, structure, and processes. Large organization units, such as divisions,
subsidiaries, or strategic business units, also can be diagnosed at that level.
• The next lowest level is the group or department, which includes group design and
devices for structuring interactions among members, such as norms and work schedules.
• The lowest level is the individual position or job. This includes ways in which jobs are
designed to elicit required task behaviors.
 Figure 6.1 ( Discussion and analysis )
• Figure 5.2 presents a comprehensive model for diagnosing these different
organizational systems. For each level, it shows (1) the inputs that the system
has to work with, (2) the key design components of the transformation
subsystem, and (3) the system’s outputs. The relationships shown in Figure 5.2
illustrate how each organization level affects the lower levels.
• The external environment is the key input to organization design decisions.
Organization design is an input to group design, which in turn serves as an input
to job design. These cross-level relationships emphasize that organizational
levels must fit with each other if the organization is to operate effectively
 Input
• Organization design is clearly the major input to group design. It consists of the design components
characterizing the larger organization within which the group is embedded: technology, structure,
measurement systems, and human resources systems, as well as organization culture.
• Technology can determine the characteristics of the group’s task; structural systems can specify the
level of coordination required among groups. The human resources and measurement systems, such as
performance appraisal and reward systems, play an important role in determining team functioning.
• For example, individual-based, forced ranking performance appraisal and reward systems tend to
interfere with team functioning because members may be concerned with maximizing their individual
performance to the detriment of team performance. Collecting information about the group’s
organization design context can greatly improve the accuracy of diagnosis.
 Goal clarity and Task structure
• Goal clarity involves how well the group understands its objectives. In general, goals
should be moderately challenging; there should be a method for measuring, monitoring,
and feeding back information about goal achievement; and the goals should be clearly
understood by all members.
• Task structure is concerned with how the group’s work is designed. Task structures can
vary along two key dimensions: coordination of members’ efforts and regulation of their
task behaviors.5 The coordination dimension involves the degree to which group tasks
are structured to promote effective interaction among group members. Coordination is
important in groups performing interdependent tasks, such as surgical teams and
problem-solving gro
 Group composition
• Group composition concerns the membership of groups. Members can
differ on a number of dimensions having relevance to group behavior.
Demographic variables, such as age, education, experience, and skills and
abilities, can affect how people behave and relate to each other in groups.
Demographics can determine whether the group is composed of people
having task-relevant skills and knowledge, including interpersonal skills.
People’s internal needs also can influence group behaviors. Individual
differences in social needs can determine whether group membership is
likely to be satisfying or stressful.6
 Team functioning
• Team functioning is the underlying basis of group life. How members relate to each other
is important in work groups because the quality of relationships can affect task
performance. In some groups, for example, interpersonal competition and conflict among
members result in their providing little support and help for each other. Conversely,
groups may become too concerned about sharing good feelings and support and spend
too little time on task performance. In organization development, considerable effort has
been invested in helping work group members develop healthy interpersonal relations,
including an ability and a willingness to share feelings and perceptions about members’
behaviors so that interpersonal problems and task difficulties can be worked through and
resolved.7 Group functioning, therefore, involves task-related activities, such as
advocacy and inquiry; coordinating and evaluating activities; and the group maintenance
function, which is directed toward holding the group together as a cohesive team and
includes encouraging, harmonizing, compromising, setting standards, and observing.8
 OUT PUT (Group Level )
• Outputs Group effectiveness has two dimensions: performance and quality of
work life. Performance is measured in terms of the group’s ability to control
or reduce costs, increase productivity, or improve quality. This is a “hard”
measure of effectiveness. In addition, effectiveness is indicated by the group
member’s quality of work life. It concerns work satisfaction, team cohesion,
and organizational commitment.
 Fit
• Group design should be congruent with the larger organization design. Organization
structures with low differentiation and high integration should have work groups that
are composed of highly skilled and experienced members performing highly
interdependent tasks. Organizations with differentiated structures and formalized
human resources and information systems should spawn groups that have clear,
quantitative goals and that support standardized behaviors.
• Although there is little direct research on these fits, the underlying rationale is that
congruence between organization and group designs supports overall integration
within the company. When group designs are not compatible with organization
designs, groups often conflict with the organisation. They may develop norms that run
counter to organizational effectiveness, such as occurs in groups supportive of
horseplay, goldbricking, and other counterproductive behaviors
• When the organization’s technology results in interdependent tasks,
coordination among members should be promoted by goal clarity, task
structure, group composition, performance norms, and team functioning.
Conversely, when technology permits independent tasks, the design
components should promote individual task performance. For example,
when coordination is needed, task structure might physically locate related
tasks together; group composition might include members with similar
interpersonal skills and social needs; performance norms would support
task relevant interactions; and healthy interpersonal relationships would
be developed.
• When the technology is relatively uncertain and requires high amounts of information
processing and decision making, then task structure, group composition, performance norms,
and team functioning should promote self-regulation. Members should have the necessary
freedom, information, and skills to assign members to appropriate tasks, to decide on
production methods, and to set performance goals.
• When technology is relatively certain, group designs should promote standardization of
behavior, and groups should be externally controlled by supervisors, schedules, and plans.
• For example, when self-regulation is needed, task structure might be relatively flexible and
allow the interchange of members across group tasks; composition might include members with
multiple skills, interpersonal competencies, and social needs; performance norms would support
complex problem solving; and efforts would be made to develop healthy interpersonal relations.
• Analysis
 Analysis
• Application 6.1 presents an example of applying group-level diagnosis to a top management team
engaged in problem solving. The group is having a series of ineffective problem-solving meetings.
Members report a backlog of unresolved issues, poor use of meeting time, lack of follow-through and
decision implementation, and a general dissatisfaction with the team meetings. Examining group
inputs and design components and seeing how the two fit can help explain the causes of those group
problems. The key issue in diagnosing group inputs is the design of the larger organization within
which the group is embedded. The Ortiv Glass Corporation’s design is relatively differentiated. Each
plant is allowed to set up its own organization design. Similarly, although no specific data are given,
the company’s technology, structure, measurement systems, human resources systems, and culture
appear to promote flexible and innovative behaviors at the plant level. Indeed, freedom to innovate in
the manufacturing plants is probably an outgrowth of the firm’s OD activities and participative culture.