Crosby & Associates Leadership and Organization Development Blog

The following are responses to a valued colleague , Joseph George Anjilvelil, of the Tata Institute of Social Science.

Joseph posted this query to our on-line OD group:

Dear Members

I write to check if you have any documents you use as a reference aid in the design of OD interventions.

Is there a book / article / compendium that point ODers to such a resource, wherein intervention types are qualified?

E.g. When to use a task or role design intervention, vis-a-vis an interpersonal intervention at the level of individuals?

What factors may one qualify a client for affinity to Open Systems modelling as in a Future Search Conference or a World Cafe? If this were not to be the qualification, what options can ODers rely on?

When does Role Negotiation make sense as bare minimum before skills ‘training’ is taken up?

Some of you may point me to Pfeiffer & Jones for facilitation design considerations or Fieldbook resources.

May I add in succession here, the question is also not about which diagnostic models to use as a qualification process. This is a post-diagnosis decision point, after data is processed for feedback to the client.

My interest is in whole systems intervention design(OD as some may synonymously consider) , where the individual, group and organisation are considered as interdependent levels. 

PS : An alumnus of the Tata Institute of Social Science saw me exiting at the narrow gate conduit and wondered if that’s also the entry to the ‘old’ campus. I acknowledged, “Yes”, and walked on. It occurred to me just 10 steps on, that what she was possibly referring to is the ‘original’ campus. 

Have I come to the ‘original OD list? Looking forward to your responses. 

Every best wish,

Joseph George A

Founder, Workplace Catalysts LLP

Adjunct Faculty, SMLS, TISS

Robert responded first:

“This is a post-diagnosis decision point, after data is processed for feedback to the client.”
Hi Joseph, I’m going to give a very simple response and not attempt to answer all that you requested.

First, responding to the above quote, I do not consider “feeding back to the client’ to be a function of OD.  Rather it is a function performed by large non-OD consulting firms who interview and then give feedback to the client. Organization development is built on action research. To do the above is a violation for me of organization development. 

I’ve excerpted from my book a summary of the strategy that my fictional but oh so real character has developed as his change strategy. As I’ve written, developing measurable goals, which is the first step was never in place with any clients when I began with them, They confused goals with actions, values,etc. 

no one I know has ridden with greater clarity a chapter 1 goals than Chris Crosby in his book strategic organizational alignment is chapter 2 is Goldman about this subject

Also, my memoirs Chronicles in chapter after the fact, how did the follows change strategy? Lol my dear friend of his during his last years, Edgar Schein, called it a “…must read for practitioners and academics”. I agree with him and am able to do so since now, at  95 years, I have laid modesty about my work aside.

If anyone wants a free electronic copy of my Memoirs, just ask me.

“APPENDIX B

  Peter’s Change Strategy

    Set goals and state them clearly.

    Help direct reports get aligned and engage with the goals and be open to feedback.

    Work closely with leaders of the union, hourly and salaried employees, to promote understanding of goals and engage about plans.

     Communicate the goals across the organization in small groups with dialogue.

     Based on the goals set forth, expect the leaders of intact or cross-functional groups to sharpen goals for their units

     Cascade a group process in each intact work group. Elements of the process must include clarity of goals, generation of issues and solutions, and follow up.

     Work with the company’s most important cross functional (matrixed) projects. 

     Develop a critical mass of strategic employees who have high interactive skills, that is, the capacity to take a stand, be decisive, stay the course against resistance, and stay connected.

     Develop a cadre of key people early in the process who will help sustain the shift in culture and the alignment around the leader’s goals.

    Peter was also well aware that he could easily turn this into a program—a new “flavor of the month”—rather than developing effective leadership therefore:

      He reviewed the “ Eleven Do’s And Don’ts For Those Who Are Serious about change (Appendix A).

      He re-read Appendix C, ”What It Takes To Pull Off A Cultural Change.”

      He committed, in a new way, to follow up. Appendix A inspired Peter. He used number 11, Be Serious About Follow Up, as a catalyst. Then he held himself and his direct reports to these standards as well as instructing them to do the same throughout the entire organization.

      He reaffirmed the need to have skilled internal or external staff doing day-by-day nurturing until his cadre was developed. They would then take over the ongoing work of sustaining change, work that is constantly needed in a productive environment: dealing with conflict as it arises, making continuous contributions to work process improvement, ensuring decision clarity and role clarity, encouraging accurate data flow, and fostering authentic interaction”

Excerpt From

Culture Change in Organizations: A Guide to Leadership and Bottom-Line Results

Robert P. Crosby

I agree with where dad started! Dad, do I get my allowance this week? Last I recall it was a quarter!

To clarify, the process of rolling out the goals layer by layer could be turned into a workteam by workteam analysis (by the workteams) of what’s in the way to achieving their part in pulling off the goals, and what they can do about it. This becomes action research the way we intend it…the work teams do their own analysis and come up with their own solutions! Not the OD person…they are facilitating the process and teaching people the process as it unfolds!  This is the Lewin training-action-research as intended! the people become the experts on solving their own problems! They are already the experts on what is really happening day by day in their part of the organization and always will be! This is developing the organization…the true intent of “organization development! Other activities can be woven in as needed, such as the application of T-groups to rapidly increasing interpersonal and group dynamic skills, and working systemic issues, such as goal and role clarity. Wah la, the entire system is engaged in a very short time, and prepared for sustainable culture of improvement. 

Regards,

Gil

And a further response from Robert:

Joseph, 

Thank you for your thoughtful response. In our large group interventions I usually did have total organization data available from our People Performance Profile which John Scherer and I developed. The data  was also broken up into discrete data reflecting the scores of each intact group (that is bosses and their employees) as well as departmental scores. We thought the top management deserved the overview, but insisted that they let the Intact Groups do the action research work of identifying key problems and key actions to take to improve productivity, etc. that was not meant to prevent top management from especially thinking of systemic issues. For instance, if role clarity scores were low across the whole organization it was probably something that one Intact group could do little about.

Always my best to you,

Bob

And Joseph’s response:

Dear Bob

I ‘hear’ you on the ‘feedback’ . As is now on the OD map that Ted Tschudy sketched on an inspirational nudge from Miriam Ritvo; Feedback is a phase. 

How one engages with the client is the crux in this Feedback phase. Holding up client data for them to own, make meaning and act on it with their own choiceful means would in my understanding qualify for Actionability even in Argyris’ terms. Their internalisation of commitment based on informed choices as he put it. Now, over the years, I’ve come to realise that this kind of commitment requires goal clarity and role clarity both. Shortfalls in either kind of clarity takes away from enthusiasm in the moment even if they sustain a belief of the future turning positive. (another topic in itself!).

Enabling the scientific mindset in the client system could be a mounting challenge, with the dilution of critical thinking amid information cascades on internet enabled media. These media polarise thought streams in the garb of convenient ideologies and effortless guile of a finger click on touchscreens. People have managed to get away with ‘we don’t have the time’ – ‘just give me a strategy’ – ‘either you know it or you don’t’ or ‘i’ll get another consultant’. 

In other words, client environments are stressed with information and their skills in discernment scant. That’s where as Cecile once mentioned offline, courses from ariane David on critical thinking help almost anyone. (another related, yet distinct topic)

That said, I’ll go over the copy of “Memoirs” that you have shared with me!

Thank You again, for writing and so sharing.

Joseph George A

Founder, Workplace Catalysts LLP

Adjunct Faculty, SMLS, TISS

Gil’s note: We want the feedback to be “a phase” not prior to but on-going and throughout the organization, as per our responses above. Analysis and feedback from the consulting team to the executives is a passive process for the organization and less likely to lead to the type of OD we practice and are advocating.