Diagnostic models

Organizational Diagnostic ModelsOrganizational Diagnostic ModelsOrganizational Diagnostic ModelsOrganizational Diagnostic Models

Ing. Josef Kašík, Ph.D.

Department of Business Administration

Faculty of Economics

VŠB – Technical University of Ostrava

josef.kasik@vsb.cz

2011

Importance of OrganizationalModels

Importance of OrganizationalModels

� often identify vital organizational variablesand depict the nature of the relationshipsbetween these key variables

� help us to understand more clearly and quickly what happens in organizations and

� often identify vital organizational variablesand depict the nature of the relationshipsbetween these key variables

� help us to understand more clearly and quickly what happens in organizations andquickly what happens in organizations andthus aids the diagnostic process

� help us to interpret data about anorganization

quickly what happens in organizations andthus aids the diagnostic process

� help us to interpret data about anorganization

Selected diagnostic modelsSelected diagnostic models

1. Force Field Analysis (1951)

2. Leavitt’s Model (1965)

3. Likert System Analysis (1967)

4. Open Systems Theory (1966)

1. Force Field Analysis (1951)

2. Leavitt’s Model (1965)

3. Likert System Analysis (1967)

4. Open Systems Theory (1966)

5. Weisbord’s Six-Box Model (1976)

6. Congruence Model (1977)

7. McKinsey 7S Framework (1981-82)

8. Tichy’s TPC Framework (1983)

9. High-Performance Programming (1984)

10. Diagnosing Individual and Group Behavior (1987)

11. The Burke-Litwin Model (1992)

5. Weisbord’s Six-Box Model (1976)

6. Congruence Model (1977)

7. McKinsey 7S Framework (1981-82)

8. Tichy’s TPC Framework (1983)

9. High-Performance Programming (1984)

10. Diagnosing Individual and Group Behavior (1987)

11. The Burke-Litwin Model (1992)

Force Field Analysis (FFA, 1951)Force Field Analysis (FFA, 1951)

Current StateDriving Desired StateRestraining

Author: Kurt Lewin

Current Stateof Affairs(Problem)

Driving Forces

Desired Stateof Affairs

(Goal)

Restraining Forces

Equilibrium Interrupted

Disequilibrium During Change

Equilibrium Reestablished

Force Field Analysis- Example

Force Field Analysis- Example

Desired State:24 hour service

Restraining Forces Driving Forces:

trade unions

middle top managementChange P

rocess

Current State: 16 hour service

middle management

top management

customers

consultants

airlines

shop floor supervisors

rank & file employees

Leavitt’s Model (1965)Leavitt’s Model (1965)

Structure

Tasks Technology

People

Likert System Analysis (1967)Likert System Analysis (1967)

� is focused on 7 organizational dimensions:

1) motivation

2) communication

3) interaction

� is focused on 7 organizational dimensions:

1) motivation

2) communication

3) interaction

4) decision making

5) goal setting

6) control

7) performance

4) decision making

5) goal setting

6) control

7) performance

Likert System Analysis (1967)Likert System Analysis (1967)

� Likert developed a 43-item questionnaire related to the seven organizational dimensions

� example – extent to which supervisors willingly shareinformation with subordinates

� Likert developed a 43-item questionnaire related to the seven organizational dimensions

� example – extent to which supervisors willingly shareinformation with subordinates

Provides

minimum

information

Gives

subordinates

only

information

superior feels

they need

Gives

information

needed and

answers most

questions

Seeks to give all

relevant

information and

all information

they want

Likert System Analysis (1967)Likert System Analysis (1967)

� „System 4“ – four different types of management systems: 1) Exploitative-Authoritative (autocratic manager,

communication based on one-way orders, discipline),2) Benevolent-Authoritative (authoritative style prevails,

selective communication with subordinates, partially

� „System 4“ – four different types of management systems: 1) Exploitative-Authoritative (autocratic manager,

communication based on one-way orders, discipline),2) Benevolent-Authoritative (authoritative style prevails,

selective communication with subordinates, partiallyselective communication with subordinates, partiallytolerates their views and opinion),

3) Consultative (cooperation between supervisors andsubordinates, trust with limits created by supervisors, important decisions are made by supervisors),

4) Participative(great extent of faith and autonomy ofsubordinates for their decision-making, informal mutualcommunication).

selective communication with subordinates, partiallytolerates their views and opinion),

3) Consultative (cooperation between supervisors andsubordinates, trust with limits created by supervisors, important decisions are made by supervisors),

4) Participative(great extent of faith and autonomy ofsubordinates for their decision-making, informal mutualcommunication).

Likert System Analysis (1967)Likert System Analysis (1967)

System 1 System 2 System 3 System 4

Motivation X

Communication X

Interaction X

Decision-making X

Setting goals X

Control X

Performance X

Open Systems Theory (1966)Open Systems Theory (1966)

Inputs Outputs

Environment

TransformationInputs Outputs

Purposes

Weisbord’s Six-Box Model (1976)Weisbord’s Six-Box Model (1976)

LeadershipRelationships Structure

HelpfulMechanisms

Rewards

External EnvironmentOutputInput

The Nadler-Tushman

Congruence Model (1977)

The Nadler-Tushman

Congruence Model (1977)

Assumptions of the model:

1. Organizations are open social systems within a larger environment.

2. Organizations are dynamic entities.

3. Organizational behaviour occurs at the individual, the group and the system level.

4. Interactions occur between the individual, group and system level of organizational behaviour.

The Nadler-Tushman

Congruence Model (1977)

The Nadler-Tushman

Congruence Model (1977)

Inputs Outputs

Transformation Process

InformalOrganization

OrganizationGroup

Individual

EnvironmentResources

History

feedback

Individual

Task

Organization

FormalOrganization

strategy

The Nadler-Tushman Congruence ModelInputs

The Nadler-Tushman Congruence ModelInputs

Environment – all factors, incl. institutions, groups, individuals, events etc., that are outside the organization, but that have a potential impact on that organization

Resources – assets to which the organization has access incl. Resources – assets to which the organization has access incl. human resources, capital, information etc., as well as less tangibleresources (recognition in the market etc.)

History – patterns of past behaviour, activity and effectivenessthat may affect current organizational functioning

Strategy – stream of decisions about how organizational resourceswill be configured to meet demands, constraints and opportunities

Definitions of Congruencein the Congruence ModelDefinitions of Congruencein the Congruence Model

Pair Issues

Individual-Formal Organization

How are individual needs met by the organizational arrangements? Do individuals have clear perception of organizational structure? Is there a convergence of individual and organizational goals?

Individual-Task Do individuals have skills and abilities to meet task demands? How are individual needs met by the tasks?How are individual needs met by the tasks?

Individual-Informal Organization

How are individual needs met by the informal organization? How does the informal organization make use of individual resources?

Task-FormalOrganization

Are organizational arrangements adequate to meet the demandsof the task? Do organizational arrangements motivate behaviourthat is consistent with demands?

Task-InformalOrganization

Does the informal organization structure facilitate taskperformance or not? Does it hinder or help meet the demands ofthe task?

Formal Organization-Informal Organization

Are the goals, rewards and structures of the informalorganization consistent with those of the formal organization?

McKinsey 7S Framework (1981-82)"Managerial Molecule"

McKinsey 7S Framework (1981-82)"Managerial Molecule"

Skills(dovednosti)

Staff(zaměstnanci)

Style(styl vedení)

„Soft Ss“

(dovednosti)

Structure(struktura)

Strategy(strategie)

Systems(systém řízení)

(zaměstnanci)

SharedValues(sdílenéhodnoty)

„Hard Ss“

Tichy’s Technical Political Cultural (TPC) Framework (1983)

Tichy’s Technical Political Cultural (TPC) Framework (1983)

Missionstrategy

Tasks

InputEnvironment – history

ResourcesLegend:

Strong Impact

Weak Impact

Tasks

People

EmergentNetworks

PrescribedNetworks

Organizationalprocesses

Performance – Impact on peopleOutput

Tichy’s Technical Political Cultural (TPC) Framework (1983)

Tichy’s Technical Political Cultural (TPC) Framework (1983)

� Technical subsystem – available resources, production processes; rational, based on empiricismand scientific methods

� Political subsystem – dominant and powerful

� Technical subsystem – available resources, production processes; rational, based on empiricismand scientific methods

� Political subsystem – dominant and powerful� Political subsystem – dominant and powerfulorganizational groups

� Cultural subsystem – shared symbols, values etc. which form the organizational culture

� Political subsystem – dominant and powerfulorganizational groups

� Cultural subsystem – shared symbols, values etc. which form the organizational culture

Rope Metaphor:

3 subsystems(strands):

Technical

Political

Cultural

Tichy’s Technical Political Cultural (TPC) Framework (1983)

Tichy’s Technical Political Cultural (TPC) Framework (1983)

1. How well are the parts of the org. aligned with each other for solving the organization's technical problems?

2. How well are the parts of the org. aligned with each

1. How well are the parts of the org. aligned with each other for solving the organization's technical problems?

2. How well are the parts of the org. aligned with each

The TPC framework raises 4 questions which are vital to organizational diagnosis:

2. How well are the parts of the org. aligned with each other for solving the organization's political problems?

3. How well are the parts of the org. aligned with each other for solving the organization's cultural problems?

4. How well aligned are the 3 subsystems of the org., the technical, political and cultural?

2. How well are the parts of the org. aligned with each other for solving the organization's political problems?

3. How well are the parts of the org. aligned with each other for solving the organization's cultural problems?

4. How well aligned are the 3 subsystems of the org., the technical, political and cultural?

Tichy’s Technical Political Cultural (TPC)Framework (1983)

TPC Matrix

Tichy’s Technical Political Cultural (TPC)Framework (1983)

TPC Matrix

Mission/Strategy

Tasks Prescribednetworks

People Processes Emergentnetworks

Technical 0 1 0 1 2 1

Cor

e Sy

stem

s

Organizational Components amount of within-system

alignment

5

Political 1 2 0 2 2 2

Cultural 0 1 1 2 0 2

Cor

e Sy

stem

s

Score = 20Min.0

Max. 36

amount of required org. component change

0 – no change 1 – moderate change 2 – great deal of change

1 4 1 5 4 5

9

6

High-Performance Programming Nelson and Burns (1984)

High-Performance Programming Nelson and Burns (1984)

The High PerformingOrganization

Level 4

„Empowering“ leadership, focus on excellence

The Proactive Organization

Level 3

"Purposing" leadership, focus on the future, Level 3 focus on the future, purpose, planning anddevelopment startegies

The ResponsiveOrganization

Level 2

„Coaching“ leadership, someclarity of purpose and goals, capability to adapt to changing environment

The Reactive Organization

Level 1

„Enforcing“ leadership, pooroutcomes, often unclarity ofpurpose and goals

High-Performance Programming11 dimensions or variables

High-Performance Programming11 dimensions or variables

1. time frame

2. focus

3. planning

4. change mode

management

1. time frame

2. focus

3. planning

4. change mode

management

Likert-type scale

5 Strongly Agree

4 Agree5. management

6. structure

7. perspective

8. motivation

9. development

10. communication

11. leadership

5. management

6. structure

7. perspective

8. motivation

9. development

10. communication

11. leadership

4 Agree

3 Neither Agree Nor Disagree

2 Disagree

1 Strongly Disagree

Diagnosing Individual and Group BehaviourHarrison (1987)

Diagnosing Individual and Group BehaviourHarrison (1987)

Purpose, Processes, Structure,Technology, Behaviour, Culture

Group Composition, Group Behaviour,

Outputs

Group

ENVIRONMENTResources

Resources

Org. Level

Group Composition,Structure,

Technology

Group Behaviour,Processes,Culture

GroupPerformance

IndividualPerformance

QWL(quality of work life)

IndividualCharacteristics

Ind. Attitudes,Beliefs,

Motivation

Resources

Resources

Group

Level

Individual

Level

Main lines of influence Feedback loops

Diagnosing Individual and Group BehaviourHarrison (1987)

Diagnosing Individual and Group BehaviourHarrison (1987)

Key Factors Affecting Performance and QWL

Individual Level

Individual Characteristics Physical and mental state, social background and traits, training and education, individual needs

Individual Attitudes, Beliefs, Motivation Expectations, satisfaction with current procedures, trust, equity, experienced rewards

Group LevelGroup Level

Group Composition, Structure, Technology Social and occupational composition, structure (rules and work procedures, flexibility, clarity of task assignments, responsibilities), technology (impact of work procedures and physical arrangements)

Group Behaviour, Processes, Culture Relationships among group members (cohesion, feelings of attachment to group, similarity of views), processes (communication, cooperation and conflict, decision making, problem solving), supervisors' behaviour, culture

The Burke-Litwin Model (1992)The Burke-Litwin Model (1992)

External Environment

Leadership

ManagementPractices

Mission andStrategy Culture

SystemsStructure

F

E

E

D

B

F

E

E

D

Work GroupClimate

Motivation

Performance

Systems(policies & proced. )

Structure

Individual Needsand Values

Skills/JobMatch

B

A

C

K

D

B

A

C

K

Transformational Factorsin the B-L Model

Transformational Factorsin the B-L Model

ExternalEnvironment

LeadershipLeadership

Performance

Missionand Strategy

Culture

Transformational dynamics is associated more with

leadership, represent fundamental changes and is more

related to organizational culture.

Transactional Factorsin the B-L Model

Transactional Factorsin the B-L Model

ManagementPractices

Work Group

Systems(policies & procedures)

Structure

Work GroupClimate

Motivation

Performance

Individual Needsand Values

Skills/JobMatch

Transactional dynamics is associated more with management, represent everyday interactions and exchanges and is more related to organizational climate.

Empirical Studies Relatedto the B-L Model

Empirical Studies Relatedto the B-L Model

Variable Relationship Author(s)

ExternalEnvironment

=> Culture

=> Mission & Strategy

Gordon, 1985

Prescott, 1986

Leadership => Management Practices

=> Performance

Fleishman, 1953

Weiner & Mahoney, 1981 => Performance Weiner & Mahoney, 1981

Culture <==> System (policies)

=> Performance

Kerr & Slocum, 1987

Denison, 1990

Management Practices

=> Climate Schneider, 1980

Schneider & Bowen, 1985

Structure => Climate Schneider & Snyder, 1975

Joyce & Slocum, 1984

Systems => Individual Needs & Values

Jordan, 1986

Empirical Studies Relatedto the B-L Model

Empirical Studies Relatedto the B-L Model

Variable Relationship Author(s)

Climate => Motivation – Performance Rosenberg & Rosenstein, 1980

Skills/JobMatch

=> Motivation – Performance Hunter & Schmidt, 1982

Individual => Motivation – Performance Guzzo, Jette & Katzell, 1985Individual Needs & Values

=> Motivation – Performance Guzzo, Jette & Katzell, 1985

LiteraturaLiteratura

1. WEISBORD, M. R. Organizational Diagnosis. Perseus Books, 1978.

2. HOWARD, A. Diagnosis for Organizational Change: Methods and Models. The Guilford Press, 1991.

3. Organizational Diagnostic Models: A Review & Synthesis. Dostupný online na

1. WEISBORD, M. R. Organizational Diagnosis. Perseus Books, 1978.

2. HOWARD, A. Diagnosis for Organizational Change: Methods and Models. The Guilford Press, 1991.

3. Organizational Diagnostic Models: A Review & Synthesis. Dostupný online na Dostupný online na http://www.leadersphere.com/img/Orgmodels.pdfDostupný online na http://www.leadersphere.com/img/Orgmodels.pdf