Department of Management Sciences

BBA 8th Morning

Organizational Development

Organization Confrontation Meetings and Intergroup

Relations Interventions in Mechanistic Organization

Table of ContentsExecutive Summery...............................................................................................................................2

Organization Confrontation Meeting....................................................................................................3

Confrontation Meeting Process /Application Stages:............................................................................3

Results of Confrontation Meeting.........................................................................................................4

Intergroup Relations Interventions........................................................................................................4

Microcosm Groups................................................................................................................................5

Microcosm Group Process /Application Stages.....................................................................................6

Resolving Intergroup Conflict................................................................................................................7

Application Stages.................................................................................................................................8

Results Of Intergroup Conflict Interventions.......................................................................................10

Large Group Interventions...................................................................................................................11

The range and purpose of Large Group Interventions.........................................................................13

Conducting meetings...........................................................................................................................13

Meeting Process..................................................................................................................................15

Bibliography.........................................................................................................................................16

1

Executive Summery

This report describes three things: confrontation meetings, intergroup interventions, and large

group interventions. The organization confrontation meeting is a way of mobilizing resources

for organizational problem solving and seems especially relevant for organization undergoing

stress. The intergroup relations approaches are designed to help solve a variety of

organizational problems. Microcosm groups can be formed to address particular issues and

use parallel processes to diffuse group solutions to the organization. The intergroup conflict

resolution approach involves a method of mitigating dysfunctional conflicts between groups

or departments. Conflict can be dysfunctional in situations in which groups must work

together. It may, however, promote organizational effectiveness when departments are

relatively independent of each other. Large group interventions are designed to focus the

energy and attention of a whole system around organizational processes such as a vision,

strategy, or culture. It is best used when the organization is about to begin a large scale

change effort or is facing a new situation. These three processes interventions represent

important, time-honored, and successful methods of introducing change in organization.

2

Organization Confrontation Meetings and Intergroup

Relations Interventions in Mechanistic Organization

Group Roll # 46-54

Organization Confrontation MeetingThe confrontation meeting is an intervention designed to mobilize the resources of the entire

organization to identify problems, set priorities and action targets, and begin working on

identified problems. Originally developed by Beckhard, the intervention can be used at any

time but is particularly useful when the organization is in stress and when there is a gap

between the top and the rest of the organization. General Electric’s “Work-Out” program is

an example of how the confrontation meeting has been adopted to fit today’s organizations.

Confrontation Meeting Process /Application Stages:The organizational confrontation meeting typically involves the following steps:

1. A group meeting of all those involved is scheduled and held in an appropriate

place. Usually the task is to identify problems about the work environment and

the effectiveness of the organization.

2. Groups are appointed representing all departments of the organization.

3. The point is stressed that the groups are to be open and honest and to work hard at

identifying problems they see in the organization.

4. The groups are given an hour to identify organization problems.

5. The group then reconvene in a central meeting place. Each group reports the

problems it has identified and sometimes offers solutions.

6. Either then or later, the master list of problems is broken down into categories.

7. Participants are divided into problem-solving groups whose composition may,

and usually does, differ from that of the original problem-identification groups.

8. Each group ranks the problems, develops a tactical action plan, and determines an

appropriate timetable for completing this phase of the process.

9. Each group then periodically reports its list of priorities and tactical plans of

action to management or to the larger group.

10. Schedules for periodic follow-up meetings are established.

3

Results of Confrontation MeetingBecause organization confrontation meetings often are combined with other

approaches, such as survey feedback, determining specific results is difficult. In

many cases, the result appear dramatic in mobilizing the total resources of the

organization for problem identification and solution. Beckhard cites a number of

specific examples in such different organizations as a food products manufacturer, a

military products manufacturer, and a hotel. Positive results also were found in a

confrontation meeting with 40 professionals in research and development firm.

The organization confrontation meeting is a classic approach for mobilizing

organizational problem solving, especially in times of low performance. Although the

results of its use appear impressive, little systematic study of this intervention has

been done. There is a clear need for evaluative research.

Intergroup Relations Interventions It is very important for OD practitioners to diagnose and understand the inter group relations

because

1 To achieve the goals of the group they must work with and through other groups.

2 Groups can create problems within the organization

3 The level of the organization effectiveness depend upon the quality of relationship between

the groups

There are two OD Interventions:

1 Microcosm Group

2 Inter Group Conflict Resolutions

In microcosm group members comes from different groups to solve the wide problem of the

organization. Issues that create in the group are explaining in this context and then solution is

implemented in the organization.

When two groups work out then inter group conflict resolution help them. These two

approaches used to increase organizational effectiveness and improve the inter group process.

4

Microcosm GroupsIn microcosm group small members of individuals presents who reflect the problem that

arises and help to solve it. For example there is a diversity problem create in the organization

then microcosm group is made which is consist of members which belong to different ethnic

background, race and culture because they reflect the problem of diversity and help to solve

this problem. OD practitioners assisted this group that can create process and programs to

solve this particular issue.

While this microcosm group solve the problem of diversity it also help to carry out

organization diagnosis, integrate two cultures, solve the communication problem, smooth the

adjustment in new culture and also solve the dysfunctional political problem.

Microcosm group work through parallel process it is the process in which unconsciously

changes occur in the individuals when two or more group interact with each others. When

groups are interacting then after interaction members of group realize that the characteristics

of their roles and interaction changes from the group whom they belong before interaction.

So simple is that groups seems to be infect and can be infected by others.

Alderfer give the following example to clear the work of parallel process. An organizational

diagnosis team assigned its members five different departments each member from every

department in a small manufacturing company. Members of the team interviewed head of

each department and members of each department and also observe the department meetings.

The team members observe the meeting with the head of the department and were trying to

predict the group behavior.

At first they have no rational basis to observe the behavior of the top management because

from direct observation they have no data. They decide to play the role of group meetings

that they had never seen. The members of diagnostic team behave as they are the heads of

department and the result was strange. Team member found that they easily engaged with one

another and they emotionally involved with each other. When they actually observed the

meetings with the department’s head they surprised that how closely imitation meetings had

approximated the actual session.

If a small group is successful to solve the problem of the complex organization then they are

in a position to solve the problem in the larger organization.

5

Microcosm Group Process /Application StagesThere are five stages of microcosm group to solve the problem of the organization.

1 Identify an issue

In this step we find the problem that is present in the system of organization. This can be as a

result of organization diagnosis or may be as a result of idea created by task force or member

of organization. He concerned that information that they received directly from them is

different from the information that they get from the informal conversion of people in

different divisions.

2 Convene the group

When once the problem identify then microcosm group formed. The most important principle

of convening is that the group members reflect the suitable mix of stakeholders that relate

with the issue. If the issue is communication problem then people select from different

hierarchical level in a group and if possible then also include staff members and unions. But

if problem is the cultural differences and merge of two cultures then members of group select

from both culture to understand the culture of each others. In this way the group itself

determines its members.

Convening the group directed our attention to the issue and status of the group. Members of a

group perceived as credible representative of the problem. The result of is that any

suggestions that they give will follow the members of the organization.

3 Provide group training

When the group formed then training provide to the group members about how to solve

problem and take decision. This training focus on the group mission, working relationship

among the members, decision making and definition of problem that is to be solved.

OD practitioner may be observe and comment on how the group is formed. Because

microcosm group through its attitude and behavior reflect the problem in the organization for

example if group solve the problem of communication and is likely to have difficulties in

communication within the group. The problem or issue that creates within the group the

reorganization of that problem is the first step to solve the problem in large organization.

6

4 Address the issue

In this step we solve the problem and implement the solution. OD practitioners help in the

diagnosis of group, design, and implementation and evaluate the changes. An important issue

of this step is getting the permission in the large organization to implement the solution of the

group. There are many factors which facilitate this ownership like if the activities of group

relate with organization then it can implement the solution. It may be include publishing

minutes from team meetings and invite the members of organization such as middle manager,

union representative, hourly workers and for different organizational members making the

presentation.

Second issue is that group members have easily access to the manager and labor of

organization. It helps in the formation of appropriate recommendations that is formed by

using the appropriate resources and support.

Third step of problem solving process is that participation from organization members also

include. Different methods of data collection used to gain input of the members to solve the

problem and provide the solution.

5 Dissolve the group

In it after successful implementation of problem group is dissolved. This may include holding

a final meeting or writing a final report.

Resolving Intergroup ConflictIntergroup conflicts have existed throughout human history, however, the current

proliferation of ethnic conflicts warrants our attention and concern as scientists and citizens.

Over the past 20 years, we have witnessed an explosive growth in the field of conflict

resolution (Susan Cross, 2008).

Intergroup conflicts arise between people due to ethnic or racial problems in the department

of the same organization, union and management. These conflicts can be arisen by the

availability of scarce resources and there are various methods in dealing these conflicts

(Fisher, 2000).

The intergroup conflict interventions are designed for the purpose of helping two

interdepartmental groups in the same organization for the resolution of dysfunctional

conflicts. Intergroup conflicts can both be bad or good and in some areas it is necessary for

the organization to increase productivity because when there is a little participation, little

7

interdependence among departments and competition among them can boost up productivity

levels. For instance, structures of the organization around different products lines may have

the target to promote competition with rivals so that the overall effectiveness of the

organization can be enhanced.

In some organizations which have interdependent departments, the results of conflicts may

create an environment of dysfunctional. The consequences can be intense and organization

members may develop defensiveness and negative stereotyping of other groups. Polarization

can be described as “any solution which is presented to resolve problem may be wrong” or

“nobody will cooperate with us” or “what do you expect of those idiots?” sometimes it

happens that whenever an intergroup communication is essential for being productive then

this level usually drops off and groups may treat like enemies instead of positive or neutral

attitude. As much the amount of communication decreases the amount of problems and

conflicts arise (Worley, 2007).

Application StagesThere are some common tactics for interpersonal conflict resolution programs and it includes

some types or rewards and punishments, deception and evasion, threats and emotional

blackmailing and flattering. Unresolved conflicts may be recycled and then they can reach to

the level of termination and breakdown of the relationships (Fisher, 2000).

1. Perception changes:

One of the major strategies used for improving intergroup conflicts is to change the

perception of the individuals (misperception) that two groups having for each other. This

concept was given by Blake and his associates who include following ten steps:

An external consultant obtains two group agreements to work directly on improving

intergroup relationships because it is impossible to interact with groups having

conflicts among them.

Then a time is set for the group to have a meeting usually away from their working

environment.

The consultant with the manger of those groups elaborate the purpose and main theme

of the meeting sp that each and every person can explore the perceptions of the other

group and they are provided with these questions: ‘what attributes are present in our

group that best describe it? ‘What qualities describe the other group?

8

The groups are presented with some questions and they are allotted separate rooms

and asked to write their answers to those three questions

After completing the list the groups reconvene .A representative from each group

presents the written statement

When the groups thoroughly understand the content of the list they separate again.

Now many of the discrepancies have been put to light. Task of the groups is to

analyze and review the reasons for these misconceptions.

After going through the problem the groups meet up to share the identified problems

and solutions to them.

Groups are asked to develop specific plan of action for solving the problems.

Once the action plan is made at least one follow up meeting is scheduled so that the

groups can report on actions that have been implemented (Worley, 2007).

2. Win-lose approach:

It is all too common. People learn the behaviors of destructive conflict early in life –

competition, dominance, aggression and defense permeate many of our social

relationships from the family to the school playground. The “fixed pie” assumption is

made, often incorrectly, that what one party gains, the other loses. The strategy is thus to

force the other side to capitulate. Sometimes, this is done through socially acceptable

mechanisms such as majority vote, the authority of the leader, or the determination of a

judge. Sometimes, it involves secret strategies, threat, and innuendo whatever works is

acceptable like the ends justify the means.

3. Lose-lose strategy:

It is exemplified by smoothing over conflict or by reaching the simplest of compromises.

In neither case is the creative potential of productive conflict resolution realized or

explored. Disagreement is seen as inevitable, so therefore why not split the difference or

smooth over difficulties in as painless a way as possible? Sometimes, this is indeed the

reality of the situation, and the costs are less than in the win-lose approach, at least for the

loser. Each party gets some of what it wants, and resigns itself to partial satisfaction.

Neither side is aware that by confronting the conflict fully and cooperatively they might

have created a more satisfying solution.

4. Win-win approach:

9

It is a conscious and systematic attempt to maximize the goals of both parties through

collaborative problem solving. The conflict is seen as a problem to be solved rather

than a war to be won. The important distinction is we (both parties) versus the

problem, rather than we (one party) versus them (the other party). This method

focuses on the needs and constraints of both parties rather than emphasizing

strategies designed to conquer (Fisher, 2000).

Results Of Intergroup Conflict InterventionsNumbers of studies have been done on the results of intergroup conflict resolution. There are

positive that have been developed by several researchers including union management

relations and government organization and some private firms. The results include attitudinal

changes like increased trust, improved perceptions, and less stereotyping and also improved

quality and work. If some people having conflict are assigned to perform some common task

then there comes a marked result which is not only about improvement in communication

among people but also the improved product quality in the firm.

Another theory has suggested that conflict can be functional or dysfunctional and it totally

depends on the circumstances but if conflicts are intense then they must be reduced.

There are some other consequences for intergroup conflict interventions which are as follow:

Behavioral and Perceptual Change:

When intergroup confli c t o f win - lose orientation occurs, competition among members

within each group is reduced, and the groups become more cohesive. The group

members tend to conform to the group norm more, and they become loya l to the

g roup . A l though th i s i s t empora ry , t e am conformi ty and loya l ty increase

substantially. In each group there are increases in task-oriented behaviors relative to

relations-oriented behaviors (Schein, 1980).

Structure Formation

Intergroup conflict may result in the emergence of autocratic leaders and the

establishment of a new power structure. Very often it is the aggressive person or

the ones who express themselves clearly and well who takeover. Sometimes those

who like fights emerge in leadership positions. Those members who can provide

10

the best leadership and the most skillful leadership processes often are submerged

along with the questioning and sounder thinking which they would foster (Likert

& Likert, 1976, p. 61)

Decision Process

Differences among in-group members that can lead to better decisions are no

longer to l e ra ted . Any member who ques t ions the qua l i ty o f a dec i s ion i s

r eno u n c e d o r o s t r a c i z e d , a n d p r e s s u r e i s a p p l i e d o n h i m o r

h e r t o c o n f o r m (Schechter, 1968). This suppression of intergroup conflict

b locks the p rocess that could lead to effective solutions. The groups establish

the means of negotiation, which are usually bargaining, u l t imatums , and

nonnego t i ab le demands . These resu l t in fu r ther r a t ion ing o f   information or

deliberate distortion of facts. Contacts with other group(s) be-come formal, rigid,

and carefully defined (likert, 2007).

Large Group InterventionsLarge Group Interventions (LGIs) are technologies that have been used extensively

throughout the world since the 1980s. Their development was rooted in a range of theories

and approaches, including Kurt Lewin and Gestalt Psychology, Systems Theory, Open

Systems and Power and Systems Labs and the work on Socio-Technical systems of Bion and

later, Emery and Trist. In the 1970s, this work was further shaped by Beckard, Lippitt and

Merrelyn Emery, who developed the Search Conference. Marvin Weisbord developed this

further in the 1980s through his work on “getting the whole system into the room”.

Traditional approaches to change tend to be:

• Top-down and therefore often misunderstood or resisted by people lower down in the

organization

• Led by a selected working or project group, representative of the workforce. This approach

often starts off well, but over time, the representatives become distanced and isolated from

their colleagues as they gather enthusiasm for their work and are privy to much more

information than their colleagues back in the workplace.

• Bottom –up, where individual teams of employees are accountable for making change sin

the way they themselves do business. Whilst this generates enthusiasm and empowerment,

11

teams using this approach largely end up working independently of each other and do not

necessarily develop in line with corporate goals and objectives

• Pilot strategies, identifying a specific part of the organization as the flagship or leader for

change. They have a well-defined task, the support of the organization’s leaders and are often

given the necessary (and sometimes excessive) resources to ensure success. Ultimately,

however, it can be difficult to replicate their good results throughout an organization, for

many legitimate reasons and the “not invented here” syndrome can become prevalent when

rollout is attempted throughout the rest of the organization.

The difference in using the principles of any of the Large Group Interventions is just that: that

there are some fundamental principles and advantages behind all of them that need to be

incorporated into the design and worked with consciously throughout the intervention. These

principles are many, but the key ones are:

• Getting as much of a whole system into the room as possible. With a team, it would include

all members, plus its senior managers and could, depending on the theme, also include key

stakeholders and customers, potentially internally and sometimes externally.

• An understanding and belief that if people are given all the information they need, they are

able to be innovative and creative, contributing good and workable ideas at the initial stages,

they will work better and more collaboratively together and will be able to contribute

significantly to the vision and strategic direction of the organization or team. They will also

feel much more empowered and are likely to perform much more effectively.

• Understanding that there are a range of different perspectives within any team or

organization and, depending where people are, both in terms of their level/ grade in the

organization and in terms of their functional role, really listening to and taking account of as

wide a range of perspectives as possible is more likely to ensure that the change is a success.

• Getting everyone involved, even if it initially takes more time to plan and conduct change,

is more efficient than trying to implement change quickly using a small planning group. This

is because when everyone has been involved in a large group method, the implementation

happens much more immediately and positively. One major advantage is that it is not

necessary to tell, re-sell or force the change for everyone.

• The people who are closest to the problem or issues being discussed often have the critical

information that will significantly enrich the strategy and plans for implementation and

delivery.

• The diversity that comprises the whole system often creates a synergy that leads to a more

12

innovative and creative change and future way of working. It harnesses people’s talents,

contributions and enthusiasm.

The range and purpose of Large Group InterventionsThere is now a comprehensive range of LGI’s, each coming with their own methodologies

and processes. The main Large Group Interventions are listed in this article, with a brief

summary of the purpose, methodology and optimum size of each, where applicable. It is

possible, using some LGI’s, to work highly effectively with thousands of people together all

at once and there have been some stunning outcomes, that many people would not have

thought possible, from many of these events throughout the world.

There is a separate page on Appreciative Inquiry, which is not technically classed as one of

the original Large Group Interventions but which is a very different approach to change and

OD that has fast been gaining popularity and credibility over the last few years.

If you want to run any type of Large Group Intervention, you will need to appoint a

consultant who has been specially trained to use them, as it is critical to their success that the

facilitator/s not only thoroughly understand the design and methodologies, but also

understand how to apply the fundamental principles by which they work.

Several of them require certification through the developers/ designers of that particular LGI.

For example, you could not run an event around the Conference Model unless you had

completed the appropriate training and been fully certified.

Conducting meetingsOpen Space Technology (OST) is an approach for hosting meetings, conferences, corporate-

style retreats and community summit events, focused on a specific and important purpose or

task—but beginning without any formal agenda, beyond the overall purpose or theme.

Self-Organization

Highly scalable and adaptable, OST has been used in meetings of 5 to 2,100 people. The

approach is characterized by few basic mechanisms:

1. a broad, open invitation that articulates the purpose of the meeting;

2. participant chairs arranged in a circle;

3. a "bulletin board" of issues and opportunities posted by participants;

13

4. a "marketplace" with many breakout spaces that participants move freely between,

learning and contributing as they "shop" for information and ideas;

5. a "breathing" or "pulsation" pattern of flow, between plenary and small-group

breakout sessions.

The approach is most distinctive for its initial lack of an agenda, which sets the stage for the

meeting's participants to create the agenda for themselves, in the first 30–90 minutes of the

meeting or event. Typically, an Open Space meeting will begin with short introductions by

the sponsor (the official or acknowledged leader of the group) and usually a single facilitator.

The sponsor introduces the purpose; the facilitator explains the "self-organizing" process

called "Open Space." Then the group creates the working agenda, as individuals post their

issues in bulletin board style. Each individual "convener" of a breakout session takes

responsibility for naming the issue, posting it on the bulletin board, assigning it a space and

time to meet, and then later, showing up at that space and time, kicking off the conversation,

and taking notes. These notes are usually compiled into a proceedings document that is

distributed physically or electronically to all participants. Sometimes one or more additional

approaches are used to sort through the notes, assign priorities and identify what actions

should be taken next. Throughout the process, the ideal facilitator is described as being "fully

present and totally invisible" (see Owen, User's Guide), "holding a space" for participants to

self-organize, rather than managing or directing the conversations.

In his book "Open Space Technology: A User's Guide", Harrison Owen explains that this

approach works best when these conditions are present, namely high levels of (1) complexity,

in term of the tasks to be done or outcomes achieved; (2) diversity, in terms of the people

involved and/or needed to make any solution work; (3) real or potential conflict, meaning

people really care about the central issue or purpose; and (4) urgency, meaning that the time

to act was "yesterday".

According to Harrison Owen, originator of the term and the approach, Open Space works

because it harnesses and acknowledges the power of self-organization, which he suggests is

substantially aligned with the deepest process of life itself, as described by leading-edge

complexity science as well as ancient spiritual teachings.

Meeting ProcessAt the beginning of an Open Space the participants sit in a circle, or in concentric circles for

large groups (300 to 2000 people and more).

14

The facilitator will greet the people and briefly re-state the theme of their gathering, without

giving a lengthy speech. Then someone will invite all participants to identify any issue or

opportunity related to the theme. Participants willing to raise a topic will come to the centre

of the circle, write it on a sheet of paper and announce it to the group before choosing a time

and a place for discussion and posting it on a wall. That wall becomes the agenda for the

meeting.

No participant must suggest issues, but anyone may do so. However, if someone posts a

topic, the system expects that the person has a real passion for the issue and can start the

discussion on it. That person also must make sure that a report of the discussion is done and

posted on another wall so that any participant can access the content of the discussion at all

times. No limit exists on the number of issues that the meeting can post.

When all issues have been posted, participants sign up and attend those individual sessions.

Sessions typically last for 1.5 hours; the whole gathering usually lasts from a half day up to

about two days. The opening and agenda creation lasts about an hour, even with a very large

group.

After the opening and agenda creation, the individual groups go to work. The attendees

organize each session; people may freely decide which session they want to attend, and may

switch to another one at any time. Online networking can occur both before and following the

actual face-to-face meetings so discussions can continue seamlessly. All discussion reports

are compiled in a document on site and sent to participants, unedited, shortly after.

In this way, Open Space Technology begins without any pre-determined agenda, but work is

directed by a "theme" or "purpose" or "invitation" that is carefully articulated by leaders, in

advance of the meeting. The organizers do outline in advance a schedule of breakout times

and spaces. The combination of clear purpose and ample breakout facilities directly supports

the process of self-organization by meeting participants. After the opening briefing, the

facilitator typically remains largely in the background, exerting no control over meeting

content or participants, though possibly supporting the compiling of whatever sort of

document is produced by participants.

Small groups might create agendas of only a few issues. Very large groups have generated as

many as 234 sessions[ running concurrently over the course of a day and longer meetings may

establish priorities and set up working-groups for follow-up.

15

BibliographyFisher Ron Sources of Conflict and [Journal] // International Peace and Conflict Resolution. - 2000. - p. 17.

likert managing intergroup conflict [Online] // scribd.com. - 7 may 2007. - 2011. - http://www.scribd.com/doc/51639269/37/EFFECTS-OF-INTERGROUP-CONFLICT.

Susan Cross Robert Rosenthal Three Models of Conflict Resolution: Effects on Intergroup Expectancies and Attitudes [Online] // findarticles.com. - june 2008. - 2011. - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0341/is_3_55/ai_58549261/pg_12/?tag=mantle_skin;content.

Worley Thomas G. Cummings & Christopher G. Organization Development & Change [Book]. - New York : SOUTH-WESTERN CENGAGE Learning, 2007.

16