Diagnostico Org

8/13/2019 Diagnostico Org

1/56

HR Intelligence ReportOrganizacin modelos de diagnsticoUna revisin y sntesis

2008 (revisado) Leadersphere, Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.Usted puede enviarnos un e-mail a:

[email protected] informacin general.TelfonoLlmenos al nmero gratuito 1-888-244-1594CorreoTambin le invitamos a contactarnos en nuestra sede central en California.Leadersphere, Inc.5960 Tierra del Sur Park Drive # 202Sacramento, CA 95822

Pgina 32

2008 (revisado) Leadersphere, Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.IntroduccinEl propsito de esta revisin es examinar varios modelos de organizacin de diagnsticoque tienensido conceptualizada en la literatura de investigacin, incluyendo el Modelo deInteligencia Organizacional(Falletta, 2008). Para entender estos modelos, una breve explicacin de la organizacinel diagnstico se justifica. Por ltimo, los procedimientos de modelado causales talescomo anlisis de la trayectoria y estructuralesmodelado de ecuaciones son examinados en esta revisin como las tcnicas para evaluar lavalidez demodelos de organizacin.La nocin de Diagnstico OrganizacionalMuchas organizaciones de desarrollo (OD) existen estrategias para mejorar de unaorganizacinefectividad (cerveza y Spector, 1993; Cummings y Worley, 1993; Rothwell y Sredl, 1992).Unode estas estrategias, diagnstico de la organizacin, consiste en "el diagnstico", o laevaluacin, unanivel actual de funcionamiento de la organizacin con el fin de disear intervencionesadecuadas de cambio.El concepto de diagnstico en el desarrollo de organizacin se utiliza de una manerasimilar a lamodelo mdico. Por ejemplo, el mdico realiza pruebas, recoge la informacin vital sobrelasistema humano, y evala la informacin para prescribir un tratamiento. Asimismo, eldiagnsticos de organizacin utiliza procedimientos especializados para recopilarinformacin vital acerca de laorganizacin, para analizar esta informacin, y para disear organizativa adecuada(intervenciones Tichy, Hornstein, y Nisberg, 1977).
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/56

Al igual que el mdico, el diagnosticador organizacional considera la organizacin comoun sistema total. Enel campo de la medicina, esto es considerado como la medicina holstica, mientras que enel campo de laorganizacin para el desarrollo, el punto de vista del sistema total est considerada para

representarsistemas abiertosla teora(Katz y Kahn, 1978). Es decir, una organizacin puede ser visto como un sistematotal conRendimientos entradas, y salidas, conectados por bucles de retroalimentacin. Los buclesde retroalimentacin ilustranla idea de que los sistemas se ven afectados por las salidas (por ejemplo, los productos yservicios), as como sus entradas.El punto de vista de sistemas abiertos se explica con ms detalle en una seccin posteriorde esta revisin.Al igual que el paciente visita al mdico, el proceso de recoleccin de datos durante laorganizacinel diagnstico puede servir para motivar a los miembros de la organizacin para aprender y

participar en elel proceso de cambio (o la intervencin en el escenario mdico). El diagnstico, ya seamdico ode organizacin, por lo general confirma que un problema existe en realidad. Dentro deuna organizacin, elproceso de diagnstico a menudo facilita un reconocimiento por la alta direccin que laorganizacins tiene problemas o necesidades que deben ser abordados (Argyris, 1970; Harrison, 1987;Manzini, 1988). Adems, una variedad de tcnicas de recopilacin de datos y / o

procedimientos son a menudousado para descartar problemas que se presentan y para buscar a los problemas de fondo(Fordyce yWeil, 1983; Kolb y Frohman, 1970; Porras y Berg, 1978). Por ltimo, dentro de laorganizacinproceso diagnstico, los resultados del recogida de datos se realimentan a los miembros deorganizacindentro de la organizacin con el fin de iniciar el proceso de cambio organizacional (Burke,Coruzzi,Y la Iglesia en Kraut, 1996; francesa y Bell, 1995; Harrison, 1987).

Pgina 4

3 2008 (revisado) Leadersphere, Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.Al considerar las organizaciones como sistemas, diagnsticos organizacionales dirigir suatencin alas actividades y procesos dentro del sistema que se consideran vitales parala vida organizacional. Sin embargo, el alcance de un diagnstico puede ser o bienestrecha y sintomtico


3/56

o la amplia y sistemtica. Por ejemplo, un diagnstico estrecho y sintomtico implica unamuyanlisis rpido de la organizacin, centrndose en los puntos conflictivos (Tichy, 1983). El

problema con estetipo de diagnstico es que, con demasiada frecuencia, el problema sigue recurrente. Por lo

tanto, esimportante examinar de forma sistemtica todo el sistema cuando se realiza laorganizacindiagnstico, en lugar de centrarse en los diagnsticos rpidos y "soluciones rpidas" (enfrancs y Bell, 1995). Lael uso de modelos de organizacin, que se discutir en la prxima seccin, facilita lasistemticadiagnstico de las organizaciones.Usos de los modelos de organizacinUn modelo de organizacin es una representacin de una organizacin que nos ayuda acomprenderms clara y rpidamente lo que estamos observando en las organizaciones. Burke explicalas muchas manerasen el que los modelos de organizacin son tiles (en Howard y Asociados, 1994):1. Los modelos ayudan a mejorar nuestra comprensin del comportamientoorganizacional.2. Modelos de computadora ayudan a clasificar los datos sobre la organizacin.3. Modelos de computadora ayudan a interpretar los datos acerca de una organizacin.4. Modelos de computadora ayudan a proporcionar un enfoque comn, corto la mano dellenguaje.El modelo proporciona un mtodo sistemtico de recogida de datos sobre la organizacin yde entendery clasificar los datos. Los modelos suelen identificar las variables vitales de la

organizacin que sonLa hiptesis de la existencia basada en la investigacin previa. Los modelos tambin

muestran la naturaleza de larelaciones entre estas variables clave (por ejemplo, una variable organizacional impacta aotro).Sin un modelo para guiar la recopilacin de datos e interpretar los datos, un diagnosticadordebeen lugar de recoger datos sobre la base de corazonadas y analizar los temas. Mientras quemuchos profesionalestienen modelos intuitivos en sus mentes, un modelo explcito facilita en gran medida el

proceso de diagnstico, teniendo en cuentala complejidad de las organizaciones y la enorme cantidad de informacin disponible parael anlisis.Burke advierte diagnsticos organizacionales sobre la rgida adhesin a un modelo, a pesardeevidencia de que el modelo puede ser adecuado para la organizacin (en Howard, 1994).lsugiere que es posible llegar a ser atrapado por una de modelo elegido. Por ejemplo, si "un


4/56

punto de vista particular que impulsa el proceso de diagnstico, un consultor puede faltartemas importantesen la organizacin "(pp. 55-56). En otras palabras, el diagnosticador organizacional puedeenmarcarlos procedimientos de recoleccin de datos basados en las variables limitadas en el

modelo, con lo que norecopilar informacin importante sobre otras posibles variables.

Pgina 54

2008 (revisado) Leadersphere, Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.Descripciones de modelos de diagnstico de la OrganizacinLos modelos se presentan en el orden cronolgico en el que apareci por primera vez en elliteratura. Los modelos analizados en esta seccin incluyen:1.Anlisis de las Fuerzas de Campo (1951)

2.Modelo de Leavitt (1965)3.Sistema de Anlisis de Likert (1967)4.Abrir la Teora de Sistemas (1966)5.Seis Caja de Weisbord Modelo (1976)6.Congruencia Modelo para el Anlisis de la Organizacin (1977)7.

McKinsey Marco 7S (1981-82)8.Tcnico de Poltica Cultural de Tichy (TPC) Marco (1983)9.De Alto Rendimiento de programacin (1984)10. El diagnstico individual y grupal (1987)11. Burke-Litwin Modelo de Desempeo Organizacional y Cambio (1992)12. Modelo de Inteligencia Organizacional Falletta (2008)Anlisis de las fuerzasEn 1951, Kurt Lewin desarroll un modelo para el anlisis y la gestin de los problemas deorganizacin

que l ha denominado Force Field Analysis (francs y Bell, 1995; Fuqua y Kurpius, 1993;Lewin,1951). Este modelo es relativamente sencillo de entender y fcil de visualizar. Unarepresentacin delmodelo (ver Figura 1) identifica dos fuerzas impulsoras y las fuerzas de restriccin dentrode una organizacin.Estas fuerzas impulsoras, tales como los factores ambientales, impulsar el cambio dentrode la organizacin


5/56

mientras que las fuerzas de restriccin, tales como los factores de organizacin (porejemplo, los recursos limitados o pobresla moral) actan como barreras para el cambio. Para entender el problema dentro de laorganizacin, elfuerzas motrices y las fuerzas de restriccin se identific por primera y, por tanto, definido.

Las metas y losestrategias para mover el equilibrio de la organizacin hacia la direccin deseada puedeentoncesser planificada.El modelo se basa en el proceso de cambio, con las implicaciones sociales que seconstruyen en el modelo(Por ejemplo, el desequilibrio se espera que ocurra hasta que se restablece el equilibrio).El objetivo general deeste modelo es mover intencionalmente a un estado de equilibrio deseable mediante laadicin de las fuerzas motrices,Cuando sea importante, y la eliminacin de las fuerzas de restriccin, en su caso. Estoscambios soncree que ocurre simultneamente dentro de la organizacin dinmica.

Pgina 65

2008 (revisado) Leadersphere, Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.Figura 1Anlisis de las fuerzasCorrienteEstado deNegocios

(Problema)ConduccinFuerzasRestriccinFuerzasDeseadoEstado deNegocios(Meta)DesequilibrioDurante el Cambio

EquilibrioRestablecidoEquilibrioInterrumpidoModelo de LeavittAlgn tiempo despus de Lewin conceptualiz Anlisis de la fuerza de campo (es decir,catorce aos despus, en 1965),


6/56

Leavitt dise otro modelo relativamente simple. Este modelo se especifican determinadasvariablesdentro de las organizaciones, en lugar de las fuerzas motrices, estas variables son: variablesde la tarea,variables de estructura, las variables tecnolgicas y las variables humanas (Burke, en

Howard, 1994;Leavitt, 1965) (ver Figura 2).Figura 2Modelo de LeavittEstructuraTareaTecnologaLas personas y actoresLa variable de estructura se refiere a los sistemas de autoridad, sistemas de comunicacin y

el flujo de trabajodentro de la organizacin. La variable tecnolgica incluye todo el equipamiento y lamaquinarianecesarios para la variable de la tarea, la variable de la tarea se refiere a todas las tareas ysubtareas que participan enel suministro de productos y servicios. Por ltimo, la variable humana se refiere a los quellevar a cabo latareas relacionadas con las metas organizacionales (es decir, productos y servicios). Laforma de diamanteflechas en el modelo hincapi en la interdependencia entre las cuatro variables. Leavitttienepostula que un cambio en una variable afectar a las otras variables. Por ejemplo, con un

Pgina 762008 (revisado) Leadersphere, Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.

cambio planeado en una variable (por ejemplo, la introduccin de tecnologa avanzada),uno o msLas variables se vern afectadas. Estas intervenciones suelen estar diseados para afectar a

la variable de la tarea(Por ejemplo, para efectuar cambios positivos en los productos o servicios). En esteejemplo, las otras variablessera tambin el cambio probable, ya que la moral (es decir, las personas) puede aumentary la comunicacin (es decir,

estructura) puede ser mejorado debido a la nueva tecnologa.Aunque Leavitt se describen las variables dentro de su modelo dinmico einterdependiente, lael modelo es demasiado simple para hacer declaraciones causales directos con respecto alas cuatro variables. Similarpara el modelo de Anlisis de las Fuerzas de campo, Leavitt sugiere que un cambio en unavariable puede resultar en


7/56

cambio de compensacin o represalia en las otras variables, esta nocin es similar a laoposicinfuerzas en el modelo de Lewin. Sin embargo, a diferencia de Force Field Analysis, Leavittno aborda el papeldel entorno externo en lograr un cambio en cualquiera de las variables.

Likert de Anlisis del SistemaLas direcciones de las dimensiones organizativas tipo Likert, en su marco incluyen lamotivacin,comunicacin, la interaccin, la toma de decisiones, establecimiento de metas, el control yel rendimiento (Likert,1967). Mientras Likert no us una ilustracin para representar su marco, al igual que losmodelos anterioresrevisin, describe cuatro tipos diferentes de sistemas de gestin en las organizaciones,que tengan en cuenta las dimensiones de la organizacin que l identifica (ver Figura 3).Figura 3Marco de LikertSistema 1: condiciones de explotacin-autorizada,Sistema 2:Beneficencia-autorizada,Sistema 3: ConsultivoSistema 4: Grupo ParticipativoCon el fin de determinar el funcionamiento del sistema de gestin en cualquierorganizacin, Likertdesarrollado un instrumento de la encuesta de 43 tem con preguntas relacionadas con laorganizacin sietedimensiones. El propsito del instrumento era para medir las percepciones de losempleados (superiorgestin, supervisores, y personal) de las dimensiones de la organizacin dentro de laorganizacin.Por ejemplo, una de las preguntas para evaluar la comunicacin es el siguiente en la Figura4.

Pgina 87

2008 (revisado) Leadersphere, Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.Figura 4Artculo de ejemplo de instrumento de LikertGrado en el quelos supervisores

estn dispuestos a compartirinformacin consubordinados:ProporcionamnimoinformacinDasubordinados


8/56

sloinformacinsuperior, se sienteque necesitanDa

informacinnecesario yrespuestasmspreguntasBusca darsubordinadostoda la informacin pertinenteinformaciny todoinformacinellos quierenTenga en cuenta que la escala original de Likert no tienen etiquetas estandarizadas a granescala tales como "conacuerdo "," de acuerdo "," ni de acuerdo ni en desacuerdo "," en desacuerdo "y" muy endesacuerdo ". En su lugar,Likert proporciona etiquetas personalizadas a gran escala para cada tallo cuestin (es decir,

de los 43 tems). La primerarespuesta alternativa, en este caso "proporciona informacin mnima", representa elsistema de Likert1: Explotador autoritario. La alternativa segunda respuesta, "slo se da a los subordinadosinformacin superior siente que necesitan ", representa el Sistema 2: Beneficencia-autoritario, y assucesivamente. Para determinar el funcionamiento percibido de la organizacin, lasrespuestas de los diversosgrupos de empleados se promedian entre los elementos y dimensiones. Un perfil esgrficamente representado,lo que indica el nivel de gestin actual del sistema para cada uno de los siete Likert dedimensiones.La terminologa y el sistema ideado por Likert han sido adaptados y / o cambiados por

otrosinvestigadores en los ltimos aos. Por ejemplo, Nelson y Burns (1984) han introducidouna versin deMarco de Likert con la siguiente terminologa: la organizacin reactiva (Sistema 1), ella organizacin de respuesta (Sistema 2), la organizacin proactiva (Sistema 3), y el altola realizacin de la organizacin (Sistema 4). Estos cambios se han hecho para reflejar demanera ms modernaterminologa de la teora y contemporneo. De Alto Rendimiento Nelson and Burn deProgramacinmarco se discuten en mayor detalle en una seccin posterior de esta revisin.Teora de los sistemas Open


9/56

Muchos de los modelos de organizacin de diagnstico que se debatirn se basan en lanocin abstracta deabra la teora de sistemas como un supuesto bsico, por lo tanto, justifica una brevediscusin de los sistemas abiertosteora. La premisa de la teora es que las organizaciones son sistemas sociales que

dependen deen el medio ambiente en el que existen para las entradas (Katz y Kahn, 1978). La teora desistemas Openpermite ciclos repetidos de entrada, transformacin (es decir, rendimientos), la producciny renovacinde entrada dentro de las organizaciones. Un bucle de realimentacin conecta las salidas dela organizacin con la renovadaentradas (ver Figura 5).

Pgina 98

2008 (revisado) Leadersphere, Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.Figura 5Teora de Sistemas OpenEntradaSalidaMedio ambienteTransformacinLas teoras tradicionales de la organizacin han considerado que las organizaciones como

"sistemas cerrados que sonindependiente del entorno en el que existen (Katz y Kahn, 1978). En la organizacinlos modelos revisados en este documento hasta el momento, no hay un nfasis excesivo en

las variables dentro de laorganizacin y una falta de retroalimentacin del entorno.Seis Caja de Weisbord ModeloWeisbord (1976) propone seis grandes categoras, en su modelo de vida de la organizacin,incluyendopropsitos, estructuras, relaciones, liderazgo, recompensas, y los mecanismos tiles. Lalos propsitos de una organizacin son la misin de la organizacin y sus objetivos.Weisbord se refiere aestructura como la forma en que se organiza de la organizacin, lo que puede ser porfuncin - dondeespecialistas trabajan juntos - o por producto, programa o proyecto - donde polivalentes

equipos trabajanjuntos. Las formas en que interactan las personas y las unidades que se denominarelaciones. Tambin se incluye enel cuadro de las relaciones es la forma en que las personas interactan con la tecnologa ensu trabajo.Las recompensas son las recompensas intrnsecas y extrnsecas de la gente asocia con su

trabajo. La


10/56

caja de liderazgo se refiere a las tareas de direccin tpicos, incluido el equilibrio entre losotroscajas. Por ltimo, los mecanismos de ayuda son la planificacin, control, elaboracin de

presupuestos, ysistemas de informacin que sirven para cumplir con las metas organizacionales. El

ambiente externo tambin esrepresentada en el modelo de Weisbord, aunque no se representa como una "caja" (verFigura 6).

Pgina 109

2008 (revisado) Leadersphere, Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.Figura 6Conceptualizacin de los Seis-Box Weisbord ModeloPropsitosRelaciones

tilMecanismos deEstructuraRecompensasLiderazgoMedio ambiente(Entrada)(Salida)Weisbord identifica como las entradas del dinero, personas, ideas, y la maquinaria que sonutilizados para cumplir conla organizacin de la misin. Las salidas son los productos y servicios.

Dos premisas que no son evidentes en el modelo de Weisbord son cruciales para lacomprensin de lacajas en el modelo. La primera premisa se refiere a los sistemas formal e informal. Lossistemas formales deson las polticas y procedimientos de la organizacin pretende hacer. En contraste, lossistemas informalesson aquellas conductas que en realidad ocurren. Cuanto ms grande sea la brecha entre loformal y lo informal,sistemas dentro de la organizacin, menos eficaz es la organizacin. La segunda premisarefiere el ajuste entre la organizacin y el medio ambiente, es decir, la discrepanciaentre la organizacin existente y la forma en la organizacin debe funcionar para satisfacer

laslas demandas externas. Weisbord define las demandas o presiones externas como clientes,gobierno y los sindicatos.Weisbord plantea preguntas para el diagnstico de cada caja de su modelo. Por ejemplo,sugiere queConsultores de DO determinar si los miembros de la organizacin de acuerdo y apoyo dela


11/56

misin de la organizacin y las metas dentro de la caja de efectos. Esta pregunta se refierea su premisacon respecto a la naturaleza de los sistemas formales e informales dentro de laorganizacin. Una muestra dealgunas de las preguntas que plantea son las siguientes:

Propsitos:Los miembros de la organizacin de acuerdo y apoyo de lamisin de la organizacin y sus metas?

Pgina 1110

2008 (revisado) Leadersphere, Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.Estructura:Hay un ajuste entre el propsito y la estructura internade la organizacin?

Relaciones:Qu tipo de relaciones existen entre los individuos,entre los departamentos, y entre los individuos y la naturaleza de supuestos de trabajo? Es su interdependencia? Cul es la calidad de las relaciones? Quson los modos de conflicto?Recompensas:Qu hace la organizacin formalmente la recompensa, y por lo que hacenmiembros de la organizacin sienten que se premia y castiga? Qula organizacin tiene que hacer para encajar con el medio ambiente?

Liderazgo:Los lderes definen los propsitos? Se incorporan los propsitos desus programas? Cul es el estilo normativo de liderazgo?

Mecanismos tiles:Estos mecanismos ayudan o impiden lacumplimiento de los objetivos de la organizacin?En resumen, el modelo de Weisbord se centra en los asuntos internos de una organizacin

principalmente porplantear "preguntas de diagnstico", que tienen que ver con el ajuste entre "lo que es" yqu "debe ser "Las preguntas que plantea no se predice el modelo,. sino que ms bien parecenserbasada en su desarrollo organizacional. Estas preguntas sirven para convolucionarla elmodelo porque no lo hacen

flujo de la lgica del modelo. Por otra parte, Weisbord omite muchas interconexionesentre loslas casillas del modelo. Por ltimo, Weisbord slo tangencialmente aborda el impacto delaentorno externo en el modelo.El modelo de congruencia para el Anlisis de la OrganizacinEl modelo de congruencia de Nadler-Tushman es un modelo ms completo, especificandolos insumos,


12/56

rendimientos y resultados, lo cual es consistente con la teora de sistemas abiertos (Katz yKahn, 1978).Este modelo es muy similar al modelo de Leavitt, sino que tambin conserva los sistemasformales e informales dela Weisbord de seis modelo de caja. El modelo se basa en varios supuestos que son

comunes amodernos modelos de organizacin de diagnstico; estos supuestos son los siguientes:1. Las organizaciones son sistemas abiertos sociales dentro de un entorno ms amplio.2. Las organizaciones son entidades dinmicas (es decir, el cambio es posible y ocurre).3. El comportamiento organizacional se produce en el individuo, el grupo, y los sistemasnivel.4. Las interacciones se producen entre el individuo, grupo, y los niveles de los sistemas deel comportamiento organizacional.Estos supuestos se han utilizado en algunos de los modelos anteriores examinados, aunqueslode manera implcita.

Pgina 1211

2008 (revisado) Leadersphere, Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.Las entradas en el modelo de congruencia de Nadler-Tushman incluyen factores tales

como lamedio ambiente, los recursos, la historia (es decir, los patrones de comportamiento en el

pasado), y las estrategias de organizacin(Ver la tabla). Nadler y Tushman son explcitos en su conceptualizacin de cada uno delos factores.Por ejemplo, se describen los recursos disponibles para la organizacin como los recursos

humanos,tecnologa, capital, informacin y otros recursos menos tangibles. Si bien la estrategia esuna entrada en elel modelo, es la entrada ms importante para la organizacin y se representa en elflecha de la caja de entrada a la organizacin.Los componentes del sistema del proceso de transformacin de la organizacin general son

informalesdisposiciones de organizacin, de trabajo, formales acuerdos de organizacin, y elindividuocomponentes (vase la Tabla A y Figura 7). De manera similar, las salidas del modeloincluyen individuo,

salidas de grupo, y el sistema de: productos y servicios, el rendimiento y la eficacia.Mientras queproductos tales como productos y servicios son, generalmente, ejemplos especficos dedesempeo de la organizacin y la eficacia identificado por Nadler y Tushman (1980) sonEn la tabla anterior.Figura 7Los componentes del modelo de congruenciaMedio ambiente


13/56

RecursosHistoriaTareaInformalOrganizacin

FormalOrganizativoArreglosIndividualOrganizacinGrupoIndividual

EntradasSalidasTransformacin de sus Procesosestrategiarealimentacin

Pgina 1312

2008 (revisado) Leadersphere, Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.Tabla AEntradas, los componentes del sistema, y Salidas del modelo de congruenciaEntradasMedio ambienteRecursosHistoria

EstrategiaTodos los factores, incluyendoinstituciones, grupos,personas, eventos yas sucesivamente, que estn fuerala organizacin esanalizado, pero que tienenun impacto potencial enorganizacin queVarios activosque el

organizacin tieneacceso, incluyendolos recursos humanos,capital, informacin,y as sucesivamente, as comomenos tangiblesrecursos(Reconocimiento en el


14/56

mercado, y as sucesivamente)Los patrones de pasadocomportamiento, la actividad,y la eficaciaque pueden afectar

corrienteorganizativofuncionandoLa corriente dedecisiones acerca de cmoorganizativolos recursos sernconfigurado para satisfacerdemandas,restricciones, yoportunidades dentro deel contexto de lahistoria de la organizacinComponentes del sistema (es decir, rendimientos)TareaIndividualOrg formal.ArreglosInformalOrganizacinLa bsica e inherentetrabajo por hacer por elorganizacin y supartesLas caractersticas deindividuos en elorganizacinLos diversosestructuras,procesos, mtodos,y as sucesivamente que sonformalmente creado paraconseguir que las personas querealizar las tareasEl emergentelos acuerdos,estructuras incluyendo,procesos,relaciones, etcadelanteProductos (por ejemplo, el rendimiento y la efi cacia)El comportamiento individual


15/56

y afectanGrupo yIntergrupo del comportamientoSistema de Funcionamiento(Es decir, de la organizacin)

El absentismo, retrasos,volumen de negocios, los niveles dela satisfaccin, el uso de drogas, yfuera el lugar de trabajo las actividades queimpacto en el rendimientoEl conflicto intergrupal,colaboracin, y la calidaddel intergrupocomunicacinEl logro de los objetivos deseados dela produccin, el rendimiento deinversin, etc; utilizacin delos recursos disponibles; la capacidad de adaptacina las seales externas del medio ambientedemandasNota.Nadler y Tushman, 1980Nadler y Tushman (1980) aplica el concepto de congruencia a su modelo. Ellos describenla congruencia, o en forma, como "el grado en que las necesidades, demandas, metas,objetivos y / olas estructuras de uno de los componentes son compatibles con las necesidades, demandas,metas, objetivos y / oestructuras de otro componente "(es decir, cuntos pares y de los componentes encajanentre s). Paraejemplo, una tarea exige un nivel de habilidad y conocimiento y, asimismo, a disposicinde los individuospara realizar la tarea poseen diferentes niveles de habilidad y conocimiento. Nadler yTushman (1980)

Pgina 1413

2008 (revisado) Leadersphere, Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.explicar que cuanto mayor es la habilidad y el conocimiento partido entre la tarea y elindividuo,

ms eficaz ser el rendimiento.El modelo se denomina el modelo de congruencia basada en el ajuste entre loscomponentes del sistema(Organizacin informal, la tarea, los acuerdos formales de la organizacin y el individuo).Seis pareslas comparaciones dentro del sistema son posibles sobre la base de los cuatrocomponentes. Nadler y


16/56

Tushman (1980) plantean cuestiones a la consideracin de cada una de estascomparaciones por pares (ver TablaB).A travs del anlisis de la congruencia entre las partes del sistema, toda la organizacin esdiagnosticados como mostrar una congruencia total del sistema relativamente alto o bajo.

El vnculo entre el"Se ajusta a parejas" y las salidas del sistema tambin debe tenerse en cuenta. Nadler yTushman (1980)explica, "se ajusta, o la falta de ajustes, entre los componentes clave de tenerconsecuencias en trminos deel comportamiento del sistema. "Por ejemplo, los accesos y la falta de accesos puede estarrelacionada con los comportamientos observados enel sistema como los conflictos, el rendimiento y el estrs.Tabla BLas definiciones de congruencia en el modelo de congruenciaLas defi ni ciones de congruenciaFit vinculadosCuestionesIndividual - formal de la organizacinArreglosCmo se cumplen las necesidades individuales de la organizacinarreglos? Los individuos tienen clara o distorsionadapercepciones de las estructuras organizativas? Hay unla convergencia de objetivos individuales y organizacionales?Individual - TrabajoCmo se cumplen las necesidades individuales de las tareas? Tienen las personastienen capacidades y habilidades para satisfacer las demandas de la tarea?Individual - Organizacin informal Cmo se las necesidades individuales recibidos por la

organizacin informal?De qu manera la organizacin informal hacen uso de la personarecursos en consonancia con los objetivos informales?Trabajo - organizativa formalArreglosSon las disposiciones de organizacin adecuadas para hacer frente alexigencias de la tarea? La disposicin de la organizacinmotivan el comportamiento que es consistente con las demandas?Trabajo - Organizacin InformalLa estructura de la organizacin informal, facilitar la tareael rendimiento o no? Se dificultar o ayudar a satisfacer laexigencias de la tarea?Formal de la organizacinArreglos - InformalOrganizacinSon los objetivos, las recompensas y las estructuras de la economa informalorganizacin consistentes con los de la formalorganizacin?Nota.Nadler y Tushman, 1980


17/56

Pgina 15

142008 (revisado) Leadersphere, Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.

McKinsey Marco 7S

El Marco de 7S de McKinsey fue nombrado despus de una empresa consultora,McKinsey and Company,que ha llevado a cabo investigacin aplicada en los negocios y la industria (Pascale yAthos, 1981; PetersY Waterman, 1982). Los autores todos trabajaron como consultores en McKinsey andCompany, en elDe 1980, se utiliz el modelo en ms de setenta organizaciones de gran tamao. El Marcode 7S de McKinseyfue creado como un modelo reconocible y fcil de recordar en los negocios. Las sietevariables,que los autores denominan "palancas", todos comienzan con la letra "S" (ver Figura 8).

Figura 8Ilustracin del Marco 7SEstiloPersonalSistemas deHabilidadesEstructuraEstrategiaCompartidoValoresLa forma del modelo fue diseado tambin para ilustrar la interdependencia de las

variables;la ilustracin del modelo que se ha denominado la "Molcula de Gestin." Si bien losautorespensaba que existan otras variables dentro de las organizaciones complejas, las variablesrepresentadas enel modelo se considera de crucial importancia para los directivos y profesionales.Las siete variables incluyen la estructura, estrategia, sistemas, habilidades, estilo, personal,

y los valores compartidos.La estructura se define como el esqueleto de la organizacin o el organigrama. Los autoresdescribe la estrategia como el plan o curso de accin en la asignacin de recursos paralograr identificar

metas en el tiempo. Los sistemas son los procesos rutinarios y procedimientos seguidos enelorganizacin. El personal est descrita en trminos de categoras de personal dentro de laorganizacin (por ejemplo,ingenieros), mientras que la variable de habilidades hace referencia a las capacidades del

personal de laorganizacin como un todo. La forma en que se comportan directivos clave en laconsecucin de la organizacin


18/56

objetivos se considera que es la variable de estilo; esta variable se cree que abarcan lacultura

Pgina 1615

2008 (revisado) Leadersphere, Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.estilo de la organizacin. Los valores de variable compartida, originalmente denominadosobjetivos de orden superior,hace referencia a los significados importantes o conceptos rectores que compartenmiembros de la organizacin.Los autores han concluido que las compaas estadounidenses tienden a centrarse en

aquellas variables queque creen que pueden cambiar (por ejemplo, la estructura, estrategia y sistemas), mientrasque descuidar la otravariables. Estas otras variables (por ejemplo, las habilidades, los valores de estilo,

personal y comunitaria) se consideran

"Blandas" las variables. Japonesa y algunas empresas estadounidenses excelentesinformes, xito en lala vinculacin de su estructura, estrategia y sistemas con las variables blandas. Los autoresno tienenlleg a la conclusin de que una empresa no slo puede cambiar una o dos variables paracambiar la totalidadorganizacin. Para beneficio a largo plazo, consideran que las variables se debe cambiar

para convertirse enms congruente como un sistema.El entorno externo no se menciona en el Marco de 7S de McKinsey, aunque elautores reconocen que existen otras variables y que representan slo el ms importante

variables en el modelo. Si bien se alude en el debate de este modelo, la nocin deel desempeo o la eficacia no se hace explcito en el modelo.Tcnico de Poltica Cultural de Tichy (TPC) MarcoAl igual que algunos de los modelos anteriores, el modelo de Tichy incluye entradas,Rendimientos ysalidas, lo cual es consistente con la perspectiva de los sistemas abiertos se discutianteriormente. Tichyidentifica las principales variables en el modelo que son importantes para el proceso degestin del cambio(Tichy, 1983). El medio ambiente y la historia (en sentido amplio) son dos grandescategoras de

entrada a la organizacin mientras que los recursos son una tercera categora de entrada.El rendimientolas variables o las palancas de cambio, identificados en el modelo incluyen la misin /estrategia, tareas, prescritoredes, personas, procesos organizacionales, y las redes emergentes (ver Figura 9).

Pgina 1716


19/56

2008 (revisado) Leadersphere, Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.Figura 9El tcnico, marco poltico, culturalCuerda de TichyMetfora:

TcnicoPolticoCulturalcadenasLeyenda:Fuerte impactoEscaso impactoEntradaMedio Ambiente-la historiaRecursosMisin

estrategiaTareasPersonasEmergenteRedesOrganizativolos procesos deRecetadoredesRendimiento - Impacto en las personasSalida

Tichy define la variable de la misin / estrategia en el enfoque de la organizacin parallevar a cabo sumisin y la estrategia y los criterios de eficacia (es decir, el propsito de la organizacin).Las tareasvariable se refiere a la tecnologa por el cual se lleva a cabo el trabajo de la organizacin.Laredes establecidas (es decir, la organizacin formal) tienen que ver con lo social diseadala estructura de la organizacin, tales como la organizacin de los departamentos y lacomunicaciny las redes de autoridades. La variable de personas se refiere a las caractersticas de

organizacinmiembros, incluidos sus antecedentes, la motivacin y el estilo de gestin. Losmecanismosque permiten a la organizacin formal para llevar a cabo el trabajo que se denomina laestructura organizativaprocesos, que incluyen la comunicacin organizacional, la toma de decisiones, el conflictogestin, control y sistemas de recompensa. La variable rendimiento final, las redesemergentes,se refiere a las estructuras y procesos de la organizacin que surgen de manera informal.


20/56

El punto central del modelo de Tichy es la variable de salida, lo que l denomina laorganizacineficacia. Por supuesto, la salida depende de variables de entrada y de rendimiento. Todode las variables, incluyendo la entrada y salida categoras, se considera que estnrelacionados entre s en

el modelo. Mientras que algunas variables tienen un fuerte impacto en otras variables,otras variables tienen

Pgina 1817

2008 (revisado) Leadersphere, Inc. Todos los derechos reservados.uno ms dbil, o recproca, la relacin de otras variables (como lo indica la recta y se

precipitlneas).Al considerar las variables del modelo, Tichy se aplica un recubrimiento que es vital parasu

teorizacin. Esta superposicin se refiere a la dinmica de tcnicos, polticos y culturalesque tienen lugar dentrolas variables del modelo (abreviado como TPC). La superposicin de TPC, plantea cuatro

preguntas queson vitales para el diagnstico de la organizacin. Estas preguntas se refieren a la polticatcnica, yla dinmica cultural de la organizacin. Estas preguntas siguen:1. Como bien se las partes de la organizacin alineados unos con otros pararesolucin de problemas tcnicos de la organizacin?2. Como bien se las partes de la organizacin alineados unos con otros pararesolver los problemas polticos de la organizacin?

3. Como bien se las partes de la organizacin alineados unos con otros parasolucin de los problemas culturales de la organizacin?4. Qu tan bien alineados son los tres subsistemas de la organizacin, lostcnica, poltica y cultural?La dinmica tcnicos son los aspectos de la organizacin que son cognoscibles, comolos procesos de produccin o los recursos disponibles. La dinmica poltica son los puntosde vista dominantegrupos, incluyendo la negociacin por parte de poderosos grupos de la organizacin. Ladinmica culturalconstituyen los smbolos y valores compartidos que constituyen la cultura organizacional.Como

depicted in the illustration of the model, Tichy uses a rope metaphor to emphasize thestrategic importance of the three strands ( technical,political, and cultural) in the changeproceso. The three strands must be managed together, or realigned, for effective change.According to Tichy's model, organizational diagnosis is quite complex. An OD consultantwouldbegin by collecting data relevant to the four questions for each variable represented in themodelo. The data may be collected by document analysis, interviews, questionnaires, andentrevistas. In order to determine where alignment is needed, summary data would be


21/56

included in a matrix and analyzed for alignment and action planning.High-Performance ProgrammingNelson and Burns' (1984) high-performance programming framework assesses the currentlevel of performance of an organization in order to plan interventions to transform theorganization into a high performing system (Fuqua & Kurpius, 1993; Nelson & Burns,

1984).Similar to Likert System Analysis, Nelson and Burns describe four organizational systemswhichare more or less effective. These systems, or frames, as Nelson and Burns call them,include thehigh-performing organization (level 4), the proactive organization (level 3), the responsiveorganization (level 2), and the reactive organization (level 1). Each of these levels isconceptualized in Table C. To diagnose an organization, a survey instrument is used withquestions related to Nelson and Burns' (1984) eleven dimensions or variables. Estos oncevariables are time frame, focus, planning, change mode, management, structure,perspective,

Pgina 1918

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.motivation, development, communication, and leadership. The following Likert-type scaleis anexample of a standardized scale which can be used with each item stem on a survey (seeFigure10).Figura 10

Example of a Likert-type scale

StronglyEstar de acuerdo5Estar de acuerdo4Ni de acuerdoNor Disagree3Discrepar2Strongly

Discrepar1Tabla C

Nelson and Burns' High-Performance ProgrammingThe Hi gh-PerformingOrganizacinLevel 4Leaders in the high-performing organization are fully invested in


22/56

empowering organizational members. There is a common focuson organizational excellence. Communication throughout theorganization is relatively unrestrictive. The organization is in aconstant state of evolution guided by a common vision.Organizational members prize highly their identity with the

organization, and opportunities for self actualization aresustancial.The ProactiveOrganizacinNivel 3The proactive organization focuses on the future. Leadership hasbecome focused on developing purpose for the organization.Members focus on the quality of their contribution toorganizational successes. The organization is actively involved inplanning and development strategies.The Responsive

Organizacin

Nivel 2The responsive organization is more functional, having achievedsome clarity of purpose and goals. The organization has somecapability to adapt to changing environmental circumstances.Leaders actively coach members in the direction of organizationalgoals, and some cohesion has developed among work teams.The ReactiveOrganizacinNivel 1The reactive organization is one badly in need of renewal. Laorganization lacks shared focus, and management is preoccupiedwith assigning blame for poor outcomes. Members spend adisproportionate amount of time avoiding aversiveconsequences, and leaders spend much of their time enforcingpolicies that often lack relevance to any common purpose.Note.Nelson & Burns, 1984

Pgina 2019

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.The leadership activities associated with the four levels of performance in the high-

performance programming framework are as follows: the high-performing organization isassociated with empowering leadership, the proactive organization is associated withpurposing leadership,

the responsive organization is associated with coaching leadership, and the reactiveorganization is associated with enforcing leadership. To clarify, purposing leadership

activity refers to leadership behavior which maintains an integrated, focused purpose forthe


23/56

organizacin. The authors describe these leadership behaviors to emphasize the importanceofempowerment and support for individuals' growth and development within theorganization.Diagnosing Individual and Group Behavior

Harrison (1987) has devised a model for diagnosing individual and group behavior withinorganizaciones. This model is somewhat unique in that it focuses on outputs such asorganizational performance and quality of work life. The model represents an open systemsperspective with minimal boundaries between the organization and external environment.However, the external environment is not represented by anything other than resources andfeedback loops, however (see Figure 11).Figura 11

Harrison's Model for Diagnosing Individual and Group BehaviorMEDIO AMBIENTEENVYoRONMENTOrg.NivelGrupoNivelIndividualNivelSalidasGrupoRendimientoIndividualRendimientoCVLResultadosPurposes, Processes, Structure,Technology, Behavior, CultureGrupoComposition,Structure,TecnologaGroup Behavior,Processes,Cultura


24/56

IndividualCaractersticasIndividual

Attitudes, Beliefs,Motivacin

RecursosRecursosHumanoRecursosLeyenda:Main lines of influenceFeedback loopsThe variables accounted for in the model are conceptualized at the organizational, group,andindividual levels. The organizational level of performance appears to represent a moreabstract

Pgina 2120

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.level of performance, which is a function of the outputs associated with individualperformance, group performance, and quality of work life (QWL) outcomes. Harrison(1987)notes that a divisional level of performance also exists in reality, although he did notinclude itin the model for the sake of simplicity.The variables represented in Harrison's (1987) model are those he feels are most important

toperformance and QWL. The variables which affect individual performance and QWLoutcomesare individual characteristics and individual attitudes, beliefs, and motivation (see Table Dfordescriptions of these variables).Tabla D

Individual and Group Levels in Harrison's ModelKey Factors Affecting Performance and Quality of Work Life (QWL)El n ivel individual deIndividual

CaractersticasPhysical and mental state, social background and traits, training andeducation, individual needsIndividual Attitudes,Beliefs, MotivationMotivation, rewards experienced, job felt to be intrinsically rewarding,expectations, equity, trust, specific attitudes (eg, satisfaction withcurrent procedures, attitudes toward proposed changes)


25/56

Group LevelGroup Composition,Structure, andTecnologaSocial and occupational composition, structure (eg, nature and

extent of rules and work procedures, flexibility, clarity of taskassignments, responsibilities), technology (eg, impact of workprocedures and physical arrangements, types of workflowinterdependencies)Group Behavior,Processes, and CultureRelationships among group members (eg, cohesiveness, feelings ofattachment to group, similarity of views), processes (eg,communication, cooperation and conflict, decision making, problemsolving), supervisory behavior, cultureNote.Harrison, 1987In contrast, the variables which influence group performance are the group composition,structure, and technology of the organization, and the group behavior, processes, andculture.Notice that these variables are very broad.The inputs to the model are the resources, including human resources, which are availabletothe organization and feedback loops from prior organizational outcomes. Puesto que nohaydefinitive boundary around the organization, it is not clear whether all the resources arederived from the external environment, the organization itself, or a combination of the two.The outputs at the organizational level are the products and services the organizationproduce. The outcomes associated with group performance within the organization are the

Pgina 2221

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.solutions, plans, and tactics devised during operations. At the individual level, outcomesinclude the quality of individual members' work efforts, their initiative, cooperation withothers, and commitment to their work; negative outcomes are related to absenteeism andtardiness at the individual level. Lastly, perceptions of job security, working conditions, themeaningfulness and challenge of work, and the degree to which work contributes to thepsychological well-being of members are all related to QWL Outcomes.

Harrison denotes the lines of influence in the model as either main lines of influence orfeedback loops. However, not all of these relationships are reciprocal, as some of the othermodels have suggested. The extensive number of lines of influence and feedback loops inthemodel makes it difficult to determine the relationships among variables (ie, most lines ofinfluence are directional, and only one is bi-directional or reciprocal).

Pgina 23


26/56

222008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

ResumenAs is evident from the description of the various models, there are similarities anddifferences

in the ways in which variables are represented in the organizational models. Por un lado,key variables are relatively broad and undefined in some models (eg, Force Field Analysismodelo). In other models, the variables represent numerous clearly defined theoreticalconstructs (eg, the Congruence Model for Organizational Analysis and Tichy's TPCFramework). Some of the same constructs are represented across models, although they aretermed differently. Table E identifies the variables represented in each model as well othercharacteristics of the models.Table E: Summary of Reviewed ModelsModeloVariablesVariable

I nterdependencyExternoenvir onment Major Premise(s)Force FieldAnlisis(1951)Driving forces,restraining forcesDriving andrestraining forcesocurrir

simultneamenteEither forcemay be dueaenvironmental drives orrestraintsDesequilibriooccurs duringchange; equilibriumis re-establishedLeavittsModel (1965)Task, structure,technological, &human variablesThe four variablessoninterdependent (a


27/56

change in oneaffects theotros)Norepresentado

in the modelChange in thevariables iscomprometido aaffect the taskvariable (products& services)Likert SystemAnlisis(1967)Motivation,la comunicacin,interaction,decision-making,goal setting,de control,rendimientoThe levels ofvariables aremedidoindependently ona surveyNot directlyrepresentadoin the modelFour different typesde gestinsystems areidentified based onthe seven variables:participative,consultative,benevolent-authoritative, &exploitative-authoritative

Pgina 2423

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Table E (continued)


28/56

Summary of Reviewed ModelsModeloVariablesVariableI nterdependency

Externoenvir onment Major Premise(s)Weisbord'sSix-BoxModel (1976)Purposes,estructura,las relaciones,liderazgo,rewards, & helpfullos mecanismos deLa

interconnectionsentre el

boxes, orvariables, are notexplcitoLamedio ambientetiene uninfluirthrough org.entradas youtputs; thefit betweenthe org. ymedio ambienteis consideredtambinThe larger the gapbetween the formaland informalsystems withineach variable, theless effective theorg.CongruenciaModel forOrganizacinAnlisis(1977)Entradas:


29/56

environment,resources, history,strategy;throughputs: task,individual, formal

org. los acuerdos,informal org.;outputs: individual,group, and systemOrganizations aredynamic;interactions occurat the individual,group, andsystems levelsa travs delinterno(Rendimiento)las variablesThe externalmedio ambienteofrecerealimentacinrelated to theentradas ysalidasAssumes: opensystems theory,formal and informalsystems, the fit orcongruenciaentre elinternal variablesMcKinsey 7SMarco(1981-82)Style, Staff,Systems, Strategy,Structure, Skills, &Valores compartidosVariables areinterdependent;the illustration istermed themanagerialmolcula

Not directly


30/56

representadoin the model,althoughother non-crucial

las variablesexistirVariables must allchange to becomecongruent as asistema

Pgina 2524

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Table E (continued)

Summary of Reviewed ModelsModeloVariablesVariableI nterdependencyExternoenvir onment Major Premise(s)Tichy's TPCMarco(1983)Entradas:

environment-history, resources;throughputs:mission/strategy,tasks, prescribednetworks, people,org. procesos,emergentnetworks; outputs:performance,impact on people

Todas las variables soninterrelated,although somerelationships arestronger andsome are weaker(reciprocal)La


31/56

medio ambienteis includedthrough org.entradas youtputs and

the feedbackbucleTodas las variables sonanalyzed from atechnical, political,una cultura

perspective (thestrategic ropemetaphor)AltaRendimientoProgramacin(1984)Time frame, focus,planning, changemodo,la gestin,estructura,perspectiva,la motivacin,development,la comunicacin,liderazgoThe levels ofvariables aremedidoindependently ona surveyNot directlyrepresentadoin the modelCuatro diferenteslevels of org.performance areidentified based onthe elevenvariables: high-performing,proactive,responsive,reactive; these areasociada con


32/56

empowering,purposing,coaching, andenforcingliderazgo

comportamientosrespectivamente

Pgina 2625

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Table E (continued)Summary of Reviewed ModelsModeloVariablesVariable

I nterdependencyExternoenvir onment Major Premise(s)DiagnosingIndividualand GroupComportamiento(1987)Inputs: resources,human resources;throughputs at the

org., group, andindividual levels(lengthy titles);outputs: groupperformance,individual

performance, QWLresultadosMain lines ofinfluir yfeedback loops;

all relationshipsare directionalcon elexception of onerecprocorelacin

between twolas variables


33/56

Mnimolmitesentre elorganizacinand external

medio ambienteAssumes: opensystems theory;emphasis on threelos niveles de

performance,inclusoorganizativorendimiento yQWL outcomesThe nature of the relationships between the variables in the various models also differs.Paraexample, some relationships between variables represent direct, one-way impacts whileotherrelationships between variables are considered to be reciprocal (ie, two-way). One-way (ie,) or two-way) are used in models to depict the nature of thesearrows (ie,relaciones. In many of the models, it is not explicit whether variables are merely correlatedor whether a cause and effect relationship between variables is thought to exist.Many of the models rely upon open systems theory as a basic assumption. Adems, lamayoraof the models incorporated the external environments a factor in organizational functioning.The models do differ in the factors considered vital to organizational functioning oreffectiveness (eg, leadership is considered important in Weisbord's model, whereas thequality of work life is considered most important in Harrison's model).Most of the models presented in this section of the review are based on OD consultants'experience and practice in working in organizational settings. While an understanding oforganizational practice is vital to conceptualizing such models, it is imperative that workingmodels be validated. Without validation through applied research, those using the models toguide their organizational work cannot be sure of the soundness of the model. Por lo tanto,esessential to consider the empirical foundations (ie, theoretical underpinnings) of any modelused in OD practice, as well as the research available on the validity of the model.Theoreticians welcome the testing and refinement of their models because research servestoincrease the knowledge base in OD and organizational behavior. In the next section of thisreview, two relatively new organizational diagnostic models are examined.

Pgina 2726

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.The Burke-Litwin Causal Model


34/56

The Burke-Litwin Causal Model of Organizational Performance and Change (BL Model)wasdeveloped by Litwin and others (Litwin & Stringer, 1968; Tagiuri & Litwin, 1968) andlaterrefined by Burke in the late 1980's (Burke & Litwin, 1992). This model includes several

keyfeatures which go beyond the models discussed earlier: includes twelve theoretical constructs (ie, organizational variables)

distinguishes between the culture and the climate of an organization

distinguishes between transformational and transactional dynamics specifies the nature and direction of influence of organizationallas variables is based on previous models, empirical studies, and OD practice

The twelve organizational variables in the BL Model are external environment, mission andstrategy, leadership, organizational culture, structure, management practices, systems, workunit climate, task requirements and individual skills, motivation, individual needs andvalues,and individual and organizational performance. With the representation of the externalenvironment as a variable, it is evident that open systems theory underlies the BL Model.Laexternal environment variable is considered to be the input to the system with the individualand organizational performance variable representing the output (see Figure 12).

Pgina 2827

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Figura 12

The Burke-Litwin Causal ModelThe feedback loops on the right and left sides of the model go in both directions. Forexample,the performance variable affects the external environment through its products and services,and likewise, the individual and organizational performance is affected by demands fromtheentorno externo. The remaining variables represent throughputs in open systems theory.Descriptions of all twelve of the variables (ie, theoretical constructs) in the BL Model areprovided in Table F.ExternoMedio ambiente

LiderazgoAdministracinPrcticasGrupo de TrabajoClimaMotivacinRendimientoMission and


35/56

EstrategiaEstructuraCulturaSistemas deIndividual Needs

and ValuesFEEDBACKFEEDBACKSkills/JobPartido

Pgina 2928

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Tabla FOrganizational Variables in the Burke-Litwin ModelVariableConceptualization (ie, descriptions)ExternoMedio ambienteAny outside condition or situation that influences the performance of theorganization, including marketplaces, world financial conditions, andpolitical/governmental circumstances

Liderazgo

Executive behavior that provides direction and encourages others to takeneeded action; includes followers' perceptions of executive practices andvalues and leaders' role modelingMission andEstrategiaWhat top managers believe and have declared as the organizationsmission and strategy, as well as what employees believe is the centralpurpose of the organization; the means by which the organization intends


36/56

to achieve its purpose over timeCulturaThe collection of overt and covert norms, values, and beliefs that guideorganizational behavior and that have been strongly influenced by history,customs, and practice

AdministracinPrcticasWhat managers do in the normal course of events with the human andmaterial resources at their disposal to carry out the organization's strategyEstructuraThe arrangement of functions and people into specific areas and levels ofresponsibility, decision-making authority, communication, andrelationships to implement the organization's mission and strategySistemas deStandardized policies and mechanisms that are designed to facilitate workand that primarily manifest themselves in the organization's reward andcontrol systems (eg, performance appraisal, management informationsystems, budget development, and human resource allocation)ClimaThe collective current impressions, expectations, and feelings of themembers of local work units, which in turn affect members' relations withsupervisors, with one another, and with other units

Pgina 3029

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Variable

Conceptualization (ie, descriptions)MotivacinAroused behavioral tendencies to move toward goals, take needed action,and persist until satisfaction is attained (ie, the energy generated by thecombined desires for achievement, power, affection, discovery, and otherimportant human values)Skills/Job MatchThe behavior required for task effectiveness, including specific skills andknowledge required to accomplish workIndividual Needsand Values

The specific psychological factors that provide desire and worth forindividual actions or thoughtsRendimientoThe outcomes or results, with indicators of effort and achievementincluding productivity, customer or staff satisfaction, profit, and servicecalidadAs is evident through the climate and culture variables, Burke and Litwin make adistinction


37/56

between organizational climate and culture. Climate is defined as individuals' perceptionsofhow their work unit is managed and how effectively they and their colleagues worktogether(see Table K) (Burke & Litwin, 1992). People are much more cognizant of organizational

climatethan culture (ie, climate is in the foreground, whereas culture is in the background). Encontrast, culture has been defined as the relatively enduring set of values, norms, andbeliefsthat underlie the social system of the workplace (Burke & Litwin, 1992). These values,norms,and beliefs related to organizational culture are not entirely available to one'sconsciousness.In addition to the distinction between culture and climate, the BL Model distinguishesbetween transformational and transactional dynamics within organizations. Burke andLitwins

(1992) consideration of transformational and transactional dynamics is rooted in leadershiptheory and specifically, in the differences between leaders and managers. In the model,transformational change is associated more with leadership, while transactional change isassociated more with management. Hence, transformational dynamics representfundamentalchanges in behaviors and values that are required for genuine change in organizationalculture.In terms of management, transactional dynamics are the everyday interactions andexchangesin work life related to organizational climate (Burke & Litwin, 1992).The variables in the BL Model which account for transformational dynamics are depictedinFigure 13; note that this is a truncated version of the model (ie, the top half of the modelwiththe performance variable).

Pgina 3130

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Figura 13Transformational Variables in the BL ModelExterno

Medio ambienteLiderazgoRendimientoMission andEstrategiaCulturaThe arrows in the figure above depicts the influence of one variable on another and the


38/56

directionality of the influence. While the arrows are bi-directional (ie, representingreciprocalrelationships), Burke and Litwin (1992) would have made the arrows circular, if it werepossible, to represent reality more accurately. Moreover, Burke and Litwin postulate causalrelationships between the variables; the notion of causal relationships has not been

hypothesized in previous models. It is asserted that a top-down causal chain exists, inwhichthe top variables have a greater influence on the bottom variables. Por ejemplo, aunqueculture and systems influence one another (ie, in a reciprocal manner), Burke and Litwinbelieve that culture has a stronger influence on systems, given its placement in thehierarchy ofel modelo. The model, therefore, defines the important variables and the importantinteractions between variables to consider during planned change interventions.The variables in the model which account for transactional dynamics are depicted in Figure14;again, this illustration is a truncated version of the model (ie, the bottom half of the model).

Pgina 3231

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Figura 14Transactional Variables in the BL ModelAdministracinPrcticasGrupo de TrabajoClimaMotivacin

RendimientoEstructuraSistemas de(Policies andProcedures)Skills/JobPartidoIndividual Needsand ValuesAs mentioned, the model has been revised over time by Burke and his colleagues in a seriesof

organizational studies (Bernstein & Burke, 1989). In recent publications, Burke and Litwinhavewelcomed further empirical investigation of the validity of the organizational model(Burke,Coruzzi, & Church, in Kraut, 1996; Burke, in Howard, 1994).Theoretical Basis of the BL ModelResearch studies related to each of the organizational variables in the BL Model arereviewed


39/56

in this section in order to understand the theoretical underpinnings of the model. Debe sernoted that both theoretical and empirical articles are, for the most part, included in thisrevisar. The empirical articles include studies employing varied research designs, includingcorrelational studies, case studies, and quasi-experimental designs (eg, employingcomparison

grupos). Further, the variables examined in the various studies are all operationally defineddiferente. Given the number of constructs (ie, variables) in the BL Model and thecomplexityof the relationships among the constructs (eg, direct causal relationships, moderatingrelationships), a thorough critical review of all relevant empirical studies is not feasible fortheefectos de esta revisin. However, an attempt has been made to examine the majorrelationships between variables through a review of representative articles; these articlesarelisted in Table G.

Pgina 33322008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Tabla GEmpirical Studies Related to Constructs in the BL ModelVariables in BL ModeloRelacinEmpir ical StudiesExternalMedio ambiente

CultureMission& StrategyGordon, 1985Prescott, 1986LeadershipManagementPracticesPerformancePerformanceFleishman, 1953Weiner & Mahoney, 1981Smith, Carson, & Alexander,

1984CultureSystem(policies)PerformanceKerr & Slocum, 1987Denison, 1990Management


40/56

PrcticasClimateClimateSchneider, 1980Schneider & Bowen, 1985

StructureClimateClimateSchneider & Snyder, 1975Joyce & Slocum, 1984SystemsIndividualNeeds &ValoresJordan, 1986ClimateMotivation-

RendimientoRosenberg & Rosenstein, 1980Skills/JobMatchMotivation-RendimientoHunter & Schmidt, 1982IndividualNeeds

& ValuesMotivation-RendimientoGuzzo, Jette, & Katzell, 1985

The methodology and findings from each of the studies are discussed in the followingpagesunder the variable headings represented in the BL Model.

Pgina 3433

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Entorno externoAs early as the mid 1960's, Emery and Trist (1965) and Katz & Kahn (1978) speculate thatthe

external environment of the organization has an impact on the internal organization. Elloscharacterize the external environment as dynamic (ie, constantly changing). De acuerdoconopen systems theory, the organization responds to the demands of the external environmentin which it operates. Hence, Burke and Litwin include the external environment as animportant variable in the BL Model.Two empirical studies are reviewed on the impact of the external environment onorganization


41/56

comportamiento. In the first study, Gordon (in Kilmann, Saxton, Serpa, & Associates,1985) examinesthe impact of the external environment on the culture of different types of organizations. lcompares utility companies, which operate in a more stable external environment, to hightechnology manufacturing companies, which operate in a dynamic external environment.

Gordon has found that the companies operating in dynamic external environments placeshigher value on initiative (ie, freedom to act, innovation, and risk taking) andorganizational reach (ie, setting aggressive organizational goals) than companies

operatingin stable environments. In summary, Gordon has found that organizations affected by theexternal environment develop cultural patterns to meet environmental demands.In a second study on the external environment of organizations, Prescott (1986) examinesorganizational strategy and performance. This researcher has used a pre-existing databaseofdata from over 1,500 business units collected during 1978-81. Prescott has found thatbusiness strategy significantly influences performance, with the external environmentmoderating the effects of strategy on performance. The relationship found between thevariables is as follows:Figura 15Variables in Prescott's (1986) StudyEntorno externoEstrategiaRendimientoAs the figure illustrates, the external environment serves as a moderating variable in thiscase.A moderator variable is a variable which affects the direction and/or strength of therelationship between two other variables.

Pgina 3534

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.LiderazgoThree studies are related to the construct of leadership in the BL Model. As an early study,Fleishman (1953) has evaluated the effects of leadership training on management practicesina vehicle production plant. Fleishman has found that leadership attitudes and behavior donotoperate in isolation; rather, the social environment of the plant in which the leader works is

found to be an important variable related to leader behavior and the effectiveness ofleadership training. These findings suggest that leadership, whether training or pre-existingattitudes and behavior, do impact management practice, with the organizational cultureserving as a moderating variable.In a later longitudinal study, Weiner and Mahoney (1981) examine the leadership practicesof193 manufacturing companies from a pre-existing database of company data. Se hanencontrado


42/56

that leadership affects two factors related to organizational performance:empresa

profitability and stock prices. They conclude that leadership is important to theperformance ofan organization.

In a second longitudinal study examining the same two variables, Smith, Carson andAlexander(1984) have also found that effective leadership is associated with improved organizationalrendimiento. Interestingly, this study employs a sample of 50 church ministers. Dentro deestetype of organization, effective leaders impact the following indicators of organizationalperformance: church membership growth, property development, and greater membershipgiving (ie, donations to the church). In addition to providing support for the relationshipbetween leadership and performance, this study illustrates the importance of studyingdifferent types of organizations and not merely corporate entities.CulturaA study by Kerr and Slocum (1987) examine the association between reward systems ofdiverseindustries (eg, aluminum, machine tools, pharmaceuticals, food products) and corporatecultura. The type of reward system in place in any given organization has to do with thesalary,bonuses, stock options, and promotions available; Burke and Litwin include such rewardsystems in their systems variable. To study this association, these researchers haveinterviewedeighty executives and upper-lever managers. The interview questions are related to theperformance appraisal process in the company, the reward systems, and the culture of thecompaa. The open-ended interview questions related to organizational cultural pertain tothehistory of the company, the founders or dominant leaders, and traditions, values, and normsofthe work culture. Kerr and Slocum describe the different reward systems they have foundandthe associated organizational cultural values and norms. Again, not all levels oforganizationalmembers are included in Kerr and Slocum's study. Their sample includes executives andhigh-gerentes de nivel. Hence, specific types of reward systems for executives are associatedwithcertain corporate cultures.

Pgina 3635

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Denison (1990) has conducted a comparative study of 34 firms in diverse industries (eg,airline, utility company, medical equipment production). He has examined characteristicsof


43/56

organizational culture in these firms and tracked their financial performance over time.Although Denison has found that organizational culture is correlated with financialperformance, some of his measurement indicators differ in the strength of the relationshipbetween culture and performance. For example, decision making and work design (ie,indicators of organizational culture) are associated with long-term financial performance

whereas supervisory leadership was more associated with short-term financial performance.Prcticas de ManejoSchneider has conducted two studies related to management practices and service climate.Enthe first, Schneider (1980) surveys customers and employees of 23 bank branches by mail.Schneider has found that employees' perceptions of climate are positively correlated withcustomers' perceptions of climate. Further, when employees perceive a strong serviceorientation from their management, the customers of these branches report receivingsuperiorservicio. In explaining these findings, Schneider concludes that management practiceswhichemphasize a strong service orientation create a positive overall climate for employees aswellas customers.Schneider and Bowen (1985) replicate their findings in their second study with a similar,butsomewhat larger sample of 28 bank branches. In this study, they include questions on thesurvey which assess human resources practices under the broad area of managementprcticas. Again, they have found a positive correlation between employee's perceptions ofhuman resources practices and customer's perceptions of service climate. Schneider andBowen conclude that human resources practices can influence service climate. Enresumen,Schneider (1980) and Schneider and Bowen (1985) provide some evidence of the followingrelaciones:Figura 16Variables in Schneider & Bowen's (1980, 1986) Study Prcticas de Manejorelated to a service qualityPrcticas de Manejoincluding human resourcesprcticasClimaClima

Pgina 3736

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.EstructuraSchneider and Snyder (1975) have employed a sample of 522 employees (eg, managers,secretaries, insurance agents) of 50 life insurance agencies in their study of the effects oforganizational structure (ie, arrangement of functions and people). They have found that


44/56

individuals in the same job categories, ie, those experiencing the same organizationalstructure, agree in their perceptions of the climate of the organization. Tambin hay unacorrelation between job category and job satisfaction, although it is not as strong as therelationship between structure and climate. The findings from this study suggest thatorganizational structure is somewhat more likely to affect perceptions of organizational

climatethan individual feelings of job satisfaction.In a second study of organizational structure, Joyce and Slocum (1984) have studied 220foreman in various departments of production and fabrication in three heavy-duty truckmanufacturing plants. They describe climates as representing learned environments forthose working within them; as such, climate is found to differ among work units, and,secondly,climate is associated with structure.Sistemas deJordan (1986) examines the effects of various rewards systems on employees' motivation.Forty-eight health care technicians in a state government pilot program for children withdisabilities serve as the sample in this study. Jordan has found that the reward system of anorganization does affect employee motivation. In particular, monetary rewards which arecontingent upon performance are found to decrease employee's intrinsic motivation in thisestudio. Burke and Litwin (1992) note that the relationship between rewards and behaviorin theworkplace is not as straightforward as one might expect. Whether in a positive or negativemanner, the reward structure does affect employee's motivation in Jordan's study. En otrostudy conducted by Hammer (1988), worker participation combined with a pay forperformance reward structure resulted in increased productivity (ie, performance).ClimaRosenberg and Rosenstein (1980) implemented a program over a period of six years (1969-75)in a medium sized plumbing manufacturing company to examine the effect of workerparticipation on productivity. The program involved employee participation activities (eg,representation in meetings, participative decision making). In this study, workerparticipationactually fit Burke and Litwin's description of work unit climate. Rosenberg and Rosensteinhavefound that worker participation (ie, work unit climate) does influence performance. Estosresearchers have also examined the effects of adding a monetary reward within the workerparticipation program. This motivator does influence performance, although work unitclimateremains a more influential factor in influencing performance.

Pgina 3837

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Skills/ Job MatchHunter and Schmidt (1982, in Campbell, Campbell, & Associates, 1988) have examinedthe


45/56

selection criteria used in hiring individuals for specific positions (ie, person-job match)acrossindustries in a national study. These researchers conclude that the manner in whichindividualsare fitted to their respective jobs has a significant impact on organizational performance.

Interestingly, they postulate that improvements in the use of personnel assignmentstrategiesnamely the use of multivariate statistical selection modelscould lead to substantialimpactson organizational productivity (ie,performance) at the national level.Individual Needs and ValuesIn their classic book on work redesign, Hackman and Oldham (1980) have emphasized theimportance of restructuring jobs to take into account individual differences between people.Expanding upon the notion of work redesign, Hackman and Oldham (1980) suggest thatindividuals have a need for growth and development on the job and should be motivated byjob enrichment interventions. Along these lines, Guzzo, Jette, and Katzell (1985) haveconducted a study on the effects of psychological interventions on worker productivity (ie,el rendimiento). In a meta-analysis of 207 productivity experiments published during the

periodof 1971-81, Guzzo et. col. (1985) have examined work redesign intervention programs.Elloshave found that intervention programs have a significant impact on worker interest,motivation, and performance.Other Relationships Among ConstructsNot all of the twelve variables in the BL Model are included in Table H. This omission isnotintentional; rather, studies related to omitted variables are not available to date. Teniendoen cuenta larelatively recent conceptualization of the BL Model, such empirical studies should beforthcoming. Burke and Litwin acknowledge that the nature of some of the relationshipsamong variables in the model are hypothesized to exist based on their OD practice andexperiencia.It is evident that the BL Model was conceptualized from theoretical and empirical literatureonorganizational behavior. While the studies are varied in terms of their purposes,methodological approach, the specific variables examined, and the operationalization ofthesevariables, as a whole, these studies provide tentative support for the relationships amongtheconstructs in the BL Model.

Pgina 3938

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Organizational Intelligence ModelThe final model introduced and described here is a relatively newer model, namely the


46/56

Organizational Intelligence Model, which was developed by Falletta in 2004 and laterrefinedand published in 2008. This model includes several elements which are similar to the BLmodelas well as additional key factors and indices that drive employee engagement and

rendimiento.The Organizational Intelligence Modelcan serve as a diagnostic framework for ODpurposes aswell as to facilitate the design and interpretation of most employee and organizationalsurveyesfuerzos. In total, the model includes 11 factors and variables (see Figure 17 below andTable H).Figura 17

Pgina 4039

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Table HFactor Descriptions of the Organizational Intelligence ModelAmbientalEntradasThe outside conditions or situations that affect the company/organization(eg, Sarbanes-Oxley, government policy, competitive intelligence, customerfeedback, the economy).Strategy The means by which the company/organization intends on achieving itsoverall mission and goals and creating value for its stakeholders.Leadership The most senior level of executives and managers in the

company/organization.Culture The underlying values, beliefs, myths, traditions, and norms that guide teamand organizational behavior.Structure &AdaptabilidadThe structure is how the company/organization is designed (ie, levels,roles, decision rights, responsibilities and accountabilities) to execute on theestrategia.Whereas, adaptability refers to the extent to which thecompany/organization is ready and able to change.Informacin y

TecnologaThe business systems, practices, and capabilities that facilitate and reinforcepeople's work (eg, IT infrastructure, communication, knowledge sharing).Direct Manager The relative quality and effectiveness of an employee's immediate manageror supervisor.Measures &RecompensasMeasures refer to the ways in which individual and team performance and


47/56

accomplishments are measured and managed. Rewards are the monetaryand non-monetary incentives that reinforce people's behavior and actions,including advancement and promotion.Growth &Desarrollo

The practices, resources, and opportunities available for employee skilldevelopment and enhancement, including development planning, trainingand learning, and stretch assignments.EmpleadoCompromisoEmployee engagement involves the cognitive, emotional and behavioralrelationship employees have with their jobs and organizations, and effortand enthusiasm they put into their daily work (ie, the extent to whichemployees exert their discretionary energy and effort on behalf of theorganizations they serve).RendimientoSalidasThe outcomes and indicators of individual and organizational achievementy los resultados.

Pgina 4140

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Measuring Employee Engagement (Excerpt from Falletta, 2008)For decades, traditional employee satisfaction models and measures were the norm.Estosdiagnostics tools were lengthy employee opinion questionnaires (100 to 150 items) thatattempted to measure job satisfaction and general satisfaction with organizational-

sponsored programsthe extent to which employees were satisfied with various programs, benefits, and services. By the early 1990s, more targeted employee pulse surveys began to emerger.These were typically administered on a quarterly or biannual basis. Midieronemployee perceptions and reactions to organizational change efforts and popularmanagement trends, such as quality management initiatives, restructuring, and systemimplementations.The dot-com era from roughly 1995 to 2000, coupled with the war for talent, ushered in the concept of employee engagement. This led to the development and validation of a numberofbranded and competing definitions of engagement, survey instruments, and concomitantitems and questions by consulting firms and research consortia and think tanks.

Unfortunately, these varying definitions and measurement tools limited the extent to whichresearch on employee engagement can be generalized beyond specific firms' practices.Moreover, many of the survey instruments available comprise merely a few items related toemployee motivation, commitment, and retention. They omit important strategic levers andprimary drivers that ultimately affect employee engagement. Hence, the lack of a standarddefinition and reliable measurement tools has left practitioners dazed and confused as to what employee engagement actually is, and how to accurately measure it.Survey consultants and practitioners are continuing to extol the value of employee


48/56

compromiso.However, the means of measuring and demonstrating its impact continues tolag behind. A comprehensive approach for measuring employee engagement at the cognitive, affective, and behavioral levels is sorely needed. Cognitive engagement refers to what employees thinktheir rational commitment to and beliefs about the organization.Engagement, at the affective level, refers to how employees feel about their organizations

their emotional attachment and connection to their jobs, direct managers, co-workers, andla organizacin.The behavioral domain refers to how employees actthe discretionaryenergy and effort employees exert on behalf of the organizations they serve. Surveys based on the Organizational Intelligence Model measure employee engagement ateach of these levels and more. They are broader than employee engagement surveys, yetconcise and more focused than antiquated employee satisfaction surveys. Like the BL Model, the Organizational Intelligence Model depicts a top-down causal chain,making some tentative assertions with respect to cause and effect. The variables in theupperpart of the model (such as environmental inputs) affect the organization from the outside.Within the organization, the strategic drivers (eg, leadership, strategy, and culture) affectkeyindices that represent organizational climate, capability, and execution. Estos incluyen el

Pgina 4241

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.organization's structure and adaptability, effectiveness and quality of the direct manager,andrewards and growth opportunities, among other factors. These latter internal factors in turninfluence employee engagement and performance. While the Organizational IntelligenceModel is similar to the BL model in many respects, it differs in the following ways.

1. The Organizational Intelligence Model depicts and emphasizes the notion of employeeengagementwhich goes beyond employee motivation and commitment.2. The Organizational Intelligence Model depicts and emphasizesgrowth and developmentas a key factor for engaging and retaining talent.3. The Organizational Intelligence Model has been tested in a number of settings withrespect to validity and reliability vis--vis factor analysis and causal modelingprocedimientos.Burke and Litwin (1992) and Falletta (2008) wisely call for validation of their respectivemodelsthrough further empirical investigation and causal modeling in multiple settings in terms ofgeneralizacin. Causal modeling procedures used in organizational behavior research is the

focus of the next section of this review.Causal Modeling in Organizational Behavior ResearchThe Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change (BL Model) is arepresentation of an organization, as discussed earlier. In pictorial form, the model istermed apath diagram because it depicts a network of relationships among variables (Hunter &Gerbing,1982). Once a model such as the BL Model has been hypothesized from the theoretical


49/56

literature, causal modeling procedures can be used to test the validity of the model. Causalmodeling procedures can estimate both the direction of the relationships between variablesand the magnitude of those relationships (Williams & James in Greenberg, 1994). Twocommonstatistical procedures used for such purposes are path analysis and structural equations

modeling (SEM).Ruta de AnlisisPath analysis is a statistical procedure employing multiple regression techniques in theanalysisof a path diagram (Williams & James in Greenberg, 1994). This technique was invented byabiostatistician, Sewall Wright, in 1918 (in Bollen, 1989). Path analysis provides moreinformation than is available from performing simple correlations between variables (Gable&Wolf, 1993). In path analysis, the researcher must specify both the independent anddependent variables and the direction of the effect between the variables. La direccin deleffect can be one-way, or directional (ie, nonrecursive), only. Two of the assumptionswhichmust be met in order to apply simple path analytic procedures are fairly restrictive; theseinclude the premise that no measurement error may exist and that the path represents a one-way, directional flow between variables (Bollen, 1989; Bollen & Long, 1993).

Pgina 4342

2008 (Revised) Leadersphere, Inc. All Rights Reserved.SEMSEM goes beyond classical path analysis and is less restrictive in the assumptions which

mustbe met in order to use the statistical procedure (Gable & Wolf, 1993; Williams & James inGreenberg, 1994). While SEM is more difficult to run and interpret than simple pathanalysis, itis often preferred over path analysis (Gable & Wolf, 1993). The technique was developedin the1960's from an integration of econometric and psychometric methods; the approachcombinesboth structural equations from economics and factor analytic techniques from psychology.Unopurpose of SEM is to determine whether a pattern of relationships in data matches the

predictions in a hypothesized model (Gable & Wolf, 1993). Hence, SEM can be used todetermine whether an organizational diagnostic model is valid.As distinct from simple path analysis, SEM requires that a distinction be made betweentheoretical constructs and measurement indicators (Hunter & Gerbing, 1982). El tericoconstructs in a model are the latent variables (see Table I) which are hypothesized to existfroma review of the research literature. In contrast, the measurement indicator (often an item ona


50/56

survey instrument) is termed the manifest variable. The behavior of a latent variable can beobserved or measured only indirectly, though its effects on a manifest variable. Themanifestvariable is also termed an observ

Documents

Diagnostico Org