A Review of Organization Development Interventions

Part I: Human Process

Prepared by the Master’s Students in Industrial-Organizational Psychology

Radford UniversityClass of 2001

Edited byPiper & Associates, Inc.

A Review of Organization Development InterventionsPart I: Human Process

Prepared by the Master’s Students in Industrial-Organizational Psychology Radford University

Class of 2001

Organization development activities can be directed toward individuals, groups, divisions, or entire organizations. Regardless of whether the recipient of an intervention is a person or a multi-national corporation, the ultimate goal is the same: to improve the effectiveness of the organization. This document reviews human process interventions. Each intervention’s purpose, cost, procedures, expected results, likely results as documented in the literature, and reports of industry use are provided, along with a list of relevant references. Most summaries provide the following information, though some will have more or less.

1. Name of Intervention: Most commonly used name, along with alternatives.

2. Target level(s) of analysis: Is it directed toward organization-wide, group/ unit/ department, or

individual change?

3. Purpose of the intervention: What is the primary goal of the intervention?

4. Effectiveness criteria: What are the most appropriate outcomes (behaviors, attitudes,

knowledge, skills, performance measures) to assess?

5. Evidence of effectiveness: a. What does the literature suggest regarding the likely

outcomes of the intervention? Effect sizes are reported where

available.

b. What organizations, groups, individuals have used this

intervention? Exemplary case studies are reported where

available.

6. How/when will outcomes be assessed? How has the intervention been evaluated?

7. Characteristics of typical participants: CEO, upper or lower management, new hires, blue collar, education

level, etc., of typical participants are reported.

8. Time-frame of the intervention itself: How long does the intervention take?

9. Time-frame of anticipated change: When should results be observed?

10. Resources to conduct intervention: Internal/external consultant(s), technology, space, physical

environment, money, time, support staff, etc., necessary for

implementation.

11. Expertise of consultants: Training or education or experience requirements to conduct the

intervention are provided.

12. Do participants need to prepare: Are there pre-intervention instructions? Does the organization, group,

or individual need to be involved in planning?

13. How is the intervention conducted: A detailed description of the conduct of each intervention is provided.

14. Resistance to change: Are participants likely to resist change? How can that be overcome?

15. Maintaining change: What should be done to minimize the return to old habits?

16. Follow-up: Is follow-up needed?

17. Special considerations/Critique: What else do we need to know?

18. References: Citations (particularly for Sections 5 (a & b), 13, and 14) are provided.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Table of Contents

Intervention Page_____________________________________________________________________________________

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

Sensitivity and Human Relations Training

Team Building

Diversity Training

Top Executive-focused Interventions

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator(prepared by Michael Bernardo)

2. Target level(s) of analysis:The target level of analysis for the MBTI is focused on the individual but applications from the individual can effect the organization and team. The effects of the individual in an organizational setting can be seen in conflict management training, management development, organization development, leadership, and a team building intervention.

3. Purpose of the Intervention:The purpose of the MBTI is to measure a person’s inventory of relationship “style” preferences using the theoretical typology of Carl Jung. It assesses how an individual may react to a certain situation. Test results are used to make general and specific predictions about the relation between personality type and behavior under specific circumstances (Pittenger, 1993). The creators of the MBTI were Isabel Briggs Myers and her mother, Katherine Cook Briggs. The MBTI was designed to assess four bipolar dimensions of personality, each dimension believed to be a component of an individual’s psychological type: introversion (I) vs. extroversion (E) (with respect to where one focuses one’s energy), perceiving (P) vs. judging (J) (with respect to responding to experience; this was not part of Jung’s theory), sensing (S) vs. intuition (N) (with respect to perception), and thinking (T) vs. feeling (F) (with respect to making judgments) (Cohen, Swerdlik, & Phillips, 1996). If a person is extroverted (E) the individual prefers action and interaction over reflection, which is the opposite of someone who is introverted (I). A person who is sensing (S) is present-oriented while an intuitive (I) person is future-focused. If a person is classified as a thinker (T) they base decisions on logical analysis while an individual classified as feeling (F) base decisions on personal values. Finally, with the dimension of judging (J), a person is scheduled and systematic while a perceiving (P) individual is spontaneous and casual (Hirsh, 1995). An individual chooses from bipolar adjectives that best describe them. There are 16 possible types that can be combined by the 4 dimensions. For example, an individual with “INFJ” denotes an introverted, intuitive, feeling, and judging type. The four personality dimensions are treated as a dichotomy. Theoretically, there is no recognition that a person may be partially extraverted and partially introverted (Barbuto Jr., 1997); there is no middle ground. The MBTI forces you into a specific dimension of personality.

4. Effectiveness criteria:Results of the MBTI reflects an individual’s preference guiding their behavior in the organization. One example can be to show how effective an individual interacts with their group members. The individual preferences that can lead to enhanced team building and effective teamwork.

5. Evidence of effectiveness:(a.) The MBTI elicits continuous scores and split-half reliabilities that repeatedly exceed .75 for each scale (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). Test-retest reliabilities for continuous scores usually exceed .70 and often over .80 (Gardner & Martinko, 1996). Research for the MBTI uses continuous scores because dichotomous type scores produce lower reliabilities. Most research limits their focus to specific dimensions or scales of the MBTI. Steckroth et al. (1980) however,

discussed the reliabilities of all four dimensions noting that all had reliabilities over .70. Factor analysis of the test scores of 359 college students who answered the MBTI supported the construct validity of four factors of the test (Thompson & Borello, 1986). Often, the MBTI was validated using the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Results showed convergent and divergent validity where it was hypothesized. Also, in organizational settings the MBTI can be predictive of longevity and turnover.

(b.) In industry, organizations like American Telephonand Telegraph, Exxon, General Electric, Honeywell, and Transamerica have used the MBTI in their management development programs, where the focus is on improving decision making and building effective teamwork and appreciation of the different perspectives from which different members of the corporate team view their world and their decision making (McCrae & Costa, 1989).

6. How/when will outcomes be assessed?There are plenty of outcomes that can be assessed from the MBTI. You can identify the effectiveness of the team, climate of the team, or satisfaction with team members. This can be done through the use of surveys or self-report measures. Do the results of the MBTI help the individual work effectively in the group? You want to show that the knowledge gained from the MBTI helps the individual in resolving issues such as team problems or dissatisfaction with team members and possibly enhance the productivity of the team.

7. Characteristics of typical participants:The typical participants usually are from white collar positions. As mentioned before, the MBTI is very diverse. It can be used almost organization-wide. A CEO or upper/lower management can be assessed with this intervention. Also, in personnel selection new hires or even applicants can be assessed through the MBTI. The MBTI has a 7th grade reading level and can be used with individuals that are 14 or 18 years or older.

8. Time-frame of the intervention itself:The administration of the MBTI Form M is 15-25 minutes. Other forms may take longer such as Form K, which needs 30-45 minutes to complete. The MBTI form utilized dictates the time-frame needed to complete the intervention.

9. Time-frame of anticipated change:N/A

10. Resources to conduct intervention:An organization can utilize either an internal or external consultant to conduct the intervention. However, hiring an external consultant can be expensive since using the MBTI is proprietary material. There are different forms of the MBTI. The available MBTI Forms include FormsF, G, G – Self-scorable, J and K (Gardner, Martinko, 1996). Form G was usually the standard instrument that was used in organizations. Form G consisted of 126 questions. However, the Consulting Psychology Press Inc. (CPP) has revised Form G into Form M incorporating a scoring method based on item response theory. There is no longer any gender-difference scoring and the items now consist of only 93 items. The MBTI is an expensive method to utilize. An organization needs to determine how it wants to score. The organization can provide an

individual their score or an interpretive feedback of their score. The MBTI can be scored manually thru the use of a scoring template or with the help of answer sheets. Also, the CPP can score the tests for the organization. A packet of 50 self-scorable Form M can cost the organization $665.00. This does not include additional books needed such as the manual ($70.00 each) and a book regarding research completed on the MBTI ($63.00). Finally, the cost for sending the tests to the CPP for scoring is $140.25 for every 10 forms. A support staff may be hired to help score the forms. Overall, the MBTI does not take much time away from employees’ daily duties on the job.

11. Expertise of consultants:In order to conduct the MBTI consultants need to have some necessary qualifications. The MBTI has licensee qualifications that are marked “B”. This includes a degree from an accredited college or university. Also, the consultant must have satisfactorily completed a course in the interpretation of psychological tests and measurements. These standards have been set by theAmerican Psychological Association. Another way for a consultant to conduct the MBTI is to gain accreditation from an MBTI workshop provided by several organizations. CPP noted that even though you are qualified to conduct the intervention the consultant might want to qualify to become a MBTI Certified Practitioner.

12. Do participants need to prepare:Overall, participants do not need to prepare for this intervention. Organizations may want to consider when to conduct the intervention. The usual administration time is 15-25 minutes, however, it depends on the form used. There are other forms of the MBTI that can take 30-45 minutes.

13. How is the intervention conducted:The intervention is conducted through the use of a self-report with forced-choice formats that represent behavioral preferences and preferred self-descriptive adjectives (Pittenger, 1990). No items allow for responses in the middle ground between two extremes. An individual chooses from bipolar adjectives that best describe them. There are 16 possible types that can be combined by the 4 dimensions. For example, an individual with “INFJ” denotes an introverted, intuitive, feeling, and judging type. Some questions carry additional weight because of their predictive value associated to each scale. The MBTI is a paper and pencil test. The organization can provide the individual with their score and dimensions or a detailed explanation of their dimensions and the behaviors associated with the dimensions. The test can be self-scored or mailed in for analysis.

14. Resistance to change:N/A

15. Maintaining change:N/A

16. Follow-up:Based on reliability data you may find that individual scores change when re-tested. McCarley and Carskadon (1983) examined the stability of the type assignment across a 5-week interval and

found that 50% of the subjects were reclassified on one or more of the four scales. This finding suggests that the four-letter type given to an individual is not a stable personality characteristic.

17. Special considerations/Critique:An organization should be careful when using the MBTI. The organization should consider first what they are trying to assess and if the MBTI is the proper instrument to do the assessment. If it is to make a decision about a respondent, then the MBTI may not be the proper instrument to use. The MBTI does not provide precise measurement necessary to make decisions on whom to hire, promote, or provide a raise. Although the test does appear to measure several common personality traits, the patterns of data do not suggest that there is a reason to believe that there are 16 unique types of personality (Pittenger, 1993). Also, the MBTI does not show divergent validity with measures of personality with much different theoretical and empirical origins suggest that the unique assessment qualities of the MBTI cannot be maintained. McCrae and Costa (1989) believe that Jung’s theory of psychological types and the 5-factor model of personality were similar and proclaim that the MBTI does not measure truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types. The use of dichotomous scoring has caused some trouble with researchers. Researchers believe that the MBTI does not take into account situation-specific circumstances that may alter one’s classification (Cohen et. al., 1996). The bimodal nature of distribution of extroversion vs. introversion has been seen as more unimodal than bimodal. Distributions show a mixture of introversion and extroversion, thinking and feeling, and sensing and intuition it does not all load onto one mode of the bipolar adjectives. This would cause an individual to cast doubt about the construct validity of the MBTI. With most validity studies the use of small sample sizes create a cause for concern about the results being reliable (Pittenger, 1993). Finally, a recent factor analysis results do not support the MBTI use of a four-factor structure. Results showed instead that there were six distinct factors instead of four and accounted only 27.4% of the total variance (Pittenger, 1993). Three out of the four dimensions have test items that load onto both ends of the dimension, indicating that they are not independent of one another. Finally, little information is noted on minorities or blue-collar workers.

References for the MBTI

Amadei, R. N., & Wade, L. (1996). Government employees learn to work in sync. Personnel Journal, 75, 91-95.

Barbuto, J. E. Jr. (1997). A critique of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and its operationalization of Carl Jung’s psychological types. Psychological Reports, 80, 611-625.

Bulletin of Psychological Type: Quarterly Newsletter of the Association for Psychological Type. (1994, Autumn). Personality type and marketing [12 paragraphs]. Association for Psychological Type [On-line serial]. Hyperlink: http://www.concentric.net/~vermette/mbtimktg.htm.

Bushe, G. R., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). Predicting organization development consulting competence from the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and stage of ego development. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26, (3) 337-357.

Carlson, J. G. (1985). Recent assessments of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 356-365.

Carskadon, T. G. (1979). Test-retest reliabilities of continuous scores on Form G of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Research in Psychological Type, 2, 83-92.

Chase, M. (1997). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in hrm practice: Proceed with caution. Hyperlink: http://quincy.edu/~chasemi/MBTIinHRM.htm.

Cohen, R. J., Swerdlik, M. E., & Phillips, S. M. (1996). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. (2001). Hyperlink: http://www.cpp-db.com, CPP Website: www.cpp-db.com.

Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1996). Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to study managers: a Literature review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22 (1), 45-83.

Goby, V. P., & Lewis, H. J. (2000). Using experiential learning theory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in teaching business communication. Business Communication Quarterly, 63, 39-45.

Harvey, R. J., Becker, R. L., Brill, R. T., Lawless, W., Murry, W.D., & Stamoulis, D.T. (1991, August). Dimensionality of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Symposium conducted at the meeting of American Psychological Association Convention, San Francisco.

Heineman, P. L. (1995). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Hyperlink: http://www.educ.drake.edu/doc/dissertations/TMPR/mbti.htm

Hirsh, S. K. (1995). Leader’s guide and script: Exploring type with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. California: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Johnson, W. L., Lhonson, A. M., Murphey, S. D., Weiss, A., & Zimmerman, K. J. (1998). A third-order component analysis of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 820-832.

Matrangelo, P. (2000). What psychologists want HR managers to know about the Myers-Briggs. Hyperlink: http://www.ipmahr.org/CFDOCS/news_template.cfm?ID=736

McCarley, N. G., & Carskadon, T.G. (1983). Test-retest reliabilities of scales and subscales of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and of criteria for clinical interpretive hypotheses involving them. Research in Psychological Type, 6, 24-36.

McCaulley, M. H. (2000). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator: A bridge between counseling and consulting. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 52, (2), 117-132.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57, 17-40.

Murray, J. B. (1990). Review of research on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 1187-1202.

Noring, J. (1993). Personality type summary. Hyperlink: http://www.pendulum.org/misc/mb.htm

Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Review of Educational Research, 63 (4), 476-488.

Sensitivity and Human Relations Training(prepared by Shawn Bocketti)

Sensitivity Training, according to Lau (1979), is an over generalized term used to describe four separate types of training. These types are:

1. Therapy groups – Goal is to improve an individual’s mental health. (therapy for normal people).

2. Encounter Groups – The emphasis here is to focus on an individual’s personal growth. Using self-disclosure, catharsis, etc, to increase more effective behavior.

3. T-Groups – This focuses both on the individual and group processes. Its goal is to enlighten each individual and through that enlightenment, increase group effectiveness and intercommunication.

4. Team-Building groups – Main goal here is to improve work goals. These are known as “cousin” of “family – lab” sensitivity training (more detail in Section 13 on the types of labs).

2. Target level(s) of analysis: Sensitivity training is presented in a group setting, usually six to fifteen members per group with eight to ten considered the most typical size (DuBrin, 1978). These groups can be composed of strangers, co-workers from the same department, or people from very different sections of the same organization. The latter example illustrates an organization wide attempt to change behavior and perceptions of other's within the same organization, but at an individual level. So, your improving individual behavior that, in the end, effects the entire organization as a whole (Dubrin, 1978).

3. Purpose of the Intervention: First, Argyris (1962) reports two main purposes of sensitivity training. 1) The broadest purpose of sensitivity training is to increase the interpersonal communication and competence of employees, and in doing so, increase organizational effectiveness or outcomes. This is accomplished through and increased sense of insight into ones self and learning about others sensitivities and feelings. 2) Another goal is to learn more constructive ways to deal with interpersonal conflict, ones own feelings and the feelings of others. In a sense, to heighten your awareness of other peoples feelings. According to Tannenbaum (1961) there are five goals of sensitivity training, they are as follows:

1. Greater Self-Understanding: all participants, throughout the course of the training should gain some insight on how they deal with conflict, feelings, defenses and their impact upon other people

2. Understanding Others: Sensitivity training provides an environment for people to observe others and to better understand their feelings and thoughts, which allows for more effective interpersonal communication.

3. Insight into Group Processes: these sessions allow for a more detailed focus on group processes, that is, what's happening rather than what's being said.

4. Recognizing the Culture: Sensitivity groups are said to allow participants to better understand the climate or culture of their organizations. Why and how things work the way that they do.

5. Developing Specific Behavioral Skills - Training gives participants the opportunity to not only gain insight to their feelings, but also develop specific behaviors, such as active listening, praising, and effective verbal and nonverbal communication.

Luthans (1977) and Lau (1977) both provide two main goals of sensitivity training and these main goals are then divided into 5 more specific goals. The two main goals are personal development and increasing team member effectiveness. The five specific goals are:

1. To increase participants awareness of, and sensitivity to, emotional reactions found in themselves and other people in the group.

2. To make participants more able to perceive, and learn from the consequences of their actions, through attention to their own and other group members feelings.

3. To stimulate and development and clarification of each members personal values and goals, and to align those goals through a democratic of scientific method of social and personal problems solving

4. To develop insights which facilitate the linking of personal values and goals to actions that are consistent with the requirements of the situation.

5. To inevitably, increase behavioral effectiveness.

Gellerman (1968) emphasizes that participation in sensitivity training is NOT intended to change a person’s personality, rather to alter unwanted or ineffective behaviors.

4. Effectiveness Criteria (what outcomes do you measure?): (Smith, 1975) Some positive organizational outcomes of sensitivity training are things like, increases self-concept, reduced prejudice toward other people, and changed behavior as perceived by others not present during training. Robert J. House (1967) found that sensitivity training can produce improved listening skills, more supportive behavior toward other people, and less need to be dependent on others. Myles, Frank and Kenneth (1995) states that the outcomes proposed by sensitivity training advocates are things like psychological growth, self-actualization, and behavior change in the direction of increased empathy and openness.On the other hand, there are some empirically stated negative effects of sensitivity training on organizational and personal outcomes. Research states that leadership ability can be effected by this training, due to the focus on consideration of behavior toward subordinates. Leadership is characterized by a combination of focus on consideration and structure (or task and relationship oriented behaviors), and when a leader begins to focus too much on consideration, his/her imposition of structure over subordinates may suffer.

5. Evidence of Effectiveness:a. (Bowers, 1976) Overall, there seems to be pessimism about the actual effectiveness of sensitivity training. The general tone of research provides few lasting benefits of this intervention, but amongst the negatives and neutral findings, there are some positive outcomes. Burke and Day (1986) examined the effects of sensitivity training on job performance and found effects sizes ranging from .61 - .80, and this review focused mainly on the workforce. Faith, Wong and Carpenter (1995) report a mean effect size of .62 in their meta-analysis of 63 studies (unweigthed .83)b. Organizations that have Implemented this technique:

- National Training Laboratory Institute (NTL) - one of the originators of sensitivity training, reported that of 14,200 participants over an 11 year period, only 33 (.2%) reported that the experience was stressful enough to mandate an early leave from the training.- Systems Group of TRW – Implemented a sensitivity training environment, where people deal openly with conflict and resolve interpersonal problems more effectively. (Allen, 1973)- Non-Linear Systems, Inc. – A San Diego electronics company. Implemented sensitivity groups with great success, but when a major economic slump hit, these groups failed to produce the anticipated results, and were abandoned. (Allen, 1973)- Texas Instruments - Through the use of sensitivity training, Texas Instruments has increase responsibility and share of planning among it’s first like operators. These changes were a direct outgrowth from sensitivity training. (Allen, 1973)- DuPont- Xerox- General Motors

6. How/When Will Outcomes be Assessed?: Faith, Wong and Carpenter (1995) state that there are two main types of data collection for sensitivity training, Self-report measures and behavioral measures. These two categories are represented using the following examples. Lieberman, Yalom, and Miles (1972) assess outcomes of sensitivity training using a battery of paper and pencil tests covering a multitude of topics. Bowers (1973) used attitude survey (Survey of Organizational questionnaire) following sensitivity training. Lakin (1972) states that surveying co-workers that come in contact with participants on a daily basis can assess outcomes. These surveys can come before and after training and marked differences in perceived behavior can be measured. Lakin also recommends this assessment to follow training by about 6 weeks.

7. Characteristics of Typical Participants (org level): Bradford, Gibb, & Benne (1964). states that there are at least six major target populations to which this training is appropriate. Three of the six are apparent in the work context, they are: Middle and top management, total membership of a given organization (all Red Cross Executives, all employees of a small firm, etc.), and professionals in a heterogeneous occupational group. 8. Time frame of the Intervention Itself: Lau (1979) states that sensitivity training can range anywhere from a weekend to a week or two, depending on what the anticipated goals of training are. Allen (1973) states that sensitivity groups can also be set up on a weekly schedule that can meet once or twice a week for a couple hours. This approach may last for a couple months or a couple years.

9. Time-frame of anticipated change:Although there was little research evidence reporting a time-frame of change, based on Lakin (1972) recommendation of a 6 week time lag before assessment, I would say change would occur rather quickly.

10. Resources to Conduct the Intervention:

The main resources necessary for sensitivity training to work is an organizational climate that fits the goals in which you want to accomplish (Nason, 1977). If your organizational norms support openness and disclosure, sensitivity training is more likely to have a positive effect. If this climate is not present, training will be looked at as a superficial attempt to change people’s behavior. 11. Expertise of Consultants: DuBrin (1978) argues that this is very important to consider due to the heavy emphasis on emotional focus that takes place. Although expertise is necessary, precise expertise is difficult to define. This is due to the lack a formal curriculum that directly certifies consultants for Sensitivity Training. A background in mental health plus some specialized training in Sensitivity Training is advisable for consultants planning on publicly engaging in sensitivity training. Clinical skills are rarely needed, but when they do come into play, their presence can have a major impact on the person who may need them.

12. Do Participants Need to Prepare?: DuBrin (1978) states that some individuals are psychologically harmed during sensitivity training. This can be due to the extreme level of self-discovery, or discovering how others actually perceive you. Both of these experiences can be very emotionally stressful. This authors proposes four guidelines about screening people before engaging them in a potentially harmful sensitivity training program, they are as follows:

1. People at the lowest managerial levels should not be used. This proposition is based on the idea that the strongest most competent people are likely to get the most out of sensitivity training. These people will be able to take feedback and use it to better themselves both as a person and an employee or manager.

2. Additionally, managers with histories of psychological illnesses should not be considered for training

3. Those who self-image is grossly different from how others actually perceive them should be disqualified. This is due to the potential realization that these people aren't perceived how they thought they were. This could cause extreme psychological damage.

4. Finally, individuals with heightened sensitivity to personal criticism may not be prepared for sensitivity training, due to its personal focus.

According to Mead (1977) the major purpose of sensitivity training is to learn how others perceive you, this is called feedback. There are some guidelines to giving and receiving feedback in proper ways. These are things that participants should know before engaging in this training. Mead states that participants should be trained in the following rules to giving feedback:

1. Feedback should immediately follow the behavior that it is directed toward2. Feedback is more likely to be understood if it describes a specific, observed

behavior.3. Feedback should concentrate solely on observed behavior and not infer ethical or

moral judgments about the behavior.4. Feedback is more effective and meaningful when it comes from several people,

not just one person.

Mead (1977) also states that there are 5 guidelines for receiving feedback that all participants must be trained in before attending a sensitivity session.

1. Feedback is more likely to be understood if the receiver listens attentively2. The receiver paraphrasing the feedback can assure communication.3. The receiver can learn whether the feedback represents only one person’s opinion

or a consensus by checking with others in the group.4. Feedback does not require the receiver to change his behavior.5. The best way to receive feedback is to give it.

13. How is the Intervention Conducted?: Marrow (1964) states that informality and lack of structure characterize the sensitivity training, where no specific agenda is set or exact goals to obtain. Additionally, there is continuous feedback throughout the meetings. Delbecq (1970) can be designed in two generally different ways, either the "stranger lab", where participants are from different organizations and don't previously know each other, or the "cousin" or "family-lab". Lau (1977) states that it is very important not to disclose too much personal information to others when in a stranger-lab setting. Doing this allows people to create stereotypes about others based on your past experiences. Personal experiences and backgrounds should be shared on the last day of training, once training is complete. The "cousin lab" consists of participants from the same organization, but different departments or subunits. The "family-lab" is made up of people from the same organization and the same department or subunit. The conduct steps are very similar, except in a cousin or family lab, there is usually more focus on inter-group linkages. The overall steps are as follows:

1. To begin with, there is a purposeful lack of leadership, agenda or status. This creates an atmosphere of equality and freedom

2. The second step consists of the trainer/consultant becoming very open and expressive of feelings. Here the major impact on individuals comes from feedback by the trainer and other group members.

3. Phase three is when interpersonal relationships between members begin to develop. Participants begin to serve as resources to one another and begin to engage in new behaviors.

4. The final phase begins to explore how the new behaviors can benefit the organization or "back home" situations or problems.

Typically toward the end of the session, Marrow (1964) explains, each person should be put on the "hot seat" and be given feedback, both negative and positive, as to the impact he/she has had on the group. This acts as a means of dispersing any negative feedback that may have come out of the training procedure, so all participants feel as though they have received both negative and positive feedback through the course of the training.

14. Resistance to Change: Lakin, (1972), states that certain participants of sensitivity training can experience some negative feelings toward the training in general. These feelings can be due to the connotation of context in which they are “recommended” for training. Some people feel as thought this training is due to a direct personal behavior that needs to be corrected, which results in negative feeling and insecurities on the part of the participants. Other people, who are approached about the

opportunity for this training, see it was an advantage, where they are being “groomed for bigger and better things”. Those who are more geared toward personal growth tend to get more out of this training.

15. Maintaining Change: According to DuBrin (1978), in order to maintain change, participants must keep the values and ideals learned in the lab setting fresh, while in the workplace. If this is not maintained, most learning will disappear. Additionally, reinforcement of learned behaviors in the workplace increases the prevalence and permanence of those behaviors. Openness, frankness and caring between all organizational levels, are behaviors that are encouraged in sensitivity training and those behaviors should be encouraged in the workplace. A problem with this train of thought is the organizational culture (Lakin, 1972). If a manager attends sensitivity training and returns with a renewed emphasis on sharing and self-disclosure, where previously the opposite environment was apparent, change will not occur readily. So, in order for change to be maintained, the use of sensitivity training must first be congruent with your organizational culture and values.

16. Follow-up: Lakin (1972) proposes a follow-up evaluation using interviews of participants that should come after the trainee has become comfortably acclimated to the training experience. This is usually about 6 weeks after training has ended.

17. Special Considerations/Critique: DuBrin (1978) suggests some ethical considerations to take into account. The first being, whether or not you subject an individual to a training tactic that may increase his/her anxiety to an extreme amount. Lieberman et al.(1973) states that “serious psychological harm six to eight months after the group ended” was experienced by 9% of participants of sensitivity training, when compared to zero for a control group. A solution to this is a rigorous screening process to ensure that all participants are ready for the training procedure. Another ethical issue is the invasion of privacy during training discussions. To guard against this, consultants must ensure complete confidentiality of statements and behaviors of individuals back to administration or management.

References for Sensitivity and Human Relations Training

Argyris, C. (1962). An original statement of the purposes of T-groups is found throughout, Interpersonal competence and Organizational Effectiveness (Homewood, Ill:Irwind and Dorsey Press, 1962).

Bradford, L., Gibb, J.R., & Benne, K. (1964). T-Group Theory and Laboratory Method. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (p11)

Bowers, D.G. (1976). Organizational development: Promises, performances, posibilities. Organizational Dynamics, 50 - 62.

Burke, M.J. & Day, R.R. (1986). A cumulative study of the effectiveness of managerial training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 232 -245.

Delbecq, A. (1970). Sensitivity Training. Training and Development Journal, 33.

DuBrin, A.J. (1978). Fundamentals of Organizational Behavior: An applied perspective (2nd edition). New York: Pergamon Press Inc.

Faith, M.S., Wong, F.Y., Carpenter, K.M. (1995). Group sensitivity training: update, meta-analysis, and recommendations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42 (2), 390 - 399.

House, R.(1967). T-Group education and leadership effectiveness: A review of the empiric literature and a critical evaluation. Personnel Psychology, 1 - 32.

Lieberman, M.A., Yalom, I.D., & Miles, M.B. (1973). Encounter Groups: First Facts. New York: Basic Books

Marrow, J.A. (1964). Behind the Executive Mask (New York: American Management ASsociation), p.31.

Nason, D. (1977). Disclosure in Learning Groups. Istasca: F.E. Peacock Publishing

Smith, P. (1975). Controlled Studies of the Outcome of Sensitivity Training, Psycological Bulletin, p597 - 622.

Tannenbaum, R., Wechsler, I.R., & Massarik, F. (1961) Leadership and Organization: A Behavioral Science Approach (New York: McGraw-Hill)

Additional ReadingsDuBrin, A.J. (1978). Fundamentals of Organizational Behavior: An applied Perspective (2nd edition) Chapter 13. New York: Pergamon Press Inc.

Back, K.W. (1973). Beyond words: The Story of Sensitivity Training and the Encounter Movement. Baltimore: Penguin Books

Cline, M.R. (1972). Sensitivity Training: A P-F Measure of Change Within a Group.

Golembiewski, R.T. (1973). Sensitivity Training and the Laboratory Approach: Readings about Concepts and Applications (2nd edition). Itasca: F.E. Peacock Publishers

Team-Building(prepared by John Efodzi)

2. Target level(s) of analysisGroup Level Intervention 3. Purpose of the interventionCreating an organization that has high performance (Spencer, 1993) as well as the developmentof thee employee. Organizational performance may increases because teams can achieve morethan individuals and also individuals working in teams seem to be more motivated andenergized than when working alone (Spencer, 1993). Teamwork makes it easier for problemsolving by using the diverse ideas from its members (Cummings C.G., & Worley G.C., 2001).Further, groups can aid solve specific problems of groups such as apathy, general lack of Member interest, loss of productivity, little productivity, little participation in meetings andLittle innovation among others. All these factors together go to make an organization one ofhigh performance.

4. Effectiveness criteriaGenerally the degree to which an intervention

1. suits the needs of an organization2. is based on causal knowledge of intended outcomes3. transfers change management competence to members of the organization

are the three main broad criteria used to assess the effectiveness of an intervention (Cummings C.G., & Worley G.C., 2001).

Appropriate outcomes Increase in organization performance in terms of organizational internal efficiency: increase in sales per employee, decreased waste, low error rates and increased quality of products. stakeholders, investor and customers satisfaction as well as employee satisfaction

financial outputs: profits, earnings per share, investment returns (Cummings C.G., & Worley G.C., 2001).Others Improvement in process measures, like decision-making and employee openness (45%). Improvement in outcome measures like productivity and cost (53%). Increase in hard measures like productivity, employee withdrawal and costs (Cummings C.G., & Worley G.C., 2001).

Some behavioral outcomes that can also be measured are namely absenteeism, tardiness, turnover, internal employment stability, strikes and work stoppages, accidents and illness related to work, grievances, downtime (maintenance of equipment that is not scheduled) plus inventory and supply invariance (Cummings C.G., & Worley G.C., 2001)

Further, effective teams show evidence of a clear purpose, informality, increased participation, good listening techniques, civilized disagreement, consensus decision making, open communications, clear roles and work assignments, external relations, style diversity (diverse skills and group processes), self assessment (regularly evaluates how well they are doing) and shared leadership (French W.L. & Bell C. H., 1995).

5. Evidence of Effectiveness Evidence about the effectiveness of team-based interventions is inconclusive.In a Meta analysis by Neuman G. A.et al., 1989, generally OD interventions have mean observed effect size (r) of 0.16 (r = 0.33 corrected) on all attitudes. Further, structural based interventions like team-based interventions seem to significantly affect attitudes towards others, the job and the organization more than job satisfaction. Also team building seemed to be the most effective intervention for modifying attitudes and satisfaction of employees. However, the organizational level of those participating in the intervention, methodology of the studies used in the meta – analysis were found to be moderators. According to Neuman G. A. et al., two possible factors why organizational level may be a moderator are that:

1. Supervisors are more ego involved in the success of the intervention so may be more committed to making sure the process succeeds.

2. Type of intervention may be more suited for changing certain behaviors than others.

In another meta- analysis by Stajkovic & Luthuans (1997), there was a significant main effect of the Organizational Behavior Modification Intervention on Task Performance (d = 0.51) and a significant treatment by study interactions.

On the other hand, Buller & Bell (1986), in a study of the effects of team building and goal setting on productivity showed that only low improvements in performance and strategy development plus it was not conclusive that the effects were due to the interventions. Also more of these effects were in the goal setting rather than team building conditions.

Team based interventions have been used by Wheelwright Information Services, The Regional

Telecommunications, Inc., Morton Chemicals, Jefferson School District, HL & W Instruments Inc. and The National Systems Management ( Forrester & Drexler, 1999).A Case study example would be the Harley Davidson Motor Company Organizational Redesign ( Young & Murrell,1998) 5. How/when will outcomes be assessed Outcomes will be assessed during the implementation and after the implementation.They are assessed using measures appropriate to the expected effects of the intervention.For example a team intervention aimed at improving overall job satisfaction (outcome) wouldbe assessed using an overall job satisfaction measure. The assessment is usually done using a quasi- experimental design with at least the following three features Longitudinal Assesment: results are measured repeatedly over a long period of time. Comparison Unit: comparing results from the change situation to another similar situation in which the intervention was not implemented. Statistical Analysis: Used to rule out the probability that the results obtained were due to chance (Cummings C.G., & Worley G.C., 2001). Further to decrease a possible interaction between measurement and intervention outcomes variables. Multiple measures of the intervention and outcome variables are recommended

During the implementationAssessment to see if the intervention is actually working so that appropriate stepscan be taken either to correct or plan for further stages of the interventionThis is known as implementation feedback.

After Implementation.Outcome measures relevant to the team intervention such as performance, absenteeism, turnover and job satisfaction are measured. Negative results imply the need to go back to the drawing board because either the intervention or initial diagnosis was wrong. Positive results implies the intervention is having expected effects.

When to assessIt depends on the kind of team intervention used but generally desired outcomes may be assessed a month, three months, six months and a year after the intervention. Since most interventions take time periodic follow ups of every year up to three or four years after the intervention may be done.

6. Characteristics of typical participantsParticipants included depends on the level of the organization at which the interventions is beingdone. Participants may include a consultant working with a supervisor and subordinates known as the formal work team while other interventions may be aimed at special teams likestart up teams, newly formed teams due to mergers, organization structure changes, or plant start up such as cross-functional teams and committees (French & Bell,1995).

7. Time frame of the intervention itselfIt basically depends on the type of intervention implemented and the extent to which the intervention is achieving desired outcomes. This may take from several months to years.

Factors that may influence the time frame of the intervention may be willingness of participants to take part in the intervention, strength of upper management support, depth of the problematic situation and the cost of implementation among others.

8. Time frame of anticipated changeIt depends but for most team based interventions some kind of results even if it be minor improvements in team processes are expected at least a month after the intervention, then possibly three months, six months, a year e.t.c. On the other hand for a successful intervention measures can be taken to institutionalize that intervention thus making it a permanent feature of the organization.

9. Resources to conduct interventionThe organization must allocate adequate resources in terms of space, physical environmentmaximum upper management support, money, time, technology , manpower and competent consultant who may be either internal or external. Consultants must be given the authority to do what they have to do to make an intervention work. 10. Expertise of consultantsAccording to Young & Francis (1979), because of the array of backgrounds and experienceshared by most consultants , it is difficult to pinpoint the adequate qualifications neededby a consultant to implement an OD intervention however generally he/she must : be self knowledge gained from a lot of personal or professional experience like actively listening, valuing others as people, taking people as they are, clarifying personal values and reflecting problems to people in a helpful way among others. have a foundation in practical theory: uncanny ability to draw on relevant research and theory to guide his/her work.

be open and realistic: open in giving feedback to others & clearly state their values and expectations at the beginning of the consulting process.

be able to work with teams on present issues but help teams visualize ways to improve future performance.

11. Do participants need to prepareAccording to Cummings & Worley (2001). The organization or team must be: ready for change – indicators such as dissatisfaction with the status quo, sensitivity to pressures for change, availability of resources for change e.t.c. must exist. capable of changing : members must have the ability to motivate change, lead change , manage transition as well as sustain the momentum. done in a cultural context : team intervention design must take into account the national culture in which the organization is entrenched.

capabilities of the change agent: consultant ( s) implementing the change must be competent in the intervention being implemented.Generally participants must be involved every step of the way. For example participants and consultant(s) must agree on the purpose of the intervention (French & Bell, 1995). Further, Upper Management needs to support the proposed intervention make available funds and resources in terms of technology, money, space and time among others. 12. How is the intervention conductedThere are no strict rules in the type of approaches in team building. There are general guidelines which are twisted and tailored to meet the needs of an organization.

These guidelines are briefly illustrated below.

The formal diagnostic meeting Purpose is to get an idea about how the group is performing through general criticism of groupperformance. Usually the team leader and the consultant confer about the idea first and decide onwhether the diagnostic meeting is needed or not. If it is needed a meeting of the team members includingthe consultant(s) and team leader is convened for about half a day or a day. At the meeting group discussions involving everyone, sub groupings (breaking into smaller groups) or pairingindividuals are some of the processes used to get diagnostic information or data.

After the issues and problems are determined the next step is to discuss and group these in termsdegree’s of similarity or common themes. This helps determine the next step. This may require calling a team building meeting, the assignment of individuals to various tasks groupsto work on problems or strategies aimed at correcting things wrong with the group deduced from the formal diagnostic meeting. It is recommended that formal diagnostic meetings are heldfrequently to preempt any upcoming problems.

The formal group team building meetingGenerally the way team building meetings are done may vary depending on the purpose of the intervention however the basic structure of the process remains the same.Aim is to improve team effectiveness by managing task demands, group processes and relationships more efficiently. Here the group analyzes its operations and critiques its performance and tries developing strategies to correct and improve their way of doing things. The main question they try to answer is ‘how can we build ourselves into a better functioning team’ (French & Bell, 1995). This meeting is often called by the consultant in conjunction with the team leader. A meeting session may take from one to three days and the location should be away from the workplace.

Prior to the sessionThe Consultant may interview each member of the group including the leader to get informationabout what they think their strengths and weaknesses are, problems the group faces, how thegroup functions and the hurdles in the way of the group performing better. This information is then categorized into themes based on similarity.

At the meeting At the beginning of the first meeting the consultant presents information gathered frominterviews prior to the meeting to the group. The group examines each issue in depth and ranks them in order of importance, scrutinizes the dynamics of each problem, starts to work on solutions to the problems and takes concrete action steps to bring about the needed changes.

After the meeting Follow up meetings must be called to see if the action steps that were taken are actually being implemented and determine how effective they are.

Alternatively.Consultant may interview the whole group using open-ended questions. Next categorize the information in terms of similar themes and present the information to the group. Here the groupranks the information in terms of importance and discuss them in order of importance whilegenerating solutions alongside.

Things to note Primary goal of the team meetings must be clear to all. The Consultant and team leader must agree on the primary goal Consultant should help the team leader implement his/her goals for the session

not the consultant’s goals ( French & Bell , 1995).

Other Team Intervention Approaches Process Consultation InterventionsA competent consultant works with individuals, groups or teams helping them solve their problems

Gestalt Interventions Focuses on building an individual more than the group. Here the main idea is to make an individual stronger and more in touch with his/her own feelings. When this happens better teams may result because individuals a functioning at their best.

Techniques and exercises used in team buildingThese techniques are used in team building to address specific problems or issues in teams.Choice of technique depends on the problems that need to be addressed. The appropriate Technique must be chosen to solve a given problem.

Role Analysis Technique (RAT)Aim is to clarify role expectations and obligations of team members. Best used for new teams But may be of help to established teams where role ambiguity exists. Here, roles are defined and role requirements outlined.

RAT Steps These steps are conducted for one role at a time. The role being analyzed at a given time is known as the ‘focal role.’

1. Choose the role to be analyzed (focal role).

2. identify the place of the role in the organization and achievement of overall organizational goals, the rationale for its existence and the specific duties of the office.

3. the focal role incumbent’s expectation of others is examined.4. members of the team describe what they expect or want from the focal role

incumbent. These are discussed and agreed upon by the group and focal person.5. Focal person makes a written summary of the role based on the information

obtained about the role from this session. This is known as the ‘role profile’. 6. The role profile is reviewed briefly at the next meeting before another role is

analyzed. If accepted that role profile becomes the role activities of the focal person.

This procedure can however be shortened if the focal role is highly visible and there is a clear understanding and high visibility of the activities of all team members.

Interdependency Exercise Aim is to improve co-operation among team members. May also be useful in helping people get used to emerging problems in a team that may be dormant and not examined previously. In addition it may provide information about present challenges faced in others’ areas of responsibility.

The exercise works well with about ten people but gets more cumbersome when more people are involved.

The rationale here is each individual interviews every other person in the group. For any given pair, information about important interdependencies between their two jobs or units are exchanged. Also information about what seems to be going well with their interdependencies, present or potential hitches is exchanges. At the end of the interview the pair set mutual action plans to solve their problems.

Alternatively group interviews could be conducted to shorten the time. Groups of ten people could interview each other about their jobs. In a group each person has a different question. The same questions assignments and questions should be asked by each group. Usually, a standardized questionnaire is given to all members in a group to make sure the same assignmentsand questions are available to every group. After the interviews individuals from different groups who asked the same questions meet together to categorize information obtained into themes and report it to the whole group.

Role Negotiation Technique ( RNT)Used when intervention aims at people in a teams’ unwillingness to change their behavior because of power or influence that the individual might loose. May take at least one day to carry out. However, a two-day session with follow up after one-month is recommended.

Steps of RNT 1. Contract setting The consultant sets ground rules like

Emphasis is placed on work behaviors not feelings Specifically state what you want to do more of ,less , maintain or change. Write down all expectations and demands. No one should agree to changing any behaviors unless the other person agrees to change a behavior.2. Issue diagnosis: Individuals think about how their own effectiveness would improve if others change their behavior. Thereafter each individual fills out an issue diagnosis form for all other members of the group stating what he/she would like the other to do more of less, maintain or change. Then all group members exchange forms and the messages they received by each group member are written on something like a chalkboard. The idea is the information should be somewhere everyone in the group can see.

3. Influence trade or negotiation period: Individuals in pairs talk about the most important behavioral changes they desire from each other as well those changes they are willing to make themselves. Here each individual must give up something in order to get something in return.

Appreciation Concerns Exercise Aim is to increase expressions of appreciation and decrease avoidance of confrontational concerns in addition to irritations within members of a group. There are different versions of these exercises but the basic guideline is as follows :Steps 1. Every member of the team is asked to write down one to three appreciations for all other members of the team.2. Every team member also writes down one or two minor irritations about each team member that may be an impediment to the efficiency of the team.3. The facilitator makes suggestions and comments as these concerns are written down to keep them within realistic limits.4. A member volunteers and is the first person to listens to the concerns all other group members have about he/she.5. Each member of the team has an opportunity to listen.

Responsibility Charting It is a way of determining ‘who is to do what, with what kind of involvement by others,’ (French & Bell, 1995).

1. Construct a grid of the total types of decisions and categories of actions needed in the type of work being dealt with.2. List contents of step 1 along the left hand side of the grid3. At the top of the grid list those people who might be involved in making decisions.4. Assign behaviors to each of the individuals at the top of the grid based on the following Responsibility Requirement of approval or right to veto Support in terms of logistics Inform – informed by other individuals and cannot influence.

Things to note about responsibility chartingThis process is conducted in the team context everything is discussed and agreed upon before assigning some type of behavior. To increase effectiveness Assign responsibility to only one person Don’t have a lot of people with a veto function One person should not have too much of veto functions Support function is very essential.

Visioning Team members describe or develop their vision of what they desire. There are a variety of techniques used but generally they have the following pattern.

Visioning Steps1. An individual writes the characteristics he/ she desires’ the organization to have in a year and then two years.2. Display characteristics on the wall using a marking pen and flipchart such that everyone can easily see.3. Team members may ask for clarifications. However, no debate is allowed now.4. Themes are then developed from the information obtained in steps 1 to 3 by a subgroup of team members and later reports them to the whole group.

Force-Field AnalysisAimed at understanding problems of a team and finding corrective solutions.

Steps of Force Field Analysis1. Describe in detail the current problem situation team is interested in solving.2. Describe where the team wants to be or the state they desire to be in.3. Identify the factors that restrain the desired state and those go in the direction of the desired state.4. Carefully scrutinize the factors or forces to determine which are weak strong can be influenced can not be influenced controllable uncontrollable5. To move the equilibrium towards the desired state, use the following strategies: Add more forces or factors that drive in the direction of the desired state Eliminate the restraining factors

Removal and addition of factors or forces may be done simultaneously and should be done based on actions planned and developed. As restraining forces are taken out the balance of the equilibrium tends to shift toward the desired state.

6. Implement action plans. The desired condition may be realized at this point.

7. Accurately describe the actions that must be taken to keep the system stable.

14. Resistance to change:Participants may resist change passionately or passively because of the influence of their culturalvalues or as a byproduct of life, people just don’t like to change (Kirkman B. L., & Shapiro D.L.,1997; Jansen K., 2000). However according to Jansen (2000), recent research suggests that

people don’t just show resistance to change. They show resistance things like status, pay andcomfort that maybe linked to the change with the change. To decrease resistance to change thecultural background of each individual in the team must be taken into account, fears about loss ofthings associated with the change process such as pay and status should be allayed at thebeginning of the change process and most importantly participants especially team members must be allowed to participate in decisions as much as possible every step of the way. Also Piderit ( 2000) suggests that resistance to change may not be always negative employees may have genuine concerns about the change process which may be beneficial to the organization in the long run.

15. Maintaining change:What should be done to minimize the return to old habits?Upper management or team leaders must be commited to the change processes initiated.Because the behaviors of a leader of change usually predicts the direction and momentumof change ( Jensen, 2000).Further there change should be so energized that those involved in thechange would not loose sight of it like as the saying goes ‘ out of sight out of mind’. The changeenvironment should be such that they will recognize and carry it out at all times.

16. Follow-up Yes follow up is needed. For most team interventions this is usually done a month after the intervention. Here the progress of the team towards the goals of the intervention is assessed. However the main aim is to determine if the team members are going through with the recommendations of the intervention.

17. Special considerations/Critique:Planned organizational change may be as successful in private and private organizations.However, it is more difficult to implement change in public than private sectors butorganizational performance can be more readily improved in public organizations.(Robertson & Seneviratne, 1995).

The team concept in organizational management has not been as successful in U.S comparedto Japan. This is because team management concepts are not generalizable across cultures orcountries (Nahavandi & Aranda 1994). According to Nahavandi & Aranda, 1994 for teams tobe successful in the U.S they must : Value and endorse dissent: Unlike Japan, individualism, conflict, competition, successful quick results and fast paced actions are part of the culture of the U.S so teams should not be forced or to work in harmony. They should be trained to know how to ‘agree to disagree’. In other words teams in the U.S must be rather trained in how to use the techniques of productive

controversy and constructive thinking to produce successful results. Enhance fluidity of membership: Work teams do not need to be stable and harmonious. A Shamrock team structure is recommended. This has a stable core of three to five members, people with specialized skills who enter and leave a team as needed and the temporary or part time members usually called upon in ‘special times’ Enable teams make their own decisions: Empowering teams with the authority to maketheir own decisions.

Empowerment of team members is subjective to the behaviors of external leaders, team based- human resource policies, production/ service duties and the social structure of teams ( Kirkman & Benson, 1992).

Restructuring organizations has the unanticipated consequences of producing cognitive order forthe top executives and creation of a turbulent work environment ( McKinley & Scherer , 2000).

Teams should be formed in the context of the organizational culture if they are to be successful (Recardo & Jolly, 1997). There are different types of teams and some would be more successfulin one organizational culture but not the other.

References for Team Building

Buller P. F., & Bell C.H., Jnr. (1986). Effects of Team Building And Goal Setting on Productivity: A Field Experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29,( 2), 305-328.

Francis D., & Young D. (1979). Improving Work Groups: A Practical Manual for Team Building. University Associates Inc. San Diego, CA. Chapter 1.

French W.L., & Bell C.H. (1995). Behavioral Science for Organization Development. Prentice Hall Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632.

Forrester R., and Drexler A. B. (1999). A Model for Team Based Organizational Performance.( Themes : Teams and New Product Development). The Academy of Management Executive,13 (i3) p36.

Jansen K. J. (2000). The Emerging Dynamics of Change: Resistance, Readiness, and Momentum. Human Resource Planning, 23 (i2) p53.

Kirkman B.L., & Benson R.( 1992). Beyond Self- Management : Antecedents and Consequences of Team Empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (i1), p58 (1).

Kirkman B.L., & Shapiro D.L.(1997). The Impact of Cultural Values on Employee Resistance to Teams: Toward a Model of Globalized Self- Managing Work Team Effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 22 (3), p730 (28).

McKinley W., & Scherer A.G. (2000). Some Unanticipated Consequences of Organizational Restructuring. Academy of Management Journal, 25 (i4), p735.

Nahavandi A., & Aranda E. (1994). Restructuring Teams for the Re-engineered Organization.(Special Issue: Restructuring, Re-engineering and Rightsizing: Do Metaphors Make Sense). The Academy of Management Executive, 8( 4), 58 – 67.

Neuman G. A., Edwards J.E., & Raju N.S. (1989). Organizational Development Interventions: A Meta – Analysis of their Effects on Satisfaction and other Attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 42, 461-487.

Piderit S. K. ( 2000). Rethinking Resistance and Recognizing Ambivalence : A Multidimensional View of Attitudes Toward An Organizational Change. Academy of Management Review , 25 ( 4) , 783-794

Recardo R., & Jolly J. (1997). Organizational Culture and Teams. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 62 (2) p4 ( 4).

Robertson P.J., & Seneviratne S. J. (1995). Outcomes of Planned Organizational Change in the Public Sector: A Meta- Analytic Comparison to the Private Sector. Public Administration Review, 55(6), 547-558.

Stajkovic A. D., & Fred L. (1997). A Meta – Analysis of the Effects of Organizational Behavior Modification on Task Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (5), 1122- 1150.

Young J., & Murrell K.L. (1998). Harley Davidson Motor Company Organizational Redesign: The Road to High Performance. Organizational Development Journal, 16(1), 65-74.

Diversity Training(prepared by Melvina Thomas)

2. Target level(s) of analysisDiversity training is affected at the individual and group levels. Self-assessment at the individual level would incorporate analyzing one’s own ideals of what diversity in the workplace should include. At the group level, self-assessment results in effectiveness toward group cohesiveness. Consistent organizational application of standards as it relates to diversity training is important for positive and long-term results.

3. Purpose of the interventionAffirmative Action programs were the first sign that diversity was an issue either at an organizational or governmental level. There are two types of Affirmative Action programs. Voluntary Affirmative Action includes organizations that choose to be proactive in expanding their place of business to represent a more cultural pluralistic environment. Involuntary Affirmative Action programs include government regulation of diversity in the workplace as well as consent decree, meaning an involuntary action due to discrimination lawsuits within a particular organization. Diversity is therefore the target of Affirmative Action programs enabling qualified minorities and women to serve as equal consideration for hire. It is therefore imperative that organizations meet the ever-changing and vast increase in a multi-cultural society and how this has ultimately trickled down to the workplace. King (1995) describes diversity training as targeting organizational discrimination. He states that, “Discrimination is a major organizational problem in a multicultural working environment. Commitment to solve this problem must come from top management. Training programs, focused on confronting discrimination and managing diversity, are also critical to organizational effectiveness.” Ingram (1993) explains diversity implementing a “kaleidoscope” theory with the premise that women and minorities require an organizational structure that does not require them to shed their ethnic, gender and individual identities in order to be successful in their respective careers; moreover, training and organization development supervisors should develop strategies that would educate employees on how to interact with co-workers with differing backgrounds. Diversity training is therefore essential in meeting with global demands faced before present and future organizations toward enhancing organizational development.

4. Effectiveness criteriaThe most appropriate outcomes as it relates to diversity training would include behaviors, knowledge, and perhaps attitudes. Teaching differences in cultural logic and epistemology would increase individual knowledge structure. Proper knowledge could possibly result in attitude changes toward other cultures increasing organizational dynamics and decreasing counterproductive behaviors. Sussman (1997) describes the behavioral, attitudinal and knowledge aspect with a model for workplace cultural diversity, which assumes that prejudice and interpersonal competence are independent, meaning that certain people with prejudices can still conduct themselves well in a culturally diverse environment. Although you may be able to change attitudes of employees during diversity training, the research implicates that you may not want to make it a goal or objective of training. Flynn (1998) explains that you may have great ideas and strategy for increasing organizational effectiveness through diversity training;

however, people’s attitudes toward certain ideas, values, and often-other cultures do not change. Therefore, the ideal is to create a system where people can work together inspite of their differences instead of encouraging employees to embrace the idea of diversity ethics.

5. Evidence of effectivenessFlynn (1998) states that the efforts to diversify the American workforce appear to have failed. Flynn accounts this failed attempt to the increase in number of sexual and racial discrimination suits toward organizations. The author also feels that organizational attempts to promote diversity in the workplace is merely a ploy toward public relations and ideally the main focus is to treat diversity as a publicity stunt as opposed to true development of the organization. The Conference Board, a business research firm, conducted a study on diversity training where it is stated that, “ diversity training flops, when it is too brief, too late, or in response to charges to lawsuits already filed; when it is portrayed as remedial, because that paints participants as flawed; when political correctness is the dominant theme; and when only one group (white males, for instance) is expected to change.” Jackson and Associates (1992) concluded that on the negative side, diversity programs have sometimes led to resentment and dissatisfaction among some or all groups of employees. They also concluded that diversity programs have sometimes led to major improvements in management practice; for example, in promoting the personal development and productivity of all workers in an organization.

In response to a survey conducted by the NAACP (1997), many of the major hotel chains are implementing initiatives in their organizational structure due to the results that indicated their lack of commitment to promoting diversity (Nigro, 1998). Best Western invites a speaker to discuss diversity issues annually. The Cendant Corporation is the sponsor of this year’s NAACP awards and sponsoring $2.5 million in Black advertising. The Xerox Corporation is among one of the most culturally diverse organizations in the country. They created and maintained a diversity vision that was implemented in the 1960’s which include: A corporation must value diversity, it must have diversity, and it must change the organization to accommodate diversity and make it an integral part of the organization. There were several events that helped to mark Xerox’s plan to make diversity a part of the organizational structure: Race riots in Rochester (1964), The Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Executive Order 11246 (1965), and the second race riots in Rochester. The next step was to empower minority employees by supporting their Caucus groups. There were also well organized and well budgeted Affirmative Action plans implemented. Training and education sessions were developed to help the majority employees and managers adapt and adjust from corporate beauracracy to decentralization. Today, the Xerox Corporation maintains representation from all cultures including White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American.

6. How/when will outcomes be assessed?Outcomes of diversity training can be assessed within the first year after the intervention has been concluded. Informally, supervisors and management can begin to ask subordinates of changes that may or may not have occurred since training was received. Thiederman (1991) believes that pretests and posttests are useful evaluation tools that help establish effectiveness of the training program. More important is the function they serve to accelerate the learning process (Thiederman, 1991).

7. Characteristics of typical participantsDiversity training is an intervention that should be implemented with all levels in mind. In order for this intervention to obtain its goals, all persons within the organization must be willing to take a proactive approach to either changing their organization to meet with societal needs or maintaining organizational upkeep, which would include insuring that diversity in the workplace is an ongoing focus and expectation. Research indicates that if new hires are shown diversity as an integral part of the organizational culture, it keeps an on-going positive cycle of effectiveness. Upper management should be readily available to discuss issues with all employees. Effective leadership is an important facet of setting and maintaining the standard of diversity within the organization.

8. Time- frame of the intervention itselfThe initial planning often involves weeks to months of preparation depending on organizational expectations. Pre-intervention attitude surveys whether formal or informal takes a great deal of time to quantify and results should be compiled into a report. The length of the program itself often varies depending on the type of diversity training external consulting firms offer. Often, organizations conduct diversity training annually. The duration of training sessions are typically 3-5 days, averaging 5 hours a day.

9. Time- frame of anticipated changeAccording to Jackson and Associates (1992), there are two types of change: evolutionary and revolutionary. Evolutionary change is a gradual process that involves steps the organization follows to progress from past changes. Revolutionary change by contrast, occurs immediately. Most strategies for diversity training are representative of the evolutionary process. There are examples of revolutionary type changes designed to create results within 1 – 2 years. These would include: training on valuing differences, knowledge of the history of different cultural groups and conflict management skills. Ideally, the focus is to create short-term goals and a vision focused specifically on diversity execution. According to Geber, Gordon, Hequet, & Picard (1994), maintaining a long-term diversity training initiative requires a supportive infrastructure, across-the-board participation, courses tailored to business unit needs, action plans and clear ground rules on respecting other opinions. These initiatives should be expected within 5 years.

10. Resources to conduct interventionThe Xerox Corporation allocated internal resources to propose, create and maintain diversity programs. The CEO felt the only way to maintain an ongoing cycle of implementation; internal employees and consultants were used. He also wanted to allocate more money to the development of diversity programs. An external consultant is valuable to an organization if their ideas and goals match that of the organization. Typically, an external consultant’s fee ranges from $125 to $425 an hour. Consultants, both internal and external are key if they enable the organization to develop a vision toward diversity and help set objectives. Ultimately, it depends on how devoted the organization is to diversity, that will result in the type of space and technology used and the agreed upon money to the development of diversity issues.

11. Expertise of consultantsEron (1996) states there are no required credentials or certifications for a diversity consultant. Therefore, consultants who guide organizations through diversity issues are effective due to experience, extensive preparation, and research.

12. Do participants need to prepareFor diversity training to maintain positive outcomes, all levels of the organization must be involved in the planning. The first step is the organization. There must be a willingness to work toward increasing diversity in the workplace. Implementation must be taken seriously and not merely a task on the organizational “to do” list. Commitment must begin at the top. If the leaders are not focused on change, it will neither be the focus of the employees. Divisions within the organization should conduct a cultural audit, assessing what change is needed and as a result communicate necessary changes to top management. Therefore, cultural assessment is analyzed at all levels thereby executing organizational goals and objectives.

13. How is the intervention conductedAccording to Thierderman (1991) following specific guidelines will enable the organization to produce a program that will result in real and immediate improvement in maintaining cross-cultural management skills. The most important points discussed in developing the right organizational diversity training initiative include: take time to assess your company’s needs, use knowledgeable, sensitive trainers, market the program carefully, tailor the program to your organization’s specific needs, take time to address resistance, avoid making faulty generalizations, make your exercises count, and encourage participation. When establishing the kind of training the organization needs, informality is key. Too often, formal surveys create tension and inaccurate information. When discussing the organizational culture with all levels of the organization, confidence and comfortability is important. You want employees to feel comfortable and confident that (1) their opinion is heard and (2) their opinion is valued. Observation of the workplace is imperative. Observing employees naturally gives you a sense of accurate action vs. reaction. Informal surveys and observations should be reported over several weeks or months depending on the goals and focus of the organization. Next, ask for recent discrimination suits, complaints, new hires, and recent fires. Look for similar complaints from different employees. This will give you an idea of what some key issues may be. The final analysis of behavior should be complied in a formal report before proceeding to the next plan of action. The use of an internal or external consultant is one factor that should coincide with budgetary issues as well as support staff and managerial expectations. Thierderman (1991) states that an external consultant is essential. Often, employees are more comfortable with the process if changes are implemented from the outside. When selecting an appropriate trainer, they must have the capability to communicate across different cultures. Sensitive issues have to be handled with proper care. A trainer who does not possess the skills to encourage group participation and anticipate unexpected questions or criticism could ultimately hurt rather than help goals and objectives. When marketing the program carefully, communicating the focus of training is important. Marketability and tailoring are very interrelated. In order to properly market diversity training, it must be representative of the problems and issues of each particular organization. There is no one diversity initiative that can generalize across organizations. Leadership, employees, culture and prevalent issues vary from one organization to the next. There are companies that have similar issues, however their focus and expectations may differ. When

employees feel their issues are addressed, it increases the chance of attendance. The truth of diversity training is that no matter how experienced and prepared you are, there are some groups or individuals that you will offend. It is almost inevitable. You can reduce this occurrence by not making faulty generalizations. The trainer cannot enter an organization with preconceived ideas of how one particular culture or group of people will conduct themselves. During training, exercises and encouraging participation enables the employees to interact. Since the focus of diversity training is to promote and increase cross-cultural communication, exercises should be the focal point toward effective and positive employee participation. Diversity is a sensitive issue that requires sensitive care. Taking the proper steps and caution will help employees replace prejudice with acceptance and uncertainty with curiosity.

15. Resistance to changeResistance is a certainty when implementing change. Diversity training is no different, as various cultures attempt to understand if they are forced to change their thinking, behaviors, and actions. Agocs and Burr (1996) set a series of goals and objectives of communicating change efforts to doubting employees.

* Provide reassurance to the worker that you are not trying to alter his/her culture* Understand the worker’s perspective* Involve workers in decisions concerning the desired behavior change* Ask employees for ideas regarding compromises, and inquire how much they are willing

to adjust.* Help workers to feel psychologically safe and secure even in the face of change.* Communicate respect for workers and their culture.* Interpret behaviors correctly.* Explain what you expect and why it is important.* Compromise when possible.* Meet workers’ culturally specific needs.* Remember that positive reinforcement is essential to successful motivation

15 and 16. Maintaining change and follow-upAccording to Jackson and Associates (1992), programs for creating organizational change are likely to involve many different people working on many different specific projects in many different places over a long period of time. This is imperative in order to maintain the quality of change. Follow-up should persist at least annually. This allows change to occur after initiatives have been placed into action and also enables the organization to assess whether there are arising issues that need to be addressed. This type of follow- up can be in the form of an attitudinal survey or an informal attempt between employer and subordinate.

17. Special considerations/CritiqueThere is no one correct and sound way of insuring diversity in the workplace. Training

experience enables a consultant to know “what works” from one organization to the next, however what may work for one organization may not for the next. Consequently, diversity training 15 years ago may not be feasible or sensible for this era. Diversity is an on-going concern that deserves continuing awareness.

References for Diversity Training

Agocs, C. and Burr, C. (1996). Employment equity, affirmative action and managing diversity: Assessing the differences. International Journal of Management, 17(4), 30-46.

Allison, M.T. (1999). Organizational barriers to diversity in the workplace. Journal of Leisure Research, 31(1), 78-100.

Eron, A. M. V. (1996). How to work with a diversity consultant. Training and Development, 50(4), 41-51.

Flynn, G. (1998). The harsh reality of diversity programs. Workforce, 77(12), 26-40.

Geber, B., Gordon, J., Hequet, M., and Picard, M. (1994). Diversity training pays – doesn’t it? Training, 31(11), 17-22.

Giacalone, R. A., and Beard, J. W. (1994). Impression management, diversity, and international management (Impression management and diversity: Issues for organizational behavior). American Behavioral Scientist, 37(5), 621-637.

Ingram, R. (1993). Anna and the kaleidoscope. (managing a diverse workforce) (Training 101: Training in the Kaleidoscope). Training and Development, 47(4), 15-21.

Jackson and Associates (1992). Diversity in the Workplace. New York: The Guilford Press.

Kelly, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 12, 457-501.

King, A. S. (1995). Capacity for empathy: Confronting discrimination in managing multicultural work force diversity. Business Communication Quarterly,58(4), 46-51.

Losyk, B. (1996). Managing a changing workforce. Florida: Workplace Trends Publishing Company.

Nigro, D. (1998). Diversity initiatives. Meetings and Conventions, 33(6), 73-77.

Robinson, R. K., Franklin, G. M., Terpstra, D. E. (1994). Diversity in the ‘90’s: Avoid conflict with EEO laws. (Equal Employment Opportunity)(brave new workplace: Issues and trends for human resources management). HR Focus, 71(1), 9-10.

Sussman, L. (1997). Prejudice and behavioral archetypes: A new model for cultural-diversity training. Business Communication Quarterly,60(1), 7-19.

Thiederman, S. (1991). Bridging cultural barriers for corporate success. New York: Lexington Books.

Thomas, R. E. (1991). Beyond race and gender. New York: Amacom

Witherspoon, P.D. and Wohlert, K. (1996). An approach to developing communication strategies for enhancing organizations. The Journal of Business Communication, 33(4), 375-400.

Top Executive Interventions(Prepared by Jaime Stockner)

2. Target levels of analysis:This intervention is focused toward either an individual or toward a small group at the top executive level. This type is interesting because, while focusing on behavior change of a top executive, the intervention exists to ultimately change the organization as a whole (Caroselli, 2000).

3. Purpose of the intervention:The primary goal of the intervention is to strengthen an executive's ability to lead and manage in fast-growth environments. Every organization is characterized by the need to change to become more in line with its environment to maintain a competitive status (Nadler & Tushman, 1999). Companies that fail to sustain significant change end up coping with disaster (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, Roth, & Smith, 1999). A CEO is charged with the responsibility of communicating with the executive team to come up with an effective strategy to align organizational goals with the changing outside environment. However, change initiatives are often met with indifference and even resistance by employees (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). According to Kotter (1998), a number of articles have placed the reengineering failure rate at 70%.

Why does this happen? Most change initiatives produce growth for a short span of time and ultimately fail to sustain momentum. The informed executive sustains change by understanding the forces and challenges that hinder progress. They recognize that people are weary of “flavor of the month” management fads (Nohria & Berkley, 1998). Also, effective executives understand the difference between an employee’s compliance during a reorganization effort and an employee’s commitment to the effort (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, Roth, & Smith, 1994). Instead of using commands, they use vision to foster more than just compliance. Changing a person’s fundamental beliefs cannot be achieved through compliance. People generally do not value goals that are not voluntarily chosen (Senge et al, 1999).

Effective executive communication is also key. For example, when creating a new corporate strategy, employees need to know the end goal and how it can have positive results for them. In this way, employees are less likely to feel threatened or manipulated by upper management.

Thus, the purpose of the intervention is to teach executives to take more difficult paths to improvement by breaking out of their mind-set into a different way of viewing and doing things. Caroselli (2000) describes this as the difference between a manager and a leader; a manager wades in familiar waters and completes the duties that are included in his or her job description. A leader, on the other hand, steps into unknown waters and is thus vulnerable to being swept away. Jaworski (1996) also remarks that the leader’s duty is successful discovery of the organization’s destiny and the courage to follow that destiny, thus serving as the organization’s visionary. Leaders should always be willing to try new problem-solving strategies. They should also have an understanding of employees (know what makes them tick) in order to motivate them to achieve a higher level of performance. Leaders also need to communicate well. An organizational intervention directed at top executives includes instruction on how to listen,

speak, and train. Most also include lessons on how to use persuasion power and how to share power (for sometimes, leadership means letting go of power). Most of all, leaders are taught how to adapt when tactics that worked well in the past no longer work in present circumstances.

4. Effectiveness criteria: The most appropriate criteria to assess after implementation of the intervention is the change in an organization’s operating environment (Mercer Delta, Insights). Three things characterize the operating environment: (1) patterns of individual behavior and social interactions within the organization, (2) the way people complete their job tasks (including the way they handle customer concerns), and (3) the fact that the operating environment takes many years to develop indicates that it is extremely resistant to change. Top executives, through their impact on the strategic management processes of an organization, may try to guide the behavior of the organization as an open system. The new strategy may demand speed, and “think outside the box” leadership. If the operating environment of the past has been characterized by bureaucracy and centralized, top-down management, the new strategy may be doomed for failure (Mercer Delta, Insights) unless the executive or executive team is able to align the organization’s operating environment with the new business strategy. In organizations facing significant future uncertainties, a critical dimension of the work of strategic executives is perceiving possibilities for new strategic plans, new management processes, and new kinds of resources (Sanchez & Heene, 1997). The essential task of strategic executives is the process of continuous learning at a theoretical level that allows for identification of potential changes in an organization's operating environment. But even more importantly, an intervention’s success is determined by a successful and prompt change in the behavior, perceptions, and performance of employees when confronted with a new organizational strategy.

5. Evidence of effectiveness a. The literature suggests that many positive outcomes are likely to result from a top-executive focused intervention. The first includes the fact that members of an executive team often feel badly informed about what roles they are supposed to play in the team’s deliberations, decision-making, and policy implementation efforts (Senge et al, 1994). This problem is inflated when the executive board feels constant pressure to expand its membership, which is often the case due to the symbolic importance attached to a seat at the “big table” (Mercer Delta, Insights). As a result of the intervention, executives are more likely to function well, with a mix of skill and experience serving as an asset rather than a source of confrontation or confusion.

Also, the intervention should have an effect on the work management of executives, or how well they are able to share information, create agendas, and make decisions. The executive should be able to consistently produce positive results in earnings, growth, and returns, etc. (Mercer Delta, Insights).

Finally, an executive-focused intervention that includes change initiatives may have unintended consequences. An article by McKinley and Scherer (2000) indicates that organizational restructuring results in the unanticipated consequence of producing cognitive order for top executives because restructuring creates a perceived congruence or "fit" between the organization's internal structure and the state of the environment. At the employee level, however, organizational restructuring has the unanticipated consequence of contributing to long-

term environmental turbulence (which is not necessarily a bad thing; it is related to organizationally-valued behaviors such as innovation and performance). Both lead back to promote further organizational restructuring, making it a self-reinforcing loop. This loop is stimulated by portrayals of environmental turbulence presented in consultants' sessions, thus consultants have a positive effect on perceptions of environmental turbulence by top executives, creating more incentives for organizational restructuring to respond to those conditions, more environmental (employee) turbulence, thus more restructuring. (No effect sizes are available for this model because no data was collected; i.e., these are the authors’ propositions.)

b. As the name implies, this type of intervention strategy will only be used with large organizations that have a chief executive officer or some other individual or team that is the embodiment of leadership for that organization. A wide range of organizations use executive coaches, including computer hardware and software, biotechnical, retail, and manufacturing organizations. The Generative Leadership Group (GLG) assisted an international consumer goods manufacturing company to achieve competitive advantage in their global marketplace. It was determined that the organization's product development cycle/process needed to be redesigned. The predictable product development cycle took an average of 48 months. The task was to reduce this to 12 months. GLG provided an intensive leadership and coaching training program and a series including leadership training and organizational design consulting for the CEO and the executive team. With this help, the organization was able to introduce their newest product in 24 months. They were also able to focus on the manufacturing process, which allowed for more diverse product development.

6. How/when will outcomes be assessed?According to Judd and Lawson (2000), a concept that all executives must keep in mind is that change at the organizational level will be difficult or impossible without changes at the individual level. Executives must “roll up their sleeves” and reshape their employee’s values, beliefs, and behaviors where the organization is concerned. The most obvious way to assess this outcome is to measure employees’ positions on goal commitment, levels of perceived injustice, job satisfaction, stress, and job performance (Judd and Lawson, 2000). This could be measured a short time after the completion of the executive-focused intervention, but should also be administered after a longer span of time to rule out any contribution of a Hawthorn Effect.

More straightforward ways to assess outcomes are to ask concrete questions about the intervention including (1) were the new and improved strategies actually implemented? (measured in the short-term), and (2) did the organization gain market share after the intervention and resulting strategy change? (measured in the long-term).

7. Characteristics of typical participants: As the name implies, participants involved in this intervention will be at the top executive level, or at the strategic apex. These people are charged with overall responsibility of the organization, and ensuring that the organization effectively serves it mission and meets the needs of those in power, such as owners, governmental agencies, and unions (Mintzberg, 1993). This may include direct supervision. It is the individuals at the strategic apex who allocate resources and authorize major decisions. Also, executives are the people who manage the organization’s relationship with its environment, serving as figureheads and as those who develop relationships with high-

level, outside contacts (Mintzberg, 1993). Finally, the executives are those who develop the organization’s strategy, or the interpretation of the environment and the development of appropriate patterns of organizational decisions.

8. Time-frame of the intervention itself:

This may entirely depend on the scope of “executive coaching” (Rohrer, Hibler, & Replogle, 2000) that is undertaken. A productive coach-executive relationship can last for six months to two years or more. Many executive-focused interventions are extended longer than usual (or longer than they need to be) because of the popular belief that learning takes place only inside the classroom (Rohrer, Hibler, & Replogle, 2000). This means that principles learned by participants have a limited chance of being used on the job and are subsequently not reinforced. Learning must be supported after the experience, and it must be understood that learning is not a one-time event.

9. Time-frame of the anticipated change:

The rate of observed change after the intervention depends on the concreteness and specificity of the instruction. Executives are coached on effective leadership strategies (Mercer Delta, Point-of-View) and effective decision-making (Rohrer, Hibler, & Replogle, 1995). All of these strategies involve some degree of transformation within the executive before behavioral change will be exhibited. In other words, an executive may be encouraged to reinvent themselves from the person that a whole lifetime of experiences has shaped. A great deal of time could pass before this happens. On the other hand, a consultant could diagnose organizational difficulties and trace the cause back to a specific problem with the way an executive conducts business. For example, it may be discovered that an organization frequently initiates change endeavors without proper re-training of employees, in which case the effects of alternate decisions made by the CEO will be seen in short order.

10. Resources to conduct intervention:

To conduct the intervention, an external consultant is used. The curriculum must be more than just exciting; it needs to be directly linked to the specific hardships facing the organization. In this way, executives are better equipped to learn business-related expertise and initiatives to implement. Specific leadership skills and/or behaviors related to routine business procedures must be identified (Rohrer, Hibler, & Replogle, 1998).

Action learning projects must also be utilized. An action learning project is a group endeavor that allows partakers to apply newly learned skills and behaviors while working on issues that are directly related to company interests. For example, while some consultants teach participants about global supply chain management and cross-cultural issues, a more effective approach is to help groups work through cross-cultural and project management issues as they occur (Rohrer, Hibler, and Replogle, 1998). Projects that are worked on in class will give executives the practice they need to apply the material to real situations. The best way to link classroom to workplace learning is through this process of hands-on, applicable education. The action project provides participants the chance to practice concepts in a safe environment. Also, the organization derives

immediate benefit from the action learning projects, as executives work out actual dilemmas facing the company.

11. Expertise of the consultants:

Rohrer, Hibler, and Replogle International suggests that a consultant must have a doctorate in psychology (licensed or license-eligible) as the most basic qualification. It is also helpful for the consultant to have administrative and management experience and experience in a business setting. This experience must be complimented by technical skills and familiarity with business, and enough expertise to foster effective service to senior executives. They also suggest that skills and extended experience in other countries also are useful. The consultant’s style must also be an effective complement to a given organization or executive. For example, a coach with an aggressive style may be incompatible with an easy-going executive.

12. Do participants need to prepare:

When an organization intends to adopt an aggressive new strategy, it becomes clear that some executives will need help in adapting to their new roles. In some instances, executives who have been singled out for coaching believe it to be some sort punishment for poor performance. They immediately begin to think negative thoughts. If this occurs, there is no hope for the intervention to be an effective tool. Thus, before the intervention begins, the executive must have an explanation. The consultant needs to explain the intervention process in detail. Executives need to be informed that they have the ability to choose the right consultant for their needs (effectively empowering the executive to increase buy-in). Before it begins, the executive must believe that the intervention is a privilege, not a penalty, and that they have an opportunity for individual growth and development to meet the challenges of the new business strategy. Finally, the executive must be motivated to accept the challenges of development. No amount of coaching skill or effort will increase development in a reluctant participant (Rohrer, Hibler, & Replogle, 2000).

13. How is the intervention conducted:

The goal for organizational leaders is to initiate risky change in the hopes of avoiding the potentially fatal consequences of standing still. The coaching necessary to successfully achieve this end involves effective leadership training and role definition, strategic planning including effective decision-making, discontinuous change support, and strategic communication training. As you will see, these topics overlap somewhat.

Leadership training: In broad terms, effective leaders of large-scale change combine clarity of vision with single-minded sense of purpose. According to Mercer Delta Consulting, a mythic leader is one who envisions, energizes, and enables others to perform. Mythic leadership is very important, but not sufficient in a change situation. This type of leader’s charismatic qualities are likely to eventually dissipate (Bryman, 1993). Thus, mythic leadership is complemented by operational leadership, which is characterized by behaviors that ensure that others are engaging in activities that further the vision. This includes clarifying objectives and requirements, monitoring activity, and

providing rewards. Successful large-scale change also requires a third type of extended leadership. This includes the development of new leaders in order to further extend the vision. In order to develop these three leader qualities (focusing extensively on operational and extended aspects), the consultant has to first provide tools to assess the executive’s effectiveness and performance gaps. The executive is then counseled on how to gain support from the board of directors for the organizational change effort. The consultant also helps to design governance structures and processes that facilitates the development of extended leadership (Mercer Delta, Point-of-View).

Role definition: Mercer Delta Consulting has identified a set of roles and behaviors that are essential in governing a large complex organization. The strategist shapes corporate strategic direction. The architect establishes organizational structure and operating systems to ensure achievement of the strategic vision. The ambassador serves as the principal outside representative of the company. The executive learns about these roles and how to achieve competency in each type. Roles, however, are rarely executed in strict fashion. Roles and structures evolve over time, shaped by such factors as external pressure and succession.

Strategic planning: This involves the process of mapping out the organization’s future course. Executives need a well-designed process to position their organization in an ever-changing marketplace. The Strategic Choice process implemented by Mercer Delta Consulting was developed as a way to lead executives in the right direction when planning a strategy. Too often, strategies are developed behind closed doors. This fosters less commitment on the part of employees (Duck, 1998). Without communication of beliefs on where the organization is headed and how it will get there, executives may work in opposite directions. Finally, all parts of the enterprise must be considered when developing operational plans for any specific unit. The first stage in the process requires executives to determine everyone’s perspective on where the company is headed, and from that develop a collective perspective. Then based what they perceive as relevant market opportunities, the executives determine what parts of their current and future paths are congruent with environmental forces and market trends. From this, they develop the most promising strategies. The Strategic Choice process is based on three principles: everyone involved in planning the future direction of the organization must be involved, varying and competing assumptions and positions on strategic options should be addressed, and decisions regarding resource allocation are interrelated; as a result, the strategy that is chosen must be developed holistically.

Discontinuous change support: Discontinuous change, as opposed to routine organizational change, amounts to reinventing the company in a short period of time while continuing to operate in an intolerant marketplace. Everything is done in a fundamentally different way. Everyone must be made aware of new strategic imperatives and the inconcruency of the old way of doing business. The overall strategy must be totally reshaped, and all parts of the organization must be changed simultaneously. Discontinuous change may have no end goal, and could go on indefinitely. The CEO must be personally involved in matters; it cannot be delegated down. In mapping out a strategy for discontinuous change, consultants help by diagnosing which areas of the

organization are causing underlying problems. The CEO then provides a clear direction for change and builds a coalition of support for it. The consultant and CEO then redefine the strategy, make corresponding changes in work processes, and reshape the informal operating environment to support the new strategy. Techniques are learned to ingrain the changes into the fabric of the organization. The CEO then learns strategies sustain the change momentum, to continue the assessment and refinement of the change initiatives, and to scan for new developments in the market to signal the next wave of discontinuous change. (Mercer Delta, Point-of-View).

Strategic communication training: Communication is key in building support for and reshaping attitudes to be more congruent with a newly developed organizational vision. Most organizations regard the communication of reorganization, for example, as a bothersome chore that should be put off until all of the details are worked out. What senior executives may not realize is that ineffective communication will almost certainly heighten anxiety and alienation during a change initiative (Duck, 1998.) A consultant can help the CEO appreciate communication as a useful tool. Depending on the situation, strategic communication doesn’t necessarily require enormous time or resources. It does require the active, hands-on involvement of top leaders. Executives are taught to keep the message clear and simple, repeat the message over and over again, use every communication tool at their disposal, insist on two-way communication for lasting impact, and to seek immediate feedback to maintain the communications effort (Mercer Delta, Insights).

14. Resistance to change:

Participants involved in this type of intervention aren’t likely to be actively resistant to change. Senior executives have risen to the level that they have because they have been schooled, trained and developed for success. They are motivated to extend themselves beyond reasonable expectations (Rohrer, Hibler, & Replogle, 1995). They have been entrusted with the responsibility of bringing about organizational success. For this reason, it is unlikely that they will resist any efforts to accomplish this goal; most probably enlist the help of a consultant by their own counsel. In fact, the main purpose of this intervention is to see that they inspire others to be less resistant to change efforts. As was discussed before, executives may meet an intervention with resistance when they have been instructed by some other person within the executive team to receive coaching. This problem can be solved by explaining that the consultation is not a punishment for poor job performance and by enlisting the aid of the executive in determining the focus of consultation (Rohrer, Hibler, & Replogle, 2000).

15. Maintaining change:

To maintain the change that occurs immediately after the intervention, the learning experience must be taken seriously by top management in general. Once management is committed to a common set of strategic initiatives, it should be involved in determining that the behaviors learned during the intervention are actually being used, and everyone should take responsibility for making sure this happens. Learning, whether it occurs on or off the job, must be supported after the experience. First, new ideas will be resisted by others who have not been through the

same experience. People need help in adapting these new skills to the context of the job and their relationships to other people. Also, performance may drop somewhat as people try to implement new skills and behaviors. Other executives need to allow for risk taking or people that experienced the intervention will revert back to their old behaviors (Rohrer, Hibler, & Replogle, 1998).

16. Follow-up:

Follow-up support needs to be provided after the completion of the intervention to ensure that the participant (1) can apply what they’ve learned to their particular organizational context, and (2) that old ways of behaving have been discarded. This can be achieved by examining the learning that has occurred outside of the classroom. If new behaviors that are an extension of what was learned during the intervention are exhibited, it can be assumed that not only were original strategies learned, but that the executive is actually able to apply what he/she has learned and thus generate more expertise (Rohrer, Hibler, & Replogle, 1998).

17. Special Considerations/Critique:

Eggers and Clark (2000) remark that executive coaching is the fastest-growing area among consulting companies and solo practitioners. Coaching has become part of the training mainstream only within the past few years. As such, there is a limited amount of literature available, both in academic journals and the popular press. The definition of what coaching actually is and isn’t is still unclear. At the time that their article was written, no single standard currently existed to provide consistency and ensure quality of a coaching initiative. Eggers and Clark (2000) consequently set out to define the new paradigm of coaching. In their view, the coach is not the “expert”; rather, they take the role of a “thought partner”. They attribute the success of coaching to the fact that the coach is not the person in charge with all the answers, but instead a team member who knows what questions will prompt partners or other team members to discover the answers themselves. Thus, coaching may be thought of as form of employee empowerment. They also point out that a special relationship usually develops between coach and participant, and those coached are motivated to exceed prior levels of achievement.

References for Top Executive Interventions

Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293-315.

Bryman, A. (1993). Charismatic leadership in business organizations: Some neglected issues. Leadership Quarterly, 4(3/4), 289-304.

Duck, J. D. (1998). Managing change: The art of balancing. In Harvard Business Review on Change (pp. 1 - 20). Boston: Harvard Business School.

Eggers, J. H., & Clark, D. (2000). Executive coaching that wins. Ivey Business Journal, 65, 66-75.

Generative Leadership Group: Executive Leadership Program - Promises of the Program. Online at http://www.cmd-glg.com/programs/eep.htm.

Hamlin, B., Reidy, M., & Stewart, J. (1997). Changing the management culture in one part of the British Civil Service through visionary leadership and strategically led research-based OD interventions. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 6(2), 233-252.

Jaworski, J. (1996). Synchronicity: The Inner Path of Leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Judd, M., & Lawson, L. (2000). How can you help your staff accept change in their jobs? Wood Technology, 127(6), 68-75.

Kotter, J. P. (1998). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. In Harvard Business Review on Change (pp. 1 - 20). Boston: Harvard Business School.

McKinley, W., & Scherer, A. G. (2000). Some unanticipated consequences of organizational restructuring. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 735-752. Mercer Delta Consulting LLC: Delta Insights. Online at http://www.mercerdelta.com/.

Mercer Delta Consulting LLC: Delta Point-of-view. Online at http://www.mercerdelta.com/.

Mintzberg, H. (1993). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1999). The organization of the future: Strategic imperatives and core competencies for the 21st century. Organizational Dynamics, 45-60.

Nohria, N., & Berkley, J. D. (1998). Whatever happened to the take-charge manager? In Harvard Business Review on Leadership (pp. 199-222). Boston: Harvard Business School.

Rohrer, Hibler, & Replogle (RHR) International (2000). The new face of executive coaching. Executive Insights, 17(2), Online at http://12.19.168.197/17-2.htm.

Rohrer, Hibler, & Replogle (RHR) International (1999). Avoiding roadblocks to CEO success. Executive Insights, 16(1), Online at http://12.19.168.197/16-1.htm.

Rohrer, Hibler, & Replogle (RHR) International (1998). Executive education: Not a one-time event. Executive Insights, 15(1), Online at http://12.19.168.197/15-1.htm.

Rohrer, Hibler, & Replogle (RHR) International (1995). Improving executive thinking. Executive Insights, 12(2), Online at http://12.19.168.197/12-2.htm.

Sanchez, R., & Heene, A. (1997). Managing for an uncertain future: A systems view of strategic organizational change. International Studies of Management & Organization , 27(2), p21-43.

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1999). The dance of change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations. New York: Doubleday.

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G., & Smith, B. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook. New York: Doubleday.