Organizational Development - T. Graf

“We have evolved practices and processes to get our work done, but how do we know if we are working effectively with our workmates? At this juncture of vast societal and technological change and capability, are our management systems prepared for our future, or simply being dragged into it?”

By Tom Graf There are a million stories out there about the vices and virtues of virtual work. I worked on a project in the mid-90’s, led from Maryland with teams based in Maryland, California and Taiwan, inter-acting virtually via email, fax and (rarely) phone. For several years we successfully managed the stresses and conflicts of a multi-million dollar aerospace devel-opment effort, enabled by the English language skills of our Mandarin-speaking Taiwan teammates. Then a Maryland manager sent a slightly sarcastic email to the Taiwan team, asking his “cohorts” to try a test again. We never found out what they thought cohort meant, but we know they didn’t like it at all—it took weeks to get our international relations close to normal.

On the surface, this incident may seem like a trivial example of the chal-lenges of working virtually. But consider the breadth and depth of the impact upon our organization: project progress halted at a critical time; interteam trust eroded forever; communication practices proved inadequate; and the team’s balance of power shifted uncomfortably toward Taiwan. Now multiply this example by 1,000 to gain an impression of the nega-tive impact to our project from these types of interactions over five years. Multiply by 100,000,000 for a better understanding of the impact of these types of incidents in organizations each day—lost productivity, impaired competitiveness, but most criti-cally, often irreparable damage to the social fabric of our worklives.

The Future of the OD Network

“The future is already here, it’s just not evenly distributed.”

—William Gibson, 1999

A virtual organization is “a collection of geographically distributed, functionally and/or culturally diverse entities that are linked by electronic forms of communica-tion” (DeSanctis & Monge, 1999). Today we all work in virtual organizations (VO)—business units, departments, teams, or just individuals working from different locations. We interact in teleconferences, email, voice-mail, or indirectly through an intranet or an online collaborative service. We have evolved practices and processes to get our work done, but how do we know if we are working effectively with our work-mates? At this juncture of vast societal and technological change and capability, are our management systems prepared for our future, or simply being dragged into it? Is organization development (OD) capable of contributing to this virtual world?

After almost 30 years in the workforce, I struggled with this question. I decided to pursue a graduate degree in OD at Johns Hopkins University to explore this virtual perspective and perhaps carve out a new career. I focused my attention on these questions: » How are virtual organizations different

from collocated organizations? » Is there a framework for characteriz-

ing VO’s, to help them become more effective?

The Future of ODDeveloping an Effective Virtual Organization for the OD Network

15The Future of OD: Developing an Effective Virtual Organization for the OD Network

I hoped to find an organization to join me in some action research, to apply a found-ing principle of OD, sociotechnical system theory, to virtual organizations, by optimiz-ing “the relationship between the social or human systems of the organization and the technology used by the organization to produce output” (Pasmore & Sherwood, 1978). I discussed my interest with Dr. Peter Norlin, Executive Director of the Organization Development Network (OD Network), and he invited me to begin my research with them.

The OD Network is well-positioned to lead the growth of OD discipline for our virtual future. Yet the OD Network is currently experiencing its own growing pains adjusting to the virtual workplace. Peter Norlin and I agreed to work together to develop optimal virtual infrastructure

and practices for the OD Network, allowing them to increase their effectiveness and serve as a role model and leader—both for OD and for the workplace of the future.

From June through November, 2008, I provided a virtual organizational needs assessment, a virtual workplace and practices specification, and an implementa-tion plan for integrating new products and services. Our goal was to improve the OD Network’s effectiveness and support their strategic initiatives—delivering demonstra-ble capabilities in support of OD innova-tion, networking support, and inclusion and diversity.

Hacking Hackman

Could OD principles be applied to charac-terize the virtual organization? I researched

and selected a well-known OD model to use as the framework for a virtual organiza-tion assessment tool. Richard Hackman (1983) proposed a normative model to identify variables associated with group effectiveness. Hackman defined effective-ness in three factors: (a) the group’s output meets or exceeds the standards of those who receive or review the output; (b) the group’s work processes enhance their ability to work again in the future; and (c) the group’s experience contributes to the growth and well-being of the group’s members.

This group effectiveness is a joint function of the group’s expended effort, applied knowledge and skills, and their per-formance strategies. These process criteria are in turn impacted by several group vari-ables—Hackman’s model describes vari-

An organizational context that SUPPORTS and REINFORCES competent task work via the:• Reward system• Education system• Information system

A design that PROMPTS and FACILITATES competent group work on the task, via the:• Structure of the task• Composition of the group• Group norms about

performance processes

Level of effort brought to bear on the group task

Amount of knowledge and skill applied to task work

Appropriateness of task performance strategies used by the group

Task output acceptable to those who receive or review it

Capability of members to work together in the future is maintained or strengthened

Members needs are more satisfied than frustrated by the group experience

Sufficiency of material resources required to accomplish the task well and on time

ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT

GROUP DESIGN

PROCESS CRITERIAof EFFECTIVENESS

MATERIAL RESOURCES

GROUP EFFECTIVENESS

Assistance to the group in interacting in ways that:• Reduce process losses• Creates synergistic

process gains

GROUP SYNERGY

Figure 1: Hackman’s Model of Group Effectiveness

OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 41 No. 3 200916

ables within four categories: organizational context, group design, group synergy, and material resources, described in Figure 1.

I utilized the existing body of research on virtual teams, groups and organizations, virtual workplaces, computer-mediated communication, computer-supported coop-erative work, virtual facilitation, and tech-nology interaction models, and populated each of the four categories of variables with the unique requirements and practices of effective virtual organizations—naming them critical virtual factors.

The critical virtual factors are identi-fied in Figure 2, in this modified version of Hackman’s model. Note that I moved the Material Resources category to the left, reflecting the essential role of technol-ogy in enabling virtual organizations. A

description of the critical virtual factors is shown in Table 1 (next page), comprising the Effective Virtual Organization (EVO) model.

OD Network Virtuality

I used the EVO model to characterize the state of virtuality of the OD Network. I issued an EVO model survey instrument to the OD Network full-time and extended (part-time and/or volunteer) staff. I complemented the survey with interviews and direct observation of group interac-tions. A summary of the results are shown in Figure 3.

I synthesized the diagnostic data to characterize the OD Network’s virtuality and barriers to effectiveness:

» Material Resources. There is a need to improve technology to meet specific strategic objectives. Examples include the public OD Network website, web space for distributed collaboration (such as conference planning), and technology to improve awareness and presence (such as instant messaging, or shared calendar), as well as training and support to guide proper and consis-tent use of their virtual workspace.

» Organizational Context. There is a need for a common and persistent group memory. The extended staff expressed some frustration with their lack of awareness of ongoing status and group decisions.

» Group Design. There is a need to improve the practices of the group’s

C1 RewardsC2 Performance measurementC3 Training and learningC4 KnowledgeC5 Information system

D1 Task structureD2 Group normsD3 Goal clarityD4 Trust developmentD5 Trust maintenance

M1 Technology capabilityM2 Technology and collaborationM3 Technology reliability, flexibility, and

usabilityM4 Appropriate usage of FTF and CMCM5 Other essential resources

PROCESS CRITERIAof EFFECTIVENESS

GROUP EFFECTIVENESS

S1 Conflict managementS2 LeadershipS3 Group identityS4 Communication S5 Feedback

ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXTCritical Virtual Factors

GROUP DESIGNCritical Virtual Factors

MATERIAL RESOURCESCritical Virtual Factors

GROUP SYNERGYCritical Virtual Factors

Figure 2: Effective Virtual Organization (EVO) Model


Table 1: EVO Model Critical Virtual Factors Description


essential interactions (email, telephone, meetings, etc). The application of these practices was often inconsistent and ad hoc, reducing productivity and increasing barriers to effective communication.

» Group Synergy. There is an inconsis-tent sense of group identity. Distributed group members expressed some frus-tration at their low level of awareness of group opinion or consensus, their (perceived) lower level of visibility to the organization, and a reduced sense of presence of their peers. However, the group demonstrated a strong sense of shared purpose. In spite of the chal-lenges inherent in distributed groups and virtual interaction, the organization displayed a productive synergy, a

task focus, and a recognized commit-ment to each other and their common goals.

This current level of OD Network virtuality was compared to the vision and strategy of the organization to identify gaps and poten-tial actions. Jackson and Klobas (2008) designed a Virtual Alignment Model (VAM) to describe an organization’s virtual business model and identify the required actions to move from the current to desired future states. I worked with OD Network leadership to discuss the study findings and compare business strategy, current level of virtuality, and the OD Network’s vision for the future within the VAM (shown in Figure 4)—resulting in short-term and long-term actions to address gaps

and to strengthen the foundation of their virtual organization.

Lessons Learned

I began this journey with the OD Network to better understand a VO’s needs and to develop a method to improve their effec-tiveness. This effort is still in progress, as reported above. The work has helped me gain some new insights about VO’s as well as reinforce prior opinions, among them:

Leadership. Within any system, leader-ship is critical; but in a virtual organization even more so. A lucky few leaders receive training, mentoring or coaching to practice and perfect their skills—but it is still too rare to see anyone receive virtual leadership training. The leader has the responsibility to translate the organization’s policies and practices to best accomplish their mission, and the more they understand the hidden social dynamics of their group, the better they can adapt to fit the current needs. I applaud Peter Norlin’s willingness and ini-tiative to learn more about the needs of his organization, and his ability to share and learn from the results to build a stronger, more effective group. His example dem-onstrates many of the critical behaviors of effective virtual leaders: flexibility, innova-tion, inclusion and openness.

Complexity. I began this exercise to develop a Unified Theory of virtual orga-nizations. I am not there yet, but maybe a step closer. VO’s are complex, constantly-changing entities and like most other human endeavors, difficult to consistently characterize and predict. However, the EVO model described in this article provides one useful perspective of virtual group effectiveness, and perhaps there are others. Regardless, there is immense room for improvement in a VO’s daily interactions. Almost 40% of the emails you send every day are misunderstood (Kruger, Epley, Parker, & Ng, 2005)—imagine the wasted time and hurt feelings arising from this simple routine.

Technology. I am guilty of building or procuring elaborate IT solutions for group interaction and collaboration, only to receive a few clicks. “Build it, and they don’t come.” I have since learned that the

# Category LOW Effectiveness HIGH Material Resources

M1 Technology capability

M2 Technology and collaboration

M3 Technology reliability, flexibility and usability

M4 Appropriate usage of FTF and CMC

M5 Other essential resources

Organizational Context

C1 Rewards

C2 Performance measurement

C3 Training and learning

C4 Knowledge

C5 Information system

Group Design

D1 Task structure

D2 Group norms

D3 Goal clarity

D4 Trust development

D5 Trust maintenance

Group Synergy

S1 Conflict management

S2 Leadership

S3 Group identity

S4 Communication

S5 Feedback

Full-time StaffExtended Staff

Figure 3: EVO Model Assessment of OD Network Virtuality


most useful technology often arrives from the bottom up. The revolutionary, innova-tive and fun collaborative technologies emerge on their own, usually under the radar of the IT security teams. Brainstorm the use of Facebook, Twitter or wikis with someone in your organization—have you ever seen that same level of interest in a Microsoft Outlook user? The emerging technologies are the ones to watch for, to test and perhaps employ throughout your virtual organization.

When choosing a technology, I try to use a “lowest common denomina-tor” approach. To solve problems, Albert Einstein suggested finding a solution that was simple enough, but no simpler. I believe the converse is also true—select a technology solution that is complex enough for your needs, but no more complex. Consider your users—will all of them be able to achieve the needed level of com-petence? Lose one person and you are at risk of losing them all. Virtual organiza-tions have been around forever—if the

17th century London-based Hudson’s Bay Company could profitably coordinate mul-tiple Canadian sites through “managing by canoeing around” (O’Leary, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2002), perhaps we can consider less advanced tools and place our focus on the human side of the equation.

Benefits and Strengths. It is a com-monly-held belief that virtual organiza-tions are less effective than their collocated counterparts—a necessary trade-off due to personnel or facility location, and a concession to known best practices. I don’t agree with this perspective. A consensus in virtual group research is emerging—virtual groups can be as effective and satisfying as collocated groups, given enough time. And only virtual organizations can offer the breadth and depth to meet the global challenges of the future. Find me a work-ing group that is more productive, capable or fulfilling than a highly effective and performing virtual team. Figure 5 is one example from my Taiwan project experi-ence; there are many more out there.

The Future of OD?

“Sometimes the biggest changes in society are the hardest to spot precisely because

they are hiding in plain sight.”—The Economist,

Our Nomadic Future, 2008

Change is all around us—technological, cultural, political, societal—unseen, like the air we breathe, often ignored yet essen-tial to what we do and how we do it. We see our organizations slowly evolving, chang-ing into new forms. We see the necessity of distributed groups and the opportunity to leverage the immense cultural and geo-graphical diversity in the world. Today and in the future, OD can play a leading role in guiding these virtual organizations toward awareness and mastery of their virtual environment.

Is this the future of OD? We simply need to attend to our virtual interactions, to consciously observe, reflect upon and improve our virtual workplaces. As Robert Kegan (1982) would phrase it, change the unseen to the seen and actionable, convert the subject to an object. Virtual organiza-tion development may not be the future of OD, but it is a future.

This article aimed to demonstrate that an effective virtual organization lies at the intersection of human needs, business processes, strategy and vision. An invest-ment in new technology or new business processes should only be attempted after studying and understanding the organiza-tion’s fundamental needs—otherwise it is simply throwing money and time at a symptom and not a cause.

An organization must adapt at its core to respond to changing market conditions with a virtual, diverse and continuously learning workforce, creative technologies and aligned business processes. OD can lead this change, championing the values of inclusion, integration and innovation. In 10 years, can you envision a thriving, com-petitive, sustainable organization that does not fully leverage the strengths of its virtual workforce? Shouldn’t we begin preparing for this today?

Strategic Need for Virtuality

Measures of Virtuality

Capabilities Needed for Virtualization

What is the vision for virtualization?

What are the capabilities to

operate virtually?

Alignment Model – is action needed?

• A distributed organization with decreasing dependence and need on a central facility.

• The strength of the organization (diversity of culture, location, age, opinion) is also its greatest challenge when virtual.

• The OD Network must be an effective virtual organization to meet the needs of its members.

• Strong group synergy in spite of the difficulties of virtual interaction.

• Need to strengthen group identity through increased awareness of presence and status.

• Must improve essential virtual communication practices.

• Must use existing technology and deploy new technology to achieve specific group objectives.

• Using existing guidelines of workplace design (Becker & Steele, 1995), create magnet spots (virtual water coolers) and encourage their use.

• Provide more opportunities and technologies for social interaction .

• Provide benefits to all stakeholders, internal (staff and board) and external (OD Network members and regional networks).

• Design, integrate, populate and release a central repository of collaborative knowledge. An example of this technology is the wiki , a group website relying on community participation.

• Revise essential virtual practices (initially, email and teleconferences) to improve performance and group satisfaction.

• Train group members, model and reinforce desired behaviors.

What is the current level of virtuality?

Figure 4: Virtual Alignment Model: Aligning OD Network Virtuality and Strategy


References

Becker, F., & Steele, F. (1995). Workplace by design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DeSanctis, G, & Monge, P. (1999). Introduction to the special issue: communication processes for virtual organizations. Organization Science, 10(6), 693-703.

Hackman, J. R. (1983). A normative model of work team effectiveness. New Haven, CT: Yale University, School of Organization and Management.

Jackson, P, & Klobas, J. E. (2008). Aligning goals, virtuality, and capability: a virtual alignment model. In Klobas, J. E., & Jackson, P. D. (Eds), Becoming virtual: knowledge, management, and transforma-tion of the distributed organization (pp 11-21). New York: Physica-Verlag.

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self. Cambridge, MA: President and Fellows of Harvard College.

Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J., & Ng, Z. (2005). Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 925-936.

O’Leary, M., Orlikowski, W., & Yates, J. (2002). Distributed work over the centuries: trust and control in the Hudson’s Bay Company, 1670—1826. In P. Hinds, & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (pp. 27-54). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Pasmore, W. A., & Sherwood, J. J. (1978). Organizations as sociotechnical sys-tems. In Pasmore, W. A., & Sherwood, J. J. (Eds.), Sociotechnical systems: a sourcebook (pp. 3-12). La Jolla, CA: University Associates.

Tom Graf, MS, PMP, is the princi-pal consultant at EVO Collective, developing effective virtual organi-zations by supporting the human element with appropriate technol-ogy. He has more than 30 years of experience in running, growing and transforming businesses, in U.S. government, commercial and international domains, in the development, management and marketing of IT systems and services. Tom has an MS in OD from Johns Hopkins University and is a certified Project Management Professional. Tom can be reached at [email protected].

Figure 5: Three days in the life of a virtual project, October 7—9, 1998


Documents

Organizational Development - T. Graf