ip2 b

Review the

Unit 2 Background document

before completing the assignment (this document is used for all three assignments in this unit).

Write a memo to Dr. Babcock to compare using a normative model for the questionnaire items versus the staff meeting force field approach.

Be sure to indicate which of the two processes you recommend the organization use to create the descriptions of the values. The aim of having behavioral endpoints to the questionnaire is twofold: It should provide the best information for improving the organization while meeting the desires of the management group.

The two processes to consider are as follows:

• Using researched models and best practices from academic literature and OD practitioner case studies. This means providing specific definitions based on research that addresses each factor. The behavioral endpoints would relate to research findings on these factors.Give 2–3 advantages to this method and 2–3 concerns or potential problems.
• Consider using the staff meeting and force field analysis approach to identify what to evaluate. While this will not necessarily produce specific “definitions,” it will give specific actions that describe the exact behaviors that contribute to achieving the factor. The best actions would form the positive side of the scale. The hindering items would be used to choose the descriptions for the low performance endpoints on the questions.Give 2–3 advantages to this method and 2–3 concerns or potential problems.

Be sure your comments take into account issues such as the following:

• generating valid data
• the impact on readiness to change
• adding to the capacity and learning of the organization
• implementation concerns (resources and time needed)

Finally, be sure to describe in the memo how the questionnaire you want to use would differ from the rough draft created during the management meeting. If there would be no change, please explain why. Download and review the

draft questionnaire

ip2

Background

You were asked by Dr. Babcock to meet with his direct staff and give an overview of OD

and what has been discussed by the executive team so far. You were immediately swept

up in the group’s excitement about the idea of improving the organization and became

involved in talking through what made them most successful. These thoughts were

summarized as the key values of the function. (See the list below for further details.)

Creating increased involvement at all levels was one change the R&D management felt

was mandatory. They convinced you that the people in the organization really did want

this to happen, but no one was sure how to go about it. They asked you if it is possible to

reinforce this change by how a diagnosis and analysis is conducted.

Based on your capacity as an expert in OD, you were asked to draft a questionnaire to

assess where the function is now and where it should be. Being researchers, they

understood the need for information and thought the questionnaire approach was a fast

way to proceed. You know you need help to generate definitions that could be used to

make the questionnaire meaningful and understandable. They agreed that their

organization needs to be involved, but they want a working document to discuss to save

time. Once they have a means (the questionnaire) and plan for collecting information,

they can then use it to set priorities and begin discussions on what to change and how to

go about it.

They want open discussions involving all members of the organization at every stage.

One idea was to use staff meetings—the intent being to use some mechanism, such as

force field analyses, to generate information and consolidate it across all areas as a

starting point.

You want to talk with your consulting company to see if this might be a good way to

involve the organization in creating the questionnaire. You have put the following

question on the agenda for the next review meeting.

Is this a good way to generate the types of information that could create the

behavioral endpoints for a questionnaire?

Another suggestion was to start with the higher priorities and form taskforces or

multifunctional teams to generate the information and communicate the work with the

general community to get reactions before working on the change plan. Eventually, they

will work down the whole list according to priority, need, and the resources needed. Time

being one of the scarce resources, this method was seen as a way to focus any effort on

the most important items: those with the highest return to the organization.

You know there are many ways to have large groups set priorities you want to

discuss this with your colleagues also. What methods could they suggest, and is it

a good idea?

Toward the end of the meeting, there was a movement to hold a general or total

community event to build the function; it would be a meeting, organized in some way to

get all the force fields done. It is key, in its view, to have input and communication across

Background

all levels and from all functions for each category. If time is critical, why not do it all at

once? Complete the survey, score it, review it, and set priorities as a group. Then, in

smaller groups (meeting at the same time and in parallel), come up with the force field

analyses. These then could be presented to the community as a whole, and one or two key

actions, for each category, could be identified for implementation and next steps.