In most cases of planned change, OD practitioners play an active role in gathering data from organization members for diagnostic purposes. For example, they might interview members of a work team about causes of conflict among members; they might survey employees at a large industrial plant about factors contributing to poor product quality. Before collecting diagnostic information, practitioners need to estab- lish a relationship with those who will provide and subsequently use it. Because the nature of that relationship affects the quality and usefulness of the data collected, it is vital that OD practitioners clarify for organization members who they are, why the data are being collected, what the data gathering will involve, and how the data will be used.1 That information can help allay people’s natural fears that the data might be used against them and gain members’ participation and support, which are essential to developing successful interventions.
Establishing the diagnostic relationship between the consultant and relevant orga- nization members is similar to forming a contract. It is meant to clarify expectations and to specify the conditions of the relationship. In those cases where members have been directly involved in the entering and contracting process described in Chapter 4, the diagnostic contract will typically be part of the initial contracting step. In situations where data will be collected from members who have not been directly involved in entering and contracting, however, OD practitioners will need to establish a diagnostic
7
122 PART 2 The Process of Organization Development
contract as a prelude to diagnosis. The answers to the following questions provide the substance of the diagnostic contract:2
Who am I? The answer to this question introduces the OD practitioner to the organization, particularly to those members who do not know the consultant and yet will be asked to provide diagnostic data.
Why am I here, and what am I doing? These answers are aimed at defining the goals of the diagnosis and data-gathering activities. The consultant needs to pres- ent the objectives of the action research process and to describe how the diagnostic activities fit into the overall developmental strategy.
Who do I work for? This answer clarifies who has hired the consultant, whether it be a manager, a group of managers, or a group of employees and managers. One way to build trust and support for the diagnosis is to have those people directly involved in establishing the diagnostic contract. Thus, for example, if the consul- tant works for a joint labor–management committee, representatives from both sides of that group could help the consultant build the proper relationship with those from whom data will be gathered.
What do I want from you, and why? Here, the consultant needs to specify how much time and effort people will need to give to provide valid data and subsequently to work with these data in solving problems. Because some people may not want to participate in the diagnosis, it is important to specify that such involvement is voluntary.
How will I protect your confidentiality? This answer addresses member concerns about who will see their responses and in what form. This is especially critical when employees are asked to provide information about their attitudes or perceptions. OD practitioners can either ensure confidentiality or state that full participation in the change process requires open information sharing. In the first case, employees are frequently concerned about privacy and the possibility of being punished for their responses. To alleviate concern and to increase the likeli- hood of obtaining honest responses, the consultant may need to assure employees of the confidentiality of their information, perhaps through explicit guarantees of response anonymity. In the second case, full involvement of the participants in their own diagnosis may be a vital ingredient of the change process. If sensitive issues arise, assurances of confidentiality can co-opt the OD practitioner and thwart meaningful diagnosis. The consultant is bound to keep confidential the issues that are most critical for the group or organization to understand.3 OD practitioners must think carefully about how they want to handle confidentiality issues.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Text not available due to copyright restrictions
Who will have access to the data? Respondents typically want to know whether they will have access to their data and who else in the organization will have simi- lar access. The OD practitioner needs to clarify access issues and, in most cases, should agree to provide respondents with their own results. Indeed, the collabora- tive nature of diagnosis means that organization members will work with their own data to discover causes of problems and to devise relevant interventions.
What’s in it for you? This answer is aimed at providing organization members with a clear delineation of the benefits they can expect from the diagnosis. This usually entails describing the feedback process and how they can use the data to improve the organization.
Can I be trusted? The diagnostic relationship ultimately rests on the trust estab- lished between the consultant and those providing the data. An open and honest exchange of information depends on such trust, and the practitioner should pro- vide ample time and face-to-face contact during the contracting process to build this trust. This requires the consultant to listen actively and discuss openly all ques- tions raised by participants.
Careful attention to establishing the diagnostic relationship helps to promote the three goals of data collection.4 The first and most immediate objective is to obtain valid informa- tion about organizational functioning. Building a data collection contract can ensure that organization members provide honest, reliable, and complete information.
Data collection also can rally energy for constructive organizational change. A good diagnostic relationship helps organization members start thinking about issues that concern them, and it creates expectations that change is possible. When members trust the consultant, they are likely to participate in the diagnostic process and to generate energy and commitment for organizational change.
Finally, data collection helps to develop the collaborative relationship necessary for effecting organizational change. The diagnostic stage of action research is probably the first time that most organization members meet the OD practitioner, and it can be the basis for building a longer-term relationship. The data collection contract and subsequent data-gathering and feedback activities provide members with opportuni- ties for seeing the consultant in action and for knowing her or him personally. If the consultant can show employees that he or she is trustworthy, is willing to work with them, and is able to help improve the organization, then the data collection process will contribute to the longer-term collaborative relationship so necessary for carrying out organizational changes.
METHODS FOR COLLECTING DATA
The four major techniques for gathering diagnostic data are questionnaires, interviews, observations, and unobtrusive measures. Table 7.1 briefly compares the methods and lists their major advantages and problems. No single method can fully measure the kinds of variables important to OD because each has certain strengths and weaknesses.5 For example, perceptual measures, such as questionnaires and surveys, are open to self- report biases, such as respondents’ tendency to give socially desirable answers rather than honest opinions. Observations, on the other hand, are susceptible to observer biases, such as seeing what one wants to see rather than what is really there. Because of the biases inherent in any data collection method, more than one method should be used when collecting diagnostic data. If data from the different methods are compared and found to be consistent, it is likely that the variables are being measured validly. For example, questionnaire measures of job discretion could be supplemented with observa- tions of the number and kinds of decisions employees are making. If the two kinds of data support each other, job discretion is probably being assessed accurately. If the two 6.
7.
8.
124 PART 2 The Process of Organization Development
kinds of data conflict, the validity of the measures should be examined further— perhaps by using a third method, such as interviews.
Questionnaires
One of the most efficient ways to collect data is through questionnaires. Because they typically contain fixed-response queries about various features of an organ- ization, these paper-and-pencil measures can be administered to large numbers of people simultaneously. Also, they can be analyzed quickly, especially with the use of computers, thus permitting quantitative comparison and evaluation. As a result, data can easily be fed back to employees. Numerous basic resource books on survey methodology and questionnaire development are available.6
Questionnaires can vary in scope, some measuring selected aspects of organizations and others assessing more comprehensive organizational characteristics. They also can vary in the extent to which they are either standardized or tailored to a specific organization. Standardized instruments generally are based on an explicit model of organization, group, or individual effectiveness and contain a predetermined set of questions that have been developed and refined over time. For example, Table 7.2 presents a standardized questionnaire for measuring the job design dimensions identified in Chapter 6: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback about results. The questionnaire includes three items or questions for each
Text not available due to copyright restrictions
Job Design Questionnaire
Here are some statements about your job. How much do you agree or disagree with each?
MY JOB:
STRONGLY
DISAGREE DISAGREE
SLIGHTLY
DISAGREE UNDECIDED
SLIGHTLY AGREE AGREE
STRONGLY AGREE
1. provides much variety . . . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
2. permits me to be left on my own to
do my own work . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
3. is arranged so that I often have the opportunity to see jobs or projects
through to completion . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
4. provides feedback on how well I am
doing as I am working . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
5. is relatively significant in our
organization . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
6. gives me considerable opportunity for independence and freedom in
how I do my work . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
7. gives me the opportunity to do a
number of different things . . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
8. provides me an opportunity to find
out how well I am doing . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
9. is very significant or important in
the broader scheme of things . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
10. provides an opportunity for
independent thought and action . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
11. provides me with a great deal of
variety at work . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
12. is arranged so that I have the opportunity to complete the work
I start . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
13. provides me with the feeling that I know whether I am performing well
or poorly . . . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
14. is arranged so that I have the chance to do a job from the beginning to the end (i.e., a chance to do the
whole job) . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
15. is one where a lot of other people can be affected by how well the
work gets done . . . . [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
Scoring:
Skill variety ... questions 1, 7, 11 Task identity ... questions 3, 12, 14 Task significance ... questions 5, 9, 15 Autonomy ... questions 2, 6, 10 Feedback about results ... questions 4, 8, 13
SOURCE: Reproduced by permission of E. Lawler, S. Mohrman, and T. Cummings, Center for Effective Organizations, University of Southern California.