UNIT 11 DIAGNOSTIC METHODOLOGY:

QUALITATIVE AND
QUANTITATIVE
Objectives
From this unit you will be able to understand:
different models of diagnosis,
methods of diagnosis.

Structure
1 1.1 Introduction
1 1.2 Open Systems Analysis: Assessing Effectiveness and Ineffectiveness
1 1.3 Key Features of the Model
1 1.4 The Model as a Diagnostic Guide
1 1.5 Weisbord's Six Box Model
1 1.6 Porras's Stream Analysis
1 1.7 Diagnosis of the Methods of Diagnosis
1 1.7.1 Diagnosing Organizational Subsystems
1 1.7.2 Organizational Process Identifying Remarks and Explanation Typical
Information Sought Common Methods of Diagnosis
I 1.8 Self-AssessmentQuestions
1 1.9 Further Readings

1 1 . INTRODUCTION
The whole range of organizational and managerial theories is potentially useful for
diagnosis. Each theoretical approach brings particular insights and by employing
divergent methods, managers or consultantscan effectively mirror the complexity of
organizational life and discover solutions. However, there are strong reasons to
conclude that no single model or method fully captures the complexity and
multifaceted nature of organizational reality (Morgan, 1986; Bolman & Deal, 1991).
In view of this, an attempt is made to present different models and methods of
organizational diagnosis.

11.2 OPEN SYSTEMS ANALYSIS: ASSESSING

EFFECTIVENESS AND INEFFECTIVENESS
During the 1960s and 1 970s, tlie Open Systems ( 0 s ) approach (Katz & Kahn, 1978)
swept through the organization and social structures. According to the OS
perspective, organization/group is viewed as a system of input-through put-output.
Inputs from tlie erivironlnent are processed to produce outputs. Organizational success
depends on adapting to external change both for inputs and outputs that are valued by
customers (internal and external).
 E ~.................
~ 1 R-........O N.......
M~&7.
............
............ .....
.. *-..
a.......

.
.......... .......
Culture
f'
..zZ
;.- \ .........................-............................
.a"
f..

Figure 1: Framework for Open-Systems Analysis

The main elements in the model and their key subcomponents are:
Input$;(or Resources): ~ e f etor Raw material, money, people (human resources),
equipment, information, knowledge, and legal authorizations that an organization
obtain:; from its environment and that contribute to the creation of its outputs.
O u t p ~ ~ tRefer
s : to Products, services, and ideas that arise out of organizational
actions. An organization transfers its main outputs back to the environment and uses
others internally.
Technology: Refers to Tools, machines, and techniques for transforming resources
[Link].
I:nvir~onment:The task environment includes all the external factors and conditions
that are directly related to an organization's main operations and its technologies.
They include funding sources, suppliers, distributors, unions, customers, clients,
regulators, competitors, collaborative partners (e-g., in joint manufacturing ventures),
markets for products and resources, and the state of knowledge concerning the
organization's technologies.
The general Environment includes institutions and conditions having infrequent or
long-berm impacts on the organization and its task environment, including the
e:conoIny, the legal system, the state of scientific and technical knowledge, social
institutions such as the family, population distribution and composition, the political
cysteni, and the local or national culture within which the organization operates.
(Zoals and strategies: Goals are desired end-stateslfuture states sought by the
organl~zation as defined by its decision makers. (e.g., becoming the leading
construction firm in the country), while objectives are specific targets and indicators
of goa I attainment (e.g., 5% growth per year). Sfrategies are overall routes to goals,
including ways of dealing with the environment (e.g., strategy for expanding
[Link] into shopping-mall construction business) and making use of the resources.
lDlunsspecify courses of action toward an end. Goals and strategies are the outcomes
of conflict and negotiation among powerful parties within and outside the organization
i ~ l the
d competitive environment. Goals and other desired future states can be
explicitly stated by decision-makers. Where they are not explicit, they could be
7
inferred from managers actions.
Behaviour and Processes: Prevailing patterns of behaviour, interactions, and Diagnostic ~tluthudulogy:
relations among individuals, intra-and inter-groups as seen in the extent of: Qualitative and Quantitative
- -

cooperation, conflict,coordination, communication, controlling and rewarding

behaviour, influence and power relations, supervision, leadership, decision making,
problem solving, goal setting, information gathering, self-criticism,evaluation, and
group learning.
Culture: Sllared norms, values, beliefs and assumptions, and the behaviour and
artifacts that express these orientations-includingsymbols, rituals, stories, and
language. Culture includes norms and understandings about the nature and identity of
the organization, the way work is done, and the prevailing values and the pattern of
relat io~~sl~ips
noticeable at different hierarchical levels
Structure: Refers to enduring relationshipsbetween individuals, groups. and
subsystems and systems, grouping of positions in to divisions, departments, and other
units; hierarchy (organizational levels as defined and made distinct by role,
responsibility and authority relationships),standard operating procedures; established
mechanis~nsfor handling key processes such as coordination (e.g., committees, weekly
meetings); and actual patterns that may differ from officially mandated ones (e.g.,
infonnal relations, cliques, coalitions, power distribution).

11.3 KEY FEATURES OF THE MODEL

The model contains several important ideas for diagnosis:
1) External conditions influence the flow of inputs (resources), intcm:rl
operations and the reception of outputs. For instance, regulatory agencies
determine standards for safety, packaging, or advertising. Figure 1 depicts the
possibility for direct effects on internal operations by showing a broken,
permeable boundary around the [Link] external feedback loop depicts
' environmental responses to products or services that affect inputs-for example,
reduced demand for the products
2) Organizations use many of their Products, Services, and Ideas as inputs to
Organizational Maintenance or Growth. This feature is shown in Figure 1 by
tlie feedback loop within the organizational boundary.
A computer firm uses its own machines and software; auniversity enlplvys some
of its doctoral students as instructors. Individual and group outcomes :tlso get fed
back into the organization.
3) Organizations are influenced by their Members as well as their
Environments. Employee actions can reinforce or alter current practices.
Change can result from visible pressure (e.g., union protests) and from hidden
deals and alliances. Change can also occur incrementally and almost
imperceptibly as people reinterpret theirjobs and their work environments.
4) The eight system elements and their sub-componentsare interrelated and
influence one another: Thus developments within one element, such as
tech~~ology, call have consequences for other elements (e.g., Employability of
current employees, downsizing, union-management relations). Even links
between elements need not be obvious or intended-for example, the acquisition of
new computer networking capacity leads to'redefinitionof departmental
objectives, tasks, and job descriptions.
5) Organizationsare constantly changing: Reactive change occurs in response to
internal or external problems, while anticipatory (proactive) change aims at
improving organization's environmental standing or internal operations before
Diagnosis system elements, whereas strategic changes entail basic changes in one or more
and Intervention critical elements such as goals, environment, or culture-and relations among
these elements (Harrison & Phillips, 1991; Newman, Nadler, & Tushman, 1988).
Both types of changes contribute to system dynamics-growth, contraction, and
changing levels of efficiency and effectiveness.
6) An organization's success depends heavily on its ability to adapt to its
environment or to find a favourable environment in which it could operate, as
well as to tie people into their roles in the organization to conduct its
transformative processes and manage its operations (Katz & Kahn, 1978).
7) An:y level or unit within an organization can be viewed as a system. When the
system model is applied to a division or even a single oper~tingunit within a
larger organization, other units within the organization will constitute the focal
unit's entire task environment. Viewing units as systems facilitates diagnostic
comparisons between them.
-- - - - - - - - - - - -

1 4 THE MODEL AS A DIAGNOSTIC GUIDE

--
The OS perspective can contribute to diagnosis in several important ways.
First, the OS framework is widely applicable. It is possible to analyze any
or:ganization, sub-unit, or set oforganizations in terms ofthe flows of inputs-such as
cash, personnel, and infornlat~on;the processing of these inputs, and the creation of
goods, services, and other outputs, Similarly, it is possible to trace links among basic
system componentsof environment, technology, structure, culture, and behaviour
(we Figure 1) and among their sub-components. The OS framework thus provides a
usefitl ctqrting point for C:.+ ,sis regardless ofthe focal organization's size,
complexity, pulpose, technology, :ife cycle stage, ownership, or cukural and
institutional context.
A second contribution of the OS frame to diagnosis is that it permits a holistic
approach (Jackson, 1992) of examining the overall environmentaland organizational
context within which problems arise and within which steps towards organizational
improvement are enacted. The OS approach can thus help practitioners of diagnosis to
consider all components of the organizational system and their interactions, rather
than just examining specific issues and problems that are easy to study pr are widely
discussed within the organization. Holism can also help consultants and managers
avoid seizing on popular or readily available change techniques that are not likely to
provide required leverage to bring about system-widechange.
Third, the OS frame can help consultants and clients deal with the complexity of
organizational performance and change and thereby resist the temptations of
management fads. Many fads encourage simplistic thinking: say, introduce Program X
and you will achieve the outcomes you desire--excellence, quality, client satisfaction,
profits, and organizational prestige. In contrast, the systems approach encourages
illinking characterized by more of analysis and synthesis of recognizing contingent '
relations and examining interactions between units, levels, and subsystems within an
(organization.
Fourth, systems-based diagnosis can help consultants and clients distinguish
symptoms of ineffectiveness from underlying systemic causes (Senge, 1990).
Fifth, the OS perspective alerts consultants and their clients to Iook for possible side
effects of actions-unanticipated and hard-to-diagnose consequences-that can alter
the status quo within the system (Senge, 1990). These unanticipated outcomes can
[Link] changes in one system component lead to developments somewhere, even
in a distant, but interdependent part of the system. For example, the introduction of
computer networking capacity can create opportunities for some people and groups to
obtain and communicate information that was previously unavailable to diem and Dlr- #[Link]:
thereby increase their influence over communicationand decision-making processes. *a'hm *rsUtrthd
The change in computer technology can unintentionally lead to unanticipated shifts in
the distribution of power within the organization and can gradually alter decision
processes and outcomes.

11.5 WEISBORD'S SIX BOX MODEL

Weisbord's (1976)"six-box" model is considered to beone of the most
straightforward and easy-teuse system models. In presenting it, Weisbord sought to
distill years of consulting experience and to provide users yvith"Six Places to Look
for Trouble with or without Theory." The model is easy to comprehend, has an
intuitive appeal to managers, a potential application for manqgement developmentand
hence considered the most popular diagnostic model. This model is widely cited in
organization development texts (e.g., French & Bell, 1995,) and is the preferred
diagnostic model under time constraintsor when organizational participants have no
prior knowledge of the concept of open-systems (Burke, 1982).

r Relationships
Cooperation among
interdependent role
players? Constructive
resolution of conflicts?

Are coordinating
technologies, like
planning, budgeting
Are rewards allocated
Structures
How do we
divide the

fairly and equitably? Do

and controlling important tasks have
incentives?

ENVIRONMENT
Figure 2: Weisbord's Six-Box Model

This model differs from others as it begins initially with identification of those
organizational outputs with which both the external customers and the internal
"producers"are dissatisfied. Identification of such outputs is followed by the
diagnosis ofthe sources of dissatisfaction inside the model. Internal producers are the
~ia~no'iis relevant set of key decision-makers in the focal [Link] model has parallels
and Intervention in ~Can~cron's (1984) model of organizational ineffectiveness, which also focuses on
dissatisihction u ith key organizational outcomes.
The six boxes shown in Figure 2 are postulated to contain the possible causes of
di~;satisFactionn ith organizatilonal products or services. Each box represents a cluster
of freq~~entlyoccurring organizational problems. The box labelled Helpful
Mechalrisms refers to internal procedures for coordination, control, communication,
ar~dinii)rmation management that are intended to help employees in their work roles.
The box labelled Relationships covers relations both within and among organizational
units, ~~lcludingconflict resoli~tionarrangements.
For each of these boxes, consultants are encouraged to diagnose gaps: (a) gaps
between what exists now and what ought to be; (b) gaps between what is actually
done and what employees and managers say that they do; (i.e. gaps between the
official and emergent aspects of organizational behaviour); and (c) gaps among
organi.zationa1units and layers-including gaps within and between boxes. Greater the
extent ofthese gaps, the more problematic the functioning ofthe organization is.
I'he leadership box in Figure 2 appears as a hub connecting the other five boxes.
lveisbord assumes that leaders and their concerns and choices regarding
clrganization's mission and strategy exert pivotal influence on organizational
effectiveness. Who are the leadcrs? Leaders are defined as key decision-makers ortop
managers. They are assigned responsibility for reducing diagnosed gaps and for
realigrling relations between the areas defined by the surrounding boxes. The
consultant's role in diagnosis is likened to that of an air traffic controller watching a
radar screen (i.e., the model shown in Figure 2)' which shows blips when gaps occur.
13zra on these blips d i p ovtdei to organizational leaders, who then decide what
:ict~ol~sshould be taken to reduce/minimize gaps.
'The central position ofthe leadership makes the six-box model very appropriate iftop
~nanagement'sleadership style or behaviour is diagnosed as primary to organization's
ills. However, where consultants question the validity ofthe model's assumptions
about the role and influence of top management alone determining organizational
effecr:iveness, they probably may not to use the model. Although there is some
empirical support for the model's assumptions about the impacts of leadership
(Gersick, 199 l), many scholars question these premises. Organizational ecologists
(e.g., Hannan & Freeman, 1983)' for instance, argue that managerial choices have
only slight impact on organizational outcomes and that it is very difficult for top
managers alone to plan and bring about changes that contribute to organizational
survival and enhance performance. Mintzberg (1 984), for example, argues that the
impact of leadership and the effectiveness of particular leadership styles depend on the
life cycle stage in which the organization exists.
The crux of the model lies in identifying gaps, but the major weakness of it lies in the
lack of a firm theoretical foundation concerning them. Weisbord did not provide clear
guidelines for determining whether a gap exists, which gaps exercise greater influence
over organizational effectiveness/ineffectiveness,and how consultants should cull and
in[Link] data on gaps. The model remains, therefore, deceptively simple (Burke,
1994).To apply it, consultants need to analyze and synthesize findings on a complex
array of different types of gaps.
An even more serious threat to the model's robustness is the lack of acle'ar-cut
appr-oachfor a syste~naticexplanation of intra-organizational causes of
dissatisfactionsfrom the statcd dissatisfactions regarding organization's products or
of organizational effectiveness. While the agreed-upon goals and objectives and Diagnostic Methodology:
smooth internal coordination among system components are important for Qualitative and Quantitative
organizatiorial effectiveness, tlie model downplays the significance of resource
acquisition and adaptation criteria, along wltli criteria favoured by powerful internal
and external stakeholders. Moreover, t!le model takes a more optimistic view ofthe
possibilities for attaining smooth internal coordination and consensus tlian most
current approaclies to organizational politics do.
A further limitation oftlie model is its failure to encourage users to examine several
poteritially crucial areas for diagnosis. These include an organization's economic
foundations and resource flows, its technology, and its culture. Tlie environment
remains unspecified in tlie model, arid linkages among the boxes and environmental
factors are [Link] the importance ofthe ever turbulent and
competitive environments that most organizations face, and the interests ofthe
multiple stakeliolders in the environments, lack of serious attention to environment is
regarded as a severe handicap.

11.6 PORRAS'S STREAM ANALYSIS

- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - -

Porras's ( 1987) diagnostic approach is embedded in acomprehensive theory of

organizational diagnosis and planned change and is known as Stream Analysis. The
main steps in Stream Analysis are: diagnosis of organizational problems, construction
of interventions to bring about planned changes, and evaluation ofthe interventions'
outcomes. The evaluation phase is intended to enable organizational members to learn
effective change approaclies and techniques. Tlie diagnostic model and Stream
Analysis as a wliole is grounded in systems theory.
How is the lnodel used? Diagnosis is initiated by collecting and classifying symptoms
of ineffectiveness and tracing linkages among these symptoms. Problems and
syrnptoliis are categorized into one or more of four system components, or streams,
that characterize the organization under study: organizing arrangements, social
factors, tecl~nology,and physicalsetting. Construction of the diagnostic model then
progresses to identitication of core problems that cause or affect symptoms and
proble~nsthroughout tlie system. These core problems then become targets for planned
clia~igeefforts. Action planning and management of planned change focus on the four
streams listed above.
Streal11Analysis requires active participation in diagnosis by key organizational
decision-makers and internal stakeholders. Porras (1987) suggests forming a steering
committee whose membership reflects a cross-section of all the orga~iization's
functions, levels, and product lines. This committee guides the diagnosis, gathers the
data, and carries out tlie analysis. It may or may not be assisted by an outside
consi~[Link] Porras, reco~nmendsusing consultants because of their expertise,
their broader perspective, and their skills in facilitating a wholistic diagnosis. An
external consultant could also facilitate tlie managers to think "out-of-the-box", and
build in them tlie necessary skills to carry out future diagnoses independently ofthe
external consultants.
The major components of the diagnostic model are portrayed in Figure 3. Two of the
streams in tlie figure-3 portray process components. These ellcompass social factors
also implying liuma~iprocesses, and technology. The other two streams represent the
structi~ralcomponents-organizatio~ial arrangements and physical setting. The relative
size of tlie sectors in tlie figure-3 can be adjusted to reflect the diagnostic importance
assigned to them by tlie steering committee.
Diagnorir
and lrtervention

Figure 3: Stream Diagnostic Chart

Key: S = Symptom; P = Problem; CP = Core Problem

The four streams shown in Figure 3 are given special attention in diagnosis because
they can be changed through planned change interventions(Porras & Silver, 1991).
These streams, in turn, affect individual organizationalmembers, shape their job
behtiviourand consequently influenceorganizational outcomes. According tothis
logic, at any given point in time, the streams reflect previous interventions and also
form targets for future interventions.
The steering committee begins its diagnosis by sorting out current problems into the
four streams or sectors. After the sorting, they reach consensus on relations among the
problems identified in each sector. To do so, they discuss each problem and decide
whether it is a symptom or a basic problem. Some of the identified problems (and
symlptoms)may be reciprocally related, whereas others may be arranged in a causal
chain, with one problem leading to another. The diagnostic skills of the members lie in
the identification of core problems, which are at the root of a majority or all of the
organizational problems.
Figure 3 denotes symptoms by the letter S, problems by P, and core problems by CP.
A double-headedarrow symbolizes a reciprocal relation between symptoms and
protblems, whereas a single-headed arrow represents a unidirectional path of influence.
In Figure 3, the second core problem (CP2), which is located in the Social factors
sector, directly and indirectly leads to other problems and symptoms among social
factors, along with problems and symptoms in other sectors. This assists in identifying
the core problem underlying a number of symptoms, and addressing the core problem
thrcagh appropriate OD intervention(s) will produce effects throughoutthe
orgimization.
Construction of the stream diagnostic chart is rather a straightforward procedure. The Diagnostic Methodology:
steering committee identifies problems within the four streams and gathers data on Qualibfive
and Quantibtive
them; organizes problems into categories (i.e.. Ss. Ps, and CPs); identifies
interconnectionsamong symptoms and problems; and portrays these relations in a
chart like that shown in Figure 3. The findings can then be shared with others in the
organization and can serve as input into action planning and implementation. The
process of planning specific change activities, implementing planned changes, and
evaluating the results of these actions can all be undertaken within the analytical
framework just presented. The stream diagnostic chart helps leaders of planned
change activities to identify those change levers that seem most important aild relevant
to the focal organization. The diagnostic model and chart can also provide a
framework for analyzing the outcomes of planned change.
The merits and demerits of stream analysis: Any technique/model in social sciences
has its relative strengths and weaknesses. There cannot be a completely foolproof
model. Some of the strong advantages of the technique are, it:
Assists in assessirfg ineffectivenesswithin organizational structures and
processes.
Serves as a visual aid to diagnosis and feedback ofthe complex system relations
between symptoms, problems, and other organizational features.
Contributes to collaborative activity in which consultants and managers
construct the diagnostic chart and engage in diagnostic discussions.
Is theoretically integrated with other phases of consultation and planned change.
Can be used for both the intervention and evaluation phases of the consultation
pro-ject.
Is part of a theory of planned organizational change (Robertson, Roberts, &
Porras, 1993) and has received some support from studies designed to evaluate a
few of the theory's main tenets (Robertson et al., 1993).
Contains insights and practical features that consultants recommend for
organizational study
Despite its strengths, the model contains some limitations. Seemingly, there appears to
be a basic flaw in the theoretical rationale underlying the selection of the four streams -
or system components. In Stream Analysis, diagnosis starts by examining variables
that can be manipulated through planned change and may have been subject to past
interventions. These variables that are contained within the four streams are assumed
a priori to be the ones that can and should be changed to solve problems and to
enhance critical outcomes for the [Link] assumption prejudges the causes
ofeffectivenessand ineffectiveness. Furthermore, this assumption may lead to the
selection of change levers without taking into account oftheir feasibility and
appropriateness to the problems at hand and the organization. Contrarily, diagnosis
may begin with examining the critical ineffective outcomes, followed by analysis of
the underlyi~lgcauses of these outcomes, and decisions made subsequently.
Another serious weakness of the model is that it is limited to the four streams and
hence misses on other critical system features that could be equally or more
signifibant. For example, they could be critical aspects relating to organizational
inputs and outputs and the stakeholder positions. They could also be environmental
changes, external constraints, and 'organization-environment fit' to which sufficient
attention is not paid. Though, Porras, does cite environmental shifts as triggers for
organizatio~ialchange (Porras & Silver, 199 1), the model however, does not lead to a
systematic study of how organizationscope with environmental threats and
opportunities.
I)iagnor~\ The exam illation of interdependenciesamong system elements and componentsare
r1nt1 Intcr\cntinn significant to the model. Yet, envrronmental interchangesare not focussed upon and
interr~alinterdependenciesremain cursorily examined.
Yet another disadvantage ofthe model is its limited application ofdiagnostic
principle5 and procedures-the model hardly examines gapsor fits. It looks simpler,
but d~fficultto apply. Considerableexperience and knowledge in the area of
orga~~izational behaviour is needed for users to distinguish symptoms from problems
and to idcr~tifycore problems. For this reason, organizational members who take part
i n di;i3nosis may find the model hard to use.-In the end, the model may be better suited
for consul ,ant-led diagnosis than for client-centered diagnosis or for self-diagnosis by
orgall17at1~nal members.

--
-1)IAGNOSIS OF THE METHODS OF DIAGNOSIS
11.'7
-
With regard to the data collection methods there is no single method that is applicable
to a particular context. It may require a combination of methods to ensure appropriate
mirrorins of the complex reality of the organization. Therefore, an attempt ismade to
present the process of organizationaldiagnosis ([Link] & C.H.Bel1 jr, 1990)
whic:Ii reflects the targets for diagnosis, typical information desired and common
metliocls of obtaining the information.

1 1.7.1 Tliagnosing Organizational Subsystems

Diagnw~icFocus or Target Explanation and IndentifyingExamples Typical
/nfor:nn~!onSought Common Methods of Diagnosis
'The IOII;: rbr:.trnization (having a common "charter" or mission and a common power
s t r ~ct:!z:). The total system is the entity assessed and analyzed. The diagnosis might
also i ~ ~ c i i l\i!here
d ~ . relevant, systems external to theorganization (environmental
forces), :;LICII as customers, suppliers, and governmental regulations. Examples are a
manufncturing firm, a hospital, a school system, a department store chain, or a church
del-ro~nination. What are the norms ('cultural oughts') ofthe organization? What is the
[Link]'s culture? What are the attitudes, opinions and feelings of system
men1hers toward various organizational factors, such as organizational goalsltask
goi~[Link], supervision, and top management? etc. Are organization goals
unclcrstc~odand accepted? What is the organization climate? - Open vs. closed,
a 111!l!)[Link]<)l-i:~n vs. democratic, repressive vs. developmental, trusting vs. suspicious,
coc:p~;-riiit~c vs. competitive? How well do critical organizational processes, such as
del:iiiori malting and goal setting, function? What kind and how effective are the
orjr;~niz:~tio~i's "sensing mechanisms"to monitor internal and external forces1
~ l !\I Ql~rstionnaire
i l ~ ' !a11 surveys are most popular with a large organization.
In:.i:rvii\::--~ro~~p and individual, are useful for getting detailed information, based
on [Link].,ti! c .vrm~pling techniques. A panel of representative members interviewed
pel-iocti,:nlly io clzart changes overtime. Examination of organizational" rules,
re ::~l;itioil . po!icies, symbols etc., yields insight into the organization's culture.
D.;.:e~v :':5 -,,rc>!il~g.r held at various levels at regular intervals yield a gzeat amount of
inH!r-!~::i?i~!:i i r ? a short time period.
I.:::':qc ,.;ubsytcmsthat are by nature coniplex and heterogeneous. This target group
s t a 1 >i'roii~.makingdifferent "slices" ofthe organization, could be by hierarchical
IevcI. f.~nctiouor territory etc. Two criteria help to identify this set of sub-systems:
first thi:mselves or others view them as a subsystem, and second, they are
1ic:tero::eneous in their makeup. Examples would be the middle-management group,
ccirlsisting of managers from diverse functional groups. All of the above, plus: system
ci!11;1~: E-.: 2nd intersystem interactions. For example: How does this subsystem view
the whole and vice versa? How do the members ofthis subsyste~nrelate to each Diagnostic Methodology:
uantitative
other? Wliat are the ~~nique de~nandsof this subsyste~nand how do these demands fit Qualitative and Q
in within the organizational structure and processes? Are there sub-units within the
subsyste~nwith significant differences in performance and Why? What are the major
proble~nsco~ifro~itirigthis subsyste~nand its sub-units? Are the subsystem's goals
compatible with organization goals? Does the heterogeneity of role demands and
fu~ictionalidentity get in the way of effective subsystem performance? And so on. If
the subsyste~nsare large or widely dispersed, questionnaire and survey techniques are
recommended. hterviews and [Link] may be could provide additional
supporting or evaluating information.
S~nallsubsystems that are simple and relatively homogeneous. These are typically
formal work groups or teams that have frequent face-to-face interaction. This may be
permanent groups, temporary task forces, or newly constituted groups (e.g., the group
charged with tlie "start-up" of a new operation, or the group formed by an acquisition
or merger). Exa~nplesare the top-management team, com~nitteesof a permanent or
temporary nature, task force teams, etc. Tlie questions on culture, climate, attitudes,
and feelings are relevant here, plus: what are the major problems ofthe team? How
can team effectiveness be improved? What do people do that hinders wittingly or
unwittingly what others do? What are memberlleader relations? Do individuals know
how their jobs relate to the role set, department and organizational goals? Are the
group's working processes, i.e., tlie way things get done are effective? How well the
resources-both of individual and group are made good use of? Typical methods
include the following: irldividual interviews followed byagroup meeting to review the
interview data; short [Link]:observation of staff meetings and other day-to-
day operations; and a family group meeting forself-diagnosis.
Small, total organizations that are relatively simple and homogeneous. An example
would be a local professional organization. Typical problems as seen by officers
might be declining membership, low attendance, or difficulty in manning special task
forces. How do tlie officers and the members see the organization and its goals? What
do they like and dislike about it? What do they want it to be like? What is the
competition like? What significant external forces are impacting on the organization?
etc. Questionnaires or intervien,.~are frequently used. Descriptive adjective
questionnaires can be used to obtain a quick reading on the culture, "tone", and health
ofthe organization. Diagnostic family group meetings can be useful.
Interface or inter-group subsystems. These consist of subsets ofthe total system that
contain members oftwo subsystems working together. Example is that of a matrix
organizational structure requiring an individual or a group having two reporting lines.
But more often this target consists of members of one subsystem having common
proble~nsand responsibilities with members ofanother subsystem, such as production
and ~nainte~~ance overlaps, marketing and production overlaps [Link] does each
subsystem see the other? What problems do the two groups have in working together?
In what ways do tlie subsystems get in each other's way? How can they collaborate to
improve the performance of both groups? Are goals, sub-goals, areas of authority and
responsibility clear? What is the nature of the formal and informal climate between
the groups? What do the members want it to be? Confrontation meetings between both
groups are often the method for data gathering and planning corrective actions.
Orgunizution mirroring meetings are used when three or more groups are involved.
Interviews of each subsyste~nfollowed by a "sharing the data" meeting or observation
of interactions can be used.
Dyads andlor triads Superiorlsubordinatepairs, interdependent peers, linking pins -
i.e., persons who have multiple group me~nberships- all these are sub-systems worthy
of analysis. What is the quality ofthe relationships? Do the parties have the necessary
skills for task accomplishment? Are they collaborativeor competitive? Are they
Diagnosis effective as a subsystem? Does the addition of third party facilitate or inhibit their
rtnd Intervention pi-ogress?Are they supportiv~e of each other? etc Separate interviews followed by a
[Link] the parties to view any discrepancies in the interview data are often used.
Checking their perceptions ofeach other through face to face situations may be useful.
Ohser17ation is an important way to assess the dynamic quality of tlie interaction.
I~ndivitluals:Any individual within the organization, such as president, division heads,
occupzints of key positions in a work flow process, e.g., quality control, R&D. Do
people perform according to the organization's expectations? How do they view their
position and performance? 110certain kinds of problems typically arise? Do people
meet standardsand norms of the organization? Do they need particular knowledge,
skills, or ability? What career development opportunitiesdo they havelwantlneed?
What pains are they experiencing? Interviews, information derived form diagnostic
work team meetings, or problems identified by the personnel department are sources
of information. Self-assessment growing out of team or subsystem interventions is
another source.
Etoles: A role is a set of behaviours enacted by a person as a result of his occupying a
certair~position within the organization. All persons in the organization have roles
requiring certain behaviours, such as the secretaries, production supervisors,
accountants. Should the role behaviours be addedto, subtracted from, or changed? Is
tlie role defined adequately? What is the "fit" between the person and role? Should
tlie role performer be given special skills and knowledge? Is this the right person for
this role? ITsually, informatifoncomes from observation, interviews, role analysis
techn~que,a team approach to "'management by objectives". Career planning
activi1:iesyield this information as an output.
13etwt:en organizational sxJr,kmsconstituting a suprasystem An example might be the
:iysit:~c af I ~ Wa d order i l l a r p ~ ; ' . ~including
, local, country, state, federal police or
investigative and enforcement agencies, prosecuting off~cersand grand juries. Most
such suprasystems are so complex that change efforts tend to focus on a pair or a trio
of sut~[Link] do the key people in one segment of the suprasystem view the whole
and the subparts? Are there frictions or incongruities between subparts? Are there
Iiigh-performing and low-performing sub-units? Why? Organizational mirroring, or
developing lists of how each group sees each other, is a common method ofjoint
{diagnosis,questionnairesand interviews are useful in extensive long-range
i~iterventions.

11.7.2 Organisational Process Identifying remarks and explanation

typical information sought common methods of diagnosis
Communication patterns, styles and flows Who talks to whom, for how long, about
what'?Who initiates the interaction? Is it two-way or one-way? Is it top-down; down
up; [Link]?Etc. Communication flow and communication patterns-
Is colnmunication directed upward, downward, or both? Are commu~iicationsfiltered?
Why? In what ways? Do communications patterns 'fit" the nature of the jobs to be
acco~nplished?What is the "climate" of communication?What are the techniques of
cornrnunication mostly used? Observations, especially in meetings; questionnaires for
large-sized samples; interviews and discussionswith group members - all these
methods may be used to collect the desired information. Analysis of videotaped
sessions by all concerned i!; especially useful. As a cop at the traffic signal, a
conslultant could monitor/o$serve the communication process as it flows. Also leave a
tracer element and see how it travels through the communication process.
Goal setting Setting task objectives and determining criteria to measure
accomplishment ofthe objectives at all organizational levels. Do they set goals? How
is this done? Who all participate in goal setting? Do they possess the necessary skills
for effective goal setting? Are they able to set long-range and short-range objectives? Diagnostic Methodology:
Questionnaires, interviews and observation all afford ways ofassessing goal-setting QualifPtive and Quantitntive
ability of individuals and groups within the organization.
Decision making, problem solving, and action planning Evaluating alternatives and
choosing an appropriate one and the plan of action are integral and central functions
for most organization members. This includes getting the necessary information,
establishing priorities, evaluating alternatives, and choosing one best alternative over
all the others. Who makes decisions? Are they effective? Are all available sources
utilized? Are additional problem-solvingskills needed? Are organization members
satisfied with the problem-solving and decision-making processes?--The way it is
done. Observation of problem-solvingmeetings at various organizational levels is
particularly valuable in diagnosing this process. Analysis ofvideotaped sessions by
all concerned is especially useful.
Conflict resolution and management Conflicts-interpersonal, intra-personal, intra-
group and inter-group- frequently exists in organizations. Does the organization
have effective ways of dealing with these conflicts? Where does conflict exist? Who
are the involved parties? How is it being managed? What are the system norms for
dealing with conflict? Does the reward system promote conflict? Interviews, third-
party observations and observation meetings are common methods for diagnosing
these processes.
Managing interface relations Interfaces represent these situations wherein two or more
groups (sub-systems) face common problems or overlapping responsibilities. This is
I
most often seen wlle~lmembers of two separate groups are interdependently related in
achieving an objective but have separate accountability. What is the nature of the
relations between two groups? Are goals clear? Is responsibility clear? What major
problems do the two groups face? What structural conditions promotefinhibit effective
interface management? Interviews, third-party observations,and observation of group
meetings are common methods for diagnosing these processes.
Superior-subordinate relations Formal hierarchical relations in organizationsdictate
that some people lead and others follow: these situations are often a source of many
organizational problems What are the extant leadership styles? What problems arise
between superiors and subordinates? Questionnaires can show overall leadership
climate and norms. interviews and questionnaires reveal the desired leadership
behaviours.
Technological and engineering systems. All organizations rely on multiple
technologies- for production and operations, for information processing, for
planning, for marketing, etc., to produce goods and services. Are the technologies
adequate for satisfactory performance? What is the state of the art and how does the
organization's technology compare with that? Should any changes in technology be
planned and implemented? Generally this is not an area of expertise of the OD
consultant. He or she must then seek help from "experts" either inside or outside the
orga~lizatio~l.
Interviews and group discussions focussed on technology are among the
best ways to deterrn ine the adequacy of technological systems. Sometimes outside
experts conduct an audit and make recommendations; Internal auditors can also make
recommendations.
Strategic management and long-range planning Monitoring the environme3g adding
and deleting "products"/processes, predicting future events, and making decisions that
affect the long-term viability of the organization is a necessity for the organization to
remain competitive and effective. Who is responsible for "looking ahead" and for
making long-range decision? Do they have adequate tools and support? Have recent
long-range decisions been effective? What is the nature of current and future
environmental demands? What are the unique strengths or core competencies ofthe 27
Diagnosis organization? What are the threats to the organization. Interviews of key policy-
and intervention makers, group discussions, and examination of historical records give insight to this
dime:nsion.

1 -1 SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS
- - - -- -- p p - -

1) Discuss the open system analysis and explain the utility of this system.
2) Describe the Weisbord's six box model and its advantages in diagnosis.
3) Describe Porra's stream analysis and its merits and demerits.
4) Explain as to what factors to be taken into consideration for diagnosis.

Beclchard, R. (1969). Organization development: Strategies and models. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.
Bolrnan, I,.G., & Deal, T. (1991), Reframing organizations:Artist~,choice and leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Budse W. W. (1982). Organization development, Boston: Little, Brown
Bur:ke, W. W. (1994). Diagnostic models for organizational development. In A Howard &
Associates (Eds.), Diagnosis for organizational Change: Methods and models (pp.53-85).
Nevv York: Guildford.
Cameron, K.(1984). The effectiveness or ineffectiveness. Research in Organizational
Behaviou,r,6,235-285.
Freeman, H., & Rossi, P. (1 984). Furthering the applied side of sociology. American
Sociological Review, 49, 560-585.
French, W., & Bell, C. (1995). Organization development (5Ihed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
[Link],C. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration to be
pun~ctuatedequilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16: 10-36.
Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American
Sociologl'cal Review, 49, 149-164.
Harigopal, K. Management of organizational change: leveraging Transformation, Sage
Publications, New Delhi, 200 1
Hairrison.,M., & Phillips, B. (1991). Strategic decision making: An integrative explanation.
Research in the Sociology of Organizations,9, 319-358.
Hennesteid B. (1988). Inculture: the organizational culture of INC. In S. Tyson, K.F.
Ackermann, M. Domsch, & P. Joynt (Eds.), Appraising and exploring organisations.
London: Croom Helm.
Jackson, M.C., (1992). @stem methodology for the management sciences. New York:
Plenum.
Judd, C..,Smith, E., & Kidder, L. (1991). Research methods in social relatiom (6'" ed.).
New York: Holt, Rinehart & winston.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology oforganizations (2"ded.,.). New York:
W:iely.
Lawler, Nadler, & Cammann, (Eds.). (1980). Organizational assessment. New York: Wiley.
Mintzberg, H. (1984). Power and organizational life cycles. Academy of Management
Review, 9,207-224.
Morgan.,G. (1986). Images of organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Nadler, D. (1977). Feedback and organization development: Using data-based methods. Diagnostic Methodology:
Reading, MA: Addison -Wesley. Qualitative and Qusrtihtive
Porras, J.I. (1987). St/-eamanalysis. Reading, M.A: Addison-Wesley.
Porras. J., & Silver, R. (1991). Organization development and transformation. Annual
Review of'Psychology, 42, 51-78.
Ramirez, I. L., & Bartunek, J. (1989). The multiple realities and experiences of
organization development consultation in health care. Journal ofOrganizationa1 Change
Munup~cnt,2(1), 40-57.
Robertson, P.J., Roberts, D.R., & Porras. J.I. (1993). An evaluation of a model of planned
organizational change: -Evidence from a meta-analysis. Research in Organizational Change
and Development,7, 1-39.
Rossi. P., & Whyte, W.F. (1983). The applied side of sociology. In [Link], [Link], P
Rossi, & W.F. Whyte (Eds), Applied sociology. (pp. 5-31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. ( 1 990). The fifth discipline: The art andpractice ofthe learning organization.
New York: Doubleday.
Turner, 1982. Consulting is more than giving advice. Harvard Business Review,60, 120-129.
Tushman, M., Newman, W. & Nadler, D. (1988). Appraising and exploring organizations.
London: Croom Helm.
Tyson, Ackerman, Domsch, & Joynt, (1988). Appraising and exploring organizations.
.Londot!: Crooin Helm.
Weisbord, M.R., (1976). Diagnosing your Organization: Six places to look for trouble with
or without theory. Group & Organization Studies. 1, 430-477.