Organizational Development and Behaviour Improvement

Question: Discuss about the Organizational Development and Behaviour Improvement. Answer: Introduction Organization Development is a management concept dedicated to improving effectiveness and overall productivity in any organization. It has its roots in behavioral science. It includes a set of interventions that are well chalked out for every stage, it improves the organizational effectiveness of the organization along with welfare and maintenance of employees. Several OD definitions have been presented and the continuing new approaches as well as techniques has blurred all the boundaries of this field of management. OD is focused on improving three aspects of any organizations naming: strategies, design components and processes. It is addressed towards an organization or may be a department, team. OD interventions are applied across all levels in the organization. Organization Development has become of immense significance today, as; any effective organization should be able to meet its requirements today and should be also ready for tomorrow (Alsop Smith, 2016). OD drives adaptabi lity and helps the change smoothen out in the organization. The assignment shall deal with concept of organizational development and behavior as well as common intervention technique used in organization development. When talking about organization development concept, the assignment shall touch upon the concept of organizational climate which is the personality of the organization itself. The assignment shall also discuss Team Development and Group Process Interventions as part of organization development intervention technique. It shall also cover some of the usefulness, success and failure of this technique. The assignment shall cover the concept of organizational climate in context to organizational development and behavior prevalent in present time. Organization Development took its roots from study of human relations back in 1930s. Psychologists slowly had woken up to the influence the organization has on workers and vice versa. They realized that every organizational process and structure within the organization had a great influence on every worker. Thus they understood and derived through extensive study that some of the key concepts of organization development are organization climate (the personality of the organization, the mood which includes the attitude and beliefs of organization which influenced the workers or employees collective behavior), organizational culture (the mission, vision of organization, the deeply seated norms and behavior exhibited by members) and the organization strategies (Yaman et al. 2016) Organization change is the process of progress for the organization towards a better future state whereby its effeciency and productivity is improved. Organizational climate is the carrier of the change. Often the change is resisted owing to various factors but more open the organization is to change the better and smoother the change shall occur. There is lot of difference in approach regarding the concept, dimensions measurement of organization climate among researchers. Over the last three decades, as many questions have been raised as they have been answered. The concept of organizational climate has raised many different other concepts within the field of organizational development as well. All of them are well linked too in terms of comprehensive and systematic manner. For example, organizational climate cannot be distinguished from motivation, satisfaction, attitude, process, structure etc. prevalent in the organization (Wan, 2016). Every organization differs from other not only in terms of structure but most importantly, also in behavior, attitude invoked in people. Such factors are mostly physiological factors. In fact, every individual job responsibilities added to their personalities projects a climate which is of significance both to him and the organization as a whole. Meaning, any change in the organization leads to change in attitude and behavior of individual as well. Kurt Lewin, also known as father of OD gave the ideas of present day OD in mid-thirties. He studied industrial psychology and mentioned, what we refer to today as in Lewins theory; the effects of environmental factors on behavior. He linked the behavior to the environmental structures. He wrote To characterize properly the psychological field, one has to take into account such specific items as particular goals, stimuli, social relations, as well as more general characteristics of the field as the atmosphere or the amount of freedom. These characteristics of the field as a whole are as important in psychology as, for instance, the field of gravity for the explanation of events in classical physics. Psychological atmospheres are empirical realities and are scientifically describable facts (Rhoden, 2016). Even in writings of Shah, Anwar Irani, (2017), he clearly argued that behavior could be interpreted if it was related to behavioral environment. To understand the climate concept, it is necessary to understand some theories which have touched concepts related to climate theory. Some of the theories demonstrate the capability of integrating the climate theory within themselves. In other, it is evident that though they are related in intent but individual in focus. Theory of Individual Behavior Vrooms model (1964) also acknowledges the importance of situational variables. His cognitive theory is based upon a persons choices, valences, instrumentalities and expectancies. His two propositions are: The valence of an outcome to a person is a monotonically increasing function of the algebraic sum of the products of the valences of all other outcomes and his conception of its instrumentality for the attainment of these other outcomes. The force on a person to perform an act is a monotonically increasing function of the algebraic sum of the products of the valence of all outcomes and the strength of his expectancies that the act will be followed by the attainment of these outcomes (Biggs, Swailes, Baker, 2016). Management Theory Various organization theorists interested in management process described the indirect and easy to miss effects of management practices on the attitude and response nature of junior employees. Thomsen, Karsten Oort, (2016), used the term organization culture in their managerial grid. He pointed out the change which happens in the outlook of the manager on seeing that his responsibility in also managing the culture apart from managing just his people to get results from them. He then is unable to separate the unit of development as just an individual. There was a shortcoming to this though, they did not explain what this meant for people. Also, it is difficult to gauge how the manager would connect the organizational elements with individual elements to carry out his duty? Organizational Theory - Large organization is loose organization. Nay, it would be almost as true to say that organization is always disorganization (Chumg et al. 2016). This theory views organizations as systems for making decisions and deal with them in tandem to climate. This theory mostly concentrates of organizational structure. De Vries Van der Poll, (2016), distinguish eight such dimensions for structure. They explain situational influence on behavior. They are: Likert in his theory (1967) mentions the above as climate variables. He states: The intervening variables reflect the material state and the health of the organization e.g. the loyalties, attitudes, motivations, performance goal, and perceptions of all members and their collective capacity for effective interaction, communication, and decision making. The structural variables were considered as causal variables and the end results such as productivity, costs, profits etc., as dependent variables. As is clear, Likert considers climate as the link between structural attribute as the effectiveness of the organization. Lee, Tui, Sharif, 2016). after conducting an experiment proved that (a) if the climate was innovative, the performance was more predictable (b) if climate was more consistent, the performance was higher and (c) different climate meant that different methods to solve problems would be sought out. According to Drake Pritchard, (2016), climate was The term organization climate refers to a set of measurable properties or work environment, perceived directly or indirectly by the people who live and work in this environment and assumed to influence their motivation and behaviour. Their model for organizational climate is considered groundbreaking research in this field. Bergmann et al. (2016), explained that organizational climate refers to collective quality of the individuals of the organization. It simply meant values or the meanings of a set of characteristics of the environment. Thus, the climate represents the organization as people seek it in a holistic and global sense. In addition to this it also explained it as a set of attributes specific to an organization that may be deciphered from the way that organization deals with its members and its environment. For members within the organization, climate meant set of attitudes and expectancies that rendered an organization both static and dynamic characteristics. Thus, it is safe to say that organizations are different owing to different behaviors that are induced. Since management defines the climate in an organization, changes in organizations and behaviors in them are significant. Autocratic, custodial and supportive. In autocratic climate, manager is the sole authority. Management thinks it knows best and employees should follow all orders. In such an environment, employee orientation(expected) is obedience. Employees are dependent on boss; their met needs are subsistence. Hence, the employee performance is met at minimum level as well. In custodial climate, everything is dependent on money. In this climate, met needs of employees are reasonable. Employee performance is never actualized but they may be happy. It is a flawed climate. In supportive model, the management provides a suitable environment to the employees to grow and reach their capability. Employees remain motivated and they tend to participate and involve themselves in interest of the organization (Ille, Risso Sanchez Carrera, 2017). Campbell and other theorists identified the following four dimensions of organizational climate: 1. Individual autonomy based on factors of individual responsibility, independence, rules, orientation, and opportunities for existing individual initiative. 2. The degree of structure imposed upon the position - based on factors of structure, managerial structure and closeness of supervision. 3. Reward orientation - based on factors of reward, general satisfaction, promotion, achievement orientation, and being profit minded and sales oriented. 4. Consideration, warmth and support - based on factors of managerial support, nurturance of subordinates and warmth and support (Taylor, 2016).Company climate and productivity Five aspects of organizational climate affect productivity. They were employee welfare concern, skill development, reflexivity, innovation and flexibility performance feedback. (Hall, 2017). Only companies which were productive were the ones which lay emphasis on the above. Thus, it is clear by now that diffused pattern of studies and the research results all point m ore or less towards the same thing that climate mainly consists of the aspects of social environment that are consciously perceived by members of the organization. The essential task of management is creating opportunities, releasing potential, removing obstacles, encouraging growth, and providing guidance. To improve performance, the route is improving work climate. Work climate affects work behavior and workers. A positive work environment is one in which creative, productive work thrives. There is simply no space for negative emotions and thoughts. A good work climate paves the path to motivation in employees, who; would then put in extra effort and with improved capabilities will provide improved job results. A work climate is created by the organizational factors. They could be history of the organization its founding, successes, reputation and story of setbacks as well as turnarounds. Another reason could be the culture itself. As described by Alsop Smith, (2016), culture refers to the deep structure of organizations, referring to shared values, work values, traditions and even assumptions and beliefs. Management strategy and structure also lends the climate in the organization a flavor. The growth and job opportunities, roles and responsibilities along with their descriptions, appraisal and reward policies etc. The external environment also could affect the climate of the organization by its broader context of policies, regulations, politics, social barriers etc. Finally, the most crucial factor contributing to the climate of the organization- the manager himself. His competencies and temperament in team handling. Managers competencies and practices have the most influence in a groups work climate. The same climate could lead the managers to improved team performance and effectiveness (Wan, 2016). Rhoden (2016) mentioned that the organization development was a planned effort and that it flows from top down which ensures the success of the entire effort of bringing about efficiency and productivity, all of this using knowledge rooted in behavioural science. Organization Development is a long- term effort, led and supported by top management, to improve an organizations visioning, empowerment, learning, and problem-solving processes, through an ongoing, collaborative management of organization culture. It pays special emphasis on the culture of intact work teams and other team configurations by using the consultant facilitator role and the theory technology of applied behavioural science, including action research. Organization Development is set of planned activities followed by all members of the organization. The most critical three components of all Organization Development programs are: Diagnosis, Intervention and Program Management. Organizational interventions are sets of structured activities targeted to a group, mostly teams or departments, who engage in them with the overall goal of organizational improvement. These structured activities are only doctored to the organization by experienced consultants. Sometimes the consultant s use just one intervention techniques sometimes multiple in combination simultaneously. Organization Development intervention techniques may be applied on large systems (example organizations), group (department) or individual. OD intervention techniques could be interventions segregated to systemic, people or process centric. Systemic interventions are the interventions followed to bring about a change in systems being followed to prepare the entity for a better future with the desired incorporated changes. People interventions are to enhance people productivity. Process interventions improve a present process in terms of quality, time and cost. There are fourteen types of organizational development interventions. Some majorly used ones are-diagnostic activities, team-building activities, intergroup activities, survey feedback activities and education training activities and structural activities among few (Wan, 2016). Diagnostic Activities: As the word diagnosis implies, it is about finding causes. To find out the exact way things function in the environment. Methods ranging from building collages to present a persons position in the organization to more traditional methods which could include surveys, interviews, face to face interactions etc. Team-Building Activities: This affects the way the team bonds to function. Activities could be task oriented to diagnose how information moves, roles change, check interdependency etc. Such activities also diagnose the relationship between the leader and subordinates and finds out how functional or amazing it may be. All of this conducted keeping into consideration the possibility of presence of varied teams such as temporary task teams, a formal team or even a cross-functional team. Intergroup Activities: Such activities focus on improving the effectiveness amongst intergroups or groups which are interdependent on each other. Every activity and its resultant is gauged in terms of joint effort. In case of presence of two groups, it could be referred as inter groups and in case, there are more, it is referred to as organizational mirroring. Survey Feedback Activities: Such activities are focussed towards finding out the facts from the survey responses. Based on the facts found, necessary plan of action is prepared. Education and training activities: Such activities are put in place to improve the KSA levels or knowledge, skills and abilities of individuals. Many permutations and combinations to carry out such activities are possible. The activities may be directed toward gaining technical knowledge or skills which specifically could be useful in better task performance or simply improvement of competence. The activities may be around issues pertaining to leadership or functions or responsibilities of members in group. Such as- decision making, problem solving, goal setting, planning etc. Structural Activities: These are relevant to improving the technical or structural inputs as well as obstructions which may be affecting an individual or the group itself. The activities may take the form of The assignment is focused to discuss team building activities as intervention. Team development and group processes interventions aim at improving different aspects of a group performance, such as goal setting, development of interpersonal relations among team members, role clarification and analysis, decision making, problem solving, and communities of practice, among other. One of the most important objective of team building interventions relies on improving interdependency of team members. The underlying premise is that the aggregated value of the team is much greater than any individual. According to Drake Pritchard, (2016), team building is applicable where group activities are interdependent. The objective is to improve the coordination efforts of members, which will resu lt in increasing the teams performance. Team Building activities are customized and rolled out to enhance the ways the teams function. They focus solely on task-related issues like relationship between team member, their leader and team itself, skills and resources required, effectiveness of teams etc. "Teamwork doesn't happen automatically, and it doesn't result just from the exhortations of a single leader. It results from members paying attention to how they are working together, issues that block teamwork and working them through, and consciously developing patterns of working together that all members find challenging and satisfying (Taylor, 2016). Teams often get road blocked on its path of performance owing mostly to group dynamics. It lowers their morale, motivation, enthusiasm, productivity as well as satisfaction from job. Group process facilitation then comes handy. During a team meeting, group change activities, insight oriented activities and experiential activities are usually use by a specialist, an OD consultant, to make the team members aware of their own unique styles when communicating, collaborating, in groups and in conflict resolution. Members develop increased sensitivity towards each others styles and develop understanding of their own team members. This brings about cohesiveness within the group as well as coordination to work towards a common objective. Individuals develop greater self-awareness and the group quality changes for the better. The idea of team building is identification of challenges in performance in a task as well as find solution to eliminate them. Always a new challenge comes up during suc h activities. It is a proven technique by which members of an organizational group find out how they work together and accordingly, plan changes that will improve their overall effectiveness. Team building exercises attempt to improve effectiveness of teams by allowing the members to concentrate on setting goals or priorities for organizational groups, by also analyzing or allocating the way the work is performed, by examining the way the group is functioning, and last but not the least by also examining the relationships among the people in the team doing the work. Thus, the chief objective of team building is to help the group members in examining their own behaviour and developing plan of action that would foster task achievement. Sharing emotions in a group may be effective however, too much sharing of emotions could be destructive and unproductive as well. It could lead to further conflicts that groups tend to avoid such groups often known as T-groups did not work well in organizations as because they gave rise to emotional conflict instead of task conflicts. This further led to non-cooperation among team members and loss of coordination, hence, losing out on task goals. Team members blocked the performance of other by deliberately blocking work, keeping task at hand longer than needed, trust and freedom of expression was lost owing to intolerance. Conclusion To conclude the assignment, organizational development came across as a thorough process very much relevant to todays age. The concepts born in mid-thirties still hold handy. The process comes into play on identification of a problem by the organization which recognizes presence of an issue that needs to be checked or to prepare for the future new organization with revamped values among its workforce. A plan of action is important to start the process of change in organization behaviour and that change must come in the climate of the organization itself. The organization climate is the carrier of the organization towards the planned change. It is the actual environment where the changes planned are implemented. Implementation occurs via various interventions amongst which team building interventions are crucial. In an environment of change it is easy for the team to lose track of why it was created. It may become confused to what its line of action should be in the changing environme nt. Specialists or OD consultants then come in play and correct their behaviour through team activities, group meetings etc. which make them self-aware and shed light also on the group behaviour by use of effective techniques. Reference List Alsop, M., Smith, G. (2016).A Field Guide for Organisation Development: Taking Theory Into Practice. Routledge. Bergmann, A., Grossi, G., Rauskala, I., Fuchs, S. (2016). Consolidation in the public sector: methods and approaches in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.International Review of Administrative Sciences,82(4), 763-783. Biggs, D. M., Swailes, S., Baker, S. (2016). The measurement of worker relations: the development of a three-component scale.Leadership Organization Development Journal,37(1), 2-12. Chumg, H. F., Seaton, J., Cooke, L., Ding, W. Y. (2016). Factors affecting employees' knowledge-sharing behaviour in the virtual organisation from the perspectives of well-being and organisational behaviour.Computers in Human Behavior,64, 432-448. De Vries, H., Van der Poll, H. M. (2016). The influence of Lean thinking on organisational structure and behaviour in the discrete manufacturing industry.Journal of Contemporary Management,13(1), 55-89. Drake, D., Pritchard, J. (2016). Coaching for Organisation Development.The SAGE Handbook of Coaching, 159. Hall, M. (2017). Crafting Compromises in a Strategising Process: A Case Study of an International Development Organisation.Financial Accountability Management,33(2), 171-191. Ille, S., Risso, A., Sanchez Carrera, E. J. (2017). Democratization and inequality: Empirical evidence for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member countries.Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 0263774X16684521. Lee, K. L., Tui, L. G., Sharif, S. P. (2016). Organisational Context and Citizenship Behaviour: Exploring the Moderating Effects of Role Ambiguity.Jurnal Pengurusan (UKM Journal of Management),47. Rhoden, M. (2016).Construction Management and Organisational Behaviour. John Wiley Sons. Shah, N., Anwar, S., Irani, Z. (2017). The impact of organisational justice on ethical behaviour.International Journal of Business Innovation and Research,12(2), 240-258. Taylor, I. (2016). Why we need a world development organisation.Malaysian Journal of International Relations,3(3). Thomsen, M., Karsten, S., Oort, F. J. (2016). Distance in schools: the influence of psychological and structural distance from management on teachers trust in management, organisational commitment, and organisational citizenship behaviour.School Effectiveness and School Improvement,27(4), 594-612. Wan, H. L. (2016). Organisational Citizenship Behaviour for Organisational Sustainability. InOrganisational Justice and Citizenship Behaviour in Malaysia(pp. 125-152). Springer Singapore. Yaman, S. G., Fagerholm, F., Munezero, M., Mnch, J., Aaltola, M., Palmu, C., Mnnist, T. (2016). Transitioning Towards Continuous Experimentation in a Large Software Product and Service Development OrganisationA Case Study. InProduct-Focused Software Process Improvement: 17th International Conference, PROFES 2016, Trondheim, Norway, November 22-24, 2016, Proceedings 17(pp. 344-359). Springer International Publishing.