Aldefer_The Methodology of Organizational Diagnosis

8/3/2019 Aldefer_The Methodology of Organizational Diagnosis

1/10

CLAYTON P. ALDERFER

The Methodology ofOrganizational DiagnosisThe purpose of organizational diagnosis is to establish the widely sharedunderstanding of a system and, based o n that understanding, to determinewhether change is desirable. By stating and then maintaining that theinitial work in the client system is diagnosis, consultants provide clientswith bases against which they can be held accountable. Organizationaldiagnosis is considered as a recursive process. The topics considered in thisarticle include entry, data collection, and feedback. The methods describedhere are self-correcting. For client systems who wish to learn, thismethodology provides th e opportunity, if it is employed by consultants whohave been thoroughly and appropriately trained.

Organ izationa l diagno sis is a process based on behaviora l science theo ry for publ ic lyenter ing a hu m an sys tem, col lec t ing val id data abou t hu m an experiences with tha tsystem, and feeding tha t info rm at ion back to the sys tem to promo te increased u nde r-standin g of the system by its m emb ers. The pu rpo se of org aniz ation al diagnosis isto es tabl ish a widely shared unders tanding of a sys tem and, based on tha t unde r -s tanding, to determine wh ether change is desi rable (Alder fer , 1976).

Inevitably, the organizational diagnosis has a tendency to provoke change in a hu m ansystem, but the perspect ive presented here dis t ing uish es the a ims of diagnos is fromthose of plan ned chan ge. According to the present view, diagno sticians attem pt tochang e an org anization only as far as is necessary to accomplish the p urp ose of diag-nosis. Otherw ise the y do not a t tempt to promote change, no mat te r how promis ingare the opportunities that seem to present themselves.

This s tance regarding chang e du ring diagnosis combines an unders tand ing of or-ganizat ional behavior with a value pos it ion regarding effective profess ional work inapplied behavioral science.1 The work of organizat ional d iagnosis m ay requ i re theprofessional to work wi th the organiza t ion as a who leinc l ud ing organiza t ion-en-vironment relations, groups inside and outside the organization, and individuals whoselives are shaped by the organizat ion and wh o in tur n determ ine the natu re of the or-ganization. As a result , theory relevant to individu als , groups , and the organizat ionas a whole is crucial to diagnostic work. Sim ply to survive, the professional must kn owhow to develop and to main ta in w orking re la t ionships with the sys tem and i ts m ajorcomponents. To complete th e work of unders tand ing a system, the profess ional mu s t

. know wha t da ta to obta in , how to collect it , and how to feed it back to the system topromote unders tand ing .Because resistance to in qu iry is a common hu m an characteristic, diagnosticians areil l equ ipped if they cannot identify and work through res is tances to their work.Therefore , wi thout skills to effect change, diagnosticians ' capacity to complete thediagnostic mission may be blocked by the very processes th ey are a t tem pting to un-1 Other perspectives on diagno sing organizations may be found in Argy ris (1970), Levinson (1972), M ahle r(1974), and Nadler (1977).

Vol. 11 , No. 3 June 1980 PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 459Copyright 1980 by the American Psychological Associat ion, Inc.

0033-0175/80/1103-0459J00.75


2/10

3. UN DE R S T A N DI N G O R GA N I ZA T I O N A L BE HA VI O R :M ETHODOLOGY OF ORG ANIZA TIONAL DIAGNOSIS

ders tand . On the other hand, normal ly occurring cl ient res is tance cannot become partof the consul tants ' jus t i f ica t ion for act ing un i lateral ly and a rbi t ra ri ly in the face of thatresis tance. Consu l t an t s w ho aspire to excel lence in the i r d iagnos t i c work cannotachieve th i s goa l wi th ou t c l ien t coopera tion .

By s tat ing and then m aintain ing that the ini t ia l w ork w ith a cl ient system is diagnosis ,consu l t an t s provide cl ients w ith bases against w hich they ( the consu l tants) can be heldaccoun t ab l e . C onsu l t an t s a l so provide a means for pro tec t ing themselves aga ins texcessive and u n p ro d u c t iv e d e ma n d s by c l i en t s du r ing d iagnos is . This approach setsl imi t s on how consu l t an t s wi l l u s e the i r sk i l l s and knowledge du r i ng d i agnos i s and ,in genera l , deve lops expec ta t ions abo ut w hat consu l t an t s and c l ien t s can cou nt on fromon e a n o t h e r d u r i n g th e diagnost ic process.Organizational Diagnosis as a Recursive ProcessOrganizational diagnosis proceeds in three orderly phases: entry, data collection, andfeedback. These phases are w el l def ined because there are a c lear ly observable be -g i n n i n g and en d to each one . Bu t the phases are a l so o ver lapping to a degree. Theterm recursive e x p l a i n s th e n a t u r e of the over lap be tween each phase and the o the rtwo. Each p hase has primary objectives, w hich determine the major thr us t of the w orkin tha t phase , and secondary objectives, w hich re la te th e other tw o phases to whicheve rphase is be ing unde r t aken . Thus, t he re is some data col lect ion and some feedbackd u r i n g e n t r y , s ome e n t r y and some feedback in data co l l ec t ion , and some en t ry andsome data col lect ion at feedback.ENTRYThe pr im ary object ives of en t ry a re to de te rmine w hich un i t s o f the sys tem ( ind iv idua l ,group, and organization) wil l participate in the diagnosis and to d e t e rm i n e wh e t h e rth e cl ient and consu l t an t can reach agreement about their respect ive roles during datacollection and feedback . En t ry begins w i th the first encounte r be tween c l i en t andconsu l t an t and ends wi th a decision between client and consul tant s tat ing whether theycan work t oge the r to comple t e th e diagnos i s . Ent ry is also a t i me fo r data co l l ec t ion ,as the consu l t an t beg in s to l ea rn about th e c l i en t sys tem through conversa t ions , ob -serva t ions , and d o c u me n t s . The close o f en t ry , whe the r the decision is to t e rmina t eor to proceed wi th th e next phases , p rovides the c l i en t w i th some feedback abou t howt he consu l tan t v i ew s t he sy s t em (A lde r fe r , 1968b).

People cannot be consu l t an t s to sys tems in which they a re ful l - f ledged me mb e r s .

CLAYTON P. ALDERFER, a Fellow oj"the American Psychological Association and o f the Societyfo r Applied Anthropology and a diplomate oj the American Board of Professional Psychology,is a professor at the Yale School of Organization and Management. H e is the author of Existence,Rela tedness , and Grow t h , and is co-author, with L. Dave Brown, o f Learning From Changing :Organiza t iona l Diagnosi s an d De ve l opm e n t . He is presently co-editing Wiley's new series,Advances in Ex pe rim en tal Social Processes.THIS ARTICLE IS BASED on a mo re extended monograph-length treatment, Group Rela t ionsand Organizat ional Diagnosis, co-authored with L. David Brown, Robert E. Kaplan, and KenK. Smith.REQUESTS FO R REPRINTS should be sent to Clayton P. Alderfer, Yale School of Organizationand Management, Box 1A , New Haven, Connecticut 06520.

460 PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Vol . 11, No. 3 June 1980


3/10

All i nd i v i du a l s h ave v e s t ed i n te r e s t s in t h e i r o w n o r gan i z a t i on s . E ven i f i n d i v i d u a l sd id not press thei r own in teres ts , o ther m em bers of the sys tem w ou ld be unab le to accepta con su l t a n t r e l a t i on sh i p from a pee r , and t he com p l e t e in s i d e r w ou l d b e r ende r edine f fec t ive as a r e su l t . Be ing a t leas t pa r t i a l o u t s ide r s , t he re fo re , i s pa r t o f thee q u i p m e n t of the organ iza t iona l consu l t an t s. W i thou t t h i s ro le e l emen t , t hey canno tfunc t ion ef f ec t ive ly . I n t e r n a l c on su l t a n t s , fo r e x a m p l e , can w o r k in parts o f a l a rge rs y s tem w he r e t h ey h ave no t b e en o r c u r r en t l y a r e no t members. B u t t h ey c anno tconsult to thei r ow n g r oup s , and they genera l ly have a great deal o f diff icul ty w i t h partsof t h e s y s tem w he r e t h ey h ave r e c en t l y b e en m em be r s . B e i ng an ou t s i d e r , w h i l enecessa ry fo r d i agn os t i c w ork , i s a l so a p rob lemat i c f ea tu re o f t he co nsu l t an t ' s ro le .B ecau s e co n su l t a n t s a r e o u t s i d e r s , t h ey c an e a s i l y b e p r even t ed f rom u n d e r s t a n d i n gc ruc ia l e leme n t s o f t he sys t em . There fo re , t he con su l t an t m us t e s tab l i sh some t ypeof l i a ison syst em to manage the r e l a t ionsh ip be tween the consu l t an t and those e l emen t sof the sys t em wh ere d i agnos i s w i l l t ake p l ace . Depen d ing on the n a t u r e of the sys t em ,the l ia i son sys tem may be an i n d i v i d u a l , a series o f i n d i v i d u a l s , o r a group (Alde r f e r ,1977b) .

W h a t e v e r th e state of an organ iza t ion ' s boun dar i e s be fo re th e ent ry process begins ,i t becom es m o r e p e r m eab l e d u r i n g t h e tim e w h en c l i e n t a nd co n su l t a n t a r e exp l o r i ngw h e t h e r a com p l e t e d i agno s is s hou l d t a ke p l ac e (A lde r f e r , 1976) . Out s ide r s , a t leas tt e m p o r a r i l y , a re granted access t o t h e o rg a n i z a t io n a n expe r i ence t h a t i n ev i t a b l ygenera t e s threat fo r t he o rgan iza t ion and i t s mem bers . En t ry i s l i ke a na tu ra l ex -p e r i m e n t , p r ov i d i ng con su l t a n t s w i t h an op po r t u n i t y t o ob s e r ve how t h e s y s tem r e -s pond s w hen i ts boun da r i e s b e com e m o r e permeable.

As human be ings themse lves , consu l t an t s a l so expe r i ence th e per iod o f e n t r y as at im e of an x ie ty . I n part t h i s arises becau s e t h e co n su l t a n t s a r e d e a l i ng w i t h t h e i rpo ten t i a l accep tance o r re jec t ion by the c l i en t sys t em. Th e more s e l f - aw a r ene s s andexper i ence th e con su l t a n t s h ave , th e l es s these f ee l ings w i l l i n t e r f e re w i th the i r effec-t iveness du r ing en t ry . I n add i t ion , t he consu l t an t w i l l also exper i ence the effects se tof f in the cl ient sys tem by the stress on the organ iza t ion ' s boundar i e s . As an "au-thor i ty" on organizat ional behavior f rom ou ts ide , the consul tant i s l ikely to be the targ etfo r fee l ings that o r gan i z a t i on m em be r s h ave fo r au t ho r i t y f i g u r e s i n s i d e t h e i rsys t em.

The paradox of en t ry i s t ha t a l thou gh i t p rov ides one o f the bes t opp or tun i t i e s toobse rve o rgan iza t iona l dynamics , it does so under r e l a t ive ly poor condi t ions . Con-sul tants ' anxie ty and t he i r work o f m anag i ng th e cl ient re la t ionsh ip to reach a decisionabou t d iagnosis in ter fere w i th thei r making the most ou t of the data ava i l ab le a t en t ry .Nonetheless, en t ry gene ra l ly t e l l s th e organ iza t ion ' s s to ry ve ry we l l . As a w o r k i n gheur is t ic , i t i s u s e f u l t o a s sume tha t t he ma jo r dynamics a re a l l obse rvab le a t en t ry ,if t he consu l t an t i s ab le to pe rceive them .

Th e data ava i l ab le a t e n t r y can become the bases o f w o r k i n g h y p o t h e se s fo r t e s t i ngd u r i n g data co l lec t ion and f eed bac k . As a ma t t e r o f no rm al p ro fes s iona l p rac t i ce , i ti s u s e fu l t o reco rd sy s t em at i ca l ly the hyp o theses that a r e s t im u l a t ed by en t r y even t s.This ac t iv i ty ca l ls fo r t he d i sc ip l ine o f deve lop ing a t l eas t two hyp o theses to exp la ine a ch en t r y even t de em ed w o r t h y o f a tt e n t i on , a n app r oach f i r s t advoca ted by HarryStack Su l l ivan (1954) in connec t ion w i th psych ia t r i c i n t e rv i e ws . A l t e rn a t ive hy-potheses can be r ead i ly gene ra t ed by c h a n g i n g levels o f a n a l y s is ( f ro m i n d i v i d u a l , togrou p , t o o rgan iza t ion) and us ing concep ts f rom each level t o exp la in w ha t i s obse rved .Typ ica l ly , later da ta co l l ec t ion shows how i n f o rma t i ve th e en t ry even t s were . Of ten ,

Vol. 11, No . 3 June 1980 PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 461


4/10

3. UNDERSTANDING O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L BEHAVIOR:METHODOLOGY OF ORGANIZATIONAL D I A G N O S I S

hypotheses that initially seemed to be comp etitive explanations each tur n out to providepar t ia l un ders tand ing of the phenom ena observed.

An entry from wh ich client and c onsu ltant agree to proceed w ith the diagnosis endsmos t effectively wi th an exchange of le t ters between client and consu l tan t . The ex-change of le t ters is confirmation of agreements reached earl ier through face-to-faceconversations. Usually th e consu l tan t takes the ini t ia t ive to wri te the "contract" letterand asks the cl ient to reply briefly in wri t ing . W h e n the client and co nsultant cannotreach agreement about how to proceed, the entry process ends sometime before theexcha nge of letters. Rarely are letters excha nged if there is not agreement to proceedw ith the diagnosis. I t is gene rally good practice, how ever, to confirm w ith the clienttha t th e diagnosis w ill not occur and, if possible, to establish w hy this decision w as taken(Berg , 1977; Lewicki & Alde r fe r , 1973).

The contract letter covers the m ajor dimens ions of data collection and feedb ack. Bythe end of en t ry , the con su l tan t should be c lear about w hich u ni ts wi l l par tic ipa te inthe diagnosis and abou t which methods will be used to collect information. Theseun de rstan din gs shou ld be stated in the contract letter. It is generally better to be ableto agree tha t all people w ho par t ic ipa te in the diagnosis wil l receive feedback. Re-spon dents are more lik ely to participate ene rgetica lly in data collection if they feel tha tthey will be able to learn from the process. H ow ever, i t is us ua lly m ore diff icul t toknow the design of the feedback sess ions wi thout system at ic data .

At the c lose of en t ry , the c onsu l tan t should have a reasonably wel l -deve loped ideaof w hat w i l l be necessary to unders tand the c l ien t system, a l though th is knowledgewil l be incom ple te and m ay requ i re changes in the contrac t as grea te r know ledge ofthe system becomes ava i lab le . The contract le t ter should acknowledge the l ike lylimitations of the consultant ' s knowledge of the system at the close of entry and identifyth e possib i l i ty tha t the c l ien t or consu l t an t m ay w a n t to modi fy th e contract as the di-agnost ic s tu dy un fo lds .

A con tract le t te r cove ring all the elemen ts described above tel ls a perce ptive cl ienta lot abou t wh a t the consu l tan t has lea rned about th e system du r ing en t ry . The letteris w ritten to establish publicly w hat the cl ient and c ons ultan t have learned abou t howthey will w ork together dur ing th e diagnosis. As such, it is a statement about th e clientorgan ization, the cons ultant , and their interdepend ence du ring diagnosis. Indirectly,it is also th e first form of systemat ic feedback th e client receives from th e consu l -tan t .DATA COLLECTIONThe primary objectives of data collection are systematically to gather valid inform ationabout th e na ture of the client system and to prepare an analysis of that data fo r deliveryto the c l ien t dur ing feedback. Data collection begins when the consu l tan t preparesa m ethodology for e l ic i ting info rm at ion and contac ts mem bers of the c l ien t system toimp lemen t the methodology. Data collection ends w hen the consu l tan t has ana lyzedthe da ta and is prepared to feed back the results to the cl ient. Each da ta collectionepisode begins by es tab l ish ing the bases of the c l ien t -consu l tan t re la t ionsh ip and , assuch, is like entry . These un structured events provide the consultant with a continuingbasis fo r rev is ing or con f i rming hypo the se s abou t the organiza t ion . In the processof elici t ing data from c l ien ts , th e cons u l tan t becomes increasingly specific a b o u t thek i nd s of data t ha t wi l l be use fu l . The search for increasingly prec ise informat ion

462 PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Vol. 11, No. 3 June 1980


5/10

indirect ly tells the client w hat the consu l tant th ink s i s imp or tant and the reby servesas a type of feedback.Whatever form of l ia i son sys tem the consul tant has developed dur in g en t ry plays

a key role during data col lect ion. The l iaison system assists the consu l t an t in deter-mining what data to collect, from wh om to collect it, when to collect it , and how to collectit . An effective l iaison system h elps the con su l tant with access to par t s of the systemwhere data mu st be col lected and aids the consu l tant in establ ishing cred ibi l i ty, so thedata obta ined wi l l be maximal ly val id . To the degree t ha t th e l iaison system i s a mi-crocosm of the sys tem being s tudied, it wil l provide th e consul tant wi th samples o fbeh aviora l dyna m ics of the system. If the system or parts of the system resist the di-agnostic process, th e same process wil l be observable in the l iaison system . Inter -vent ions w ith the l iaison system to aid the diagno st ic process w il l also ha ve effects onthe total system (Alderfer , 1976).

The consu l t an t' s u nde r s t and ing of the system should become increasingly preciseas the diagn ostic process proceeds. Hy pothe ses formed du ring en try provide the ini t ialconceptual foundation fo r developing more systematic data collection procedures duringthe nex t phase o f diagnosis. Data collect ion in stru m en ts, as well as degrees of intel-lec tual unders tanding, can be ordered from less to m ore precision. It fol lows tha tconsultants should choose their instruments to reflect th e stage of unders tand ing inthe i r inqu i ry. According to th i s pr inciple , less s t ruc tu red m ethods should be used inthe early stages of the invest igat ion and m ore stru ctured methods sh ou ld be emp loyedin the later phases.

From entry to data col lect ion to feedback, consu l tant actions in f luence the workingre la t ionship wi th the c l ient . Because the consu l tant 's effectiveness depen ds di rec t lyon th e quali ty of the client-consu ltant relationship, every action should be taken withreflection on its likely effects on this relationship. Data collection m ethods su rely havean impact on the client-co nsu ltant relationsh ip. The selection and ordering of me thods,therefore, should maximize th e benefi t and minimize th e damage to this relationship.As it turns ou t , the order ing of metho ds to enhance the c l ient -consu l tant re la t ionsh ipalso paral lels the ordering of methods to veri fy a consu l tan t ' s growing precis ion inunderstanding the cl ient system. Moreover , proceeding from less to more stru cture dmethods also tends to produce more val id data (Alderfer , 1968a; Alderfer & Brown,1972).

Following from the preceding principles, the preferred orderin g of method s du ringdata collection is: (a) un structu red ob servat ion, inclu din g exam inat ion of docum entsoffered by the cl ient; (b) indiv idu al interviews; (c) g r o u p interv iew s, i f they are used;(d ) ques t ionnai res, ideal ly w i th i tem content determined organ ical ly f rom the resul tsof Steps a, b, and c; and (e) specific documents reques ted by the consu l t an t , if neces-sary.

Unst ructured observat ion places minimal demands on the c l i en t - consu l t an t rela-t ionship , can be begun d ur in g ent r y , and shou ld be m ainta in ed throu gh a l l phases ofth e diagnosis. Individual interviews have a relationship-building quali ty if they areconducted competent ly and, as a resul t , are probably th e most esse ntial tool of any datacollection. G r o u p interviews should be used more selectively, depend ing on whe the rth e growing unders tand ing o f the system suggests that even greater ins ight abou t th eorganization can be attained by having members of the system who occupy similar rolesta lk together about the i r common fate. Qu est ionnaires place stress on the cl ient-consu l tant re la tionship; they tend to be impersona l , un i la tera l , and mon otonous . As

Vol. 11 , No. 3 June 1980 PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 463


6/10

3. UNDERSTANDING ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR:METHODOLOGY OF O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L D I A G N O S I S

a resul t , they are used most effectively after more r e l a t i onsh ip -bu i l d ing t echn iqueshave been employed . M oreover , the deve lopment of an empa th ic ques t i onna i r e t ha tspeaks a bou t organiza t ional i ssues in the language of the organ izat ion tes t s moreprecise ly e volving hypo theses about the sys tem and produ ces more v al id data thans t andard i zed in s t rum en t s (Alderfer & Brown, 1972).

Sol ic i ting any inform at ion beyond w hat i s publ ic ly avai lable ra ises qu es t ions aboutconf ident ia l i ty , which i n t u rn has imp l i ca t ions fo r the c l i en t -consu l t an t r e l a t i onsh ip .Vi r t ua l l y all profession s (e.g., l a w , me dicine , c lergy) have t radi t ions of conf iden t i a lre la t ions between c l ient and profess ional . Organ izat ional co nsu l ta t ion shou ld be nodi f fe ren t . Co m m i tm e n t s to conf ident ia l i ty tha t are mainta ined a id the developmentof t rus t be tween c l ient and consu l t an t . The consul tant should take the i n i t i a t i ve a tal l relevant data col lect ion events to exp lain the na ture of the confidentiality that appliesand to answer ques t ions that ar i se .

Archival information should be requested by the consu l tant only wh en necessaryand o nly af ter there has been enou gh in terac t ion to dem ons t ra te the sou ndne ss of thecl ient-consul tant relat ionship. Unde rstandings abou t confidential i ty apply to archivalin format ion as well as to data col lected by face-to-face method s. Archival informationis not necessarily more or less valid than data from other sources; in highly politicizedsys tems, it is as l ike ly to have been "managed" to serve th e interests o f specific i nd i -v idua l s or groups as any other data . But i t does offer a source i ndependen t of theconsu l tant and , for this reason, is desirable to have w hen i t can provide fu rth er insightinto topics relevant to the diagnosis.

Analyzing the dat a for feedback to the c l ient system begins wi th the form at ion ofhypotheses du r ing ent ry . Fur ther s teps are t aken as consu l tants develop their l iaisonsystem , decide on specific areas of inqu i ry fo r ind iv idua l and grou p in terview s, developitems for an empathic ques t ionnai re , and seek certain archiva l inform ation. In short,th e data analysis process is well unde rw ay in advance of when this work becomes th eprim ary task at the close of data collection; the issues around which feedback wi l l focushave been (and shou ld hav e been) determined by decis ions du r ing en t ry and da ta col-lection. At the t ime of analysis , how ever, consu l tants face a num ber of other decisionsabou t present ing the content of the i r inform at ion to the c l ient . Especia lly impo r tantare choices with regard to the use of t heory , the mix of qual i ta t ive and quan t i t a t i vein fo rma t ion , and the order in which i ssues are presented.The pr imary or ienta t ion of the present approach to diagnosis is to unde r s t and asystem on i t s own t e rms i nduc t i ve ly , r a t h e r than impose preconceived analyses orstandardized ins t ruments . Never th e less, this article presents a "theory of method,"which in t u r n is rooted in a subs t an t i ve t heory of organizat ional behav io r .2 In pre-par ing data fo r feedb ack, consu l tants mu st decide how much emphas i s to give to the-oret ical concepts fo r unde r s t and i ng the data. U n d e r some circumstances cl ient u n -ders tand ing m ay be enhan ced by more extens ive presenta t ion of theo ry, and un derother condi t ions c l ient un ders tand ing may be aided more by emphas is on concrete e l-emen ts of the data (Alderfer , 1976). Use of theory depends on whe ther und erstanding2 Th e su bsta nt ive theoret ical posit ion is based on open systems theory an d in tergroup relat ions. See Rice(1969) and Alde rfe r (1976, 1977a) for an elaboration of these relate d theo retica l position s. The spacel imi ta t ions of th i s a r t i c le proh ib i t re la t ing th e methodo log ica l theo ry , wh ich is presented here, to the sub -stantive theory, wh ich is not. It takes a well-developed unde rs tanding of in tergroup an d open systems theoryand sophis t icated skill in wo rk in g w i t h i n t e rg ro up d y n am ic s to execute th e method s presented here.



7/10

wil l be aided by increas ing or decreas ing th e n u m b e r of exp lanat ion s c l ients have fortheir experience wi th th e system. Introduct ion of theory by consul tan ts tends to de-crease the nu m be r of exp lanation s clients generate, and e mp hasis on concrete data tendsto increase th e n u m b e r of points of view proposed by cl ients.Qualitative and qu anti tat ive data have compensating advan tages and disadvantages,some of w hi ch are s imi l a r to the effects of how theory is used . The more qua l i t a ti vedata are used, the more clients are encouraged to search fo r thei r ow n explanat ions ,and the more q ua nti tat ive data are used, the more the data themselves are l ikely to shapeconclusions about th e system. Quotations and unstructured observat ions add richness,com plexi ty, and un iqueness to any feedback presentat ion. They typical ly evoke cl ienti nvo lvemen t and set off search processes, as cl ients a t tem pt to de t e rmine w hy anyonewou ld say or do what is reported. Questions abo ut th e generality of unique commentsarise, and the u se of quan t i t a t i ve i n fo rma t ion of ten provides answers .

People also have feelings about data concerning h u m a n affairs. For some (e.g.,English teachers in a New England boarding school) , th e idea that human experiencecould be qu an t i f ied a t a l l migh t be an ana them a. For others (e.g ., engineers in am anu fac tu r i ng p l an t ) , qua n t i f i ca t i on migh t be synonomous w i th t he te rm data. Inadvance of prepa r ing the analys i s , the consu l tants w i l l have an oppo r tuni ty to learnthe c l ient cul ture about data . This und er s t and ing shou ld i n f l uen ce t he ba l ance o fqu ant i ta t ive and qu al i ta t iv e data used in feedback. Because the purpose of feedbackis no t to change the client culture about data, th e balance of qualitative and qu antitativei n fo rma t i on used in feedback should ref lect the cl ient cul ture.

Th e issues presen ted in feedback vary in the degree of conflict they are likely to evoke.Like th e process o f en t ry and the methods of data col lect ion, th e order in which i ssuesa re presented in feedback has an in f l uence on the cl ient -consul tant re la t ionship , andthis order should be designed to enhance th e mutual i ty between cl ient and consu l t an t .As a genera l princ ip le , th e more dis tu rbing topics should be presented nei ther at thebeginning nor at the end. The initial elements of feedback set the g roundwork forth e entire process and shou ld have the effect of s tabi l iz ing the wo rk ing r e l a t ionsh ipand bu i ld ing confidence for later , more difficult material . The f inal par t s of feedbackaim toward brin gin g closure to the experience an d sho uld al low the cl ient to completeth e w or k o f coming to t e rms wi th th e feedback. As a r e su l t , the more conf l ic t fu l m a-t er ia l should be covered dur ing th e middle phases of da t a p r esen t a t i onaf t e r th es tar t -up dynamics have subs ided and before terminat ion has begun.At the close of data collection, th e consul tant has obta ined and analyzed systematicdata abou t the cl ient system. Prior to the start of feedback, there is a period of reducedinteract ion betw een c l ient and consul tant whi le th e consu l t an t prepares th e data fo rfeedback. This period of reduced co ntact w ill place some strain on the client-consu ltantrelat ionship because the cl ient wil l be anxious to f ind out what the consul tant haslearned and may experience th e reduced contact with th e consul tant as a depr ivat ion.The role of the l iaison system remains imp ortant du ring this t ime. Through that ent i ty,th e consultant can m a in ta in contact with th e organization, learn about new develop-men ts in the c l ient sys tem, and keep the c l ient inform ed about progress w i th the dataanalysis. Perhaps most important ly, th e liaison system can be a source of advice abou tthe content and d esign of feedback . It is f req u en tly desirable to cond uct the f i rs tfeedback with th e l iaison people, espec ially if they represent a microcosm of the ent i resystem.

Vol. 11, No. 3 June 1980 PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 465


8/10

3. UNDERSTANDING O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L B E H A V I O R :METHODOLOGY OF O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L DIAGNOSIS

FEEDBACKTh e primary object ive of feedback is to promote increased understanding of the clientsystem b y i ts mem bers. Feedback typic al ly consists of a series of meet ings betweenthe consu l tant and c l ient dur in g which the consu l tant presents the data analys i s andthe part ies discuss and i n t e rp re t the data . In car rying ou t feedbac k, con sul tan ts "re-enter" the system after having been away wh ile they prepared the data analysis. Clientreact ions to the feedback and the ir behavior dur ing m eetings provide another sourceof data tha t may co nfirm or disconfirm the analyses provided in the feedback. Feedbackalso brings th e diagnosis to completion and possibly prepares for a transition to plannedchange.

Effective feedb ack design relates th e content of the feedback to the process by whichth e analysis is delivered to the cl ient system. The content of feedback is the da taana lysis prepared at the close of the data col lect ion phase. The process of feedbackis th e composition of feedback meetings (i.e., who is present wi th whom) , th e orderingof th e meet ings ( i .e ., which g rou ps receive inform at ion f irst , which second, etc.) , th ebehavior of the client system du ring feedback, and the behavior of the consul tants withinand between feedback meet ings . The o vera l l feedback des ign shou ld br ing togetherpeople who are interested in the information presented and should bring them togetherin a way t h a t is mo st l ikely to promote learning f rom th e experience. Feedback isproba bly the per iod of m axim um anxie ty dur in g the ent i re d iagnos is . Al l the workt ha t th e consul tant has done (or has failed to do) to develop effective working rela-t ionships with th e client system will come to frui t ion (o r f rus t ra t ion) du r ing feedback.If this work has been good enou gh , the system w il l be able to tolerate the ten sion oflearning about itself.The oldes t and bes t kn ow n feedback des ign is bu i l t a roun d the "fami ly group" ofsupervisor and immediate subordinates (Bowers & Franklin, 1972; Likert, 1961).Conventionally structured organizations can be viewed as a series of interlocking familygroups from top to bot tom. Wh en the content of the feedback pertains to issues f oundin fami ly groups , t hen a feedback des ign should be bui l t a round these groups .However, th e effectiveness of family grou p feedback depends heavily on the relationshipbetween supervisor and sub ordinates . I f tha t re la t ionsh ip is not s t rong enough totolerate open disagreement without undermining th e leader or punishing subordinates,then an alternative design should be used. The consultant m ay choose to work wi ththe supervisor alone or to conduct a ser ies of pairwise interventions w ith the supervisorand key subordinates in order to establ ish condit ions for a fu l l f ami ly g roupmeet ing.

If the feedback content per ta ins m ore to sys temw ide issues than to fami ly g r oupissues, if the organizat ion is not convent ional ly s t ruc tured, or if there are severelys t ra ined author i ty re la t ions throughout the organizat ion, then the feedback designshould depart from th e conventional family group model. The al ternat ive design willbe som e version of the "peer g roup - i n t e rg roup" model (Alderfer & Holbrook , 1973).According to this design, people meet f i rs t in groups of peers, which have no f o rma lhierarchical differences among member s , to discuss data re levant to thei r commonconcerns. The second step in this process is for combinat ions of peer groups to meetin order to deal wi th data per ta ining to the relat ionship between th e groups . Thesecond step in the peer group-intergroup process m ay involve bringing together groupsthat represent different hierarchical levels (e.g., branch managers and senior vice-

466 PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Vol. 11, No . 3 June 1980


9/10

presidents), different funct ions (e.g., production and marketing), or different identities(e.g. , blacks and w hite s) .

The effectiveness of the peer group-intergroup model depends on managing effec-tively th e tendencies toward ethnoc entr ism that exist in all groups . G r o u p s exhibi t ingethno centric patterns attribu te prim arily positive traits to their ow n group and mainlynegative properties to other groups. If ethnocentric dynamics are set off by the feedbackprocess, then the data and analysis will be rejected and little learn ing w ill occur. Theprimary means to guard against heightening ethnocentrism du r i ng feedback are tobe sure that the peer groups address their internal conflicts dur ing t he first phase ofthe process ( thereby red ucing the l ike l ihood that in tern al conflicts wil l be projectedonto out -grou ps) and to res t ric t the discuss ion of external grou p re la t ions u nt i l theintergroup me et ing (wh en both group s wi l l be able to share thei r p ercept ions of therelat ionship between th e groups) . A fur ther s tep in managing these in tergroup dy-nam ics is to interven e in the interpersonal relat ionship betw een the leaders of the peergroups, whose behavior in the feedback sessions will have a significant impact on thedegree of e thnoc ent r i sm dem onst ra ted in the jo int meet ing.

Through ent ry a nd data col lec t ion, the consu l tant has been pr imar i ly taking f romthe cl ient system. En try gives permission to conduct the diagnosis, and data collectionprovides informat ion and the hope o f unders tanding. Feedback is the t ime for theconsul tant to be giving to the cl ient system. At a m i n i m u m , th e consu l t an t offers apicture of the client system that is accurate and clear. If the diagnosis w as under takenwi th th e expectation of p lanned change to fol low, th e feedback m ay include recom-me ndation s abo ut how to proceed with next steps. If the diagnosis did not inclu deth e expectat ion of change, then recommendat ions are not appropriate. The feedbackprocess should a lways leave the cl ient system with some record of the consul tant 'sanalys i s . This record may be as m uch as a wr i t ten rep or t of the diagnos is or as l i t t leas the charts used for present ing informat ion dur ing th e feedback meetings. Thesemater ia ls , how ever e labora te , provide concre te evidence t h a t th e diagnos is has beencompleted and the contract fulfilled.ConclusionThis methodology of orga nizat iona l diagnosis cal ls for the consul tant to be competentin the conven t iona l use of social science tools (obse rvat ion , i n t e rv i ews , and ques t i on-naires) and to possess a sophist icated theory and the related behavioral skills to enter ,collect, and feed back informat ion to complex m ul t igro up organizat ions . Accordingto th is approach , th e consu l tant uses th e t echniques and theory of diagnosis to unde r -stand a cl ient system on i ts ow n term s, not to impose precon ceived me thods or con-clusions. Each step in the diagnosis depends on an effective working relationshipbetween c l ient and co nsu l tant . Every phase in the process bui lds on the wo rk ofpreceding phases. If prop erly executed, the metho ds described here are self-correctingbecause each phase provides opportuni t ies to discover and to al ter l imitat ions of thepreceding phases. For client sys tems who wish to learn , th i s methodology providesthe oppor tuni tyif i t i s employed by consul tants w ho have been thoroughly and ap-propr ia te ly t ra ined.REFERENCESAlderfer , C. P. Comparison ofquestionnaire responses with and without preceding interviews.

Vol. 11, N o . 3 June 1980 PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 467


10/10

3 . UNDERSTANDING O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L B E H A V I O R :METHODOLOGY O F O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L D I A G N O S I S

Journal of Applied Psychology, 1968, 52, 335-340. (a )Alderfer , C. P. Organ izat ional d iagnosis from in i t ia l client reactions to a research er. Human

Organizations, 1968, 27, 260-265. (b )Alderfer , C. P. Bo un d a ry r e la t io n s and organ iza t iona l d i agnos i s . I n H . Mel t z e r & F. R.

Wickert (Eds.) , H umanizing organizational behavior. Springfield, 111.: Charles C Thomas,1976.

Alderfer, C. P. G ro up s and i n t e rg roups . In J. R . H a c k m a n & J. L. Su t t le (Eds.) , Improvingl i f e at work. San ta Mon ica , Calif . : Goodyear , 1977. (a)

Alderfe r , C. P. Impro v ing o rgan iza t iona l comm un ica t ion th rough long - t e rm in t e rg rou p in -t e rvent ion. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1977, 13 , 193-210. (b )

Alderfe r , C. P., & B r o w n , L. D. Design ing an em pa th i c que s t i onna i re fo r organ iza t iona l re-search. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972, 56, 456-460.

Alderfer , C. P., & H o l b ro o k , J. A new design for survey feedback. Education and UrbanSociety, 1973,5,437-464.

Argyris, C. Intervention theory and method. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley , 1970.Berg , D . Fai l u re a t en t ry . In P. Mi rv i s & D. Berg (Eds.) , Failures in organization develop-ment. New York : W iley , 1977.Bowers , D. G., & Franklin, J. L. Survey-guided development: Using h u m a n resources

m easu r em en t in organizat ional change. Journal o f Contemporary Business, 1972, 7,43-55.

Levinson, H. Organizational diagnosis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Universi ty Press,1972.

Lewicki , R. J., & Alderfer , C. P. The tensions betw een research and in tervent ion in i n t e rg roupconfl ict . Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1973,9,424-449.

Like r t , R. N ew patterns o f management. New York : M cGraw -Hi l l , 1961 .M a h l e r , W. R. Diagnostic studies. Read ing , Mass.: Addi son -Wes ley , 1974.Nadler , D. A. Feedback an d organization development. Read ing , Mass.: Addison-Wesley ,1977.Rice , A. K. I n d i v i d u a l , g ro up and i n t e rg ro up p rocesses . Human Relations, 1969, 22 , 562-

584.S u l l i v an , H. S. The psychiatric interview. New York: Norto n , 1954.

Received Janu a ry 25, 1979


Aldefer_The Methodology of Organizational Diagnosis

Documents

Transcript of Aldefer_The Methodology of Organizational Diagnosis