Introduction to Industrial_Organizational Psychology PDF

W o r k G r o u p a n d O r g a n i z at i o n a l I s s u e s expand, and innovate, whereas organizations with a culture that valued consis- tency and adherence to the company’s mission were more productive and proftable (Naranjo-Valencia et al., 2011). Of utmost import...

W o r k G r o u p a n d O r g a n i z at i o n a l I s s u e s expand, and innovate, whereas organizations with a culture that valued consis- tency and adherence to the company’s mission were more productive and proftable (Naranjo-Valencia et al., 2011). Of utmost importance today is the extent to which organizational culture sup- ports diversity and inclusion. As the workforce becomes increasingly diverse, issues around building cultures that foster diversity and inclusion are more important than ever (Holmes IV et al., 2016). McKay and colleagues defne diversity climate as “the degree to which a frm advocates fair human resource policies and socially integrates underrepresented employees” (McKay et al., 2008, p. 352). Diversity climate has been linked to a list of positive outcomes including more positive work attitudes such as higher job satisfaction, better performance, and lower turnover (Holmes IV et al., 2021). Expanding from the concept of a climate that supports fairness across diference, additional research has shown the importance of inclusive climates, which also pro- mote integrating diverse perspectives and identities (Nishii, 2013). Whereas climates that support diversity might reduce negative treatment of certain team members, inclusive climates create synergies from the diferent perspectives and identities that employees bring such that the link between inclusive climates and positive outcomes is stronger than that for diversity climate alone (Holmes IV et al., 2021). As we dis- cussed in the chapter on leadership, leaders have a strong impact on inclusion (Bader et al., 2019), but so do peers and other colleagues who have the power to accept or reject us (Wagstaf et al., 2015). Leaders and organizational members play a large part in perceptions of whether an organization’s culture is supportive of diversity (Bader et al., 2019). Societal Infuences on Organizational Culture Te larger culture of a nation, society, or ethnic group can have important infu- ences on the development of the organizational culture of a work organization. Te most infuential work on societal culture is by Hofstede (1980, 1997). According to Hofstede, there are fve key dimensions on which societal cultures difer, such as whether the culture has an individualistic base, where values are centered on the indi- vidual and individual achievements, or a collectivistic base, where values are focused on the group or collective. Te U.S., for example, is very individualistic in its societal/ national orientation, whereas Mexico and Japan are more collectivistic (see Table 15.2 for a description of these fve cultural dimensions). One large study (House et al., 2004), called the Global Leadership and Orga- nizational Behavior Efectiveness project (GLOBE), is looking at cross-national diferences in work organizations, in their cultures, and in their leadership. Although societal culture can have a direct infuence on a work organization’s culture, these cultural infuences are also important in organizations whose workers are made up of members from diverse cultural backgrounds. Understanding systematic diferences in the society in which a work organization is embedded, and cultural diferences in 460  O r g a n i z at i o n a l S t r u c t u r e , C u lt u r e , a n d D e v e l o p m e n t Table 15.2 Five Dimensions of Societal/National Culture Individualism versus collectivism—Concerned with the extent to which individual interests and goals are emphasized versus a focus on the larger group, or collective Power distance—Deals with the extent to which members of the culture accept and expect that there are diferences in the way that power is distributed unequally among members Masculinity versus femininity—Represents the extent to which members of the culture value traits and practices that are stereotypically “masculine,” such as assertiveness and competitiveness, or stereotypically “feminine,” such as caring for others and being modest in presentation of accomplishments Uncertainty avoidance—Concerns the extent to which members of the culture avoid or tolerate uncertainty and ambiguity Long-term versus short-term orientation—Tis dimension concerns whether members of the culture emphasize long-term orientations, such as perseverance and working hard today for future payofs, versus short-term fulfllment of immediate needs Source: Based on hofstede (1980, 1997). workers from diferent nations and societies will help to improve our general under- standing of work behavior. Stop & Review Give two examples of contingency models of Measuring Organizational Culture organizational structure. Tere are a variety of ways of measuring organizational culture. One qualitative strat- egy is to focus on the “artifacts” of the organization’s culture (Rafaeli & Pratt, 2006). Tese might include important symbols that carry meaning for organizational mem- bers, such as employees wearing pins with the word quality, suggesting that this is an important focus of the organization. Commonly shared stories about a company, its founders, or heroes might be another type of cultural artifact, as would be certain rituals, such as a company that has a monthly “service day,” where employees get together to engage in a joint community service project. One Southern California company has a ritual of employees helping to construct the company’s foat for the annual Pasadena Tournament of Roses parade. Tere are several commonly used measures of diversity and inclusion climate. For diversity climate, McKay and colleagues (2007) and Mor Barak et al. (1998) ofer excellent measures that focus on diversity, specifc identities, and fair employment practices. For inclusive climate, Nishii (2013) and Chung and colleagues (2020) ofer useful measures. An element that is consistent across all of these measures is the sense that individuals are not treated unfairly because of an identity that they hold (such as race or gender). Te inclusive measures also assess the extent to which one feels that one’s unique perspectives are brought out at work, and the Chung measure also assesses the extent to which one feels a sense of belonging to the organization. 461  W o r k G r o u p a n d O r g a n i z at i o n a l I s s u e s One consideration for those who use these measures is to test whether there are dif- ferences in the experience of inclusion by race and gender—in other words, are there higher mean scores on inclusion for men than women or the other way around? Tese types of tests reveal great insights into employees’ experience of inclusion in the workplace. A more general measure of culture is the Organizational Culture Profle (OCP) (O’Reilly et al., 1991). Te OCP asks organizational representatives to sort 54 “value statements” describing such things as organizational attitudes toward quality, risk tak- ing, and the respect the organization gives to workers into meaningful categories to provide a descriptive profle of the organization. Research using the OCP in a num- ber of diferent companies indicated that important dimensions of organizational culture include the company’s concern with innovation, stability, its leadership, ori- entation toward people, orientation toward producing results, and team orientation (Chatman & Jehn, 1994) Another measure is Hofstede et al.’s (1990) Organizational Practices Scale. Tis instrument, designed specifcally to measure organizational culture (as opposed to societal culture) assesses the company’s culture in terms of dimensions such as whether the organization is “process versus results oriented” or “employee ver- sus job oriented” or has “loose” or “tight” control over employees’ behavior, as well as other dimensions. A revised version includes scales of whether an organiza- tion is “self-interested versus socially responsible” and “market” versus “internally” oriented (Verbeke, 2000). Other measures of organizational culture are more specifc, such as one measure that assesses an organization’s culture for quality (Johnson, 2000). Te study of organizational culture is an increasingly popular approach for I/O psychologists studying organizations at a global level (Gelfand et al., 2017). Orga- nizational culture is intertwined with the topics of job satisfaction (Chapter 9) and group processes (Chapter 11) covered earlier. Organizational Development Troughout modern history, it has been common for organizations to cease oper- ating because they were unable to change to keep up with the times, such as photo company Kodak or video rental store Blockbuster (Mone et al., 1998). Companies that do not use the latest marketing or production techniques can lose out to competitors who take advantage of state-of-the-art technology. Retail stores and internet companies that are unable to keep pace with changing consumer tastes have gone out of business. Furthermore, organizations have to adapt not only to external conditions but also to internal factors (Mu, 2015). For example, as new generations of workers enter the workforce with diferent types of skills and dif- ferent ideas about what they want from their jobs, the organization must adjust to utilize their skills and to meet their demands. Otherwise, the better workers will leave the organization, or disgruntled employees may be able to slow down 462  O r g a n i z at i o n a l S t r u c t u r e , C u lt u r e , a n d D e v e l o p m e n t productivity through costly work stoppages and strikes. In addition, the trend toward downsizing means that many organizations must produce more with fewer organizational members. In short, the ability to change is critical to an organiza- tion’s survival. Why is change such a problem for organizations? Even very early research in I/O psychology demonstrated time and time again that individuals, groups, and organiza- tions strongly resist any sort of change (McMurry, 1947). People and organizations get comfortable with the familiar and the “tried and true.” Moreover, characteristics of bureaucracies, as we saw earlier, are designed for stability and consistency, and so bureaucratic organizations are particularly resistant to change. It has been argued that the biggest task of today’s business leaders is to recognize the need for organizations to change and to manage that change process (Martins, 2011). In fact, an analysis of the reasons given for boards of directors fring chief executive ofcers (CEOs) found that the most common reason was the failure of the CEO to appropriately manage change (Hempel, 2005). Te study of organizational change is an important topic. In addition to studying organizational change processes, social scientists have made use of certain interven- tions to help organizations prepare for and manage organizational change (Gallos, 2006). Te specifc specialty area concerned with helping organizations develop, adapt, and innovate is known as organizational development (OD). Organizational Organizational Development development often involves altering the organization’s work structure or infuencing (OD) the process of assisting workers’ attitudes or behavior to help the organization to adapt to fuctuating exter- organizations in preparing for nal and internal conditions. and managing change OD typically takes place in a series of phases. Te frst phase is usually a diagnosis of the organization to identify signifcant problems. In the next phase, appropri- ate interventions are chosen to try to deal with the problems. Te third phase is the implementation of the interventions, or OD techniques. Finally, the results of the interventions are evaluated (Burke, 1987). Organizational development does not involve one single theory or approach, but rather a variety of orientations and meth- ods for helping organizations manage change. Although OD is its own subdiscipline, with its own dedicated journals and associations, much of organizational develop- ment rests on a foundation created by research in I/O psychology. Organizational development is an applied, practice-oriented area of the behavioral sciences. Te OD practitioner is oriented toward helping the organization design and implement a program for dealing with change-related problems (Jamieson et al., 2016). Te OD practitioner is often referred to as a change agent—one who Change agent coaches or guides the organization in developing problem-solving strategies. Te name for an OD practitioner, change agent, however, is not a problem solver, but is a behavioral scientist, often referring to the person’s role as a catalyst who helps an industrial/organizational psychologist, who is expert at assisting organizations organizations through the in diagnosing problems and skilled in helping organizational members deal with process of change sensitive situations. Te change agent works with the various levels of the organi- zation, developing or deciding on problem-solving techniques, and will have some special knowledge of particular OD interventions that may be used to help solve the organization’s problems. Te change agent also acts as an educator who trains the organization to implement strategies for coping with future problems (Burke, 1987). 463  W o r k G r o u p a n d O r g a n i z at i o n a l I s s u e s Waclawski and Church (2002) argued that OD is a highly data-driven process, and Stop & Review so the efective OD practitioner should be well steeped in social science research What are three sources methods and how to apply them. of organizational Organizational development programs usually follow one of several procedural culture? models, all of which typically use an OD consultant, or change agent, and go through the four phases outlined earlier. One popular OD model is action research, which action research is the process of applying social science research methods to collect relevant data an OD methodological model within the organization to study the organization and to help it understand and that applies social science solve its problems (Aguinis, 1993). Te application-oriented goal of action research research methods to collecting relevant organizational data means that it is somewhat diferent than the traditional hypothesis-testing research that are used for solving discussed in Chapter 2. Whereas hypothesis-testing research attempts to fnd new organizational problems knowledge that is applicable to a wide range of organizations, action research tries to solve problems specifc to a particular organization. Action research involves some of the same tools used by hypothesis-testing research—namely, objective observation and the collection and analysis of research data. However, their goals and scope are quite diferent, for action research is oriented toward producing some specifc result. Te frst step in the action research process is data gathering and problem diag- nosis. Here, the OD consultant collects data to diagnose the problem situation (McFillen et al., 2013). In the next step, feedback is given as the data, and the OD consultant’s interpretation of the data, are presented to the organization’s members. Te next step is joint action planning. Here, the OD consultant and the organiza- tional members design a problem-solving program, which might be one of a variety of OD interventions that we will discuss later. Once the program is implemented, the action research process repeats itself. Now, however, the data gathering is an attempt to determine the efectiveness of the OD program. If it is successful, the organization and the OD consultant might discuss ways to make it a regular part of the organi- zation’s operations. If unsuccessful, the program might need some alterations, or a diferent program might be tried. Figure 15.9 graphically depicts the steps in the action research model. Organizational Development Techniques In solving organizational problems, OD programs use a wide variety of established techniques (Fagenson & Burke, 1990), some of which we have already discussed. For example, recall from Chapter 7 that job enrichment is a process of increasing the levels of responsibility associated with jobs to improve worker satisfaction and commitment to the work efort. Although job enrichment was presented in Chap- ter 7 as a motivational technique, it could also be used in OD eforts because it involves the collaboration of workers in work teams that plays an important part in solving change-related problems that may afect the groups’ work performance. Organizational behavior modifcation programs (also presented in Chapter 7), which reinforce desirable work behaviors, can likewise be used as an OD technique. 464  O r g a n i z at i o n a l S t r u c t u r e , C u lt u r e , a n d D e v e l o p m e n t Figure 15.9 Steps in the action research process. 465  W o r k G r o u p a n d O r g a n i z at i o n a l I s s u e s Of the other procedures that have been used by OD practitioners, we will discuss six of the more popular: survey feedback, t-groups, team building, process consul- tation, management by objectives, and quality circles. Survey Feedback Survey Feedback Te use of employee surveys is a common OD strategy. Survey feedback is the pro- an OD technique whereby cess by which the OD consultant works with the organization to develop a survey the consultant works with the organization to develop and instrument to collect data that are then used to solve specifc problems or to institute administer a survey instrument a program for managing change. Te survey is usually designed to assess employee to collect data that are fed back attitudes about important work-related issues such as the organization in general, to organizational members and company policies and practices, quality of leadership, and coordination among work used as the starting point for units. Once constructed, the survey is distributed either to all workers or to a repre- change sentative sample. Te OD consultant then tabulates the survey data and puts them into a form that will be easily understood by organizational members. Next, the results are presented to organizational members. Tis feedback can be done in a num- ber of ways: via the internet, in written form, in small- or large-group discussions, or in a general meeting. As we saw in 360-degree feedback, survey data from multiple sources, such as from management and line employees, as well as other constituents, can be very useful. Tis is also the case in OD-oriented surveys (Church et al., 2002). Because the survey is merely an assessment tool to indicate which areas of the orga- nization need attention or improvement, the fnal, crucial step in a survey feedback program involves developing strategies to deal with any problems or concerns that arise from the results. Te survey is a starting point for solving organizational prob- lems or for instituting future programs for planned organizational change (Born & Mathieu, 1996). One of the direct benefts of the survey is that it can increase the upward fow of communication from lower-level workers to management (see Chapter 10). Te survey may also have a positive efect on workers’ attitudes, as they perceive that management is interested in hearing their views and concerns (Gavin, 1984). Tis will only occur, however, if steps are taken to address problems. If not, workers may develop negative attitudes about management and the survey process. Finally, the survey results can show workers that they are not alone and that others share their attitudes and concerns. Research indicates that survey feedback is an efective OD technique if followed by some positive actions (Guzzo et al., 1985). Surveys have additional advantages as well. Tey are an efcient way of collecting a large amount of information from Stop & Review a large number of workers. Also, because surveys can be conducted anonymously, Outline the methods lower-level workers feel that they can safely voice their opinions, which can lead to very honest appraisals of work situations. Because it requires considerable training and terms used in to create valid and reliable employee surveys and to analyze and interpret the results, organizational I/O psychologists or other social science professionals are most often involved in development. survey feedback programs. 466  O r g a n i z at i o n a l S t r u c t u r e , C u lt u r e , a n d D e v e l o p m e n t T-groups Te OD strategy known as t-groups (also called sensitivity training) actually refers t-groups (Sensitivity to the use of unstructured group interaction to help workers gain insight into their training) motivations and their behavior patterns in dealing with others. T-groups, which stands an OD technique that uses unstructured group interaction for “training groups,” consists of small groups of workers who meet in a nonwork set- to assist workers in achieving ting for an unstructured discussion of their attitudes and beliefs concerning their insight into their own work, the work environment, and their interactions with supervisors and coworkers. motivations and behavior Te eventual goals of t-groups are for participants to gain insight concerning their patterns in dealing with other own behavior, to develop greater openness, and to improve skills of understanding organizational members and dealing with others. Typically, a professional serves as group leader, although the leader usually plays a nondirective role, merely keeping the goals of the session in everyone’s minds and keeping the discussion from getting out of hand. An efective leader will usually prevent problems such as “psychological casualties,” which occur when the group targets one or more persons for intense criticism or when partici- pants sufer from airing sensitive personal information in a public forum. Process Consultation Process consultation is an OD technique in which a consultant helps a client orga- process Consultation nization to “perceive, understand, and act upon process events which occur in the an OD technique in which client’s environment” (Schein, 1969, p. 3). In process consultation, the OD consul- a consultant helps a client- organization study its tant helps the organization to learn how to solve its own problems. In many ways, problems objectively and learn process consultation epitomizes many of the central themes of organizational devel- to solve them opment. It uses a change agent, the process consultant, who works as a teacher to assist the client-organization in learning how to use objective methods, such as survey instruments, structured interviews, or the collection of relevant performance data, to diagnose and solve its own problems. Te consultant also instructs organizational members in how to implement specifc OD problem-solving techniques. Te goal is for the organization to become self-reliant by knowing how to deal with change- related problems once the process consultant is gone. To understand the specifc steps in process consultation outlined by Schein (1969), we will use the example of a consultant who is working with CDE company, which produces and sells cosmetics. Te frst step is the initial contact with the client- organization, which is usually initiated by someone in the organization who realizes that problems exist and is willing to try to solve them. In the case of CDE, the vice president of sales called in the process consultant, Dr. Io, because of what he consid- ers to be high turnover of sales personnel and managers. Te second step is developing the contract. In initial, exploratory meetings, the vice president of sales meets with top decision makers—the other vice presidents and the company president—to determine the problems, explain the consultant’s role, and formulate actions to be taken. A formal contract is drawn up to determine matters 467  W o r k G r o u p a n d O r g a n i z at i o n a l I s s u e s such as client time and compensation. A “psychological” contract, which includes the expectations and goals of the organization as well as Dr. Io’s goals, is also formulated: the company wants to reduce costly turnover, and Dr. Io wants the organization to take steps not only to reduce turnover, but also to ensure that the company can deal with future turnover problems. In addition, she wants the organization to explore any related problems that the consultation uncovers. Te third step is the selection of a setting and a method of work. A site for study is selected collaboratively with the client and is usually a unit near the top of the organi- zation. Tose workers who are being observed by the consultant must be made aware of her presence and purpose. Together, Dr. Io and the CDE decision makers choose the largest regional headquarters as the site for study. Because this ofce is adjacent to corporate headquarters, Dr. Io will have easy contact with the company’s top-level executives. Te fourth step is data gathering and diagnosis. By using interviews (particularly exit interviews), direct observation, and surveys of employees, Dr. Io tries to obtain an in-depth picture of the organization and its internal processes. She works with cer- tain CDE personnel, instructing them in data collection methods. Trough analysis of these data and consultation with relevant CDE personnel and executives, specifc problem areas are targeted. Te data reveal that turnover is linked to three factors: (a) salespersons perceive their sales commissions rates to be lower than those in other sales positions; (b) salespersons feel they do not receive enough attention from sales managers; and (c) some salespersons are hired without much experience, and CDE provides little specifc training of new personnel. Te next step is the intervention. A variety of intervention strategies are used in process consultation. Some are as simple as providing feedback of the consultant’s observations to workers. Others may involve counseling work groups or individuals or setting agendas to increase a group’s awareness of its own internal processes. In the case of CDE, Dr. Io and company executives jointly decide to develop a “sales force improvement task force,” composed of both management personnel and salesper- sons, who will formulate a proposal to improve the hiring and training procedures for new salespersons. Other goals of the task force will be to conduct a survey of sales commission rates in other companies and to develop a program for improving sales managers’ supervision. Te fnal step in process consultation is the evaluation of results and disengage- ment. According to Schein (1969, p. 123), successful process consultation improves organizational performance by “changing some of the values of the organization and by increasing the interpersonal skills of key managers.” If these goals are met, CDE should see some changes in the organization’s perception of the value of the sales force and in the selection, training, and treatment of sales personnel. Tere will also likely be some improvement in the interpersonal skills of sales managers. Te relationship between consultant and client is terminated by mutual agreement. In the case of CDE, Dr. Io may or may not work with the organization in implementing and evalu- ating the various new programs. Sometimes, a slow disengagement process is used whereby the consultant gradually lessens involvement with the client-organization. 468  O r g a n i z at i o n a l S t r u c t u r e , C u lt u r e , a n d D e v e l o p m e n t Tis is likely in the case of Dr. Io, because the programs for organizational improve- ment will probably take a long time to design and implement, and their evaluation will likely initially require her assistance. Process consultation is a detailed OD program involving an extensive and long- term relationship between the consultant and the client-organization, and the process consultant is faced with a challenging role to serve as an expert but not become a problem solver (Lalonde & Adler, 2015). Some authors have likened this technique to the psychotherapeutic process, in which a therapist works with a client over a long period to diagnose and work toward solving the client’s problems (Landy, 1989). Unfortunately, there has not been a great deal of research evaluating the efectiveness of process consultation. Management by Objectives (MBO) Management by objectives, or MBO, is a goal-setting technique that is often used Management by Objectives as an OD intervention. In MBO, subordinates work with superiors in jointly setting (MBO) performance goals. Te basic rationales behind the procedure are that work-related a goal-setting OD technique in which supervisors and goals must be clearly specifed and measurable, and that employees should participate subordinates jointly set in setting them to become committed to their fulfllment. MBO is closely related to performance goals; at the the goal-setting techniques of motivation discussed in Chapter 7. Management by end of the goal period, their objectives can also be used as an alternative to traditional rating methods of perfor- attainment is evaluated, and mance appraisal, because successful MBO programs must accurately and objectively new goals are set measure the attainment of performance goals. At the end of the goal period—usually 3–6 months and occasionally 12 months—employees again meet with supervisors and receive feedback concerning the goal attainment. If the goals have not been met, suggestions for improvement are made. If they have been attained, new and perhaps even more challenging goals are set. Te MBO technique actually predates the organizational development movement. Popularized in the 1950s by Drucker and his associates (1954), it has been an often- used method for improving worker performance. Unfortunately, MBO has also been widely misused. Often, any type of goal setting is labeled MBO, even though it does not follow the MBO model (McConkie, 1979). For MBO to be implemented cor- rectly, the following criteria must be met: z Employees must participate in setting personal performance goals. A potential weakness of MBO goal setting, however, is that workers may take advantage of the freedom they are aforded and set goals that are much too easy and do not repre- sent a motivating challenge. Alternatively, if the supervisor too strongly infuences the setting of goals, MBO may not be efective because employees may feel that they have no real voice in the goal-setting process. z Feedback concerning goal attainment must be provided. As in any performance appraisal system, the strength of the appraisal depends on the ability to assess 469  W o r k G r o u p a n d O r g a n i z at i o n a l I s s u e s performance objectively. Objective measurement of goal attainment must take place, and this information must be presented to the employees. z Guidelines for improvement must be provided. In the case of the failure to reach goals, supervisors should provide suggestions for improving work performance. Otherwise, employees may become frustrated and unmotivated by their inability to achieve set goals. z Goals must be realistic. Tey must be neither too high nor too low. If goals are unrealistically high, the workers will be frustrated. If they are too low, the employ- ees are not challenged. z Te upper levels of the organization must support the program. Because MBO is a time-consuming process for supervisors, their eforts must be recognized. Te best way to do this is to include efective participation in the MBO program as part of the supervisors’ own performance goals. z Individual, work group, and organizational goals must be equally empha- sized. If jobs involve cooperation with other employees (and most jobs do), over- emphasis on individual goals may inhibit the group’s ability to work together. Tus, workers must be oriented toward achieving not only their own goals but also those of the group and the organization as a whole. Management by objectives is one of the most widely used OD techniques, partly because it can be implemented in just about any work organization and with almost any type of job. MBO is also one of the most successful OD programs. A meta- analysis of 70 studies of MBO programs found that there were productivity gains caused by MBO in 68 of the 70 cases (Rodgers & Hunter, 1991). Quality Circles One OD intervention that is typically associated with Japanese management tech- Quality Circles niques popularized in the 1980s is the concept of quality circles, which are small small groups of volunteer groups of volunteer employees from the same work areas who meet regularly to iden- employees from the same work tify, analyze, and solve product quality problems and other work-related problems area who meet regularly to (Adam Jr, 1991). In initial quality circle meetings, members are trained in quality solve work-related problems control, work on developing communication skills, and learn problem-solving tech- niques. Tey then select a particular problem to study and use a variety of methods to gather information pertinent to the issue. Finally, a recommendation is made to management about how to solve the problem. Te goal of quality circles is to get employees more involved in their jobs and to increase their feelings of having some control over their work. Tis increased employee involvement should lead to greater worker satisfaction, work quality (and perhaps productivity), and worker commit- ment to the organization (Benson & Lawler, 2016). Research indicates that quality circles can indeed lead to increased quality and productivity in both Japanese and American manufacturing organizations and may also enhance participants’ job satisfaction (Buch & Spangler, 1990). However, in 470  O r g a n i z at i o n a l S t r u c t u r e , C u lt u r e , a n d D e v e l o p m e n t certain instances, U.S. applications of quality circle programs have failed, although analysis suggests that the failures have more to do with poor implementation than with any inherent faws in the theory underlying quality circles. Te failure of qual- ity circle programs, and indeed of other OD programs, can often be traced to a lack of support from management and/or workers or to poor training and preparation of participants (Tang et al., 1996). Moreover, there is evidence, that unless quality circles are maintained and fully integrated into the organizational system, their efec- tiveness will diminish in 1–2 years (Ledford et al., 1988). Other “quality-oriented” programs include total quality management (TQM), the implementation of continuous improvement work processes (Coyle-Shapiro, 2000), and Six Sigma, a quality improvement process popularized by former GE CEO Jack Welch (Pande et al., 2000). Te success of all quality enhancement programs involves some fundamental changes in organizational climate and cul- ture to get workers committed to improving quality of output. Yet, this is very important, because many organizations have found that, unless they produce high- quality products or services, they cannot compete in the increasingly competitive global market. The Efectiveness of Organizational Development A variety of techniques have been used as interventions in organizational develop- ment programs. However, the important question is, “Does OD work?” Tere is no frm answer to this question. A number of factors make it difcult to ascertain the efectiveness of OD programs (Martineau & Preskill, 2002). One difculty concerns the variety of OD techniques that can be used as part of OD programs. Some of these techniques may simply be better than others. For example, evidence suggests that goal-setting-based programs and survey feedback are moderately successful (Kondrasuk, 1981), whereas there has been some question about the efectiveness of t-groups (Miner, 1983). A second reason lies in the nature of the organization that conducts the OD program. What works in one organization may not be efective in another because of diferences in the attitudes of organizational members or in the workers’ and management’s commitment to OD eforts. Another concern is the abilities of the OD consultants overseeing the intervention—some OD consultants may simply do a better job than others (O’Driscoll & Eubanks, 1993). Further- more, determining the efectiveness of organizational development is hard because of difculties in conducting good evaluation research. Because OD interventions usually take place on a large scale, often involving an entire organization, much of the evidence for their efectiveness is based on case studies. Te unit of measure- ment, the “participant,” in the evaluation of an OD program is the organization. It Stop & Review is quite difcult to combine the results of a specifc OD strategy with those of the List and describe fve same method used in other companies because the circumstances may be diferent. organizational Tis often leaves us with only a series of case studies as evidence for the efectiveness development of OD programs. techniques. 471  W o r k G r o u p a n d O r g a n i z at i o n a l I s s u e s ON ThE CuTTiNg EDgE Fast-paced and agile Organizations for the New Millennium In the ultra-fast modern era, organizations can be cre- more traditionally structured teams in order to change ated almost overnight and burst into the marketplace and adapt quickly. Originally developed for computer with some revolutionary product or service. Think of the software development, the idea is for these teams to startups of the last two decades—Lyft, Airbnb, Slack, try out new ideas and “fail quickly.” In other words, new Snapchat—companies that burst on the scene and ideas or products are entertained and explored, but, have become household names. Or think of the older, if they do not look promising, the team moves on to cutting-edge companies—google/Alphabet, Apple, Face- another idea. Some of the cornerstones of agile manage- book, Tesla—that continue to change, adapt, and create ment are ongoing communication in the team, a lack new products and services. These fast-paced companies of authority hierarchies (the teams are self-organized, are teaching us a lot about the value of adaptable and often without a leader), organic and fexible processes, organic organizational structures. and lots of collaboration. The result is a fast-paced, One structure or methodology that is gaining notice extremely fexible organizational structure that leads to is what is called agile management (or “agile process innovation and highly productive teams (Pirola-Merlo, management”), and it involves project teams that forgo 2010). much of the structure and processes that slow down Summary Organizational structure is the arrangement of positions in an organization and the relationships between them. Organizational structures can be generally classifed into traditional and nontraditional forms. Traditional organizational structures tend to be stable and rule-driven, whereas nontraditional structures are characterized by their fexibility, adaptability, and lack of formal authority lines. Important dimensions of organizational structure are the number of authority levels in an organization, or chain of command, and the number of workers reporting to a single work supervi- sor, or the span of control. Organizations can also be divided by the kinds of tasks performed—a functional structure—or by the types of products produced or custom- ers served—a divisional structure. Decision-making power can either be concentrated at the top levels of the organization (centralization) or dispersed throughout the orga- nization (decentralization). Te bureaucracy and the line–staf organization typify the traditional structure. Te bureaucracy is a structure based on authority relationships among organizational members that operate through a system of formal rules and procedures. Te line–staf organization is a formal structure in which the line executes organizational objec- tives, whereas the staf is designed to support the line. Nontraditional organizational 472  O r g a n i z at i o n a l S t r u c t u r e , C u lt u r e , a n d D e v e l o p m e n t structures are exemplifed by the team organization, a permanent team of compe- tent workers designed to maximize organizational adaptability, and by the project task force, a more temporary structure. A matrix organization is a combination of both product and functional organizational designs. Te most recent approaches to organizational structure are contingency models, whereby the most efective type of structure depends on the ft between structure and the external or internal environ- ment of the work organization. Organizational culture refers to the shared values, beliefs, assumptions, and pat- terns of behavior in organizations. Organizational culture derives from many sources, can be stronger in some organizations than in others, and has important infuences on organizational behavior. Societal/national infuences on organizational culture can be quite strong. Cultures that support diversity and inclusion create an environ- ment where more people can be successful. Recently, a great deal of attention has been given to developing methods for assessing organizational culture, including the assessment of whether a culture supports diversity and inclusion. Organizational development (OD) is the process of preparing for and managing change in organizations. OD programs use a consultant who is commonly called a change agent. OD programs usually occur in phases. One model for such a program is action research, which involves collecting data, diagnosing organizational problems, and developing strategies to take action to solve them. A variety of interventions are used in OD programs, including survey feedback, a technique of using data about organizational members’ feelings and concerns as the basis for planned change; t-groups, a process of increasing workers’ awareness of their own and other members’ behavior; team building, the development of teams of workers to focus on ways to improve group performance; process consultation, a long-term method of helping an organization to develop problem-solving strategies; management by objectives (MBO), a goal-setting technique designed to increase worker commitment to the attainment of personal and organizational goals; and quality circles, which are groups of employ- ees who meet regularly to discuss quality-related work problems. Evaluation of OD programs indicates that they can be efective for improving certain aspects of orga- nizational efectiveness, although neither their implementation nor their evaluation is easy. Study Questions and exercises 1 Consider an organization with which you have had some contact. Describe the structure of this organization using the dimensions of traditional–nontraditional, functional–divisional, and centralized–decentralized. If you have access to the organization’s chart, describe its chain of command and span of control. 2 Based on what you know about traditional and nontraditional organizational structures, contrast the work life of the typical worker in a traditional organiza- tion with that of a worker in a nontraditional organization. 3 Compare and contrast the contingency models of organizational structure. 473