Creating a Climate for Change:The Stabilizer Style, The Analyzer Style

<< The Organization Development Practitioner:External and Internal Practitioners

OD Practitioner Skills and Activities:Consultantâ€™s Abilities, Marginality >>

Organization Development MGMT 628

Lesson 11

Creating a Climate for Change

Most OD practitioners would agree that an open give-and-take relationship with the client is desirable. To

some extent this depends on the ability of the practitioner to form relationships of openness and trust.

Good relationships do not fit into a formula or equation, but OD practitioners have noted a number of

recognizable characteristics of which the practitioner may be aware. "The change agent should act

congruently, in accordance with the values he or she is attempting to superimpose upon the client system's

value system. To use an old expression, the practitioner should practice what he or she preaches. The

practitioner must think and act in ways that will create and enhance a positive climate for participation and

learning.

The basic value system of the OD practitioner may not be compatible with the organization's culture. As a

result, there may be conflicts between the value systems of the practitioner and the client system. An

assessment of the degree of difference and the likelihood of working these differences through should be

part of the OD practitioner's initial intervention. The practitioner may desire to create a relationship of

openness, authenticity, and trust. The client system managers, however, may tend not to be open, may have

learned not to behave authentically, and may even feel threatened by an exploration of feelings or

confrontation by the practitioner; the practitioner may have reservations about the probability of a

successful program. The practitioner also examines the degree of conflict and collaboration between

organization units and needs to be aware of this to avoid being party to any existing conflicts. "One of the

most frequent forms of resistance to change," comments OD authority Ronald Lippitt, "is the perception

by certain subgroups, that the consultant is more closely related to other subgroups and is `on their side' in

any conflict of interests."

Who is Client?

One may say, the client is....

1. Company president

2. Top management group

3. Employee relations person

4. Total company

5. Parent corporation

6. All of the above

7. None of the above.

The correct answer is (7), "none of the above." The client in OD consultation is never one individual,

regardless of position or role, or any particular group, team, or subsystem of the organization, or any

combination thereof.

Organization Development MGMT 628

The client is the relationship and/or interface between individuals and units within and related to

the system. The arrows in the figure 12 depict the true client.

Figure: 12

The degree to which a consultant is effective is a function of how capable he or she is at maintaining a

certain social distance between self and other individuals in the client organization and its operating on the

boundaries of units rather than exclusively within them. In these ways, the consultant can more readily

maintain an objective stance between persons and units in conflict rather than being with one or the other.

OD Practitioner Styles:

The OD practitioner is the person who initiates, stimulates, or facilitates a change program, and may come

from inside or outside the organization. Change begins with the intervention of the practitioner in the

system to be changed. Intervention refers to the practitioner's entry into the client stem and includes

several different roles and activities.

Practitioners, be they internal or external, have a variety of practitioner styles or approaches. One way to

view the styles is based on the degree of emphasis the practitioner places upon two interrelated goals or

dimensions of the change process. One of the goals is effectiveness the degree of emphasis upon goal

accomplishment. The other goal is morale, the degree of emphasis upon relationships and participant

satisfaction.

Based upon the two dimensions of accomplishing goals and member satisfaction, five different types of

practitioner styles or roles can be identified (see Figure 13).

The Stabilizer Style:

The goal of the stabilizer style is neither effectiveness nor participant satisfaction. Rather the practitioner

is trying to keep from rocking the boat and to maintain a low profile. The underlying motivation is often

survival, or merely following the directives of top management. Such a role is typically found in large

organizations where development programs may be part of the staff function and are not highly regarded

Organization Development MGMT 628

by top management. This style is usually forced upon the practitioner by organizational pressures, so that

the practitioner has learned to conform and to suppress any other motivations.

The Cheerleader Style:

The cheerleader style places emphasis on the satisfaction of organization members and is chiefly

concerned with employee motivation and morale. The cheerleader practitioner seeks warm working

relationships and in general is more comfortable in non confrontational situations. Effectiveness per se is

not emphasized. The assumption being that if member satisfaction is high, effectiveness will also be high.

Unfortunately, there is a great deal of evidence that contradicts these assumptions. The cheerleader style

strongly minimizes differences and maintains harmony.

Figure: 13: Practitioner Styles

The Analyzer Style:

The analyzer style places great emphasis on efficiency, and gives little emphasis to member satisfaction.

The analyzer feels most comfortable with a rational assessment of problem and assumes that the facts will

lead to a solution. Practitioners of this type may be quite confrontational, usually relying on authority to

resolve conflicts and on rational problem-solving processes.

The analyzer style has a background of specialized expertise, knowledge, and experience applicable to the

solution of specific problems. The client needs to have a problem solved, a service performed or a study

made; the analyzer practitioner takes responsibility for providing these functions. This style is based on the

belief that the client does not need to know or cannot learn the skills to solve its problems. The success of

the practitioner is largely dependent on the client's having properly diagnosed its problem and called in the

right kind of practitioner.

The Persuader Style:

The persuader style focuses on dimensions, effectiveness and morale, yet optimizes neither. Such a style

provides a relatively low-risk strategy, yet avoids direct confrontation with other forces. This approach may

be used when the practitioner has little power or leverage relative to other participants. It is motivated

primarily by a desire to satisfy, that is, to achieve something that is "good enough." A great deal of effort is

applied in attempting to satisfy the different forces, thus gaining a majority bloc of support for prepared

changes. The resulting change program is often watered down or weakened to the point where organization

improvement is unlikely.

The Pathfinder Style:

The pathfinder style seeks both a high degree of effectiveness and a high degree of member satisfaction,

believing that greater effectiveness is possible when all members are involved and problem-solving is done

through teamwork. There is awareness that confrontation and conflict are often a means to a more

effective organization and to more satisfied individual members. The pathfinder approach uses

collaborative problem solving and challenges the underlying patterns of member behavior. Harold J, Leavitt

uses this term to refer to developing a sense of value and vision. The pathfinder practitioner helps the

organization to focus on its most critical issues and questions.

A survey of about 1,000 OD practitioners found that listening, integrity, and organizational diagnosis were

rated as the most important OD skills. The pathfinder practitioner uses these skills to give the client new

insights into its activities and to help the client system determine how it wishes to change and how it might

go about implement changes. The practitioner rarely informs or instructs the client system, but instead tries

to discover client system problems and to challenge the underlying patterns of behavior of organization

members. The pathfinder practitioner focuses on six processes essential for effective organization

Organization Development MGMT 628

performance: (1) communication, (2) member role and functions in groups, (3) group problem-solving and

decision-making, (4) group norms and growth, (5) leadership and authority, and (ft) inter-group

cooperation a competition.

We have identified five different practitioner styles in this section. You will have an opportunity to find out

where your own style fits in this classification system. Most organizational problems are complex situations,

however, and may not neatly fit with any one change approach but will depend upon the practitioner, the

nature of the problem, and the organizational climate.

In summary, these five practitioner styles are not mutually exclusive. All the styles can be effective, and they

are interrelated. A practitioner may transition from one style to another to meet changing client system

needs and deal with diverse situations. Frequently, some combination of the styles may be applied.

Practitioner-Client Relationship Modes:

Eric H. Neilson has identified several basic dimensions in the practitioner-client relationship that can be

used as indicators of the climate for change. In order to collaboratively change the organization's culture,

members need to (1) share their ideas, assumptions, perceptions, and feelings, and (2) accept personal

responsibility for their own behavior. Based upon these two dimensions, Neilsen has identified four

possible modes in the practitioner-client relationship. (See Figure 14)

The apathetic mode: Members keep their true ideas about self-fulfillment and organization effectiveness

to themselves. They assume that sharing this information will not make any difference, so why bother?

They follow established routines, take no responsibility for their actions, and simply do as they are told.

They relate to the practitioner in the same way, assuming that higher authority has sanctioned the change

hut viewing it with skepticism.

The gamesmanship mode: Members keep their true feelings about self- fulfillment and organizational

effectiveness to themselves, under the assumption that sharing information may threaten personally desired

outcomes, They make their own decisions about how to behave, thus taking responsibility for their

behavior. This may include conforming outwardly to any decision-making procedure hut manipulating

strategic factors to gain personal goals. Members may favor change if they can see ways in which it can

serve their personal interest.

The charismatic mode: A limited number of members openly share ideas and feelings with the rest,

based on perceptions of leadership. The followers are looking for cues from their leaders, so responsibility

is low for most members. Members view the change process as desirable if the leaders approve, but they

rely on the leaders to interpret the results.

The consensus mode: Members continuously share perceptions and feelings openly both on self-

fulfillment and organizational effectiveness. Personal viewpoints are seen as relevant to organization

functioning and are expressed. Decisions are made and differences arc resolved through the sharing of

viewpoints, this process involves both sharing of data and maintaining one's responsibility for actions.

Members see the OD process as consistent with their way of operating and find the results interesting and

useful.

Organization Development MGMT 628

Figure 14: Four Practitioner-Client Relationship Modes

The practitioner's attitudes and behavior make it possible for the client to create a climate where feelings

about the client system can be freely and honestly expressed. The practitioner also has the ability to listen

effectively and express ideas clearly and concisely. The practitioner is honest with the client, because

facades have no place in the relationship. By operating based on power equalization, the practitioner

ensures that the power differential between practitioner and client is not too great, for otherwise it will be

difficult to develop a collaborative relationship. This is particularly true with internal practitioners, who may

be in a subordinate position in the organization's power structure? The practitioner also makes certain that

all the key parties in the client system are involved in the OD program to some extent. Thee practitioner

must determine to how much involvement by different individuals or groups is appropriate. The outcome

of ignoring key people is increased resistance and probable ineffectiveness in the change program.

These are not the only dimensions that are involved in a complex practitioner-client relationship, but they

have been discussed here to provide the beginning practitioner with an awareness of some of the important

dimensions that should be examined and considered. The practitioner must keep in mind that this

relationship is analogous to one's impact on the total system. The practitioner's behavior will actually be a

model for the organization between organization members. In attempting to create a climate of openness

and collaboration between organization members and departments, one strives to develop personal

relationships based on similar qualities. A good relationship increases the probability of a successful OD

program. A tenuous or superficial relationship increases the probability that the OD program will be

ineffective or unsuccessful.

Important dimensions in practitioner-client relationship:

· The practitioner's attitudes and behavior make it possible for the client to create a climate where

feelings about the client system can be freely and honestly expressed.

· Ability to listen effectively and express ideas clearly and concisely.

· The practitioner is honest with the client, because facades have no place in the relationship.

· By operating based on power equalization, - the practitioner ensures that the power differential

between practitioner and client is not too great, for otherwise it will be difficult to develop a

collaborative relationship.

· This is particularly true with internal practitioners, who may be in a subordinate position in the

organization's power structure?

· The practitioner also makes certain that all the key parties in the client system are involved in the

OD program to some extent. The practitioner must determine to how much involvement by

different individuals or groups is appropriate. The outcome of ignoring key people is increased

resistance and probable ineffectiveness in the change program.

Organization Development MGMT 628

A good relationship increases the probability of a successful OD program. A superficial

relationship increases the probability that the OD program will be ineffective or unsuccessful.

Case: The Grayson Chemical Company

The Grayson Chemical Company manufactured industrial chemicals for sale to other industrial companies.

The company was about 40 years old and had been run by a stable management in which there had only

been two presidents. Within the past few years, however, declining earnings and sales had brought pressure

from the board of directors, investment bankers, and stockholder groups to name a new president. The

company had become increasingly stagnant although at Grayson they refer to it as conservative and had

steadily lost market standing and profitability. Finally, the board decided to go outside the company to find

a new CEO and was able to recruit a dynamic manager from another major corporation, Tom Baker. Baker

is 47, an MBA, and had helped build his former company into a leadership position.

Baker was clear about what he needed to do. He knew that he needed to develop a top management team

that could provide the leadership to turn the company around. Unfortunately, the situation at Grayson was

not very favorable.

Decisions were made by the book or taken to the next-higher level. Things were done because "they have

always been done this way," and incompetent managers were often promoted to high-level jobs.

The Meeting

Baker met with three members of the board, Robert Temple (chairman), James Allen, and Hartley Ashford.

Each had a different bit of advice to offer.

Robert Temple said: "Look, Tom, you can't just get rid of the old organization if you want to maintain any

semblance of morale. Your existing people are all fairly competent technically, but it's up to you to develop

performance goals and motivate them to achieve these standards. Make it clear that achievement will be

rewarded and that those who can't hack it will have to go."

James Allen, puffing on his pipe, noted: "Let's face it, Tom; you need to bring in a new top management

team. Probably only six or so, but people who know what top performance means, people who are using

innovative methods of managing and, above all, people you trust. That means people you've worked with

closely, from ABC or other companies, but people you know. You can't retread the old people, and you

don't have time to develop young MBAs, so you need to bring in your own team even though it might

upset some of the old-timers."

Hartley Ashford smiled and said: "Sure, you're going to have to bring in a new team from the outside, but

rather than bring in people you've worked with before, bring in only managers with proven track records.

People who have proven their ability to lead, motivate, and perform from different industries. This way

you'll get a synergistic effect from a number of successful organizations. And the old people will see that

favoritism is not the way to get ahead. So get a top performance team. And if you lose a few old-timers, so

much the better."

Case Analysis Form

Name: ____________________________________________

I. Problems

A. Macro

1. ____________________________________________________

2. ____________________________________________________

B. Micro

1. _____________________________________________________

2. _____________________________________________________

II. Causes

1. _____________________________________________________

2. _____________________________________________________

3. _____________________________________________________

III. Systems affected

Structural ____________________________________________

Psychosocial __________________________________________.

Technical ______________________________________________

Managerial _____________________________________________

Organization Development MGMT 628

5. Goals and values __________________________________________

IV. Alternatives

1. _________________________________________________________

2. _________________________________________________________

3. ________________________________________________________

V. Recommendations

1. _________________________________________________________

2. __________________________________________________________

3. __________________________________________________________

Case Solution: The Grayson Chemical Company

I. Problems:

Macro

Grayson has become stagnant, failed to change, and is no longer competitive.

The current people at Grayson are not acceptable to change.

There is a culture of doing things by the book.

B. Micro:

Incompetent managers promoted.

Board does not have a consensus of opinion.

II. Causes:

Grayson has not been proactive with its environment.

Corporate culture is very resistant to change.

Board does not speak with one voice. So entire organization is somewhat disorganized in its

operations--no clear direction or focus

III. Systems affected:

The entire organization is affected. The organization is still functioning; however, to be a healthy company

and to grow, changes are needed.

Structural with major changes, the structure could be radically altered.

Psychosocial status quo and contentment seems to be prevalent among management.

Technical though there is evidence that managers are "fairly" competent technically, but this

may not be enough to make the kind of changes that Grayson requires.

Managerial the management currently seems to be comfortable in their positions and

performance. The changes that Tom Baker may initiate would likely create turmoil in the

management ranks.

Goals and values the system seems to value putting in your time and you will get promoted.

Excellence in performance is something not present at Grayson, but

complacency seems to be

prevalent.

IV. Alternatives:

Maintain status quo--do nothing.

Develop a pathfinder style; involve board, and organization members in renewing the

company.

Develop a persuader style and avoid "rocking the boat" by making gradual or slow changes.

V. Recommendations:

Develop pathfinder style; involve Entire Corporation in change process. Establish open communications

with board and establish a consensus on what the board wants/expects/desires. Since incompetent

managers have often been promoted, personnel changes should be made after thorough analysis of

personnel.

Table of Contents: