Diagnosing Groups and Jobs:Design Components, Outputs

<< Diagnosing Organizations:Outputs, Alignment, Analysis

Diagnosing Groups and Jobs:Design Components, Fits >>

Organization Development MGMT 628

Lesson 18

Diagnosing Groups and Jobs

Diagnosis is the second major phase in the model of planned change. Based on open-systems theory, a

comprehensive diagnostic framework for organization-, group-, and job-level systems was discussed. The

organization-level diagnostic model was elaborated and applied. After the organization level, the next two

levels of diagnosis are the group and job. Many large organizations have groups or departments that are

themselves relatively large. Diagnosis of large groups can follow the dimensions and relational fits

applicable to organization-level diagnosis. In essence, large groups or departments operate much like

organizations, and their functioning can be assessed by diagnosing them as organizations.

Small departments and groups, however, can behave differently from large organizations and so they need

their own diagnostic models to reflect those differences. In the first section, we discuss the diagnosis of

work groups. Such groups generally consist of a relatively small number of people working face-to-face on

a shared task. Work groups are prevalent in all sizes of organizations. They can he relatively permanent and

perform an ongoing function, or they can be temporary and exist only to perform a certain task or to make

a specific decision.

Finally, we describe and apply a diagnostic model of individual jobs--the smallest unit of analysis in

organizations. An individual job is constructed to perform a specific task or set of tasks. How jobs are

designed can affect individual and organizational effectiveness.

Group-Level Diagnosis:

Figure 24 replicates the comprehensive model discussed earlier but highlights the group- and individual-

level models. It shows the inputs, design components, outputs, and relational fits for group-level diagnosis.

The model is similar to other popular group-level diagnostic models, such as Hackman and Morris's task

group design model, McCaskey's framework for analyzing groups, and Ledford, Lawler, and Mohrman's

participation group design model.

Inputs:

Organization design is clearly the major input to group design. It consists of the design components

characterizing the larger organization within which the group is embedded: technology, structure,

measurement systems, and human resources systems, as well as organization culture. Technology can

determine the characteristics of the group's task; structural systems can specify the level of coordination

required among groups. The human resources and measurement systems, such as performance appraisal

and reward systems, play an important role in determining team functioning. For example, individually

based performance appraisal and reward systems tend to interfere with team functioning because members

may be more concerned with maximizing their individual performance to the detriment of team

performance. Collecting information about the group's organization design context can greatly improve the

accuracy of diagnosis.

Design Components:

Figure 24 (B) shows that groups have five major components: goal clarity, task structure, group

composition, group functioning, and performance norms.

Goal clarity involves how well the group understands its objectives. In general, goals should be moderately

challenging; there should be a method for measuring, monitoring, and feeding back information about goal

achievement; and the goals should be clearly understood by all members.

Organization Development MGMT 628

Figure 24: Comprehensive Model for Diagnosing Organizational Systems

Task structure is concerned with how the group's work is designed. Task structures can vary along two key

dimensions; coordination of members' efforts and regulation of their task behaviors. The coordination

dimension involves the degree to which group tasks are structured to promote effective interaction among

group members. Coordination is important in groups performing interdependence tasks, such as surgical

teams and problem-solving groups. It is relatively unimportant, however, in groups composed of members

who perform independent tasks, such as a group of telephone operators or salespeople. The regulation

dimension involves the degree to which members can control their own task behaviors and be relatively

free from external controls such as supervision, plans, and programs. Self-regulation generally occurs when

members can decide on such issues as task assignments, work methods, production goals, and membership.

Composition concerns the membership of groups. Members can differ on a number of dimensions having

relevance to group behavior. Demographic variables, such as age, education, experience, and skills and

abilities, can affect how people behave and relate to each other in groups. Demographics can determine

whether the group is composed of people having task-relevant skills and knowledge, including

Organization Development MGMT 628

interpersonal skills. People's internal needs also can influence group behaviors. Individual differences in

social needs can determine whether group membership is likely to be satisfying or stressful.

Group functioning is the underlying basis of group life. How members relate to each other is important in

work groups because the quality of relationships can affect task performance. In some groups, for example

interpersonal competition and conflict among members result in their providing little support and help for

each other. Conversely groups may become too concerned about sharing good feelings and support and

spend too little time on task performance. In organization development considerable effort has been

invested to help work group members develop healthy interpersonal relations, including ability and a

willingness to share feelings and perceptions about members' behaviors so that inter-personal problems

and task difficulties can he worked through and resolved. Group functioning therefore involves task-related

activities, such as giving and seeking information and elaborating, coordinating, and evaluating activities;

and the group-maintenance function, which is directed toward holding the group together as a cohesive

team and includes encouraging, harmonizing, compromising, setting standards, and observing.

Performance norms are member beliefs about how the group should perform its task and include

acceptable levels of performance. Norms derive from interactions among members and serve as guides to

group behavior. Once members agree on performance norms, either implicitly or explicitly, then members

routinely perform tasks according to those norms. For example, members of problem-solving groups often

decide early in the life of the group that decisions will be made through voting; voting then becomes a

routine part of group task behavior.

Outputs:

Group effectiveness has two dimensions: performance and quality of work life. Performance is measured in

terms of the group's ability to control or reduce costs, increase productivity, or improve quality. This is a

"hard" measure of effectiveness. In addition, effectiveness is indicated by the group member's quality of

work life. It concerns work satisfaction, team cohesion, and organizational commitment.

Fits:

The diagnostic model in Figure 24(B) shows that group design components must fit inputs if groups are to

be effective in terms of performance and the quality of work life. Research suggests the following fits

between the inputs and design dimensions:

Group design should be congruent with the larger organization design. Organization structures

with low differentiation and high integration should have work groups that are composed of highly

skilled and experienced members performing highly interdependent tasks. Organizations with

differentiated structures and formalized human resources and information systems should spawn

groups that have clear, quantitative goals and support standardized behaviors. Although there is

little direct research on these fits, the underlying rationale is that congruence between organization

and group designs support overall integration within the company. When group designs are not

compatible with organization designs, groups often conflict with the organization. They may

develop norms that run counter to organizational effectiveness, such as occurs in groups

supportive of horseplay, goldbricking, and other counterproductive behaviors.

When the organization's technology results in interdependent tasks, coordination among members

should be promoted by task structures, composition, performance norms, and group functioning.

Conversely when technology permits independent tasks, the design components should promote

individual task performance. For example, when coordination is needed, task structure might

physically locate related tasks together; composition might include members with similar

interpersonal skills and social needs; performance norms would support task-relevant interactions;

and healthy interpersonal relationships would be developed.

When the technology is relatively uncertain and requires high amounts of information processing

and decision making, group task structure, composition, performance norms, and group

functioning should promote self-regulation. Members should have the necessary freedom,

information, and skills to assign members to tasks, to decide on production methods, and to set

performance goals. When technology is relatively certain, group designs should promote

standardization of behavior, and groups should be externally controlled by supervisors, schedules,

and plans. For example, when self-regulation is needed, task structure might be relatively flexible

and allow the interchange of members across group tasks; composition might include members

with multiple skills, interpersonal competencies, and social needs; performance norms would

support complex problem solving; and efforts would be made to develop healthy interpersonal

relations.

Organization Development MGMT 628

Application 3: Top-Management Team at Ortiv Glass Corporation

The Ortiv Glass Corporation produces and markets plate glass for use primarily in the construction and

automotive indulines. The multiplant company has been involved in OD for several years and actively

supports participative management practices and employee involvement programs. Ortiv's organization

design is relatively organic, and the manufacturing plants are given freedom and encouragement to develop

their own organization designs and approaches to participative management. It recently put together a

problem-solving group made up of the top-management team at its newest plant.

The team consisted of the plant manager and the managers of the five functional departments reporting to

him: engineering (maintenance), administration, human resources, production, and quality control. In

recruiting managers for the new plant, the company selected people with good technical skills and

experience in their respective functions. It also chose people with some managerial experience and a desire

to solve problems collaboratively, a hallmark of participative management. The team was relatively new,

and members had been working together for only about five months.

The team met formally for two hours each week to share pertinent information and to deal with plant wide

issues affecting all of the departments, such as safety procedures, interdepartmental relations, and personnel

practices. Members described these meetings as informative but often chaotic in terms of decision making.

The meetings typically started late as members straggled in at different times. The latecomers generally

offered excuses about more pressing problems occurring elsewhere in the plant. Once started, the meetings

were often interrupted by "urgent" phone messages for various members, including the plant manager, and

in most cases the recipient would leave the meeting hurriedly to respond to the call.

The group had problems arriving at clear decisions on particular issues. Discussions often rambled from

topic to topic, and members tended to postpone the resolution of problems to future meetings. This led to

a backlog of unresolved issues, and meetings often lasted far beyond the two-hour limit. When group

decisions were made, members often reported problems in their implementation. Members typically failed

to follow thorough on agreements, and there was often confusion about what had actually been agreed

upon. Everyone expressed dissatisfaction with the team meetings and their results.

Relationships among team members were cordial yet somewhat strained, especially when the team was

dealing with complex issues in which members had varying opinions and interests. Although the plant

manager publicly stated that he wanted to hear all sides of the issues, he often interrupted the discussion or

attempted to change the topic when members openly disagreed in their views of the problem. This

interruption was typically followed by an awkward silence in the group. In many instances when a solution

to a pressing problem did not appear forthcoming, members either moved on to another issue or they

informally voted on proposed options, letting majority rule decide the outcome. Members rarely discussed

the need to move on or vote; rather, these behaviors emerged informally over time and became acceptable

ways of dealing with difficult issues.

Analysis:

Application 3 presents an example of applying group-level diagnosis to a top-management team engaged in

problem solving.

The group is having a series of ineffective problem-solving meetings. Members report a backlog of

unresolved issues, poor use of meeting time, lack of follow through and decision implementation, and a

general dissatisfaction with the team meeting. Examining group inputs and design components and how

the two fit can help explain the causes of those group problems.

The key issue in diagnosing group inputs is the design of the larger organization within which the group is

embedded. The Ortiv Glass Corporation's design is relatively differentiated. Each plant is allowed to set up

its own organization design. Similarly, although no specific data are given, the company's technology,

structure, measurement systems, human resources systems, and culture appear to promote flexible and

innovative behaviors at the plant level. Indeed, freedom to innovate in the manufacturing plants is probably

an outgrowth of the firm's OD activities and participative culture.

In the case of decision-making groups such as this one, organization design also affects the nature of the

issues that are worked on. The team meetings appear to be devoted to problems affecting all of the

functional departments. This suggests that the problems entail high interdependence among the functions;

consequently high coordination among members is needed to resolve them. The team meetings also seem

to include many issues that are complex and not easily solved, so there is probably a relatively high amount

of uncertainty in the technology or work process. The causes of the problems or acceptable solutions are

not readily available. Members must process considerable information during problem solving, especially

when there are different perceptions and opinions about the issues.

Organization Development MGMT 628

Diagnosis of the team's design components answers the following questions:

How clear are the group's goals? The team's goals seem relatively clear: they are to

solve

problems. There appears to be no clear agreement, however on the specific problems to be addressed. As a

result, members come late because they have "more

pressing" problems needing attention.

What is the group's task structure? The team's task structure includes face-to-face

interaction during the weekly meetings. That structure allows members from different

functional departments to come together physically to share information and to solve

problems mutually affecting them. It facilitates coordination of problem solving among the

departments in the plant. The structure also seems to provide team members with the freedom necessary to

regulate their task behaviors in the meetings. They can adjust their behaviors and interactions to suit the

flow of the discussion and problem-solving process.

What is the composition of the group? The team is composed of the plant manager and

managers of five functional departments. All members appear to have task-relevant skills and experience,

both in their respective functions and in their managerial roles. They also seem to be interested in solving

problems collaboratively. That shared interest suggests that members have job-related social needs and

should feel relatively comfortable in group problem-solving situations.

What are the group's performance norms? Group norms cannot be observed directly but must

be inferred from group behaviors. The norms involve member beliefs about how the group should

perform its task, including acceptable levels of performance. A useful way to describe norms is to list

specific behaviors that complete the sentences "A good group member should...." and "its okay to...."

Examination of the team's problem-solving behaviors suggests the following performance norms are

operating in the example:

"It's okay to come late to team meetings."

"It's okay to interrupt meetings with phone messages."

"It's okay to leave meetings to respond to phone messages."

"It's okay to hold meetings longer than two hours."

"A good group member should not openly disagree with others' views."

"It's okay to vote on decisions."

"A good group member should be cordial to other members."

"It's okay to postpone solutions to immediate problems."

"It's okay not to follow through on previous agreements."

What is the nature of team functioning in the group? The case strongly suggests that

interpersonal relations are not healthy on the management team. Members do not seem to

confront differences openly. Indeed, the plant manager purposely intervenes when conflicts

emerge. Members feel dissatisfied with the meetings, but they spend little time talking about those

feelings. Relationships are strained, but members fail to examine the underlying causes.

The problems facing the team can now be explained by assessing how well the group design fits the inputs.

The larger organization design of Ortiv is relatively differentiated and promotes flexibility and innovation in

its manufacturing plants. The firm supports participative management, and the team meetings can be seen

as an attempt to implement that approach at the new plant. Although it is too early to tell whether the team

will succeed, there does not appear to be significant incongruity between the larger organization design and

what the team is trying to do. Of course, team problem solving may continue to be ineffective, and the

team might revert to a more autocratic approach to decision making. In such a case, a serious mismatch

between the plant management team and the larger company would exist, and conflict between the two

would likely result.

The team's issues are highly interdependent and often uncertain, and meetings are intended to resolve plant

wide problems affecting the various functional departments. Those problems are generally complex and

require the members to process a great deal of information and create innovative solutions. The team's task

structure and composition appear to be the nature of team issues. The face-to-face meetings help to

coordinate problem solving among the department managers, and except for the interpersonal skills,

members seem to have the necessary task-relevant skills and experience to drive the problem-solving

process. There appears, however, to be a conflict in the priority between the problems to be solved by the

team and the problems faced by individual managers.

More important, the key difficulty seems to be a mismatch between the team's performance norms and

interpersonal relations and the demands of the problem-solving task. Complex, interdependent problems

require performance norms that support sharing of diverse and often conflicting kinds of information. The

Organization Development MGMT 628

norms must encourage members to generate novel solutions and to assess the relevance of problem-solving

strategies in light of new issues. Members need to address explicitly how they are using their knowledge and

skills and how they are weighing and combining members' individual contributions.

In our example, the team's performance norms fail to support complex problem solving; rather, they

promote a problem-solving method that is often superficial, haphazard, and subject to external disruptions.

Members' interpersonal relationships reinforce adherence to the ineffective norms. Members do not

confront personal differences or dissatisfactions with the group process. They fail to examine the very

norms contributing to their problems. In this case, diagnosis suggests the need for group interventions

aimed at improving performance norms and developing healthy interpersonal relations.

Table of Contents: