Collecting and Analyzing Diagnostic information:Methods for Collecting Data, Observations

<< Diagnosing Groups and Jobs:Design Components, Fits

Collecting and Analyzing Diagnostic information:Sampling, The Analysis of Data >>

Organization Development MGMT 628

Lesson 20

Collecting and Analyzing Diagnostic information

Dimensions to Consider in Diagnosis:

In addition to the importance of the consultant having descriptive, analytic, and diagnostic theories, a

number of other dimensions are important for the consultant to consider. A description of seven such

dimensions follows:

1. Timing of the diagnostic activities is a significant dimension. For example, it is one thing to collect

and analyze data and then to develop a strategy for how to use it, but quite another to gather data

about the perceived usefulness and timeliness of doing a survey in the first place. Much time and

resources can be wasted if organizational participants are not prepared to work with the data.

2. Extent of participation is a key aspect of diagnosis. Who, in a preliminary way, decided that

diagnosis should take place? Who decided how it should be done? Which people were

systematically involved in supplying data, and further in analyzing and describing the dynamics

revealed by the data? One person? Two people? The top team? The top team plus others? One or

more people in conjunction with a consultant? All of the members of the system or subsystem?

One of the underlying assumptions is the efficacy of participative problem identification and

diagnosis in contrast to unilateral problem identification and diagnosis.

3. The dimension of confidentiality, or individual-anonymous vs. group surfacing of data, has

important facets. In the early stages of an OD effort, when trust between group members may be

low and their feedback skills inadequate, the situation may call for individual interviews, with

responses kept anonymous and only reported to the group in terms of themes. As trust is earned

and grows, people can become more open in terms of surfacing attitudes, feelings, and perceptions

about organizational dynamics in group settings.

4. The degree to which there was pre-selection of variables vs. emergent selection of variables to be

considered is another important dimension. For survey feedback different questionnaires which

taps some 19 dimensions under three broad categories: leadership, organizational climate, and

satisfaction, are used. Another, "Managerial Grid", focuses on two dimensions: concern for people

and concern for production. Some OD consultants use interviews asking two or three questions,

such as: What things are going well in the organization? What problems do you see?

5. The extent to which data gathering and analysis are isolated events in contrast to being part of a

long-range strategy is also important. One usual assumption in OD efforts is that diagnostic

activities should be part of an overall plan. Diagnostic activities lead to action program that in turn

call for diagnostic activities this is the action research model.

6. Diagnostic activities that are not part of any such plan that are prompted by someone's whim to

know "what they are thinking" may produce resentment and resistance and can seriously hinder

attempts to get valid data from system members.

7. The nature of the target population in both preliminary and later systematic data gathering and

analysis is also a key dimension. The size and nature of the target group can affect the acceptability

of the diagnostic process, what kind of interdependencies can be examined, and what kinds of

issues can be worked successfully. The data-providing group can be different from the data-

analyzing group, but in OD, suppliers of the information usually work with their own data in intact

work teams.

And finally, the type of technique used obviously has a number of important ramifications. By type we

mean questionnaire-versus-interview techniques, individual-versus-group surfacing of data, or other

categories of techniques that can be differentiated in major ways. As another example of the importance of

technique selection an interview can be used for trust building as well as collecting data; a face-to-face

conversation is a better vehicle building a relationship than sending someone a questionnaire. Concerns can

be expressed and responded to, questions can be answered, and assurances can be provided as how the

data will be used, and so on. As another example of the importance of the type of technique selected,

giving diagnostic assignments to subgroups in a workshop setting can be a powerful diagnostic technique.

But the way these groups are constituted- for example, heterogeneous versus homogenous in terms of rank,

position, or aggressiveness-resistance can be crucial to the amount and candor of the data generated.

Collecting and Analyzing Diagnostic information:

Organization development is vitally dependent on organization diagnosis: the process of co1lecing

information that will be shared with the client in jointly assessing how the organization is functioning and

determining the best change intervention. The quality of the information gathered, therefore, is a critical

part of the OD process.

Organization Development MGMT 628

Data collection involves gathering information on specific organizational features, such as the inputs,

design components, and outputs as discussed earlier. The process begins by establishing an effective

relationship between the OD practitioner and those from whom data will be collected and then choosing

data-collection techniques. Four methods can be used to collect data: questionnaires, interviews,

observations, and unobtrusive measures. Data analysis organizes and examines the information to make

clear the underlying causes of an organizational problem or to identify areas for future development. The

overall process of data collection, analysis, and feedbacks is shown in Figure 26.

Fig 26: The Data Collection and Feedback Cycle

The Diagnostic Relationship:

In most cases of planned change, OD practitioners play an active role in gathering data from organization

members for diagnostic purposes For example, they might interview members of a work team about causes

of conflict among members; they might survey employees at a large industrial plant about factors

contributing to poor product quality. Before collecting diagnostic information, practitioners need to

establish a relationship with those who will provide and subsequently use it. Because the nature of that

relationship affects the quality and usefulness of the data collected, it is vital that OD practitioners clarify

for organization members who they are, why the data are being collected, what the data gathering will

involve, and how the data will be used. That information can help allay people's natural fears that the data

might be used against them and gain members' participation and support, which are essential to developing

successful

interventions.

Establishing the diagnostic relationship between the consultant and relevant organization members is

similar to forming a contract. It is meant to clarity expectations and to specify the conditions of the

relationship. In those cases where members have been directly involved in the entering and contracting

process described earlier, the diagnostic contract will typically be part of the initial contracting step. In

situations where data will be collected from members who have not been directly involved in entering and

contracting, however, OD practitioners will need to establish a diagnostic contract as a prelude to

diagnosis. The answers to the following questions provide the substance of the diagnostic contract:

Organization Development MGMT 628

Who am I? The answer to this question introduces the OD practitioner to the

organization,

particularly to those members who do not know the consultant and yet will be asked to provide diagnostic

data.

Why am I here, and what am I doing? These answers are aimed at defining the goals of the

diagnosis and data-gathering activities. The consultant needs to present the objectives of the action research

process and to describe how the diagnostic activities fit into the

overall developmental strategy.

Who do I work for? This answer clarifies who has hired the consultant, whether it is a

manager, a group of managers, or a group of employees and managers. One way to build

trust

and support for the diagnosis is to have those people directly involved in establishing the diagnostic

contract. Thus, for example, if the consultant works for a joint labor--management committee,

representatives from both sides of that group could help the consultant build the proper relationship with

those from whom data will be gathered.

What do I want from you, and why? Here, the consultant needs to specify how much time and

effort people will need to give to provide valid data and subsequently to work with these data in solving

problems. Because some people may not want to participate in the diagnosis, it is important to specify that

such involvement is voluntary.

How will I protect your confidentiality? This answer addresses member concerns about who

will see their responses and in what form. This is especially critical when employees are asked to provide

information about their attitudes or perceptions. OD practitioners can either ensure confidentiality or state

that full participation in the change process requires open information sharing. In the first case, employees

are frequently concerned about privacy and the possibility of being punished for their responses. To

alleviate concern and to increase the likelihood of obtaining honest responses, the consultant may

need

to assure employees of the confidentiality of their information, perhaps through

explicit guarantees of

response anonymity. In the second case, full involvement of the participants in their own diagnosis may

be a vital ingredient of the change process. If

sensitive issues arise, assurances of confidentiality can

co-opt the OD practitioner and thwart meaningful diagnosis. The consultant is bound to keep

confidential the issues that

are most critical for the group or organization to understand. OD

practitioners must think carefully about how they want to handle confidentiality issues.

Who will have access to the data? Respondents typically want to know whether they will have

access to their data and who else in the organization will have similar access. The OD practitioner needs to

clarify access issues and, in most cases, should agree to provide respondents with their own results. Indeed,

the collaborative nature of diagnosis means that organization members will work with their own data to

discover causes of problems and to devise relevant interventions.

What's in it for you? This answer is aimed at providing organization members with a clear

delineation of the benefits they can expect from the diagnosis. This usually entails describing

the

feedback process and how they can use the data to improve the

organization.

Can I be trusted? The diagnostic relationship ultimately rests on the trust established

between the consultant and those providing the data. An open and honest exchange of

information depends on such trust, and the practitioner should provide ample time and face-to-

face contact during the contracting process to build this trust. This requires the consultant to

listen actively and discuss openly all questions raised by participants.

Careful attention to establishing the diagnostic relationship helps to promote the three goals of data

collection. The first and most immediate objective is to obtain valid information about organizational

functioning. Building a data-collection contract can ensure that organization members provide honest,

reliable, and complete information.

Data collection also can rally energy for constructive organizational change. A good diagnostic relationship

helps organization members start thinking about issues that concern them, and it creates expectations that

change is possible. When members trust the consultant, they are likely to participate in the diagnostic

process and to generate energy and commitment for organizational change.

Finally, data collection helps to develop the collaborative relationship necessary for effecting organizational

change. The diagnostic stage of action research is probably the first time that most organization members

meet the OD practitioner, and it can be the basis for building a longer-term relationship. The data-

collection contract and subsequent data-gathering and feedback activities provide members with

opportunities for seeing the consultant in action and for knowing her or him personally. If the consultant

can show employees that she or he is trustworthy, is willing to work with them, and is able to help improve

the organization, then the data-collection process will contribute to the longer-term collaborative

relationship so necessary for carrying out organizational changes.

Organization Development MGMT 628

The Data-Collection Process:

The process of collecting data is an important and significant step in an OD program. During this stage, the

practitioner and the client attempt to determine the specific problem requiring solution. After the

practitioner has intervened and has begun developing a relationship, the next step is acquiring data and

information about the client system.

This task begins with the initial meeting and continues throughout the OD program. The practitioner is, in

effect, gathering data and deciding which data are relevant whenever he or she meets with the client,

observes, or asks questions. Of all the basic OD techniques, perhaps none is a fundamental as data

collection. The practitioner must be certain of the facts before proceeding with an action program. The

probability that an OD program will be successful is increased if it is based upon accurate and in-depth

knowledge of the client system.

Information quality is a critical factor in any successful organization. Developing an innovative culture and

finding new ways to meet customer needs are strongly influenced by the way information is gathered and

processed. Organization development is a data-based change activity. The data collected are used by the

members who provide the data, and often lead to insights into ways of improving effectiveness. The data-

collection process itself involves an investigation, a body of data, and some form of processing

information. For our purposes, the word data, which is derived from the Latin verb dare, meaning "to

give, is most appropriately applied to unstructured, unformed facts. It is an aggregation of all signs, signals,

clues, facts, statistics, opinions, assumptions, and speculations, including items that are accurate and

inaccurate, relevant and irrelevant. The word information is derived from the Latin verb informare,

meaning "to give form to," and is used here to mean data that have form and structure. A common

problem in organizations is that they are data-rich but information poor: lots of data, but little or no

information.

An OD program based upon a systematic and explicit investigation of the client system has a much higher

probability of success because a careful data collect on phase initiates the organization's problem solving

process and provides a foundation for the following stages. This section discusses the steps involved in the

data-collection process.

The Definition of Objectives:

The first and most obvious step in data collection is defining the objectives of the change program. A clear

understanding of these broad goals is necessary to determine what information is relevant. Unless the

purpose of data collection is clearly defined, it becomes difficult to select methods and standards. The OD

practitioner must first obtain enough information to allow a preliminary diagnosis and then decide what

further information is required to verify the problem conditions. Usually, some preliminary data gathering

is needed simply to clarify the problem conditions before further large-scale data collection is undertaken.

This is usually accomplished by investigating possible problem areas and ideas about what an ideal

organization might be like in a session of interviews with key members of the organization. These

conversations enable the organization and the practitioner to understand the way things are, as opposed to

the way members would like them to be.

Most practitioners emphasize the importance of collecting data as a significant step in the OD process.

First, data gathering provides the basis for the organization to begin looking at its own processes, focusing

upon how it does things and how this affects performance. Second, data collection often begins a process

of self-examination or assessment by members and work teams in the organization, leading to improved

problem solving capabilities.

The Selection of Key Factors:

The second step in data collection is to identity the central variables involved in the situation (such as

turnover, breakdown in communication and isolated management). The practitioner and the client decide

which factors are important and what additional information is necessary for a systematic diagnosis of the

client system's problems. The traditional approach was to select factors along narrow issues, such as pay

and immediate supervisors, more recently; the trend has been to gauge the organization's progress and

status more broadly. Broader issues include selecting factors that determine the culture and values of the

organization.

Organizations normally generate a considerable amount of "hard" data internally, including production

reports, budgets, turnover ratio, sales per square foot, sales or profit per employee and so forth, which may

be useful as indicators of problems. This internal data can be compared with competitor's data and industry

averages. The practitioner may find, however, that it is necessary to increase the range of depth of data

beyond what is readily available. The practitioner may wish to gain additional insights into other dimensions

of the organizational system, particularly those dealing with the quality of the transactions or relationships

between individuals or groups. This additional data gathering may examine the following dimensions:

Organization Development MGMT 628

What is the degree of dependence between operating teams, departments or units?

What is the quantity and quality of the exchange of information and communication between

units?

What is the degree to which the vision, mission, and the goals of the organization are shared and

understood by members?

What are the norms, attitudes, and motivations of organization members?

What are the effects of the distribution of power and status within the system?

In this step, the practitioner and client determine which factors are important and which

factors can and should be investigated.

The Selection of a Data-Gathering Method:

The third step in data collection is selecting a method of gathering data. There are many different types of

data and many different methods of tapping data sources. There is no one best way to gather data - the

selection of a method depends on the nature of the problem. Whatever method is adopted data should be

acquired in a systematic manner thus allowing quantitative or qualitative comparison between elements of

the system. The task in this step is to identify certain characteristics that may be measured to help in the

achievement of the OD program objective and then to select an appropriate method to gather the required

data. Some major data collecting methods follow.

Methods for Collecting Data:

The four major techniques for gathering diagnostic data are questionnaires, interviews, observations, and

unobtrusive measures. Table 3 briefly compares the methods and lists their major advantages and

problems. No single method can fully measure the kinds of variables important to OD because each has

certain strengths and weaknesses. For example, perceptual measures, such as questionnaires and surveys,

are open to self-report biases, such as respondents' tendency to give socially desirable answers rather than

honest opinions. Observations, on the other hand, are susceptible to observer biases, such as seeing what

one wants to see rather than what is really there. Because of the biases inherent in any data-collection

method, we recommend that more than one method be used when collecting diagnostic data. If data from

the different methods are compared and found to be consistent, it is likely that the variables are being

measured validly. For example, questionnaire measures of job discretion could be supplemented with

observations of the number and kinds of decisions employees are making. If the two kinds of data support

one another, job discretion is probably being accurately assessed. If the two kinds of data conflict, then the

validity of the measures should be examined further-- perhaps by using a third method, such as interviews.

Table 3: A Comparison of Different Methods of Data Collection

A Comparison of Different Methods of Data Collection

Method

Major Advantages

Major Potential Problems

·Responses can be quantified and ·non-empathy

Questionnaires

·Predetermined questions/missing

easily summarized

·Easy to use with large samples

issues

·Relatively inexpensive

·Over-interpretation of data

·Can obtain large volume of data ·Response bias

·adaptive-allows data collection on ·Expense

Interviews

·Bias in interviewer responses

a range of possible subjects

·Source of "rich" data

·coding

and

interpretation

·Empathic

difficulties

·Process of interviewing can build ·self-report bias

rapport

·collects data on behavior, rather ·coding

Observations

and

interpretation

than reports of behavior

difficulties

·Real time, not retrospective

·Sampling inconsistencies

·Adaptive

·Observer bias and questionable

reliability

·Expense

Organization Development MGMT 628

·Non-reactive- no response bias

·Access and retrieval difficulties

Unobtrusive measures

·High face validity

·Validity concerns

·Easily quantified

·Coding

and

interpretation

difficulties

Questionnaires:

One of the most efficient ways to collect data is through questionnaires. Because they typically contain

fixed-response queries about various features of an organization, these paper-and-pencil measures can be

administered to large numbers of people simultaneously. Also, they can be analyzed quickly, especially with

the use of computers, thus permitting quantitative comparison and evaluation. As a result, data can easily

be fed back to employees. Numerous basic resource books on survey methodology and questionnaire

development are available.

Questionnaires can vary in scope, some measuring selected aspects of organizations and others assessing

more comprehensive organizational characteristics. They also can vary in the extent to which they are either

standardized or tailored to a specific organization. Standardized instruments generally are based on an

explicit model of organization group, or individual effectiveness and contain a predetermined set of

questions that have been developed and refined over time.

Several research organizations have been highly instrumental in developing and refining surveys. The

institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan and the Center for Effective Organizations at the

University of Southern California are two prominent examples. Two of the institute's most popular

measures of organizational dimensions are the Survey of Organizations and the Michigan Organizational

Assessment Questionnaire. Few other instruments are supported by such substantial reliability and validity

data. Other examples of packaged instruments include Weisbord's Organizational Diagnostic

Questionnaire, Dyer's Team Development Survey, and Hackman and Oldham's Job Diagnostic Survey. In

fact, so many questionnaires are available that rarely would an organization have to create a totally new one.

However, because every organization has unique problems and special jargon for referring to them, almost

any standardized instrument will need to have organization-specific additions, modifications, or omissions.

Customized questionnaires, on the other hand, are tailored to the needs of a particular client. Typically, they

include questions composed by consultants or organization members, receive limited use, and do not

undergo longer-term development. They can be combined with standardized instruments to provide valid

and reliable data focused toward the particular issues facing an organization.

Questionnaires, however, have a number of draw backs that need to be taken into account in choosing

whether to employ them for data collection. First, responses are limited to the questions asked in the

instrument. They provide little opportunity to probe for additional data or to ask for points of clarification,

second, questionnaires tend to be impersonal, and employees may not be willing to provide honest answers.

Third, questionnaires often elicit response biases, such as the tendency to answer questions in a socially

acceptable manner. This makes it difficult to draw valid conclusions from employees' self-reports.

Interviews:

A study of 245 OD practitioners found that interviewing is the most widely used data- gathering technique

in OD programs. Interviews are more direct, personal, and flexible than surveys and are very well suited for

studies of interaction and behavior. Two advantages in particular set interviewing apart from other

techniques. First, interviews are flexible and can be used in many different situations. For example, they can

be used to determine motives, values, and attitudes. Second, interviewing is the only technique that

provides two-way communication. This permits the interviewer to learn more about the problems,

challenges, and limitations of the organization. Interviewing usually begins with the initial intervention and

is best administered in a systematic manner by a trained interviewer. Data-gathering interviews usually last

at least one hour; the purpose is to get the interviewees to talk freely about things that are important to

them and to share these perceptions in an honest and straightforward manner. In the author's experience,

people really want to talk about things that they feel are important. If the OD practitioner asks appropriate

questions, interviewing can yield important results.

The advantage of the interview method is that it provides data that are virtually unobtainable through other

methods. Subjective data, such as norms, attitudes, and values, which are largely inaccessible through

observation, may be readily inferred from effective interviews. The disadvantages of the interview are the

amount of time involved, the training and skill required of the interviewer, the biases and resistances of the

respondent and the difficulty of ensuring comparability of data across respondents.

The interview itself may take on several different formats. It can be directed or non-directed. In a directed

interview, certain kinds of data are desired, and therefore specific questions are asked. The questions are

usually formulated in advance to ensure uniformity of responses. The questions themselves may be open-

Organization Development MGMT 628

ended or closed. Open- ended questions allow the respondent to be free and unconstrained in answering,

such as "How would you describe the work atmosphere of this organization?" The responses may be very

enlightening, but may also be difficult to record and quantify. Closed questions, which can be answered

by a yes, no. or some other brief response, are easily recorded and are readily quantifiable.

In a non-directed interview the interview's direction is chosen by the respondent, with little guidance or

direction by the interviewer. If questions are used in a non-directed interview, open-ended questions will be

more appropriate than closed questions. A non-directed interview could begin with the interviewer saying,

"Tell me about your job here." This could be followed by "You seem to be excited about your work." The

data from such an interview can be very detailed and significant, but difficult to analyze because the

interview is unstructured.

Interviews may be highly structured, resembling questionnaires, or highly unstructured, starting with

general questions that allow the respondent to lead the way. Structured interviews typically derive from a

conceptual model of organization functioning; the model guides the types of questions that are asked. For

example, a structured interview based on the organization-level design components would ask managers

specific questions about organization structure, measurement systems, human resources systems, and

organization culture.

Unstructured interviews are more general and include broad questions about organizational functioning,

such as:

What are the major goals or objectives of the organization or department?

How does the organization currently perform with respect to these purposes?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the organization or department?

What barriers stand in the way of good performance?

Although interviewing typically involves one-to-one interaction between an OD practitioner and an

employee, it can be carried out in a group context. Group interviews save time and allow people to build on

others' responses. A major drawback, however, is that group settings may inhibit some people from

responding freely.

A popular type of group interview is the focus group or sensing meeting. These are unstructured meetings

conducted by a manager or a consultant. A small group of ten to fifteen employees is selected representing

a cross section of functional areas and hierarchical levels or a homogenous grouping, such as minorities or

engineers. Group discussion is frequently started by asking general questions about organizational features

and functioning, an intervention's progress, or current performance. Group members are then encouraged

to discuss their answers more fully. Consequently, focus groups and sensing meetings are an economical

way to obtain interview data and are especially effective in understanding particular issues in greater depth.

The richness and validity of the information gathered will depend on the extent to which the manager or

consultant develops a trust relationship with the group and listens to member opinions.

Another popular unstructured group interview involves assessing the current state of an intact work group.

The manager or consultant generally directs a question to the group, calling its attention to some part of

group functioning. For example, group members may be asked how they feel the group is progressing on

its stated task. The group might respond and then come up with its own series of questions about barriers

to task performance. This unstructured interview is a fast, simple way to collect data about group behavior.

It allows members to discuss issues of immediate concern and to engage actively in the questioning and

answering process. This technique is limited, however, to relatively small groups and to settings where there

is trust among employees and managers and a commitment to assessing group processes.

Interviews are an effective method for collecting data in OD. They are adaptive, allowing the interviewer to

modify questions and to probe emergent issues during the interview process. They also permit the

interviewer to develop an empathetic relationship with employees, frequently resulting in frank disclosure

of pertinent information.

A major drawback of interviews is the amount of time required to conduct and analyze them. Interviews

can consume a great deal of time, especially if interviewers take full advantage of the opportunity to hear

respondents out and change their questions accordingly. Personal biases also can distort the data. Like

questionnaires, interviews are subject to the self-report biases of respondents and, perhaps more important,

to the biases of the interviewer. For example, the nature of the questions and the interactions between the

interviewer and the respondent may discourage or encourage certain kinds of responses. These problems

suggest that interviewing takes considerable skill to gather valid data. Interviewers must be able to

understand their own biases, to listen and establish empathy with respondents, and to change questions to

pursue issues that develop during the course of the interview.)

Organization Development MGMT 628

Observations:

One of the more direct ways of collecting data is simply to observe organizational behaviors in their

functional settings. The OD practitioner may do this by walking casually through a work area and looking

around or by simply counting the occurrences of specific kinds of behavior (for example, the number of

times a phone call is answered after three rings in a service department). Observation can range from

complete participant observation, in which the OD practitioner becomes a member of the group under

study, to more detached observation, in which the observer is clearly not part of the group or situation

itself and may use film, videotape, and other methods to record behaviors.

Observations have a number of advantages. They are free of the biases inherent in self-report data. They

put the practitioner directly in touch with the behaviors in question, without having to rely on others'

perceptions. Observations also involve real-time data, describing behavior occurring in the present rather

than the past. This avoids the distortions that invariably arise when people are asked to recollect their

behaviors. Finally, observations are adaptive in that the consultant can modify what he or she chooses to

observe, depending on the circumstances.

Among the problems with observations are difficulties interpreting the meaning underlying the

observations. Practitioners may need to devise a coding scheme to make sense out of observations, and this

can be expensive, take time, and introduce biases into the data. Because the observer is the data-collection

instrument, personal bias and subjectivity can distort the data unless the observer is trained and skilled in

knowing what to look for; how, where, and when to observe; and how to record data systematically.

Another problem concerns sampling: observers not only must decide which people to observe; they also

must choose the time periods, territory, and events in which to make those observations. Failure to attend

to these sampling issues can result in highly biased samples of observational data.

When used correctly, observations provide insightful data about organization and group functioning,

intervention success, and performance. For example, observations are particularly helpful in diagnosing the

interpersonal relations of members of work groups. As discussed earlier, interpersonal relationships are a

key component of work groups; observing member interactions in a group setting can provide direct

information about the nature of those relationships.

Unobtrusive Measures:

Unobtrusive data are not collected directly from respondents but from secondary sources, such as company

records and archives. These data are generally available in organizations and include records of absenteeism

or tardiness; grievances; quantity and quality of production or service; financial performance; meeting

minutes; and correspondence with key customers, suppliers, or governmental agencies.

Unobtrusive measures are especially helpful in diagnosing the organization, group, and individual outputs,

talked earlier. At the organization level, for example, market share and return on investment usually can be

obtained from company reports. Similarly, organizations typically measure the quantity and quality of the

outputs of work groups and individual employees. Unobtrusive measures also can help to diagnose

organization-level design components--structures work systems, control systems, and human resources

systems. A company's organization chart, for example, can provide useful information about organization

structure. Information about control systems usually can be obtained by examining the firm's management

information system, operating procedures, and accounting practices. Data about human resources system

often are included in a company's personnel manual.

Unobtrusive measures provide a relatively objective view of organizational functioning. They are free from

respondent and consultant biases and are perceived as being "real" by many organization members.

Moreover, unobtrusive measures tend to be quantified and reported at periodic intervals, permitting

statistical analysis of behaviors occurring over time. Examining monthly absenteeism rates, for example,

might reveal trends in employee withdrawal behavior.

The major problems with unobtrusive measures occur in collecting such information and drawing valid

conclusions from it. Company records may not include data in a form that is usable by the consultant. If,

for example, individual performance data are needed, the consultant may find that many firms only record

production information at the group or departmental level. Unobtrusive data also may have their own built-

in biases. Changes in accounting procedures and in methods of recording data are common in

organizations, and such changes can affect company records independently of what is actually happening in

the organization. For example, observed changes in productivity over time might be caused by

modifications in methods of recording production rather than by actual changes in organizational

functioning.

Despite these drawbacks, unobtrusive data serve as a valuable adjunct to other diagnostic measures, such as

interviews and questionnaires. For example, if questionnaires reveal that employees in a department are

dissatisfied with their jobs, company records might show whether that discontent is manifested in

heightened withdrawal behaviors, in lowered quality work, or in similar counterproductive behaviors.

Table of Contents: