WFED582:

Lesson 4: Organization Diagnosis Model I

Lesson 4: Organization Diagnosis Model I (1 of 6)
Lesson 4: Organization Diagnosis Model I

Lesson 4 Overview

This lesson explores the following three models for organizational diagnosis: force field analysis, Leavitt's model, and McKinsey's 7-S framework for organizational analysis. Activities for this lesson will help you understand the models effectively and explore their application. A few examples are provided so that you can apply similar steps for other diagnostic models.

Lesson Objectives

After successfully completing this lesson, you should be able to do the following:

Lesson Readings & Activities

By the end of this lesson, make sure you have completed the readings and activities found in the Lesson 4 Course Schedule.

Organizational Diagnosis Model 1: Force Field Analysis (1951) (2 of 6)
Organizational Diagnosis Model 1: Force Field Analysis (1951)

Organizational Diagnosis Model 1: Force Field Analysis (1951)

Kurt Lewin developed the force field analysis model in 1951 to effectively diagnose organizations in the change context.

Visual representation of the current state resulting from opposing driving and restraining forces.
Figure 4.1. Force field analysis.

Force Field Analysis Process

The following are steps to follow when conducting a force field analysis:

  1. Begin by clearly defining the current state. This is important, as it serves as a target for the analysis.
  2. Examine the driving (helping) forces and the restraining (hindering) forces for the current state.
  3. Compare the two different forces, prioritize their impact, and develop a goal after this analysis.
  4. Determine what, if any, sub-goals should be included. Driving forces can be strengthened by setting sub-goals that maintain or intensify them. Likewise, restraining forces can be avoided by making up for them. For example, if a restraining force was a lack of communication, a goal would be to facilitate communication.
  5. Once goals are identified, the final step is to develop strategies that minimize restraining forces and increase driving forces.

Again, OD practitioners facilitate the analysis process so that a maximum level of employee input is gathered, a consensus is reached, and strategies are developed by the members of the client group.

Video: Using the Force Field Analysis

This video clip is about how to use force field analysis, with an example of sales employees' performance issues.

PAUL PUCKRIDGE: Welcome to the Success eCoaching program. Today's lesson, using the force field analysis technique. Hello, my name's Paul Puckridge. I'm the national training manager here at the Success Institute. It's my pleasure to welcome you to this coaching lesson.

A question I'd like to ask you, and this is what I ask a lot of people that go through change management programs or processes, is what are the compelling reasons for change? When you ask a typical employee what the reasons are for change, they'll often have negative things to say.

Why do we have to change? This is just creating more paperwork. I don't see the need. We're expected to do more with less. And you've probably heard those sorts of reasons before.

But of course, in most situations, there are compelling reasons why, as an organization, or as a team, or a department, that you need to change the way you do things. And I wanted to share with you today a very simple, yet powerful tool that, should you decide to use, can be very useful in helping you show your team members the benefits of the reasons for wanting to change. And it's called a force field analysis.

Now, to do a force field analysis, it's very simple. You can use a boardroom, or a meeting room, or some large area. Find a white board or some butchers paper. And on the page, you write the three headings-- hindering forces, present performance, driving forces. And in the center, you write down what the present performance is.

In this case, let's imagine that we are expecting our salespeople to now start making direct calls to clients to set up appointments. Now, I realize you might be watching this and you are not a sales manager. That's OK. But let's just imagine that's the scenario.

So up until recently, staff had not had to call your clients direct and set appointments, but now they do. So this is a tool that you can use to facilitate. And what you would do is you would write those three things up, and then in the center you'd write down the present performance.

And now you start asking the team, what are some of the things that are stopping us from making these calls? What are the hindering forces? And someone says, well, it's hasn't been done before. We've never done this in our organization. Fair enough. You write that up.

You then ask again, so what's hindering us from doing this? Someone else says, well, we haven't had any training to do this work. OK.

What else? Well, a lot of our sales people are very negative about having to do this. OK.

And you go through as many of the hindering forces as possible. And then you think about the driving forces. OK.

What's compelling us to make this change? And someone says, well, the sales budgets have increased this year. OK.

What else? The competition is getting tougher. And competitive salespeople have to do this. OK.

What else? We want to offer better service to our customers by having more contact and direct contact. OK.

What else? It's a new KPI. So it's part of our new performance appraisals. All sales people are now expected to call clients directly.

So then what we do is we go back and look at the hindering forces. And we give each one of these a rating between 0, meaning no real issue or impact, and 10, meaning this is a very big impact on our business.

So the very fact that our staff have not made calls before. What sort of issue, what sort of impact is this on our business? And we decide among ourselves, it's probably about a three.

The fact is, they're salespeople. They know how to make a phone call. It's not as if we're expecting them to do brain surgery.

Number two, they've not had training to do the work. All right, fair enough. We haven't trained them specifically. It is an issue. It's not the most compelling issue, but we acknowledge it by putting a 6 there.

Negative stuff attitudes. OK, we knowledge that the staff are very negative towards having to do this. And that certainly is a major hindering force, which we want to try and address.

All right, let's have a look at the other side. Driving forces-- sales budgets have increased. What's the impact of this on our business? Well, it's a 10. Obviously, if sales budgets have increased, we have to meet our budgets. It's the ultimate.

Competition is getting tougher. That's an 8. Again, it's a fact. If we want to keep our jobs, we have to acknowledge that competition is getting tougher. Therefore, we have to compete.

We want to offer better service, we'd say that's an 8. As part of our organization's approach to improving, we see that as being very, very important.

And finally, it's a new KPI. Well, that's a fact. It is a new KPI. We have to do it. It is a driving force. We might like it, but we have to do it.

Now what you do is you add up your numbers for the hindering forces, and you add up the numbers for the driving forces. And when you do this, the team members who are sitting around the table get it. They start to see that although there are issues and problems and hindering forces, they certainly don't outweigh the driving forces. And so therefore, you have a compelling case for going ahead with this.

What you might also like to do is have a look at the hindering forces and obviously start to address or identify negative staff attitudes. Obviously, that's a very high number. How do we address that?

And what you might find in a brainstorming session is that perhaps the reason they're negative is that they're going into something that they haven't done before, they're unsure of what they have to do. And by then brainstorming how you can turn around the attitudes or the behaviors, you may find your people are more willing to give it a try.

So that's a simple idea, and we call it the force field analysis. So if we can help you or your organization in the future with change management, training, or any type of professional development, please give me a call on 1300-811-891.

That's it. End of the presentation and your lesson. Have a good week. I look forward to talking to you soon.

Organizational Diagnosis Model 2: Leavitt's Diamond Model (1965) (3 of 6)
Organizational Diagnosis Model 2: Leavitt's Diamond Model (1965)

Organizational Diagnosis Model 2: Leavitt's Diamond Model (1965)

Compared to the force field analysis model, Leavitt's model specifies four important variables to assess within organizations rather than driving and hindering forces to the current state.

These variables include task, structure, technological, and human variables. They are further explained below:

The arrows in the model indicate the nature of interdependence among the variables. For example, if a new task is defined, an organization must find a suitable person for the task and provide tools to carry out the task (technology). In some cases, introducing a significant technology may prompt the organization to adjust its workflow (structure).

Graphic shows that each of the four variables is connected with the other three.
Figure 4.2: Leavitt's diamond model.

For an example of the use of Leavitt's model, see Vadi and Roots (2004).

Reference

Vadi, M., & Roots, H. (2004). The Estonian Organization—The Subjects of Transformation. Centre for the Study of Economic & Social Change Europe.

A Case Applying Leavitt's Model (4 of 6)
A Case Applying Leavitt's Model

A Case Applying Leavitt's Model

The following is an example of an OD project that employed the Leavitt model to a Moroccan hotel. The purpose of the project was to conduct an organizational diagnosis to understand the different factors (internal or external) affecting the organization's performance, assess their impacts, and identify approaches or models that would help the organization develop appropriate and innovative plans for the future. To do so, an external OD consultant first gained access to the hotel and reached a consensus regarding the change effort; top management was on board and allowed the HR department to collaborate with the consultant as a change team.

Before beginning the organizational diagnosis, the consultant introduced the change team to different diagnostic models so that they could identify a best-fitting model. As a result, they reached a consensus to use Leavitt's model for diagnosis. It is important to note that they integrated the PESTEL analysis into the Leavitt mode in order to include environmental effects on the business in the diagnosis. (To learn more about the PESTEL analysis, see Lesson 12.)

After identifying the model, they examined the four key elements of the model carefully, and the consultant facilitated the process of developing interview questions with the intent to identify a gap between the desired status and the current status of the hotel. Please read the questions below carefully and determine which are relevant to the current state and which are relevant to the desired state.

Interview Questions

  1. Tasks
    • What are the deliverables (services and products) that your unit/team/department is required to provide? How do you deliver them?
    • How do your tasks affect the performance of the organization?
    • What would you like to change about your current tasks and duties?
    • What kinds of resources do you need to perform your assigned tasks? How do you get them? How would you like to get those resources in the future?
  2. Structure
    • How do you operate within your unit/team/department? How do you communicate with coworkers? What kinds of changes are needed?
    • How is the organization currently structured? How would you describe an ideal hierarchy within your organization?
    • How are decisions made in your unit/team/department? In the organization? What impact do they have on the organization's performance?
    • What kinds of changes would you like to see in the decision making process?
  3. Technology
    • What types of machines and equipment do you need for your job? How necessary are they for your organization's performance?
    • What equipment do you think will need to be changed or removed in the future?
    • In what way do you think technology helps the organization and you? What about in the future?
  4. People/HR
    • How would you describe the current arrangement of the human capital within your organization? What changes do you think are necessary?
    • What kinds of activities are conducted within your organization to enhance your performance or improve working conditions? What improvements do you think need to be implemented?
    • How do these actions influence your organization's performance?
    • What other factors affect your performance and the organization's?

The change team conducted series of interviews after the consultant ran a short training. After collecting answers, the team identified the gaps between the desired and current states of the hotel. Furthermore, the congruence among the four elements was examined in order to identify additional needs.

For an additional reading on the use of Leavitt's model, see Vadi and Roots (2004).

Reference

Vadi, M., & Roots, H. (2004). The Estonian Organization—The Subjects of Transformation. Centre for the Study of Economic & Social Change Europe.

Organizational Diagnosis Model 3: McKinsey 7-S Framework (1982) (5 of 6)
Organizational Diagnosis Model 3: McKinsey 7-S Framework (1982)

Organizational Diagnosis Model 3: McKinsey 7-S Framework (1982)

The 7-S framework was developed in the late 1970s by McKinsey & Company and published in book format in 1982, generating a lot of interest among consultants and business people. It is still used today.

The 7-S framework examines the elements that give a holistic understanding of an organization, including

When comparing the 7-S model with Leavitt's model, you will notice that most of the models' elements overlap, though the 7-S model addresses more elements from a strategic perspective. Both models emphasize the congruence among elements.

McKinsey is one of the representative management consulting companies that take the doctor–patient approach, collecting and analyzing organizational data without empowering the organization's members. However, when collecting and analyzing data using the 7-S model, OD practitioners should be sure to engage the organization's members as both participants and researchers who can draw meaningful conclusions from the data.

The 7-S Framework: Style, Strategy, Staff, Structure, Systems, Skills, Shared Values
Figure 4.3. The 7-S framework.

Reference

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H., Jr. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America's best-run companies. Harper & Row.

Lesson Activities (6 of 6)
Lesson Activities

Lesson Activities

Lesson 4 Force Field Analysis Discussion

Overview

Kurt Lewin developed the force field analysis model in 1951 to effectively diagnose organizations in the change. This discussion requires you to conduct a force field analysis by assessing driving forces and restrain forces.

Instructions

Conduct a force field analysis on the implementation of a new technology that enables employees to be more productive (online performance tracking system, virtual office, collaborative project management system, cloud storage, etc.).

  • To perform the analysis, list the forces favoring and impeding this change.
  • To improve the efficacy of the change, either strengthen the forces favoring it or weaken the forces impeding it (which may be more advisable).

Respond to at least two postings from your peers.

Posting Timelines
DayTask
Monday–ThursdayPost initial reply.
Friday–SundayReview fellow learners' posts and respond to at least two.
Additional Requirements

Limit your post to 600 words in length.

Lesson 4 Group Discussion on McKinsey's 7-S Model (Group Work)

Overview

The 7-S framework examines the elements that give a holistic understanding of an organization. These include:

  • strategy, a course of anticipated actions that allow an organization to achieve a competitive advantage;
  • structure, the way in which tasks or chains of command are distributed;
  • systems, which support the structure's effective functioning (for example, a performance management system allows management to ensure that outcomes are delivered in a quality manner);
  • skills, or the individual and institutional skills within the organization;
  • style (sometimes referred to as organizational culture), the way in which work is done in the organization;
  • staff, the employees in the organization; and
  • shared values, or what the organization is exerting to achieve. Shared values represent the essence of what the members in the organization believe.

Your team will work together to develop one submission. Please, engage in discussion and planning throughout the week as a group to complete this assignment.

Since this is a team assignment it is important to ensure you discuss this together in this group discussion space and that everyone's perspective is included in the deliverable.

Instructions

Ensure you reviewed all of the content for this lesson and based on your understanding of McKinsey's 7-S model for organizational diagnosis, please develop the following:

  • a list of information to collect in order to understand the variables in each of the seven dimensions and
  • a list of questions that you would like to ask to see how changes in one variable affect the others.
Deliverable

The final document should be posted by one member of your team (due Sunday).


Top of page