4 Pages
C H A P T E R 3 1
46
C H A P T E R 4
Action Research The Anchor of OD Practice
Jeremy S. Lurey and Matt Griffi n
A Tale of the Oversized File Cabinet
While working in his home offi ce on a sunny Friday afternoon, Frank heard the doorbell ring. He went to answer the door, and as he opened it, he noticed Tom the carpenter standing out- side next to a very large fi le cabinet.
Before Frank could even say hello, Tom eagerly greeted him with a fi rm handshake and said, “Hi Tom. I was so excited to get your call about the fi le cabinet last week that I started immediately. I designed a custom-made over- sized cabinet to meet all of your current and future business needs. You’re going to love it!”
With a perplexed look on his face, Frank responded, “Tom, I’m not sure what you were thinking, but my message was very clear. I asked you to come over today so we could have an initial discussion about the fi le cabinet and review my specifi c requirements. I thought we could start with the overall design of the cabinet and then determine if you were the right person for the job based on budget and time constraints.”
“Yes, but I have known you for a long time Frank, and can tell you have a bright fu- ture as an OD consultant. I didn’t want you to have to worry about a thing. You have enough to worry about starting your own business, that I thought I would just take some initia- tive,” Tom enthusiastically explained as he ges-
tured to his master creation—a 20-foot high, 30-foot long, 10-drawer monstrosity with a dark maple fi nish. “Besides, this cabinet is per- fect for you. You will have enough space in this cabinet for years of growth. You will never need another fi le cabinet!”
At that point, Frank was very frustrated and could feel his face burning. “Tom,” he re- plied, “Th is simply isn’t what I asked for, and you would have understood that if you only waited to talk with me fi rst. “Keep in mind that organizations are complex systems, and using a mechanical approach to ‘fi x’ a ‘broken’ part rarely creates eff ective change.” I’m only planning to be in my home offi ce for a year or two before I move into more permanent work- space with a few of my colleagues. I just need a small cabinet to hold a few important fi les as I get started. I’m sorry, but I can’t accept the cabinet. It won’t even fi t in the house! I am very disappointed Tom, and think you should leave.” As the door closed behind him, Frank noticed the complete bewilderment on Tom’s face.
An OD Consulting Challenge
While this is a fi ctitious story, and an extreme exaggeration at that, it is not inconceivable that a carpenter would be so eager to please the client that initiative would be taken with- out fully understanding the scope of work.
American Management Association / www.amanet.org
C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 3 . A M A C O M .
A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 12/27/2021 6:04 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 502103 ; OD Network.; Handbook for Strategic HR : Best Practices in Organization Development From the OD Network Account: s3642728.main.ehost
Action Research 47
Neither is it inconceivable that a skilled crafts- man would be so confi dent in his abilities that he would jump right into the project without having more direction from the client. In fact, it even seems logical for a carpenter to take such actions after reaching a clear agreement with the client—especially if the busy client may be preoccupied with higher priority activities.
Although this story chronicles the tale of a carpenter and his client, the story speaks of an all too common event in consulting, espe- cially organization consulting, as well. How often do we hear these stories:
• Clients who express a clear problem to a consultant, and then the consultant designs and implements his/her own solution re- gardless of whether or not it meets the true client need
• A consultant brings a solution to the client before the problem is understood or even discussed
• Situations where clients are completely dis- satisfi ed with the performance of their con- sultants and the results they deliver simply because of a communication gap—one where the consultant implements a solu- tion without fi rst presenting it to the client for approval or at least discussing the pos- sible implications in advance
What these examples indicate is that the quality and success of the project depends upon both the client and the consultant fully understanding the complexity of the issue. To illustrate this understanding, it can be helpful to think in terms of multiple levels of awareness. Th e client experiencing pain can represent the fi rst level of awareness, and the initial client diagnosis the second level. Action taken on ei- ther of these two levels is not likely to truly address the issue. Action research is about reaching deeper levels of awareness, and there- by increasing the likelihood of addressing the issue in an eff ective way.
As the story suggests, it is critical for a car- penter, or an OD consultant, to develop and maintain a close working relationship with his
or her client. Without this collaborative ar- rangement, the consultant will likely deliver an inadequate or inappropriate solution that does not meet the client’s needs. In so doing, the consultant runs a great risk of alienating him or herself from the client, and more im- portantly causing potential harm or suff ering to the client.
Th e story is also useful in illustrating a critical diff erence between the work of a car- penter and the work of an OD consultant. Th e “results” that a carpenter produces are tangible and cannot easily be undone. A fi le cabinet made from the wrong wood or with incorrect dimensions is diffi cult to fi x without starting over from scratch, whereas a consulting proj- ect can sometimes be modifi ed, even radically, as new information comes to the surface. Con- sulting projects, especially those found within the OD world, tend to be complex, subjec- tively perceived, and fl uid. Th is makes it easy —if anything in OD is truly easy—to misun- derstand or miscommunicate the nature of the project. At the same time, it also makes it eas- ier to adapt your approach once you do gain a proper understanding of both the situation and the client’s expectations.
The Value of Action Research
Although the origin of action research remains cloudy, and to some extent can be seen as an off shoot of the scientifi c method, Kurt Lewin is typically credited with bringing this meth- odology to the mainstream and to organiza- tions specifi cally. It was the belief of Lewin and his contemporaries that in order to under- stand and change social conditions, those in- volved in creating those conditions must be involved in the process. Th us, one of the main themes of action research is enactment of so- cial change. For this reason, action research is at the core of the OD practice. As an approach to organization consulting, it prescribes a posi- tive and collaborative working relationship between consultant and client and therefore provides the basic foundation for the organiza- tion change process.
American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 12/27/2021 6:04 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Handbook for Strategic HR48
Using the action research process enables the consultant to better understand the system in which he/she is involved, and therefore mitigates the risk of following in Tom the Car- penter’s footsteps. At the same time, an action research approach helps the clients to be more conscious of their environment and the condi- tions in which they live. With this heightened awareness, the consultant and client are then able to work together to realize the goals of the change process by uncovering deeper levels of awareness and understanding.
Because of the importance of client par- ticipation, this work method requires the con- sultant to accept more of a “facilitator” than “expert” role. It should be noted, however, that this is not an either/or choice. In addi- tion, the choice need not be applied to the en- tire course of the change process. Th e consul- tant can act more as an expert in analyzing the data during one phase of the project while still being a facilitator in helping the client create the action plan during another phase. While there is often a delicate balance between the changing responsibilities of being an expert and facilitator, the process remains largely the same. Th e consultant creates an environment in which the client is always aware of what is happening when following an action research approach.
In this manner, the client actively partici- pates in not only designing each step of the change process but also performing many of the required actions. One of the main reasons for this participative role is that change is usu- ally easier to accept when those aff ected by the change are involved in understanding and driving the change process. Th is point is at the heart of action research, and therefore the cli- ent, in most cases, is involved in every aspect of the project, including:
• Establishing change priorities • Collecting and interpreting data • Analyzing and disseminating the results • Creating action plans based on the results • Implementing the action plans • Evaluating the results
To help both the consultant and client maintain focus during the course of the change process, the action research approach consists of a standard phased methodology. Th e seven phases of action research are summarized below.
1. Entry—beginning to develop the client/ consultant relationship and validating the fi t between both parties
2. Contracting—determining whether or not to proceed with the consulting relationship and negotiating any fi nal conditions of the engagement “contract”
3. Data Gathering and Diagnosis—collecting the necessary data and analyzing it
4. Feedback—presenting the fi ndings, analy- sis, and any preliminary recommendations to the client organization
5. Planning Change—identifying specifi c courses of action that address the client situ- ation and developing an action plan for implementation
6. Intervention—applying specifi c solution sets to the client organization
7. Evaluation—assessing project results and determining future courses of action, rang- ing from project closure to new contract development activities
Action Research in Action
To illustrate the value of action research to the practice of OD, the following section describes a real-life case example of how the action re- search approach can be used. Th is account de- tails specifi c actions taken by both the client and consultant during each of the seven phases of a nine-month consulting engagement. Th e pri- mary client group in this example was an IT organization within a regional insurance agency, and the initial presenting issue was a lack of col- laboration and teaming across the organization.
Entry
After being presented with a viable business lead, the consultant arranged for an initial phone conversation with the client sponsor. While this fi rst component of the action research ap-
American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 12/27/2021 6:04 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Action Research 49
proach only lasted approximately forty-fi ve minutes, the consultant successfully gained some clarity on the presenting problems and primary concerns of the client. To summarize, the client suggested that there was a lack of collaboration and teaming across the organiza- tion. She also expressed a desire to have the consultant further assess the situation and rec- ommend specifi c strategies for improving this unproductive work culture.
In conjunction with the consultant learn- ing about the client situation, the client sponsor also took advantage of the opportunity to ques- tion the consultant about his professional back- ground and relevant work experiences. Ques- tions like “Can you give me an example of when you worked on a similar project?” and “What would your fi rst step be in this situation?” helped her understand what value the consul- tant would bring to the organization. Th e client also gained a tremendous sense of confi dence in the consultant’s abilities due to his strong re- sponses. As with any relationship, this is a criti- cal step in building a positive working relation- ship early on in the Entry phase of the project.
While this short conference ended on a very positive note, it took approximately six weeks for the two individuals to speak again. Th e delay occurred for two primary reasons: fi rst, a change in client priorities due to com- peting projects and second, the consultant’s on- going commitment to another client. While this may create some tension between client and consultant in some engagements, it is actu- ally quite common within an action research framework. Both parties must be ready to move to the next stage of the relationship before any work can proceed, and in this case, the two quickly confi rmed their interest in pursuing the relationship further when they did reconnect.
Contracting
Th e Contracting phase of action research can begin as soon as the client and consultant agree to work together. In this case, it began as soon as the two reconnected and discussed the ac- tual scope of the project.
During a face-to-face meeting with the cli- ent, the consultant asked some probing ques- tions to better understand the client’s expecta- tions. She repeated some of the same key phrases he heard before, namely “to help the group work better as a team” and “to help create a team identity”. At this point, the consultant began clarifying the primary target audience and proposing some potential activities to get the project started. Th us, the foundation of the engagement contract included the following:
• Project objective—design and implement customized management training and de- velopment programs that improve manage- ment skills and foster stronger team leaders
• Current scope—management training and development for the seven members of the management team only
• Potential future scope—broader training programs for nonmanagers as well as orga- nization realignment or business process redesign initiatives
• Project approach—phased approach in- cluding high-level activities, such as assess- ment, feedback, and intervention, over a specifi c timeline and with key project mile- stones and deliverables; requires active par- ticipation and involvement from key mem- bers of the client organization, including the client sponsor, each of the seven man- agers, and many of the employees during the data gathering and evaluation phases specifi cally
After this information was clearly docu- mented, the consultant presented it to the cli- ent for review and approval. With a shared understanding of the project confi rmed, the client then signed off on the contract. Th e im- portance of this action cannot be emphasized enough if you plan to follow an action research approach.
Data Gathering and Diagnosis
Having defi ned the scope of the project dur- ing Contracting, the consultant and client
American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 12/27/2021 6:04 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Handbook for Strategic HR50
sponsor were now prepared to begin gathering data. In true action research form, both parties played an active role in completing this task. Th e client sponsor provided key organization data to the consultant to help him understand the environment, and then the consultant ini- tiated more targeted data gathering activities.
Many members of the client organization participated in the process. All of the managers completed two diff erent personality invento- ries, including the Myers-Briggs Type Indica- tor, and participated in a 360-degree feedback process. Th ey also participated in one-on-one interviews with the consultant so he could learn more about their personal strengths, areas for improvements, and their beliefs about the work condition. In addition, many of the employees participated in focus group sessions to share their feelings about the organization and complete a leadership eff ectiveness survey.
After completing these activities, the con- sultant assumed more of an “expert” role dur- ing the diagnosis part of this phase. Th ere were two primary reasons for this decision: fi rst, the client sponsor and her direct reports were all extremely busy with other project commit- ments, and second, the consultant had more experience with performing such analysis, and especially with using the diagnostic tools.
Feedback
When the diagnosis was complete, the consul- tant actively engaged the client, and the entire management team, in the feedback process. For the change to be successful, it is vital to share these fi ndings with the client and guide them in determining the next steps, as op- posed to deciding for them. Th ey must direct the process if they are ever going to accept the change.
Th us, the consultant presented a summa- ry report of the fi ndings as well as his conclu- sions and recommendations for moving for- ward. In general, the fi ndings did support the original contention that there was a lack of collaboration and team identity within the organization. More specifi cally, employees in- dicated that there was very little teamwork
within or between units and that there was no reason to develop stronger team relations since the individual projects were so diverse in scope. One person actually stated, “I have no team . . . [Th is organization] is a series of fi efdoms.”
Once presented with these fi ndings, all of the managers contributed to an open dialogue about the information and possible strategies to address the situation. For the most part, the managers reacted positively, voicing their agreement with the results as if they were al- most expected. Some managers, however, did react a bit more defensively and questioned whether or not specifi c fi ndings were truly in- dicative of their units or if they were more a generalization of the rest of the organization.
For example, one manager felt that she did seek input from her employees and includ- ed them in the decision-making process. Th e summary results for the entire organization, however, did not suggest that employees felt they were able to contribute in such a manner. Instead, they expressed a concern that they had very limited knowledge of the long-term vision for the organization and were some- what unclear of how their individual projects supported the future direction of the group. In the end, each of the managers agreed on the next steps of the engagement and suggested several potential activities that would address the specifi c areas for improvement discussed in the meeting.
In parallel to this work, the consultant also shared the results of the personal assess- ments with each of the managers during indi- vidual feedback sessions. Th e individual results, similar to the team fi ndings, suggested that the majority of the managers did not openly com- municate about the organization’s future di- rection or inspire commitment to a shared vision, that they did not inform employees of how their work contributed to the organiza- tion’s goals. Th e results also indicated that the managers were very weak in the areas of per- formance evaluation and performance man- agement, that they did not encourage perfor- mance discussions with their employees or provide any regular feedback regarding work
American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 12/27/2021 6:04 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Action Research 51
performance. Again, the collaborative relation- ship between client and consultant becomes critical if the individual managers were going to take any responsibility in addressing these concerns or promoting their own personal development.
Planning Change
Th e goal of the Planning Change phase is to create an action plan that will guide the next phase of the process, intervention. For this reason, planning change is not about imple- menting the solutions being discussed. In- stead, it is an opportunity to explore the po- tential solutions further and determine exactly how the intervention will proceed.
In this case, the management team identi- fi ed two levels of intervention: one focused on the management team and the other focused on the individuals within that team. Th e team- based intervention was a management train- ing program that involved a comprehensive curriculum of courses to address their specifi c developmental needs. Th e key aspects of plan- ning this type of change, then, were to defi ne the curriculum and coordinate all of the logis- tics for delivering the training, including preparing instructor and participant training materials, scheduling the training sessions, and ultimately facilitating the training.
Th e second intervention was aimed more directly at the individual managers and was in- tended to support the team training experience. Towards this end, the consultant co-developed personal action plans that focused on one or two critical leadership skills with each manager. While these plans varied from individual to individual, many focused on addressing the concerns with performance evaluation and per- formance management and all specifi ed certain developmental activities, target completion dates, as well as any resources that may be required to achieve the developmental goal.
Intervention
Th e Intervention phase is where the plan is executed and the solution is actually imple- mented within the client organization. Un-
like the Diagnosis phase where the consul- tant often accepts responsibility as the expert, this is one time in the engagement where the consultant can take more of a “facilitator” role. It is the consultant’s goal to support the client’s development, but the client must be accountable. Th e client organization is what must change, and only actual members of this organization (i.e., the client) can be “ex- perts” of this environment.
During the intervention, the consultant facilitated several sessions to encourage the learning process. Topics ranged from recogniz- ing great leadership to understanding how to become a more eff ective leader and were in- tended to help each of the managers improve in the key areas agreed to during the feedback process. As the consultant presented strategies for:
• Being a positive role model for others • Being a coach and mentor to those you
manage • Providing the right mix of tools and resourc-
es to enable the team to achieve its goals the managers actively discussed how to apply these strategies to their organization.
Beyond the management team training, the consultant also continued to work with the indi- vidual managers on their personal development plans. Similar to the roles during training, the consultant merely supported the managers’ ac- tions, but the managers were responsible for tak- ing the action. To understand the importance of this balanced relationship, consider those man- agers who did not actively pursue their plans— they did not require dedicated support from the consultant. Th is proves the point that both par- ties play a critical role in the process, otherwise the arrangement will not work.
Evaluation
In an informal manner, evaluation occurred during every phase of work during this en- gagement. For example, the consultant and client co-evaluated the results of the Contract- ing phase before moving on to Data Gathering
American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 12/27/2021 6:04 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Handbook for Strategic HR52
and Diagnosis. Does the contract clearly de- fi ne the scope of the project? If so, are there shared expectations between both parties as to how best to perform the work? If simple ques- tions such as these are not adequately answered, then the individual parties must reconsider whether or not they are ready to move forward.
In addition, the consultant also per- formed a more formal review of the project. Th e consultant developed a standard protocol for measuring the success of each activity and then interviewed each of the managers to gather their thoughts and perceptions. Based on these responses, the consultant synthesized the data and presented it back to the client for review. Th e consultant also presented some ba- sic recommendations for prioritizing future activities based on not only the achievement of previous goals but also the development of a more capable management team. Future scope activities may include developing a training strategy for non-managers or creating a more formal communications plan to share infor- mation more regularly across the organization. In essence, this evaluation, then, actually serves to start another iteration of the consulting process, one that begins with more advanced client problems now that the original concerns have been addressed.
Conclusions on an Iterative Process
As the “Tale of the Oversized File Cabinet” al- luded, the process an OD consultant follows can be very similar to the process that a master carpenter goes through before taking hammer in hand. First, there are customer desires to be considered, then measurements to be taken, plans to be drafted and revised, and fi nally wood to be studied and prepared before any true action is ever taken. Th e consultant who is an “expert” in a particular technique is like the carpenter who can make beautiful and elaborate fi le cabinets. Both can provide value
to the client, but what happens when the cli- ent thinks he or she needs a customized fi le cabinet (or can be convinced that a custom- ized fi le cabinet would solve his or problems) when what is really needed is a standard desk?
Th is issue gets to the core of both action research and OD. Action research and OD are about understanding the real issues and iden- tifying what really needs to be changed. Ac- tion research and OD are about providing so- lutions that address the contributing factors of a problem, not simply providing a solution to the presenting problem, which may or may not be at the core.
Keep in mind that organizations are com- plex systems, and using a mechanical approach to “fi x” a “broken” part rarely creates eff ective change. In this context, organizations can be thought of as a web of interacting forces, inter- acting individually and as a whole to produce certain outcomes. Th us, eff ective change en- tails exploring these forces and their inter- actions. Within a single action research cycle (Entry to Evaluation), multiple levels of aware- ness can and will probably be uncovered. However, it is not uncommon that there are levels of awareness that will only be uncovered in subsequent cycles, as the client’s self-aware- ness increases and the ability to self-refl ect and change develops. Th us, action research is most helpful as an iterative process, not as an event.
Action research can be a rather diffi cult and frustrating process to understand and use eff ectively. “Yes, I know about action research, but what do I do?” can be a common question for new practitioners. Understanding the pro- cess of and assumptions behind action research can make the diff erence between being a prac- titioner of OD and being someone who sim- ply uses typical OD interventions without using the other parts of the process that make up OD. Or, to put it another way, it is like the diff erence between being a carpenter and being someone who knows how to swing a hammer.
American Management Association / www.amanet.org EBSCOhost - printed on 12/27/2021 6:04 PM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use