Bus370wk3

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec5.… 1/64

Learning Outcomes

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

Describe action research and compare Lewin’s model with those of at least two other OD theorists.

State the importance of considering multiple levels of analysis in the planning phase.

Identify the steps of the planning phase.

Describe different types of research.

Describe different types of research methodologies.

Discuss �ive methods of gathering organization data, including strengths and weaknesses of each.

Discuss methods of analyzing the data collected.

Explain how to prepare for and manage the feedback meeting, including how to address con�identiality concerns and manage defensiveness and resistance.

In Chapter 3, the QuickCo vignette provided one example of how OD consultants work. Jack, the internal OD consultant at QuickCo, led his clients, Ned (the shipping supervisor) and Sarah (the manufacturing manager), through an action research process to solve communication and teamwork problems in the shipping department. Action research, the process OD consultants follow to plan and implement change, follows three general phases:

1. Planning. Data is collected, analyzed, and shared with the client to determine corrective action. 2. Doing. Action is taken to correct the problem. 3. Checking. The effectiveness of the intervention is evaluated, and the cycle is repeated as needed.

Let us return to the QuickCo vignette and examine the action research steps taken. Ned and Sarah met with Jack to outline how employees were at each other’s throats, letting con�licts fester, and failing to work well together. Their �irst meeting incorporated their planning phase. As explained in Chapter 3, this initial meeting is known as contracting. During the meeting, Jack asked questions to begin identifying the root cause of the con�licted department. The three struck a collaborative agreement and worked to devise a plan for resolving the issues.

The �irst action they took was to collect data. Jack reviewed the performance trends and customer complaints from the shipping department and interviewed the employees individually about their views on the problems.

The planning also involved analyzing the data Jack collected to arrive at a diagnosis. When he met with Ned and Sarah to share feedback from the data collection, Jack presented his analysis, noting, “Ned and Sarah, you have a dysfunctional team on your hands. They have no ground rules, collaboration, or means of handling

Action Research: The Planning Phase

4

Rawpixel/iStock/Getty Images Plus

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec5.… 2/64

Catherine Yeulet/iStock/Thinkstock

Following the action research process helped the QuickCo shipping department resolve employees’ interpersonal con�licts.

con�lict. Everyone needs to be more understanding and respectful toward each other. It would also be helpful to create some guidelines for how the team wants to operate and manage con�lict. Ned, you also need to take a more active role in resolving issues.”

Jack laid the problems out in a matter-of-fact, nonjudgmental way. Once all the analyzed data was presented, the three worked jointly to plan an intervention to address the problems. They agreed to take the group through a facilitated process to address communication and team effectiveness. They also agreed that Ned would bene�it from individualized executive coaching to help him learn behaviors that would be more productive for dealing with con�lict.

The second phase of action research, doing, occurred when Jack, Ned, and Sarah scheduled the intervention with the shipping department and implemented it. The outcome of the intervention was a tangible plan for the department for how to be more effective, including speci�ic actions they would take to address con�lict.

The �inal phase, checking, involved Ned, Sarah, and Jack continuing to monitor the shipping department after the intervention. Ned helped the department uphold its new ground rules on a daily basis and coached employees to help them stick to the plan. He also asked for regular feedback on his own management skills as part of his ongoing coaching. Ned, Sarah, and Jack reviewed departmental data on productivity and customer complaints and learned that the timeliness and accuracy of shipped orders had signi�icantly improved. Jack followed up a few months later by conducting individual interviews with shipping department members. He discovered that the solutions had been maintained. If and when new con�licts arise, or new members join the team, it may be time to start the action research process over again to address new issues.

The QuickCo vignette demonstrates all three phases of the action research process. This chapter focuses on the �irst phase, planning. Chapters 5 and 6 provide a similarly detailed look at the second and �inal phases, doing and checking, respectively. But before turning to the planning phase, let us review action research.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec5.… 3/64

4.1 A Review of Action Research

Chapter 1 de�ined OD as a process of planned change that is grounded in a humanistic, democratic ethic. This speci�ic process of planned change is known as action research.

De�ining Action Research

Action research is a recurring, collaborative effort between organization members and OD consultants to use data to resolve problems. As such, it involves data collection, analysis, intervention, and evaluation. Essentially, it is a repeating cycle of action and research, action and research. However, the words action research reverse the actual sequence (Brown, 1972), in that “research is conducted �irst and then action is taken as a direct result of what the research data are interpreted to indicate” (Burke, 1992, p. 54). Moreover, the cycle yields new knowledge about the organization and its issues that becomes useful for addressing future problems. It thereby allows organizations to improve processes and practices while simultaneously learning about those practices and processes, the organization, and the change process itself.

Action research provides evidence, which enables a consultant to avoid guesswork about what the issue is and how to resolve it. According to French and Bell (1999),

Action research is the process of systematically collecting research data about an ongoing system relative to some objective, goal, or need of that system; feeding these data back into the system; taking actions by altering selected variables within the system based both on the data and on hypotheses; and evaluating the results of actions by collecting more data. (p. 130)

Action Research Is a Democratic Approach to Problem Solving Many theorists have characterized action research as democratic and collaborative:

“Action research is a participatory, democratic process concerned with developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes, grounded in a participatory worldview” (Reason & Bradbury, 2008, p. 1). “Action research is the application of the scienti�ic method of fact-�inding and experimentation to practical problems requiring action solutions and involving the collaboration and cooperation of scientists, practitioners, and laypersons” (French & Bell, 1999, p. 131). “Action research approaches are radical to the extent that they advocate replacing existing forms of social organization” (Coghlan & Brannick, 2010, p. 6).

In addition, Coghlan and Brannick (2010) identi�ied broad characteristics of action research:

Research in action, rather than research about action A collaborative, democratic partnership Research concurrent with action A sequence of events and an approach to problem solving (p. 4)

These de�initions are similar in that they all characterize action research as a democratic, data-driven, problem-solving, learning-based approach to organization improvement. Some other examples of how organizations apply action research include a nonpro�it organization that surveys donors or bene�iciaries before engaging in strategic planning, a government department that conducts a needs analysis prior to a training program, or a corporation that conducts exit interviews before initiating recruitment for positions.

Consider This

Can you recall a project in your organization that involved members in a collaborative problem-solving mission? Chances are it was action research, even if that terminology was not used. Can you think of any other examples?

Action Research Helps Clients Build Capacity for Future Problem Solving Although typically guided by a consultant, action research engages key stakeholders in the process. Indeed, its effectiveness depends on the active engagement and accountability of the stakeholders. As discussed in Chapter 3, OD consultants are responsible for in�luencing the action research process while at the same time exercising restraint to avoid solving the problem for the client.

An example can illuminate how action research helps the client build problem-solving capacity. Suppose an organization introduces a process of assimilating new leaders when they join it (action). The organization hires a consultant to survey team members about this initiative’s effectiveness (research). The client and the consultant collaborate to develop the survey and analyze the results. What is learned informs continued assimilation of new leaders and the way the process gets modi�ied (action). The client is initially engaged to learn the process so that it can be repeated in the future without the help of a consultant. The action research process helps the organization collect, analyze, and apply data to make informed decisions and not waste time and money on inappropriate interventions. Helping organizations become pro�icient at the action research process is the outcome of effective consulting, because the best consultants work themselves out of a job.

Models of Action Research

Recall from Chapter 1 that action research originated with the work of Kurt Lewin, the father of OD. Lewin’s model (1946/1997) includes a prestep (in which the context and purpose of the OD effort are identi�ied), followed by planning, action, and fact �inding (evaluation). Several models of action research generally follow Lewin’s, although the number and names of steps may vary. See Table 4.1 for a comparison.

Table 4.1: Comparison of action research models to Lewin’s original model

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec5.… 4/64

Lewin’s (1946/1997) original action research steps

Cummings and Worley (2018) Coghlan (2019) Stringer (2013)

1. Prestep to determine context and purpose

1. Entering and contracting 0. Prestep: Understanding context and purpose of the issue

1. Constructing: Determining what the issues are

1. Look a. Gather relevant

information b. Build a picture;

describe the situation

2. Planning 2. Diagnosing 2. Planning action 2. Think a. Explore and analyze b. Interpret and explain

3. Action 3. Planning and implementing change

3. Taking action 3. Act a. Plan b. Implement c. Evaluate

4. Fact �inding (evaluation) 4. Evaluating and institutionalizing change

4. Evaluating action

Figure 4.1: Plan, do, check action research cycle

The plan, do, check model of action research was popularized by the total quality movement. The contemporary research cycle has more steps, although it essentially accomplishes the same steps of diagnosing and designing (plan), implementing (do), and evaluating (check). For more detail, select a phase in the interactive �igure.

The model of action research used in this book has three phases, paralleling Lewin’s (1946/1997) model (Figure 4.1): planning, doing, and checking. (See Who Invented That? Plan, Do, Check Cycle to read about the person who originally developed plan, do, check.) Each phase has substeps derived from multiple action research models:

1. Planning (the discovery phase) a. Diagnosing the issue b. Gathering data on the issue c. Analyzing the data gathered d. Sharing feedback (data analysis) with the client e. Planning of action to address the issue

2. Doing (the action phase) a. Learning related to the issue b. Changing related to the issue

3. Checking (the evaluative phase) a. Assessing changes

Plan

DoCheck

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec5.… 5/64

b. Adjusting processes c. Ending or recycling (back to the planning stage) the action research process

The action research steps may look simple, and it may appear that planning change is a neat, orderly, and rational process. In reality, though, it can be chaotic, political, and shifting, with unexpected developments and outcomes. Nevertheless, learning the action research process equips consultants with a proven method for navigating such shifts as they work with clients on organization challenges.

Who Invented That? Plan, Do, Check Cycle

Although often attributed to quality guru W. Edwards Deming, the plan, do, check cycle was created by Walter A. Shewhart of Bell Labs. Shewhart was an American physicist, engineer, and statistician who was one of the originators of statistical quality control, which preceded the total quality movement.

Consider This

In your life, what example do you have of action research? How have you employed plan, do, check? What actions or adjustments were necessary?

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec5.… 6/64

4.2 Planning: The Discovery Phase

When beginning an OD intervention, the initial steps taken to identify the problem and gather data about it are known as planning. The planning phase is a diagnostic one. The client and consultant work with other organization stakeholders to study the problem and determine the difference between desired outcomes and actual outcomes. The discrepancy between what is and what should be is known as a performance gap. For example, if an organization aspires to be �irst in quality in the industry but lags behind in second or third place, that would be a performance gap. The organization would have to engage in performance improvement practices to close the gap with its competitors. Or, perhaps a leader receives feedback that she is not as skilled at leadership as she had thought. The leader begins to work with a mentor or coach to identify what behaviors she needs to be more effective. By improving listening, recognition, and delegation behaviors, the leader begins to narrow the gap between her current and desired future leadership performance.

Organizations perform gap analysis to assess reasons for a gap between reality and the desired outcome. The performance gap idea can also be applied to yourself. Let us say you aspire to a managerial position but have not achieved it. Upon analyzing the gap, you realize you lack the training and experience to attain the position. If you decide to eliminate the gap, you might enroll in a graduate program, earn a leadership certi�icate, or �ind a mentor to help you attain your goal. Consider a performance gap you have experienced and complete the chart in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Performance gap analysis

Use this chart to assess your own performance gap. Identify a desired reality—perhaps running a 5K. Next, honestly note your current performance goal: Can you run around the block? Run or walk for a mile? Once you determine the gap, �ill out the middle column with speci�ic action steps to move closer to your goal—how will you close the gap? Download this �igure as a worksheet (https://media.thuze.com/MediaService/MediaService.svc/constellation/book/Bierema. 6269.20.1/{pdfs}performancegapanalysis_form.pdf) .

Now that you have applied the gap analysis to yourself, let’s think about using it in an organization setting. Identify a desired reality—perhaps being �irst to market with a new technology. Next, honestly note the organization’s current reality. In the case of introducing the technology: Does it have the right people to do the work? Is the technology ready for market? Is the marketing campaign ready to go? Once you determine the gap, �ill out the middle column with speci�ic action steps to move the organization closer to its goal—how will you close the gap? What would be the desired reality in your own organization? How equipped is it to close the gap? What other performance gaps have you experienced?

Bene�its of the Planning Phase

Planning is a critical phase of OD, because poor plans will result in poor outcomes such as �ixing the wrong problem, wasting time and resources, and frustrating organization members. The bene�its of good planning include setting the OD process up for success through careful analysis and diagnosis of the problem; engaging organization members from the beginning in the processes of collaboration, ongoing learning, and capacity building in the action research process; and prioritizing issues. See Tips and Wisdom: Alan Lakein to read and apply tips about planning.

Tips and Wisdom: Alan Lakein

Time management guru Alan Lakein is credited with coining the phrase “Failing to plan is planning to fail” (as cited in Johnson & Louis, 2013, para. 1). This advice is to be heeded in OD. Planning is key to effective interventions. How does Lakein’s quotation apply to your experience?

Many organizations rely on professionals to steer them through complex and changing environments with planned responses to problems and challenges. These professionals are known as organization development (OD) consultants. Also called OD practitioners, human resource developers, human resource managers, or learning and development professionals, OD consultants are skilled at assessing problems, providing direct feedback to the organization, and in�luencing change. OD consultants help lead organizations through interventions that are based on careful study and preparation and are grounded in the behavioral sciences. the systematic study of human behavior such as psychology, sociology, or anthropology, that attempts to make generalizations about how humans will act in certain situations. The key stakeholder in the OD process is known as the client. Sometimes there is more than one type of client. For instance, the person who initially contacts the OD consultant may provide introductory information about the problem but not be the owner of the problem or the person paying for the services. It is important for OD consultants to correctly identify the client—an issue we will cover in Chapter 3.

Levels of Analysis

Before we delve into the steps of the planning phase, we should understand the location of the OD effort—that is, the level at which the action research might occur. This is known as the level of analysis. The OD effort might focus on the individual, group, organization, or system. Each level comes with its own issues,

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec5.… 7/64

needs, and appropriate interventions. These levels, along with appropriate interventions, were discussed in Chapter 2.

All levels of analysis, from the individual to the system, face similar issues. Cockman, Evans, and Reynolds (1996) categorized organization issues according to purpose and task, structure, people, rewards, procedures, or technology:

Purpose and task refers to identifying the reason the organization exists and how its members advance its mission. Structure pertains to reporting relationships and how formal and informal power relations affect the organization. People issues relate to relationships, leadership, training, communication, emotions, motivation and morale, and organization culture. Rewards systems include �inancial and non�inancial incentives available for performance and perceived equity among employees. Procedures include decision-making processes, formal communication channels, and policies. These are an important category for analysis. Technology involves assessing whether the organization has the necessary equipment, machinery, technology, information, and transport to accomplish its tasks.

Table 4.2 identi�ies questions to ask about each area of Cockman, Evans, and Reynolds’s levels of analysis.

Table 4.2: Cockman, Evans, and Reynolds’s organizational issues and diagnostic questions

Organizational issues Diagnostic questions

Purpose and tasks What business are we in? What do people do?

Structure Who reports to whom? Where is the power?

People How are relationships managed? What training is provided? Who communicates with whom? How do people feel? How high is motivation and morale? What is the culture?

Rewards What are the incentives to perform well?

Procedures What are the decision-making procedures? What are the channels of communication? What are the control systems?

Technology Does the organization have the necessary equipment, machinery, information technology, transport, and information?

Source: From Client-Centered Consulting: Getting Your Expertise Used When You’re Not in Charge, by P. Cockman, B. Evans, & P. Reynolds, 1996, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Identify a performance gap you are aware of personally or professionally and see if you can answer Cockman, Evans, and Reynolds’s questions.

Steps in the Planning Phase

The steps in the planning phase include identifying the problem area, gathering data, analyzing the data, sharing feedback, and planning action. These steps illuminate the core problem and identify key information for making an intervention.

Step 1: Preliminary Diagnosis of the Issue When an OD process is initiated, it is imperative that the problem be correctly de�ined. Doing so involves a process of diagnosis. A consultant’s job is to push the client to identify the root cause of the problem, rather than its symptoms. Considering the QuickCo example, it might have been easy for Ned to decide to put the department through a customer service training based on the symptoms of late, erroneous orders. Had he done so, however, it likely would have worsened matters, because no amount of customer service training would �ix the department’s interpersonal con�licts, poor communication, and ineffective con�lict resolution. It may take intensive study and data collection to accurately diagnose a problem, but doing so is well worth it.

The action research process begins by de�ining a problem that warrants attention. Consultants must ask good questions to illuminate a problem’s source. They can then move on to the next step in the planning phase. Questions a consultant might ask a client include the following:

“What do you think is causing the problem?” “What have you tried to �ix it?” “How has this attempt to �ix the problem worked?” “What has been stopping you from fully addressing this issue?”

In addition to asking questions to pinpoint the issue, consultants must ask questions about who else will be involved in the OD effort. Also, as Chapter 3 explored, a consultant needs to uncover the client’s expectations regarding the duration of the project and make sure the client is willing to assume an equal responsibility for outcomes.

Good questioning enhances one’s authenticity as a consultant. How have you diagnosed problems in your organization? Have you ever misdiagnosed an issue? What were the consequences?

Step 2: Gathering Data on the Issue Once QuickCo diagnosed the team’s lack of communication and interpersonal effectiveness as the source of the problem, it was ready to collect information to inform next steps. This is known as data gathering. Data can be gathered in many ways. The most common data collection methods in action research include interviews, questionnaires, focus groups, direct observation, and document analysis.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec5.… 8/64

Filo/DigitalVision Vectors/Getty Images Plus

Collecting data ensures the OD process is evidence based.

Jack, the internal QuickCo consultant, took several steps to better understand the problem. He reviewed performance trends and customer complaints, interviewed department members, and relied on his own working knowledge and observations of the department to formulate a solid understanding of the issues. What types of data have you gathered to better understand organization issues? Methods of data gathering are explored in detail in the next section of this chapter.

Step 3: Analyzing the Data Once data has been collected, it must be turned into something meaningful and useful for the client. Data collected to provide information about a problem is not useful until it is interpreted in ways that inform the issue and provide clues to possible interventions. For example, a survey is not helpful unless it is examined within the organization’s context. Data analysis will be more fully de�ined in the data analysis methods section later in this chapter.

Step 4: Sharing Feedback With the Client Once data has been collected and analyzed, a feedback meeting is scheduled in which results are presented to the client. In the QuickCo example, Jack met with Ned and Sarah to share his analysis. Feedback meetings require careful planning to keep the consultancy on track. Consultants should decide on the key purpose and desired outcomes for the meeting. For example, do they want the client to better understand the problem? Agree on a course of action? Confront some issues affecting the problem? Sharing feedback with the client involves determining the focus of the feedback meeting, developing the agenda for feedback, recognizing different types of feedback, presenting feedback effectively, managing the consulting presence during the meeting, addressing con�identiality concerns, and anticipating defensiveness and resistance.

Step 5: Planning Action to Address the Issue The last step of the planning or discovery phase is to plan the action that will be taken. This planning might occur during the feedback meeting, or you might schedule a time at a later date to give the client an opportunity to digest the data analysis and feedback. The outcome of the planning is to design the activity, action, or event that will be the organization’s response to the issue. This is known as an intervention. The type of intervention selected depends on the organization’s readiness and capability to change, the cultural context, and the capabilities of the OD consultant and internal change agent (Cummings & Worley, 2018). The intervention will also target strategy, technology and structure, and human resource or human process issues. The consultant and the client will collaboratively plan the appropriate intervention(s) to address the issue. Chapter 5 will address interventions in detail.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec5.… 9/64

4.3 Types of Research

OD is a joint endeavor between the client and the consultant that includes data gathering and analysis. Involving clients in the data collection process reinforces their commitment to the OD process. The consultant’s role in this process is to help the client focus on the root cause of the problem and to organize the data collection and interpretation. A consultant’s objectivity can be very helpful to clients, enhancing their understanding of how they might be contributing to the problem or how the issue plays out within the broader organization context.

Einstein is credited with saying, “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” (as cited in Albert Einstein Site, 2012, para. 4). People conduct research when they have questions that do not have obvious answers. Depending on the question they wish to answer, there are differing types of research.

Basic Research

The word research might evoke images of people working in labs, examining petri dish cultures, and making new discoveries. This type of research is known as basic research, and it generally creates or extends the knowledge base of a discipline such as medicine, physics, or chemistry through experiments that allow researchers to test hypotheses and examine perplexing questions. Basic research results in new discoveries and theories and includes innovations such as testing cures for cancer, establishing scienti�ic laws such as gravity, or refuting previously held beliefs such as the world being �lat. There are other types of research beyond basic, and they vary based on the type of question being asked.

Applied Research

When people seek to answer questions such as “What is the best way to facilitate learning during change?” or “How do we motivate employees to embrace new technology?” they are usually seeking to improve practice within a certain �ield. This is known as applied research because its results are germane to problems and issues within a particular setting such as business. This type of research is practical and helps people solve problems, but unlike basic research, it does not necessarily yield new knowledge. OD is applied research because it asks questions about challenges that are unique to the individual organizational context in which they are located but does not necessarily expand our understanding of human behavior in organizations.

Action Research

Action research explores speci�ic problems within a locality such as an organization or community. It might ask questions such as “How can we prevent employees from leaving Company A at a rate three times higher than the industry standard?” “How can Hospital B implement an electronic health record with minimal disruption to patient care?” or “How can we lower poverty rates in Community C?” As the name implies and we have already covered, action research involves recurring cycles of study and action regarding a problem within a speci�ic context. Action research is participative because it usually involves members of the organization.

OD generally engages in both applied research and action research because it aims to improve practice (applied) within a speci�ic context (action). When you engage in action research, you are conducting a systematic inquiry on a particular organization problem by methodically collecting and analyzing data to provide evidence on which to base your intervention. When people do research in organizations, they are seeking not so much to generate new knowledge (or cure diseases) as to improve the quality of organization life. Action research is therefore a form of applied research because it seeks to directly address organization problems and respond to opportunities in ways that improve the organization for all its stakeholders.

Evaluation Research

People may also want to judge the quality of something like an educational program, conference, or OD intervention. Here they might ask, “How was the learned information applied?” “What was the most effective mode of delivery of instruction?” or “What are people doing differently as a result of the intervention?” This type of research is known as evaluation research. Evaluation seeks to establish the value of programs or interventions and judge their usefulness. Evaluation can occur during the OD process, especially when the process is being evaluated before, during, or after the intervention. We will learn more about evaluation research in OD in Chapter 6. Refer to Table 4.3 for further description of the different types of research.

Table 4.3: Different types of research

Basic Applied Action Evaluation

Contributes to knowledge base in �ield (basic, pure) Experimental Tests hypotheses Seeks to answer perplexing problems

Improves practice in discipline (applied) Seeks to describe, interpret, or understand problems within speci�ic settings Will not necessarily create new knowledge

Addresses particular, local problem (action research) Systematic inquiry Addresses speci�ic problem within speci�ic setting Often involves participants Focused on practical problems, social change

Assesses value Measures worth or value of program, process, or technique Judges accomplishments and effectiveness Establishes decision-making basis

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 10/64

4.4 Research Methodology

In addition to the four types of research based on the types of questions asked, research can also be classi�ied according to the type of methodology that is used to collect data. Methodology represents the overarching philosophy and approach to collecting data.

Qualitative Research Methodology

When seeking to understand “how” a phenomenon occurs or unfolds (“How do leaders best develop?”) or inquire into the nature or meaning of something (“How does participation on a high-performing team affect individual identity and performance?”), a qualitative methodology is appropriate. Qualitative methodology is concerned with “understanding the meaning people have constructed” (italics in original, Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 15) and as “an umbrella term covering an array of interpretive techniques which seek to describe, decode, translate, and otherwise come to terms with the meaning, not the frequency, of certain more-or-less naturally occurring phenomena in the social world” (Van Maanen, 1979, p. 520).

Qualitative inquiry is not generally quanti�iable but rather provides convincing evidence. Qualitative data is generated from methods such as interviews, focus groups, or observations that are commonly conducted as part of the discovery phase of action research. Qualitative methods are rooted in constructivist philosophy—the idea that people build meaning from experience and interpret their meanings in different ways. For example, two people would likely de�ine the meaning of life differently.

Qualitative research occurs within the social setting or �ield of practice, and data collection is often referred to as “�ieldwork” or being in the “�ield.” Qualitative approaches can effectively address organization members’ everyday concerns, help consultants understand and improve their practice, and inform decisions. Examples of qualitative questions asked in OD include “Why are employees dissatis�ied with Organization Y?” and “What speci�ic concerns do employees have about anticipated changes in the organization?” Qualitative methodology uses techniques that allow deep exploration of social phenomena through interviews, observations, focus groups, or analysis of documents.

Qualitative Research Characteristics Qualitative research focuses on building meaning and understanding about social phenomena. The researcher (generally the consultant in OD) is the primary instrument for data collection and analysis. This means that it is the consultant who conducts interviews, focus groups, or observations and then interprets or analyzes their meaning. Interpretation is considered an inductive process—that is, meaning is inferred from the data through a process of comparison, re�lection, and theme building. Unlike quantitative methodology, where study participants are often collected at random, qualitative participants are selected purposefully and are individuals who can provide informed accounts of the topic under study. For example, if a consultant wants to know about the experiences of new employees, he or she obviously needs to ask new employees.

Qualitative Analysis and Results Qualitative analysis provides a detailed account of the phenomenon. Direct quotations from participants and a full depiction of the setting, issue, or individuals under study is known as rich description. The design of a qualitative study is emergent and �lexible, meaning that the questions may change as new insights are gained. For example, if Sarah is conducting focus groups on issues faced by new employees, a topic may arise that she wants to query future groups about as she collects data.

Quantitative Research Methodology

When people want to know “how much” or “how many” of something, they generally seek a quantitative methodology. For example, a researcher might ask, “What are the percentage breakdowns of employee satisfaction in Organization Y, from very dissatis�ied to very satis�ied?” or “What is our organization’s productivity rate compared with the industry standard?” Quantitative methods assume there is one correct answer to a question. This type of research yields statistical descriptions and predictions of the topics under study.

Recall from earlier coverage in this book the process of survey feedback, in which employees are given a questionnaire about the organization’s management, culture, or atmosphere. Surveys are regularly used in OD to assess issues such as attitudes, individual performance, and technology needs or to evaluate certain functions or products. Surveys provide quanti�iable data, such as what percentage of employees feel management is doing a good job or what percentage of employees plan to look for other work in the coming year.

Quantitative Research Characteristics Quantitative techniques include surveys, questionnaires, and experiments that may involve testing with control groups. For example, Team A might be trained on effective team dynamics and facilitation procedures. Its productivity and performance might then be measured against Team B, which received no prior training. Quantitative studies are carefully designed, and once data collection begins, they are not changed. For example, if Jonas were administering a survey to a population, he would not change the questions halfway through data collection. Samples in a quantitative study are random and large. A corporation of 40,000 employees being surveyed on their opinions about health bene�its would target a smaller number of randomly selected workers to provide a representation of what the majority of workers would likely prefer.

Quantitative Analysis and Results Quantitative data is analyzed using a deductive process in which the numbers or statistics will be used to determine an understanding of what is being studied. Assuming a bene�its survey was conducted in the previous example, the organization might learn that 60% of employees prefer managed care, 40% want vision, and only 30% want dental insurance. The company would use this information to modify its bene�its packages.

Table 4.4 compares and contrasts qualitative and quantitative methods.

Table 4.4: Comparison of qualitative and quantitative research methods

Comparison Qualitative Quantitative

Research focus Quality (nature, essence) Quantity (how much, how many)

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 11/64

Philosophical roots Phenomenology, symbolic interactionism, constructivism

Positivism, logical empiricism, realism

Associated phrases Fieldwork, ethnographic, naturalistic, grounded, constructivist

Experimental, empirical, statistical

Goal of investigation Understanding, description, discovery, meaning, hypothesis generating

Prediction, control, description, con�irmation, hypothesis testing

Design Flexible, evolving, emergent Predetermined, structured

Sample Small, nonrandom, purposeful, theoretical Large, random, representative

Data collection Researcher as primary instrument, interviews, observation, documents

Inanimate instruments (scales, tests, surveys, questionnaires, computers)

Analysis Inductive, constant comparative method Deductive, statistical

Findings Comprehensive, holistic, richly descriptive Precise, numerical

Explore the following interaction to test your understanding of qualitative versus quantitative research methods.

Identifying

Research Methods Explore each scene and determine whether the research being

conducted is quantitative or qualitative.

Scene 1: Addressing Attrition at TechtrixScene 1: Addressing Attrition at Techtrix

Scene 2: Surveying Reile CustomersScene 2: Surveying Reile Customers

Scene 3: Engaging WEF Donors Scene 3: Engaging WEF Donors

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 12/64

AnreyPopov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Surveys and questionnaires are common data collection methods used in OD.

4.5 Research Methods

Research methods are procedures used to collect data. They are based on the type of research methodology used. Methods typically used in OD are pro�iled in this section.

Interviews

A conversation facilitated by the consultant for the purpose of soliciting a participant’s opinions, observations, and beliefs is an interview. Interviews give participants the opportunity to explain their experience, record their views and perspectives, and legitimize their understandings of the phenomenon under study (Stringer, 2013). The interviews at QuickCo likely asked employees about departmental problems, communication, leadership, and so forth. Conducting interviews requires constructing questions that best address the issues under investigation. For example, Jack might have asked the QuickCo shipping employees these questions:

“What do you see as the top three challenges in the shipping department?” “Can you tell me about a speci�ic event that contributed to the problems you face today?” “What has to change for you to be happy here?” “What have you tried to resolve the problem?” “What role have you played in the shipping department?” “How likely are you to leave your position in the next year?”

Recording interviews can be useful, but make sure you have permission from the participant (interviewee) and prepare and test the recording equipment in advance. If you are not able to record, you will want to take notes, but this is not ideal because it distracts you from what the interviewee is sharing.

Interviews have several strengths. They provide in-depth insight into an interviewee’s opinions, attitudes, thoughts, preferences, and experiences. Interviews allow the interviewer to probe and pose follow-up questions. Interviews can be done rapidly, particularly by telephone and email, and they tend to elicit high response rates.

Interviews also have several weaknesses, including that they can be costly and time consuming, especially when done in person. Interviewees may answer in ways they think will please the interviewer rather than tell the truth. The quality of the interview is dependent on an interviewer’s skill and ability to avoid bias and ask good questions. To avoid bias, an interviewer should set aside expectations about the problem and solutions and truly listen to what the participants say during data collection. Interviewees may lack self-awareness or forget important information and thus fail to provide good data. They may also have con�identiality and trust concerns. Data analysis can also be time consuming.

Questionnaires

A questionnaire is an electronic or paper form that has a standardized set of questions intended to assess opinions, observations, and beliefs about a speci�ic topic, such as employee satisfaction. It is a quantitative method. Questionnaires are also known as surveys, and one of OD’s �irst interventions was survey research, as was discussed in Chapter 1. Questionnaires measure attitudes and other content from research participants. The results can be quanti�ied, often to show statistical signi�icance of the responses.

Questionnaires are commonly administered to employees to inquire about the organization’s culture and climate and their satisfaction levels with their work, management, and relationships. Participants are usually asked to rate the questionnaire items using a Likert scale (described in Chapter 1). For example, they might rate an item such as “Management is concerned with my welfare” on a 5-point scale from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” Questionnaires should feature clearly written questions that will yield actionable information.

Questionnaires and surveys have several bene�its. They are inexpensive to administer, especially if done electronically or in groups. Software programs make surveys relatively easy to develop and distribute. Questionnaires provide insights into participants’ opinions, thoughts, and preferences. They allow rapid data collection and are generally trusted for con�identiality and anonymity. Questionnaires are reliable and valid when well constructed and permit open-ended data to be collected, as well as exact responses to direct questions.

Questionnaires and surveys also pose some challenges. They should be kept short or participants may not complete them. Participants may answer in ways they think please you instead of telling the truth. They may not respond to certain items at all, especially if the wording is unclear. Participants may not trust con�identiality or may feel that the survey is tedious; thus, the response rate may be low. Finally, data analysis can be time consuming for open-ended items.

Focus Groups

A group of approximately eight to 12 participants assembled to answer questions about a certain topic is known as a focus group. Focus groups are similar to interviews, but they are conducted collectively and facilitated by a moderator. Developing targeted questions is

important, as is inviting the right people who possess insight and experience relevant to the problem. Focus group sessions should be recorded and transcribed verbatim, with participants’ permission.

Focus groups are bene�icial for understanding participants’ thinking and perspectives, as well as for exploring new ideas and concepts. Participants can generate new knowledge and ideas, especially if they build off each other’s remarks. Focus groups might also yield in-depth information about problems or potential �ixes. They can offer insight into the client organization’s relationships and communications and may provide an opportunity to probe relationship issues. Focus groups are relatively easy to organize and represent an ef�icient way to collect data from several stakeholders simultaneously.

Focus groups also pose challenges. They might be expensive to conduct if participants are brought in from multiple locations. Finding a skilled facilitator can be dif�icult. Participants may be suspect of the process and have con�identiality concerns. Participants may also be overbearing, negative, or dominant during

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 13/64

DragonImages/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Tips for conducting effective observation are to determine the purpose and what is relevant, decide how to document, and report observations directly rather than interpreting.

the session, so adroit facilitation is needed. If employees are angry or worried, their emotions can dominate. Focus groups can also generate voluminous �indings that may not be generalizable if the participants are not representative of the organization or that may not be relevant to the issue under investigation. Finally, large amounts of data may be time consuming to analyze. Consultants should hone their focus group facilitation skills, and resources for building this competency are listed at the end of this chapter.

Direct Observation

Suppose Nina watches people, meetings, events, work processes, or day-to-day activity in the organization setting and records what she sees. Nina is undertaking direct observation. This data collection method involves recording observations in the form of �ield notes. Stringer (2013) listed typical observations made in action research:

Places: the contexts where people work, live, and socialize, including the physical layout People: the personalities, roles, formal positions, and relationships experienced by participants Objects: the artifacts in our contexts such as buildings, furniture, equipment, and materials Acts: the actions people take (signing a form, asking a question) Activities: a set of related acts (e.g., facilitating a meeting) Events: a set of related activities (e.g., putting on a training session) Purposes: what people are trying to accomplish Time: times, frequency, duration, and sequencing of events and activities Feelings: emotional orientations and responses to people, events, activities, and so forth

Direct observation has several bene�its. It allows direct insight into what people are doing, avoiding the need to rely on what they say they do. Observation offers �irsthand experience, especially if the observer participates in activities he or she observes. This is known as participant observation, and it is just as useful for observing what happens as for what does not (for example, a manager may tell you she involves employees in decision making, but you may observe her doing the opposite). An observation might yield valuable details that offer insight into the organization’s context and politics that organization members may miss. Observational data may also provide a springboard from which to raise issues that people would otherwise be unwilling to talk about.

Direct observation also poses challenges. It may be impossible to determine a rationale for observed behavior. If people know they are being observed, they may alter their behavior. Observations may be clouded by personal bias and selective perception. One must avoid over-identifying with the studied group so that observations are objective (this is especially challenging in the case of participant observation). Doing observation can be time consuming, and access may sometimes be limited, depending on the type of organization. A consultant may have to sort through observations that seem meaningless in relation to the problem. Data analysis can also be time consuming.

See Tips and Wisdom: Effective Observation to read advice about undertaking productive observation.

Tips and Wisdom: Effective Observation

Doing effective observations requires planning, skill, and focus. Here are some tips to make your observations more robust:

1. Determine the purpose of the observation. Observations can be used to understand a wide range of activities in organizations such as how employees respond to a new of�ice layout, how customers engage with employees, how supervisors relate to their subordinates, or how certain procedures are executed. You should be able to state in one sentence the focus of your observation: The purpose of this observation is to document the use of personal safety equipment usage [specify time, procedure, or location]. Or perhaps you are more interested in the nature of interaction: The purpose of this observation is to understand what types of questions medical professionals ask during a clinic. Speci�icity saves the consultant from capturing a lot of extraneous data. In the �irst example, you might note the frequency and types of personal safety equipment used, and the conditions when it is not. In the second example, you might be interested in who is asking the questions, assumptions made about the cases, or what emotions are expressed. Clarity about purpose increases the likelihood of seeing what you are seeking.

2. Determine what is relevant to the observation. If you are observing participation and team dynamics during a meeting, what occurs during an outside interruption of the meeting is probably irrelevant to what is going on in the team.

3. Decide how to document the observation. Your choices include videotaping, audiotaping, photography, and notetaking. There is not a perfect method. Technology-assisted video or audio recording might subdue participants who feel self-conscious about the information they are sharing or are fearful of reprisals. Notes can miss key information and quickly lose their meaning. Notetaking can be assisted by creating a shorthand for participants (e.g., “ee” for “employee” and “mgr” for “manager”). Practice taking notes to build skill. Use more than one notetaker and then compare �indings. Finally, create a checklist for the observation to make it easy to record items, such as a list of behaviors during meetings (interruptions, new ideas, constructive criticism, building on ideas, etc.).

4. Avoid interpreting what is observed and instead report it directly. So, if you were observing personal safety equipment usage, you might say “Person A did not wear safety glasses” instead of “Person A appeared to be distracted and hurried and forgot to put on safety glasses.” You will likely have to pair observations with interviews or focus groups to understand intentions behind behaviors and interactions you witness.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 14/64

Document Analysis

Document analysis involves reviewing relevant records, texts, brochures, or websites to gain insight into organization functioning, problem solving, politics, culture, or other issues. Documents might include memoranda, meeting minutes, records, reports, policies, procedures, bylaws, plans, evaluation reports, press accounts, public relations materials, vision statements, newsletters, and websites. Most organizations have a proli�ic amount of documentation, so using this type of data requires a clear focus and purpose. For example, Jack, our QuickCo consultant, reviewed performance trends and customer complaints to better understand the shipping department’s problems. If Jack were trying to help an executive improve communication skills, he might review his client’s email correspondence to determine how effectively and respectfully the executive communicates. This type of data collection can signi�icantly inform the OD initiative.

Documents provide several advantages, including access to historical data on people, groups, and the organization, as well as insight into what people think and do. Document analysis is an unobtrusive data collection method, which minimizes negative reactions. Certain documents might also prove useful for corroborating other data collected; for example, Jack could compare the executive’s email communications with colleagues’ accounts collected through interviews.

On the other hand, documents may provide little insight into participants’ thinking or behavior or may not apply to general populations. They can also be unwieldy and overwhelming in the action research process. Con�idential documents may sometimes be dif�icult to access.

Additional Data Sources

Although interviews, questionnaires, focus groups, direct observation, and document analysis are the most commonly used OD data sources, other sources of information include the following:

Tests and simulations: Structured situations to assess an individual’s knowledge or pro�iciency to perform a task or behavior. For example, some organizations might use an inbox activity to assess delegation skills during a hiring process. Others use psychological tests to measure ethics, personality preferences, or behaviors. These instruments can be used in hiring, team development, management development, con�lict resolution, and other activities. Product reviews: Reviews of products or services from internal or external sources. These can be useful for addressing quality or market issues. Performance reviews: Formal records of employee performance. These can be particularly useful for individual interventions that are developmental or for succession planning on an organization level. Competitor information and benchmarking: Comparative analyses of what competitors are doing regarding the issue under exploration. Examples might include salary, market, or product comparisons. Environmental scanning: Analysis of political, economic, social, and technological events and trends that in�luence the organization now or in the future. Critical incidents: Interviews that ask participants to identify a speci�ic task or experience and pinpoint when it went well, when it did not go well, and what they learned. Critical incidents were �irst used in military pilot training to identify and eliminate mistakes.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 15/64

ktasimarr/iStock/Getty Images Plus

A consultant’s role is not just to collect data but to analyze its signi�icance and present �indings to the client.

4.6 Methods of Analyzing the Data

The most common types of research in OD are survey research using quantitative methods and qualitative inquiry that could employ interviews, focus groups, observation, document analysis, or a combination thereof. As you recall, quantitative methods are used to determine “how much,” while qualitative methods are used to determine “how.” We have already identi�ied the many methods for collecting data; now, what do you do with it?

Data points are simply bits of information until they are assimilated in ways that tell a story or provide deeper understanding of a phenomenon. For instance, employee responses on a survey about job satisfaction are just numbers on a page until interpreted. Once you know that 35% of respondents are only moderately satis�ied and are clustered within a certain division or job classi�ication, then you can begin to understand the scope of the problem and consider interventions.

A consultant’s job is to make sense of data and present it to the client. Such a presentation should be in plain language and in quantities that the client can easily manage. It is advisable to involve the client and other relevant organization members in the presentation of the analysis, because doing so promotes buy-in, collaboration, and accurate data interpretation.

There are several steps to analyzing data effectively. These steps differ depending on whether you are doing qualitative or quantitative analysis. It is beyond the scope of this book to fully train you as a researcher, so it is a good idea to gain additional training and experience in this area if it interests you. Until you gain experience with data analysis, it is recommended that you partner with someone who is an expert. If you have access to a university or other organizational research team, this can be an easy way of both �inding a research expert and developing a research partnership. Such relationships help bridge theory and practice and can be great opportunities to enhance your learning. There are also some suggestions for continued learning listed at the end of this chapter. Case Study: Data Collection and Analysis at Jolt Transformers offers an example of how to ensure effective data analysis.

Case Study: Data Collection and Analysis at Jolt Transformers

Jo Lee of Design Solutions Consulting receives a phone call from Rex James of Jolt Transformers. “Rex, what can I do for you?” asks Jo, who has done work for Jolt in the past. “Jo, we’ve got a problem with our technicians,” Rex replies. “We can’t keep them. We hire them and train them, and then they go work for the competition for more money. Then the cycle repeats and it seems we wind up hiring folks back again until they can jump ship for more cash. Our management team thinks they need more training.”

“What makes you think that, Rex?” Jo is skeptical that training is the solution in this case. She listens a bit longer and sets up a time to meet with Rex and his division CEO. During the meeting, Jo asks several questions about the extent of the problem and what steps have been taken to address it. The three agree that the �irst step is to collect more data to understand the scope of the problem. They decide on a three-pronged approach: a survey of technicians, interviews with key executives, and focus groups with selected technicians. These methods will provide both quantitative and qualitative data.

Over the coming weeks, Jo and Rex work on developing a survey with a small team that includes technician supervisors, technicians, and human resource personnel. They administer the survey to each of the company’s 75 technicians. The survey results show that 70% are dissatis�ied with their careers at Jolt and 62% are planning to apply elsewhere in the next year. Jo and Rex also develop interview questions for the executives and a format and questions for the technician focus groups.

During the interviews, it becomes clear to Jo that the executives believe the problem is that the company lacks a training institute for technicians. A couple of executives want her to design a curriculum to train the technicians more effectively. Jo is highly skeptical of this assumption, however, because it runs counter to what she is learning from the technicians. Other executives express concern that the company is not investing appropriately in the development and retention of its work force. Jo thinks they might be on to something.

During the focus groups with technicians, Jo hears comments such as these:

“There is no clear career path at Jolt. The only way to progress is to go elsewhere.”

“The company doesn’t seem interested in us at all. They just want us to produce—the faster, the better.”

“The competing companies provide a much better orientation program and connect you with a mentor to help you develop your skills.”

“It’s a mystery what you have to do to get promoted around here. Instead of moving up, you might as well just plan to move out.”

During the weeks that Jo collects and analyzes data, she undertakes several measures to promote a thorough, effective analysis. Each is discussed as a tenet of effective analysis related to the case.

Design a systematic approach; keep a data log. Jo works with a team from Jolt to design a process for collecting quantitative and qualitative data. As the data collection process unfolds, Jo keeps a detailed log of the steps taken, especially for the interviews and focus groups. These notes allow her to tweak the interview and focus group questions based on what she learns.

When you use data logs, you can keep them in the form of a journal or of�icial memoranda that highlight key steps, decisions, and emerging themes. These logs might include visual images of what you are learning, such as models, system diagrams, or pictures. Write notes to yourself as you analyze. Thoroughly documenting your procedures is good practice and should allow another person to step in and repeat your data collection and analysis procedures.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 16/64

Allow data to in�luence what is learned. Jo listens and watches carefully as she collects data. Her attention to detail offers her new insights into prevailing assumptions at play in the organization. She is able to add questions to the interviews and focus groups that push participants to think more broadly about the problem. For example, she pushes executives to provide evidence that a training institute would result in better retention of employees. When the executives �ind they cannot provide clear answers, they re�lect more deeply on the problem. Jo is also able to probe more around the lack of development and retention activities going on in the organization.

Constantly compare qualitative data. Constant comparison earned its name because it involves a repetitive process of comparing themes that appear in the data until the researcher arrives at a cogent list that satisfactorily explains the phenomenon. This involves careful study, note making, and looking for patterns in the data. Having more than one set of eyes coding the data and generating themes helps verify the analysis.

In the case of Jolt, two themes were found from the data analysis:

1. Technicians were dissatis�ied with a. the lack of a career path and b. the level of support for advancement and growth.

2. Jolt was lacking a. long-term strategies for recruitment, retention, and development of technicians and b. a strong orientation program.

The focus groups at Jolt began to produce themes and patterns related to technicians’ lack of clarity regarding career paths.

Often, researchers will use technology to organize and compare qualitative data, such as NVivo (http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx?utm_s ource=NVivo+10+for+Mac) , ATLASti (https://atlasti.com/) , or the Ruona method (Ruona, 2005). This involves repeatedly reading the transcripts or other documentation and coding similar issues. For example, if you continually noted issues related to poor leadership, you would assign a code such as “PL” to data that speaks to that theme. As just mentioned, this approach is known as constant comparison. Constantly comparing the data allows you to identify themes you may have previously missed and also validate recurring ones. You should pay attention to all data, even data that does not make sense or �it the emerging themes. Sometimes, the outliers can provide unique insight that proves to be helpful in addressing the issue.

Code data. Qualitative data is coded, and the codes will eventually be grouped into themes. This involves reading passages of the transcript and giving them codes. This is known as code data. For instance, Jo might have coded Jolt’s transcripts with the following categories:

job dissatisfaction leadership mentoring recruitment socialization learning and development issues career progression

Once a series of themes has been established, it is best to narrow these down to a more manageable three to �ive ideas. Subgroups can be created under themes if necessary. You will likely wind up with more themes than you will ultimately want to share with the client. The client needs to �ind the initial analysis digestible and in accessible language. You may share additional analysis as it becomes relevant to client needs.

Document �indings in an accessible way for the client. Jo had dozens of pages of data, including survey results and interview and focus group transcripts. She distilled this information into speci�ic key �indings and recommendations that were not overwhelming to the client.

Find ways to disseminate �indings with other practitioners and researchers. The best research happens in organizations, yet it rarely gets shared further once the problem is solved. It is helpful to attend professional meetings and conferences and to write up your �indings for other practitioners to review. This advances the OD knowledge base, promotes discussion, and elicits new questions.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 17/64

4.7 Methods of Sharing Feedback (Data Analysis) With the Client

Like the action research process itself, feedback meetings require careful planning to keep the consultancy on track. As the consultant, you are responsible for identifying a meeting’s key purpose and desired outcomes. For example, do you want the client to better understand the problem? Agree on a course of action? Confront some issues affecting the problem?

Sharing feedback with the client involves determining the feedback meeting’s focus, developing the meeting’s agenda, addressing con�identiality concerns, recognizing different types of feedback, presenting feedback effectively, managing your consulting presence during the meeting, and anticipating defensiveness and resistance. Each of these will be discussed in this section.

Determining the Focus of the Feedback Meeting

Several issues should be considered when planning a feedback meeting. What outcomes do you seek? Do you want to enhance understanding of the problem? Obtain agreement on a course of action? Study the issue further? No matter the meeting’s focus, there are at least two issues that must be incorporated into the feedback meeting design:

1. data analysis presentation and 2. discussion about the analysis and recommendations for future action.

Keep your goals in mind as you plan the meeting. Structure it to help the client move to the next phase. Allow time to present results, and engage the client in a conversation about the data. In the spirit of authenticity, plan ways to solicit feedback on your consultation during the meeting, perhaps by asking questions such as “Are you getting what you need from me?” “Is this what you expected?” and “What don’t you understand?”

Developing the Meeting Agenda

As you create the agenda, you will want to split the meeting into two parts: (a) data analysis presentation and (b) dialogue about the analysis and next steps. Block’s (1999) meeting agenda format for a feedback session has been adapted into the following:

1. Restate the original contract (described in Chapter 3). 2. State the purpose, outcomes, and process for the meeting. 3. Present the analysis and recommendations. 4. Present recommendations. 5. Ask for client reactions. For example, “Are you surprised by anything I’ve said?” or “Is this meeting your expectations?” 6. Be authentic. Ask the client during the meeting, “Are you getting what you want?” 7. Make a decision on actions or next steps and assign tasks and dates. 8. Address concerns and assess commitment. 9. Re�lect on whether your goals were met—conduct a meeting evaluation and ask for feedback on your consulting.

10. Close with support and a focus on the next steps.

Block (1999) suggested beginning with a compelling statement that explains why the problem exists and outlines the consequences if no action is taken over the short and long term. Next, recommend solutions in collaboration with the client, identifying anticipated bene�its.

Once the feedback meeting is completed, it is a good idea to conduct a meeting postmortem. This involves evaluating the meeting, re�lecting on what happened, soliciting input from stakeholders, and seeking feedback on your consulting.

Addressing Con�identiality Concerns

The agenda should be structured in a way that respects con�identiality and anonymity, especially when presenting data analysis. Consultants will invariably work with sensitive data. They have an ethical obligation to simultaneously provide the client access to the data but also protect the con�identiality of the people who provided it. Consultants should verify data usage and con�identiality expectations in the contracting process outlined in Chapter 3. Detailing such expectations in writing allows everything to be spelled out should the client ever insist on viewing the raw data.

Collecting sensitive data—such as an attitude survey in an organization where there is high employee dissatisfaction—requires taking appropriate research measures to protect the con�identiality and anonymity of participants.

A consultant’s credibility can be compromised if he or she lapses in the area of data con�identiality. It is especially important to protect con�idential data when under pressure. A colleague once worked as an external consultant for a company whose president demanded raw data from an attitude survey that was highly negative. He insisted that he “owned” the data because he had paid for the survey. The consultant quit and took the data with her rather than violate her ethics and turn the data over to the president. Protecting con�identiality will enhance your integrity and authenticity. You can protect con�identiality by keeping your promise not to share raw data, protecting your data sources (e.g., completed surveys) by keeping them in a secure location, and limiting access to the data only to individuals whom you trust and who need to work with it.

Recognizing Different Types of Feedback

Consultants recognize two broad types of feedback. Positive feedback involves sharing what the client is doing well or what is working in the organization. Negative feedback involves sharing what the client is doing badly or what is not working.

It is important that the client hear the good things before the consultant delves too deeply into the opportunities to improve. However, not all positive feedback is helpful. Positive feedback that undermines problem-solving progress is known as destructive positive feedback. Examples include offering unwarranted praise or saying what the client wants to hear instead of what the client needs to hear. Destructive positive feedback is counterproductive to helping clients solve problems because it convinces them they are doing well enough and do not need to change. In contrast, positive feedback that helps the client is constructive positive feedback. Examples include describing what the client does well, what others appreciate, successes, and behaviors that are helpful to others. What types of destructive or constructive positive feedback have you received?

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 18/64

�izkes/iStock/Getty Images Plus

It is important that consultants communicate data and analysis effectively to their clients. How might communication methods change from client to client?

TommL/E+/Getty Images

Feedback that hurts the client is known as destructive negative feedback. Examples include put-downs, insults, or nonspeci�ic criticism. This type of feedback is not helpful and may even erode progress on the problem. Negative feedback that helps the client is known as constructive negative feedback. Examples include outlining what the client does badly, failures, behavior that hinders others, behavior that is uncomfortable for others, and speci�ic criticism. You can probably recall receiving both forms of feedback and how they made you feel.

Presenting Feedback Effectively During the Meeting

It is a big job to analyze data and decide what to share at the feedback meeting. It is likely that you will not present all of the data collected. Cummings and Worley (2018) suggested that feedback is most useful when it is relevant to the client and presented in an understandable and descriptive way. Clients also want information that is veri�iable, signi�icant, timely, and not overwhelming to digest. You will want to ensure that the data is balanced; include the success data in addition to the failure data. It is also helpful to provide comparative data when available, such as cross-department comparisons or benchmarking with other competitors or industries. You should also be willing to collect more data as needed.

Consultants should present feedback in a way that enables the client to hear it. Whether negative or positive, feedback should be constructive, or helpful to the client. Regardless of the feedback shared, it must be delivered with respect; feedback should never come across as hurtful or insulting. In all cases, feedback should be based on available evidence—the data that has been collected and analyzed. Block (1999) urged that it is important to be assertive and use language that is descriptive, focused, speci�ic, brief, and simple. Avoid language that is judgmental, global, stereotyped, lengthy, or complicated.

Managing Your Consulting Presence During the Meeting

This book has discussed the need for consultants to be authentic and to complete each phase of action research. How consultants give feedback is critical because it affects how well the client will hear and accept the message. Striking an effective stance during feedback involves being respectful, providing direct and constructive description, and anticipating resistance. It is imperative to respect the client; hurtful feedback is not productive, so make sure the feedback is constructive and nonjudgmental.

In addition to being respectful, consultants should provide direct, constructive description. This involves being assertive and straightforward about the analysis. The feedback meeting is not the time to timidly sugarcoat results, particularly if they are negative. As discussed under types of feedback, there are ways to constructively deliver negative feedback. The way feedback is described will affect the client’s receptivity to it. Describing a problem clearly, directly, and convincingly helps the client absorb the breadth and depth of the issue without getting overburdened in detail. Include data that links to both the root cause and the symptoms (often the presenting problem). It can be helpful to highlight data in areas where the client has the responsibility and authority to make changes. It is also bene�icial to include data that the client views as important and that calls attention to problems where there is a commitment to change. For instance, if the organization has an ongoing initiative, such as work teams, showing evidence of their activities and results can validate the data and reinforce the value of the action research process in implementing change.

It is also advantageous to anticipate aspects of the feedback that are likely to cause client defensiveness and to come prepared to defuse them. Do not allow the client to project frustration about the data onto you—you are just the messenger. You should also identify stakeholders who will be absent from the meeting and plan to follow up with them about the meeting’s content and outcomes. Be prepared to deal with resistance as directly and constructively as you presented the data, and invite the client’s assessment of the problems and courses of action. Anticipating what might come up during the meeting helps a consultant effectively prepare for the unexpected.

Managing Defensiveness and Resistance During the Meeting

Clients often become defensive about feedback, particularly if it is negative or will require signi�icant changes. For instance, suppose Janessa was assessing an organization’s retention issues and had data indicating that women and people of color were leaving the organization due to discrimination and harassment. She might anticipate denial and defensiveness from a mostly White, male-dominated organization. Having benchmarking data handy on how other organizations have dealt with this issue would be one way Janessa could counteract this defensiveness.

In addition to being defensive, clients might also resist making changes. A consultant might hear, “It will cost too much,” “We don’t have time to do this!” or “This will never work here.” A good way to respond to such sentiments is to push the client to consider the cost of not adopting the solution. A consultant might ask, “Do you still want to be dealing with this problem 6 months from now?” “What are you afraid of ?” or “What is your opposition really about?” Pursuing a strong line of questioning helps the client see faulty reasoning in the resistance. Another tactic to thwart resistance is to invite those you anticipate will be the most resistant to attend the feedback meeting so they become involved in determining the intervention and thus develop buy-in to the solution.

In addition to anticipating defensiveness and resistance, consultants should make sure the feedback is as constructive and descriptive as possible. For example, instead of making negative, destructive, and vague statements such as “Your management structure isn’t working,” a consultant might say, “According to the survey, employees are confused about lines of authority and the vision for the organization.” The second statement is nonjudgmental and provides more detail than the �irst. Also, clearly describing authority lines and vision gives the client something tangible to work on.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 19/64

Resistance is to be expected during feedback. Consultants must move clients beyond resistance and get them to collaborate on the solution.

Consultants should determine feedback points that are likely to cause defensiveness and anticipate in advance of a meeting what form that defensiveness might take. They should also develop questions that will help the client express resistance or defensiveness. These might include “What points of the feedback concern you?” or “Are there points you disagree with?”

These questions will spark dialogue regarding the aspects of the feedback that are troubling to the group. When a consultant detects defensiveness and resistance, he or she should address it swiftly and tactfully, because doing so enhances the consultant’s authenticity and credibility.

Smoothly managing the feedback process is a key competency of an OD consultant. Tips and Wisdom: Managing the Feedback Process offers some tips to help you develop this skill. Use Assessment: Develop a Force Field Analysis to anticipate different types of support and resistance a consultant might encounter during a feedback meeting.

Tips and Wisdom: Managing the Feedback Process

The client has a right to all the information collected (use of data should be established in the contracting process, including con�identiality). Not all of the data collected will be used. It is a consultant’s job to synthesize the data so that it is useful to the client. Include success data in addition to the “failure” data. Offer constructive feedback with respect. Respect con�identiality and anonymity. This enhances a consultant’s integrity. Include data that calls attention to the root cause as well as the symptoms (often the presenting problem). Avoid sugarcoating data that the client may not want to face. Highlight data in areas where the client has responsibility and authority to make changes. Use data to highlight a manageable number of problems. Include data the client will view as important; such data calls attention to problems where there is a commitment to change. Avoid inundating the client with detail. Avoid allowing the client to project frustration about the data onto you. Be prepared to deal with resistance. Invite the client’s assessment of the problems and courses of action.

Assessment: Develop a Force Field Analysis

Lewin (1948, 1951), widely considered the originator of OD, de�ined behavior as a combination of a person’s personality and his or her perception of the context where he or she is engaged (situation and/or environment). Lewin saw the context as a �ield of forces affecting the person. Lewin considered forces to be imposed from within (internal) or induced by others (external). For example, an aspiring leader is likely to be more motivated to improve his or her leadership skills from an internal desire to do so, rather than a directive from his or her boss to become a better leader. Lewin’s force �ield analysis is a depiction of the in�luences that encourage (driving) or impede (restraining) a person from making a change. Returning to the person wishing to become a better leader, a driving force might be an intrinsic desire to mentor and coach others to be their best. A restraining force might be the costs and time associated with developing leadership skills.

Using Lewin’s force �ield analysis to effect change involves �irst creating a force �ield analysis to understand what both drives and restrains change, and second, increasing or decreasing the intensity of the forces in ways that move the person in the direction of the desired change. Either bolstering the driving forces (desiring to become a better leader, experiencing positive interactions mentoring, enjoying learning, and so forth) or reducing the restraining forces (�inding resources to pay for leadership development, creating time and opportunities to practice leadership, and so on) helps the person improve leadership skills. Lewin’s theory predicted that diminishing restraining forces had more impact in facilitating change. The value of this approach to change is that it helps individuals and organizations understand not only the nature of change but also how to accomplish it more effectively (Burke & Noumair, 2015).

Instructions: Develop a force �ield analysis to anticipate different types of support and resistance a consultant might encounter during a feedback meeting. Download this assessment as a worksheet (https://media.thuze.com/MediaService/MediaService.svc/constellation/book/Bierema.6269.20.1/{pdfs}for ce�ieldanalysis_form.pdf) .

List the topic of feedback:

Driving forces of support for the analysis: Resisting forces of support for the analysis:

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 20/64

Summary and Resources

Chapter Summary Action research is a recurring, collaborative effort between organization members and OD consultants to use data to resolve problems. The three phases of action research are planning, doing, and checking. Many types of OD theorists follow Lewin’s model, although the number and names of steps may vary. Planning is an opportunity to conduct a performance gap analysis to examine the difference between what is and what should be. Bene�its of the planning phase include setting the OD process up for success through careful analysis and diagnosis of the problem, engaging organization members from the beginning in the process of collaboration, ongoing learning and capacity building in the action research process, and prioritizing issues. The levels of analysis include the individual, group, organization, or system. Issues to address at each of these levels include purpose and task, structure, people, rewards, procedures, and technology. Planning is the �irst phase of action research and consists of �ive steps: identifying the issue, gathering data on the issue, analyzing the data, sharing feedback with the client, and planning action to address the issue. Different types of research answer different types of questions. Types of research include basic, applied, action, and evaluation. Basic research seeks to create new knowledge based on experiments and hypothesis testing. Applied research explores practical questions and seeks to improve practice. It may not necessarily create new knowledge. Action research addresses particular problems within speci�ic contexts, such as an organization. It is also applied research because of its practical nature. Evaluation research assesses the value of programs, processes, or techniques and judges their effectiveness. A qualitative research methodology is used to understand how a phenomenon unfolds or occurs and to create meaning and understanding about the topic under study. A quantitative research methodology is focused on measuring how much or how many of something. Its goal is to interpret statistics so they are meaningful within the context they are derived from, such as an organization. An interview is a qualitative data collection method that solicits opinions, observations, and beliefs about a particular social phenomenon by asking the interviewee to re�lect on questions. Questionnaires are quantitative data collection instruments that survey participants about their opinions, observations, and beliefs according to a standardized set of questions. Focus groups bring eight to 12 participants together to collectively re�lect on questions that are posed to the group, explore issues, and generate new ideas. Direct observations are conducted by watching the operations and interactions taking place in the organization. Document analysis is the use of relevant records, texts, brochures, or websites to gain insight into the way the organization runs, solves problems, manages politics, develops culture, and makes decisions. Multiple data sources exist to provide information when engaging in OD. The key is to �ind the methods that will yield the most useful data. The approach to data analysis will depend on the methods used to collect it. The case study about data collection and analysis at Jolt Transformers offered a realistic account of how to analyze data and modeled the following tips: be systematic, keep a data log, let the data in�luence how you learn and think about the problem, constantly compare data, code the data, document the �indings so the client can understand them, and disseminate what has been learned. When planning to give feedback to the client, decide the focus of the feedback meeting based on the outcomes the client needs, such as better understanding of the problem, agreeing on a course of action, or deciding to study the issue further. Take time to develop a detailed meeting agenda that includes the data analysis and presentation and a conversation about the analysis and next steps. Make efforts at every step of the research process to protect con�identiality and ensure the client is comfortable. Be cognizant of what type of feedback is shared. Consultants must share both negative and positive feedback with clients. They should avoid feedback that is positively or negatively destructive, such as saying what the client wants to hear, glossing over problems, or sharing hurtful information. Ensure that the information presented to the client is relevant, succinct, veri�iable, timely, and not overwhelming. Consultants should strike a composed, con�ident, respectful, and competent stance during meetings. These are imperative in helping the client view the consultant as an authoritative partner. Plan to defuse resistance and defensiveness during the meeting.

Think About It! Re�lective Exercises to Enhance Your Learning 1. Recount a time you participated in a data collection in your organization. What was the method (interviews, questionnaire, etc.)? How was the data

used? How well did the consultant do, based on the principles presented in this chapter? 2. Re�lect on your presence as an OD consultant. What are your key strengths and challenges? 3. Recall a time you facilitated problem solving with a group (or anticipate a future opportunity). What were your biggest strengths and challenges

related to overcoming resistance? 4. Identify an issue in your organization that warrants further study using action research. Outline the types of data you would collect, the participants,

analysis, and how you would go about sharing feedback with the leadership.

Apply Your Learning: Activities and Experiences to Bring OD to Life 1. Identify a challenge in your organization and use the questions in Table 4.2 to identify key variables. 2. Identify a problem in your organization and plan a data collection process to examine the issue. Will you take a qualitative or a quantitative approach?

Why? 3. Observation is an important skill to hone in OD. During the next week, play the role of observer in the organization of your choice. You may want to

keep notes using the tips and chart of observations provided in this chapter. See what you can learn, particularly the contradictions between what people say and what they do. What questions might you ask if you were an OD consultant, based on your observations?

Additional Resources Media

Quantitative Data Analysis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gIzG-tB22o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gIzG-tB22o)

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 21/64

Qualitative Data Analysis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRL4PF2u9XA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRL4PF2u9XA)

Web Links

“Basics of Conducting Focus Groups” (Free Management Library), useful for planning, developing, conducting, and immediately after the focus group session: http://managementhelp.org/businessresearch/focus-groups.htm (http://managementhelp.org/businessresearch/focus-groups.htm)

“Guidelines for Conducting Focus Groups,” by consultant Susan Eliot: https://datainnovationproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/4_How_to_Conduct_a_Focus_Group-2-1.pdf (https://datainnovationproject.org/ wp-content/uploads/2017/04/4_How_to_Conduct_a_Focus_Group-2-1.pdf)

Further Reading

Creswell, J. W. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Flick, U. (Ed.). (2017). The Sage handbook of qualitative data collection. San Francisco, CA: Sage.

Green, J., & Thorogood, N. (2018). Qualitative methods for health research. San Francisco, CA: Sage.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Neuman, W. L. (2016). Basics of social research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Roulston, K. (2010). Re�lective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice. London, England: Sage.

Wolcott, H. (2008). Writing up qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Key Terms Click on each key term to see the de�inition.

applied research (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Research that is germane to problems and issues within a particular setting, like an organization; it explores practical questions and seeks to improve practice but may not necessarily create new knowledge.

basic research (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Research that seeks to make new discoveries, test hypotheses, and create new knowledge.

code data (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Qualitative data is coded, and the codes will eventually be grouped into themes. This involves reading passages of the transcript and giving them codes.

constant comparison (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

The process of comparing data codes until clear themes emerge when conducting data analysis.

constructive negative feedback (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Helpful feedback about what the client or organization is doing poorly, such as failures or destructive behaviors, or speci�ic criticism that is shared with respect.

constructive positive feedback (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Helpful feedback about what the client or organization is doing effectively.

constructivist philosophy (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

The idea that people build meaning from experience and interpret their meanings in different ways.

data gathering (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

The process of collecting information related to the client’s problem or issue that informs the decisions and actions taken in the OD initiative.

deductive (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 22/64

A quantitative data analysis process in which numbers or statistics are used to determine an understanding of what is being studied.

destructive negative feedback (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Hurtful feedback about what the client or organization is doing poorly, such as put-downs, insults, or nonspeci�ic criticism.

destructive positive feedback (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Positive feedback that undermines progress toward solving the problem, such as saying what the client wants to hear or offering undeserved praise.

diagnosis (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

The determination of the root cause of a problem; based on a process of data collection, analysis, and collaboration with the client.

direct observation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

The process of watching people, meetings, events, work processes, or day-to-day activities related to the OD issue or problem in the organization setting.

document analysis (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

The review of relevant records, texts, brochures, websites, or other documentation to gain insight into the way the organization runs, solves problems, manages politics, develops culture, and makes decisions.

evaluation research (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Research that assesses the value of programs, processes, or techniques and judges their effectiveness.

feedback meeting (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

A meeting where the results of data analysis related to the issue the client is experiencing are shared, along with an assessment of the positive and negative aspects of the organization.

ofocus group (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

A group of approximately eight to 12 participants who have specialized knowledge or experience relevant to an issue or problem in the organization and are led through a series of questions and a discussion about the issue by a consultant.

gap analysis (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

The process of assessing reasons for a gap between desired performance or outcomes and reality.

inductive process (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Inferring meaning from data through a process of comparison, re�lection, and theme building.

interview (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

A qualitative data collection method that solicits opinions, observations, and beliefs about a particular social phenomenon by asking the interviewee to re�lect on questions.

level of analysis (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

The location of the OD effort at the individual, group or team, organization, or system level or a combination of levels. Each level has unique needs, issues, and appropriate interventions.

methodology (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

The approach to data collection that is grounded in the overarching philosophy of the researcher and research questions.

negative feedback (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Information shared with the client about what is working poorly in the organization or what the client is doing badly.

participant observation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 23/64

Direct observation that includes participation of the researcher (consultant), such as during a meeting.

performance gap (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

The discrepancy between what is and what should be in terms of desired organization performance or outcomes.

planning (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Also known as the discovery phase of action research; the initial steps taken to identify a problem and gather data about it.

positive feedback (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Information shared with the client about what the client is doing effectively or what is going well in the organization.

qualitative methodology (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

A form of research into the nature of social phenomena; it usually investigates how something occurs.

quantitative methodology (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

A form of research that attempts to quantify data, asking questions related to how much or how many.

questionnaire (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

A paper or electronic series of questions that survey participants about their opinions, observations, and beliefs.Information shared with the client about what the client is doing effectively or what is going well in the organization.

research methods (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

The procedures used to collect data.

rich description (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

A detailed account of the phenomenon, with direct quotations from participants and a full depiction of the setting, issue, or individuals under study.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 24/64

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

Describe factors that in�luence a client and organization’s readiness for change and promote acceptance of interventions.

De�ine an OD intervention, including the different ways to classify interventions and the criteria for choosing an appropriate intervention.

Explain the consultant’s role in implementing OD interventions and how to promote learning to sustain them.

Discuss common issues related to monitoring and sustaining change, including the reasons that interventions fail, the ethics of the implementation stage, client resistance, and strategies to sustain change.

A major land-grant university received federal funding to promote education among public health employees in a southern state. As soon as the monies were awarded, several educational initiatives began to serve multiple stakeholders across the state. One of the projects that James, the grant’s principal investigator, wanted to initiate was a leadership academy for mid-level managers with potential to advance to higher levels of public health leadership in the state. Previous analyses of the organization, including succession planning, had revealed a long-term need to provide leadership development. This need lingered for many years because public funding was not available to provide a comprehensive program. The grant �inally created the opportunity to deliver this much-needed program. James contacted an external consultant, Leah, to help plan the program.

Leah was a good choice for a consultant; she was an expert in leadership and program development. The contracting meeting was set up, at which Leah and James determined the scope of the project: a 1-year leadership development academy for the state’s top 25 leaders. The project had two objectives:

1. Pilot a program that will become a permanent leadership development academy available to high-potential leaders on an annual basis. 2. Strengthen the leadership competencies and culture within the state public health work force.

Although Leah would be the lead consultant and facilitator for the project’s planning and implementation over the �irst 2 years, the goal was to build capacity within the state so that internal facilitators could sustain the program over the long term.

The project required an action research approach to collect and analyze initial data about the target population’s needs, so the decision was made to conduct interviews and surveys to determine the content of the leadership development academy. Based on Leah’s expertise in leadership development, her role was de�ined as part expert, part collaborative partner with James and his university. The project had a 2-year implementation timeline, with the �irst year focused on planning and the second year devoted to implementation. Evaluation would be ongoing and continue past the second year as a new cohort was started in year 3, staffed by internal consultants.

James and Leah met regularly to plan the program. This involved undertaking the planning or discovery phase of action research: diagnosing the issue, gathering data on the issue, sharing feedback, presenting the data analysis, and planning to act.

Action Research: The Doing Phase 5

monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Getty Images Plus

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 25/64

CasarsaGuru/E+/Getty Images Plus

The Public Health Leadership Academy kicks off after an extensive planning process.

The “doing” phase of the action research process is the phase in which the intervention is implemented. For the Public Health Leadership Academy, this phase began in September with 25 participants who had been competitively selected from across the state. The participants convened at a resort, and the program was kicked off by high-level state public health of�icials. The �irst session lasted 3 days. During this time, the participants received results of a leadership styles inventory, listened to innovative lectures and panels on leadership, planned an individual leadership project in their districts, and engaged with each other to develop working relationships. The academy met monthly for a year and focused on a range of topics related to leadership that were prioritized based on prior data collection. The grant provided for an evaluator, so formative data was collected at each meeting. The kickoff of the Leadership Academy set the stage for the entire year. The beginning set the tone and expectations for what the participants could expect.

Pythagoras is credited with saying, “The beginning is half the whole” (as cited in Infoplease, n.d., para. 1), which inspired the modern idiom “Well begun is half done.” This philosophy is well applied to creating OD interventions; that is, effective planning is key to successful change implementation. Chapter 4 introduced the �irst phase of the action research model, planning or discovery. This chapter focuses on the second phase, doing or action. Action research takes a data-based approach to diagnosing organization problems so that interventions can be implemented to permanently solve problems. We will return to the Public Health Leadership Academy vignette throughout the chapter to illustrate the action phase. See Table 5.1 to review the action research model we are following in this book.

Table 5.1: Action research model

Phase Action

Planning (the discovery phase)

1. Diagnosing the issue 2. Gathering data on the issue 3. Sharing feedback (data analysis) with the client 4. Planning action to address the issue

Doing (the action phase) 1. Learning related to the issue 2. Changing related to the issue

Checking (the evaluative phase)

1. Assessing changes 2. Adjusting processes 3. Ending or recycling (back to the planning stage) the action research

process

This chapter will pick up at Step 4 of the planning phase, planning action to address the issue. Planning action involves choosing and initiating interventions. Interventions represent the action taken to resolve the problem, so they link the action research model’s planning and doing phases. A key activity in Step 4, however, is to assess the organization’s readiness for change.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 26/64

5.1 Readiness for Change

Once you have worked with the client to plan for how the organization will address the problem, you move into the implementation phase. Ultimately, the measure of effective OD is whether a change was made and if it stuck. Implementing change is easier than sustaining it.

Most people have successfully dieted and lost weight; the hard part is maintaining the weight loss and sustaining new behaviors over the long term. Similarly, organizations may successfully implement a new leadership development program but have dif�iculty in sustaining the necessary behavioral and cultural changes that ensure improved leadership. Making change is not the same as sustaining change. The latter is much more dif�icult. That is why OD consultants must help the client develop strategies to ensure people are accountable to maintain the change and create measures to help the organization sustain the change.

Effectively initiating change depends on the organization’s perception that the change is necessary and achievable and that employees are willing to support change efforts (McKay, Kunts, & Näswall, 2013). These variables signal readiness for change. Our understanding of change readiness emerged from the �ields of health psychology and medical studies (Block & Keller, 1998) and was later applied to organizations. See Who Invented That? The Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior Change.

Who Invented That? The Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior Change

Models of change readiness originated in health care. The transtheoretical model is considered the most in�luential and was proposed by Prochaska and DiClemente in 1983 based on their research on smoking cessation. A description of the model’s six stages follows.

1. Precontemplation (not ready). A state in which people are unaware their behavior is problematic; thus, there is no intention to take action. For example, suppose Jacob is a manager with an ineffective leadership style. Jacob is doing what he has observed other managers doing and does not give his performance any thought.

2. Contemplation (getting ready). A state in which people begin to notice their behavior is problematic and begin to weigh the pros and cons of their continued actions. (Lewin would refer to this as “unfreezing,” or readiness for change.) For example, Jacob may start to notice that he is not getting the results he would like in his role as a manager. He can see that people do not listen to him, and he starts to ponder whether he should change his behavior.

3. Preparation (ready). A state in which people set intentions to take action on the problem behavior in the immediate future. For example, Jacob may decide to start exploring different leadership approaches and resources for improving, such as reading, taking a class, or seeking mentoring from managers whose behavior he wants to emulate.

4. Action (doing). A state in which people are engaged in making visible modi�ications to their behavior, usually by replacing the problematic behavior with a new, more productive behavior. (This would be known as “moving” in Lewin’s terms.) For example, Jacob may decide to seek a mentor, read some books, and take a leadership class. He may also begin to implement some new behaviors with his staff.

5. Maintenance (maintaining). A state of preservation in which people have been able to sustain the change for a time and are working to prevent relapse to the former problematic behavior. For example, Jacob may work to avoid slipping back to less effective management behaviors, such as failing to consult employees on important decisions. He may also seek feedback and support from his mentor.

6. Termination (ending). A state in which the new behavior has become permanent (this would be known as “refreezing” in Lewin’s terms) and people are not tempted to revert to their old problematic behaviors. By this point, Jacob has integrated the more participative leadership style into his repertoire and does not even think about it anymore—it has become a natural part of his being. He may now be ready to help others make similar changes (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983).

Re�lect on an organization change you recently experienced. Perhaps there was a transformation in �inancial systems requiring employees to adopt new procedures for reporting travel or making expenditures. Other changes might include adjusting to a new CEO or president, learning new features in products or services provided to customers, or abiding by additional expectations for completing work. Most often, people are neither pleased about nor ready for changes they are asked to make. Changes are often met with skepticism, resistance, and even anger. There are several dimensions to preparing an organization for change, and readiness for change is important for practitioners of OD to consider at individual, group, and organization levels.

Dimensions of Change Readiness

When a change is sprung on an individual or organization, a range of reactions occurs. Perhaps there is a sense of surprise, dismay, anger, excitement, fear, or dread. How people and organizations respond to a change can be measured by how ready they are to make a change, whether planned or unplanned. Dimensions of change readiness involve gauging readiness and understanding the dynamics of change. When you have been faced with change, what was your reaction?

Gauging Change Readiness Five dimensions in�luence the level of readiness to make changes (Hord & Roussin, 2013). The �irst is whether data exists that justi�ies the change in a way that is relevant and compelling to the organization. That the data exists is not enough: It must be communicated clearly and compellingly by management. Next, employees must be engaged in ways that promote their input and ownership of the change. The third dimension is to ensure that the scope and impact of the change is appropriate for the organization’s culture and strategy. Next, the structure of the change should be clearly de�ined in terms of new roles, procedures, and resources. Finally, the organization needs to prepare to let go of past practices and �ind a reasonable timeline and process for incorporating the change.

Table 5.2 offers a checklist of these dimensions, with examples of each category. It can be used to gauge an organization’s change readiness.

Table 5.2: Readiness for change

Readiness dimensions Readiness dimension indicators

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 27/64

Relevance and meaning: Make a compelling case for the change or identify the bene�its of the interventions.

There is ample data to justify the need for this change. Employees have had plenty of opportunity to discuss the whys for this change. This change is not being driven by a crisis mindset. There is anecdotal evidence from employees expressing why this change is important. There is evidence that a culture of trust exists with employees about this change.

Consensus and ownership: Engage employees so there is ownership of the desired change.

Employees express ownership for this change. Employees say they are willing to commit energy and time toward this change. This change was not driven by a top-down mandate and one-way communication. Employees think this change will make a signi�icant difference and bring results. Stakeholders are strong supporters of the change. There is shared responsibility and collective trust for this change.

Scope and culture: De�ine the scope of the change and the impact it will have on the organization’s culture, current mindsets, and behaviors.

Advocacy for the change has been sensitive to organization culture. Employees mentally, emotionally, and physically embrace the change. Change leaders have been respectful and sensitive in helping employees make sense of the change over time. The change aligns well with other recently implemented interventions. The change will not overwhelm employees’ current workload. The change leaders serve as role models of the desired change.

Structure and coherence: Determine change leadership roles, structure, decision making, and how the change will interface with organization operations.

The right stakeholders have participated in the action research process and decision making for this change. Leadership has identi�ied key roles to support the change moving forward. Employees understand how future decisions will be made around the change. Appropriate resources have been dedicated to implement the change (e.g., �inances, time). The change is feasible and the right resources are in place to sustain it. Frequent and adequate communication with feedback has guided the change.

Focus, attention, and letting go: Assess where to focus attention based on data and determine what can be let go in order to create room for change.

Change leaders have determined what past initiatives/practices can be let go in order to make room for this change. There is a reasonable timeline established for this change to support its full implementation. There is clear understanding by employees of what the change is going to entail. Employees understand the demand and expectations for the change. There are indicators established for this change to identify early successes. The appropriate technology tools are available to support this change.

Source: Adapted from Implementing Change Through Learning: Concerns-Based Concepts, Tools, and Strategies for Guiding Change (p. 38), by S. M. Hord and J. L. Roussin, 2013, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Cheung-Judge and Holbeche (2015) offered tools to map change readiness of various stakeholder groups by charting readiness according to “level of commitment to change” and “ability to make it happen.” Table 5.3 presents their process. Consider a change you experienced in the past or are currently facing. Using Table 5.3, plot your commitment to change and ability to make change happen. Next, plot your view of other key stakeholders or groups involved in the change. What issues in change readiness do you see in yourself or others, and how might you address them?

Table 5.3: Mapping readiness for change

Key stakeholders/groups Commitment to change Ability to make change happen

Low Medium High Low Medium High

Dynamics of Change Readiness to change usually indicates a willingness to entertain new ways of thinking and doing. Hord and Roussin (2013) outlined the change dynamics in the following manner:

1. “All change is based on learning, and improvement is based on change” (Hord & Roussin, 2013, p. 2). Most change depends on learning. Hord and Roussin (2013) valued learning for the way in which it enables people to abandon nonproductive behaviors and replace them with behaviors more supportive of the intervention. They emphasized, “At the center of all successful implementation of a change is the opportunity for adults to come together and learn” (Hord & Roussin, 2013, p. 2).

2. “Implementing change has greater success when it is guided through social interaction” (Hord & Roussin, 2013, p. 3). OD’s collaborative, collective ethic lends itself to building communities of change that band together to implement new programs and solutions.

3. Individuals have to change before organizations can change. If a group or team is to successfully pull off major changes, individuals need to possess the skills and capacities to execute the necessary behaviors. Key to facilitating individual change is giving individuals choice and opportunities to in�luence the process and their environment. The stages of concern model (Hall & Hord, 1984, 2011) discussed in Chapter 2 provides a framework for helping individuals address concerns related to change.

4. “Change has an effect on the emotional and behavioral dimensions of humans” (Hord & Roussin, 2013, p. 3). Change is stressful. When we fail to respect and tend to the emotional reactions to change, the change will likely fail. People need opportunities to air their hopes and fears about a change; this helps them feel safe during and after the process.

5. Employees will more readily accept change when they understand how the intervention will enhance their work. This belief ties in to adults’ need for learning to be timely, relevant, and linked to their experience; it also relates to the power of connecting individual and organization goals.

6. The client and/or leader’s role is to engage employees in dialogue about the changes as a way of promoting communication and ownership of the change. The more the change is talked about and explained, the easier it will be for employees to embrace.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 28/64

Factors In�luencing Readiness to Change

The client and the consultant can take steps to prepare the organization for change. The �irst is to clearly communicate the discrepancy between the status quo and the desired state. In Chapter 4, this discrepancy was de�ined as a performance gap. Employees will be prepared to change when they understand why the change matters (Madsen, Miller, & John, 2005). The second step is to bolster employees’ con�idence that they possess the knowledge, skills, and abilities to deal with the performance gap and make the changes necessary to close it. Employees will accept change when they perceive a match between their skills and abilities and those needed to diminish the performance gap (Chreim, 2006).

Perceived Appropriateness of the Change Readiness to change depends on several additional variables to be in place if it is to succeed. When employees view the change as appropriate to the organization, they will generally support and readily embrace it (Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris, 2007). For example, several years ago, most organizations did not recycle; the idea of sustainability was unfamiliar to both companies and communities. As global awareness of pollution and environmentalism has increased, so has the willingness to change our behavior. Today, it is common to have recycling bins throughout an organization—you may even have one in your of�ice and at home. Recycling is now embraced because we view it as appropriate and necessary. Of course, even the most appropriate change must be communicated well and visibly supported by management.

Creating a Shared Vision of the Change When management engages employees in planning for the future, they are working to create a shared vision (Hord & Roussin, 2013). A shared vision is the creation and articulation of the organization’s desired future state that is mutually agreed upon with employees. As discussed in Chapter 4, a shared vision may be attained by completing a gap analysis that identi�ies the discrepancy between the current state and the desired state. For example, when the University of Georgia decided to change its platform for online learning, it involved several stakeholders, including students and faculty, in evaluating new platforms and providing input in the �inal decision. By creating a shared vision for what the university desired in terms of technology, image, and learning experience, the OD intervention signi�icantly increased buy-in when the new platform was implemented. The more management can involve affected employees in the change’s planning and implementation, the more the entire organization will support the change.

Level of Managerial Support of the Change When management visibly advocates for and adopts a change, it sends a message to the organization about the change’s necessity and importance (Holt et al., 2007). Management serves as a model to employees, who watch to see whether managers actually commit to the change. For example, suppose an organization attempts to create a more diverse and inclusive culture. Managerial support might include articulating the organization’s commitment to diversity and inclusion at every opportunity, promoting a diverse range of employees to key positions, hiring for diversity, and rewarding behaviors that support diversity and inclusion.

Providing the Necessary Resources, Support, and Assistance Displaying managerial support goes beyond setting an example. It also involves making sure the necessary resources are provided to make the change (Hord & Roussin, 2013). Changing usually takes time, costs money, and diverts energy from other activities. Creating a realistic budget and providing resources up front helps ease the transition. Employees may need moral support or training, the organization may need additional resources, or the community may need to be informed of the changes. It bene�its the organization to provide sustained assistance as needed during implementation. For example, the university that changed its online learning platform had to develop a strategy for communicating to faculty, staff, and students; train for the implementation; obtain the ongoing support of faculty and students working within the platform; and hire staff to support the logistics of working with the new technology.

Thakur and Srivastava (2018) surveyed 276 middle managers in India about change readiness and found that it in�luences resistance to change. Readiness increases and resistance decreases when levels of trust, perceived organization support, and emotional attachment are high. They also found the human touch to be important, that is, fostering communication, trust, and security for employees experiencing change. Other researchers found that perceived organization support affected individual change readiness among 154 employees of a chain restaurant that introduced new leadership and restructuring and that providing support prior to the introduction of change improved trust and readiness (Gigliotti, Vardaman, Marshall, & Gonzalez, 2019).

Level of Organization Members’ Self-Ef�icacy for Adopting the Change The perception that employees are skilled and competent enough to successfully implement a change bolsters readiness for it (Holt et al., 2007). Helping employees become comfortable with both the content and the process of the change is important. Change content is the focus of the change—for example, adopting a new electronic medical record (EMR) program. Change process is the way the change is implemented—for example, piloting the EMR in a small department and seeking user feedback before rolling it out organization-wide. Researchers investigating individual and group openness to change in relation to primary health care employees’ ability to improve their use of information and communication technologies in Sweden found that openness to both the change content and the process positively predicted competence with adoption of the change (Augustsson, Richter, Hasson, & von Thiele Schwarz, 2017). It is often up to the OD consultant and management to show employees that they have the self-ef�icacy to adopt the change. For example, if an organization were implementing a new technology, it would be helpful to provide opportunities for employees to experiment with it. Doing so would allow them to discover that they have the skills to implement it. Investing in professional development and professional learning is a key way to build self-ef�icacy (Hord & Roussin, 2013). Implementing and sustaining change requires acquiring new knowledge, skills, and abilities. Such learning may boost employees’ con�idence that they can adopt the new changes, as well as enhance their understanding and acceptance of the change.

Level of Organization Members’ Personal Attachment to the Change Change is more likely to be accepted if management can show that adopting it will positively affect individual employees (Holt et al., 2007). Helping employees connect their personal goals to company goals creates a winning combination. Authors surveyed 1,833 nurses in 23 acute care hospitals across Switzerland and concluded that quality of care and supportive leadership were positively associated with readiness (Sharma et al., 2018). Connecting employees’ personal attachment to change requires communication and support of employee interests. For example, in a quest to become a learning organization that readily captures and shares information and knowledge, an organization might bolster support of individual learning efforts by funding them, providing in-house learning opportunities, or sponsoring degree attainment and continuing education.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 29/64

Including a System for Checking and Assessing Progress The change implementation should be evaluated throughout the action research process (Hord & Roussin, 2013). As Chapter 6 will discuss, to ensure the intended outcomes are being achieved, it is important to assess progress and results during and after implementation. For example, in the case of the university that implemented a new online learning platform, a small pilot group of faculty users was designated “early adopters.” The group received training and used the new platform the semester before it was of�icially implemented. This small, contained implementation offered the opportunity to troubleshoot and eliminate bugs prior to the large-scale implementation.

Promoting Acceptance of Interventions

There are several ways the client and consultant can prepare the organization for change and bolster acceptance of the interventions. Acceptance is encouraged via effective and ongoing communication with employees about the change and by creating opportunities to participate in its planning and implementation.

Developing a Change Communication Strategy Management communication about the change is key during both the planning and the implementation phases. Communication not only informs and engages employees about the change but also helps diminish resistance to it. Effective communication comes in many forms; management should take advantage of as many as possible by using media, meetings, and face-to-face interactions.

Communicating about the change has several bene�its. First, communication can serve an educational function; it helps employees learn about the performance gap and understand how they can help reduce it. Employees also need to learn about the change’s purpose and value to understand how they can contribute to achieving it. Additionally, communication helps alleviate fears about how the change might negatively affect the organization, certain jobs, or individuals. Effective communication will bolster employees’ con�idence that they can cope with the change and the new demands it will bring (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; McKay et al., 2013; Walinga, 2008). More broadly, a comprehensive communication plan gives employees the opportunity to understand the scope and strategy behind the change and to raise issues of concern (McKay et al., 2013).

Promoting Employee Participation in the Change Participative management has been advocated as an effective strategy throughout this book. Engaging employees in planning and implementing change will likely result in higher levels of acceptance and understanding (Holt et al., 2007). Involving employees may also bene�it the change itself because employees may have insight and information that can inform change-related decision making and problem solving (Courpasson, Dany, & Clegg, 2012).

Promoting active participation might involve educating employees about the change and inviting their critical analysis of its purposes and procedures. It is also wise to engage employees in learning and development activities that will build their competence and ability to cope with the change and whatever new tasks and responsibilities it requires. Engaged participation gives employees a sense of ownership and responsibility toward the change. When employees participate in the change process, they are less likely to resist the change.

Explore the following interaction to test your understanding of change readiness.

CHANGE READINESS

$200

$400

$600

$800

CHANGE READINESSQ u i z S h ow! Welcome to the show!

To play, select a dollar value. For each answer, choose the most appropriate question.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 30/64

5.2 What Are OD Interventions?

During the planning or discovery phase of action research, the OD consultant works with the client to collect, analyze, review, and present data to help diagnose the problem. Once those steps are completed, an informed action to address the problem, also known as an intervention, can be selected. “OD interventions are sets of structured activities in which selected organizational units (target groups or individuals) engage in a task or a sequence of tasks with the goals of organizational improvement and individual development” (French & Bell, 1999, p. 145). Burke and Noumair (2015) de�ined an intervention as “some speci�ied activity, some event or planned sequence of events that occurs as a result of diagnosis and feedback” (p. 185). Cheung-Judge and Holbeche (2015) offered a composite de�inition of intervention drawing on multiple de�initions. They concluded that interventions have the following elements: entrance into an existing system; use of a structured and planned activity; focus on a person, group, intergroups, or an entire organization; seeking to disturb the status quo and shift the system toward a new state; and aiming to improve and develop the organization (p. 92).

OD interventions might consist of one-time events that happen within a short time frame such as announcing a new leader, or long-term events that may have several shorter interventions such as mergers and acquisitions that bring new team members, additional products and services, layoffs, cultural clashes, and so forth. Interventions are �luid and can occur throughout the OD process.

De�ining an Intervention

Interventions signify the point at which action is taken on an issue. Schein (2011), writing about the consulting role, asserted, “Everything you say or do is an intervention that determines the future of the relationship” (p. 151). Schein’s view underscores that interventions can happen throughout the action research cycle. Schein (2013) later explained, “Once we have made some kind of judgment, we act” (p. 94). As noted in Chapter 3, even the mere presence of a consultant is considered to be an intervention. According to French and Bell (1999),

The OD practitioner, a professional versed in the theory and practice of OD, brings four sets of attributes to the organizational setting: a set of values; a set of assumptions about people, organizations, and interpersonal relationships; a set of goals for the practitioner and the organization and its members; and a set of structured activities that are the means for achieving the values, assumptions, and goals. These activities are what we mean by the word interventions. (pp. 145–146)

Interventions have certain characteristics of creating disruption, interacting with the existing organization system, and requiring careful planning. Each of these features is discussed in the following sections.

Interventions Disrupt the Status Quo Coghlan and Brannick (2010) viewed intervening as the point at which the actual change process begins. This is where the organization may be caught in transition from a present defective state to a future desired state (managing its performance gap). In a similar vein, French and Bell (1999) suggested that interventions “purposely disrupt the status quo” (p. 143) toward a more effective state of affairs. This process is similar to identifying and resolving a performance gap; that is, the current state is incongruent with the desired state, and thus actions are required to resolve the gap. Coghlan and Brannick recognized two managerial marks of being in this disruptive transition:

1. possessing a plan that describes the goals, activities, projects, and experiments that will move the organization to the desired state and 2. a plan of commitment to the change by the organization.

In the case of the Leadership Academy vignette, Leah and James de�ined a plan for the academy to develop leaders’ capacity on the individual, group, and organization levels. They also secured the organization’s commitment to the intervention.

Interventions Happen in Complex Systems Interventions do not happen in a vacuum. “To intervene is to enter into an ongoing system of relationship, to come between or among persons, groups or objects for the purpose of helping them” (Argyris, 2000, p. 117). Anderson (2016) deconstructed this de�inition to emphasize three points:

1. The system is “ongoing,” which suggests that any intervention represents an interruption or disruption to the �low of organization life. The intervention happens in the midst of organization complexities such as politics, priorities, interpersonal relationships, constraints, history, and other factors.

2. Interventions “come between or among persons, groups or objects,” which alludes to how they disrupt usual ways of doing business. As a result, members may resist them.

3. “For the purpose of helping” indicates that the goal of intervening is to positively in�luence organization functioning, effectiveness, and performance.

If we consider the Leadership Academy intervention in Argyris’s (2000) terms, it disrupted the �low of organization life by identifying people with leadership potential. James and Leah also had to navigate politics that evolved within the state public health agency related to the program and its control in the initial planning stages. The academy also came between and among persons, groups, or objects by changing the way participants behaved, problem solved, and coached their employees. In some cases, participants completely overhauled their leadership style and began developing their own teams in new ways. Some participants experienced receptivity to their new skills, whereas others encountered resistance. On the third point, the individuals, their teams, and the statewide public health agency were positively affected due to the multiple changes that occurred as a result of this program.

Interventions Require Careful Planning and Sequencing Interventions entail planning the action or intervention, as well as executing these. An intervention strategy is a series of events that take place over several weeks or months to address the problem. French and Bell (1999) referred to an intervention strategy as a sequence of tasks. In contrast, a single event, meeting, or workshop is known as an intervention activity (Anderson, 2016) or task (French & Bell, 1999). The Leadership Academy vignette was an example of an intervention strategy, given its yearlong implementation and multiple associated activities.

Interventions share common attributes in that they

signify a shift away from the status quo toward a new future, initiate action on the problem, rely on evidence,

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 31/64

are grounded in relationship, occur in complex social systems, and require planning and sequencing.

The Leadership Academy vignette met these attributes. It shifted the culture toward leadership and gave participants the tools and support to try their new knowledge within their work environments. The program was based on data collected from participants and the organization, as well as the best evidence available on effective leadership. Each participant’s organization had to provide a letter of support to show commitment to the academy participant, and there were multiple relationships developed during the program that were critical to its success.

Classifying Interventions

Interventions are generally decided during the discovery or planning that occurs in the �irst phase of the action research model. They are implemented in Phase 2, doing or action, and assessed in Phase 3, checking or evaluating. OD interventions are the point of OD. They represent the actions taken on the problem or issue. Intervention is the peak of the OD process—it is what OD intends to do from the start.

That said, interventions may occur at any point in the action research cycle and are best understood as �luid. For example, a consultant’s presence represents several opportunities to acknowledge a problem, make an impending change, or alter conditions. A consultant might make an intervention during initial or feedback meetings by offering an observation, such as “Everyone here is talking over one another,” or asking, “What is preventing you from dealing with this problem?” or stating, “You are talking over everyone during meetings and not listening to what people are trying to tell you. Are you aware of that?” Of course, in addition to making what might be considered microinterventions, the consultant’s job throughout the process is to guide the client toward making a macrointervention that addresses the root cause of the problem.

Classi�ication as Diagnostic or Confrontive Interventions vary in terms of their level, scope, duration, and strategy. The Leadership Academy vignette focused on individual leaders, but it affected the leaders’ direct reports, groups, organizations, and the wider state public health agency. Schein (1988) classi�ied interventions as either diagnostic or confrontive in terms of their timing and level of dif�iculty. Interventions that occur at any time during the contracting process, initial meetings, and data collection are diagnostic interventions because they occur as the organization grapples with the correct diagnosis and intervention strategy. As has been pointed out, the consultant is an intervention. “Every decision to observe something, to ask a question, or to meet with someone constitutes an intervention into the ongoing organizational process” (Schein, 1988, p. 141).

Interventions made based on data collection and analysis are confrontive interventions (Schein, 1988). There are four types of confrontive interventions that range in their level of dif�iculty:

1. Agenda-managed interventions. As the name indicates, agenda-managed interventions are concerned with helping the group or organization prioritize what to focus on; these interventions also examine its internal processes. Groups or organizations may get stuck determining what is important; they may do nothing or vacillate instead of making a decision. Working with a stalled group or organization can be quite frustrating. Helping a group focus on how it functions can be pivotal in improving actions and outcomes. Schein (1988) argued that something as simple as evaluating meetings signi�icantly affects group members’ awareness of interpersonal dynamics, emotional reactions, communications, and decision-making processes. Schein recommended starting with low-risk issues like the agenda. Higher-risk issues regarding the group’s relational and interpersonal patterns should be tackled once people are emotionally prepared to deal with the vulnerability and feelings that will surface when the group begins to critique how it functions.

2. Confronting through feedback of observations or other data. Chapter 4 discussed the process of sharing feedback with the client during the discovery phase of the action research model. Schein (1988) recommended sharing feedback when the group or organization commits to examining interpersonal workings. Confronting through feedback requires that the client be ready to hear and act on it. Consultants play a key role in helping the client absorb and act on feedback. The ability to observe reactions, listen, ask great questions, facilitate learning, defuse defensiveness, and deliver dif�icult messages with tact and diplomacy are key to these types of interventions. Consultants should also model how to hear and accept feedback for the client. This involves asking for feedback on one’s own performance and graciously accepting and acting on it as appropriate.

3. Coaching. When individuals and groups receive feedback, there is a natural inclination to seek help in modifying behavior to facilitate the change process. Coaching has become a signi�icant management trend in recent years (Feldman & Lankau, 2005). It involves helping people overcome behaviors that limit their ability to work effectively with others (Corbett, Ho, & Colemon, 2009) and understanding what drives behavior (Corbett & Chloupek, 2019). Coaching is a higher-risk confrontive intervention than agenda-managed interventions or confronting through feedback of observations or other data, making it one that Schein (1988) recommended using with caution. Coaching interventions can have life-altering effects and should therefore be used with care and sensitivity. The most effective coaching programs follow a de�ined process (Corbett & Colemon, 2005) and support people in shifting thought and behavior in ways that affect business positively (Corbett & Ho, 2012).

4. Structural interventions. The confrontive interventions in this section are arranged in a descending hierarchy. That is, they are presented from ease of implementation (1) to dif�iculty of execution (4). Structural interventions pertain to allocation of work, modi�ication of communications, group membership, assignment of responsibility, and lines of authority. These types of changes, which are often called “reorganization,” are greeted with trepidation by most organization members. They are also the most dif�icult to implement and sustain and must be undertaken for the right reasons. Before resorting to restructuring, consultants should consider interventions 1 through 3 to see if they suf�iciently solve the problem.

Interventions are diverse and can address multiple levels of the organization. Selecting the best possible intervention based on your time frame, budget, culture, and goals is a key task of the action research process.

Classi�ication by Level and Process Other theorists use a range of schemes for classifying OD interventions. McLean (2006), for example, classi�ied by levels of analysis (individual, group, team, organization, etc.). Cummings and Worley (2018) organized interventions according to the underlying process (human process interventions, technostructural interventions, human resource management interventions, and strategic change interventions). Table 5.4 goes into more detail on different ways to classify OD interventions.

Table 5.4: OD intervention classi�ications

McLean (2006) Cummings and Worley (2018) French and Bell (1999)

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 32/64

1. Individual 2. Team and interteam 3. Process 4. Global 5. Organizational 6. Community and national

1. Human process 2. Technostructural 3. Human resource management 4. Strategic

1. Team interventions 2. Intergroup and third-party peacemaking

interventions 3. Comprehensive interventions (e.g., large

scale or strategic) 4. Structural interventions

Although classi�ication helps the OD consultant and client understand an intervention’s scope and focus, no one classi�ication is necessarily “right,” because both levels and processes are �luid. Leadership interventions, for example, commonly fall under more than one classi�ication. A leadership development program like the one described in the Leadership Academy vignette crosses the classi�ications of individual, team, organization, human process, human resource, and strategic, because potential leaders receive individual development that affects their interactions with groups and in�luences the overall organization and future strategies. Another example of an intervention that crosses all levels would be the implementation of a performance management system. Individual behavior is usually affected when performance is appraised, and this in turn in�luences groups and the organization itself.

See Tips and Wisdom: French and Bell’s OD Interventions.

Tips and Wisdom: French and Bell’s OD Interventions

As Table 5.4 showed, there are many types of interventions to choose from, particularly based on level. French and Bell (1999) classi�ied OD interventions into 14 types that center more on the activities:

1. diagnostic activities, such as data collection and feedback to determine causes of problems 2. team-building activities, such as determining ground rules or assessing individual interaction styles 3. intergroup activities, such as interof�ice collaboration or con�lict resolution 4. survey feedback, such as climate assessment 5. education and training, such as a leadership workshop 6. technostructural or structural activities, such as technology implementation or reorganization 7. process consultation, such as group dynamics analysis 8. grid-organization development, such as determining management style based on levels of concern for people and concern for production

(based on Blake & Mouton, 1964) 9. third-party peacemaking activities, such as mediation

10. coaching and counseling activities, such as executive coaching 11. life- and career-planning activities, such as career development or life coaching 12. planning and goal-setting activities, such as departmental goal setting 13. strategic management activities, such as strategic planning 14. organizational transformation activities, such as restructuring and new leadership

The Leadership Academy vignette interventions could be classi�ied according to French and Bell’s (1999) list as 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 12, and likely others.

This Book’s OD Intervention Classi�ication Regardless of classi�ication, each phase of action research builds toward making one or more interventions. This book uses three levels of intervention classi�ication: individual, group or team, and organization. Each of the categories listed previously can be accounted for under one or more of these three categories. Table 5.5 lists typical interventions at these levels. We will further describe these interventions in chapters 7 and 8.

Table 5.5: Levels of OD interventions

Individual-level interventions Group-level interventions Organization-level interventions

Learning and development Leadership and management development Career development Assessment Job development

Group or team process and development Diversity and inclusion Con�lict management Problem solving and decision making

Vision and mission development Strategic planning Organization design Culture Talent management Large-scale interactive events

Criteria for Choosing an Intervention

Argyris (1970, 2000) recommended that three primary intervention tasks occur before making any type of intervention:

First, recommended interventions must be based on valid information. This means thoroughly engaging Phase 1 of the action research model by collecting and analyzing data on the problem before proceeding. Second, the client’s discretion and autonomy must be respected; engagement in the intervention must be based on the client’s free, informed choice. Third, the client must be committed to learning and change.

All three of these prerequisites had been met in the QuickCo vignette featured in chapters 3 and 4 and were in place in the case of the Leadership Academy vignette, which positioned the organizations for intervention success.

There is usually more than one appropriate intervention for every problem. Interventions vary in terms of their implementation time frame, cost, scale, level, and complexity. For example, in the QuickCo vignette, the intervention involved a relatively short time frame in which a facilitated intervention was made with

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 33/64

the shipping department and some coaching was provided to the supervisor. The Leadership Academy vignette presents a much more costly, long-term, complex implementation that will last for a year and continue into the future.

Cummings and Worley (2018) de�ined an effective intervention as one that �its an organization’s needs, targets outcomes that will address the problem’s root cause, and transfers competence to the organization to manage future changes. A key feature of the Leadership Academy was to build internal capacity for the state public health agency to run future programs. French and Bell (1999) advocated a strategic approach to interventions that incorporates goals, activities, and timing. The strategy also needs to anticipate the organization’s readiness to change, potential barriers, and sources of support and leadership. French and Bell’s tips for making effective interventions follow:

1. Include the relevant stakeholders. 2. Base the intervention on the data generated. 3. Involve the stakeholders in the action research process. 4. Keep the intervention focus on the key goal. 5. Set manageable, attainable goals. 6. Design the intervention so that key learning can be attained and shared. 7. Emphasize collaborative learning throughout the process. 8. Use the opportunity for the client group to enhance learning about the interpersonal workings of the group.

Consider This

Use French and Bell’s list to evaluate an intervention in which you participated. How did the intervention stack up against this list?

Anderson (2016) outlined useful considerations for making good intervention choices. First, the intervention should be congruent with the data and diagnosis from the discovery phase of the action research model. Incongruence will result in solving the wrong problem.

Second, the client readiness for change should be assessed. Without a client that is willing and able to change, the intervention will fail. Striking a collaborative consulting relationship is foundational to promoting readiness throughout the process.

Anderson’s (2016) third consideration is determining where to intervene. Do you start with top management or line management? Do you work on relationships before issues or vice versa? Would it be wise to pilot the intervention on a small scale before rolling it out to the whole organization? Do you start with the easiest or most dif�icult aspect of the implementation?

Anderson’s (2016) fourth consideration is the depth of the intervention. Less deep interventions are observable, whereas very deep interventions are more abstract. The following are Anderson’s depths, listed in order with some potential examples:

work content (tasks, skills, knowledge); overt group issues (communication, decision making, or con�lict); hidden group issues (coalitions and power); values and beliefs (quality, cooperation, stability); and unconscious issues (assumptions about how we do business, culture).

Finally, Anderson’s (2016) �ifth consideration is to sequence activities to ensure optimal outcomes. Consultants need to make the best use of data; be highly effective, ef�icient, and quick; and use relevant activities that minimize stress on individuals and the organization.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 34/64

5.3 Implementing OD Interventions

Now that the data has been analyzed and shared with the client and an intervention has been agreed upon, it is time to implement a solution. This is the action phase of OD. “Implementation is . . . the point of the consultation” (Block, 1999, p. 247).

The moment of implementation or action is also the moment for the client to visibly take ownership of and lead the process. That is, the client will be accountable for maintaining the intervention in the future. If the client is not hands-on with implementation, the entire project will be at risk. If the consultant has managed the client relationship well and insisted on a joint process, the client should have little issue with taking charge of the intervention. The client will likely need ongoing coaching and support to help see the implementation through and build con�idence in the process.

Determining the Consulting Role

Consultants have a range of options for how to conduct themselves during the implementation. A consultant may elect to stay out of the way, take a hands-on approach, or serve as facilitator. As discussed in Chapter 3, the collaborative role is the most effective and generally preferred in OD. Table 5.6 takes Cockman, Evans, and Reynolds’s (1996) list of roles to collaboratively facilitate intervention implementation and offers some strategies for using these roles.

Table 5.6: Consulting roles and strategies during implementation

Role Strategies

Provide support and encouragement. Acknowledge the implementation effort in ways that give the client and employees recognition and appreciation. Offer praise and words of encouragement to those engaged in the implementation.

Observe and share feedback. Prepare clear and direct feedback and share it with the client. Develop observation checklists so the client can also participate in making observations and checking on progress.

Listen and offer counsel when things go wrong.

Serve as a sounding board. Ask good questions to help the client �ind the answer instead of giving the answer. Mediate con�lict as necessary.

Help the client modify and �ine-tune the plan. Engage in ongoing evaluation of the implementation. Devise adjustments to the change as needed.

Identify process problems that impede implementation.

Conduct ongoing evaluation and take quick action to make needed corrections. Create a process for identifying and resolving problems.

Bring together parts of the client system to address process issues (e.g., con�lict, communication).

Create an implementation task force that conducts regular audits of the implementation and has the authority to intervene as needed. Ensure that communication is ongoing with everyone involved in the implementation.

Bring people together from different disciplines or different parts of the organization to work on implementation.

Create an implementation task force. Employ task force members to conduct communication, training, and evaluation related to the intervention.

Organize necessary training and education. Create ongoing training sessions that will help prepare the employees for the change. Develop in-house trainers to help with the training effort.

Work with managers to help them support the change process.

Develop a means of communicating with managers so information can be shared and problems solved easily. Consider regular meetings, technology, or a mix.

Confront inconsistencies between the plan and how it transpires.

Check the implementation progress to plan regularly and make adjustments. Decide on a protocol for making changes and stick to it.

Refer to Chapter 3 for more information about the consulting relationship and how to interact with clients throughout the action research process.

Promoting Learning Related to the Intervention

The intervention process moves the client from the current state through a transitional phase and into the new, desired state. Another way to think of it is in terms of Lewin’s (1946/1997) unfreezing, moving, refreezing change model introduced in Chapter 2. People are engaged in the unfreezing stage when they become aware of the need to change, build the desire to create change, and undergo a process of unlearning.

Imagine you decide to go on a diet. The unlearning is the process of recognizing that your current eating habits are unhealthy and searching for an alternative. Moving is making the changes, and this requires new learning. For example, you might consider several diet plans or review the basics of nutrition. Refreezing occurs when the new behavior becomes part of your lifestyle. Another way to think about this is to imagine a company decides to cut costs. The unlearning process involves recognizing areas where spending is unnecessary or too high. Moving or changing might involve reviewing expenditures and cutting extraneous purchases from the budget. Sometimes, travel budgets get cut in these circumstances or the company switches to cheaper raw materials to make its products. A more extreme cost savings effort might be to lay off workers. Refreezing occurs when new spending behaviors and policies have been adopted and the company is able to sustain a lower cost threshold to operate.

“Human beings have always engaged in learning—learning to survive, learning to live in a social group, learning to understand the meaning of our experiences” (Merriam & Bierema,

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 35/64

mapodile/E+/Getty Images Plus

Learning is often stimulated by crisis or by re�lecting on events and ideas.

2014, p. 44). Learning in the workplace is no exception and is a common focus of OD. Most change requires learning. People often are not aware of a problem until there is a crisis or they re�lect on the results they are achieving. At that point, people begin to ask questions such as “Why are we doing it this way?” “Is there another way to think about this?” “What mistakes have we made and what have we learned from them?” or “What could be improved?” Asking such questions is what is known as re�lective practice.

Crises or re�lection can jolt people into a learning mode as they build knowledge and understanding. This learning is often the catalyst for change. People may learn the competition is gaining an edge, their quality is declining, their relationships are dysfunctional, or their management is lacking vision. These insights make them want to act, and OD provides a process for addressing these challenges through action research. Learning happens at every phase of the process, from discovery of the problem, to planning an intervention, to maintaining the change, to evaluating its effectiveness. This section considers the role of learning in the action research process by appreciating the relationship between learning and change and exploring ways of facilitating client learning.

The Relationship Between Learning and Change Most OD involves change, and most change involves learning. Think about a change you made in your life, such as switching jobs, starting a relationship, moving to a new city, or pursuing a goal. Chances are these shifts created new learning. Changes often require new action or new thinking that depends on new learning. For example, when you switch jobs, you have to learn how to navigate relationships and how to interact with your new colleagues. This might involve learning how your new boss likes to receive information and make decisions and then changing your behavior to accommodate the preferences of your boss. Working with a new team might involve learning how to be more assertive than you have been in the past if you are working with strong personalities or the team is looking to you for the expertise you bring to the organization.

Similarly, changes made in OD—such as heightened awareness of interpersonal relations, understanding through feedback, or attempting to change your leadership style—also involve learning. Certain conditions promote learning. For example, adults are motivated to learn when education is relevant to their current situation, work challenges, or life needs.

Facilitating Client Learning Knowles (1980) and Knowles and Associates (1984) developed key principles related to adult learning that are relevant to implementing change. These principles are considered the art and practice of teaching adults, also known as andragogy. Principles of andragogy as they relate to implementing change include the following:

1. As people mature, their self-concept moves from that of a dependent personality toward one of a self-directed human being. This means that people desire to have say and control in their learning. Building ways for affected employees to have input into the change and control over aspects of it will enhance buy-in and adoption. For example, if you implement a new procedure, engage the people handling the process in devising best practices.

2. People accumulate a growing reservoir of experience, which is a resource for learning. The people affected by a change have spent a great deal of time in the organization and have a repertoire of know-how related to the problem or issue being addressed by OD. Failure to tap their experience and knowledge will breed resentment and resistance. Find ways for the involved parties to contribute their insights to the process to enhance buy-in and minimize resistance.

3. People become ready to learn when the tasks and challenges of life demand new knowledge. My organization, for example, is converting to a much-needed data management system. Although it is a major change, the employees who have been wrestling with outdated, unresponsive, clunky databases have eagerly attended training and are excited about the implementation of the new technology. When change is communicated well and addresses a true need in the organization, there is a better chance that employees will be enthusiastic about learning to adopt it.

4. People tend to be life or problem centered in their learning, rather than subject centered. It is likely that many people did not have any interest in birthing classes until they were expecting a baby. That is because the learning was timely and relevant to their life. Similarly, someone would likely be more motivated to take a wine-tasting class (life centered) than an organic chemistry class (subject centered). Changes that are relevant to employees become learning opportunities. Part of a consultant’s role is to effectively communicate the relevance of planned change and help those affected see the linkage.

5. People are driven by intrinsic motivation. People are more inclined to seek learning that meets an internal need for knowledge or mastery rather than an external need for recognition or money.

6. People need to know the reason to learn something. People will be resistant to learning new software or changing their behavior if they are not provided with a rationale. A consultant’s job may well be to sell the OD effort and connect it with the necessary learning. When my organization announced the shift to a new database, the rationale was for ease of generating reports, combination of databases, and a user-friendly format. These were reasons that made sense to the users and motivated their acceptance of and learning related to the change.

Consider This

Think of the times you have been motivated to learn. How do the principles of learning relate to your own life? What about to changes you have experienced at work? How can you craft the change in a way that gives affected employees an opportunity for input and control over the learning?

Facilitating Transformation Through Learning Scharmer and Senge (2016) proposed “Theory U,” a theory of learning and management that helps leaders change unproductive patterns of behavior that hurt relationships and decision making. Recently, Scharmer (2018) published a distillation of this model that uses action research to address learning and leadership challenges in organizations. Scharmer and Kaufer (2013) distinguished two types of learning in the Theory U model: learning from the past and learning from the emerging future. They described this new model of learning and leadership extensively in their model of Theory U, “a framework for learning, leading, innovating and profound systemic renewal” (p. 18). The model is called Theory U because of its U shape (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1: The Theory U model

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 36/64

The Theory U model moves the client through the process of letting go of the old (left side of the U) and embracing the new (right side of the U).

From The Essentials of Theory U: Core Principles and Applications, by C. O. Scharmer, 2018, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Scharmer and Kaufer (2013) proposed that “energy follows attention” (p. 21) and that we should therefore focus on what we want to create versus what we want to avoid. That means consultants need to keep clients focused on the outcomes they seek, rather than the problems they want to avoid. To understand this model of learning and change, start at the top left of the U. Moving down the left side of the U involves opening minds, hearts, and wills. You can help clients do this by observing them closely for ideas or practices that are holding them back, then feeding this information back to them. The bottom of the U is a place of deep re�lection and shifting away from the problem toward the desired future. Your role is to create activities that help clients re�lect on their problem. This might include key assumptions of individuals and the organization, or raise new questions that have not yet been asked. Going up the right side of the U involves acting—much like the doing phase of action research. In these steps, you develop a vision of the intended future and devise and implement appropriate interventions.

Navigating change in the Theory U model requires what Scharmer and Kaufer (2013) refer to as “transform[ing] the three enemies” (p. 23). These are

the voice of doubt and judgment (shutting down the open mind), the voice of cynicism (shutting down the open heart), and the voice of fear (shutting down the open will).

Scharmer and Kaufer (2013) suggested beginning by focusing on the future and paying particular attention to where the past seems to end. This “place” is similar to what Bridges (1980) called the neutral zone (see Chapter 2).

Theory U is an innovative, future-oriented change model worth knowing. Resources for further study of this model are listed at the end of the chapter.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 37/64

5.4 Monitoring and Sustaining Change

A vast amount of planning and work goes into making an intervention. As previously noted, making change is easier than sustaining change. A consultant’s job is to keep the client on track to successful change implementation. This requires knowing the warning signs of a faltering intervention and how to get the client back on track to a successful, sustained intervention.

See Case Study: Reorganization Resistance for an example of an organizational change that may not have been planned effectively.

Case Study: Reorganization Resistance

The CEO of a publishing company instructs Brenda Frank, the president of one of its divisions, to reorganize its management structure. The division was recently purchased and is not aligned with the other divisions. The CEO thinks that the division has too many vice presidents and management layers and that its administrative structure is too expensive. Brenda is unconvinced that restructuring is the best answer, due to the niche of the publishing division, but she also understands her marching orders. She contacts a consultant, George Reed, with whom she has worked before on leadership development issues.

“George,” she says, “I’ve got to �ind a way to reorganize that makes my CEO happy. According to corporate, we have too many layers and too many VPs. I’m going to need your help to �igure this out. Can you help?”

George pauses for a moment before answering. He is an expert at leadership but has limited experience with the kind of restructuring Brenda is asking for. “I’m not sure that falls within my expertise, Brenda, but I am willing to hear more about the matter. Let’s meet.”

A meeting is set, and George and Brenda discuss the change. George is hesitant and tells Brenda she might be better off with someone else. “Nonsense!” she exclaims. “You are an expert at leadership. How hard can this be? Let’s get to work.”

Brenda and George set about planning the change. The next thing Brenda and George do is call a meeting of the vice presidents to notify them of the change. Brenda opens the meeting. “We are going to have to reorganize,” she says. “According to corporate, we have too many layers and too many VPs. I’m asking for your help in this process.” Brenda explains that over the coming weeks, George will be meeting with them to discuss their functional areas and collect data to help inform the change.

After the meeting, the groans and complaints from the VPs are largely uniform. The comments in the hallway range from anger to disbelief to denial:

“I’ll tell you what, we are not at all valued. This is a signal we’d better all be dusting off our résumés.”

“Well, that’s the dumbest idea I’ve heard out of corporate since we were acquired. They have no idea what it takes to run our business and have given no rationale for the change other than they think it will save money. What about the money it could lose?”

“This plan will never work. Let’s just keep our noses to the grindstone and ride it out.”

George and Brenda have a good working relationship, so they forge ahead and try to make the best of a dif�icult situation. George begins studying the organization chart and interviewing the VPs. Together, they come up with a new structure that merges 10 departments into six, displacing four VPs. The rollout of the change involves holding individual meetings with the VPs to unveil the new structure. Brenda works hard to �ind new roles within the company for the displaced VPs, but she is not entirely successful and winds up laying off two of them. Once the personnel changes have been made at the individual VP level, Brenda crafts an email to all employees with a new organization chart and informs them that the changes are effective immediately.

The reorganization announcement throws the organization into a frenzy. It catches the employees by surprise; they see no reason for the changes. Immediate reactions are anger, fear, and suspicion. Employees are nervous about their job security and the integrity of their work units. The remaining VPs are unclear about how to implement the changes or how to manage the new staff units of the merged departments. Productivity and morale plummet. Several employees at multiple levels begin to look for other jobs. Customers begin to complain about a lack of support or clarity about whom to contact to meet their needs.

Clearly, Brenda and George have a disaster on their hands. They thought they were doing things right, but obviously they were not.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. What did Brenda and George do wrong? 2. What would you do differently?

Reasons Interventions Fail

Perhaps your organization has experienced interventions such as training, survey feedback, or restructuring. Can you think of interventions that failed? This section examines reasons interventions fail and the implications of such failures. Interventions fail for several reasons. First, organizations must be ready for change. In addition, certain �laws inherent in the intervention design itself can contribute to failure. Anderson (2016) identi�ied 10 reasons interventions fail. They are listed in Table 5.7, along with tips for �ixing intervention failures.

Table 5.7: Intervention failures and �ixes

Failure Fix

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 38/64

Ridofranz/iStock/Getty Images Plus

When interventions fail, the team must decide which steps to take next.

1. The intervention attempted to solve the wrong problem. Ensure that Phase 1 of the action research process arrives at the correct diagnosis. Involve multiple stakeholders to analyze the problem and provide inputs.

2. The wrong intervention was selected. Ensure that Phase 1 of the action research process plans an appropriate intervention. Identify a backup intervention if it becomes clear that the selected one fails to meet the need.

3. Goals were ambiguous, unclear, or too lofty. Work with the client to establish a clear purpose and goals for the intervention. If there is no clarity of purpose, intended outcomes, and process to achieve them, an intervention is not ready to be implemented.

4. The intervention was undertaken as an event rather than as a program of activities with multiple targets for change (strategy missing).

Develop a long-term implementation strategy using a Gantt chart (see Chapter 3). Distinguish interventions from intervention strategy.

5. Not enough time was devoted to change. Estimate how long it will take to make the intervention and then add at least 10% more time. Build time into the workday to implement the change. This is part of the resource allocation the organization has to make if it is committed to change.

6. The intervention was poorly designed to reach the speci�ied goals. Ensure that Phase 1 of the action research process arrives at the correct diagnosis and appropriate intervention. Engage employees in intervention design—they will be the best debuggers and critics and help get it right the �irst time.

7. The consultant was not skilled at implementing the intervention. Hire the right consultant. Part ways with the consultant if you are not getting what you need.

8. Responsibility for change was not transferred to the client. Establish client accountability for monitoring and sustaining change during the contracting phase (see Chapter 3). Provide the necessary learning and development to managers and leaders to assume accountability for the change.

9. Organizational members resisted or were not committed to the intervention.

Follow the recommendations for promoting change readiness. Watch for evidence of resistance and follow the strategies in this chapter to respond to it.

10. The organization was not ready for change. Prepare management for the change �irst so it can provide support to employees. Prepare employees for the change prior to implementation.

Source: Adapted from Organization Development: The Process of Leading Organizational Change (pp. 206–208), by D. L. Anderson, 2016, San Francisco, CA: Sage.

Failed interventions have serious implications for the consultant and the organization (Anderson, 2016). They can damage a consultant’s reputation, causing the consultant to lose clients and future referrals. Failed interventions can also be detrimental to a consultant’s sense of self-ef�icacy and trust in his or her intuition. This same level of self-doubt can plague organizations with failed OD efforts and may cause organization members to distrust their own intuition about organization problems or ability to implement lasting change. In fact, failure can become a repetitive cycle for consultants and organizations if con�idence in the process is not quickly restored.

Argyris (1970) noted that other implications for failed interventions on the organization level include increased defensiveness against any change; diminished ability to cope through con�lict resolution and productive communications; waning energy to work on solving the problem; increased frustration, stress, cynicism, and controlling behaviors; and unrealistic goals (aiming too high or too low to avoid future risk or failure).

Overcoming Resistance

A lesser-known de�inition of change readiness is “the cognitive precursor to the behaviours of either resistance to, or support for a change effort” (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993, pp. 681–682). When employees express stress, negativity, or cynicism toward the change, they are showing resistance. Resistance has also been de�ined as “an adherence to any attitudes or behaviours that thwart organizational change goals” (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004, p. 485). Resistance behaviors might be readily visible, such as sabotage or vocal opposition. Or they may be subtler, such as reducing output or withholding information (Giangreco & Peccei, 2005). Resistance may also take the form of ridiculing the change, boycotting change conversations, or sabotage (Lines, 2005). The beginning of this chapter discussed readiness to change. Readiness is related to resistance because, when people or organizations are not prepared to change, they will likely �ind ways to stall or distract the change effort.

See Assessment: Test Your Change Resistance to �ind out how much you embrace change.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 39/64

Assessment: Test Your Change Resistance

Would you consider yourself generally open to change, or are you more inclined to eschew it? Most people claim to welcome change, yet they tend to waver when it happens to them. You may �ind it hard to believe that inventions such as lightbulbs, coffee, air travel, umbrellas, taxis, personal computers, and vaccines were widely mocked upon their introduction (Nguyen, 2016), yet these innovations are things we now depend on for our lifestyle, career, convenience, and health. Although you probably don’t like or even care about changes foisted upon you, you may need them and not even realize it.

Find out how much (or little) you embrace change by taking the following survey: http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~oreg/questionnaire.php (http://pluto.huji.a c.il/~oreg/questionnaire.php) .

Causes of Resistance Resistance to change might be caused by management’s dismissal of employee input or failure to handle negative attitudes toward the change, or it might arise because the level of employee input in planning, implementation, and change maintenance is too low (McKay et al., 2013). Most people do not like change, so resistance is the general disposition most will initially experience. Resistance can also occur on ethical and strategic grounds if employees do not regard the change as favorable to the organization and its stakeholders (Oreg, 2006; Piderit, 2000).

Acknowledging Resistance Management may be tempted to disregard resistance; however, it is a mistake to ignore it. When employees resist change and relay concerns about it, they are behaving normally. Impending change causes fear and a sense of personal loss and grief among employees who �ind value and a sense of security in their daily routine and work group (Burke, Lake, & Paine, 2008). Sometimes, employees just need an opportunity to raise issues and have management hear their fears. Dismissing employees’ concerns or disregarding how the change will affect employees’ sense of security and trust in the organization risks intensifying negative attitudes, increasing resistance behaviors, and compromising effective change implementation. Instead, it is to the organization’s advantage to create opportunities for dialogue about the change and to seek solutions that resolve the concerns. How leaders talk about change also matters (see Tips and Wisdom: Discussing Change). Cheung-Judge and Holbeche (2015) suggested talking about change in a less directive and more inclusive way. Table 5.8 shows the differences.

Table 5.8: Using inclusive language about organization change

Instead of saying Say instead

“We [management] are managing change.” “We invite you [employees] to participate and in�luence the change initiative.”

“We are dealing with resistance to change.” “Here’s what to expect as we make these changes.”

“We are allowing them [employees] to . . .” “We invite you to participate.”

“We are giving them the opportunity to . . .” “We invite you to identify ways of navigating the change.”

“We are gaining buy-in.” “What processes will help you adjust to the change?” “What support do you need?”

Adapted from Organization Development: A Practitioner’s Guide for OD and HR (pp. 161–162), by M. Cheung-Judge and L. Holbeche, 2015, London, England: Kogan Page.

Tips and Wisdom: Discussing Change

A simple exercise to help employees discuss change is to give them an opportunity to talk about their hopes for the change as well as their fears about the change. It is useful to record these (often on a �lip chart or whiteboard) and for management to respond to the fears, which helps defuse them. This activity can be done in a meeting format or via an electronic forum or survey.

Ethical Issues Pertaining to Interventions

Integrity and authenticity help the OD process run smoothly and avoid failed interventions. OD ethics have also been discussed in chapters 1 and 3. There are some important principles to keep in mind to ensure that the intervention process is ethical.

Avoid Misrepresentation Although it is tempting to avoid telling clients what they do not want to hear, it is a mistake to misrepresent the intervention’s timeline, cost, or dif�iculty. This mistake can occur due to inexperience, overpromising, or trying to please a client. A better strategy is to underpromise and overdeliver. That way, there are no surprises in the long run. It is also important that you know the limits of your skill set as a consultant. If you promise to deliver a skill or knowledge you do not have, it can create distrust and anger with the client, put the intervention in danger of failure, and imperil your reputation as a consultant.

Avoid Collusion Colluding with the client is another ethical challenge. For example, you might scheme to adopt an intervention because it is appealing or interesting or because it will bring you more business as a consultant. If you lack evidence to support the need and appropriateness of an intervention, it is unethical to recommend it. It is also bad ethics to conspire with the client in ways that result in distortion of the process and exclusion of others. For example, if you know that a certain

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 40/64

NicoElNino/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Time must be made for change, and sustaining it takes additional time.

manager is going to disagree with your desired course of action and you exclude him or her from a meeting where it is discussed, this is considered colluding to exclude.

Avoid Coercion or Manipulation Finally, it is unethical to coerce or manipulate the client or members of the organization. This might involve blocking opportunities for organization members to participate in the decisions about the process, which in effect foists the intervention on them. This and other ethical challenges noted can be avoided by following a good action research process that generates data on which to base decisions while actively involving organization stakeholders in the process.

Sustaining Change

Whether the change has been on an individual, group, or organization level, implementing it is the easy part. Sustaining it is where trouble occurs. Successful change implementation may cause overcon�idence, which fosters an unpreparedness for the dif�icult work of maintaining it (Anderson, 2016; Senge et al., 1999). Anderson cautioned that relapsing to old ways of being is an implementation hazard, especially when an external consultant exits the picture. Change also requires energy that organization members may lack, because other distractions may pull them away from consciously maintaining the change. The education necessary for full change adoption may not keep pace with the change implementation, making it dif�icult to sustain. Sometimes, the old organization culture and practices are just too powerful for the change to sway, leaving the organization vulnerable to reverting to old ways of doing business.

Actions to Sustain Change How can organizations avoid these pitfalls to lasting change? Change should be translated into the organization’s daily operations so it simply becomes the way business is done. Strategies that help sustain change include the following:

1. Communicate regularly about the change implementation. This could be via regular meetings, written or electronic communication, social media, and informal conversations.

2. Formulate an implementation task force that includes top leaders and affected employees. This group can hold regular meetings and help communicate the change.

3. Hold meetings that include a cross-functional, intragroup mixture of people involved with the change to monitor progress, troubleshoot, and evaluate the process.

4. Find ways to reward and recognize employees involved in the implementation. This might include visible items such as T-shirts or trinkets, awards, monetary rewards, or time off.

5. Build change implementation into the performance review criteria of those employees accountable for supporting and sustaining change. 6. Invite external stakeholders and consultants to evaluate the change progress. 7. Ensure that the reward system is aligned with the desired changes. 8. Provide the learning and development needed to sustain the change. 9. Ensure that needed resources are available to sustain the change.

See Tips and Wisdom: The Challenge of Change.

Tips and Wisdom: The Challenge of Change

If there is no struggle, there is no progress.

—Frederick Douglass

Change is hard work. Well-implemented changes make tremendous differences for individuals, teams, and organizations. The OD and action research processes greatly enhance the probability of success in change endeavors.

Strategies to Defuse Challenges to Change During implementation, a consultant will monitor the client for signs of low commitment, such as anger, hostility, objections, in�lexibility with implementation options, unwillingness to look at process issues, hidden agendas, delaying tactics, or failure to implement. To successfully make an intervention, there must be commitment and leadership from the top, individual competence, and adequate organization. When consultants observe signs of waning commitment, they will want to take action quickly. Faltering commitment will negatively affect learning and lasting change.

Senge and colleagues (1999) identi�ied 10 challenges created by resistance to change that relate to initiating change, sustaining change momentum, and meeting the challenges of redesigning and rethinking processes and procedures during and after the change:

Time challenges. Employees can feel frustration or worry that they do not have enough time to learn or implement changes. To counter this challenge requires giving employees �lexibility and time to process and implement the change.

Support and help with change implementation. Employees will become frustrated and disenchanted if coaching, guidance, and support are absent during the change. It is

important to provide the resources both for supporting the change and for management to be skilled in this area.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 41/64

Perceptions that the change is not relevant. When employees do not see the rationale for change or its relation to the big picture or business reasons, they may ignore it because they think it does not matter. Establishing the need for and relevance of change is necessary from the beginning of the action research process. The need for change must be tied to business goals, new learning, changed procedures, and processes so employees are not left wondering why they have to make changes.

Management fails to set an example. When management fails to “walk the talk,” people notice. Management must be held accountable for visibly and personally supporting and implementing the change.

Mounting fear and anxiety. When changes are implemented, employees can get nervous. They may feel vulnerable, unable to adopt the change, and distrustful of the change and management. Open and candid communication from the beginning is a must, along with management setting a good example.

Perceptions that the change is not working as intended. Employees might be negative about the change and look for evidence that it is not working. This perception can serve as an excuse to return to the way things were. It is important to show how the change is resulting in progress and intended outcomes. If metrics are available, it is helpful to show that “since implementing the change, our defects have decreased by 10%,” for example.

Perceptions that the old way of doing things was better. These perceptions can allow employee groups to feel like victims who are disrespected or misunderstood by management. These perceptions are countered by ongoing, effective communication about the change and its need.

Confusion about who is responsible for the change and new procedures. Change can naturally breed confusion over new procedures and policies. Management can help by modeling patience, �lexibility, and problem solving to create new infrastructure when making changes.

Frustration that the organization is doing nothing but “reinventing the wheel.” Employees can get frustrated when they feel like no real change is occurring or that the change has not improved the problem. Making the case for change early in the process can help minimize frustration and help people focus on the change’s future bene�its.

Confusion about the purpose and bene�it of the change in the bigger organization picture. Employees may not immediately link the change to organization strategy and purpose. Management can help by showing how the change will bene�it the business and its stakeholders.

As has been stressed throughout this chapter, key themes in avoiding resistance include timely and ample communication about the change, providing a clear rationale for why the change is needed, and management support and role modeling throughout the change process.

Gaining Commitment for Change

Psychologist Eve Ash discusses common reactions to organizational change.

Critical Thinking Questions

What techniques does Eve suggest to assist change managers in gaining commitment to change efforts?

Gain Commitment for Change From Title:

Managing Change Successfully (https://go.openathens.net/redirector/ashford.edu? url=https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx? wID=100753&xtid=49936)

 0:000:00 

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 42/64

Summary and Resources

Chapter Summary Propensity to accept change depends on the level of change readiness for both individuals and the organization. Change readiness signals that employees perceive the change as necessary and attainable and are willing to support its implementation. Change readiness is in�luenced by clear management communication and employees’ con�idence in management’s attitudes, knowledge, and skills to effectively implement the change. Interventions are more likely to be accepted when the change has been clearly communicated and employees have an opportunity to participate in its planning and implementation. OD interventions are change activities that help resolve the presenting problem. Interventions can be classi�ied in multiple ways, including diagnostic, confrontive, level, or process. This book classi�ies them according to individual, group or team, or organization level. The criteria for making an effective intervention include basing the intervention on valid data, verifying the client’s free and informed choice to proceed, and establishing the client’s commitment to learning and change. During the implementation, consultants should be clear about the type of consulting role they want to play. Roles vary from less-involved observation of the implementation to active engagement in providing feedback, modifying the plan, and providing needed training and support. The role the consultant plays will depend on how skilled the client is at leading and facilitating change. It is important to promote learning related to the intervention by encouraging re�lective practice, helping employees see the connection between learning and change, and facilitating client learning by building principles of andragogy (effective adult learning) into the intervention. Theory U embraces the idea that energy follows attention. In consulting, this means consultants need to keep clients focused on the outcomes they seek rather than the problems they want to avoid. Interventions fail for multiple reasons, including lack of change readiness, resistance, poor levels of management communication and support, and a �lawed OD process that results in the wrong problem being solved, ambiguous goals, inadequate time being allotted, poor design, ineffective consulting, failure to ensure client accountability, and lack of organization commitment. Ethical issues abound in OD. During the intervention phase, such issues include misrepresentation, collusion, and coercion. Resistance to change can be overcome by open and regular communication from management that engages employees in the change’s planning and implementation and acknowledges the fears and concerns that underlie resistance. Change can be sustained by regular communication, broad engagement of employees in monitoring the change, rewarding and recognizing employees who are committed to the change effort, and providing the necessary learning and support.

Think About It! Re�lective Exercises to Enhance Your Learning 1. The chapter began with a vignette about a Leadership Academy for a state public health agency. Can you recall an intervention you participated in?

What was it? How was it executed? 2. Recount a time you or someone you know participated in an OD intervention led by a consultant. What were the outcomes and consequences? How

well did the consultant do, based on the principles presented in this chapter? 3. Think back to a change you experienced in either your professional or your personal life. How applicable are the principles of andragogy to your

experience? 4. When was the last time you re�lected on your assumptions, thoughts, and actions related to an idea, practice, or process? Make an appointment with

yourself to engage in some deep thinking, and journal about what emerges. 5. Assess the changes you have made in your life or organization and evaluate how well you maintained the change. Do you agree with the argument that

change is easier to make than maintain? Why or why not?

Apply Your Learning: Activities and Experiences to Bring OD to Life 1. Use the transtheoretical model of health behavior change to assess a change you have made. Did you follow the steps? Why or why not? 2. In Chapter 4, one of the activities was to identify a problem in your organization and plan a data collection process to examine the issue. Assuming you

did that, how would you go about planning an intervention to address it? What level(s) of intervention would be most appropriate (individual, group, and organizational)?

3. Refer back to Tips and Wisdom: French and Bell’s OD Interventions in section 5.2 and reclassify French and Bell’s 14 types of interventions into the model we are using in this book (individual, team, and organization).

4. Using Table 5.5, take a real example of implementation and identify speci�ic roles and strategies you would use to support the intervention implementation.

5. Go back to the case study in section 5.4 and use the key points in this chapter about change readiness and resistance to change to identify at least �ive mistakes made by the division president and consultant during the change process.

6. Have you experienced a failed OD intervention? If so, use the information presented in this chapter on effective interventions and reasons interventions fail to diagnose what went wrong.

7. Apply the steps from the Theory U model to a behavior change, organization change, or new learning you have made or hope to make. 8. Using Hord and Roussin’s (2013) readiness for change checklist presented in Table 5.2, assess your readiness to make a change that is impending.

Additional Resources Media

Theory U: An Interview With Dr. Otto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8HKxvKVUsU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8HKxvKVUsU)

Change Is Good... You Go First https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwxrsngEJDw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwxrsngEJDw)

Further Reading

Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2014). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 43/64

Scharmer, C. O. (2009). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Key Terms Click on each key term to see the de�inition.

andragogy (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

The art of teaching adults; a series of principles for effectively facilitating adult learning.

confrontive interventions (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Activities that occur as a result of the data collected and analyzed during the action research process.

diagnostic interventions (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Activities that address issues as they arise during the OD–action research process of contracting, initial meetings, or data collection.

intervention activity (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

A single event, task, meeting, or workshop implemented to address a problem or issue in the organization.

intervention strategy (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

A sequence of tasks or series of intervention activities that occur over several weeks or months to address a problem or issue in the organization.

readiness for change (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

A perception that making a change is necessary and achievable and that willingness to support the change effort exists.

re�lective practice (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

The process of questioning the assumptions that underlie thoughts and actions.

resistance (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

An expression of stress, negativity, or cynicism toward a change that can thwart achieving the change goal, along with the general absence of change readiness.

shared vision (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

A mutual picture of a desired future state that an organization’s members seek to achieve together.

Theory U (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Embraces the idea that energy follows attention. In consulting, this means consultants need to keep clients focused on the outcomes they seek rather than the problems they want to avoid.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 44/64

Learning Outcomes

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

Describe evaluation according to how it is de�ined and what steps encompass it.

Identify the types and categories of evaluation.

Examine different frameworks of evaluation.

Determine how to plan and perform an evaluation.

Explore strategies for concluding the action research process, including terminating the consultant–client relationship or recycling the intervention.

In Chapter 5, we learned about the Public Health Leadership Academy, which was founded by a major university using funds from a federal grant to promote leadership development among public health employees in a southern state. The project involved developing a Leadership Academy for mid-level managers who exhibited potential to advance to higher levels of public health leadership in the state. The intervention was in response to a long-term need based on previous analyses of the state’s public health agency, including succession planning. This need had existed for many years because there were not enough public funds available to provide a comprehensive program. The grant �inally created the opportunity to deliver this much-needed program. James (the client) worked with Leah (the external consultant) to plan and implement the program.

James and Leah engaged in action research to collect and analyze data about the needs of the target population (mid-level public health managers) using interviews and surveys to determine the content of the courses that would be offered in the Leadership Academy. The project had a 2-year implementation timeline, with year 1 focused on planning and year 2 devoted to implementation. Evaluation would be ongoing and continue past year 2 with a new cohort starting in year 3, staffed by internal consultants.

During the year 1 planning phase, James and Leah were very involved in collecting data to inform the content and process of the Leadership Academy. They continually stopped to re�lect on their decisions, plans, and processes and made adjustments to each as the project unfolded. They also piloted the �irst session among a small group of advisors to the Leadership Academy to make sure their design would resonate with the participants. They made more changes following the pilot to improve the program.

During year 2, 25 managers chosen for the academy participated in monthly leadership development experiences and seminars. The Leadership Academy began in September with these 25 managers, who had been competitively selected from across the state. The participants convened at a resort, and the program was kicked

Action Research: The Checking Phase

6

DragonImages/iStock/Thinkstock

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 45/64

PeopleImages/E+/Getty Images Plus

The Leadership Academy is off to a lively start.

off by high-level state public health of�icials. The �irst session lasted 3 days, during which time the participants received the results of a leadership styles inventory, listened to innovative lectures and panels on leadership, planned an individual leadership project in their districts, and engaged with each other to develop working relationships. The academy continued meeting monthly for a year and focused on a range of topics related to leadership that were prioritized based on prior data collection. The grant provided for an evaluator, so data was collected at each meeting.

The �irst 2 years of the project involved ongoing assessment of the academy’s plans and implementation, followed by appropriate adjustments. James and Leah included cycles of assessment and adjustment as a regular part of their agenda and conversation.

The evaluator observed all of the sessions and sent out formal evaluations after each monthly session. During the sessions, facilitators regularly asked participants to provide feedback. For example, they were asked to respond to questions like, “How did that exercise work for you?” “How are you looking at this now?” and “How could we do this better?” The evaluation data contributed to changes to the planned curriculum and program activities. For example, the participants took an inventory to assess leadership style and wanted to spend more time on the topic, so the next month’s agenda was adjusted to accommodate the request. Participants complained that the sequencing of topics was not logical, so the agenda for the second cohort to follow in year 3 of the project was adjusted.

The �irst cohort graduated at its �inal session, during which the cohort welcomed the members of the new cohort. Leah had worked with an internal team of consultants throughout the implementation, and the team was ready to take over the facilitation with the second cohort. Following the event, Leah met with James and the new team to tie up loose ends and make the transition. She met periodically with James during the third year to ensure that the Leadership Academy was running smoothly.

As this vignette illustrates, although checking is the third phase of the action research process, it takes place during the planning and doing phases as well. This chapter focuses on checking, which is a data-based evaluation to assess whether an intervention had the intended result.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 46/64

zimmytws/iStock/Thinkstock

Evaluation makes judgments about the effectiveness and impact of OD interventions through the analysis of data such as “employee satisfaction” surveys.

6.1 De�ining Evaluation in Action Research

The model of action research used in this book has three phases: planning, doing, and checking. See Table 5.1 in Chapter 5 for a review of each phase.

The �inal phase of action research, checking, involves three steps. First, the consultant and client gather data about the key changes and learning that have occurred. This step is known as assessing changes. Next, the consultant uses this data to assess if the intended change occurred. Was the change implementation effective? Were the proposed outcomes met? As a result of this assessment, the consultant adjusts the intervention accordingly. This step is known as adjusting processes. The third step is to terminate the OD process or repeat it to correct or expand the intervention (known as recycling). Assessment, adjustment, and terminating or recycling are collectively known as evaluation of the action research process.

Purposes of Evaluation

The overall purpose of conducting an evaluation is to make data-based decisions about the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of OD interventions. Evaluation helps us determine whether an intervention’s intended outcomes were realized and assess and adjust the intervention as needed. Evaluation helps ensure accountability and knowledge generation from the intervention.

An evaluation creates criteria of merit, constructs standards, measures performance, compares performance to standards, and synthesizes and integrates data into a judgment of merit or worth (Fournier, 1995). Evaluation �indings help render judgments, facilitate improvements, or generate knowledge (Patton, 1997). Evaluations used to render judgments focus on accountability for outcomes such as holding management responsible for making changes in leadership. Improvements concentrate on developmental processes such as creating new learning and growth. Knowledge generation emphasizes academic contributions such as new insights that may change a process.

Establishing a Benchmark To illustrate how evaluation helps OD consultants assess and adjust an intervention, let us consider an organization that has conducted survey research to assess employee satisfaction. The �irst year creates a benchmark (when an organization compares its business processes, practices, and performance standards to those of other organizations that are considered best in class) that can be used in future evaluations. Further, let us imagine that employee satisfaction is at a moderately satis�ied level the �irst time it is measured. When the survey research instrument on employee satisfaction is replicated in future years, the level of satisfaction will be compared with the original baseline to evaluate whether the organization is doing worse, the same, or better than it had originally. The evaluation can help the organization identify key changes and learning that occurred as a result of the intervention. Then the organization can adjust practices accordingly.

The American Productivity and Quality Center developed a benchmarking de�inition representing consensus among 100 U.S. companies:

Benchmarking is a systematic and continuous measurement process; a process of continuously measuring and comparing an organization’s business process against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain information, which will help the organization take action to improve its performance. (as cited in Simpson, Kondouli, & Wai, 1999, p. 718)

See Who Invented That? Benchmarking to read about the origins of benchmarking.

Who Invented That? Benchmarking

The exact derivation of the term benchmarking is unknown. It is thought to have possibly originated from using the surface of a workbench in ancient Egypt to mark dimensional measurements on an object. Alternatively, surveyors may have used the term to refer to the process of marking cuts into stone walls to measure the altitude of land tracts, and cobblers may have used it to describe measuring feet for shoes (Levy & Ronco, 2012).

Benchmarking in U.S. business emerged in the late 1970s. Xerox is generally considered the �irst corporation to apply benchmarking. Robert Camp (1989), a former Xerox employee, wrote one of the earliest books on benchmarking. Camp described how U.S. businesses took their market superiority for granted and were thus unprepared when higher-quality Japanese goods disrupted U.S. markets.

Benchmarking is a speci�ic type of action research, but the process can also be applied during OD intervention evaluations. There are several types of benchmarking (Ellis, 2006):

Competitive: Uses performance metrics to assess how well or poorly an organization is performing against direct competitors, such as measuring quality defects between the companies’ products Comparative: Focuses on how similar processes are handled by different organizations, such as two organizations’ recruitment and retention activities Collaborative: Involves sharing knowledge about particular activity between companies, with the goal of learning

Bogan and English (2014) described benchmarking types a bit differently, noting the activity might focus on processes (e.g., order ful�illment or billing processes, similar to comparative), performance (e.g., comparing competitive positions, similar to competitive), and strategy (e.g., identifying winning tactics across an industry, perhaps similar to collaborative). Almost any issue of interest can be benchmarked, including processes, �inancial results, investor perspectives, performance, products, strategy, structure, best practices, operations, and management practices. Benchmarking could be part of the data collection process in OD, an intervention, or the basis of an evaluation. Table 6.1 shows typical benchmarking steps.

Table 6.1: Typical benchmarking process

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 47/64

Benchmarking step Example

1. Identify process, practice, method, or product to benchmark.

Identifying best practices for recruiting and retaining a diverse work force

2. Identify the industries with similar processes.

Finding the companies that are best at retaining a diverse work force, even those in a different industry

3. Identify organization leaders in a target area.

Selecting the organizations against which to benchmark

4. Survey the selected organizations for their measures and practices.

Sending a survey to the target companies asking for information on issues such as turnover and hire rates, formal retention programs (e.g., orientation, development), management training, and rewards

5. Identify best practices. Analyzing data to identify best practices to implement. Analysis depends on the type of data collected—that is, whether it is statistical (quantitative data), such as from a survey of employees on attitudes about diversity, or interpretive (qualitative data), such as from interviews with employees who quit.

6. Implement new and improved practices.

Implementing best practices, such as new recruitment and retention strategies, af�inity groups, or rewards for managers who develop a diverse staff

Other Purposes of Evaluation Caffarella (1994) and Caffarella and Daffron (2013) identi�ied 12 speci�ic purposes of evaluation data. Evaluation helps to

1. adjust the intervention as it is being made in terms of design, delivery, management, and evaluation; 2. keep employees focused on the intervention’s goals and objectives; 3. provide information to inform the continuation of the intervention; 4. identify improvements needed to design and deliver the intervention; 5. assess the intervention’s cost-effectiveness; 6. justify resource allocations; 7. increase application of participants’ learning by building in strategies that help them transfer learning back to the organization; 8. provide data on the results of the intervention; 9. identify ways to improve future interventions;

10. cancel or change an intervention that is poorly designed or headed for failure; 11. explore why an intervention fails; and 12. provide intervention accountability.

Moreover, during the planning phase, evaluation can help consultants assess needs and make decisions about how best to intervene. The Leadership Academy’s goal was to improve leadership, but James and Leah had to assess the content that would be most appropriate for leadership in public health. Then, when the participants were selected, they had to make further assessments to ensure the program was relevant to the participants’ particular needs.

Evaluation may also help test different theories and models of addressing the problem. In the case of the Leadership Academy, James and Leah based their interventions on theories and models of leadership. They threw out what did not resonate with the participants or work well during sessions and revised the program for the second cohort.

Evaluation also helps monitor how the intervention is going during implementation so it can be adjusted accordingly. Such adjustments occurred throughout the Leadership Academy implementation over the course of a year.

Finally, evaluation helps determine whether the intervention goals were met and what impact the change had on individuals and the organization. Measuring this type of impact may require more longitudinal study than other types of evaluation. The evaluation of impact helps consultants decide whether to extend the intervention, change it, or abandon it altogether. The Leadership Academy will be continually reevaluated as new cohorts participate each year.

Clearly, evaluations have the potential to accomplish a variety of goals. Throughout the OD process, it is critical to stay focused on an evaluation’s purpose. Have you experienced any of the evaluation activities discussed here?

Steps in Evaluation

Just as with action research models, so too are there many approaches to undertaking evaluation. That is, there are different ways to model the steps in the process. Two are discussed here.

Evaluation Hierarchy Rossi, Lipsey, and Freeman (2004) offered an evaluation hierarchy that recognizes the importance of engaging in evaluation from the beginning of the action research process. That is, evaluation should occur during the initial client contacts, be built into the plan for intervention, and be ongoing throughout the implementation, prior to the formal assessment of the intervention’s impact, cost, and ef�iciency. Doing evaluation is a matter of conducting a mini-action research project.

Caffarella’s Systematic Program Evaluation Caffarella (1994) outlined the steps generally taken during an evaluation. Her steps have been modi�ied to address key OD issues in the following points. Caffarella’s steps are intended to be sequential under ideal conditions, although reality may be quite different. Note that Caffarella has proposed a lot of steps. She has elaborated more on the steps than some other models but still follows an action research process.

1. Secure support for the evaluation from stakeholders such as the client and key management. This step should be a provision of the contract, as discussed in Chapter 3. It is the process of getting management to commit to the time and resources needed to evaluate the process, as well as being willing to pay attention to the �indings.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 48/64

2. Identify individuals who can be involved in planning and overseeing the evaluation, such as the participants, management, client, and others affected by the intervention. This is usually led by the consultant and client and would involve employees who are engaged in the implementation. It could also involve those affected by the change who did not necessarily participate in it, such as customers or suppliers.

3. De�ine the evaluation’s purpose and how the results will be used. This step is elaborated on in a later section of this chapter. The evaluation’s focus should be determined and then built accordingly. For example, is it aimed at improving a process or judging an outcome? Does it pertain to planning the intervention or the intervention itself ? Is it aimed at assessing adherence to budget or performance outcomes?

4. Specify what will be judged and formulate the evaluation questions. This step is driven by the evaluation’s purpose. If you decide to evaluate how satis�ied employees are with a new performance appraisal process, questions should relate to that change and be used to judge whether it was effective and should continue.

5. Determine who will supply the evidence, such as participants, customers, management, employees, or others affected by the intervention. 6. Specify the evaluation strategy in terms of purpose, outcomes, timeline, budget, methods, and so forth. 7. Identify the data collection methods and timeline. Data collection was discussed extensively in Chapter 5. The selected methods should match the

evaluation’s purpose. 8. Specify the data analysis procedures and logistics (covered in Chapter 5). However, the analysis should be focused on making decisions and changes to

the intervention, not on diagnosing the problem. 9. De�ine the criteria for judging the intervention. This can be somewhat subjective unless the metrics are de�ined in advance. For example, if the

intervention were aimed at improving employee retention, would a consultant measure simply whether it improved or look for a certain benchmark (such as 10%) to deem it successful?

10. Complete the evaluation, formulate recommendations, and prepare and present the evaluation report. These steps mirror the data analysis steps presented in Chapter 5 and the feedback meeting strategies in Chapter 4.

11. Respond to recommendations for changes as appropriate.

Adapted from Planning Programs for Adult Learners: A Practical Guide for Educators, Trainers, and Staff Developers (pp. 255–256), by R. S. Caffarella, 1994, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. © John Wiley & Sons.

Table 6.2 compares the action research model used in this book to Rossi, Lipsey, and Freeman’s and Caffarella and Daffron’s evaluation steps. These models vary in terms of detail and number of steps, but they essentially follow the three phases of action research: planning, doing, and checking. Evaluation is essentially conducting research within an action research process, as shown by these three examples.

Table 6.2: Comparing the action research model to evaluation models

Action research model

Rossi, Lipsey, and Freeman evaluation model

Caffarella and Daffron evaluation model

Planning 1. Assess intervention cost and ef�iciency.

2. Assess intervention outcome or impact.

1. Secure support for the evaluation from stakeholders. 2. Identify individuals who can be involved in planning and overseeing the evaluation. 3. De�ine the evaluation’s purpose and how the results will be used. 4. Specify what will be judged and formulate the evaluation questions. 5. Determine who will supply the evidence. 6. Specify the evaluation strategy in terms of purpose, outcomes, timeline, budget,

methods, and so forth. 7. Identify the data collection methods and timeline. 8. Specify the data analysis procedures and logistics. 9. Determine the speci�ic timeline and the budget needed to conduct the evaluation.

Doing 3. Assess intervention implementation.

10. Complete the evaluation, formulate recommendations, and prepare and present the evaluation report.

Checking 4. Assess intervention design and theory.

5. Assess need for the intervention.

11. Respond to recommendations for changes as appropriate.

Caffarella and Daffron’s steps are comprehensive, covering the key tasks that must be completed during an intervention’s evaluation. However, it may not always be possible to follow these clearly articulated steps; evaluation can be unpredictable and may present challenges that are often unanticipated. For example, if an implementation has been challenging, a client may balk at the evaluation out of fear of receiving negative feedback; on the other hand, employees may be reluctant to participate if trust levels are low. Thus, it helps to pay attention to relevant dynamics and expect the unexpected.

Evaluation provides critical information about an intervention’s impact both during and after its implementation. Thus, no matter what model is followed for performing an evaluation, it is essential to begin planning it before the intervention is well underway. A consultant’s job is to ensure that evaluation is integrated into the OD process from start to �inish. Unfortunately, evaluation is often overlooked in favor of wanting simply to take action on the problem, and too many consultants consider their work �inished once the intervention has occurred. In other cases, consultants go about evaluation haphazardly. If they cannot demonstrate that their action was effective, however, they risk undermining their client’s con�idence in the OD effort, fail to permanently solve the problem, and put themselves at risk of repeating similar mistakes on future assignments.

Consider This

Think of an evaluation in which you have participated. How well did it follow the plan–do–check steps?

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 49/64

Vgajic/E+/Getty Images Plus

An OD consultant must always assess interventions to learn the outcomes and impact, which serve as a foundation for future decisions.

6.2 Types and Categories of Evaluation

Theorists have proposed different types and categories for evaluation. This section identi�ies some of these different approaches.

Types of Evaluation

Evaluation can be either formative or summative, depending on the intervention’s goal (Scriven, 1967, 1991a, 1991b). Scriven is considered a leader in evaluation; you can view one of his lectures by visiting the media links provided at the end of this chapter.

Formative Evaluation Making changes to an implementation that is already in progress is called doing a formative evaluation. Formative evaluation is concerned with improving and enhancing the OD process rather than judging its merit. The following types of questions might be asked when conducting a formative evaluation:

What are the intervention’s strengths and weaknesses? How well are employees progressing toward desired outcomes? Which employee groups are doing well/not so well? What characterizes the implementation problems being experienced? What are the intervention’s unintended consequences? How are employees responding? What are their likes, dislikes, and desired changes? How are the changes being perceived culturally? How well is the implementation conforming to budget? What new learning or ideas are emerging?

For example, consider an intervention focused on changing reporting relationships as part of a work redesign in a manufacturing plant. A consultant might discover that some of the new arrangements do not make sense once implemented. These might therefore be modi�ied as the work redesign progresses. Asking questions pertaining to the problems, the employees’ perspectives, their likes and dislikes, and so forth yields information that helps tweak and improve the process. Formative evaluation is generally ongoing throughout the implementation.

Consider This

What types of formative evaluation have you participated in or observed?

Summative Evaluation Undertaking evaluation at the end of the OD implementation, with the goal of judging whether the change had the intended outcomes and impact, is called summative evaluation. Summative evaluation is also known as outcome or impact evaluation because it allows the intervention’s overall effectiveness to be ascertained. A consultant can then decide whether to continue or terminate it (Patton, 1997). The following types of questions might be asked by the consultant, management, or an external evaluator when conducting a summative evaluation:

Did the intervention work? Did the intervention satisfactorily address the performance gap? Should the intervention be continued or expanded? How well did the intervention stick to the budget?

Summative evaluations should follow four steps:

1. Select the criteria of merit—what are the sought metrics? 2. Set standards of performance—what level of resolution is sought? 3. Measure performance—conduct the evaluation. 4. Synthesize results into a judgment of value. (Shadish, Cook, & Leviton, 1991, pp. 85–

94)

Adequate levels of both formative and summative evaluation must be incorporated into the OD process. Failure to conduct formative evaluation leads to missed opportunities to adjust and improve on the implementation as it is in progress. Omitting the summative evaluation means never learning the intervention’s outcomes and impact or lacking adequate data on which to base future decisions.

Cervero’s Evaluation Categories

Cervero (1985) identi�ied seven categories of evaluation for planners of educational programs that have relevance for OD. His list has been adapted for OD interventions in terms of categories of evaluation:

1. Intervention design and implementation. This could be either formative or summative, because the design and intervention are assessed for �it and impact. Imagine implementing a new performance appraisal process. Formative evaluation might involve piloting the evaluation and evaluating how well it worked for both employees and supervisors. The performance appraisal would then be modi�ied and implemented. Summative evaluation in this case might examine whether the new performance appraisal process improved performance, satisfaction, and learning.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 50/64

2. Employee participation. This type of evaluation assesses employees’ level of involvement in the intervention. This could also be formative or summative. In the case of performance evaluation, a consultant might examine the level of involvement and seek feedback from employees. A summative evaluation might evaluate whether the level of employee participation was adequate and whether it yielded positive outcomes.

3. Employee satisfaction. This type of evaluation assesses employees’ level of satisfaction in the intervention. This could also be formative or summative. In the case of performance evaluation, a consultant might examine the level of satisfaction with the new performance appraisal or its implementation process. A summative evaluation might evaluate how satis�ied employees are once the new performance appraisal system is in place.

4. Acquisition of new knowledge, skills, and attitudes. This type of evaluation measures learning during and after the intervention and could also be formative or summative. In the case of performance evaluation, a consultant might examine the level of involvement and seek feedback from employees. A formative evaluation during the pilot phase might determine that supervisors lack the skills to effectively implement the new process and give the level of feedback desired. It would allow the consultant and client to revise the process and provide adequate training to supervisors. A summative evaluation would assess the level of learning from the new performance appraisal system. This could take the form of employees improving their performance and supervisors showing demonstrated improvement in their ability to give feedback.

5. Application of learning after the intervention. This category is similar to the previous one, but it is summative; it judges how learning was applied after the intervention. A consultant might look for evidence of how supervisors applied what they learned about giving effective performance feedback to other interactions with employees throughout the year.

6. The impact of the intervention on individuals and the organization. This category could be formative or summative. The formative evaluation might look at how the intervention affects organization life via communication, understanding, participation, and satisfaction. A summative evaluation might look at the overall impact on job satisfaction, �inancial performance, and retention.

7. Intervention characteristics associated with outcomes. This type of evaluation attempts to link aspects of the intervention to outcomes and is summative. This can be more dif�icult to measure if the intervention was complex or had several interventions built into it. A consultant might evaluate how a participative process affected the implementation’s overall success or employee satisfaction.

Consider This

If you have had the opportunity to evaluate organization change efforts, have you experienced any evaluative measures on Cervero’s list? Which ones would be most relevant for the Leadership Academy vignette? Can you think of other categories that might be added to Cervero’s list?

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 51/64

6.3 Frameworks of Evaluation

This section pro�iles some common evaluation frameworks. There is no “best” framework. Rather, you should �ind what you are comfortable working with and what effectively �its the situation. Further, you should determine the purpose of the evaluation and use a framework that best facilitates it.

Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Framework

Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four-level evaluation framework can be formative or summative and is one of the most widely known evaluation typologies. It became popular in the 1990s, although Kirkpatrick developed it as a doctoral dissertation at the University of Wisconsin in the 1950s. It was originally created to evaluate training programs, and OD consultants use it to conduct evaluation at a range of points over time. The framework classi�ies an intervention’s outcomes into one of four categories—reaction, learning, behavior, or results (see Table 6.3). An outcome is assigned a category based on how dif�icult it is to evaluate. For example, the simplest type of outcome to evaluate is participant reaction to the intervention. Thus, this is assigned level 1.

Table 6.3: Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation framework

Level Focus Examines

1 Reaction Did participants like the intervention?

2 Learning What skills and knowledge did participants gain?

3 Behavior How are participants performing differently?

4 Results How was the bottom line affected?

Level 1: Evaluation Level 1 measures participant reaction to the intervention. This type of evaluation is sometimes referred to as a “smile sheet” (see Figure 6.1 and Tips and Wisdom: Smile Sheet) because it measures only what participants thought and felt during or immediately after an intervention, and in very simple terms— whether they were satis�ied, neutral, or dissatis�ied. As an example, consider the Leadership Academy vignette. At this level of evaluation, the consultants might ask the academy participants questions such as “How well did you like the session?” “Was the learning environment comfortable?” “Were the facilitators capable and credible?” and “Did you feel it was time well spent?” This type of evaluation may make facilitators feel good about introducing an intervention, but it does not effectively measure change. Unfortunately, it is the most common form of evaluation employed in organizations, because it is the easiest to measure.

Figure 6.1: Reaction evaluation using a smile sheet

The reaction evaluation sheet shown here is just one way to solicit feedback from an audience.

Tips and Wisdom: Smile Sheet

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 52/64

If you are facilitating a meeting, workshop, or seminar and want to gauge the participants’ reactions to the event, create an opportunity for them to share feedback. One way to do this is to put a �lip chart page with the smiley face symbols shown in Figure 6.1 in the hall outside the session room. Give participants a dot apiece and ask them to place it in the column that best represents how they feel about the session so far. It is important to place the chart out of your eyeshot, so people feel comfortable sharing honest feedback. This offers a snapshot of participants’ reactions and allows you to make adjustments in the moment. You can also use Twitter or other social media to solicit this data.

Level 2: Evaluation Level 2 measures participant learning from an intervention. This level of evaluation assesses whether the intervention helped participants improve or increased their knowledge or skills. At this level, James and Leah might ask the Leadership Academy participants, “What was the key thing you learned from this session?” or “What new skills have you acquired as a result of this experience?” This type of evaluation works best after participants have had a chance to return to their workplace and apply the principles and behaviors they learned (and thus is summative). Participants might also be interviewed or surveyed about learning during the course of the intervention (which would be formative).

Level 3: Evaluation Level 3 measures changes in behavior. This level of summative evaluation assesses whether participants are using their new knowledge or skills in their job. At this level, James and Leah might ask Leadership Academy participants, their supervisors, or subordinates, “To what extent has the leader’s behavior changed and improved as a result of the Leadership Academy?” or “What is the person doing differently now?” Similar to level 2, this type of evaluation is best done postintervention. It can be accomplished by interviewing, observing, or surveying participants and stakeholders affected by the intervention.

Level 4: Evaluation Level 4 measures results for the organization. This level of summative evaluation measures how the intervention affected business performance or contributed to the achievement of organization goals. At this level, James and Leah might ask Leadership Academy participants, their supervisors, or subordinates, “How has the organization bene�ited from the Leadership Academy?” “To what degree has employee satisfaction, productivity, or performance improved?” “To what degree has recruitment and retention of employees improved as a result of improved leadership?” “How many promotions have occurred as a result of participating in the academy?” or “How much money has the organization saved due to better leadership decisions?” As these questions indicate, it might be dif�icult to actually measure and attribute changed leadership to organization results and outcomes.

Kirkpatrick continued to evolve his model and even questioned whether it was a true model or just a guideline; his family members have continued developing it (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). He also expanded his focus to consider an intervention’s cost–bene�it ratio and whether it demonstrated a return on investment. Measuring these variables can also present challenges to organizations and OD consultants.

Lawson’s Application of Kirkpatrick’s Framework Building on Kirkpatrick’s framework, Lawson (2016) categorized variables relating to the what, who, when, how, and why of the framework’s use. Her approach has been adapted for OD and is depicted in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4: Applying Kirkpatrick’s framework to OD interventions

Level What Who When How Why

1 Reaction: Did they like it?

Participants During or after the intervention

Smile sheet Determine level of participant satisfaction and need to revise intervention if duplicated

2 Learning: What knowledge or skills were retained?

Participants and consultants

During, before, and/or after the intervention

Pre- and posttests, skills applications, role plays, case studies, and exercises

Determine whether consultant has been effective in implementing intervention purpose and objectives

3 Behavior: How are participants performing differently?

Participants, supervisors, subordinates, and peers

3 to 6 months after intervention

Surveys, interviews, observation, performance, and appraisal

Determine extent to which participants transferred their learning from the intervention to the workplace

4 Results: What is the impact on the bottom line?

Participants and control group

After completion of level 3 assessment

Cost–bene�it analysis and tracking operational data

Determine whether the bene�its outweigh costs and how the intervention contributed to organization goals and strategy

Source: Adapted from The Trainer’s Handbook (4th ed., p. 234), by K. Lawson, 2016, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Critiques of Kirkpatrick’s Framework Kirkpatrick’s (1994, 2006) four levels of criteria have been dominant for decades among evaluators. With popularity, however, comes criticism. First, the model has been critiqued for being primarily focused on postintervention realities, that is, for evaluating what happens after the intervention versus incorporating more formative evaluation into the process. The four-level framework also does not help evaluators link causal relationships between outcomes and the levels of evaluation. Finally, the framework does not help evaluators determine what changes equate to the different levels of evaluation or how best to measure each level.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 53/64

Some authors have suggested expanding the reaction level to include assessing participants’ reaction to the intervention techniques and ef�iciency (Kaufman & Keller, 1994). One might also try splitting the reaction level to include measuring participants’ perceptions of enjoyment, usefulness, and the dif�iculty of the program (Warr & Bunce, 1995). Kaufman and Keller (1994) recommended adding a �ifth level to address the societal contribution and outcomes created by the intervention, which is becoming more popular with the increased emphasis on corporate social responsibility and sustainability. Phillips (1996) advocated adding a �ifth level that speci�ically addresses return on investment.

Other Frameworks of Evaluation

Although the Kirkpatrick model is one of the dominant evaluation models, it is not necessarily the best or most appropriate for every situation. In fact, six decades of evaluation research have not yielded a universal evaluation model (Reio, Rocco, Smith, & Chang, 2017). This section brie�ly pro�iles some lesser- known evaluation models.

Hamblin’s Five-Level Model Similar to Kirkpatrick’s model, this model measures reactions, learning, job behavior, and organizational impacts, as well as a �ifth level—the economic outcomes of training. The hierarchy of Hamblin’s (1974) model is more speci�ic than Kirkpatrick’s in that reactions lead to learning, learning leads to behavior changes, and behavior changes have organizational impact. Because of this assertion, Hamblin believed that evaluation at a given level is not meaningful unless the evaluation at the previous level has been performed. It is worth noting that a major criticism of the Kirkpatrick model is his assumption that the four levels are causally linked (Reio et al., 2017). That linkage has never been demonstrated, although Hamblin may be trying to make that linkage.

Preskill and Torres’s Evaluative Inquiry Model Preskill and Torres (1999) contributed a model of inquiry to the literature that uses the evaluation process as a learning and development opportunity:

Evaluative inquiry is an ongoing process for investigating and understanding critical organization issues. It is an approach to learning that is fully integrated with an organization’s work practices, and as such, it engenders (a) organization members’ interest and ability in exploring critical issues using evaluation logic, (b) organization members’ involvement in evaluative processes, and (c) the personal and professional growth of individuals within the organization. (pp. 1–2)

Evaluative inquiry is the fostering of relationships among organization members and the diffusion of their learning throughout the organization; it serves as a transfer-of-knowledge process. To that end, evaluative inquiry provides an avenue for individuals’ as well as the organization’s ongoing growth and development. (p. 18)

Their de�inition emphasizes that evaluation is more than simply reporting survey �indings. Rather than being event driven, such as sending a survey to participants after the intervention is over, evaluation should be an ongoing part of everyone’s job, that is, a shared learning process. Evaluative inquiry should be focused on

intervention and organizational processes as well as outcomes; shared individual, team, and organizational learning; educating and training organizational practitioners in inquiry skills (action learning); collaboration, cooperation, and participation; establishing linkages between learning and performance; searching for ways to create greater understanding of the variables that affect organizational success and failure; and using a diversity of perspectives to develop understanding about organizational issues (Preskill & Catsambas, 2006).

Preskill and Torres (1999) identi�ied four learning processes—dialogue, re�lection, questioning, and identifying and clarifying values, beliefs, assumptions, and knowledge—that facilitate three phases of evaluative inquiry: focusing the evaluative inquiry, carrying out the inquiry, and applying learning. The phases are depicted in Table 6.5.

Table 6.5: Preskill and Torres’s evaluative inquiry phases

Phase Description Strategies

At each stage of inquiry, the following skills are used:

1. Dialogue 2. Re�lection 3. Asking questions 4. Identifying and clarifying

values, beliefs, assumptions, and knowledge

Focusing the evaluative inquiry

Determine issues and concerns for evaluation Identify stakeholders Identify guiding questions for the evaluation

Focused dialogues Group model building Open space technology Critical incidents Assumption testing through questioning

Carrying out the inquiry

Design and implement the evaluation (collect, analyze, interpret data) Address evaluative questions

Develop a database for organization learning Literature-based discussions Working session to interpret survey results (or other data collected) Framing �indings as lessons learned

Applying learning Identify and select action alternatives Develop and implement action plans Monitor progress

Capturing concerns, issues, and action alternatives Using technology to facilitate brainstorming Developing an action plan Solving implementation issues

Brinkerhoff’s Six-Stage Model

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 54/64

This model de�ines evaluation as the collection of information to facilitate decision making (Brinkerhoff, 1989). Brinkerhoff advocated systemic evaluation that considers the change process holistically. It requires that consultants articulate how and why each training or development activity is supposed to work, without which comprehensive evaluation is impossible. This model helps to assess whether and how programs bene�it the organization; analysis can help trace any failures to one or more of the six stages of Brinkerhoff ’s model:

1. Goal setting (What is the need?): A need, problem, or opportunity worth addressing that could be favorably in�luenced if someone learned something is identi�ied.

2. Program design (What will work?): A program that teaches the needed topic is created or, if one already exists, it is located. 3. Program implementation (It is working?): The organization successfully implements the designed program. 4. Immediate outcomes (Did they learn it?): The participants exit the program after successfully acquiring the intended skills, knowledge, or attitudes. 5. Immediate or usage outcomes (Are they keeping and/or using it?): The participants retain and use what they learned. 6. Impacts and worth (Did it make a worthwhile difference?): The organization bene�its when participants retain and use what they learned.

Brinkerhoff ’s model provides a platform to think about desired impact at the beginning of the change process and takes a more holistic look at the activities and impacts and how they will be communicated.

Input, Process, Output, and Outcomes Evaluation This model evaluates training programs at four levels (input, process, output, and outcomes) in terms of their potential contribution to the overall effectiveness of a training program (Bushnell, 1990). It is similar to the systems model introduced in Chapter 2 that considers inputs, throughputs, and outputs in organization systems:

1. Inputs: trainee quali�ications, instructor abilities, instructional material, facilities, and budget 2. Process: value-adding activities such as planning, designing, developing, and delivering the training 3. Output: trainee reactions, knowledge and skills gained, and improved job performance 4. Outcomes: pro�its, customer satisfaction, and productivity

This model has the following bene�its:

1. It can help determine whether training programs are achieving the right purpose. 2. It can help identify the types of changes that could improve course design, content, and delivery. 3. It can help determine whether students have actually acquired knowledge and skills.

Steps in the evaluation process:

1. Identify evaluation goals: Determine the overall structure of the evaluation effort and establish the parameters that in�luence later stages. 2. Develop an evaluation design and strategy: Select appropriate measures, develop a data collection strategy, match data types with experimental

designs, allocate the data collection resources, and identify appropriate data sources. 3. Select and construct measurement tools: Select or construct tools that best �it the data requirements and meet criteria for reliability and validity.

Examples include questionnaires, performance assessments, tests, observation checklists, problem simulations, structured interviews, and performance records.

4. Analyze the data: Tie the results of the data-gathering effort to the evaluation’s original goals. 5. Make conclusions and recommendations and present the �indings.

Consider This

After reading these evaluation models, you might think they look familiar. Indeed, they follow a mini action research cycle of planning, doing, and checking. If you were planning an evaluation, which approach would you use and why?

Evaluation: A Simpler Way? Organizations are accountable for showing results, and OD is no exception. Yet, a comprehensive, widespread evaluation model does not exist. Paine (2014) asked if evaluation could be simpli�ied and advocated Brinkerhoff and Mooney’s Business Case Success Method (2008), whereby instead of putting a lot of time and resources into conducting evaluation, the question becomes, “Did this intervention add value?” Paine recommended asking questions to this end such as the following:

1. What results did we expect? 2. What evidence is available to support or refute the results we obtained? 3. What should we explore more in depth? 4. What additional compelling evidence is available? 5. How can we communicate the results in an understandable way to the organization?

The Brinkerhoff and Mooney model is based on taking a systemic approach that attempts to understand how the change was applied on the job, what the results were of the learning or change, and how the change contributed to organization goals. Paine added a �inal variable to the model: How did the bene�its compare with the costs?

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 55/64

6.4 Planning and Performing the Evaluation

Just as with other aspects of the action research process, evaluation requires deliberate planning and buy-in from the client. To plan the evaluation, Cervero (1985) suggested identifying �ive key factors:

1. What is the purpose of the evaluation? 2. Who needs what information? 3. Are there any practical and ethical constraints? 4. What resources are available? 5. What are the evaluator’s values?

The answers to these �ive questions offer an evaluation a strong foundation, so it is worth re�lecting with the client about them. Once clear on these issues, you can get more speci�ic about evaluation purposes, measurements, information sources, data collection, data analysis, feedback, further action, and how to anticipate and manage resistance. These evaluation steps may look familiar, because conducting an evaluation is similar to doing a small-scale action research project. These steps, illustrated in Figure 6.2, will be explored in the next sections.

Figure 6.2: Steps in the checking phase

This �igure outlines the steps of a typical evaluation process. Notice that it looks very similar to the action research process of plan, do, check.

Consider This

Apply Cervero’s �ive questions to an evaluation you have completed or anticipate doing in the future. How have the questions helped you re�lect on a past evaluation or plan for a future one?

Determine the Purpose of the Evaluation

Determining the evaluation’s purpose(s) offers clear focus moving forward. Referring back to Cervero’s categories of evaluation may help pinpoint what is being evaluated. For effective formative evaluation, a consultant should work with the client to determine what needs to be evaluated throughout the action research process, particularly regarding process improvement. For example, in the case of the Leadership Academy, formative evaluation consisted of assessing the curriculum for relevance and cost. The examination of a performance appraisal process change earlier in the chapter showed how one might assess employees’ satisfaction with their level of participation in the process or with a pilot phase of the appraisal.

Consultants should also plan the purpose of summative evaluation. Returning to the example of the Leadership Academy, it was essential to �ind out whether the participants learned and applied the new behaviors and skills, and if so, how their actions affected their organizations. In the case of the performance appraisal process change, the organization wanted to know if it changed supervisor behavior, improved retention, affected learning, and increased performance.

Once an evaluation’s purpose has been decided, a consultant can begin to identify what questions to ask the participants. Table 6.6 offers examples of appropriate questions for different evaluation goals. Questions revolve around needs assessment, intervention conceptualization, intervention delivery,

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 56/64

outcomes, and costs.

Table 6.6: Typical evaluation questions

Questions about the need for the intervention (planning and needs assessment)

What is the nature and magnitude of the problem to be addressed? What are the characteristics of the individuals/team members/organization? What are the needs of the individuals/team members/organization? What consulting services are needed? What is the time frame? What contracting is necessary?

Questions about the intervention’s conceptualization or design (planning)

Who is the client? Target population? What consulting services should be provided? What is the best intervention? What are the best delivery systems for the intervention? How can the intervention identify, recruit, and sustain the intended participants? How should the intervention be organized? What resources are necessary and appropriate for the intervention?

Questions about intervention logistics, delivery, and reach (planning and intervention)

Are intervention goals being met? Are the intended interventions being delivered to the intended individuals/teams/organization? Has the intervention missed participants who need it? Are suf�icient numbers of participants engaged in the intervention? Are the participants satis�ied with the intervention? Are administrative, organizational, and personnel functions handled well?

Questions about intervention outcomes (evaluation)

Are the outcome goals and objectives being achieved? Does the intervention have bene�icial effects on the recipients? Does the intervention have adverse side effects on the participants? Are some participants affected more by the intervention than others? Did the intervention improve the issue/problem?

Questions about intervention cost and ef�iciency (evaluation)

Are resources used ef�iciently? Is the cost reasonable in relation to the magnitude of bene�its? Would alternative approaches yield equivalent bene�its at less cost?

Adapted from Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (7th ed., p. 77), by P. H. Rossi, M. W. Lipsey, and H. E. Freeman, 2004, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

See Case Study: Piloting and Evaluating a New Performance Appraisal Process.

Case Study: Piloting and Evaluating a New Performance Appraisal Process

A paper products manufacturing company begins working with a consultant to improve employee retention, because the company has a signi�icantly higher attrition rate compared with other companies it benchmarked. One of the interventions selected during the action research process is to overhaul the way supervisors share feedback with employees; the performance appraisal process will become more developmental than punitive, ongoing rather than once a year, with no surprises in the feedback delivered.

Making this change requires developing a new process. A small design team is formed to advise on the new performance appraisal process. It includes the consultant, client, supervisors, and employees. The team designs an intervention that is based on supervisors providing feedback in the moment— that is, when they notice something and want to coach the employee through it. The model also incorporates periodic opportunities for the employee and supervisor to meet, focus on the employee’s developmental plan, and make adjustments as needed. Once the process is developed, the team decides to pilot it with a small department.

Before the pilot begins, the participating employees are briefed on the intervention and con�irm their participation. Both the employees and supervisors are trained in the new method, and the supervisors receive additional training on how to provide coaching and give developmental feedback. The design team begins to study the pilot group’s response by questioning whether it is meeting the original need of improving retention and whether the design is best for meeting the needs. To this end, the design team holds informal conversations with the employees and supervisors and asks them questions such as these:

What do you like about this new process? What don’t you like about this new process? How do you perceive these changes? Will this work if we expand it further, or would you suggest changes? What have you learned in the process?

The informal conversations yield important data that design team members share during a meeting. There is general support for the idea, but the supervisors do not always feel competent in using the new process correctly; they also feel stressed about the time it takes. The employees are unsure of what the purpose of the periodic meetings is. Some employees and supervisors are resistant, feeling either distrust toward the process or resignation that things will not change.

The design team decides to adjust the process. It provides more support and training to the supervisors on how to coach and share feedback, with the expectation that it will take less time as they become more comfortable with the process. It also assembles the department and models an ideal periodic meeting to touch base on development. The pilot group continues to work with the process for several more weeks, with ups and downs.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 57/64

FS-Stock/iStock/Getty Images Plus

The design team asks employees how they perceive the changes in the communication with supervisors.

Prior to rolling out the process to the wider organization, the design team meets with the pilot department to see if additional adjustments are needed. The process works better for most but still has logistical problems that require further change.

Finally, the company is ready to roll out the changes organization-wide. It starts with a communication plan and provides training to all employees. The design team continues to monitor the process over the next year.

After the plan has been in place for a year, the design team comes together and decides to plan and perform an evaluation to assess whether the new performance appraisal process met its intended goals. The evaluation follows these steps:

1. Describe the purpose of the evaluation. The design team determines that the evaluation’s purpose is to assess whether the new performance appraisal process increased employee retention.

2. Identify appropriate evaluation measures. The design team decides to look at three measures:

a. Retention comparing the year before the intervention with the year after it b. Employee attitudes c. Supervisor attitudes

3. Choose and employ data collection methods. This depends on the type of data desired and the question the organization wishes to answer. The design team chooses three methods:

a. Attrition records to measure the year-to-year comparison of retention rates b. Survey of employees c. Interviews of supervisors

4. Analyze data and provide feedback. Once the data is collected, the consultant and client make the �irst analysis and then involve the design team. Once the �indings are re�ined, they share them during an open meeting with employees. They also share them with supervisors in a separate meeting to get their feedback and input.

5. Anticipate and manage resistance to the evaluation. Although the team reviewed worst-case scenarios for how the organization or employees might resist, the problems are minimal. For example, complaints are similar to those heard throughout the pilot process from employees who were skeptical that the new performance appraisal process would work.

Once the analysis is complete, the design team presents its �indings to top management. The organization now needs to determine how effective the intervention was and whether it would be wise to invest further in it.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Given your knowledge of evaluation, what are some steps the design team followed in implementing its evaluation? 2. What steps did the design team miss?

Identify Appropriate Evaluation Measures

Once an evaluation’s purpose has been determined, actions to measure it should be identi�ied. This book has covered a range of evaluation techniques. The formative measures that the Leadership Academy team members identi�ied allowed them to recruit a small group of top leaders to critique the curriculum. They followed this with a small pilot session to troubleshoot and revise the curriculum with an actual audience. Participants evaluated the academy throughout the implementation, and adjustments were made accordingly.

Summative measures could have included any of the examples listed in the Kirkpatrick discussion, such as promotions, employee satisfaction, or customer satisfaction. In the case of the Leadership Academy, measures included improved performance, promotions, a leadership project, and team satisfaction. Because a main goal was to cultivate leaders from within the organization, measuring the percentage of participants who were promoted from middle management to executive positions was a key metric for evaluating the intervention’s success.

Choose and Employ Data Collection Methods

With the purpose and measures determined, the consultant should identify appropriate sources of information and methods for gathering the information. For example, if you want to measure the results of a customer-service training, you could measure the number of complaints, review written complaints, or contact customers. The methods you might use to do this include surveys, documents, or interviews. Table 6.7 offers an overview of data collection methods appropriate for evaluation. The more commonly used methods to collect evaluation data include archival data, observations, surveys and questionnaires, assessments, interviews, and focus groups. Chapter 4 reviewed methods used to conduct analysis or planning—many of them are similar.

Table 6.7: Evaluation data collection methods

Evaluation method Description

Interview A conversation with one or more individuals to assess their opinions, observations, and beliefs. Questions are usually determined in advance, and the conversation is recorded.

Questionnaire A standardized set of questions intended to assess opinions, observations, and beliefs that can be administered in paper form or electronically

Direct observation Viewing a task or set of tasks as they are performed and recording what is seen

Tests and simulations Structured situations to assess an individual’s knowledge or pro�iciency to perform some task or behavior

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 58/64

Archival performance data Use of existing information, such as �iles, reports, quality records, or performance appraisals

Product reviews Internal or external evaluations of products or services

Performance reviews Written assessments of individual performance against established criteria

Records and documents Written materials developed by organizations and communities (performance appraisals, production schedules, �inancial reports, attendance records, annual reports, company and board minutes, training data, etc.)

Portfolio A purposeful collection of a learner’s work assembled over time that documents events, activities, products, and/or achievements

Cost–bene�it analysis A method for assessing the relationship between the outcomes of an educational program and the costs required to produce them

Demonstration Exhibiting a speci�ic skill or procedure to show competency

Pre- and posttests Instruments used to measure knowledge and skills prior to and after the intervention to see if there were changes

Focus groups Group interviews of approximately �ive to 12 participants to assess opinions, beliefs, and observations. Focus groups require a trained facilitator.

Source: Adapted from Planning Programs for Adult Learners: A Practical Guide (3rd ed.), by R. S. Caffarella and S. R. Daffron, 2013, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Archival Data Evaluating the degree of change an intervention produced requires establishing a baseline of existing information from employment records, production �igures, or quarterly reports. This information is referred to as archival data (or documents and records). You are not seeking new data but are using existing data to assess the intervention’s effectiveness. Archival data is easily accessible, typically available for no or minimal cost, and useful for providing historical context or a chronology of events, such as employee satisfaction over time. The Leadership Academy team relied on archival data from performance reviews and employee satisfaction surveys to evaluate impact.

Observation Data Watching the organization engage in its everyday operations involves observation. Observation is a type of evaluation based on detailed descriptions of day- to-day behaviors that cannot be explored by viewing existing archival records. Examples of observation data might include checklists of meeting-leader behaviors completed by one of the team members, call monitoring forms, listening skills, and body language. Observation did not play an of�icial role in the Leadership Academy evaluation process; however, participants’ supervisors observed the changes they made in their approach to their work and documented these in their performance reviews. Data collection by observation can range from routine counting of certain occurrences to writing narrative descriptions of what is being observed.

Surveys and Questionnaires Surveys and questionnaires are helpful evaluation data collections for measuring the intervention’s effects. They should be completed by respondents with some experience related to the intervention. In the Leadership Academy vignette, the consultants used surveys to gather participants’ input on their individual leadership styles during the program. Other examples include end-of-course reaction forms or surveys of stakeholders such as customers, employees, or management. Surveys and questionnaires might also be appropriate when evaluators desire new data from multiple individuals who may be dispersed throughout the organization. Surveys and questionnaires are relatively inexpensive and easy to administer, particularly with the use of technology. It is important that these instruments be well constructed; their wording must be unambiguous, and they must be easy to complete.

Paper, Pencil, or Computer-Based Tests Consultants can administer a variety of commercially produced tests to assess the knowledge or skills imparted by an intervention, or they can develop an original test unique to the intervention. No matter the type of test employed, the evaluation result is based on the test scores. This type of evaluation works well when trying to determine the quantity and quality of the participants’ education. OD consultants might administer a pretest before an intervention and a posttest afterward, or they might require participants to pass a test to attain a certi�icate of completion.

Tests should be cautiously designed and prudently administered. First, questions must be written in a way that consistently and accurately measures what was taught. Second, participants may perceive test taking as threatening, especially if the results will be used to make performance appraisal decisions. Therefore, efforts to defuse test apprehension should be built into the process.

This very book uses some of these tools. Teaching you about OD is the intervention, which is executed via concepts presented in book form. Additional interventions take the form of assignments and opportunities to engage with other learners. Pre- and posttests check your prior knowledge on the topic and gauge how well you learned the concepts after you engaged with them.

Individual and Focus Group Interviews Chapter 4 discussed interviews and focus groups as effective ways of understanding targeted individuals’ or groups’ views, beliefs, or experiences with the issue under investigation. Both approaches depend on developing well-crafted questions that yield useful information. Interviews and focus groups should be run by an experienced facilitator. These methods yield rich, qualitative information that includes insights about the intervention, critiques, or success stories. Not all participants react well to these data collection methods, however, and some may not trust the interviewers or the process; they may not feel comfortable enough to be honest. Participants may also say what they think the facilitator wants to hear.

Analyze Data and Provide Feedback

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 59/64

Once data has been collected from an appropriate source and via an appropriate method, it needs to be analyzed. Refer to Chapter 5 for a full discussion of how to analyze data. In the Leadership Academy vignette, performance reviews and employee satisfaction data from survey research were analyzed. The team also monitored participants’ leadership projects and promotional advances.

Next, the data analysis should be presented as feedback to key decision makers such as affected employees and management. How to share feedback with a client is covered extensively in Chapter 4, and the same rules apply when sharing evaluation feedback. It is a consultant’s job to determine the feedback meeting’s key purpose and desired outcomes. Does the client need help determining whether to continue the intervention? Modify it? Measure learning or performance? Address unintended consequences of the intervention? Sharing feedback with the client involves determining the focus of the feedback meeting, developing the agenda for feedback, recognizing different types of feedback, presenting feedback effectively, managing the consulting presence during the meeting, addressing con�identiality concerns, and anticipating defensiveness and resistance.

At any point in the evaluation process, data collection and analysis can prompt the team to decide to change future action. For example, the team might decide to adjust the ongoing process, continue the process with new interventions, or close the project if the problem is permanently solved. This is the third step of the evaluation process, de�ined earlier in the chapter as termination or recycling. It is discussed in detail in the next section.

Anticipate and Manage Resistance to the Evaluation

Sometimes, evaluation is resisted by the client, organization, or other stakeholders. Resistance and strategies for curbing it were discussed at length in Chapter 5. Resistors may not want to spend more money to learn the results of the intervention. Or the organization may be unwilling to spend the time required to conduct an evaluation and instead want to move on to the next issue. There may be fear about what the evaluation will reveal (perhaps management failed to implement the changes, or perhaps employee views remain negative). Organization members can also suffer from change fatigue and worry that the evaluation will bring even more change. Of course, such resistance patterns are likely what created problems in the �irst place, so observing them warrants timely intervention with the client.

Moreover, a consultant should anticipate political issues the evaluation might create. Results of the evaluation can also in�luence future resource allocations, which could cause trepidation and con�lict among organization members. Remaining vigilant as a consultant and working to be authentic and in�luential is key to navigating the politics of evaluation. See Assessment: Testing Your Change Management Skills.

Assessment: Testing Your Change Management Skills

Visit the following link to take an assessment that provides a good review of change and some insight into resistance. The website offers several resources for learning more about management skills.

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_56.htm (http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_56.htm)

Some clients may resist doing the evaluation because they are more interested in moving on to the next challenge or opportunity. Or they may not want to subject themselves to potentially negative feedback. In this case, the consultant should lay out the bene�its of measuring results and learning from both positive and negative feedback. Doing so shows good stewardship of the time and resources committed to the intervention and provides data to support future initiatives. One way to minimize resistance to evaluation is to make sure it has been addressed during contracting, as outlined in Chapter 3.

Even when there is cooperation and investment, evaluation is not easy. Demonstrating impact and results can be challenging for certain interventions such as improving leadership. Linking results to intervention events can also be tricky. Devising appropriate evaluation criteria can be problematic, especially if intervention outcomes were vague from the initial planning. Finally, the client may balk at making judgments about the intervention.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 60/64

Skynesher/E+/Getty Images Plus

The action research cycle is terminated when the implementation has been a success. Ending the consulting relationship smoothly and ensuring customer satisfaction helps drive repeat business.

6.5 Concluding the Action Research Process

All consulting jobs end. Indeed, your goal as a successful consultant is to become redundant and work yourself out of a job. In our Leadership Academy vignette, Leah terminated her role with the project after 2 years, the �irst of which focused on planning and the second on implementation. During year 2, she worked with internal consultants who would take over her role leading and facilitating the Leadership Academy in its third year. In this way, she fostered a repetition—called a recycling—of the intervention.

Disengagement or Termination

When the client has successfully implemented a change, the OD consultant is no longer needed. At this juncture, the client has become self-reliant and can effectively disengage or terminate the consulting relationship. Working oneself out of a consulting job may at �irst seem like a bad idea. On the contrary, smoothly disengaging from a client is how to help clients build capacity and also the way to get repeat business as a consultant. Effectively navigating this stage depends on setting the expectation during contracting, recognizing the appropriate timing, processing any interpersonal issues between the consultant and the client, ensuring that the learning is ongoing, verifying that the client is satis�ied, and planning for post-consulting contact.

Contracting About Termination A consultant should start setting expectations about disengagement right from the beginning of the consultancy, during contracting, as discussed in Chapter 3. There are several things that help disengagement go smoothly. First, the consultant should work with the client to train others in the organization to take over the role played by the consultant, as Leah did in the Leadership Academy vignette. A consultant’s disengagement may be abrupt or more gradual, depending on client needs and resources. If the relationship is expected to be terminated gradually, make sure the client builds the ongoing consulting into the budget.

Ensuring Learning Capacity The action research process focuses on promoting learning and change that helps the client diagnose issues, act on them, and evaluate the results. As emphasized in Chapter 5, change and learning go hand in hand. The action research process helps the client build capacity to solve future problems. When the client has the capacity to follow the action research process and continue learning, the client is ready to tackle future challenges without your help.

Recognizing Appropriate Timing It is the consultant’s job to monitor both the client and the change implementation to assess when the organization has the capacity to continue without help. Clients may resist termination because they have become over-reliant on the consultant. You can avoid this dependency by striking a collaborative relationship from the beginning. When it is time to terminate, it makes sense to make a grand gesture to signal the relationship has ended. You might want to plan an event with the client, such as presenting a �inal report, celebrating the key stakeholders, or publishing some type of document that tells the organization’s story. The Leadership Academy consultancy culminated in the graduating cohort and the new cohort coming together to celebrate and Leah turning over the management reins to the internal consultants.

Verifying Client Satisfaction We have discussed the importance of being authentic with your client and completing the business of each phase of the action research project, as Block (2011) recommended in his classic consulting text. Those key roles remain relevant right up until the end. That is, a consultant should continue to ask the client questions such as “Are you getting what you need from me?” “Is this outcome what you expected?” “What are you concerned about in the future?” “Can you maintain this change on your own?”

When you have veri�ied that the client is happy with the OD effort, you can move toward termination. If the client is unhappy, however, work remains.

Planning for Post-Consult Contact Although the consulting relationship will end at some point, it is advisable to have a plan for consulting after the intervention has been deemed a success. Clients may run into trouble in the future or need their questions answered. It is thus wise to develop a follow-up and maintenance plan with the client that involves periodic checking to make sure the change is on track. Agree on a minimal support maintenance plan such as periodic meetings or reports. Leah, for example, continued to periodically touch base with the Leadership Academy to ensure things were functioning smoothly after her departure.

Although it would be considered a failure if a consultant had to return to solve the problem he or she was initially contracted for, it is likely that the client will face new challenges and seek out help. Ensuring that there is an open communication channel and guidelines for future engagement can put both parties at ease.

Recycling

There are times in the consultancy when termination or disengagement is not a good option for the client. This is true of interventions that are designed to repeat over time. In the Leadership Academy vignette, for example, the project was designed to repeat annually. Although Leah terminated her involvement with the project, she trained internal consultants to carry on her role, effectively repeating or recycling the action research process.

Recycling can also be an option when the client seeks additional changes beyond the change that has already been effectively implemented. For example, consider a company that started providing executive coaching for its emerging leaders. The program was so successful that the company decided to offer training that brought some of the coaching principles to a wider audience.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 61/64

Recycling can also occur when the intervention was only moderately successful or even failed. An evaluation can usually expose an intervention’s shortcomings and help the organization identify adjustments or new interventions. One example would be an organization that did not follow the action research process and implemented a random intervention that was not clearly linked to the problem, such as requiring employees to attend training unrelated to the organization’s needs. Or the organization might have implemented something similar to the Leadership Academy but failed to prepare upper management to deal with highly enthusiastic emerging leaders clamoring to make changes that challenge the status quo. In this case, a recycled intervention would target upper management members and help them become more equipped to mentor up-and-coming employees.

Regardless of whether the OD intervention and action research process has been terminated or recycled, when your client has been successful at changing and has learned new ways of thinking and behaving, you have completed successful OD. Ultimately, OD seeks to build capacity in individuals and organizations so they can problem solve without your help. That is the mark of an effective action research process.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 62/64

Summary and Resources

Chapter Summary Evaluation is a process of assessing, adjusting, and terminating or recycling the intervention based on data and subsequent decisions. The purpose of evaluation is to make data-based decisions about an intervention’s quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness. Evaluation can be formative or summative. Formative evaluation is concerned with improving and enhancing an OD process as it is underway, rather than judging its merit. Summative evaluation occurs after the implementation is complete and ascertains whether the change accomplished the desired outcomes and impact. Both provide valuable ways to assess the intervention before, during, and after it has occurred. Cervero’s categories of evaluation show the different approaches to evaluation. It is important to be clear on an evaluation’s purpose at the planning stage. Typical evaluation categories include intervention design and implementation; employee participation and satisfaction; acquisition of new knowledge, skills, and attitudes; application of learning after the intervention; impact of the intervention; and intervention characteristics associated with outcomes. Multiple frameworks for conducting evaluation exist. The best known is Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation framework. This model measures reaction, learning, behavior, and results. Other models of evaluation include Hamblin’s �ive-level model; Preskill and Torres’s evaluative inquiry; Brinkerhoff ’s six-stage model; and the input, process, output, and outcomes model. Planning and performing the evaluation involves several steps, the �irst of which is determining the evaluation’s purpose. Articulating a clear purpose gives the evaluation focus and helps identify appropriate participants, measures, and methods. Identifying appropriate evaluation measures is driven by the evaluation’s purpose. If a consultant aims to measure employee satisfaction after a change in leadership, he or she would likely survey employees to assess their satisfaction with the change. Once the evaluation purpose and measures have been chosen, the data collection methods should be determined and carried out. Typical methods include surveys, interviews, focus groups, observations, and documents. Once the data is collected, it can be analyzed and fed back to the client and other interested stakeholders. This information is important for making decisions about the continuance of the intervention and future funding. It is advisable to anticipate client resistance both to conducting the evaluation and to hearing the results. Consultants can write evaluation protocols into their initial contract. When you notice resistance to evaluation, act quickly to defuse the resistance, address the concerns, and help the client use information most effectively. The action research process concludes by being terminated or recycled. The process is terminated when the change is successfully implemented. There is no longer a need for a consultant. The client has built capacity to use the action research process on future problems. The action research process is recycled when termination is not a good option for the client. For example, there may be a desire to expand or improve the implementation. There may also be a need to continue working with the consultant if the intervention repeats over time. In some cases, however, the intervention has failed, and it is time to consider a new approach.

Think About It! Re�lective Exercises to Enhance Your Learning 1. The chapter began with a vignette about a leadership academy for a state public health agency, which featured both formative and summative

evaluation. Have you been in a situation where an evaluation occurred? If so, can you recall the different types of evaluation? If you have not experienced a formal evaluation, how might you go about evaluating a change you experienced?

2. Think about a change you have implemented. It could be personal, like changing a habit or starting something new, or professional, like taking on a new responsibility or position or meeting a challenge. Conduct a formative evaluation (focusing on what you did or could have improved on) and a summative evaluation (in which you judge the effectiveness and impact) on the change.

3. Which evaluation framework presented in this chapter was the most appealing to you? Why? 4. Re�lect on how you might go about evaluating a recent change in your organization using one of the data collection methods outlined in the chapter. 5. Recall a time you have resisted change, especially organization change. How could a consultant or the organization have helped you become more

accepting?

Apply Your Learning: Activities and Experiences to Bring OD to Life 1. Imagine an organization hires you as an external consultant. It needs you to implement a new recruitment and retention process aimed at hiring a

more diverse work force. How would you go about evaluating whether the change was successful? a. What is the evaluation’s purpose? b. What steps will you follow to conduct the evaluation? c. What level(s) do you hope to evaluate, as per the Kirkpatrick framework? d. What data collection method will you use?

2. Identify a process, practice, or performance standard you would like to improve and plot how you would benchmark it. 3. Evaluation may be an afterthought in many interventions. How would you ensure evaluation is integrated into a change effort you are involved with or

leading? How might you curb resistance? 4. Identify an intervention in which you have participated at work and evaluate it according to Kirkpatrick’s four-level framework:

a. reaction b. learning c. behavior d. results

5. Plan an evaluation according to its a. purpose b. measures c. information sources and methods d. analysis and feedback e. future action f. political issues

6. If you have ever participated in an OD intervention led by a consultant, identify what types of evaluation were conducted. How well did the consultant do, based on the principles presented in this chapter?

7. Have you experienced a failed OD intervention that had to be recycled? If so, use the information presented in this chapter to diagnose what went wrong.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 63/64

Additional Resources Media

Michael Quinn Patton Evaluation Videos https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+patton+quin+evaulation (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+patton +quin+evaulation)

Kirkpatrick Model: Should I Always Conduct a Level 1 Evaluation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVnBE2W7qAI&list=PL3D286DBB9370267D (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVnBE2W7qAI&list=PL3D286D BB9370267D)

Kirkpatrick Model: Monitoring Level 3 to Maximize Results https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-qF4kJrTiI&list=PL3D286DBB9370267D (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-qF4kJrTiI&list=PL3D286DBB9370 267D)

Web Links

The American Evaluation Association (AEA), an international professional association of evaluators devoted to the application and exploration of program evaluation, personnel evaluation, technology, and many other forms of evaluation: http://www.eval.org (http://www.eval.org/)

The Online Evaluation Resource Library, a useful site that collects and makes available evaluation plans, instruments, and reports that can be used as examples by principal investigators, project evaluators, and others: http://oerl.sri.com (http://oerl.sri.com/)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Program Evaluation Resources site, which offers a plethora of useful content on conducting evaluations: http://www.cdc.gov/EVAL/resources/index.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/EVAL/resources/index.htm)

Key Terms Click on each key term to see the de�inition.

adjusting processes (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

The process of changing the OD intervention once the assessment data has been collected and analyzed.

archival data (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Existing records such as employment records, production �igures, or quarterly reports. Used as data sources when collecting evaluation data.

assessing changes (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

The process of gathering and analyzing data related to the learning and change associated with an OD intervention.

behavior (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Kirkpatrick’s level 3 evaluation, which measures how participants perform differently as a result of the intervention.

benchmark (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

When an organization compares its business practices, processes, and performance standards with other organizations that are best in class.

checking (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

A data-based evaluation to assess whether an intervention had the intended result.

evaluation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

A data-based checking process (assessment, adjustment, terminating, or recycling) to assess whether an intervention had the intended result.

formative evaluation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Assessments of an intervention before or during its implementation geared toward improving the process.

learning (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Kirkpatrick’s level 2 evaluation, which measures what skills and knowledge participants gained from the intervention.

1/14/22, 3:57 AM Print

https://content.uagc.edu/print/Bierema.6269.20.1?sections=ch04,sec4.1,sec4.2,sec4.3,sec4.4,sec4.5,sec4.6,sec4.7,ch04summary,ch05,sec5.1,sec… 64/64

observation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Type of evaluation based on detailed descriptions of day-to-day operations.

reaction (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Kirkpatrick’s level 1 evaluation, which measures how well participants liked the intervention.

recycling (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

The process of repeating or revising the action research process when further interventions are desired or the initial intervention has failed.

results (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Kirkpatrick’s level 4 evaluation, which measures how the bottom line was affected by the intervention.

summative evaluation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Assessment that is done once the intervention is completed to judge whether it attained its goals and addressed the problem and to make future decisions about funding and continuance.

surveys and questionnaires (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

Evaluation data collection method that uses instruments that participants complete to provide feedback on the intervention.

terminate (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Bierema.6269.20.1/sections/cover/books/Biere

To disengage from a consulting relationship with an organization at the end of the action research process.