DEVELOPING AN ACTION PLAN 2
Action Plan of Intervention
The ability to identify and resolve problems and issues within an organization creates a
healthy workspace for administrative teams and staff members. The adoption of impactful
organizational practices that address problems lead to the overall achievement of a company.
According to Mladenova (2022) organizations are faced with changes that are constant or
gradual over time that push for a quick redirection of strategies, operations, business models, and
structures. The ability for organizations to handle changes is key to overall success. Theorical
approaches can assist with organizational integrity when addressing problems and enhance the
use of appropriate action plans. Development of an action plan should present change
interventions by organizing and recording each one in a clear fashion (Busby, 2017).
The ABC Regulatory Body faces a problem pertaining to the division director who
provides oversight to a department that is truly made up of two separate departments.
Historically, the two independent departments were combined as one in an effort to have staff
members handle tasks on both sides. The issue of apparent differences for each department,
coupled with department consultant requirements to work on both sides, presents major obstacles
for the overall organization. The problem situation begins with issues faced by a new hire who
was the first external candidate hired for the department in question. The ability to balance skills
required for each of the two sectors of the department posed significant barriers as the new hire
navigated through the employee onboarding process. The specific issues included productivity,
process management, customer satisfaction with internal and external stakeholders, and role
specification. It is important to note existing consultants faced with these challenges maneuvered
differently due to areas such as cultural awareness of the organization, longevity of employment,
and insight into historical procedural paths laid by former administrative leaders.
DEVELOPING AN ACTION PLAN 3
Structural Intervention
Organizations adopt a structure that encompasses at least one objective and directs all
employees to a common purpose. According to Bolman and Deal (1997) structure constructs a
path of achieving the established strategic goals for the organization. Structure also serves as a
“blueprint for expectations and exchanges among internal players (executives, managers,
employees) and external constituencies (such as customers, competitors, regulators, and clients)
(Bolman & Deal, 1997, p. 53). The structural intervention approach for the ABC Regulatory
Body action plan will review behaviors and routines used by the department prior to combining
the departments. Identifying the structural foundation of these will provide guidance to the
establishment of new behaviors and routines that need to occur separately for each respective
department. The development of new structures based on the information derived will be applied
to the daily departmental business and reviewed in scheduled lunch and learn sessions with the
executive leadership team. The department will participate in the lunch and learn sessions after
extensive strategy meetings occur with both department directors and staff. The action plan
utilizing the structural theoretical approach will aim to identify how change to the organization
will occur and its’ timing. Pressure for change to occur in the established direction identified in
the action plan will be placed on executive leadership. The action plan is aimed at producing an
overall change of structure and not simply duplicating what has already been in existence.
Systematic Intervention
The Systems Theory approach is foundational to organizational development. The lens of
the systems approach examines the comprehensive productiveness of the system. A system refers
to the culmination of resources, data, and operations that work together in a collaborative
fashion. Johnson (2019) reports the emphasis of the system functioning as an organized whole
DEVELOPING AN ACTION PLAN 4
and is “a product of the relationships between its components as they work together to
collectively interact with their environment” (p. 13). The implication of the Systems Theory is
activity and decision-making in one area of an organization will impact separate areas.
According to Zemke (2001) the lens of systems thinking should view how systems should work
in comparison to how they actually work.
The system intervention approach for the ABC Regulatory Body action plan will begin
with the examination of the existing organizational system attached to the identified problem.
Assessment will occur by gathering data from employees via observation and interviews. The
department directors will analyze the budgetary implications, how the system meets the needs of
external stakeholders, identify key processes and department responsibilities, and the current
disposition of staff. Analysis results will assist with highlighting system goals and the overall
impact the department is currently faced with. All information will then be shared with the
executive leadership team.
Cultural Intervention
The culture of an organization considers the behavior of employees and the meaning
behind the behavior. Organizational culture is a direct reflection of leadership and is parallel to
the core values of the organization. The type of culture within organizations varies and differs
from one company to the next. Calciolari, et al. (2018) report different types of organizational
culture exist and represents how the orientation of staff members is a vehicle toward achieving
common goals. Calciolari, et al. identified the Competing Value Framework approach that
permits various organizational cultures versus the assumption of culture as one massive concept.
The Competing Value Framework defines different culture types that connect with contrasting
attitudes and values: clan, development, hierarchical and rational (Calciolari, et al., 2018). The
DEVELOPING AN ACTION PLAN 5
ABC Regulatory Body encompasses two of the four culture types identified by the Competing
Value Framework and includes hierarchy and market culture.
Hierarchy culture includes a clear chain of command and established procedures.
Calciolari, et al. (2018) describe hierarchical culture as encompassing a strong internal focus
with rule and regulation execution that affect how the organization functions. The ABC
Regulatory Body will continue to mandate staff are aware of the rules and adopt the philosophy
of doing the right thing at all costs. The tasks and duties of staff are clearly defined with a very
streamlined approach to the day-to-day functions of the organization. The market approach to
culture is also categorized by the ABC Regulatory Company with an emphasis on remaining
ahead of competition. Calciolari, et al. (2018) describes managers as conservative, achieving
goals that are predefined, and facing external competitors. The results-oriented and emphasis on
external focus to promote customer satisfaction cause employees to burn out from a consistent
production demand and meeting high expectations. Employee satisfaction is not apparent at
times within this organizational environment. Quarterly diversity, equity, and inclusion training
sessions will continue, as well as opportunities for staff to identify desired areas of training. The
use of cell groups assigned to each of the organizational strategic goals will continue as a part of
the action plan pertaining to cultural intervention efforts. Cell groups will be comprised of all
levels of staff within the organization. This approach will help build consensus on how the
organization achieves the mission and adopt new goals and tasks for each department.
Use of Political Lens for Intervention
A number of areas should be considered as it relates to the political theories lens and
applying this to the organizational action plan. The manager can operate in the role of politician
and setting an agenda. Effective political leadership is identified by developing an agenda of
DEVELOPING AN ACTION PLAN 6
change that emanates “direction while addressing the concerns of major stakeholders” (Boleman
& Deal, 1997, p. 213). The identified approach includes the need for sensitivity on the part of the
supervisor. Awareness can further identify if the agenda responds to staff concerns as the
supervisor gathers information. The manager can also introduce initiatives new to the
organization without engaging in proper research, including understanding the political impact.
Boleman and Deal (1997) identify actions needed to develop a political map established by
Pichault (1993) that include avenues of informal communication; those of political influence;
ways to rally stakeholders; and awareness of possible tactics forged by others. Boleman and Deal
further report a political map should identify key players, the amount of power for each player,
and identify the interest of each player. The ABC Regulatory Body as an organization is
challenged in the areas mentioned. Awareness provides greater understanding of the particular
work environment and assists with creating tasks needed for the action plan using the political
lens approach.
Conclusion
The action plan of intervention identifies various theories and how each theory impacts
the issue. The structural intervention approach for the action plan will include the review
behaviors and routines used by the department prior to combining the departments. The system’s
approach will examine the comprehensive productiveness of the system. Organizational culture
and analysis will reflect how leadership is parallel to the core values of the organization. The
political leadership and impact on the organizational problem can also identify important action
steps needed for the plan to be deemed successful.
DEVELOPING AN ACTION PLAN 7
References
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997).HReframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadershipH(2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
Busby, N. (2017). The Shape of Change: A guide to planning, implementing and embedding
organisational change (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315455457
Calciolari, S., Prenestini, A., & Lega, F. (2018). An organizational culture for all seasons? How
cultural type dominance and strength influence different performance goals.HPublic
Management Review,H20(9), 1400–1422. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1383784
Johnson, O. (2019). General system theory and the use of process mining to improve care
pathways. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 263, 11–22.
https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI190107
Mladenova, I. (2022). Relation between organizational capacity for change and readiness for
change.HAdministrative Sciences (2076-3387),H12(4), 135.
https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040135
Zemke, R. (2001). Systems thinking.HTraining,H38(2), 40.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
