Define and describe the concept of Organization Development, show how it operates, and describe the role of action research in strengthening an organization’s structure, culture, and processes. Streng

ILLUSTRATION 3: ORGANIZATIONAL IMPROVEMENT IN A NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBE

When the tribal council and the executive director of a Native American tribe called a graduate school of business to request a management development workshop, a professor who had been approached for his reactions offered a counterproposal. The professor, who was also an organization development consultant, suggested, with the the key people in the tribal organization, and develop a workshop around the problems being experienced by the organization. This particular tribal organization was charged being experienced natural resources of the reservation, maintaining and developing utilities and services, monitoring welfare and health, maintaining law and order, stimulating economic development, managing tribal enterprises, and preserving the best of the tribal culture. The tribal organization was the governing body of the tribal members. iDa chairman of the tive-person tribal council, the council itself, and the executive director agreed that a group of approximately 20 key people would be invited to the workshop as proposed by the consultants. These people included the total council, the executive director, his key subordinates, the staff of the Community Action Program, the Bureau of Indian Affairs resident forester, and an educator in charge of vocational education in the high school located on the reservation. All these people were interviewed by the consultants and were asked, in effect: "What things are going right?" and

"What things in the organization are getting in the way of accomplishing objectives?" The two consultants extracted the central positive and negative themes from the interview data and then designed the workshop around these issues.

The first workshop, spanning an entire week, was held on the university campus and had two basic components intermixed throughout the week: (1) use of the action research model and (2) a lecture-exercise component. The action research model provided the basic flow as follows: data gathering (the preworkshop interviews plus additional data gathering during the workshop), data feedback, ranking of the problems, work on the problems, and action planning to solve the problems. This working of the problems identified by the group served as the backdrop for the week's activities.

The consultants initiated several types of interventions during the problem-working phases of the workshop. Early in the workshop they presented the force-field analysis technique to the participants who used this diagnostic tool in analyzing several of the issues the group had identified as high-priority items. At another point, a modified role analysis technique was used relative to the roles of council members and executive director. With the council listening, the other participants discussed the following topic printed on a large sheet of newsprint: "If the council members were operating in an optimally effective and efficient way, what would they be doing?" Responses with substantial consensus were written on large sheets taped on the wall.

Council members then were encouraged to respond, and subsequent discussion led to some modifications on the sheets. The group repeated this exercise for the executive director's role. With the executive director listening, the rest of the group discussed the question: "If the executive director were operating in an optimally effective and efti-cient way, what would he be doing?" One outcome of this exercise was a gradual, but significant, shift in delegation of day-to-day operating decisions from the council to the executive director and staff.

The workshop also included several short lectures on a number of relevant topics, including leadership, group process, decision making, problem diagnosis, and commu-nications. This component included some instrumented exercises that permitted participants to compare different decision-making models and to evaluate their usefulness.

The humor of the group members appeared frequently and prompted a good deal of laughter. For example, in the review of the roles of the council members and the execu tive director, one of the tribal elders observed, "We have too many chiefs and not enough Indians." Their humor about themselves and each other usually carried messages of affection and inclusion, including messages of inclusion to the few non-Native American employees on the staff. Ethnic divisions seemed not to be important issues; problems of role clarification, delegation, and planning were the issues of highest concern.

By the end of the workshop, the participants had worked through a dozen or so important problems and had agreed on the next action steps, that is, "Who was going to do what when." Results of a questionnaire administered on the last day of the workshop indicated overwhelming enthusiasm for the process and what had been accomplished.

The consultants also perceived what they thought was a substantially higher level of openness, trust, and support among the participants at the end of the workshop compared with the levels during the early part of the workshop.

One action step agreed on was a two-day follow-up visit to the reservation by the consultants, to occur in five or six months. During ensuing weeks it became apparent that an earlier follow-up visit would be beneficial. Implementing some action plans had bogged down, although important progress had been made on a number of others.

During the first follow-up visit, the consultants interviewed a cross section of the workshop participants to assess the degree of progress, met with the council to assist in further review of council activities, and assisted in correcting a misunderstanding as to who was to be on one of the task forces created at the workshop. During the second follow-up visit, the consultants devoted their time primarily to meetings with the executive director and the council members, although they also held some discussions with key supervisors.

Subsequently, the council and the executive director requested a second work-shop, with the suggestion that this workshop be shorter and that more time be devoted to follow-up on the reservation. The workshop was held at a resort; it started on a Tuesday evening and ended Friday afternoon.

Although the second workshop followed the same basic pattern, including pre-workshop interviews, the group spent less time on lectures and instrumented exercises, and almost all the time on substantive issues. Since tensions between two subunits of the organization and the need to clarify responsibilities appeared to be the most pressing issues, the group spent a significant amount of time on these matters. The first problem was addressed through a three-way intergroup exercise in which each of the major groups-the council, the tribal staff, and the Community Action Program staff-devel-oped the following lists about the other groups and shared them in a general session:

What we like about what the What concerns us about the What we predict the

group is doing. group.

- group will say about us.

During the sharing of the lists, discussion was limited to explanation and questions requesting clarification. This phase was followed by subgroup discussion and, finally, by total group discussion and action planning.

Clarifying responsibilities was addressed by asking each participant to follow a suggested outline in writing his or her own job description, to print the descriptions on large newsprint, and to discuss them with his or her particular work team, including the supervisor. Revised job descriptions were then posted in the general conference room for perusal and informal discussion during breaks in the sessions. At the end of the workshop, the consultants, the council chairman, and the executive director agreed on the approximate date of two follow-up