Tallman withoutattachment

Organizational Change and Development Chapter 12

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND
DEVELOPMENT
Introduction
Change is a constant, a thread woven into the fabric of our personal and professional lives. Change
occurs within our world and beyond -- in national and international events, in the physical environment,
in the way organizations are structured and conduct their business, in political and socioeconomic
problems and solutions, and in societal norms and values. As the world becomes more complex and
increasingly interrelated, changes seemingly far away affect us. Thus, change may sometimes appear to
occur frequently and randomly. We are slowly becoming aware of how connected we are to one
another and to our world. Organizations must also be cognizant of their holistic nature and of the ways
their members affect one another. The incredible amount of change has forced individuals and
organizations to see “the big picture” and to be aware of how events affect them and vice versa.

Organizational development (OD) is a field of study that addresses change and how it affects
organizations and the individuals within those organizations. Effective organizational development can
assist organizations and individuals to cope with change. Strategies can be developed to introduce
planned change, such as team-building efforts, to improve organizational functioning. While change is a
“given,” there are a number of ways to deal with change -- some useful, some not. Organizational
development assists organizations in coping with the turbulent environment, both internally and
externally, frequently doing so by introducing planned change efforts.

Organizational development is a relatively new area of interest for business and the professions.
While the professional development of individuals has been accepted and fostered by a number of
organizations for some time, there is still ambiguity surrounding the term organizational development.
The basic concept of both professional development and organizational development is the same,
however, with an essential difference in focus. Professional development attempts to improve an
individual’s effectiveness in practice, while organizational development focuses on ways to improve an
organization’s overall productivity, human fulfillment, and responsiveness to the environment
(Cummings & Huse, 1988). These goals are accomplished through a variety of interventions aimed at
dealing with specific issues, as well as through ongoing processes.

This chapter provides an overview of both change and organizational development. Educators,
including those in the judiciary, must be familiar with the dynamics of organizational change, since all
educational activities, both at the individual and organizational level, deal with effecting change.
Organizational development and change efforts go hand-in-hand; judicial educators who are interested

12.1

Chapter 12 ADULT EDUCATION PERSPECTIVES FOR J UDICIAL EDUCATION

in effecting change within their organizations must first thoroughly understand the dynamics of change.
They must think in terms of the court system and the judicial education apparatus as organizations for
which they may play a role as change agent. Within different parts of these systems, judicial educators
may play different roles in the change process.

Organizational development will also be discussed in this chapter. One specific OD strategy,
team-building, will be examined in some depth. This strategy, if institutionalized effectively, can reduce
the need for outside consultants.

It is important to include a chapter on organizational change and development in this manual to
address issues within the larger frameworks that exist for most judicial educators. Change affects every
individual and every organization. Moreover, all of the components of the program planning sequence
discussed in this manual are administered within the setting of an organization, a committee or board, or
some type of team. As more and more work gets accomplished through teams, it becomes increasingly
important to learn how to translate organizational concepts to the small group environment. The team
approach is often being used to accomplish short-term projects, such as planning programs, conducting
a needs assessment, or developing a new curriculum. A team’s capacity to create a shared vision for the
task at hand and work together in the midst of a turbulent environment underlies its ability to be
effective. Organizational change and development is a fitting summary chapter for this judicial
educator’s manual since it deals with both effecting change (underlying much of education) and
managing change.

Change in Organizations
Organizational development efforts, whether facilitated by an outside expert or institutionalized
and conducted on an ongoing basis, bring about planned change within organizations and teams.
However, they are but one type of change that occurs in organizations, for change can be both planned
and unplanned and can occur in every dimension of the universe. A change in chief justice,
appropriations, or staff support can dramatically alter the character of a judicial education organization.
Institutional alignment of the state bar, local law schools, area colleges and universities, and judicial
professional associations may yield similar impacts.

Planned change takes conscious and diligent effort on the part of the educator or manager. Kanter
(1983) originated the concept of the change master: a person or organization adept at the art of
anticipating the need for and of leading productive change. As a way to reinforce the judicial educator’s
role in the change process, this term will be used to refer to educators and managers who are interested
in effecting change in their organizations or work teams.

12.2


Change will not occur unless the need for change is critical. Because individuals and organizations
usually resist change, they typically do not embrace change unless they must. One OD consultant
describes how “pain” drives change (Conner, 1990). Pain occurs when people pay the price for being in
a dangerous situation or for missing a key opportunity. As such, change is needed to relieve the pain.

According to this perspective, change will not occur just because “it’s a good idea.” It will only
occur when the pain of an individual or an organization is sufficiently high to justify the difficulties of
assimilating change. Therefore, a change master must focus on the absolute need of the organization to
change, rather than simply on the benefits of the anticipated change. Effective change masters
understand this, and they then assist others in recognizing that the organization has no choice but to
change. The organization cannot afford to maintain the status quo; change is simply that critical. The
Ohio Judicial College’s movement to full funding emerged from such a catharsis. In other states,
mandatory training saved the office of justice of the peace. Court administration emerged as an
independent vocation out of exigent circumstances. These examples of change in state judicial
education provide evidence that effective change masters have perceived a critical need for change and
then helped to make that change happen.

Planning for Change

Before embarking on an organizational change initiative, it is wise to carefully plan strategies and
anticipate potential problems. One useful method of planning comes from an early researcher on
change, Kurt Lewin (1947), who developed the concept of force-field analysis. The term describes
analysis that is deceptively simple and can be used to help plan and manage organizational change.

Lewin believed that behavior within an organization was a result of the dynamic balance of two
opposing forces. Change would only occur when the balance shifted between these forces. Driving
forces are those forces which positively affect and enhance the desired change. They may be persons,
trends, resources, or information. Opposing them are the restraining forces, which represent the
obstacles to the desired change. As these two sets of forces exist within an organization, they create a
certain equilibrium. That is, if the weights of the driving and restraining forces are relatively equal, then
the organization will remain static. As changes occur and affect the weight of either one of the forces, a
new balance will occur, and the organization will return to what Lewin called “quasi-stationary
equilibrium.” Individuals practicing their vocation in the context of a political organization may
intuitively employ these concepts in defining and redefining what change is possible. Judicial educators
operate in such a context.

12.3


What is the usefulness of this perspective? Force-field analysis assists in planning in two major
ways: (a) as a way for individuals to scan their organizational context, brainstorming and predicting
potential changes in the environment; and (b) as a tool for implementing change. In the former, force-
field analysis becomes a method of environmental scanning (which is useful in strategic planning),
whereby organizations keep abreast of impending and potential changes -- from societal trends and
potential budget constraints to staff turnover and purchases of new office equipment. The more change
can be anticipated, the better individuals and organizations are prepared to deal with the resulting
effects. The second use of force-field analysis is similar, offering a way to systematically examine the
potential resources that can be brought to bear on organizational change and the restraining forces that
can be anticipated. This advance planning and analysis assists in developing strategies to implement the
desired change.

An example may help illustrate this point. A judicial educator wishes to introduce a computer
class for a particular group of judges. In her role as a change master, she identifies the driving forces as
follows: (a) most judges are presently obtaining the necessary equipment, (b) software and databases are
available that are user-friendly and appropriate, (c) computers can help judges handle information
quickly and efficiently, and (d) the use of computers as information sources allows court personnel to
perform other functions. On the other hand, restraining forces may include the following: (a) judges
have limited time for attending additional courses; (b) they appear to be intimidated by computers, so
they passively resist using them; and (c) they feel more comfortable utilizing human resources for their
judicial research rather than a computer and databases.

Force-field analysis provides the necessary information for the judicial educator to plan most
effectively for change. If he or she is more aware of some of the potential pitfalls that can accompany
the planned change, steps can be taken in advance to overcome them. One strategy for successfully
implementing change is to confront the potential obstacles at the outset. In order for the educator to be
proactive, however, the positive driving forces and the negative restraining forces must be listed, so that
a strategy for change can include enhancing or adding to the positive forces, while decreasing or
minimizing the negative forces. In this process, skills such as coalition building, networking, conflict
resolution, and the appropriate utilization of power are necessary.

12.4


The Process of Change

A method such as force-field analysis is the beginning step of any planned change. There are
many different models for the change process in the literature; the following is a simple, straightforward
one proposed by Egan (1988, p. 5). He delineates three steps:

• The assessment of the current scenario.
• The creation of a preferred scenario.
• Designing a plan that moves the system from the current to the preferred scenario.

It is evident Egan has been influenced by Lewin, in the emphasis on both planning and
assessment. Additionally, Egan argues that planning must lead to an action that produces valued
outcomes or results for the organization. Thus, both planning and change must be directed toward a
specific goal.

Once the need for change has been determined, one follows the steps of the model in sequence.
While these steps could each be examined in detail, only step three will be discussed in an in-depth
manner here. The first step, “assessing the current scenario,” can be accomplished through a mechanism
such as force-field analysis. It provides the necessary information on the forces that can facilitate the
desired change and the forces that will resist and deter the change. Step two, “creating a preferred
scenario,” is often accomplished through team effort in brainstorming and developing alternative
futures. While the need that precipitates the change is clearly compelling, there may be several ways in
which the change could actually occur within the organization. It is important to examine the various
alternatives thoroughly.

The third step of the process, “devising a plan for moving from the current to the preferred
scenario,” includes the strategies and plans that educators and managers must develop to overcome the
restraining forces in an organization. This is a political process, requiring individuals to harness and
utilize power. Power is necessary for change to occur. It is neither inherently good nor bad; it simply
assists individuals in accomplishing their goals. In his recent book Mastering the Politics of Planning,
Benveniste (1989) notes that even well-thought-out plans for change can be derailed when the politics
of implementation are not considered. Change masters must gather support for the desired change
throughout the organization, using both formal and informal networks. The multiplier or “bandwagon”
effect, he notes, is often necessary to rally enough support for the change.

12.5


Key Roles in the Change Process

During this stage of planning, it is useful to distinguish the different roles associated with the
change process. These roles must remain distinctive in order to implement planned change effectively.
However, within different settings or systems, a judicial educator may play more than one role. The
various roles that individuals can play, as described by Conner (1990), are:

Change Sponsor: Individual or group who legitimizes the change.

Change Advocate: Individual or group who wants to achieve a change but
does not possess legitimization power.

Change Agent: Individual or group who is responsible for implementing
the change.

Change Target: Individual or group who must actually change.

One of the most critical tasks for the educator in implementing change is to harness the support of
an effective change sponsor. The sponsor is in a position to legitimize the change. Sponsorship is
critical to implementing the desired change. Directly or indirectly, pain can motivate the sponsor to
foster the planned change. Within the state judicial system, this sponsor may be the chief justice, the
head of the education committee, or the state court administrator. Conner (1990) argues that weak
sponsors should be educated or replaced, even by someone at a lower level in the organization, or, he
emphasizes, failure will be inevitable.

Educators and managers are often in the position of change advocates, who perceive the need for
change and desire and advocate the change, but who do not have the necessary organizational power to
implement the change. Alternatively, these individuals may function as the change agent, with the
responsibility (but again, not the power) to implement change. And, of course, in an organizational
change effort, educators and managers may be part of the group affected by the change, or the change
target. It is useful to consider each of these roles in planning strategies not only for implementation, but
for gathering support for the change effort.

Strategies for Implementing Change

In order to move an OD effort from the idea stage into implementation, educators and managers
must also rally the resources and support of the organization. Kanter (1983) describes how the following
three sets of “basic commodities” or “power tools” can be acquired by members of an organization to
gain power:

12.6


• Information (data, technical knowledge, political intelligence, expertise).

• Resources (funds, materials, staff, time).

• Support (endorsement, backing, approval, legitimacy).

The first strategy in implementing a change would be to collect as many of these power tools as
possible. As this occurs, individuals can “plant seeds of support” for the planned change. This is
particularly important in helping others see the critical need for the planned change. It may be possible
to plant these seeds before sponsorship of the change is sought so that the sponsor feels he or she is
proactively responding to a critical need.

Another strategy is to “package” the change in a way that makes it less threatening and, therefore,
easier to sell. For instance, it is easier to implement change of a product or a project when it is: (a)
conducted on a trial basis; (b) reversible, if it doesn’t succeed; (c) done in small steps; (d) familiar and
consistent with past experience; (e) a fit with the organization’s current direction; or (f) built on the prior
commitments or projects of the organization (Kanter, 1983). This packaging should be completed prior
to submitting the OD effort to the designated change sponsor, although that person needs to be involved
in further assisting in the packaging and selling of the planned change.

Building coalitions is a strategy that often occurs throughout the entire phase of implementing the
change. Support must be gathered from all areas which will be affected by the desired change, across
different levels of the organization. It is always advisable to get the support of an immediate supervisor
early on, although this may not always be possible. In such instances, other support could be gathered
across the organization to influence the supervisor to reconsider lending support to the change efforts.

Effective change masters use their informal networks and deal with any concerns or questions of
supporters individually rather than in formal meetings. “Pre-meetings” can provide a safer environment
for airing concerns about implementing change. In such settings, an individual may have the
opportunity to “trade” some of the power tools that he or she has acquired in order to generate support.
Additionally, some individuals will support a project or change effort for reasons that are fairly reactive:
“If so-and-so supports it, then I will, too," or “If such-and-such state is moving in that direction, then we
should, too.” Obviously, the more change masters know about how particular individuals may react, the
better able they are to plan for ways to garner support.

12.7


Resistance to Change
With every major and minor change, resistance typically occurs. Every judicial educator has seen
this tendency, whether the change involves a certain speaker or a particular topic, a customary time of
year or time of day to meet, a favorite location for conferences or planning sessions, or a given style for
delivering a speech or organizing a paper. This resistance should be accepted as a “given,” so that the
educator can predict and plan for effectively dealing with inevitable resistance. This section will address
some of the causes and types of resistance to change, particularly at the organizational level.

Individual Resistance

Why does resistance to change occur? The primary reason is that people fear change. They are not
usually eager to forego the familiar, safe, routine ways of conducting their business in favor of unknown
and possibly unsafe territory. As humans, we tend to prefer routines and accumulate habits easily;
however, fear of change may be attributed to more than a tendency toward regularity. Change
represents the unknown. It could mean the possibility of failure, the relinquishing or diminishing of
one’s span of control and authority, or the possibility of success creating further change. It might be that
the planned change has little or no effect on the organization whatsoever. Any one of these possibilities
can cause doubt and thus fear, understandably causing resistance to the change efforts.

Additionally, the transition between the present state and the changed state is difficult for both
individuals and organizations. On an individual level, people must be reminded that every transition or
change effort begins with an ending -- the end of the current state. The first step toward change is going
through the process of ending. Endings must be accepted and managed before individuals can fully
embrace the change. Even if the impending change is desired, a sense of loss will occur. Because our
sense of self is defined by our roles, our responsibilities, and our context, change forces us to redefine
ourselves and our world. This process is not easy. William Bridges does an excellent job of discussing
the process of individual change in his book Transitions (1980). In describing the process of ending,
Bridges presents the following four stages that individuals must pass through in order to move into the
transition state and effectively change:

• Disengagement. The individual must make a break with the “old" and with his or her current
definition of self.
• Disidentification. After making this break, individuals should loosen their sense of self, so that
they recognize that they aren’t who they were before.

12.8


• Disenchantment. In this stage, individuals further clear away the “old,” challenging
assumptions and creating a deeper sense of reality for themselves. They perceive that the old
way or old state was just a temporary condition, not an immutable fact of life.
• Disorientation. In this final state, individuals feel lost and confused. It’s not a comfortable state,
but a necessary one so that they can then move into the transition state and to a new beginning.

In this process, it is important to recognize how the change was initiated. While all change is
stressful, it is easier to go through the process of ending and into the transition if the change was
internally driven, rather than if it was initiated by an external source. When we make changes in our
lives (e.g., marriage, a new home, or new career), there is a greater sense of control over the change;
therefore, we feel more capable of coping with the unpleasant aspects of transition. This is not
necessarily true when the change is driven or mandated by an external source (e.g., new job
responsibilities, unexpected changes in finances, or job relocation). In externally driven change, the
process of transition is more difficult, and there is more resistance as individuals refuse to begin the
ending process and make the initial break with the past. This almost innate resistance to externally
driven change makes a convincing argument for the change master to facilitate “ownership” of the
change efforts by both the change sponsor and the change target. In other words, we should assist others
in perceiving the change as desirable and internally driven, rather than an externally driven mandate that
is thrust upon them.

Organizational Resistance

With even this very brief discussion on the difficulties involved in individual change, it should be
apparent that this phenomenon occurs at the organizational level as well. Organizations, regardless of
size, are composed of individuals. The extent to which individuals within the organization can
appropriately manage change represents the overall organizational capacity for change.

However, there are other factors peculiar to the organizational setting that can act as barriers to
implementing change. These include:

• Inertia. One of the most powerful forces that can affect individuals and organizations is inertia.
The day-to-day demands of work diminish the urgency of implementing the change effort until
it slowly vanishes within the organization.
• Lack of Clear Communication. If information concerning the change is not communicated
clearly throughout the organization, individuals will have differing perceptions and expectations
of the change.

12.9


• Low-Risk Environment. In an organization that does not promote change and tends to punish
mistakes, individuals develop a resistance to change, preferring instead to continue in safe, low-
risk behaviors.
• Lack of Sufficient Resources. If the organization does not have sufficient time, staff, funds, or
other resources to fully implement the change, the change efforts will be sabotaged.

These factors, combined with others characteristic to the specific organization, can undermine the
change effort and create resistance. A wise change agent will spend the necessary time to anticipate and
plan for ways to manage resistance. Techniques such as force-field analysis, discussed earlier, are useful
tools to assist in developing strategies for overcoming organizational resistance to change.

Organizational Development: A Neglected Need
Judicial educators may be in the best position to sense the need for organizational change and
development efforts within their committees, boards, or work teams. While they may not have the
organizational power to ensure that appropriate efforts are implemented (the role of a change sponsor),
they can certainly “raise the consciousness” of the organization and advocate that OD needs be
addressed. Healthy organizations are willing to commit time and energy toward improving both the
individual and the organization as a whole. A synergistic effect can be created when professional
development and organizational development efforts are simultaneously put into place.

However, many organizations and teams unfortunately overlook the need for organizational
development, often because of their unfamiliarity with the concept or their emphasis on professional
development. While “professionals” are generally considered to be independently-based practitioners,
the majority of professionals function within an established organizational setting. Judicial personnel are
no exception. While members of a judicial office may make decisions in an independent fashion, they
are still part of the larger system in which they work (e.g., the state justice system) and are related to the
organizational context in which they function (e.g., Administrative Office of the Courts). Judges in
particular work in a highly independent fashion. Yet, they too are part of an overarching system. The
system itself must have the benefit of development as well as the individual professionals who are a part
of the system. However, judicial educators may unwittingly neglect the needs of the organization or
system in favor of professional development alone. Indeed, some observers have argued that this is a
fundamental part of conflict between state judicial educators and state court administrators.

12.10


With this focus on improving the practice of individual professionals, educators and managers
may overlook the equally important needs of the organization to support its institutional mission as well
as individual vocational growth. Individuals can improve only as much as their organizations “allow”
them to grow. Nowlen, among others, has discussed this challenge in A New Approach to Continuing
Education for Business and the Professions (1988). He believes that the most effective professional
development is holistic in nature, involving not only the practitioner, but the individual’s organization as
well, so that new behavior and learning can be integrated into the work setting. Nothing is more
frustrating than continuing education that is stopped at the point of entry of the practitioner’s work
setting. Judicial educators may often feel the limitations of working with professionals whose practice
setting does not encourage their professional growth. Organizations, as well as individuals, must be
committed to the concept of lifelong learning and continual growth and development. Again, we see
this holistic perspective of not only individuals and organizations, but of the learning process itself.
Learning is not a discrete process that occurs only through individual effort. Implementation of the
learning in practice depends upon a receptive work environment, as well as effective teaching and
interaction in the actual learning environment.

What is Organizational Development?

According to Middlemist and Hitt (1988, p. 493), organizational development is:

A systematic means for planned change that involves the entire organization and is intended to
increase organizational effectiveness.

Cummings and Huse (1988, p. 1) define OD in broader terms:

A system wide application of behavioral science knowledge to the planned development and
reinforcement of organizational strategies, structure, and processes for improving an
organization’s effectiveness.

Several parts of the above definitions are particularly worth emphasizing. The first is that
organizational development is a systematic activity, an ongoing process that can help organizations deal
with current and anticipated problems, putting leaders in a proactive, rather than reactive, stance. This
stance differs from the “putting-out-fires” approach that so many groups and organizations have relied
upon historically.

The second noteworthy item is that OD involves planned change within an entire organization or
work team. This means that a proactive stance is absolutely necessary for change to be effective;
otherwise, the planned change effort will lag too far behind the need that it is intended to address. For
example, judicial employees who have recently come under the jurisdiction of the State Court

12.11


Administrator’s Office may find difficulty in adjusting to new procedures, new channels of
communication and authority, and new roles. Concurrently, existing staff within the Office will
experience their own difficulties in assimilating the new group, sharing information, and performing
roles that also may have changed. Is it then time for a “team-building” session? While it’s often “better
late than never,” the real effort should have already occurred before the organizational changes were
enacted. Staff from all areas ideally should have been brought together and the job restructuring
discussed, procedures and policies formulated, and team-building efforts begun. After changes have
taken place, it’s often too late to begin organizational development efforts. This fact makes planning
even more critical and highlights the advantage of institutionalizing the concept of team-building so that
staff are empowered and able to cope with changes in the work team.

The third part of an OD definition to keep in mind is the rationale for organizational development
-- to improve organizational effectiveness. Organizations and work teams must be effective and
efficient, particularly in the current environment of limited resources. In thinking about effectiveness,
every organization and team would be well-advised to adopt a “quality” mentality regarding OD efforts.
Ongoing, institutionalized OD strategies are akin to continuous quality improvement. Quality concepts
originated in the manufacturing sector, but today, the quality movement is being incorporated into
service organizations as well. While not as technically oriented, work teams providing services can
effectively determine quality standards and work proactively as a team to insure that standards are met.
Concepts of quality can be applied in the educational arena. For instance, the National Association of
State Judicial Educators (NASJE) has recently developed a set of “Principles and Standards for Judicial
Education.” This endeavor signifies commitment not only to quality, but also to the professionalization
of the field. Ensuring quality, like strengthening an organization’s effectiveness, is an ongoing task.

Organizational development can, of course, occur in groups or teams, as well as within an entire
organization. Effective OD is ongoing and systematic, strengthening both the individual and the group.
Many organizations today accomplish their tasks through a project management approach that brings
together teams for a short period of time. Members of the team may be brought from various parts of
the organization, representing different constituencies and levels within the organization. These work
teams do not always have a unified focus or vision of the task to be accomplished; therefore, they can
falter in their responsibilities because of conflicting perspectives, communication difficulties, or lack of
clear objectives. An ongoing system of organizational development strategies is useful in this situation.
Team-building in particular is effective when incorporated and supported by the organization. This
concept will be discussed later in the chapter.

12.12


A Model for Organizational Development

Now that we have examined the major emphases associated with organizational development, a
broad picture of the actual process is needed. While there are variations on any model, Figure 1
represents the major components of a planned OD effort.

Figure 1

MODEL OF ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Recognition of need for change

Diagnosis of cause(s)

Development of change alternatives

Implementation of change

Reinforcement of change

Evaluation of change

Further change action taken, if required

Feedback

[Middlemist and Hitt (1988), p.493]

The first step of the model is critical. Often, educators and managers will recognize the need for
change before others who have decision-making power do. In such instances, these decision-makers, or
change sponsors, will need to be convinced of the need for change. Ongoing diagnosis and systematic
examination of the environment can provide a rationale for planned OD efforts. An environmental
scanning program, strategic planning, employee or “customer” feedback survey, or similar methods can

12.13


detect changes in the internal or external environment that will have impact on the organization.
Organizations can also examine the quality of their products and/or processes to determine whether OD
efforts need to be directed toward specific areas within the organization or work team.

It is often advisable for an organizational development expert to assist in the implementation of
change efforts. For many organizations, this consultation is not always an option due to limited
resources, the unavailability of consultants, or political reasons, among others. Various strategies are
available for use within organizations. Some can be used in an ongoing fashion, while others are “one-
shot” efforts. Two major types of strategies that can be used are:

• Process Strategies: team-building, quality circles, sensitivity training,
survey feedback, career planning.
• Structural Strategies: job redesign, job enrichment, management by objectives, organizational
restructuring, flextime options.

The change strategy chosen should relate appropriately to the organizational or team need.
Political, technological, or legal factors may cause an organization to move in directions that require OD
efforts. All too frequently, however, interpersonal change efforts are chosen as the appropriate strategy.
For instance, a simple problem such as the overuse of a particular piece of office equipment may result
in disgruntled employees. This problem may be solved by purchasing more equipment or restructuring
the use of the equipment, rather than developing a team-building program. Interpersonal or even process
strategies cannot adequately equip an organization to deal with these types of external pressures.

Team-Building as an Integral OD Strategy
Now that we are more familiar with organizational change and development, we can look at one
OD strategy that is being successfully employed in many organizations. Team-building is an OD
strategy that is often used in organizations to make work groups more cohesive, committed, satisfied,
and productive. A variety of assessment tools and exercises are available for groups to diagnose their
capacity as a team and improve their team functioning. Attachment A lists characteristics of an effective
team, which can be used as a benchmark to evaluate the level of team functioning within an
organization or committee. Assessment is the first step in attempting to build an effective team.
However, team-building efforts are most effective when perceived as an integral concept within an
organization and not merely as a sporadic intervention. These efforts then become part of the shared
vision of that organization, a priority to which leaders are committed.

I

12.14


f institutionalized by a work group, team-building shapes the way everyone within that group
thinks about his or her role in relationship to others and to the organization. Understandably, many
organizations, as well as many small work teams or committees, have difficulty orienting themselves to
a team approach rather than an individual approach. Individual, rather than team, effort is traditionally
recognized and appreciated within organizations. Figure 2 lists several suggestions that an organization
can implement to overcome this tendency toward individual effort and to encourage a team culture. The
list has been adapted for judicial education organizations.

Figure 2

Rx FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TEAM-PLAYER CULTURE

1. Public statements by leaders on the importance of team players -- not just the

2. State court administrators, judges, and other leaders serving as models of team players.

3. Promoting people who are both technically competent and team players.

4. Giving important assignments to positive team players.

5. Incorporating team-player behaviors in the performance appraisal system.

6. Offering training workshops on the skills of effective team players.

7. Giving higher salary increases to positive team players.

8. Developing incentive systems that reward team effort.

9. Designing flexible compensation programs that pay individuals for their contributions
to a team approach.
[Adapted from Parker (1990), pp. 146-147.]

Leaders as Followers

In organizations, attention is typically directed toward leaders within the group through leadership
training, self-assessments, style inventories, and the like. Most believe that sound leadership is the key to

12.15


an effective work team. There is no doubt that the abilities of the leader can affect the team as a whole,
but some of our traditional notions of leadership include outdated modes of behavior or unrealistic
expectations. Even if we have moved from thinking of leaders in the John Wayne stereotype, we may
still expect leaders to create an inspirational work setting by producing vision statements that motivate
and unify the organization. Recently, however, some authors have discussed the concept of leadership
in different terms, moving the leaders even further from the grandstand and closer to the audience.

In a recent talk to educators and business leaders, Dr. Badi Foster, President of AEtna Institute for
Corporate Education, discussed how the mission of the organization must be connected to all members
of the team and how leaders are needed to develop this connection. Everyone needs to believe in
something bigger than just "making a buck" at work; people need to feel that they are contributing to
"the big picture." Their gifts or talents brought to the work setting should be connected to an
organizational vision so that they feel an integral part of the team. He prefers "vision" over "mission,"
believing that the first implies impelling people, while the second term connotes compelling employees
in their work environment.

How can organizations develop congruence between individual team members' vision and a
larger organizational vision? Leaders must first encourage all employees to create their own personal
vision, motivating and inspiring them in their work setting. Secondly, leaders must discern these
personal visions, as well as the particular gifts that employees bring to work. Foster’s belief is that
leaders can help “bring forth that which is already there” within individuals. Leaders can work with
team members to help make the connection between their personal visions and goals and the vision of
the organization. In some instances, organizations may be restructured, job descriptions may be altered,
or jobs may be redefined to provide the employee more responsibility. Empowering employees creates
an environment in which they can feel more connected and committed to the organization. If there is
clearly no congruence between team members and the organization, then something must change;
however, these changes will ultimately benefit both the individual and the organization.

Lee (1991) takes this idea even further and argues that often the best leaders are the best followers:

[Leaders] can create an environment in which followers can develop their own goals (in other
words, a culture of empowerment), as well as provide the training to develop competence. It
then becomes the leader’s task to sense where followers want to go, align their goals with the
larger goals of the organization, and invite them to follow. (p. 33)

In this conception of teams, the leader does not set himself or herself apart from the other members
of the group but is intimately connected to them, helping them to align their goals with the organization
and providing motivation through empowerment.

12.16


Followers as Leaders

What, then, is the role of the follower within a committee or work team? Team members are not
merely waiting for inspiration and direction from leaders; rather, they are active participants in creating
the vision and direction of their organization. They have “ownership” in their work setting, are involved
in making it effective, and feel a connection between themselves and that vision. They speak the truth,
take responsibility for themselves, and have both personal integrity and organizational loyalty. In short,
they behave in ways traditionally considered behavior of “leaders.”

Team members who strive for these characteristics within a supportive organization will find that
their personal satisfaction in the work environment increases. Many organizations are now embracing
the “self-directed work team” concept and truly dispersing leadership throughout the organization. In
small groups, this concept may already be a reality. However, it takes some managers a considerable
amount of time to rethink their role in the group and move from “boss” to “enabler” or “coach.” At the
same time, members of a team may not initially feel comfortable taking on more responsibility and
accountability. New ideas and behaviors require some adjusting on everyone’s part. But the result may
be worth the effort -- teams become more effective and productive, and team members experience
greater satisfaction with their work and feel more connected to the organization and other team
members.

Team-Building Strategies

The literature on developing more cohesive teams is vast. However, in addition to the
organizational strategies to encourage a team culture, there are some strategies that team leaders can use
to help build effective teams. Specific team-building efforts vary depending upon a number of variables,
including the nature of the team, its duration, the task at hand, and the organizational culture. Team-
building efforts can range from T-groups to outdoor adventure weekends, from self-assessments to
team assessments, and from one-hour team-building videotapes to multi-day workshops by OD
consultants.

The general strategies listed below relate to the characteristics of an effective team, noted in
Attachment A. Therefore, they may serve as guidelines to leaders for achieving a high level of team
functioning. According to Parker (1990, pp. 108-110), successful team-building strategies for team
leaders are:

12.17


• Get to know the team.
• Define the team’s purpose.
• Clarify roles.
• Establish norms.
• Draw up a game plan.
• Encourage questions.
• Share the limelight.
• Be participatory.
• Celebrate accomplishments.
• Assess team effectiveness.

A Learning Organization
In considering these perspectives on the roles of the team leader and team members, it is helpful to
bring these ideas together into a more comprehensive view of organizations. For instance, how can
teams work together in an integrated whole, rather than as a group of individuals? How can the
capacities of each member interact with the talents of other members to maximize the organization’s
productivity?

Peter Senge’s (1990) book The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization offers an inspiring look at how organizations can focus on growth and renewal, overcome
threats from the external environment, and develop the capacities of individuals within the organization.
He argues that changes in our “mindset” are needed to truly develop a learning organization. In the
earlier discussion on change, we noted that changes in one area of the world affects others. Senge
recognizes this phenomenon and emphasizes the concept of systems thinking, which he calls the “fifth
discipline.” This is a holistic way of viewing organizations, as well as individuals, and provides a
perspective useful in planning and change efforts. Senge writes:

The tools and ideas presented...are for destroying the illusion that the world is created of
separate, unrelated forces. When we give up this illusion - we can then build “learning
organizations,” organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the
results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where
collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together.
(p. 3)

12.18


One of the disciplines that characterizes the learning organization is team learning. Senge
discusses how unaligned teams produce a great amount of wasted energy. While individuals within the
team may work diligently, the team effort is low. He writes:

By contrast, when a team becomes more aligned, a commonality of direction emerges, and
individuals’ energies harmonize. There is less wasted energy.... There is commonality of
purpose, a shared vision, and an understanding of how to complement one anothers’ efforts....
Individuals do not sacrifice their personal interests to the larger team vision; rather the shared
vision becomes an extension of their personal visions. (p. 235)

Again, this congruence of personal and organizational vision can only occur when visions have
been developed by both the organization and the individual. A shared vision is a necessity in this type of
context. Neither the organization nor the individual can shirk responsibility in developing a vision.

Senge notes three critical dimensions of the concept of team learning that have implications for
judicial educators, as well as other teams. First, he believes that teams need to tap the minds of
individual members in order to think insightfully about complex issues. Everyone must take
responsibility for contributing to the group. Secondly, there is a need for coordinated action, through
which team members can trust and expect certain behaviors from one another. He likens this to jazz
musicians playing together in spontaneous, yet coordinated, action. And thirdly, team learning is
dispersed throughout an organization through the actions of team members. Each member of a team
will also be a member of other teams; his or her behavior can therefore encourage team learning in other
areas as well.

It is clear that these new ideas can radically change the way we look at teams. Changing our
perspective and our expectations of teams can transform organizations and the way that work gets
accomplished. Active participation is required of both team leaders and followers, as well as
commitment. Effective teams need a vision for the organization, but, additionally, each member must
feel connected to it and perceive it as part of his or her own personal vision. Through both
organizational and individual clarity of vision, organizations can expect commitment, diligence, and a
passion for work from its members. Individuals and organizations who can find a passion for work will
not only flourish and be productive, but will also find an excitement in carrying out even the most
mundane functions in everyday work.

12.19


Summary
This chapter has provided an introduction to organizational change and development. Change is
clearly inevitable, and mastering change is, therefore, fundamental to the success of any organization.
Organizations which can cope with change and harness its energy will be vital and effective. Judicial
organizations are no exception. In fact, the judiciary not only reflects many of the changes occurring in
our society today, but it is an institution that also creates and “enforces” change. If the judiciary can
become even more effective in managing change, it can create a powerful impact on society as a whole.
The challenge for judicial educators is to continue their efforts, often accomplished behind the scenes, to
encourage their organizations to anticipate change, to understand the nature of change, and to manage
change.

12.20


DEFINITIONS
Change Advocate: individual or group who does not possess legitimization power, but desires a
change.

Change Agent: individual or group responsible for implementing the change.

Change Master: people and organizations adept at the art of anticipating the need for and of leading
productive change; a term coined by Rosabeth Moss Kanter.

Change Sponsor: individual or group who legitimizes the change.

Change Target: individual or group who must actually change.

Disengagement: a part of Bridges’ (1980, 1988) process of ending; here the individual must make a
break with the “old” and with his or her current definition of self.

Disidentification: a part of Bridges’ (1980, 1988) process of ending; after the individual makes the
initial break, individuals loosen their sense of self, so that they recognize that they aren’t who they
were before.

Disenchantment: a part of Bridges’ (1980, 1988) process of ending; in this stage, individuals further
clear away the “old,” challenging assumptions and create a deeper sense of reality for themselves.

Disorientation: In this final stage of Bridges’ (1980, 1988) process of ending, individuals feel lost and
confused. It is a necessary state so that they can then move into the transition state and to a new
beginning.

Force-field Analysis: a concept developed by Kurt Lewin, this analysis looks at two types of forces
within organizations that either support or oppose change. Change will only occur when there is a
shift in balance between these two forces. The forces are:

Driving Forces: those forces which positively affect and enhance the desired change.

Restraining Forces: obstacles to the desired change.

Organizational Development: an overall strategy which focuses on improving an organization’s overall
effectiveness, often through the use of planned change efforts.

Process Strategies: organizational development strategies that focus on interpersonal approaches to
change, such as team-building, quality circles, or sensitivity training.

12.21


Structural Strategies: organizational development strategies that focus on more structural approaches to
change, such as job redesign, job enrichment, or management by objectives.

Team-building: an organizational development strategy used to make work groups more cohesive,
committed, satisfied and productive.

12.22


REFERENCES & SUGGESTED READINGS
Benveniste, G. (1989). Mastering the politics of planning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bridges, W. (1980). Transitions: Making sense of life’s changes. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bridges, W. (1988). Managing organizational transitions. Organizational Dynamics, 15 (1), 24-33.

Conner, D. (1990). The changing nation: Strategies for citizen action (Handout materials). Atlanta: ODR, Inc.

Cumming, T. G., & Huse, E. F. (1989). Organizational development and change (4th ed.) St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

Egan, G. (1988). Change-agent skills b: Managing innovation and change. San Diego: University Associates.

Foster, B. (1991). “Creating a vision that employees can see.” Presentation made at The University of Georgia Center for
Continuing Education, Athens, GA.

Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Lee, C. (1991, January). Followership: The essence of leadership. Training, pp. 27-35.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1, 5-12.

Middlemist, R. D., & Hitt, M. A. (1988). Organizational behavior: Managerial strategies for performance. St. Paul, MN: West
Publishing.

Murrell, K. L., & Vogt, J. F. (1991). The manager as leader in an empowering organization: Opportunities and challenges. In J.
W. Pfeiffer (Ed.), The 1991 annual: Developing human resources (pp. 297-305). San Diego: University Associates.

Nowlen, P. M. (1988). A new approach to continuing education for business and the professions. New York: Macmillan and
National University Continuing Education Association.

Parker, G.M. (1990). Team players and teamwork: The new competitive business strategy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday Currency.

Walters, P. G. (1990). Characteristics of successful organization development: A review of the literature. In J.W. Pfeiffer (Ed.),
The 1990 annual: Developing human resources (pp. 209-223). San Diego: University Associates.

12.23

Tallman withoutattachment

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Tallman withoutattachment (20)

Tallman withoutattachment