executive director, at meetings we would set aside time to discuss our failures as practitioners—what went wrong and why? These discussions, and admissions, were fertile ground for learning quickly.Remember the bedrock of the field is process consultation. This fundamental practice comes from research and theory concerning group dynamics. As soon as feasible learn about group dynamics and how to apply the learning to work groups and teams in organizations. Learn about the corporation. OD grew up on work (training, group facilitation, team building, conflict resolution) conducted in business enterprises. An MBA degree is not necessary, but knowing how business operates at the organizational level, e.g., the important strategy of and what it entails, and two additional and critical functions—information technology and human resources particularly talent management—is necessary. For now and in the immediate future the organizational area that needs the most help that OD can provide is health care. There will be job and learning opportunities in this organizational domain, for sure, and what an important array of organizational types to make a difference.
Weisbord’s Six-Box Model
Strictly speaking, Weisbord’s Six-Box Model, first elaborated in a 1976 article, was not explicitly articulated as a model of organizational change (see Figure 4.5). In later years, however, Weisbord’s model has become a popular diagnostic model to illustrate elements of a system that are out of sync with other parts of the system, in particular to explore how formal and informal systems are often misaligned or contradictory. Consequently, it has become a popular model among practitioners for analyzing and conducting organizational change (Birnbaum, 1984; M. W. Ford & Evans, 2001).
Weisbord refers to the model as a “radar screen” (Weisbord, 1976, p. 431) depicting the interrelationships among six of an organization’s component parts. Based on his experience, the model categorizes six common problem areas in an organization and helps to illustrate how symptoms can be seen in a systemic light. Each of the boxes has both formal (espoused and official) and informal (how things work in practice) components, and a complete diagnosis must attend to both. The model’s six boxes are as follows:
Purposes. This box includes formal goal clarity (how well the goals are explained) and informal goal agreement (how well the goals are truly understood and acted upon).
Structure. How well does the organizational structure match the needed outputs? Is the organizational structure followed or undermined in daily practice?
Rewards. Does a (formal) reward system exist, and does it actually produce results, making employees feel as if their contributions are being rewarded (informal)?
Relationships. This concerns the degree to which people can work interdependently and manage conflict successfully.
Helpful mechanisms. What formal mechanisms exist to facilitate work, such as budget processes, meetings, reviews, or other communications? How well do these helpful mechanisms meet their objectives?
Leadership. How do leaders lead? What do they state as their formal expectations? What norms do leaders informally role model or informally communicate?
Figure 4.5 Weisbord’s Six-Box Model
Source: Weisbord, M. R. (1976). Organizational diagnosis: Six places to look for trouble with or without a theory. Group & Organization Studies, 1, 430–447. Reprinted with permission.
When formal and informal components of the boxes are not in alignment, the organization may be expending energy maintaining both a formal system and an informal one that may or may not be functioning as needed. It is not the case that one of these systems is better than the other, but understanding how these six boxes function formally and informally can give insight into why an organization may be experiencing problems and where to begin interventions for change (Weisbord, 1976). Additional gaps may exist between the organization and its environment, between individual work and the organization’s goals, or between different organizational units. It is this formal and informal gap analysis that Weisbord and others have noted is an especially important aspect of the model. Weisbord’s Six-Box Model thus gives great insight into the internal functioning of a system. As some have noted, this advantage of the Six-Box Model may be its drawback as well, as it attends less to elements of the external environment and issues such as scarce resources or demands of external stakeholders (M. I. Harrison & Shirom, 1999). It also gives less insight into which gaps may be more serious than others. By placing leadership in the center of the model, it may also overemphasize the role of leadership and understate the role of individual employees in the functioning of the organization.
This model, like the other three models, is consistent with the approach suggested by systems theory, that an organization exists in interaction with its environment, and that managing problems, misalignments, and holes between various components is a key to successful organizational functioning. This has been the dominant approach in OD and organization theory (Shaw, 1997). Assumptions about organizational components and analysis of “fit” remain a key feature of diagnostic recommendations in the practitioner literature (e.g., M. I. Harrison & Shirom, 1999). This approach can be enhanced, however, by another perspective, to which we now turn.
Organizations as Socially Constructed
The story goes that three umpires disagreed about the task of calling balls and strikes. The first one said, “I calls them as they is.” The second one said, “I calls them as I sees them.” The third and cleverest umpire said, “They ain’t nothin’ till I calls them.”
—Simons (1976; cited in Weick, 1979, p. 1)
A second view of organizations is a more recent evolution in organizational theory, and it offers a different perspective on change than the models we have just seen. The intellectual history of the idea of social construction in organizational studies is usually traced to Berger and Luckmann’s (1967) seminal work The Social Construction of Reality, and it has been particularly influential in organizational theory over the past 3 decades. Consider that in our everyday language, or even in texts such as this one, organizations are frequently personified as actors in their own right. We speak of working “in” an organization, thinking of an organization as a container or physical environment. We speak of organizations “adapting” to their environment, or the production department “deciding” to increase output. Classical organizational theory actually considered organizations to be “living things” with “a concrete social environment, a formal structure, recognized goals, and a variety of needs” (Wolf, 1958, p. 14). Yet organizations are not people, and a number of important ideas are obscured when we personify them.
The social construction view argues that organizations are not exactly things at all, but that the organization is really a concept developed out of our own actions and language. Some scholars suggest that the study of organizations is really the study of the process of organizing, with the verb form emphasizing the active role we take in creating our organizations. If you consider an organization that you know well and try to point to what “it” is, you may point to a building to show where it is located or show an organizational chart as an abstract representation of how that organization is structured, but you will not have pointed to the organization. (The building could still exist without the organization, for example.) Drawing boundaries between the organization and its environment can be an equally challenging exercise. Consider the city in which you live as an organization and try to delineate what is “inside” and what is “outside” it. There is city hall and
