Part 1

After reading this unit's resources, complete the following discussion. Please respond to the specific questions posed below, and ensure you utilize a minimum of two relevant sources along with in-text citing. These can include course materials and relevant scholarly and trade sources found in the UMGC Library. Additionally, please ensure you write clearly and proofread. Quality , citations, frequency, and timeliness of posts all factor into your discussion grade.

Discussion Prompts:

In discussing organizational change, let's start with an analysis of your organization or one with which you are familiar. To complete your initial post, please complete the following tasks:

• Take the Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire.
• Provide a detailed analysis of what is working and what is not working.
• Data collection is an important part of organizational diagnosis (OD). OD consultants can gather data via quantitative methods (e.g., surveys) and qualitative methods (e.g., observation, interviews). Consider what methods would be applicable to your findings from the OD.
• Compare and contrast the benefits of using qualitative and quantitative data collection methods as they apply to OD and your diagnosis.

References- Hirschi, A. (2023, May 3). HR gap analysis: How to create one (and why you need to). BambooHR. https://www.bamboohr.com/blog/hr-gap-analysis/

Ray, M. (2019, October 9).Change Management Ep.3 Get Buy-In to Change Initiatives[Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ-eJUn3Ghs.

Hubbart, J. A. (2023). Organizational change: considering truth and buy-in. Administrative Sciences, 13(1), 3. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.3390/admsci13010003

Minelli, A. (2019, July 31). Is benchmarking worth a company's investment and time? Performance Magazine. https://www.performancemagazine.org/benchmarking-worth-investment/

Mladenova, I. (2022, October 12). Relation between organizational capacity for change and readiness for change. Administrative Sciences, 12(4), 135. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umgc.edu/10.3390/admsci12040135

Orr, D. (2021). Team for change: A practitioner's guide to implementing change in the modern workplace. Emerald Publishing Limited.http://ezproxy.umgc.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=2730969&site=ehost-live&scope=site&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_1

Nini, M. (2019, February 11). Managing organizational transformation: Change management tools that really make a difference. CQ Net. https://www.ckju.net/en/dossier/managing-organizational-transformation-change-management-tools-practices

RGANISATIONAL DIAGNOSISQUESTIONNAIRE (ODQ)

Robert C. Preziosi

Both internal and external organization development (OD) consultants at some point in the consulting process must address the question of diagnosis. Recently the need for two levels of diagnosis, preliminary and intensive, was addressed (Lippitt & Lippitt, 1978). The purpose of the Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire (ODQ) is to provide survey-feedback data for intensive diagnostic efforts. Use of the questionnaire either by itself or in conjunction with other information-collecting techniques (such as direct observation or interviewing) will provide the data needed for identifying strengths and weaknesses in the functioning of an organization and/or its subparts. The questionnaire produces data relative to informal activity.

A meaningful diagnostic effort must be based on a theory or model of organizational functioning. This makes action research possible as it facilitates problem identification, which is essential to organization development. One of the more significant models in existence is Weisbord's (1976) Six-Box Organizational Model (Figure 1). Weisbord's model establishes a systematic approach for analyzing relationships among variables that influence how an organization is managed. It provides for assessment in six areas of formal and informal activity: purposes, structure, relationships, rewards, leadership, and helpful mechanisms. The outer circle in Figure 1 determines an organizational boundary for diagnosis. This boundary clarifies the functioning of the internal environment, which is to be analyzed to the exclusion of the external environment.

THE INSTRUMENT

The Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire (ODQ) is based on Weisbord's practitioner-oriented theory. The ODQ generates data in each of Weisbord's suggested six areas as well as in a seventh, attitude toward change. This item was added as a helpful mechanism for the person involved in organizational diagnosis. In attempting any planned-change effort in an organization it is wise to know how changeable an organization is. Such knowledge helps the change agent understand how to direct his efforts.

Thirty-five items compose the ODQ, five in each of the seven variables. Respondents are asked to indicate their current views of their organization on a scale of 1 to 7,with a score of 4 representing a neutral point.

USES OF THE ODQ

The ODQ can be administered to a work unit, an entire organization, or a random sample of each. It might also be used to analyze staff or line functioning as well as to assess the thinking of different levels of management or supervision. It should be administer by the consultant or process facilitator in order to insure that an adequate explanation of the questionnaire and its use will be given. The consultant could also train others to administer the questionnaire.

ODQ-2

Administration and Scoring

The administrator of the questionnaire must emphasize to the respondents that they be open and honest. If they are not, data that yield an inaccurate assessment of the organization on any or all of the seven variables may be produced. All ODQ statements are positive and can easily be discerned as such, which may influence the manner in which the respondents react to the questionnaire.

Scoring the questionnaire may be done in more than one way. Aggregate data will be most useful; an individual's set of responses is not significant. A self-scoring sheet is provided for each individual. Individual scoring sheets could then be tabulated by the consultant, an assistant, or, for large-scale studies, a computer.

Processing the Data

Once aggregate data have been collected, they must be processed. The first task is to prepare a bar or line graph (or any similar technique) to present the data so that they can be readily understood. The consultant/facilitator should present the data first to the organization's president or the work unit's supervisor (whichever is applicable) to establish understanding, commitment, and support.

ENVIRONMENT

Figure 1. The Six-Box Organizational Model'

Reproduced from M.R. Weisbord's, Organizationaldiagnosis: Six places to look for trouble with or without a theory.Group &Organization Studies,1976,1(4),430-447. Copyright1976 by Sage Publications,Inc.Reprintedby permission ofSage Publications, Inc.

ODQ-3

Next, a meeting with the work group is essential. During this meeting the consultant/ facilitator must weave a delicate balance between task and maintenance issues in order to be productive. During this meeting a number of things take place: information is presented (feedback); information is objectively discussed; group problem solving is encouraged; brainstorming for solutions is facilitated; alternative solutions are evaluated against criteria; a solution is chosen; an action plan is developed; and a plan for future evaluation is determined. This process is presented in detail in Hausser, Pecorella, and Wissler (1977).

The ODQ produces information about the informal system. As Weisbord's suggested, the formal system must be considered also. A consultant/facilitator may review' an organization's charter, operations manual, personnel policies, etc. Caps between the two systems lead to a diagnosis of what is not happening that should be happening, or vice versa.

In sum, the ODQ is useful for diagnostic efforts insofar as it provides data about people's perceptions of their organization. It is an instrument that maybe used separate from or in addition to other informationcollecting techniques.

REFERENCES

Hausser. D. L., Pecorella. P. A., & Wissler, A. L. Survey-guided development:A manual for consultants.San Diego, CA: University Associates, 1977.

Lippitt. C.. & Lippitt. H. The consulting processin action. San Diego. CA: University Associates. 1978.

Weisbord's, M. B. Organizational diagnosis: Six places to look for trouble with or without a theory Group &Organization Studies,1976, 1(4),430-447.

ORGANIZATIONAL DIAGNOSIS QUESTIONNAIRE Robert C. Preziosi

From time to time organizations consider it important to analyze them selves. It is necessary to find out from the people who work in the organization what they think if the analysis is going to be of value. This questionnaire will help the organization that you work for analyze itself.

Directions: Do not put your name anywhere on this questionnaire. Please answer all thirty-five questions. Be open and honest.For each of the thirty-five statements circle only one (1)number to indicate your thinking.

1	The goals of this organization are clearly stated.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
2	The division of labor of this organization is flexible.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
3	My immediate supervisor is supportive of my efforts.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
4	My relationship with my supervisor was a Harmonious one.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
5	My job offers me the opportunity to grow as a person.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
6	My immediate supervisor has ideas that are helpful to me and my work group	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
7	This organization is not resistant to change.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	I am personally in agreement with the stated goals of my work unit.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
9	The division of labor in this organization is intended to help it reach its goals	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
10	The leadership norms of this organization help its progress.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
11	I can always talk with someone at work if I have a work-related problem	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
12	The pay scale and benefits of this organization treat each employee equitably	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
13	I have the information that I need to do a good job.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
14	This organization introduces enough new policies and procedures.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7

15	I understand the purpose of this organization	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
16	The manner in which work tasks are divided is a logical one	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
17	This organization's leadership efforts result in the organization's fulfillment of its purposes.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
18	My relationships with members of my work group are friendly as well as professional	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
19	The opportunity for promotion exists in this organization.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
20	This organization has adequate mechanisms for binding itself together	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
21	This organization favors change	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
22	The priorities of this organization were understood by its employees	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
23	The structure of my work unit is well designed	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
24	It is clear to me whenever my boss is attempting to guide my work efforts	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
25	I have established the relationships that I need to do my job properly	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
26	The salary that I receive is commensurate with the job that I perform	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
27	Other work units are helpful to my work unit whenever assistance is requested	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
28	Occasionally I like to change things about my job.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
29	1 had enough input in deciding my work-unit goals	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
30	The division of labor in this organization actually helps it to reach its goals	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
31	I understand my boss's efforts to influence me and the other members of the work unit	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
32	There is no evidence of unresolved conflict in this organization	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
33	All tasks to be accomplished are associated with incentives	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
34	This organization's planning and control efforts are helpful to its growth and development	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
35	This organization has the ability to change	1	2	3	4	5	6	7

ODO SCORING SHEET

Instructions: Transfer the numbers you circled on the questionnaire to the blanks below, add each column, and divide each sum by five. This will give you comparable scores for each of the seven areas.

Purposes	Structure	Leadership	Relationships
1	2	3	4
8	9	10	11
15	16	17	18
22	23	24	25
29	30	31	32
Total	Total	Total	Total
Average	Average	Average	Average

Rewards	Helpful Mechanisms	Attitude Toward Change
5	6	7
12	13	14
19	20	21
26	27	28
33	34	35
Total	Total	Total
Average	Average	Average

ODQ PROFILE AND INTERPRETATION SHEET

Instructions:Transfer your average scores from the ODQ Scoring Sheet to the appropriate boxes in the figure below. Then study the background information and interpretation suggestions that follow.

BACKGROUND

The ODQis a survey-feedback instrument designed to collect data on organizational functioning. It measures the perceptions of persons in an organization or work unit to determine areas of activity that would benefit from an organization development effort. It can be used as the sole data-collection technique or in conjunction with other techniques (interview, observation, etc.).

Weisbord's Six-Box Organizational Model (1976) is the basis for the questionnaire, which measures seven variables: purposes, structure, relationships, rewards, leadership, helpful mechanisms, and attitude toward change. The first six areas are from Weisbord's model, while the last one was added to provide the consultant/facilitator with input on readiness for change.

The instrument and the model reflect a systematic approach for analyzing relationships among variables that influence how an organization is managed. The ODQ measures the informal aspects of the system. It may be necessary for the consultant/facilitator also to gather information on the formal aspects and to examine the gaps between the two.

Instrumentation Kit

Using the ODQ is the first step in determining appropriate interventions for organizational change efforts. Its use as a diagnostic tool can be the first step in improving an organizations or work unit's capability to serve its clientele.

INTERPRETATION AND DIAGNOSIS

A crucial consideration is the diagnosis based upon data interpretation. The simplest diagnosis would be to assess the amount of variance for each of the seven variables in relation to a score of 4, which is the neutral point. Scores above 4 would indicate a problem with organizational functioning. The closer the score is to 7 the more severe the problem would be. Scores below 4 indicate the lack of a problem, with a score of 1 indicating optimum functioning.

Another diagnostic approach follows the same guidelines of assessment in relation to the neutral point (score) of 4. The score of each of the thirty-five items on the questionnaire can be reviewed to produce more exacting information on problematic areas. Thus diagnosis would be more precise. For example, let us suppose that the average score on item number 8 is 6.4. This would indicate not only a problem in organizational purpose, but also a more specific problem in that there is a gap between organizational and individual goals. This more precise diagnostic effort is likely to lead to a more appropriate intervention in the organization than the generalized diagnostic approach described in the preceding paragraph.

Appropriate diagnosis must address the relationships between the boxes to determine the interconnectedness of problems. For example, if there is a problem with relationships, could it be that the reward system does not reward relationship behavior? This might be the case if the average score on item 33 was well above 4 (5.5 or higher) and all the items on relationships (4, 11, 18, 25, 32) averaged above 5.5.

Part 2

Responding To Peers Post

Respond to these two post evaluating the strategic advantages cited by the peer and whether you agree with these. For the responses, a good response is around 200 - 300 words with academic reference.

Peer 1- A few years ago, I was interning at a law firm in DC, providing IT services to their office. The firm was known for its demanding environment, where smooth operations were non-negotiable, especially given the high stakes involved in their legal cases. My team's role was to ensure that their IT infrastructure was running flawlessly, supporting everything from secure communications to managing vast amounts of case data. During the internship, I had a chance to observe the firm's internal dynamicshow decisions were made, how different teams interacted, and how well the technology systems supported their work. Based on the ODO scoring sheet, I can now see how the different aspects of the organization influenced the overall performance of the law firm.

Analysis

Purposes (Average Score: 0.6): The law firm had well-defined goals, with a strong focus on delivering high-quality legal services and maintaining client confidentiality. According to Harrison and Shirom, "clear organizational goals help ensure that all employees are aligned with the firm's objectives" (97). My team's services were crucial in supporting these goals, especially in maintaining the security and efficiency of the firm's operations. For example, we implemented a multi-factor authentication system for accessing sensitive legal documents, which significantly reduced the risk of unauthorized access and ensured that client information remained secure. Additionally, we optimized the firm's case management software by integrating it with a cloud-based platform, allowing attorneys to access case files securely from any location. This improvement not only enhanced the flexibility of the legal team but also sped up the process of retrieving and managing documents, leading to more efficient case handling. Furthermore, we set up regular automated backups of all critical data to prevent data loss, ensuring that the firm could continue its operations smoothly in the event of any technical issues. These IT enhancements directly supported the firm's overarching goals by safeguarding client confidentiality and streamlining the delivery of legal services (Harrison, Diagnosing Organizations; Alderfer).

Structure (Average Score: 1.4): The organizational structure of the firm, however, presented some challenges. As the firm expanded, its structure became more complex, with distinct departments such as legal, administrative, and IT working somewhat independently. This separation sometimes hindered the efficient implementation of IT solutions. As Rupp et al. explain, "a complex organizational structure can create silos that make it difficult for departments to collaborate effectively" (65). For instance, decisions regarding IT upgrades (laptops, desktops, or printers) or new software implementations often required approval from multiple layers of management, slowing down the process and occasionally delaying critical updates (Harrison, Organizational Diagnosis; Rupp et al.).3. Leadership - Average Score: 0.8 Leadership at the firm was another area with room for improvement. While the senior attorneys were highly skilled in their legal expertise, their involvement in IT-related matters was limited. Alderfer notes that "effective leadership requires not only expertise in one's primary field but also an understanding of the technological needs that support the organization's goals" (132). This lack of clear guidance from leadership on IT issues sometimes left the our team to make decisions without fully understanding the long-term strategic goals of the firm. This gap in leadership support impacted the alignment of IT services with the firm's broader objectives (Alderfer).

Relationships - Average Score: 0.8 The relationships within the firm, particularly between the legal staff and the IT team, were professional but somewhat distant. Collaboration between departments was limited to what was necessary, which occasionally made it difficult for our team to fully understand and meet the needs of the legal staff. Harrison and Shirom point out that "strong interdepartmental relationships are crucial for ensuring that IT solutions are tailored to the specific needs of the organization" (112). This lack of close working relationships may have resulted in IT solutions that were not always optimally tailored to the firm's requirements (Harrison and Shirom).

Rewards - Average Score: 1 The reward system within the firm appeared to be focused primarily on the legal staff, with less emphasis on recognizing the contributions of the IT team. While the legal department's work was often celebrated, the IT team's efforts, which were crucial to the smooth operation of the firm, were less visible and therefore less recognized. As Harrison notes, "an effective reward system must acknowledge the contributions of all departments to maintain overall morale and motivation" (Diagnosing Organizations 78). This disparity in recognition affected the morale and motivation of our department (Harrison, Diagnosing Organizations).

Helpful Mechanisms - Average Score: 8 Despite these challenges, the firm did have mechanisms in place that supported the IT services provided. For example, the firm had invested in a state-of-the-art document management system that allowed for secure storage and easy retrieval of case files, which was crucial for maintaining client confidentiality. However, while the technical infrastructure was robust, the integration of these tools with the firm's overall operations was not always seamless. Lusthaus et al. observe that "even with advanced tools in place, the lack of integration and training can lead to underutilization and inefficiencies" (45). For instance, the document management system, though effective, was underutilized by the legal staff due to inadequate training, leading to inconsistencies in how files were stored and accessed. Additionally, communication between the IT team and the legal department was often fragmented, resulting in delays when resolving IT issues that directly impacted case preparation and court filings. These examples highlight how, despite having strong technical tools, the lack of integration and communication hindered the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the IT services provided (Lusthaus et al.).

Attitude Toward Change (Average Score: 13): A significant challenge observed was the firm's resistance to change, particularly in adopting new IT solutions. Law firms often have a conservative approach, as a result, proposing and implementing new technology or systems was met with hesitation, as the existing systems were familiar, even if they were not the most efficient. This resistance to change could have limited the firm's ability to fully leverage the IT services available to them. As Rupp et al. note, "resistance to change, particularly in adopting new technologies, can significantly impede an organization's ability to innovate and adapt" (110).

One quantitative method that would be applicable to my findings from the Organizational Diagnosis are surveys. They would be particularly useful for collecting data on a larger scale, capturing the perceptions of a broad range of employees about specific issues identified in the OD findings, such as leadership, communication, and organizational structure. A well-structured survey could be distributed across different departmentslegal, administrative, IT, etc.to quantify perceptions of leadership effectiveness, the clarity of organizational goals, the efficiency of communication channels, and the general attitude toward change. Likert-scale questions would help measure agreement levels with statements related to these areas (Harrison and Shirom; Rupp et al.).

Two qualitative methods that would be applicable to my findings from the OD are interviews and focus groups. Interviews would be invaluable for exploring the underlying reasons behind survey results and performance data, offering deeper insights into individual experiences and perceptions within the organization. Conducting semi-structured interviews with key stakeholderssuch as senior attorneys, IT staff, and administrative personnelwould help uncover nuanced views on leadership effectiveness, organizational structure, and resistance to change. As Alderfer explains, "interviews allow for a detailed exploration of complex issues and can provide rich, qualitative data that contextualizes quantitative findings" (146). These interviews could reveal motivations, concerns, and ideas that might not be captured through quantitative data alone. Additionally, interviews allow for flexibility to probe further into interesting or unexpected responses, yielding a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges at hand (Alderfer; Lusthaus et al.).

Focus groups, on the other hand, would facilitate discussions among employees from different departments, enabling them to explore common themes, perceptions, and ideas for improvement. Organizing a series of focus groups could help address specific issues identified in the OD findings, such as communication gaps between IT and legal staff or attitudes toward organizational change. Harrison suggests that "the interactive nature of focus groups can generate ideas for enhancing collaboration and communication within the firm" (Organizational Diagnosis 94). Moreover, focus groups provide a platform for employees to discuss issues openly, which can uncover shared experiences and collective insights that might be missed in individual interviews or surveys (Harrison, Organizational Diagnosis; Rupp et al.).

Compare/ Contrast Surveys can measure the degree of communication issues or resistance to change within the firm. On the other hand, qualitative approaches like interviews and focus groups explore the deeper reasons behind the quantitative findings, providing detailed insights into complex problems that numerical data alone might miss (Alderfer; Harrison and Shirom). For instance, while a survey might indicate general dissatisfaction with leadership, qualitative interviews could uncover specific issues like poor communication or insufficient support for career development (Harrison, Diagnosing Organizations).

Sources.

Alderfer, Clayton. The Practice of Organizational Diagnosis: Theory and Methods. Illustrated ed., Oxford University Press, USA, 2011.

Harrison, Michael, and Arie Shirom. Organizational Diagnosis and Assessment: Bridging Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications, 1998.

Harrison, Michael I. Diagnosing Organizations: Methods, Models, and Processes. Illustrated ed., vol. 8, Applied Social Research Methods, SAGE, 2005.

Lusthaus, Charles, and International Development Research Centre (Canada).Enhancing Organizational Performance: A Toolbox for Self-assessment. Illustrated ed., IDRC, 1999.

Rupp, And A., Jonathan Templin, and Robert A. Henson.Diagnostic Measurement: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Illustrated, annotated ed., Methodology in the Social Sciences, Guilford Press, 2010.

Peer 2- Working at the U.S. Census Bureau, we are always gathering data and attempting to provide the nation with insights about the general and unique populations we study. As a result, my peers and I are conditioned to act as non-participant observers, ever watchful over changing trends, whether they apply to topics such as school enrollment, food security, and the overarching labor market. As a survey statistician, it is fair to say that my role is somewhat diagnostic in nature, since the data we collect and make sense of helps agencies with understanding how they can develop to mitigate problems and better achieve their stated purpose (Falletta & Combs, 2018). That said, how critical is the eye that we turn onto ourselves? Using the Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire, I will score and analyze seven dimensions related to the Bureau's ability, as well as discuss data collection as it pertains to Organizational Diagnosis (OD) and compare qualitative and quantitative methods to that end.

Purpose (0.8)

Created in 1902, the Bureau's purpose has remained largely the same over its 120-year history. For this reason, there is considerable stability as well as static embedded in the culture. This is most apparent at the end of every decennial collection, the most recent being 2020. Changes not only in workplace policy, but in how the Bureau uses technology and frames its purpose created a kind of quiet pushback where employees did not outright state their opposition but cited traditional policy and procedures as reasons to delay the incoming changes (Orr, 2021). Four years later, there remains a misalignment of objectives and rationale between researchers (tenured employees) and organization leaders as we relax certain scientific rigors for the convenience of technology, namely the creation of an internet service response mode that will eventually eclipse traditional methods of in-person interviews. In this respect, Thiele Schwarz, et al. (2021) note that the research process will always submit to organizational needs, which may exacerbate schisms between internal stakeholders to the detriment of purpose.

Structure (1.4)

Despite most recent quarrels over purpose, the Bureau has set up an exceptional organization structure full of experts and a network-like organizational schema with formal and informal channels of communication. This allows for diagnoses that can be either targeted or broad depending on the need (Falletta & Combs, 2018). Additionally, this makes it possible to assemble teams of change agents that perform at different level of the organization, valuable for ensuring any changes can occur in a timely manner (McNamara, 2023).

Leadership (0.8)

Census Bureau leadership, while well-meaning, tends to suffer from challenges inherent in a top-down decision-making approach. As stated earlier, leadership goals may be at odds of research objectives. To stem this problem, leaders have taken to adopting a dialogic fashion of implementing change that utilizes appreciative inquiry through monthly town-halls and semi-annual survey rollouts (Falletta & Combs, 2018). It has been tough, though, especially in the face of return-to-work initiatives that have upset a largely remote workforce that has grown used to telework culture. Leadership's role in this context has been to measure attitudes within the organization and assuage any concerns to increase the Bureau's capacity for organizational change (Mladenova, 2022). Moreover, leadership's lack of technical expertise creates an imbalance as research needs and criteria are at times shirked for operational efficiency.

Relationships (0.4)

The previous dimensions of purpose, structure, and leadership can explain the lowest score being in relationships. As Hemerling (2016) notes, leaders are more motivated by financial and operational goals given their organizational-wide perspective, but the same cannot be said for employees at lower levels such as myself. Therefore, a disconnect emerges and the relationship between staff and superior becomes one-sided. As such, interventions have suffered from weak engagement, as they give the impression of being foregone conclusions that are implemented as designed without sufficient attention given to the impact on day-to-day attitudes and practices (von Thiele Schwarz, et al., 2021).

Rewards (0.8)

Rewards are few and far between, especially in an agency heavily reliant on the federal government for its budget. For example, raises for heavy lifts are rare, and while time-off awards are nice, they hold little meaning for a workforce that accumulates a higher amount of paid-time-off per month than their private and non-profit counterparts. Von Thiel Schwarz, et al. (2021) points to a need for congruence between interventions and the benefit of the activities these interventions aim to stimulate. The time-off award example demonstrates the incongruence between these two.

Helpful Mechanisms (0.8)

The efficacy of mechanisms in place to aid the work of the organization is a mixed bag. Employees with a wealth of institutional and technical knowledge grapple daily with outdated software and systems. From network outages to tedious computer updates, patience is the primary tool. As a data collection agency first and foremost, having well-developed and reliable instruments for the respondent and interviewer is imperative for gleaning high-quality data devoid of bias (Lusthaus, et al., 1999). The transition towards an internet service response mode should relieve some of the issues with our outdated technology but is by no means a fix-all.

Attitude Toward Change (1.4)

The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent external/internal factors have led to a rapidly changing workforce as tenured employees retire and new ones take their place, oblivious to the old ways. For this reason, leadership has leaned into interventions designed to garner buy-in and incorporate new ideas through extracurricular activities such as movie watch parties, emerging sports leagues, and a completely redesigned building meant to promote open collaboration and communication across divisions. This is resulting in an increasingly optimist outlook that where people feel they are connected to the positive changes being implemented around them (Orr, 2021).

After conducting an organizational diagnosis, it can be concluded that for a data collection agency, the U.S. Census Bureau surprisingly does not place a strong focus on using qualitative and quantitative metrics to better understand its workforce outside of semi-annual surveys (Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey) that primarily collect qualitative data and monthly town-halls. Focus groups are conducted, but usually because of an initiative taking place rather than a method to keep aware of divisional, group, and individual attitudes. Instead, more informal methods are used but their evaluative ability is not clear. I believe this is a symptom of being an agency of non-participant observers. Again, the critical eye is turned outward. However, as employees become more vocal about their desires, and the organization becomes increasingly dependent on technology over in-person interactions, the need for quantitative methods is apparent to right the current imbalances.

References:

Falletta, S., & Combs, W. (2018). The Organizational Intelligence Model in Context. OD Practicitoner, 22-29. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Salvatore-Falletta/publication/340037281_The_Organizational_Intelligence_Model_in_Context/links/5e73b1ac299bf1c76a1caa4d/The-Organizational-Intelligence-Model-in-Context.pdf

Hemerling, J. (2016). 5 ways to lead in an era of constant change [Video]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jim_hemerling_5_ways_to_lead_in_an_era_of_constant_change?subtitle=en

Lusthause, C., Adrien, M.-H., Anderson, G., & Carden, F. (1999). Enhancing Organizational Performance. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.

McNamara, C. (2023). Consulting afn Organizational Development. Authenticy Consulting. Retrieved from https://management.org/organizationalchange/index.htm#anchor317286

Mladenova, I. (2022). Relation between Organizational Capacity for Change and Readiness for Change. Adminstrative Sciences, 1-15.

Orr, D. (2021). Team for Change: A Practitioner's Guide to Implementing Change in the Modern Workplace. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.

von Thiele Schwarz, U., Nielsen, K., Edwards, K., Hasson, H., Ipsen, C., Savage, C., . . . Reed, J. E. (2021). How to design, implement and evaluate organizational interventions for maximum impact: the Sigtuna Principles. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 415-427.