Culture, strategy and teamwork

The keys to organizational change

To maintain and improve productivity and profitability in the long run, organizations must go beyond short-term remedies to solve their immediate problems. Downsizing, restructuring, re-engineering, virtual corporation, virtual workers, strategic alliances, process management, pay for performance, cost cutting, and the like, exemplify the efforts of most companies in their attempts to maintain their competitiveness[1]. However, adopting fashionable programmes such as TQM, re-engineering, etc to parts or the entire organization without a general strategy tying them to long-term corporate goals seldom leads to desired results. Organizations which are successful in maintaining their competitiveness have learned to view change not as a one-time event, but an ongoing process necessary to remain on the cutting edge in meeting customer needs[ 2]. Successful organizations today have a clear understanding of the factors influencing their effectiveness and efficiency and have developed a capability for adjusting these factors continuously to maintain their competitiveness. They have built an organizational climate that fosters creativity, harmony and teamwork, where continuous improvement has become a way of life[ 3].

This article describes an integrated organizational development (OD) programme and its application in a company to change its culture, structure and operating procedures to create an environment where proactive behaviour towards change is the norm.

The return of the integrated approach to OD

The term OD has been in use for many years. Initially, as defined by such pioneers in OD research like Bennis[4 ], Beckhard[5], French and Bell[ 6], OD was meant to be a participative, educational, planned change strategy aimed at modifying beliefs, values, attitudes, structures and processes, so that organizations could better adapt themselves to their changing environments and cope with uncertainties. OD first emerged in the late-1940s as a process for system-wide change to improve the functioning of an entire organization[7]. However, the global orientation that characterized OD was replaced during the 1970s with more specialized efforts at improving organizations[8]. The 1980s witnessed even more specialization. Organizations focused on the narrow use of single approaches, such as teambuilding, survey-guided development, performance management, process consultation, action research, socio-technical systems analysis, grid analysis, goals management, and re-engineering. These approaches are by no means exhaustive of all OD approaches but are representative of the most widely used OD techniques[9]. They focus only on a few of the OD components. In practice, OD became a collection of techniques designed to improve intra- and inter-group relations or some specific part of the system.

In the 1990s, however, more and more organizations are coming to realize that to remain competitive in the global environment, they must be transformed into market-driven, innovative, and adaptive systems[10]. To compete effectively one must change the way the company is managed. In so doing companies begin to recognize that there is no quick fix[11]. There is no solution which magically will transform a company to a more desirable, ideal organization. Rather, management must embrace change, recognizing that there are many issues related to strategy, culture, skills, teamwork, and the reward and recognition system of a company.

With respect to strategy the organization must ask whether its mission and goals are sound. Another question related to strategy is whether or not the company has the appropriate structure to implement its goals. A series of questions must also be asked with respect to corporate culture. Management must determine what changes, if any, are needed to the culture or values which affect the way the company operates. The company must also examine whether or not it possesses the right skills to manage and resolve issues and problems which are critical to its success. The company must also strengthen its ability to develop high performance teams of diversely talented individuals in order to find the best solutions. Finally, the organization must examine the extent to which its reward and recognition system motivates individual, team and organizational performance improvement. A full scale organizational development programme addresses all of these issues, not just one or two parts of the system and provides for upgrading technical and managerial skills[12 ].

Application of an integrated approach to OD - the case of Bangor Hydro-Electric Company

Changes of gargantuan proportion are happening in today's controlled environment of public utilities. One electric utility company chose an equally significant response in organizational and competitive strategies. The implementation of a full scale OD programme began in 1991 at Bangor Hydro-Electric company. We will begin by describing the internal characteristics of the company in the late-1980s, then proceed with how the company initiated an OD programme to create an organization able to cope with the rapidly changing environment and gain a competitive edge. Next, the OD programme through which the company altered its internal characteristics to become customer oriented, adaptable and competitive is discussed. Finally, the results of the OD programme are presented as specific changes the company has made by the end of 1994 to become a dynamically stable organization.

Characteristics of Bangor Hydro-Electric Company prior to OD

Prior to undertaking OD, the Bangor Hydro-Electric Company had survived and prospered as a traditional electric utility. The company had operated under the premise of the stability of its environment. For more than 60 years it experienced steady growth as demand for its product expanded rapidly and with predictability. The costs of production declined dramatically due to technological innovation and economies of scale. Although it had faced some threats to its stability and growth in the early 1980s, the company had not been stressed in any significant way.

The character of the organization was influenced heavily by the historical evolution of the company and its management philosophy. The organizational culture was founded on the premiss of stability and a production orientation. The mission of the organization had rarely been articulated or discussed among the major stakeholders. Presumably, it was to provide a reliable electricity supply to customers at a minimum cost. No formal strategic plan existed and what strategy did exist was in the mind of the CEO and perhaps one or two other senior managers. This strategy was clearly a production-oriented approach to business, and did not reflect evolving consumer needs and preferences or the possibility of increased competition. The customer demand was presumed to grow quite continuously and predictably, with the principal decision of management being to select from a choice of supply resources acceptable to regulatory agencies and politicians. Although customer service was espoused as a priority, it was largely neglected by senior management until a significant problem occurred or a customer complained loudly to the CEO or the Public Utilities Commission.

The company was organized along the traditional line and staff structure. All organizational functions were carried out by the departments of engineering, power planning, finance, administrative and legal services. Employees worked for departments and few were acquainted with what other departments did or whether they were providing value to either internal or external customers. Many employees worked for Bangor Hydro-Electric from 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. and held the organization at arms length outside the workplace. Employees expected life-long job security and entitlement to excellent pay and benefits, increasing each year.

Most key decisions were made by the CEO in consultation with one of the functional officers and announced to the rest of the executive group and the organization. Management skills were dominated by technical knowledge and applied to relatively straightforward issues and problems. Senior managers spent much of their time analysing the problems and developing their solutions and then directing that their solutions be implemented. To involve lower level employees in either making the decision or helping to determine how the decision should be implemented was a rare occurrence. Senior managers were key players in the organization but the efficiency of their teamwork was spotty at best.

The changing environment of public utilities

The environment of public utilities is complicated. Not only do utilities feel directly the impact of changing social, economic and political conditions, but they are also affected by independent regulatory bodies. A public utility, under the current system, must focus on the regulatory bodies as the most significant external factor. Impact of laws and regulations and regulatory decisions on pricing, promotion, new product development and investment decisions, can influence significantly how a utility positions itself in the near future. With increasing deregulation (reduction in dos and don'ts) and especially, development of alternative sources of energy, public utilities must respond to their clients much more rapidly. The one best way of dealing with environmental uncertainties is the creation of a flexible organization and an adaptable workforce.

The changes in the late-1980s in the public utilities environment became so evident that even the companies with the most conservative management began to initiate some form of a planning and OD process to cope with the oncoming changes[13].

Initiating the programme

Planned change generally is initiated by a key executive or several executives of an organization when they begin to recognize its impending system-wide problems. Companies with a predominantly anticipatory management style fall into this category. In other cases improvement programmes are initiated under difficult circumstances, sometimes even as a last resort effort. Reactionary management styles are more representative of such companies.

In this case the consultant met with the CEO and the company vice presidents to discuss the steps involved in a comprehensive organizational development process. The purpose of these meetings was to assist the company in identifying the reasons they would like to improve the existing organization and what tangible results they would like to accomplish. The critical issue to be settled during the initiation is to ensure that senior executives understand the concepts of complex environments, factors contributing to the company's competitiveness, complex problems, multiple approaches, and commitment. It is crucial that senior executives know beforehand exactly what the OD programme entails[14].

Another key issue in the initiation phase is to enlist the willingness and commitment of senior executives to diagnose the organization's full range of barriers to success. It is imperative to get an objective reading of the organization's health. In this case, key managers selected by the CEO and the vice presidents met with the consultant as a group. The president and the vice presidents also attended these sessions. For about six months the group was exposed to the conceptual foundation of OD. Among various OD concepts major emphasis was placed on the culture and teamwork components. Three months into the bi-weekly three-hour training sessions, this management group was named as the strategic management team (SMT). The primary function of the SMT was to provide strategic guidance to the company and play a key role in the comprehensive OD programme. It was agreed that implementation of the improvement programme would be led by the SMT. Usually, OD efforts are led by various staff groups, however a completely integrated programme for its long-term success must be led by top management. The implementation of the comprehensive OD programme at the Bangor Hydro-Electric Company followed four distinct, yet strongly interrelated phases.

Phase 1: identifying variables contributing to the company's competitiveness

The first step in an attempt to examine factors contributing to a company's competitiveness is to specify major sets of variables and their relationship as jointly they influence desired outcomes. The list of factors can be lengthy. Many attempts are made to identify mutually supportive subsystems which provide a framework for the design of management systems. For instance, Maciariello et al.[ 15] present style and culture, infrastructure, rewards, communication and the formal control process as the basis of their analysis of competitive advantage. Similar models are given by McGrath and Hoole[16], Moore[17], Hitt et al.[ 18], as well as by Pearson[ 19]. At the expense of being somewhat simplistic, senior management with the help of the consultant, grouped the factors contributing to the success of the company within its rapidly changing environment under four general categories: technology factors; structural factors; employee factors; managerial policies and practices.

Technology factors refer to the mechanisms used by an organization to transform raw inputs into finished outputs. Technology includes the mechanical processes used in production, the materials used, the technical knowledge necessary to perform goal-directed activities, and the condition of the physical plant.

Structural factors refer to the relatively fixed relationships which exist in an organization with respect to the arrangement of human resources. It is the unique way a firm fits its people together to create an organization. Factors such as centralization/decentralization, chain of command, nature of authority, organizational climate, interdepartmental relations, and the extent to which interpersonal interactions are formalized, are included under this notion.

Employee factors - the third set of variables focuses on the role of individual differences across employees as they relate to effectiveness. Different employees possess different outlooks, goals, needs and abilities. These differences can have a direct bearing on two important organizational processes which can have a marked impact on effectiveness. These are organizational attachment, or the extent to which employees identify with their employer, and individual job performance. To reach specific marketing, production, technical and financial goals, a company must maintain an effective workforce. It is almost impossible for a company to maintain a competitive advantage without the belief that the human resource overlies all other resources.

Managerial policies, practices and style facilitate or hinder goal attainment. Managers play a central role in the success of an enterprise by planning, co-ordinating and facilitating goal-directed activities. To perform these functions managers must be effective communicators, leaders, policy makers, motivators, trainers, counsellors, recruiters and, above all, good decision makers. It is their responsibility to ensure that the structure of the organization is consistent with, and advantageous for, the prevailing technology and environment.

Phase 2: developing standards to measure controllable variables contributing to company success. The variables influencing a company's competitiveness must be translated into standards for guiding its organizational development efforts. Following an analysis of the external and internal characteristics of the company, senior management developed a set of standards. A sampling of those standards are shown in Appendix 1. They were developed following a series of meetings using the Delphi technique in reaching consensus. In the minds of the senior managers of this utility company these standards exemplify an ideal organization that can meet any current and future challenge effectively and efficiently. The next phases of the OD process involve a series of actions to reach these goals.

Phase 3: diagnosing the problems. When senior management has a clear understanding of the variables contributing to their company's success, the next step is to develop an in-depth understanding of the problems facing the organization. It is important to determine how close or how far removed the current organization is from the ideal situation depicted in Appendix 1. To this effect it is essential to survey company managers and employees. Two surveys are used for this purpose. A survey to determine perceived quality of worklife and productivity is administered to all personnel. It is aimed at obtaining specific information concerning organizational climate, managerial practices of the participants immediate supervisors, and productivity issues within the participants' own departments. A sample of the questions asked is shown in Appendix 2.

A second more detailed survey is distributed to senior managers and supervisors. Here the participants are asked to give their perceptions on the current position of the company with respect to each standard or OD goal. They are asked to indicate on a Likert-type scale the extent to which each goal is descriptive of the company.

These surveys are important not just for benchmarking but also give an opportunity to the organizational members to provide their input in shaping the future of their company before engaging in structural and process changes and training and development activities. Such input helps set priorities for OD action and provide its rationale. This survey-feedback approach is a powerful technique in generating company-wide support to OD programmes.

Full-scale OD requires the identification of company strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT). For about two months, the strategic management team (the CEO, vice presidents and department managers) met weekly for three-hour-sessions to scan company environment, to discuss how the industry is changing, to review customer relations, corporate culture and operations, and finally, to determine significant factors that influence the company's effectiveness in becoming and remaining competitive.

Phase 4: solving the problems. A five-prong, interrelated approach in solving Bangor Hydro-Electric Company's problems is used. The culture, strategy-structure, rewards, teamwork, and the management skills training components of the comprehensive OD programme are implemented.

1

Culture component. A dysfunctional culture can be observed in organizations when members persist in behaviours that may have worked well in the past but clearly are inappropriate today. Through its culture component an OD programme helps a company develop an adaptive culture. In an adaptive culture organizational members support one another's efforts to identify problems and implement workable solutions. A feeling of confidence and trust is developed[20]. The culture, or set of common values, which causes the organization to act in a certain way, defines the basic ground rules of the organization. In the past the Bangor Hydro-Electric Company developed a culture which assumes the customer will always be there, that it can always pass the costs on, that personal gratification comes first, and so forth. It is now clear that those are no longer a desirable set of values. Instead, the following is espoused by senior management as a more desirable culture:

To acknowledge that customer needs must be met through continuous improvement. To understand and support the corporate strategy for success. To recognize that corporate success is important to employee well-being. To recognize the importance of all employee contributions to corporate success. To possess the skills, tools, and information necessary to allow maximum contribution. To appreciate the value of working together, as a Team, to achieve common success.

2

Strategy-structure and rewards. Officially, the OD programme started with changes in the strategy-structure and rewards components which are aimed at adjusting an organization's tangible features such as its structure, processes and resources that guide people's behaviour towards the agreed-on mission. More specifically, the strategy-structure and rewards components of the OD programme help the members of an organization to find answers to three fundamental questions: Where are we going? How will we get there? What will we receive for helping out? The answers to these questions must be developed in a systematic manner by senior management with input from the rest of the company[21].

Organizational development goals for competitiveness must be incorporated in the mission statement or as corporate goals in the strategic plan. The board of directors, CEO and other key executives must be committed to making the company competitive. The new mission statement and the reasons for change are communicated by the senior management within the company through employee meetings, newsletters and special messages.

At Bangor Hydro-Electric an important structural change was made by the creation of a team-based management system. The senior management, comprising, vice presidents and department managers, reorganized itself into a single SMT, and within it, several focus teams were formed.

The primary function of the SMT is to provide strategic guidance to the company by scanning its environment and continuously making necessary adjustments. It operates as the internal board of directors of the company. Managers are encouraged to leave their departmental allegiances behind and acquire a corporate perspective to think and behave like a CEO. The SMT meets bi-weekly for about three hours to discuss and resolve corporate issues.

Focus teams, composed of SMT members and other personnel from the organization, provide solutions to specialized problems of corporate magnitude. They are interdepartmental and integrate different functions in solving specific problems. They are organized along key processes and outputs of the company.

3 Rewards component. To reinforce the behaviour learned during the OD process the entire reward system of the organization is reviewed by the SMT. A focus team specializing in human resource issues is charged to develop a new performance evaluation and reward system. These changes are presented to all managers during the performance evaluation and compensation systems module. The new system is further fine-tuned following input from the managers. After a lengthy process of receiving input from all parts of the organization, a performance-based compensation system is then in place. In a nutshell, the reward system was adjusted to reinforce a corporate culture encouraging participation, empowerment, teamwork, creativity and flexibility.

4

Teamwork component. A key component of a comprehensive OD programme is teamwork. Teams are important to facilitate organizational learning, in establishing common goals, and in providing support to accomplish these goals. Effective inter- and intra-departmental teams provide the organization with the synergism which is essential in becoming and remaining more competitive.

The following teams have been created as part of the OD programme at the Bangor Hydro-Electric Company: the strategic management team, focus teams, process teams, project teams, and labour management teams on safety and organizational development. Most of the company business is carried out by these teams. In a short time, these teams have shown dramatic improvements in such areas as customer services, meter reading, information services, marketing, product development and cost reduction.

5 Management skills component. The purpose of the management skills component is to explain and implement the strategy, culture and teamwork concepts of OD; to provide an opportunity to discuss issues and problems; and to develop solutions as the OD programme progresses. Through the training programme the participants learn skills to understand and propagate the new culture and the management philosophy the company is espousing.

All levels of management (senior, middle and supervisory) are exposed to the same management skills component. However, senior management and the strategic management team went through the training programme twice: first, by themselves during the initiating phase of OD; and second, with the remaining managers and supervisors.

The management skills component of OD, although similar with respect to its contents to other managerial and supervisory training programmes, is different from traditional programmes. Traditional training programmes deal with individuals and are oriented towards improving personal abilities and skills of executives, managers and supervisors in different departments of a company. Although these programmes are beneficial, they lack the synergistic effect which is produced by organizational development programmes which utilize a more unified, homogeneous approach to managerial training. Thus, a managerial training programme can be considered effective if it not only improves the individual's performance effectiveness but also facilitates the co-ordination of complex roles and interactions within the individual's organizational environment. Through such a programme, individuals in different units of the Bangor Hydro-Electric Company become cognizant of their separate objectives concomitant with overall company goals.

Managers are key in reaching OD goals. In order to implement the requirements of a new management philosophy, culture and different ways of doing business, managers must possess certain skills and abilities. The management of the Bangor Hydro-Electric Company has identified skills and abilities which managers need in order to reach the OD goals. These are listed in Appendix 3. Most of these items overlap each other and form the core of managerial responsibilities. A modular management skills training programme focuses on these topics and on specific problems and possible solutions identified in the earlier phase of the integrated OD programme. Problems are presented to the participants. Potential solutions are discussed.

All managers and supervisors of the company (approximately 100 individuals) attended a comprehensive training programme consisting of eight modules of six hours each. Each module is offered in two or three segments with several sessions to hold individual session attendance to a maximum of 20 people. Appendix 4 shows the titles and a sampling of the contents of the modules.

The management skills component gives the organizational members a full set of skills they need to create and function within an adaptive organization. To manage complex problems in addition to technical skills, managers need interactive and conceptual skills. Managers must learn how to sense and define problems. They must begin to feel more comfortable looking at the bigger picture and to cope with problems beyond the jurisdiction of their own departments or units.

During each session, specific job-related issues pertinent to the overall content of the particular module are identified. These issues and problems are then translated into teachable managerial skills.

The training programme is designed by the consultant in co-operation with SMT members and is presented to the participants with the assistance of the Bangor Hydro-Electric Company managers. Almost all of the SMT members are used as instructors in one or more of the eight training modules. Teaching is the best way of learning. Learning was further facilitated by small group discussions and through the participation of those being trained.

Assessment of training is made at the end of each module through formal evaluations and focus group meetings. Feedback from the employees in the form of climate surveys helped assess whether the participants used the behaviours learned in the training programmes.

Conclusion

The programme to improve the Bangor Hydro-Electric Company's performance incorporates three components. First, it enables the organization to determine most of the significant controllable variables which influence its success or competitiveness. Second, it identifies all appropriate approaches consisting of techniques, instruments and strategies to alter these controllable variables. Third, it specifies from beginning to end how system-wide change can be managed.

The fully integrated OD programme at the Bangor Hydro-Electric Company proved to be very successful in developing a clear understanding of factors influencing the company's effectiveness and efficiency and the capability for adjusting these factors continuously to maintain its competitiveness.

Since the initiation of OD at the Bangor Hydro-Electric Company, to the end of 1994 many significant changes occurred. Strategies to meet the challenges of the changing environment have been developed, articulated and communicated widely. A new organizational structure is evolving. The corporate culture and management philosophy has changed to support the demands of the customers in an increasingly complex environment. Management skills have been acquired by a much broader group of personnel and with greater depth. Teamwork has become a natural way to complete tasks. Employees are rewarded to a greater degree based on organizational and team performance and their contributions in achieving desirable organizational changes. The company seems to have blended successfully the relevant traits of what Lester C. Thurow[ 22] calls individualistic and communitarian capitalism.

Perhaps the most significant changes have occurred in the strategy and structure of the organization. The mission is now clear and focused: to achieve success as a retail energy distribution business by providing energy services valued by customers. This mission has been discussed widely among all stakeholders and serves to guide much of the activities and priorities of the organization. Specific quantified goals have been established together with short- and long-term performance targets. These goals cover all stakeholder interests: shareholders, customers and employees. The organizational structure has been flattened, with the cadre of five functional vice presidents replaced with a single vice president who chairs and facilitates a group of 20 or so senior managers, known as the strategic management team. This team has the responsibility to develop, approve and implement the corporate strategic plan, to act as the internal board of directors for all key decisions, and to establish and teach the desirable corporate culture. Now the organizational structure is further evolving towards a process orientation, utilizing a team approach to managing improvement and change in the key business processes of the company. Four key business process teams manage process improvement and re-engineering efforts in service/delivery, marketing, power acquisition and support services. Other permanent teams oversee key business activities such as human resources, safety and information services. In addition, many informal teams form and disband based on the need as teamwork has become a very natural method of operations.

As strategy and structure has evolved, many changes have occurred in the corporate culture. Most visible is the acquisition of a customer orientation outlook by the management and the employees of the company. For example, service/delivery and marketing became two of the three key business processes within the company. Customer satisfaction is measured continuously as a corporate goal, and awards are paid for achievement of performance targets. An increasing orientation and willingness to change in order to meet changing demands of the marketplace is evident. Some jobs and functions are eliminated and new ones formed. Employees have been charged to identify ways to eliminate work (even their own) and rewarded for success with better jobs and pay. It is now very natural for teams to form and empower themselves to identify what needs to be done and to do it. Creativity is rewarded.

To meet the increased business challenges, managers have had to learn and practice new skills. Many more managers and employees have a broader understanding of the business, achieved through active participation in the strategic planning and improvement processes. Skills have been acquired in interpersonal relations, particularly communications, teaching and coaching. These new skills are necessary to help involve all employees in identifying what needs to be done, and doing it.

Very significant changes have occurred in the manner in which managerial performance is assessed and rewards are determined and paid. Managers are now being reviewed for performance in the areas of interpersonal and conceptual skills, in addition to technical expertise. The expectation is that all managers will practice the philosophy of empowerment and teamwork, as well as "walk the talk" with respect to the desirable organizational culture. Their performance is assessed in accordance with the concept of 360-degree reviews including the use of peer review teams, customer surveys and employee/ subordinate input[23]. The entitlement mentality has shrunk, with the elimination of all executive perks, and the replacement of standard base pay increases for all with merit pay, bonuses and incentive pay. A short-term incentive bonus is available to all employees based on achievement of corporate performance targets (for managers, part of the incentive is based on employee satisfaction). Individual bonus payments are also paid for exceptional contributions. A long-term incentive based on achieving success in shareholder total return (paid to all employees in stock) is planned for implementation.

This article described a set of basic approaches to OD and their successful application in one company. The improvement efforts became successful because they were aimed at reaching three goals simultaneously. Knowing what customers value is the first step on the road to competitiveness. As the economic environment becomes increasingly competitive, short-term survival and long-term growth become contingent on identifying customer needs rapidly and accurately. Next, the company must have a clear understanding of the factors contributing to its effectiveness and efficiency. A flexible structure and adaptable employees to initiate process and procedure changes in order to produce high quality products or services with the lowest possible cost must be developed. Competitiveness means providing reliably the most value for dollars spent. The third element of OD for competitiveness is the existence of a skilled and committed workforce[24]. Without the long-term commitment of a skilled workforce it may be possible to be competitive for a short period of time but to sustain it for extended periods will be almost impossible.

References

1, "Rethinking work", Business Week, 17 October, 1994, 74-94.

2, Kaufman, R.S., "Why operations improvement programmes fail: four managerial contradictions", Sloan Management Review, Fall, 1992, 83-93.

3, Been, M., Eisenstat, R., "Why change programmes don't produce change", Harvard Business Review, November-December, 1990, 68, 6, 158-66.

4, Bennis, W., Organization Development: Its Nature, Origins and Prospects, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1969.

5, Beckhard, R., Organization Development: Strategies and Models, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1969.

6, French, W., Bell, C., Organization Development, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1973.

7, Warrick, D.D., Contemporary Organizational Development: Current Thinking and Applications, Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL, 1985.

8, Pfeffer, J., Competitive Advantage through People, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA, 1994.

9, Argyris, C., Overcoming Organizational Defuses: Facilitating Organizational Learning, Allyn & Bacon/Simon & Schuster, Boston, MA, 1990.

10, Barnevick, P., Global Strategies: Insights from the World's Leading Thinkers, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA, 1994.

11, Killman, R., Beyond the Quick Fix, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1991.

12, Smith, L., "New ideas from the army", Fortune, September, 1994, 203-12.

13, Boynton, A.C., Victor, B., "Beyond flexibility: building and managing the dynamically stable organization", California Management Review, Fall, 1991, 34, 1, 53-65.

14, Martin, R., "Changing the mind of the corporation", Harvard Business Review, 69, 4, November-December, 1991, 81-94.

15, Maciariello, J.A., Burke, J.W., Tilley, D., "Improving American competitiveness: a management systems perspective", The Academy of Management Executive, III, 4, 1989, 294-303.

16, McGrath, M.E., Hoole, R.W., "Manufacturing's new economies of scale", Harvard Business Review, 70, 3, May-June, 1992, 94-102.

17, Moore, J.F., "Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition", Harvard Business Review, 71, 3, May-June, 1993, 75-86.

18, Hitt, M.A., Hoskission, R.E., Harrison, J.S., "Strategic competitiveness in the 1990s: challenges and opportunities for US executives", Academy of Management Executive, 5, 2, 1991, 7-23.

19, Pearson, A.E., "Corporate redemption and the seven deadly sins", Harvard Business Review, 70, 3, May-June, 1992, 65-75.

20, McDonald, P., Gandz, J., "Getting value from shared values", Organizational Dynamics, 20, 3, 1993, 64-77.

21, Schaffer, R.H., Thompson, H., "Successful change programmes begin with results", Harvard Business Review, 70, 1, January-February, 1992, 80-9.

22, Thurow, L.C., "Who owns the twenty-first century?", Sloan Management Review, 33, 3, Spring, 1992, 5-17.

23, London, M., Beatty, R.W., "360-degree feedback as a competitive advantage", Human Resource Management, 32, 2 and 3, Summer/Fall, 1993, 353-72.

24, Maccoby, M., "Creating an empowered organization", Research Technology Management, 35, 3, May-June, 1992, 50-1.

Appendix 1. Standards for measuring the factors contributing to organizational success

• Control is in the hands of the most appropriate people who have the necessary information to make their decisions.

• Authority is based more on knowledge rather than position.

• Control is mainly self-control.

• There is a high degree of mutual trust.

• Organizational members accept and work through conflicts.

• Employees identify with company.

• Employees take training seriously.

• Senior employees coach and help younger ones.

• Employees show high interest in their jobs.

• The direction of the communications are down, up and sideways.

• Leadership is visionary.

• Leadership is carried by example rather than fear.

• Decision making is delegated to the lowest possible levels.

• Group participation in decision making is encouraged.

• There are no unnecessary policies or procedures.

• There is a satisfactory system for evaluating employees.

• There are real incentives to improve performance.

• Innovation is rewarded.

• Management supports training and development.

• There are incentives to employees to update their skills.

• Company attempts to hire the best possible person for the job.

Appendix 2. Sample of productivity and organizational climate survey questions

• To what extent does this company have a real interest in the welfare and happiness of those who work here?

• To what extent are you proud of working here?

• To what extent can you be sure of a job as long as you do your job well?

• To what extent do you get a feeling of satisfaction while performing the tasks of your job?

• To what extent do you feel that your accomplishments and good task performance are being recognized by the management?

• To what extent do you feel the work in your department is planned efficiently?

• To what extent can improvements in work productivity be made in your department?

• To what extent do you feel there is effective teamwork?

• How satisfied are you with how well your immediate supervisor listens to what you say?

• How satisfied are you with the way your immediate supervisor encourages people to give their best effort?

• How satisfied are you with your immediate supervisor's ability to be fair?

Appendix 3. Skills and abilities which managers need in order to reach the OD goals

• Decision making.

• Leadership.

• Working the hierarchy.

• Delegating.

• Counselling.

• Disciplining.

• Interpersonal relations.

• Handling complaints and grievances.

• Planning and organizing.

• Management methods.

• Budgeting.

• Reporting.

• Problem solving.

• Developing employees.

• Motivating.

• Performance appraisal.

• Communication.

• Conflict management.

• Interviewing.

• Conducting meetings.

• Teambuilding.

• Time management.

• Stress management.

• Safety (e.g. OSHA, first aid).

• Affirmative action/EEO.

Appendix 4. Contents of the management skills training component

Module I

Introduction to organizational and management development - need to change; overview of the comprehensive OD programme; determinants of organizational effectiveness; emerging corporate culture and management philosophy.

Module II

Interpersonal and organizational communications - identifying common barriers in interpersonal and interdepartmental communications; eliminating communication barriers.

Module III

Building and maintaining functioning teams - steps in building and maintaining high performance teams; how to make team membership a personal development experience.

Module IV

Motivating and empowering employees - determinants of employee performance; practical applications of motivation and empowerment theories.

Module V

Leadership - management versus leadership; self-evaluation of leadership practices; situational leadership; influence tactics.

Module VI

The planning function - planning the single most important prerequisite for anticipatory management; how to involve employees in planning.

Module VII

Conflict and issue resolution in union and non-union environments - issue-based negotiations; effective conflict resolution styles; managers'/supervisors' role in managing unionized workforce.

Module VIII

Managers'/supervisors' role in health and safety - the wellness concept; job stress; safety.

Module IX

Evaluating, recognizing and rewarding performance - requirements of appraisal systems; performance feedback and coaching; pay for performance.