MGT423 Module 1 Home Action Research And Organizational Deve

Mgt423module 1 Homeaction Research And Organizational Development

Diagnosing the problems faced by an organization can be a very difficult task. While medical diagnosis involves standard testing procedures, organizational diagnosis requires a systematic approach due to the complex and multifaceted nature of organizations, including departments, management, and individual employees. Action Research serves as a foundational technique in Organizational Development, involving a step-by-step process to identify and solve organizational problems. This module covers the main steps involved in Action Research, its application to various organizational challenges, and sources of credible information on the topic.

Paper For Above instruction

Organizations face complex issues that challenge their growth and effectiveness. One effective approach to diagnosing and addressing these issues is Action Research, a participative and systematic process designed to facilitate organizational change. This paper will explore the main steps involved in Action Research, apply this understanding to four organizational scenarios, and analyze what critical steps may have been overlooked leading to unsuccessful outcomes.

Action Research as a methodology involves a series of well-defined phases, including entry, contracting, diagnosing, planning, implementing, and evaluating change (Lurey & Griffin, 2013). These steps ensure that interventions are systematic, inclusive, and tailored to organizational needs. The first step, entry, involves establishing relationships and understanding organizational context. Contracting sets clear agreements on the scope, objectives, and responsibilities. Diagnosing involves gathering data through various means such as interviews, surveys, and observations to understand the root causes of issues. Planning involves designing interventions based on the diagnosis, while the implementation phase executes the planned actions. Finally, evaluation assesses the effectiveness of the interventions and guides further action (Haneberg, 2005). Skipping or inadequately performing any of these steps can lead to ineffective solutions and organizational setbacks.

Analysis of Organizational Scenarios

Examining the first scenario involving XYZ Widget Corporation reveals that the core issue was neglecting a comprehensive diagnosis before implementing solutions. The consultant, constrained by a tight deadline, relied on previous recommendations without conducting a thorough organizational diagnosis or engaging with employees to understand underlying causes. This oversight aligns with the failure to properly execute the diagnosing step. As suggested by Lurey and Griffin (2013), effective diagnosis requires an in-depth analysis of organizational data and stakeholder input to ensure interventions address real issues rather than superficial symptoms. The failure to follow this step resulted in a mismatch between the solution (pay raises) and the actual causes of sales decline, which persisted despite the intervention.

The second scenario with Allmart Corporation illustrates the importance of direct observation during the diagnosing phase. The consultant conducted surveys and interviews but did not observe actual accounting practices, which limited the validity of findings. According to Haneberg (2005), observation can uncover discrepancies between reported practices and actual behaviors, providing richer data for accurate diagnosis. Ignoring this step led the client to dismiss the consultant’s advice, highlighting how incomplete diagnosing can impede effective change. Had the client engaged in observational techniques, they might have identified different root causes such as outdated processes or systemic inefficiencies, leading to more targeted solutions.

The third scenario involving Kooltrendy’s “Fun Fridays” initiative demonstrates the significance of thorough diagnosis of organizational culture prior to implementing change. The survey and interviews revealed contrasting cultures, but the intervention failed because it did not consider employee attitudes, resistance, or the broader cultural implications. This scenario underscores the importance of a comprehensive diagnostic step that includes not only data collection but also understanding cultural dynamics (Lurey & Griffin, 2013). Failing to recognize the depth of cultural differences and employee sentiments led to increased turnover and the collapse of the initiative.

The fourth scenario with HN Motors exemplifies the risks of prematurely abandoning the diagnostic process. Although the consultant recommended creating a new hybrid department, management’s decision to end collaboration without further diagnosis or engaging employees in the new department's design resulted in ongoing resistance and stalled progress. Effective organizational diagnosis requires ongoing engagement and feedback loops (Haneberg, 2005). The failure to sustain diagnostic efforts or involve employees in change processes often results in resistance and stalled initiatives, as evidenced here.

Conclusion

Across all scenarios, a common thread is the omission or inadequate execution of the diagnosing step, which is critical for understanding organizational issues thoroughly. Effective Action Research involves not just data collection but also engaging stakeholders, observing behaviors, and analyzing cultural dynamics to ensure interventions align with organizational realities. As noted by Lurey & Griffin (2013) and Haneberg (2005), neglecting this step leads to superficial solutions that ultimately fail, emphasizing the importance of a systematic and participative diagnosis process in organizational development efforts.

References

• Haneberg, L. (2005). Chapter 3: The action research approach to change. Organization Development Basics. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development.
• Lurey, J., & Griffin, M. (2013). Section 2: Chapter 4: Action research: The anchor of OD practice. In J. Vogelsang (Ed.), Handbook for Strategic HR: Best Practices in Organization Development from the OD Network. AMACOM Books.
• Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2008). The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage Publications.
• Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2014). Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization. Sage Publications.
• Stringer, E. T. (2013). Action Research. Sage Publications.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications.
• McNiff, J. (2013). Action Research: Principles and Practice. Routledge.
• Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory Action Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications.
• Reason, P., & Torbert, W. R. (2001). The Action Turn: Toward a Transformational Politics of Action. Concepts and Transformation.
• Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Pearson.