No Plagiarism Please Read The Case Study Entitled As 358775

No Plagiarismplease Read The Case Study Entitled As Top Management Te

No plagiarism please read the case study entitled as “Top Management Team at Ortiv Glass Corporation.†available in below and answer the following questions: Assignment Questions: Q.1 Discuss why ‘strategic orientation’ is fundamental to diagnosis in OD. Support your answer using two examples from this case study. Q.2 Explain why it is important for a group design to be congruent with the larger organization design. Support your answer using an example from this case study Q.3 Based on your understanding of the group-level diagnostic model, describe and evaluate each of the Ortiv’s team design components: - Goal clarity - Task structure - Team functioning - Group composition - Group norms Q.4 Discuss how the group design of Ortiv’s Glass Corporation could positively or negatively impacts on the diagnosis of design components at the individual level.

In organizational development (OD), understanding the role of strategic orientation in diagnosing organizational and team issues is crucial. The case study of Ortiv Glass Corporation provides valuable insights into how strategic orientation influences diagnosis and, consequently, the effectiveness of organizational interventions. This analysis explores the importance of strategic orientation, the need for congruence between group and organization design, evaluates Ortiv’s team design components, and examines how group design impacts individual-level diagnoses.

Paper For Above instruction

Strategic orientation serves as the foundation for effective diagnosis in organizational development by aligning internal processes and structures with overarching strategic goals. In the context of Ortiv Glass Corporation, strategic orientation was especially significant given the company's challenges with innovation, operational efficiency, and market positioning. When a firm’s strategic orientation is clear and well-articulated, it enables OD practitioners to identify whether the team structures, group norms, and task designs are supportive of strategic objectives or if adjustments are required.

One example from the case study illustrates this point: Ortiv’s emphasis on innovation as a strategic priority required the top management team to foster a culture that encourages creativity and risk-taking. The diagnosis revealed that although innovation was valued, the team structure was hierarchical and bureaucratic, impeding information flow and collaborative efforts. Recognizing this misalignment, the OD process recommended restructuring teams to be more cross-functional, thus aligning team dynamics with the strategic focus on innovation.

Another example pertains to operational efficiency. The company's strategic orientation toward cost leadership necessitated a focus on process optimization. The diagnosis identified that the team’s task structures were overly complex, and roles were poorly defined, leading to delays and inefficiencies. Addressing these issues required realignment of group norms and task structures to streamline operations, demonstrating how strategic orientation guides the diagnostic process to reveal specific adjustments needed at the team level.

The importance of congruence between group design and broader organizational design cannot be overstated. When these elements are aligned, organizations experience smoother communication, more coherent workflows, and better attainment of strategic goals. Conversely, mismatches can lead to confusion, resistance, and underperformance. For instance, in the case of Ortiv, the existence of autonomous teams with differing norms and goals created fragmentation within the organization. This misalignment hampered company-wide initiatives aimed at standardizing processes and achieving economies of scale.

An example illustrating the importance of congruence involves Ortiv’s quality control teams. These teams operated independently with their own norms and procedures, which conflicted with the company’s broader push for integrated operational processes. Recognizing this inconsistency, management initiated efforts to align team norms and integrate quality control within the larger organizational framework, thereby improving coordination and overall performance.

In terms of the group-level diagnostic model, evaluating Ortiv’s team design components provides insights into areas for improvement. Goal clarity at Ortiv was somewhat ambiguous; teams often lacked clearly articulated objectives aligned with strategic aims. This ambiguity led to confusion about priorities and accountability. Enhancing goal clarity would allow teams to focus their efforts more effectively and measure progress more accurately.

Strategies to improve task structure involved clarifying roles and responsibilities, which in turn improved decision-making and reduced redundancies. However, some teams exhibited poor functioning characterized by communication breakdowns and lack of trust. Strengthening team functioning required fostering open communication and establishing norms of collaboration. Regarding group composition, Ortiv’s teams often lacked diversity in skills and perspectives, limiting creativity and problem-solving capacity. Introducing varied skill sets and backgrounds into teams could enhance innovation and resilience.

Finally, group norms at Ortiv were inconsistent and sometimes counterproductive, such as tendencies toward complacency or resistance to change. Developing shared norms that emphasize continuous improvement and adaptability would create a more cohesive operating environment, promoting organizational agility and innovation.

The design of Ortiv’s team structure has profound implications for individual-level diagnosis and performance. A well-designed team facilitates clear communication, role clarity, and commitment, which positively influence individual motivation and accountability. Conversely, poorly designed groups can foster confusion, disengagement, and resistance to organizational change, negatively affecting individual performance and development. For instance, if individual team members perceived a lack of support or clarity in their roles, their performance and morale could decline, impeding organizational objectives.

Furthermore, misaligned group norms or dysfunctional team processes can hinder individual growth by restricting participation and innovation. Conversely, supportive norms and inclusive team dynamics promote individual learning and development, thus contributing to overall organizational success. Therefore, understanding the interdependence between group design and individual performance is essential for effective OD interventions.

References

• Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2014). Organization Development and Change. Cengage Learning.
• Burke, W. W. (2017). Organization Change: Theory and Practice. Sage Publications.
• French, W. L., & Bell, C. H. (1999). Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization Improvement. Pearson Education.
• Anantatmula, V., & Shrivastav, B. (2012). Evolution of Project Teams for Generation Y Workforce. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(1), 9–26.
• Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies. Harper & Row.
• Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Jossey-Bass.
• Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group Development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9–41.
• Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the Etiology of Climates. Personnel Psychology, 36(1), 31–59.
• Schmidt, J. J. (1999). Strategy Implementation: Key Factors, Challenges, and Solutions. International Journal of Management, 16(2), 265–278.
• Likert, R. (1967). The Human Organization: Its Management and Value. McGraw-Hill.