Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 22

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.


The application of a diagnostic model and surveys in organizational


Article  in  Journal of Managerial Psychology · March 2000

DOI: 10.1108/02683940010310319

36 2,977

2 authors:

Peter Lok John D Crawford

The University of Sydney UNSW Sydney


Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sydney Memory and Ageing Study View project

Older Australian Twins Study View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Peter Lok on 05 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Managerial Psychology
The application of a diagnostic model and surveys in organizational development
Peter Lok John Crawford
Article information:
To cite this document:
Peter Lok John Crawford, (2000)," The application of a diagnostic model and surveys in organizational
development", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 15 Iss 2 pp. 108 - 124
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded on: 04 January 2016, At: 15:45 (PT)
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 23 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4260 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Dana M. Johnson, (2004),"Adaptation of organizational change models to the implementation of quality
standard requirements", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 21 Iss 2 pp.
154-174 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656710410516961
Jackie Alexander Di Pofi, (2002),"Organizational diagnostics: integrating qualitative and quantitative
methodology", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15 Iss 2 pp. 156-168 http://
Raili Moilanen, (2001),"Diagnostic tools for learning organizations", The Learning Organization, Vol. 8 Iss 1
pp. 6-20 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09696470110366507

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:216535 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

Journal of
Managerial The application of a diagnostic
model and surveys in
organizational development
108 Peter Lok
Received September Australian Graduate School of Management,
1998 University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, and
Revised June 1999
Accepted July 1999 John Crawford
University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)

Keywords Model, Organizational theory, Organizational effectiveness,

Organizational development
Abstract Examines the relationship between employees' responses to the Organizational
Diagnosis Questionnaire and ratings of organizational effectiveness in two organizations.
Preziosi's (1980) Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire (ODQ), and Steele's (1987)
Organizational Effectiveness Questionnaire (OEQ), were distributed to employees in two
Australian companies, and a total of 349 useable responses were obtained. Factor analysis of the
ODQ yielded six meaningful factors which were interpreted in terms of the original sub-scales of
the ODQ as proposed by Preziosi. Factor analysis of the OEQ gave rise to two positively correlated
effectiveness factors. Cronbach alpha reliability estimates were obtained for each of the original
ODQ sub-scales and for the six sub-scales derived from the factor analysis of the questionnaire
responses. Reliabilities for the two sets of sub-scales were comparable, but with the factor-based
scales giving slightly higher reliabilities. Comparison of mean scores derived from the two
organizations showed that significant differences existed for the organizational effectiveness
measures, and for several of the measures derived from the ODQ. Regression analysis showed
that the difference in the effectiveness rating of the two organizations can be partially explained
in terms of the differences in responses to the ODQ.

Organizations can be conceived of as highly interdependent subgroups or sub-

systems (Burke and Litwin, 1992; Katz and Kahn, 1978). That is, the impact of
any factor in an organization such as structure, team cohesiveness, leadership,
strategy or culture must not be seen in isolation from other factors. The
interdependence of these factors and the need for diagnostic tools for their
assessment have been extensively discussed (Church et al., 1995; Hendry, 1994).
Organizational diagnostic models and surveys have often been demonstrated
by practitioners to be very effective in supporting organizational development
programs (Goldstein and Burke, 1991).
The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between employees'
responses on Preziosi's (1980) Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire and
ratings on Steele's (1987) Organizational Effectiveness Questionnaire, in two
organizations. This study also examines the reliability and factor structure of
these frameworks: Weisbord (1976), Preziosi (1980) and Steele (1987). More
specifically, it is of interest to determine the extent to which any differences in
Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 15 No. 2, 2000, pp. 108-125.
the two organizations' effectiveness rating can be explained by the employees'
# MCB University Press, 0268-3946 evaluation of the organizations on the Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire.
The data collected in this study will also allow us to examine the factor Diagnostic
structure of these instruments. model and
Organizational diagnostic models
Organizational diagnostic models are designed to assist organizational
development practitioners (Burke, 1994) to:
. categorize data about the organization; 109
. enhance understanding about organizational problems;
. interpret data systematically;
. provide appropriate change strategies.
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)

Organizational diagnostic models, such as those of Weisbord (1976), Nadler

and Tushman (1977), Tichy (1983) and Burke and Litwin (1992), have often
been used by practitioners to examine organizations. For example, the Burke
and Litwin (1992) survey was used in a study of British Airways to show
causal relationships between organizational variables and to establish a team
effectiveness change program (Goldstein and Burke, 1991). Although these
models generally incorporate different dimensions and measures, the
diagnostic outcome is often similar (Ann Howard & Associates, 1994).
One of the most effective tools for organizational development practitioners
to understand and evaluate organizational issues is the questionnaire-based
survey. An organizational survey serves as an effective tool for providing
feedback and in inducing positive change (Church et al., 1995; Goldstein and
Burke, 1991; Kanter, 1983; Nadler, 1977).

Weisbord's organizational diagnostic model

The Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire (ODQ) used in this study is based
on the Weisbord's (1976) organizational diagnosis model. The elements in
Weisbord's model are similar to these in other diagnostic models, such as those
of Nadler and Tushman (1997), Tichy (1983) and Burke and Litwin (1992).
Weisbord's (1976) organizational diagnosis model groups various activities,
formal or informal, into six dimensions. These six dimensions are: purposes,
structure, relationships, rewards, leadership and helpful mechanisms
(Figure 1).
Although this model has not been used extensively by other practitioners in
the past, other writers, such as Nadler and Tushman (1997), Tichy (1983) and
Burke and Litwin (1992), have developed their approaches based on Weisbord's
model. The Weisbord model was used in this study because it is relatively
uncomplicated as compared to others, easy to understand and visualize by
clients, reflects the essential activities and key variables in an organization, and
has been successfully implemented to assist clients in their change programs
(Preziosi, 1980; Burke, 1991).
For the purpose dimension, the two most important elements are goal clarity
(the extent to which organization members are clear about the organization's
Journal of

Purpose Structure Rewards
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)


Relationships mechanisms

Internal environment

Figure 1.
The six box
organizational model
(adopted from Weisbord, External environment

purpose and mission) and goal agreement (whether people support the
organization's purpose). For the structure dimension, the primary question is
whether there is an adequate fit between purpose and the internal structure
that is supposed to serve that purpose. The relationships dimension
investigates relationship between individuals or departments that perform
different tasks, and between people and the nature and requirements of their
jobs. The reward dimension measures employees' level of satisfaction with the
rewards (the compensation package, incentive systems and the like) offered by
the organization. The helpful mechanism dimension refers to all the processes
that every organization must attend to in order to survive: planning, control,
budgeting, and other information systems that meet organizational objectives.
Leadership, the core of this model, is essential for organizational success and is
used to maintain and support other components in the model. The development
of organizational diagnostic questionnaires such as Weisbord's (1976) or Diagnostic
Preziosi's (1980) have enhanced organizational practitioners' ability to assess model and
organizational issues. However, a major criticism of the ODQ is that the surveys
psychometric properties of this survey instrument have not been fully

Organizational effectiveness 111

Organizational practitioners need to assess the influence of variables in
diagnostic models on organizational outcomes, and effectiveness has often been
used as the primary outcome measurement (Handy, 1985, p. 85; Burke and
Litwin, 1992). Organizational effectiveness can be defined as how well goals
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)

and objectives are achieved. This approach is based on the ideas of goal theory
and the assumption that organizations are rational and purposive entities
(Cameron, 1981; Strasser et al., 1981; Gaertner and Ramnarayan, 1983). For
instance, goal setting theory supports the notion that agreement on goals and
objectives between employers and employees leads to greater organizational
effectiveness and performance ( Locke et al., 1981; Latham and Yukl, 1975;
Mento et al., 1987; Latham and Locke, 1991). The other main organizational
effectiveness theory is systems theory, which is based on the measurement of
inputs, processes, and outputs in relation to the internal and external
environment (Latham and Locke, 1991). Other approaches include shared value
theory and stakeholder theory, both of which explicitly address organizational
effectiveness. Each approach identifies dimensions which potentially
contribute to the overall effectiveness of an organization. The goal theory
approach is more often adopted by practitioners in organizations because the
outcome is often clearly linked with predetermined variables or objectives.

The organizational diagnosis instrument used in this study was Preziosi's
(1980) ODQ which is an extension of an earlier one used by Weisbord (1976).
Weisbord's instrument has 30 items measuring the six dimensions contained in
the model. Preziosi's (1980) questionnaire (Appendix 1) uses the same items
appearing in Weisbord's model, together with five more items used to measure
an additional factor, ``attitude to change''. Preziosi argues that in attempting
any planned change effort in an organization, it is necessary to know how
changeable an organization is. Such knowledge helps the change agent
understand how to direct his/her efforts. Preziosi's diagnostic questionnaire
(1980) therefore has 35 items with each item in this questionnaire being rated
on a Likert scale ranging from agree strongly (7) to disagree strongly (1).
The Organizational Effectiveness Questionnaire (Steele, 1987, see Appendix
2) was developed from a broad range of organization management
development and change programs, as well as the literature on developing
superior performing organizations. The purpose of the questionnaire is to
Journal of assist managers to assess overall organizational effectiveness from various
Managerial dimensions and activities of the company. The questionnaire survey has 15
Psychology items. Each item is measured on a Likert scale ranging from high (6) to low (1).
15,2 In addition to Preziosi's ODQ and Steele's OEQ, the questionnaire used in
this study also included items to gather information on the respondents'
demographic and personal characteristics (i.e. age, gender, years in position,
112 years of experience and education).

Sampling and data collection

The study was conducted in two leading organizations in Australia. Company
A provides fund management services and Company B is a telecommunication
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)

firm. Both organizations have a rather flat structure. Company A has

approximately 900 employees and 12 business divisions. Company B has 102
employees in four departments.
All staff in both organizations were invited to participate in the
questionnaire survey. Confidentiality of data obtained was assured at all times.
The returned questionnaires were anonymous and were collected via sealed
addressed envelopes. In total, 349 questionnaires were collected from Company
A (a response rate of 43 per cent) and 42 questionnaires (response rate 42 per
cent) were obtained from Company B.

Data analysis
Cronbach alphas reliability estimates were calculated for each of the scales
corresponding to the factors obtained, and for the OEQ overall effectiveness
measure. Mean ratings for each item were reported to assess the employees'
perception of the organization, in particular with the predetermined dimensions
used in the ODQ. Factor analyses were conducted to examine the factor
structures and to assess the level of compatibility of the results with Preziosi's
(ODQ) and Steele's (OEQ) original assumptions. Multiple regression analyses
were carried out to examine the extent to which the differences in effectiveness
between the two organizations could be explained by the ODQ.

Mean ratings for the ODQ items, and for seven sub-scales of the ODQ (for each
of the two organizations) are shown in Appendix 1 (the effectiveness measure
was calculated as the average rating on the OEQ items). The ODQ items have
been grouped under the seven dimensions suggested by Preziosi. The results
for items in the Purpose category revealed that the goals, objectives and
directions of both companies were generally well communicated to all
employees. The average score for this dimension was above the scale mid-point
for both companies. Company A had slightly higher scores than Company B.
Both companies went through restructuring in recent times. The responses
to the items in the Structure and Work Teams category showed generally
positive evaluation by staff. The mean scores for this dimension were above the Diagnostic
scale mid-point for both organizations and they were not substantially model and
different. surveys
The Leader was perceived to be supportive and accessible to everyone in
both organizations. The results revealed that the average scores for this
dimension were above the scale mid-point. However, the overall Leadership
score in Company A was slightly higher than in Company B. 113
For the Relationship items, the results showed that staff were generally very
supportive of each other and that there were no obvious relationship problems
or conflict among staff. The mean scores for this dimension were not much
different between the two organizations and they were well above the scale
mid-point in both organizations.
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)

For the Reward items, average ratings for staff in Company A were located
close to the neutral scale mid-point value of 4. In Company B, the mean scores
for the reward items were slightly below scale mid-point and lower than for
Company A.
For items in the Helpful Mechanism category, both companies appeared to
have a structure, systems and processes in place to ensure that workflow was
continuously improved. There was sufficient planning to utilize the latest
information technology to enhance efficiency. The average scores for the
Helpful Mechanisms dimension were above the scale mid-point for both
The mean scores for the Attitude to Change dimension were also above the
scale mid-point for both companies. This would indicate that staff were not
resistant to change.
The mean scores for the Organizational Effectiveness Questionnaire (OEQ)
composite is also given in Appendix 1 (this was formed by averaging the OEQ
items). The scores can be seen to be slightly below the scale mid-point in both
organizations, but with Company B rating slightly higher than Company A.
That is, staff perceived that there were substantial weaknesses in the overall
effectiveness of their organizations despite the rather positive results along the
various dimensions of the Organizational Diagnostic Questionnaire.
Factor analysis was conducted on responses to Preziosi's Organizational
Diagnosis Questionnaire using principal axis factoring and oblique rotation to
simple structure. Root 1 criteria suggested that eight factors could be extracted.
The factor loadings for the last two factors were very low. The two factors did
not have any meaningful interpretations. A six-factor solution was obtained
and is shown in Appendix 1 (Table AI). A factor correlation matrix is also
provided in Table AII. An examination of the items loading on the six factors
suggested the following factor labels: Purpose, Leadership, Attitude to Change,
Reward, Relationships and Structure/Helpful Mechanisms (items belonging to
both Preziosi's structure and Helpful Mechanisms sub-scales loaded in this
single factor). The results of the factor analysis show good compatibility with
the classification of items by Weisbord and Preziosi.
Journal of Factor analysis, using principal axis factoring and oblique rotation, was
Managerial performed on subjects' responses to Steele's Organizational Effectiveness
Psychology Questionnaire (OEQ). Root 1 criteria suggested three factors. However, the
majority of items were loaded on the first two effectiveness factors. A two-
15,2 factor solution (E-change and E-reward) was therefore also obtained. Items
related to change were mainly loaded on the E-change factor and items related
114 mainly to reward were loaded to the E-reward factor. These two factors were
positively correlated (r = 0.53). A one-factor solution was also obtained and the
factor was labeled as ``Effectiveness''. Factor scores, for both the two-factor and
one-factor solution, were obtained using the regression method as implemented
in the SPSS factor analysis procedure.
A series of t-tests were performed to examine whether statistically
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)

significant differences between the two organizations existed for each of the
factor scores obtained in the above factor analyses. The results of these tests
are shown in Table I.
From Table I, it can be seen that there are significant differences between the
two organizations in all Effectiveness factors (E-change, E-reward and
Effectiveness). E-reward had the greatest difference between the two
organizations with the averages of factor scores in Company A being higher
than in Company B. Regarding the ODQ factors, significant differences
between the two organizations were found for the Purpose and Attitude to
Change factor scores. The mean of Attitude to Change factor scores was
significantly higher in Company A, while the means for the Purpose and
Helpful Mechanism/Structure are significantly higher for Company B.
Table II shows the Cronbach alpha reliability estimates of the original ODQ
sub-scales and for the single OEQ Effectiveness composite measure. Table III
shows reliability estimates of sub-scales based on the results of the factor
analyses described above. These factor-based scales were formed by averaging
those items which defined each of the factors. The items comprising each of

Factor t

Purpose ±5.93**
Leadership ±1.62
Attitude to change 7.82**
Reward 0.83
Relationship ±1.35
Helpful mechanisms/structure 0.75
E-change 6.13**
Table I. E-reward 8.15**
Comparison of means Effectiveness 7.75**
of factor scores
between organizations Notes: p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
A and B A positive t value shows a higher average rating for Company A
these factor-based scales are shown in Appendix 2. It can be seen that the Diagnostic
reliabilities of the factor-based sub-scales are generally higher than the original model and
ones, with only one (Attitude to Change) having an unacceptable low value surveys
(alpha = 0.38). The reliability of the scales is nevertheless higher than that of
the corresponding original ones (alpha = 0.26).
A series of multiple regression analyses were performed in order to
determine the extent to which differences in the Effectiveness score for the two 115
companies can be explained by differences in responses to the ODQ items. The
analyses were conducted using the Organizational Diagnostic Questionnaire
items as independent variables. An independent dummy variable ``group'' was
also defined with values 0 and 1 indicating membership of organizations A and
B, respectively. The dependent variables were the factors scores for the two
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)

Effectiveness factors, E-change and E-reward, and the overall measure of

Effectiveness obtained as the factor scores from the one-factor solution. For
each of the dependent variables, these regression analyses were performed. The
first with all ODQ items in the equation, the second with the independent
variables plus the group variables in the equation, and the third with group
variables as the only independent variable. These analyses are shown in
Table IV.
The difference in R squares between analyses with only ODQ items, as
independent variables and the analyses with ODQ items plus the variables
group in the equation, is shown in the last column of Table IV. The R square


Preziosi's ODQ
Purpose 0.44
Structure 0.74
Leadership 0.81
Relationships 0.63 Table II.
Rewards 0.73 Cronbach alpha
Helpful mechanisms 0.71 reliability of estimates
Attitude to change 0.26 of Preziosi's ODQ sub-
scales and the OEQ
Steele's OEQ Effectiveness composite
Effectiveness 0.85 measure

Purpose 0.80
Structure/helpful mechanisms 0.82
Leadership 0.87
Relationships 0.74 Table III.
Rewards 0.73 Cronbach alpha
Attitude to change 0.38 estimates of the ODQ
E-change 0.82 and OEQ factor-based
E-reward 0.73 scales
Journal of Independent variables Difference
Managerial Dependent variable variables on the equation R square in R square
E-change All ODQ items 0.642
15,2 E-change All ODQ items + group 0.714 0.078
E-change Group only 0.088
116 E-reward All ODQ items 0.549
E-reward All ODQ items + group 0.615 0.066
E-reward Group only 0.146
Effectiveness All ODQ items 0.667
Table IV. Effectiveness All ODQ items + group 0.754 0.094
Regression analyses Effectiveness Group only 0.134
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)

difference measures represent the proportion of variance explained by group

membership (i.e. Company A vs Company B) after having controlled for
employees' responses on the ODQ items. In other words, they represent the
amount variation between the two companies on the effectiveness measures not
explained by employees' responses on the ODQ. These values can be compared
with the R squares for the analyses with only the variable ``group'' in the
equation. The difference between these values and the values shown in the last
column represent the amount of variation in Effectiveness between companies
explained by the ODQ responses. This can be expressed as a proportion of the
variance between companies by dividing by the R square value for the analysis
with only ``group'' in the equation. Thus, for the dependent variable
``Effectiveness'', the proportion of variation between companies `explained' by
responses to the ODQ items is {(0.134-0.094)/0.134} approximately 26 per cent.
Similarly, the proportion of variance between companies explained by
responses to the ODQ for the dependent variables E-change and E-reward, can
be calculated to be approximately 11 per cent and 55 per cent respectively.

Although the results of the factor analysis of responses to Preziosi's (ODQ)
questionnaire did not correspond to the grouping of items according to
Weisbord's original organizational diagnosis model, there was a high level of
agreement. Steele's original assumption of an uni-dimensional Effectiveness
measure was not confirmed in this study. However, the two Effectiveness
factors derived from this study were strongly and positively correlated.
Cronbach alphas for the factor-based scales of ODQ obtained in this study were
slightly higher than the original sub-scales. The results of multiple regression
demonstrated that the differences in the two organizations' Effectiveness
scores can be partially explained by the employees' evaluation of the
organizations on the ODQ. The analysis in this study is an initial attempt to
establish the usefulness of the two instruments in organizational assessments.
Indeed, follow up studies using a large number of organizations, and
independent measures of organizational effectiveness will further establish the Diagnostic
relationship between dimensions measured by the ODQ and organizational model and
performance. surveys
The primary contribution of this study is to show that the dimensions
underlying subjects' responses to Preziosi's ODQ are largely consistent with
the Weisbord's (1976) original proposed six dimensions. This study has also
shown that the difference in organizational effectiveness rating of the two 117
organizations can be partially explained in terms of the differences in responses
to the ODQ. The findings of this study suggest that these instruments can be
used with confidence and can further assist practitioners in their use of these
instruments in the area of organizational development.
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)

Ann Howard & Associates (1994), Diagnosis for Organizational Change, Guildford Press, New
York, NY.
Burke, W. (1991), ``Practicing organizational development'', in D.W. Bray & Associates, Working
with Organizations and their People: A Guide to Human Resources Practice, Guilford Press,
New York, NY, pp. 95-130.
Burke, W. and Litwin, G. (1992), ``A causal model of organizational performance and change'',
Journal of Management, Vol. 18, pp. 523-45.
Burke, W. (1994), ``Diagnostic models for organizational development'', in Ann Howard &
Associates, Diagnosis for Organizational Change, Guildford Press, New York, NY.
Cameron, K. (1981), ``Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in concepts of
organizational effectiveness'', Management Science, pp. 539-53.
Church, A., Margiloff, A. and Coruzzi, C. (1995), ``Using surveys for change: an applied example
in a pharmaceuticals organization'', Leadership & Organizational Development Journal,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 3-11.
Gaertner, G. and Ramnarayan, S. (1983), ``Organizational effectiveness: an alternative
perspective'', Academy of Management Review, pp. 97-107.
Goldstein, L. and Burke, W. (1991), ``Creating successful organizational change'', Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 19, pp. 5-17.
Handy, C. (1985), Understanding Organizations, Penguin, London.
Hendry, J. (1994), ``Cultural change and competitive performance'', European Management
Journal, Vol. 12, pp. 403-12.
Kanter, R. (1983), The Change Master, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R. (1978), The Social Psychology of Organizations, John Wiley &Sons, New
York, NY.
Latham, G. and Locke, E. (1991), ``Self regulation through goal-setting'', Organizational Behaviour
and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 212-47.
Latham, G. and Yukl, G. (1975), ``A review of research on the application of goal setting in
organizations'', Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 824-45.
Locke, E., Shaw, K., Saari, L. and Latham, G. (1981), ``Goal setting and task performance, 1969-
1980'', Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 90, pp. 125-52.
Mento, A., Steel, R. and Karren, R. (1987), ``A meta-analytical study of the effects of goal setting
on task performance'', Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 39,
pp. 52-83.
Nadler, D. (1977), Feedback and Organizational Development: Using Databased Methods, Addison
Wesley, Reading, MA.
Journal of Nadler, D. and Tushman, M. (1977), ``A diagnostic model for organization behaviour'', in
Hackman, J.R., Lawler, E. and Porter, L. (Eds), Perspectives on Behaviour in Organizations,
Managerial McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 85-100.
Psychology Preziosi, R. (1980), ``Organizational Diagnosis Questionnaire'', The 1980 Annual Handbook for
15,2 Group Facilitators, University Associates, New Jersey.
Steele, E. (1987), ``Assessing organizational effectiveness survey'', Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. v-vii.
118 Strasser, S., Eveland, J., Cummins, G., Deniston, O., and Romani, J. (1981), ``Conceptualizing the
goal and systems models of organizational effectiveness'', Journal of Management Studies,
p. 323.
Tichy, N. (1983), Managing Strategic Change: Technical, Political and Cultural Dynamics, Wiley
& Sons, New York, NY.
Weisbord, M. (1976), ``Organizational diagnosis: six places to look for trouble with or without a
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)

theory'', Group & Organizational Studies, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 430-47.

Appendix 1.

Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6
Eigenvalue 10 2.3 1.3 1 0.9 0.6
Percent of variance 29 6.5 3.7 2.8 2.7 1.8
Cumulative variance 29.1 35.7 39.3 42.1 44.8 46.6
Q Communality
1 The goals of this
organization are clearly
stated 0.32 0.55 0.01 0 ±0.1 0.01 0.06
8 I am personally in
agreement with the stated
goals of my work unit 0.51 0.65 ±0 ±0.1 ±0.2 ±0.2 0.04
9 The division of labour of this
organization helps it progress 0.49 0.41 ±0 0.19 0.26 ±0 0.09
15 I understand the purpose of
this organization 0.56 0.73 ±0 ±0.1 ±0.1 ±0.1 0.05
17 This organization's leadership
efforts result in the
organization's fulfilment of its
purposes 0.6 0.46 ±0.1 0.13 0.22 ±0.1 0.12
22 The priorities of this
organization are understood
by its employees 0.51 0.5 ±0 0.07 0.22 0.02 0.15
30 The division of labour
of this organization
helps its effort to
reach its goals 0.55 0.51 ±0.1 0.17 0.37 0.07 ±0.1
3 My immediate supervisor is
supportive of my efforts 0.76 0 ±0.9 0.05 ±0 ±0 ±0
Table AI. 4 My relationship with my
Six factors solution ± supervisor is a harmonious
organizational one 0.66 ±0 ±0.8 0.1 ±0 0.02 0.02
diagnosis questionnaire (continued)
6 My immediate supervisor has Diagnostic
ideas that are helpful to me model and
and my work group 0.66 0.03 ±0.8 ±0.1 0.03 ±0.1 0.01
11 I can always talk with
someone at work if I have a
work-related problem 0.48 ±0.1 ±0.4 0.1 ±0 ±0.2 0.31
24 It is clear to me whenever my
boss is attempting to guide 119
my work effort 0.49 0.11 ±0.5 ±0.2 0.08 ±0.1 0.27
31 I understand my boss's
efforts to influence me and
the other members of the
work unit 0.56 0.08 ±0.6 ±0.1 0.17 0.04 0.18
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)

2 The division of labour of this

organization is flexible 0.54 0.16 ±0 0.51 0.08 ±0.2 0.08
7 This organization is not
resistant to change 0.28 0 ±0 0.53 ±0.1 0 ±0.1
14 This organization is not
introducing enough new
policies and procedures 0.2 0.13 0.1 0.31 0.15 0.01 ±0.1
21 This organization favours
change 0.4 0.22 0.7 0.38 0.14 0 0.18
35 This organization has
the ability to change 0.41 ±0.1 0 0.64 0.11 ±0 0.03
32 There is no evidence of
unresolved conflict in this
organization 0.47 0.05 ±0.2 0.07 0.63 0.05 0.04
20 This organization has
adequate mechanism for
binding itself together 0.48 0.29 ±0 0.11 0.32 ±0.1 0.17
33 All tasks to be accomplished
are associated with incentives 0.53 ±0 ±0.7 0 0.59 ±0.3 0.09
34 This organization's planning
and control efforts are helpful
to its growth and
development 0.53 0.38 0.02 0.23 0.35 ±0.1 0
29 I desire less input in
deciding my work-unit goals 0.02 ±0 0.07 ±0 0.1 ±0 0.03
5 My job offers me the
opportunity to grow as a
person 0.54 0 ±0.2 0 ±0.2 ±0.4 0.31
10 The leadership norms of this
organization help it progress 0.58 0.21 ±0.1 0.12 0.15 ±0.3 0.26
12 The pay scale and benefits of
this organization treat each
employee equally 0.49 0.04 ±0.1 0.04 0.24 ±0.6 ±0
19 The opportunity for
promotion exists in this
organization 0.54 0.18 ±0 0.19 ±0.1 ±0.6 0.12
Journal of 26 The salary that I receive is
Managerial commensurate with the job
that I perform 0.36 0.03 ±0 0 0.06 0.61 ±0.1
Psychology 27 Other work units are helpful
15,2 to my work unit whenever
assistance is requested 0.24 0.12 0.05 0.17 0.07 ±0.2 0.15
28 Occasionally, I like to change
120 things about my job 0.33 ±0.1 ±0.2 0.17 ±0.1 ±0.3 0.21
13 I have the information that I
need to do a good job 0.49 0.08 0.05 0.15 0.06 ±0 0.58
16 The manner in which work
tasks are divided is a logical
one 0.34 0.12 ±0.1 ±0 0.17 ±0 0.38
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)

18 My relationships with
of my work groups are
as well as professional 0.28 0 ±0.1 0.15 ±0.1 0.04 0.46
23 The structure of my work
is well designed 0.44 0.11 ±0.1 ±0.1 0.04 ±0 0.57
25 I have established the
relationships that I need to
do my job properly 0.44 0.05 ±0.1 ±0.1 0.04 0.05 0.63
Factor 1 = Purpose, Factor 2 = Leadership; Factor 3 = Attitude to change;
Factor 4 = Structure/helpful mechanisms; Factor 5 = Rewards; Factor 6 = Relationships

Original questionnaire item allocation:

Purpose: Q1,8,15,22,29
Leadership: Q3,10,17,24,31
Attitude to change: Q7,14,21,28,35
Reward: Q5,12,19,26,33
Relationship: Q4,11,18,25,32
Structure: Q2,9,16,23,30
Helpful mechanisms: Q6,13,20,27,34
Mean scores ODQ (mid-point = 4)
Comp. A Comp. B
Purpose 4.77 4.63
Structure 4.54 4.59

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 1
2 ±0.29 1
3 0.37 ±0.28 1
Table AII. 4 0.27 0.01 0.12 1
Factor correlation 5 ±0.33 0.3 ±0.25 ±0.24 1
matrix 6 0.51 ±0.49 0.3 0.23 ±0.41 1
Appendix 2. Diagnostic
Factor E-change E-reward Effectiveness
model and
Eigenvalue 4.4 1 4.31 surveys
Percent of variance 33.9 8 33.1
Cumulative percent 33.9 41.9 33.1
Q Communality Communality
1 What is the attitude to change? 0.2 0.35 0.15 0.2 121
2 What is the degree of trust in the 0.42 0.61 0.06 0.4
management's view of the
workforce? Is there a
``them and us'' mentality?
3 How much management 0.63 0.85 ±0.12 0.49
information, especially financial,
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)

is communicated?
4 How visible and accessible is 0.21 0.5 ±0.1 0.16
management, especially top
5 Do people believe (be part of) in 0.47 0.64 0.08 0.45
the organisation?
6 How much control exists? (via 0.39 0.62 0.01 0.35
7 Is there a fear of failure? 0.51 0.72 ±0.02 0.45
8 Do people feel free to talk back 0.25 0.34 0.23 0.26
or express their opinion openly?
11 What is the posture and 0.29 0.48 0.1 0.31
prowess of the first point of
customer contact?
9 Is there a fun atmosphere in the 0.74 ±0.1 0.91 0.33
10 How frequently are people 0.46 0.13 0.6 0.29
rewarded and recognised?
12 Is customer service actively 0.56 0.02 0.74 0.32
measured and the results Table AIII.
communicated widely? Two factors solution ±
13 Do people commit to the 0.32 0.3 0.34 0.31 Organizational
purpose and goals of the Effectiveness
company? Questionnaire
Journal of
Managerial Abstracts from the wider
``The application of a diagnostic model
122 and surveys in organizational
The following abstracts from the wider literature have been selected for their special relevance to
the preceding article. The abstracts extend the themes and discussions of the main article and act
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)

as a guide to further reading.

Each abstract is awarded 0-3 stars for each of four features:
(1) Depth of research
(2) Value in practice
(3) Originality of thinking
(4) Readability for non-specialists.
The full text of any article may be ordered from the Anbar Library. Contact Debbie Brannan,
Anbar Library, 60/62 Toller Lane, Bradford, UK BD8 9BY. Telephone: (44) 1274 785277; Fax:
(44) 1274 785204; E-mail: dbrannan@mcb.co.uk quoting the reference number shown at the end
of the abstract.

Organizational change: a review of theory and research in the

Bedeian, A.G.
Journal of Management (USA), 1999 Vol 25 No 3: p. 293 (23 pages)
Reviews theory and research on organizational change, focusing on
publications particularly sensitive to the dynamics underlying organizational
change. Covers content issues that are concerned with the substance of
contemporary organizational changes, contextual issues that focus on forces
present in an organization's external and internal environments, process issues
that address actions undertaken during the enactment of an intended change,
and issues that concern the nature of criterion variables traditionally assessed
as outcomes in organizational change. Highlights studies that demonstrate new
methodologies for investigating change, introduce new diagnostic models,
propose innovative outcome variables, or offer enhanced explanations of
reactions to organizational change. Uses the review to assess affective and
behavioural reactions to organizational change. Confirms that almost a decade
of research and theory on organizational change shows that the field is robust
and continues to be responsive to contemporary organizational demands.
Literature review Diagnostic
Indicators: Research implications: *** Practice implications: ** model and
Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: ********* surveys
Reference: 28AW244
Cost: £18 (plus VAT)

Unfairness and resistance to change: hardship as mistreatment
Skarlicki, D.P.
Journal of Organizational Change Management (UK), 1999 Vol 12 No 1: p. 35
(16 pages)
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)

Argues that resistance to organizational change among employees is a

response to the treatment that they have received during the change process,
proposing that organizational fairness is a psychological mechanism which can
mediate resistance. Looks at how resentment towards organizational change
can manifest itself among employees. Draws together research on
organizational justice, analysing how the three forms of justice (distributive,
procedural and interactional justice) can affect acceptance of change. Contends
that these forms of justice cannot be separated when assessing the outcomes of
organizational change ± it is necessary to understand how they interact.
Outlines referent cognitions theory, formulated by Fulger, suggesting that it
provides a framework for predicting when resentment-based resistance is
likely, and indicates the actions that managers should take when
communicating the need for change. Sets out the practical implications of this
analysis for the management of change.
Theoretical with application in practice
Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: ***
Originality: ** Readability: *** Total number: **********
Reference: 28AF504
Cost: £24 (plus VAT)

``Come, join our family'': discipline and integration in corporate

organizational culture
Casey, C.
Human Relations (USA), Feb 1999 Vol 52 No 2: p. 155 (24 pages)
Argues that most organizational change programmes share the fundamental
aim of changing organizational culture, producing new sets of attitudes, beliefs
and behaviours among employees. Sees the ideas of ``team'' and ``family'' as
pivotal among the new organizational cultures. Uses psychoanalytic theory to
understand the effect of this on employees, and the implications for the
organization's practices of compliance and control. Reports the results of a field
study in a large US multinational which had recently restructured, promoting a
Journal of new set of corporate values, beliefs and behaviour, which would create an ideal
Managerial employee character-type whose self-development and fulfilment would derive
Psychology from working for the company. Discusses how this was promoted, and
analyses the strategies used by employees to accommodate themselves to the
15,2 new culture. Finds ambivalence among the employees ± reporting instances of
employees speaking warmly of the company and team members as ``family''
124 but also wanting to escape from it. Assesses the impact on discipline and
control. Identifies continuities between the old and new culture of the
organization in the demand for controlled, compliant and productive
employees, arguing that this is masked by the new organizational discourses.
Theoretical with worked example
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)

Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: **

Originality: ** Readability: *** Total number: *********
Reference: 28AJ734
Cost: £24 (plus VAT)

Business process re-engineering in the public sector

Donaghy, J.
Business Process Management Journal (UK), 1999 Vol 5 No 1: p. 33 (17 pages)
Notes that, although the UK government has promoted business process re-
engineering (BPR) in the public sector, little is known as to experiences.
Addresses this by an in-depth case study of a BPR programme in a
professionalized public sector organization. Sets out the issues bearing on
implementing BPR, noting the importance of employee aspects. Identifies 17
BPR implementation critical success factors (CSFs) in the literature. Adapts
these with the case study organization's re-engineering team to give 20 CSFs on
which to survey staff. Samples 24 per cent of the workforce by questionnaire
and tabulates the ratings according to three staff groupings: those at higher
and senior scientific officer grades, those above that group, and those below.
Discusses findings and comments on critical issues: policy changes; top
management support, commitment and understanding of BPR;
communications; empowerment of employees; readiness for change;
performance measures for judging BPR success; time-scales; involvement of
external bodies and customers; internal politics. Finds some features unique to
the public sector though reports many of the CSFs are common to the private
sector. Lists seven BPR factors seen as most important for this organization,
and comments on change preparation.
Case study
Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: ***
Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: *********
Reference: 28AG590
Cost: £12 (plus VAT)
Bridging the gap of relevance: strategic management and Diagnostic
organizational development model and
DeVoge, S. surveys
Long Range Planning (UK), Vol 31 No 5 Oct 1998: p. 742 (12 pages)
Proposes that the strategic management research field, is not perceived as
relevant to practising managers and that the needs of managers are not
considered when setting the research agenda. Suggests that organizational
development, is uniquely positioned to fulfil the criteria of research relevance,
and that there should be a much closer interaction between the two, to increase
the relevance of strategic management to practitioners. Outlines an integrated
organizational model, which has been used in several action research
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)

interventions, and demonstrates how it has been used effectively by Hay

Management Consultants when working with a UK commercial bank.
Theoretical with application in practice
Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: **
Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: ********
Reference: 28AY461
Cost: £30 (plus VAT)

How and when the best companies to work for use OD

Stoudt, C.
Organization Development Journal (USA), Autumn 1998 Vol 16 No 3: p. 93 (5
Describes a survey commissioned by the Organization Development Institute
in 1995 to analyse the use of OD practices and practitioners within the 100 best
companies to work for in the USA. Investigates whether there is a direct
relationship between the application of OD theories and interventions and a
company's rating, and focuses on the types of OD intervention used, the scope
of change efforts, the use of internal and external consultants, satisfaction
levels with current efforts, and suggestions for improvements. Explains that 22
of the 100 companies contacted responded to the survey, and that 20 of these
used OD interventions. Indicates that OD professionals do have an impact on
the responding companies, pointing out that executives in the responding
companies rated their satisfaction with OD professionals as somewhat to very
Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: **
Originality: * Readability: ** Total number: *******
Reference: 28AA461
Cost: £6 (plus VAT)
This article has been cited by:

1. Martin Amsteus. 2014. Subjective Performance, Managerial Foresight, and Objective Performance.
Strategic Change 23:10.1002/jsc.2014.23.issue-3-4, 133-146. [CrossRef]
2. Bilal Bin Saeed, Wenbin Wang. 2014. Sustainability Embedded Organizational Diagnostic Model. Modern
Economy 05, 424-431. [CrossRef]
3. Gregory D. Hammond, Eric B. Gresch, Dean C. Vitale. 2011. Homegrown process improvement
employing a change message model. Journal of Organizational Change Management 24:4, 487-510.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Martin Amsteus. 2011. Managers' foresight matters. foresight 13:2, 64-78. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Gary Howat, Gary Crilley. 2007. Customer Service Quality, Satisfaction, and Operational Performance: A
proposed model for Australian public aquatic centres. Annals of Leisure Research 10, 168-195. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by University of Sydney Library At 15:45 04 January 2016 (PT)

6. Christopher J. Rees, Aminu Mamman, Aysha Bin Braik. 2007. Emiratization as a strategic HRM change
initiative: case study evidence from a UAE petroleum company. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management 18, 33-53. [CrossRef]
7. Garry Crilley, Colin Sharp. 2006. Managerial qualities and operational performance: a proposed model.
Measuring Business Excellence 10:2, 4-18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

View publication stats