Fluent Essays

Prior to beginning work on this assignment, read Chapters 4, 5, and 6 in your course textbook. Keep in mind, the research and development for this assignment is the foundation for the consulting proposal that you will develop during the Week 5 paper. Review the following case studies and select one to examine and apply the theoretical concepts and methods used during an OD intervention. Review Case Study 1 and Case Study 2 below. The paper must be four to five pages in length, and include level headings to lead the reader through the specific areas of content. Level headings also provide the reader with an outline to ensure all areas of the project are covered. You may refer to the Introduction to APA (Links to an external site.) webpage, and read the information under “Level Headings” for assistance on level headings. The paper must include the course textbook as a reference, as well as four additional scholarly, peer-reviewed, and/or credible sources to support the content of the paper. The Action Research Case Study paper Must be four to five double-spaced in length (not including title and references) and formatted according to APA Style (Links to an external site.) as outlined in the Writing Center’s APA Formatting for Microsoft Word (Links to an external site.). Must include a separate title page with the following: Title of paper Student’s name University of Arizona Global Campus Course name and number Instructor’s name Date submitted Must utilize academic voice. See the Academic Voice (Links to an external site.) resource for additional guidance. Must include an introduction and conclusion paragraph. Your introduction paragraph needs to end with a clear thesis statement that indicates the purpose of your paper. For assistance on writing Introductions & Conclusions (Links to an external site.) as well as Writing a Thesis Statement (Links to an external site.), refer to the Writing Center resources. Must use at least four scholarly, peer-reviewed, or credible sources in addition to the course text. The Scholarly, Peer-Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources (Links to an external site.) table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for a particular assignment. To assist you in completing the research required for this assignment, view this University of Arizona Global Campus Library Quick ‘n’ Dirty (Links to an external site.) tutorial, which introduces the University Library and the research process, and provides some library search tips. Must document any information used from sources in APA Style as outlined in the Writing Center’s APA: Citing Within Your Paper (Links to an external site.). Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA Style as outlined in the Writing Center. See the APA: Formatting Your References List (Links to an external site.) resource in the Writing Center for specifications. Carefully review the Grading Rubric (Links to an external site.) for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment. Action Research: The Planning Phase 4 Rawpixel/iStock/Getty Images Plus Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to: • Describe action research and compare Lewin’s model with those of at least two other OD theorists. • State the importance of considering multiple levels of analysis in the planning phase. • Identify the steps of the planning phase. • Describe different types of research. • Describe different types of research methodologies. • Discuss five methods of gathering organization data, including strengths and weaknesses of each. • Discuss methods of analyzing the data collected. • Explain how to prepare for and manage the feedback meeting, including how to address confidentiality concerns and manage defensiveness and resistance. © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. In Chapter 3, the QuickCo vignette provided one example of how OD consultants work. Jack, the internal OD consultant at QuickCo, led his clients, Ned (the shipping supervisor) and Sarah (the manufacturing manager), through an action research process to solve communication and teamwork problems in the shipping department. Action research, the process OD consultants follow to plan and implement change, follows three general phases: 1. Planning. Data is collected, analyzed, and shared with the client to determine corrective action. 2. Doing. Action is taken to correct the problem. 3. Checking. The effectiveness of the intervention is evaluated, and the cycle is repeated as needed. Let us return to the QuickCo vignette and examine the action research steps taken. Ned and Sarah met with Jack to outline how employees were at each other’s throats, letting conflicts fester, and failing to work well together. Their first meeting incorporated their planning phase. As explained in Chapter 3, this initial meeting is known as contracting. During the meeting, Jack asked questions to begin identifying the root cause of the conflicted department. The three struck a collaborative agreement and worked to devise a plan for resolving the issues. The first action they took was to collect data. Jack reviewed the performance trends and cus- tomer complaints from the shipping department and interviewed the employees individually about their views on the problems. The planning also involved analyzing the data Jack collected to arrive at a diagnosis. When he met with Ned and Sarah to share feedback from the data collection, Jack presented his analysis, noting, “Ned and Sarah, you have a dysfunctional team on your hands. They have no ground rules, collaboration, or means of handling conflict. Everyone needs to be more understanding and respectful toward each other. It would also be helpful to create some guidelines for how the team wants to operate and manage conflict. Ned, you also need to take a more active role in resolving issues.” Jack laid the problems out in a matter-of-fact, nonjudgmental way. Once all the analyzed data was presented, the three worked jointly to plan an intervention to address the problems. They agreed to take the group through a facilitated process to address communication and team effectiveness. They also agreed that Ned would benefit from individualized executive coaching to help him learn behaviors that would be more productive for dealing with conflict. The second phase of action research, doing, occurred when Jack, Ned, and Sarah scheduled the intervention with the shipping department and implemented it. The outcome of the intervention was a tangible plan for the department for how to be more effective, including specific actions they would take to address conflict. The final phase, checking, involved Ned, Sarah, and Jack continuing to monitor the shipping department after the intervention. Ned helped the department uphold its new ground rules on a daily basis and coached employees to help them stick to the plan. He also asked for regular feed- back on his own management skills as part of his ongoing coaching. Ned, Sarah, and Jack reviewed departmental data on productivity and customer complaints and learned that the © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 4.1A Review of Action Research timeliness and accuracy of shipped orders had significantly improved. Jack followed up a few months later by conducting individual interviews with shipping department mem- bers. He discovered that the solutions had been maintained. If and when new conflicts arise, or new members join the team, it may be time to start the action research process over again to address new issues. The QuickCo vignette demonstrates all three phases of the action research process. This chapter focuses on the first phase, plan- ning. Chapters 5 and 6 provide a similarly detailed look at the second and final phases, doing and checking, respectively. But before turning to the planning phase, let us review action research. 4.1 A Review of Action Research Chapter 1 defined OD as a process of planned change that is grounded in a humanistic, demo- cratic ethic. This specific process of planned change is known as action research. Defining Action Research Action research is a recurring, collaborative effort between organization members and OD consultants to use data to resolve problems. As such, it involves data collection, analysis, intervention, and evaluation. Essentially, it is a repeating cycle of action and research, action and research. However, the words action research reverse the actual sequence (Brown, 1972), in that “research is conducted first and then action is taken as a direct result of what the research data are interpreted to indicate” (Burke, 1992, p. 54). Moreover, the cycle yields new knowledge about the organization and its issues that becomes useful for addressing future problems. It thereby allows organizations to improve processes and practices while simulta- neously learning about those practices and processes, the organization, and the change pro- cess itself. Action research provides evidence, which enables a consultant to avoid guesswork about what the issue is and how to resolve it. According to French and Bell (1999), Action research is the process of systematically collecting research data about an ongoing system relative to some objective, goal, or need of that system; feeding these data back into the system; taking actions by altering selected variables within the system based both on the data and on hypotheses; and evaluating the results of actions by collecting more data. (p. 130) Catherine Yeulet/iStock/Thinkstock Following the action research process helped the QuickCo shipping department resolve employees’ interpersonal conflicts. © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 4.1A Review of Action Research Action Research Is a Democratic Approach to Problem Solving Many theorists have characterized action research as democratic and collaborative: • “Action research is a participatory, democratic process concerned with developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes, grounded in a par- ticipatory worldview” (Reason & Bradbury, 2008, p. 1). • “Action research is the application of the scientific method of fact-finding and experi- mentation to practical problems requiring action solutions and involving the col- laboration and cooperation of scientists, practitioners, and laypersons” (French & Bell, 1999, p. 131). • “Action research approaches are radical to the extent that they advocate replacing existing forms of social organization” (Coghlan & Brannick, 2010, p. 6). In addition, Coghlan and Brannick (2010) identified broad characteristics of action research: • Research in action, rather than research about action • A collaborative, democratic partnership • Research concurrent with action • A sequence of events and an approach to problem solving (p. 4) These definitions are similar in that they all characterize action research as a democratic, data-driven, problem-solving, learning-based approach to organization improvement. Some other examples of how organizations apply action research include a nonprofit organization that surveys donors or beneficiaries before engaging in strategic planning, a government department that conducts a needs analysis prior to a training program, or a corporation that conducts exit interviews before initiating recruitment for positions. Action Research Helps Clients Build Capacity for Future Problem Solving Although typically guided by a consultant, action research engages key stakeholders in the process. Indeed, its effectiveness depends on the active engagement and accountability of the stakeholders. As discussed in Chapter 3, OD consultants are responsible for influencing the action research process while at the same time exercising restraint to avoid solving the problem for the client. An example can illuminate how action research helps the client build problem-solving capac- ity. Suppose an organization introduces a process of assimilating new leaders when they join Consider This Can you recall a project in your organization that involved members in a collaborative prob- lem-solving mission? Chances are it was action research, even if that terminology was not used. Can you think of any other examples? © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 4.1A Review of Action Research it (action). The organization hires a consultant to survey team members about this initiative’s effectiveness (research). The client and the consultant collaborate to develop the survey and analyze the results. What is learned informs continued assimilation of new leaders and the way the process gets modified (action). The client is initially engaged to learn the process so that it can be repeated in the future without the help of a consultant. The action research pro- cess helps the organization collect, analyze, and apply data to make informed decisions and not waste time and money on inappropriate interventions. Helping organizations become proficient at the action research process is the outcome of effective consulting, because the best consultants work themselves out of a job. Models of Action Research Recall from Chapter 1 that action research originated with the work of Kurt Lewin, the father of OD. Lewin’s model (1946/1997) includes a prestep (in which the context and purpose of the OD effort are identified), followed by planning, action, and fact finding (evaluation). Sev- eral models of action research generally follow Lewin’s, although the number and names of steps may vary. See Table 4.1 for a comparison. Table 4.1: Comparison of action research models to Lewin’s original model Lewin’s (1946/1997) original action research steps Cummings and Worley (2018) Coghlan (2019) Stringer (2013) 1. Prestep to determine context and purpose 1. Entering and contracting 0. Prestep: Understanding context and purpose of the issue 1. Constructing: Determining what the issues are 1. Look a. Gather relevant information b. Build a picture; describe the situation 2. Planning 2. Diagnosing 2. Planning action 2. Think a. Explore and analyze b. Interpret and explain 3. Action 3. Planning and implementing change 3. Taking action 3. Act a. Plan b. Implement c. Evaluate 4. Fact finding (evaluation) 4. Evaluating and institutionalizing change 4. Evaluating action © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 4.1A Review of Action Research Figure 4.1: Plan, do, check action research cycle The plan, do, check model of action research was popularized by the total quality movement. The contemporary research cycle has more steps, although it essentially accomplishes the same steps of diagnosing and designing (plan), implementing (do), and evaluating (check). The model of action research used in this book has three phases, paralleling Lewin’s (1946/1997) model (Figure 4.1): planning, doing, and checking. (See Who Invented That? Plan, Do, Check Cycle to read about the person who originally developed plan, do, check.) Each phase has substeps derived from multiple action research models: 1. Planning (the discovery phase) a. Diagnosing the issue b. Gathering data on the issue c. Analyzing the data gathered d. Sharing feedback (data analysis) with the client e. Planning of action to address the issue 2. Doing (the action phase) a. Learning related to the issue b. Changing related to the issue 3. Checking (the evaluative phase) a. Assessing changes Plan Check Do Action research cycle © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 4.2Planning: The Discovery Phase b. Adjusting processes c. Ending or recycling (back to the planning stage) the action research process The action research steps may look simple, and it may appear that planning change is a neat, orderly, and rational process. In reality, though, it can be chaotic, political, and shifting, with unexpected developments and outcomes. Nevertheless, learning the action research process equips consultants with a proven method for navigating such shifts as they work with clients on organization challenges. 4.2 Planning: The Discovery Phase When beginning an OD intervention, the initial steps taken to identify the problem and gather data about it are known as planning. The planning phase is a diagnostic one. The client and consultant work with other organization stakeholders to study the problem and determine the difference between desired outcomes and actual outcomes. The discrepancy between what is and what should be is known as a performance gap. For example, if an organization aspires to be first in quality in the industry but lags behind in second or third place, that would be a performance gap. The organization would have to engage in performance improvement practices to close the gap with its competitors. Or, perhaps a leader receives feedback that she is not as skilled at leadership as she had thought. The leader begins to work with a mentor or coach to identify what behaviors she needs to be more effective. By improving listening, rec- ognition, and delegation behaviors, the leader begins to narrow the gap between her current and desired future leadership performance. Organizations perform gap analysis to assess reasons for a gap between reality and the desired outcome. The performance gap idea can also be applied to yourself. Let us say you aspire to a managerial position but have not achieved it. Upon analyzing the gap, you realize you lack the training and experience to attain the position. If you decide to eliminate the gap, you might enroll in a graduate program, earn a leadership certificate, or find a mentor to help you attain your goal. Consider a performance gap you have experienced and complete the chart in Figure 4.2. Who Invented That? Plan, Do, Check Cycle Although often attributed to quality guru W. Edwards Deming, the plan, do, check cycle was created by Walter A. Shewhart of Bell Labs. Shewhart was an American physicist, engineer, and statistician who was one of the originators of statistical quality control, which preceded the total quality movement. Consider This In your life, what example do you have of action research? How have you employed plan, do, check? What actions or adjustments were necessary? © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 4.2Planning: The Discovery Phase Figure 4.2: Performance gap analysis Use this chart to assess your own performance gap. Identify a desired reality—perhaps running a 5K. Next, honestly note your current performance goal: Can you run around the block? Run or walk for a mile? Once you determine the gap, fill out the middle column with specific action steps to move closer to your goal—how will you close the gap? To download an interactive version of this figure, visit your e-book. Now that you have applied the gap analysis to yourself, let’s think about using it in an orga- nization setting. Identify a desired reality—perhaps being first to market with a new tech- nology. Next, honestly note the organization’s current reality. In the case of introducing the technology: Does it have the right people to do the work? Is the technology ready for market? Is the marketing campaign ready to go? Once you determine the gap, fill out the middle col- umn with specific action steps to move the organization closer to its goal—how will you close the gap? What would be the desired reality in your own organization? How equipped is it to close the gap? What other performance gaps have you experienced? Benefits of the Planning Phase Planning is a critical phase of OD, because poor plans will result in poor outcomes such as fix- ing the wrong problem, wasting time and resources, and frustrating organization members. The benefits of good planning include setting the OD process up for success through careful analysis and diagnosis of the problem; engaging organization members from the beginning in the processes of collaboration, ongoing learning, and capacity building in the action research process; and prioritizing issues. See Tips and Wisdom: Alan Lakein to read and apply tips about planning. Tips and Wisdom: Alan Lakein Time management guru Alan Lakein is credited with coining the phrase “Failing to plan is plan- ning to fail” (as cited in Johnson & Louis, 2013, para. 1). This advice is to be heeded in OD. Plan- ning is key to effective interventions. How does Lakein’s quotation apply to your experience? Current reality Steps to close the gap Desired reality © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 4.2Planning: The Discovery Phase Levels of Analysis Before we delve into the steps of the planning phase, we should understand the location of the OD effort—that is, the level at which the action research might occur. This is known as the level of analysis. The OD effort might focus on the individual, group, organization, or sys- tem. Each level comes with its own issues, needs, and appropriate interventions. These levels, along with appropriate interventions, were discussed in Chapter 2. All levels of analysis, from the individual to the system, face similar issues. Cockman, Evans, and Reynolds (1996) categorized organization issues according to purpose and task, struc- ture, people, rewards, procedures, or technology: • Purpose and task refers to identifying the reason the organization exists and how its members advance its mission. • Structure pertains to reporting relationships and how formal and informal power relations affect the organization. • People issues relate to relationships, leadership, training, communication, emotions, motivation and morale, and organization culture. • Rewards systems include financial and nonfinancial incentives available for perfor- mance and perceived equity among employees. • Procedures include decision-making processes, formal communication channels, and policies. These are an important category for analysis. • Technology involves assessing whether the organization has the necessary equip- ment, machinery, technology, information, and transport to accomplish its tasks. Table 4.2 identifies questions to ask about each area of Cockman, Evans, and Reynolds’s levels of analysis. Table 4.2: Cockman, Evans, and Reynolds’s organizational issues and diagnostic questions Organizational issues Diagnostic questions Purpose and tasks • What business are we in? • What do people do? Structure • Who reports to whom? • Where is the power? People • How are relationships managed? • What training is provided? • Who communicates with whom? • How do people feel? • How high is motivation and morale? • What is the culture? Rewards • What are the incentives to perform well? Procedures • What are the decision-making procedures? • What are the channels of communication? • What are the control systems? Technology • Does the organization have the necessary equipment, machinery, information technology, transport, and information? Source: From Client-Centered Consulting: Getting Your Expertise Used When You’re Not in Charge, by P. Cockman, B. Evans, & P. Reynolds, 1996, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 4.2Planning: The Discovery Phase Identify a performance gap you are aware of personally or professionally and see if you can answer Cockman, Evans, and Reynolds’s questions. Steps in the Planning Phase The steps in the planning phase include identifying the problem area, gathering data, analyz- ing the data, sharing feedback, and planning action. These steps illuminate the core problem and identify key information for making an intervention. Step 1: Preliminary Diagnosis of the Issue When an OD process is initiated, it is imperative that the problem be correctly defined. Doing so involves a process of diagnosis. A consultant’s job is to push the client to identify the root cause of the problem, rather than its symptoms. Considering the QuickCo example, it might have been easy for Ned to decide to put the department through a customer service training based on the symptoms of late, erroneous orders. Had he done so, however, it likely would have worsened matters, because no amount of customer service training would fix the department’s interpersonal conflicts, poor communication, and ineffective conflict reso- lution. It may take intensive study and data collection to accurately diagnose a problem, but doing so is well worth it. The action research process begins by defining a problem that warrants attention. Consul- tants must ask good questions to illuminate a problem’s source. They can then move on to the next step in the planning phase. Questions a consultant might ask a client include the following: • “What do you think is causing the problem?” • “What have you tried to fix it?” • “How has this attempt to fix the problem worked?” • “What has been stopping you from fully addressing this issue?” In addition to asking questions to pinpoint the issue, consultants must ask questions about who else will be involved in the OD effort. Also, as Chapter 3 explored, a consultant needs to uncover the client’s expectations regarding the duration of the project and make sure the cli- ent is willing to assume an equal responsibility for outcomes. Good questioning enhances one’s authenticity as a consultant. How have you diagnosed problems in your organization? Have you ever misdiagnosed an issue? What were the consequences? Step 2: Gathering Data on the Issue Once QuickCo diagnosed the team’s lack of communication and interpersonal effectiveness as the source of the problem, it was ready to collect information to inform next steps. This is known as data gathering. Data can be gathered in many ways. The most common data col- lection methods in action research include interviews, questionnaires, focus groups, direct observation, and document analysis. © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 4.2Planning: The Discovery Phase Jack, the internal QuickCo consultant, took several steps to better understand the problem. He reviewed performance trends and customer complaints, inter- viewed department members, and relied on his own working knowledge and observations of the department to formulate a solid understanding of the issues. What types of data have you gathered to better understand organiza- tion issues? Methods of data gathering are explored in detail in the next section of this chapter. Step 3: Analyzing the Data Once data has been collected, it must be turned into something meaningful and useful for the client. Data collected to provide information about a problem is not useful until it is inter- preted in ways that inform the issue and provide clues to possible interventions. For example, a survey is not helpful unless it is examined within the organization’s context. Data analysis will be more fully defined in the data analysis methods section later in this chapter. Step 4: Sharing Feedback With the Client Once data has been collected and analyzed, a feedback meeting is scheduled in which results are presented to the client. In the QuickCo example, Jack met with Ned and Sarah to share his analysis. Feedback meetings require careful planning to keep the consultancy on track. Consultants should decide on the key purpose and desired outcomes for the meeting. For example, do they want the client to better understand the problem? Agree on a course of action? Confront some issues affecting the problem? Sharing feedback with the client involves determining the focus of the feedback meeting, developing the agenda for feedback, recogniz- ing different types of feedback, presenting feedback effectively, managing the consulting pres- ence during the meeting, addressing confidentiality concerns, and anticipating defensiveness and resistance. Step 5: Planning Action to Address the Issue The last step of the planning or discovery phase is to plan the action that will be taken. This planning might occur during the feedback meeting, or you might schedule a time at a later date to give the client an opportunity to digest the data analysis and feedback. The outcome of the planning is to design the activity, action, or event that will be the organization’s response to the issue. This is known as an intervention. The type of intervention selected depends on the organization’s readiness and capability to change, the cultural context, and the capabilities of the OD consultant and internal change agent (Cummings & Worley, 2018). The intervention will also target strategy, technology and structure, and human resource or human process issues. The consultant and the client will collaboratively plan the appropriate intervention(s) to address the issue. Chapter 5 will address interventions in detail. Filo/DigitalVision Vectors/Getty Images Plus Collecting data ensures the OD process is evidence based. © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 4.3Types of Research 4.3 Types of Research OD is a joint endeavor between the client and the consultant that includes data gathering and analysis. Involving clients in the data collection process reinforces their commitment to the OD process. The consultant’s role in this process is to help the client focus on the root cause of the problem and to organize the data collection and interpretation. A consultant’s objectivity can be very helpful to clients, enhancing their understanding of how they might be contribut- ing to the problem or how the issue plays out within the broader organization context. Einstein is credited with saying, “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” (as cited in Albert Einstein Site, 2012, para. 4). People conduct research when they have questions that do not have obvious answers. Depending on the question they wish to answer, there are differing types of research. Basic Research The word research might evoke images of people working in labs, examining petri dish cul- tures, and making new discoveries. This type of research is known as basic research, and it generally creates or extends the knowledge base of a discipline such as medicine, physics, or chemistry through experiments that allow researchers to test hypotheses and examine per- plexing questions. Basic research results in new discoveries and theories and includes inno- vations such as testing cures for cancer, establishing scientific laws such as gravity, or refuting previously held beliefs such as the world being flat. There are other types of research beyond basic, and they vary based on the type of question being asked. Applied Research When people seek to answer questions such as “What is the best way to facilitate learning during change?” or “How do we motivate employees to embrace new technology?” they are usually seeking to improve practice within a certain field. This is known as applied research because its results are germane to problems and issues within a particular setting such as business. This type of research is practical and helps people solve problems, but unlike basic research, it does not necessarily yield new knowledge. OD is applied research because it asks questions about challenges that are unique to the individual organizational context in which they are located but does not necessarily expand our understanding of human behavior in organizations. Action Research Action research explores specific problems within a locality such as an organization or com- munity. It might ask questions such as “How can we prevent employees from … Action Research: The Doing Phase 5 monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Getty Images Plus Learning Objectives After reading this chapter, you should be able to: • Describe factors that influence a client and organization’s readiness for change and promote acceptance of interventions. • Define an OD intervention, including the different ways to classify interventions and the crite- ria for choosing an appropriate intervention. • Explain the consultant’s role in implementing OD interventions and how to promote learning to sustain them. • Discuss common issues related to monitoring and sustaining change, including the reasons that interventions fail, the ethics of the implementation stage, client resistance, and strategies to sustain change. © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. A major land-grant university received federal funding to promote education among public health employees in a southern state. As soon as the monies were awarded, several educational initiatives began to serve multiple stakeholders across the state. One of the projects that James, the grant’s principal investigator, wanted to initiate was a leadership academy for mid-level managers with potential to advance to higher levels of public health leadership in the state. Previous analyses of the organization, including succession planning, had revealed a long-term need to provide leadership development. This need lingered for many years because public fund- ing was not available to provide a comprehensive program. The grant finally created the oppor- tunity to deliver this much-needed program. James contacted an external consultant, Leah, to help plan the program. Leah was a good choice for a consultant; she was an expert in leadership and program develop- ment. The contracting meeting was set up, at which Leah and James determined the scope of the project: a 1-year leadership development academy for the state’s top 25 leaders. The project had two objectives: 1. Pilot a program that will become a permanent leadership development academy available to high-potential leaders on an annual basis. 2. Strengthen the leadership competencies and culture within the state public health work force. Although Leah would be the lead consultant and facilitator for the project’s planning and imple- mentation over the first 2 years, the goal was to build capacity within the state so that internal facilitators could sustain the program over the long term. The project required an action research approach to collect and analyze initial data about the target population’s needs, so the decision was made to conduct interviews and surveys to determine the content of the leadership development academy. Based on Leah’s expertise in leadership development, her role was defined as part expert, part collaborative partner with James and his university. The project had a 2-year implementation timeline, with the first year focused on planning and the second year devoted to implementation. Evaluation would be ongo- ing and continue past the second year as a new cohort was started in year 3, staffed by internal consultants. James and Leah met regularly to plan the pro- gram. This involved undertaking the planning or discovery phase of action research: diag- nosing the issue, gathering data on the issue, sharing feedback, presenting the data analy- sis, and planning to act. The “doing” phase of the action research pro- cess is the phase in which the intervention is implemented. For the Public Health Leader- ship Academy, this phase began in September with 25 participants who had been competi- tively selected from across the state. The par- ticipants convened at a resort, and the program was kicked off by high-level state public health CasarsaGuru/E+/Getty Images Plus The Public Health Leadership Academy kicks off after an extensive planning process. © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.1Readiness for Change officials. The first session lasted 3 days. During this time, the participants received results of a leadership styles inventory, listened to innovative lectures and panels on leadership, planned an individual leadership project in their districts, and engaged with each other to develop working relationships. The academy met monthly for a year and focused on a range of topics related to leadership that were prioritized based on prior data collection. The grant provided for an evalu- ator, so formative data was collected at each meeting. The kickoff of the Leadership Academy set the stage for the entire year. The beginning set the tone and expectations for what the par- ticipants could expect. Pythagoras is credited with saying, “The beginning is half the whole” (as cited in Infoplease, n.d., para. 1), which inspired the modern idiom “Well begun is half done.” This philosophy is well applied to creating OD interventions; that is, effective planning is key to successful change implementation. Chapter 4 introduced the first phase of the action research model, planning or discovery. This chapter focuses on the second phase, doing or action. Action research takes a data-based approach to diagnosing organization problems so that interventions can be imple- mented to permanently solve problems. We will return to the Public Health Leadership Academy vignette throughout the chapter to illustrate the action phase. See Table 5.1 to review the action research model we are following in this book. Table 5.1: Action research model Phase Action Planning (the discovery phase) 1. Diagnosing the issue 2. Gathering data on the issue 3. Sharing feedback (data analysis) with the client 4. Planning action to address the issue Doing (the action phase) 1. Learning related to the issue 2. Changing related to the issue Checking (the evaluative phase) 1. Assessing changes 2. Adjusting processes 3. Ending or recycling (back to the planning stage) the action research process This chapter will pick up at Step 4 of the planning phase, planning action to address the issue. Planning action involves choosing and initiating interventions. Interventions represent the action taken to resolve the problem, so they link the action research model’s planning and doing phases. A key activity in Step 4, however, is to assess the organization’s readiness for change. 5.1 Readiness for Change Once you have worked with the client to plan for how the organization will address the prob- lem, you move into the implementation phase. Ultimately, the measure of effective OD is whether a change was made and if it stuck. Implementing change is easier than sustaining it. © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.1Readiness for Change Most people have successfully dieted and lost weight; the hard part is maintaining the weight loss and sustaining new behaviors over the long term. Similarly, organizations may success- fully implement a new leadership development program but have difficulty in sustaining the necessary behavioral and cultural changes that ensure improved leadership. Making change is not the same as sustaining change. The latter is much more difficult. That is why OD consul- tants must help the client develop strategies to ensure people are accountable to maintain the change and create measures to help the organization sustain the change. Effectively initiating change depends on the organization’s perception that the change is nec- essary and achievable and that employees are willing to support change efforts (McKay, Kunts, & Näswall, 2013). These variables signal readiness for change. Our understanding of change readiness emerged from the fields of health psychology and medical studies (Block & Keller, 1998) and was later applied to organizations. See Who Invented That? The Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior Change. Who Invented That? The Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior Change Models of change readiness originated in health care. The transtheoretical model is consid- ered the most influential and was proposed by Prochaska and DiClemente in 1983 based on their research on smoking cessation. A description of the model’s six stages follows. 1. Precontemplation (not ready). A state in which people are unaware their behavior is problematic; thus, there is no intention to take action. For example, suppose Jacob is a manager with an ineffective leadership style. Jacob is doing what he has observed other managers doing and does not give his performance any thought. 2. Contemplation (getting ready). A state in which people begin to notice their behavior is problematic and begin to weigh the pros and cons of their continued actions. (Lewin would refer to this as “unfreezing,” or readiness for change.) For example, Jacob may start to notice that he is not getting the results he would like in his role as a manager. He can see that people do not listen to him, and he starts to ponder whether he should change his behavior. 3. Preparation (ready). A state in which people set intentions to take action on the prob- lem behavior in the immediate future. For example, Jacob may decide to start explor- ing different leadership approaches and resources for improving, such as reading, tak- ing a class, or seeking mentoring from managers whose behavior he wants to emulate. 4. Action (doing). A state in which people are engaged in making visible modifications to their behavior, usually by replacing the problematic behavior with a new, more pro- ductive behavior. (This would be known as “moving” in Lewin’s terms.) For example, Jacob may decide to seek a mentor, read some books, and take a leadership class. He may also begin to implement some new behaviors with his staff. 5. Maintenance (maintaining). A state of preservation in which people have been able to sustain the change for a time and are working to prevent relapse to the former prob- lematic behavior. For example, Jacob may work to avoid slipping back to less effective management behaviors, such as failing to consult employees on important decisions. He may also seek feedback and support from his mentor. (continued on next page) © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.1Readiness for Change Reflect on an organization change you recently experienced. Perhaps there was a transforma- tion in financial systems requiring employees to adopt new procedures for reporting travel or making expenditures. Other changes might include adjusting to a new CEO or president, learning new features in products or services provided to customers, or abiding by additional expectations for completing work. Most often, people are neither pleased about nor ready for changes they are asked to make. Changes are often met with skepticism, resistance, and even anger. There are several dimensions to preparing an organization for change, and readiness for change is important for practitioners of OD to consider at individual, group, and organiza- tion levels. Dimensions of Change Readiness When a change is sprung on an individual or organization, a range of reactions occurs. Per- haps there is a sense of surprise, dismay, anger, excitement, fear, or dread. How people and organizations respond to a change can be measured by how ready they are to make a change, whether planned or unplanned. Dimensions of change readiness involve gauging readiness and understanding the dynamics of change. When you have been faced with change, what was your reaction? Gauging Change Readiness Five dimensions influence the level of readiness to make changes (Hord & Roussin, 2013). The first is whether data exists that justifies the change in a way that is relevant and compel- ling to the organization. That the data exists is not enough: It must be communicated clearly and compellingly by management. Next, employees must be engaged in ways that promote their input and ownership of the change. The third dimension is to ensure that the scope and impact of the change is appropriate for the organization’s culture and strategy. Next, the structure of the change should be clearly defined in terms of new roles, procedures, and resources. Finally, the organization needs to prepare to let go of past practices and find a rea- sonable timeline and process for incorporating the change. Table 5.2 offers a checklist of these dimensions, with examples of each category. It can be used to gauge an organization’s change readiness. Who Invented That? The Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior Change (continued) 6. Termination (ending). A state in which the new behavior has become permanent (this would be known as “refreezing” in Lewin’s terms) and people are not tempted to revert to their old problematic behaviors. By this point, Jacob has integrated the more participative leadership style into his repertoire and does not even think about it any- more—it has become a natural part of his being. He may now be ready to help others make similar changes (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983). © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.1Readiness for Change Table 5.2: Readiness for change Readiness dimensions Readiness dimension indicators Relevance and meaning: Make a compelling case for the change or identify the benefits of the interventions. • There is ample data to justify the need for this change. • Employees have had plenty of opportunity to discuss the whys for this change. • This change is not being driven by a crisis mindset. • There is anecdotal evidence from employees expressing why this change is important. • There is evidence that a culture of trust exists with employees about this change. Consensus and ownership: Engage employees so there is ownership of the desired change. • Employees express ownership for this change. • Employees say they are willing to commit energy and time toward this change. • This change was not driven by a top-down mandate and one-way communication. • Employees think this change will make a significant difference and bring results. • Stakeholders are strong supporters of the change. • There is shared responsibility and collective trust for this change. Scope and culture: Define the scope of the change and the impact it will have on the organization’s culture, cur- rent mindsets, and behaviors. • Advocacy for the change has been sensitive to organization culture. • Employees mentally, emotionally, and physically embrace the change. • Change leaders have been respectful and sensitive in helping employees make sense of the change over time. • The change aligns well with other recently implemented interventions. • The change will not overwhelm employees’ current workload. • The change leaders serve as role models of the desired change. Structure and coherence: Determine change leadership roles, structure, decision mak- ing, and how the change will interface with organization operations. • The right stakeholders have participated in the action research process and decision making for this change. • Leadership has identified key roles to support the change moving forward. • Employees understand how future decisions will be made around the change. • Appropriate resources have been dedicated to implement the change (e.g., finances, time). • The change is feasible and the right resources are in place to sustain it. • Frequent and adequate communication with feedback has guided the change. Focus, attention, and letting go: Assess where to focus attention based on data and determine what can be let go in order to create room for change. • Change leaders have determined what past initiatives/practices can be let go in order to make room for this change. • There is a reasonable timeline established for this change to support its full implementation. • There is clear understanding by employees of what the change is going to entail. • Employees understand the demand and expectations for the change. • There are indicators established for this change to identify early successes. • The appropriate technology tools are available to support this change. Source: Adapted from Implementing Change Through Learning: Concerns-Based Concepts, Tools, and Strategies for Guiding Change (p. 38), by S. M. Hord and J. L. Roussin, 2013, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.1Readiness for Change Cheung-Judge and Holbeche (2015) offered tools to map change readiness of various stake- holder groups by charting readiness according to “level of commitment to change” and “abil- ity to make it happen.” Table 5.3 presents their process. Consider a change you experienced in the past or are currently facing. Using Table 5.3, plot your commitment to change and ability to make change happen. Next, plot your view of other key stakeholders or groups involved in the change. What issues in change readiness do you see in yourself or others, and how might you address them? Table 5.3: Mapping readiness for change Key stakeholders/ groups Commitment to change Ability to make change happen Low Medium High Low Medium High Dynamics of Change Readiness to change usually indicates a willingness to entertain new ways of thinking and doing. Hord and Roussin (2013) outlined the change dynamics in the following manner: 1. “All change is based on learning, and improvement is based on change” (Hord & Rous- sin, 2013, p. 2). Most change depends on learning. Hord and Roussin (2013) valued learning for the way in which it enables people to abandon nonproductive behaviors and replace them with behaviors more supportive of the intervention. They empha- sized, “At the center of all successful implementation of a change is the opportunity for adults to come together and learn” (Hord & Roussin, 2013, p. 2). 2. “Implementing change has greater success when it is guided through social interac- tion” (Hord & Roussin, 2013, p. 3). OD’s collaborative, collective ethic lends itself to building communities of change that band together to implement new programs and solutions. 3. Individuals have to change before organizations can change. If a group or team is to successfully pull off major changes, individuals need to possess the skills and capaci- ties to execute the necessary behaviors. Key to facilitating individual change is giving individuals choice and opportunities to influence the process and their environment. The stages of concern model (Hall & Hord, 1984, 2011) discussed in Chapter 2 pro- vides a framework for helping individuals address concerns related to change. 4. “Change has an effect on the emotional and behavioral dimensions of humans” (Hord & Roussin, 2013, p. 3). Change is stressful. When we fail to respect and tend to the emotional reactions to change, the change will likely fail. People need opportunities to air their hopes and fears about a change; this helps them feel safe during and after the process. 5. Employees will more readily accept change when they understand how the interven- tion will enhance their work. This belief ties in to adults’ need for learning to be © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.1Readiness for Change timely, relevant, and linked to their experience; it also relates to the power of con- necting individual and organization goals. 6. The client and/or leader’s role is to engage employees in dialogue about the changes as a way of promoting communication and ownership of the change. The more the change is talked about and explained, the easier it will be for employees to embrace. Factors Influencing Readiness to Change The client and the consultant can take steps to prepare the organization for change. The first is to clearly communicate the discrepancy between the status quo and the desired state. In Chapter 4, this discrepancy was defined as a performance gap. Employees will be prepared to change when they understand why the change matters (Madsen, Miller, & John, 2005). The second step is to bolster employees’ confidence that they possess the knowledge, skills, and abilities to deal with the performance gap and make the changes necessary to close it. Employees will accept change when they perceive a match between their skills and abilities and those needed to diminish the performance gap (Chreim, 2006). Perceived Appropriateness of the Change Readiness to change depends on several additional variables to be in place if it is to suc- ceed. When employees view the change as appropriate to the organization, they will gener- ally support and readily embrace it (Holt, Armenakis, Feild, & Harris, 2007). For example, several years ago, most organizations did not recycle; the idea of sustainability was unfamil- iar to both companies and communities. As global awareness of pollution and environmen- talism has increased, so has the willingness to change our behavior. Today, it is common to have recycling bins throughout an organization—you may even have one in your office and at home. Recycling is now embraced because we view it as appropriate and necessary. Of course, even the most appropriate change must be communicated well and visibly supported by management. Creating a Shared Vision of the Change When management engages employees in planning for the future, they are working to cre- ate a shared vision (Hord & Roussin, 2013). A shared vision is the creation and articulation of the organization’s desired future state that is mutually agreed upon with employees. As discussed in Chapter 4, a shared vision may be attained by completing a gap analysis that identifies the discrepancy between the current state and the desired state. For example, when the University of Georgia decided to change its platform for online learning, it involved sev- eral stakeholders, including students and faculty, in evaluating new platforms and providing input in the final decision. By creating a shared vision for what the university desired in terms of technology, image, and learning experience, the OD intervention significantly increased buy-in when the new platform was implemented. The more management can involve affected employees in the change’s planning and implementation, the more the entire organization will support the change. Level of Managerial Support of the Change When management visibly advocates for and adopts a change, it sends a message to the orga- nization about the change’s necessity and importance (Holt et al., 2007). Management serves © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.1Readiness for Change as a model to employees, who watch to see whether managers actually commit to the change. For example, suppose an organization attempts to create a more diverse and inclusive culture. Managerial support might include articulating the organization’s commitment to diversity and inclusion at every opportunity, promoting a diverse range of employees to key positions, hiring for diversity, and rewarding behaviors that support diversity and inclusion. Providing the Necessary Resources, Support, and Assistance Displaying managerial support goes beyond setting an example. It also involves making sure the necessary resources are provided to make the change (Hord & Roussin, 2013). Changing usually takes time, costs money, and diverts energy from other activities. Creating a realis- tic budget and providing resources up front helps ease the transition. Employees may need moral support or training, the organization may need additional resources, or the community may need to be informed of the changes. It benefits the organization to provide sustained assistance as needed during implementation. For example, the university that changed its online learning platform had to develop a strategy for communicating to faculty, staff, and students; train for the implementation; obtain the ongoing support of faculty and students working within the platform; and hire staff to support the logistics of working with the new technology. Thakur and Srivastava (2018) surveyed 276 middle managers in India about change readi- ness and found that it influences resistance to change. Readiness increases and resistance decreases when levels of trust, perceived organization support, and emotional attachment are high. They also found the human touch to be important, that is, fostering communica- tion, trust, and security for employees experiencing change. Other researchers found that perceived organization support affected individual change readiness among 154 employees of a chain restaurant that introduced new leadership and restructuring and that providing support prior to the introduction of change improved trust and readiness (Gigliotti, Varda- man, Marshall, & Gonzalez, 2019). Level of Organization Members’ Self-Efficacy for Adopting the Change The perception that employees are skilled and competent enough to successfully implement a change bolsters readiness for it (Holt et al., 2007). Helping employees become comfort- able with both the content and the process of the change is important. Change content is the focus of the change—for example, adopting a new electronic medical record (EMR) program. Change process is the way the change is implemented—for example, piloting the EMR in a small department and seeking user feedback before rolling it out organization-wide. Research- ers investigating individual and group openness to change in relation to primary health care employees’ ability to improve their use of information and communication technologies in Sweden found that openness to both the change content and the process positively predicted competence with adoption of the change (Augustsson, Richter, Hasson, & von Thiele Schwarz, 2017). It is often up to the OD consultant and management to show employees that they have the self-efficacy to adopt the change. For example, if an organization were implementing a new technology, it would be helpful to provide opportunities for employees to experiment with it. Doing so would allow them to discover that they have the skills to implement it. Investing in professional development and professional learning is a key way to build self-efficacy (Hord & Roussin, 2013). Implementing and sustaining change requires acquiring new knowledge, © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 5.1Readiness for Change skills, and abilities. Such learning may boost employees’ confidence that they can adopt the new changes, as well as enhance their understanding and acceptance of the change. Level of Organization Members’ Personal Attachment to the Change Change is more likely to be accepted if management can show that adopting it will positively affect individual employees (Holt et al., 2007). Helping employees connect their personal goals to company goals creates a winning combination. Authors surveyed 1,833 nurses in 23 acute care hospitals across Switzerland and concluded that quality of care and support- ive leadership were positively associated with readiness (Sharma et al., 2018). Connecting employees’ personal attachment to change requires communication and support of employee interests. For example, in a quest to become a learning organization that readily captures and shares information and knowledge, an organization might bolster support of individual learning efforts by funding them, providing in-house learning opportunities, or sponsoring degree attainment and continuing education. Including a System for Checking and Assessing Progress The change implementation should be evaluated throughout the action research process (Hord & Roussin, 2013). As Chapter 6 will discuss, to ensure the intended outcomes are being achieved, it is important to assess progress and results during and after implementation. For example, in the case of the university that implemented a new online learning platform, a small pilot group of faculty users was designated “early adopters.” The group received train- ing and used the new platform the semester before it was officially implemented. This small, contained implementation offered the opportunity to troubleshoot and eliminate bugs prior to the large-scale implementation. Promoting Acceptance of Interventions There are several ways the client and consultant can prepare the organization for change and bolster acceptance of the interventions. Acceptance is encouraged via effective and ongoing communication with employees about the change and by creating opportunities to partici- pate in its planning and implementation. Developing a Change Communication Strategy Management communication about the change is key during both the planning and the imple- mentation phases. Communication not only informs and engages … Action Research: The Checking Phase 6 DragonImages/iStock/Thinkstock Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to: • Describe evaluation according to how it is defined and what steps encompass it. • Identify the types and categories of evaluation. • Examine different frameworks of evaluation. • Determine how to plan and perform an evaluation. • Explore strategies for concluding the action research process, including terminating the consultant–client relationship or recycling the intervention. © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. In Chapter 5, we learned about the Public Health Leadership Academy, which was founded by a major university using funds from a federal grant to promote leadership development among public health employees in a southern state. The project involved developing a Leadership Acad- emy for mid-level managers who exhibited potential to advance to higher levels of public health leadership in the state. The intervention was in response to a long-term need based on previous analyses of the state’s public health agency, including succession planning. This need had existed for many years because there were not enough public funds available to provide a comprehensive program. The grant finally created the opportunity to deliver this much-needed program. James (the client) worked with Leah (the external consultant) to plan and implement the program. James and Leah engaged in action research to collect and analyze data about the needs of the target population (mid-level public health managers) using interviews and surveys to deter- mine the content of the courses that would be offered in the Leadership Academy. The project had a 2-year implementation timeline, with year 1 focused on planning and year 2 devoted to implementation. Evaluation would be ongoing and continue past year 2 with a new cohort start- ing in year 3, staffed by internal consultants. During the year 1 planning phase, James and Leah were very involved in collecting data to inform the content and process of the Leadership Academy. They continually stopped to reflect on their decisions, plans, and processes and made adjustments to each as the project unfolded. They also piloted the first session among a small group of advisors to the Leadership Academy to make sure their design would resonate with the participants. They made more changes follow- ing the pilot to improve the program. During year 2, 25 managers chosen for the academy participated in monthly leader- ship development experiences and semi- nars. The Leadership Academy began in September with these 25 managers, who had been competitively selected from across the state. The participants convened at a resort, and the program was kicked off by high-level state public health officials. The first session lasted 3 days, during which time the participants received the results of a leadership styles inventory, listened to innovative lectures and panels on leader- ship, planned an individual leadership proj- ect in their districts, and engaged with each other to develop working relationships. The academy continued meeting monthly for a year and focused on a range of topics related to leadership that were prioritized based on prior data col- lection. The grant provided for an evaluator, so data was collected at each meeting. The first 2 years of the project involved ongoing assessment of the academy’s plans and imple- mentation, followed by appropriate adjustments. James and Leah included cycles of assessment and adjustment as a regular part of their agenda and conversation. The evaluator observed all of the sessions and sent out formal evaluations after each monthly session. During the sessions, facilitators regularly asked participants to provide feedback. For example, they were asked to respond to questions like, “How did that exercise work for you?” PeopleImages/E+/Getty Images Plus The Leadership Academy is off to a lively start. © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.1Defining Evaluation in Action Research “How are you looking at this now?” and “How could we do this better?” The evaluation data con- tributed to changes to the planned curriculum and program activities. For example, the partici- pants took an inventory to assess leadership style and wanted to spend more time on the topic, so the next month’s agenda was adjusted to accommodate the request. Participants complained that the sequencing of topics was not logical, so the agenda for the second cohort to follow in year 3 of the project was adjusted. The first cohort graduated at its final session, during which the cohort welcomed the mem- bers of the new cohort. Leah had worked with an internal team of consultants throughout the implementation, and the team was ready to take over the facilitation with the second cohort. Following the event, Leah met with James and the new team to tie up loose ends and make the transition. She met periodically with James during the third year to ensure that the Leadership Academy was running smoothly. As this vignette illustrates, although checking is the third phase of the action research process, it takes place during the planning and doing phases as well. This chapter focuses on checking, which is a data-based evaluation to assess whether an intervention had the intended result. 6.1 Defining Evaluation in Action Research The model of action research used in this book has three phases: planning, doing, and check- ing. See Table 5.1 in Chapter 5 for a review of each phase. The final phase of action research, checking, involves three steps. First, the consultant and client gather data about the key changes and learning that have occurred. This step is known as assessing changes. Next, the consultant uses this data to assess if the intended change occurred. Was the change implementation effective? Were the proposed outcomes met? As a result of this assessment, the consultant adjusts the intervention accordingly. This step is known as adjusting processes. The third step is to terminate the OD process or repeat it to correct or expand the intervention (known as recycling). Assessment, adjustment, and terminating or recycling are collectively known as evaluation of the action research process. Purposes of Evaluation The overall purpose of conducting an eval- uation is to make data-based decisions about the quality, appropriateness, and effectiveness of OD interventions. Evalua- tion helps us determine whether an inter- vention’s intended outcomes were real- ized and assess and adjust the intervention as needed. Evaluation helps ensure accountability and knowledge generation from the intervention. An evaluation creates criteria of merit, con- structs standards, measures performance, compares performance to standards, and zimmytws/iStock/Thinkstock Evaluation makes judgments about the effectiveness and impact of OD interventions through the analysis of data such as “employee satisfaction” surveys. © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.1Defining Evaluation in Action Research synthesizes and integrates data into a judgment of merit or worth (Fournier, 1995). Evalua- tion findings help render judgments, facilitate improvements, or generate knowledge (Patton, 1997). Evaluations used to render judgments focus on accountability for outcomes such as holding management responsible for making changes in leadership. Improvements concen- trate on developmental processes such as creating new learning and growth. Knowledge gen- eration emphasizes academic contributions such as new insights that may change a process. Establishing a Benchmark To illustrate how evaluation helps OD consultants assess and adjust an intervention, let us consider an organization that has conducted survey research to assess employee satisfaction. The first year creates a benchmark (when an organization compares its business processes, practices, and performance standards to those of other organizations that are considered best in class) that can be used in future evaluations. Further, let us imagine that employee satisfac- tion is at a moderately satisfied level the first time it is measured. When the survey research instrument on employee satisfaction is replicated in future years, the level of satisfaction will be compared with the original baseline to evaluate whether the organization is doing worse, the same, or better than it had originally. The evaluation can help the organization identify key changes and learning that occurred as a result of the intervention. Then the organization can adjust practices accordingly. The American Productivity and Quality Center developed a benchmarking definition repre- senting consensus among 100 U.S. companies: Benchmarking is a systematic and continuous measurement process; a pro- cess of continuously measuring and comparing an organization’s business process against business process leaders anywhere in the world to gain infor- mation, which will help the organization take action to improve its perfor- mance. (as cited in Simpson, Kondouli, & Wai, 1999, p. 718) See Who Invented That? Benchmarking to read about the origins of benchmarking. Benchmarking is a specific type of action research, but the process can also be applied during OD intervention evaluations. There are several types of benchmarking (Ellis, 2006): Who Invented That? Benchmarking The exact derivation of the term benchmarking is unknown. It is thought to have possibly origi- nated from using the surface of a workbench in ancient Egypt to mark dimensional measure- ments on an object. Alternatively, surveyors may have used the term to refer to the process of marking cuts into stone walls to measure the altitude of land tracts, and cobblers may have used it to describe measuring feet for shoes (Levy & Ronco, 2012). Benchmarking in U.S. business emerged in the late 1970s. Xerox is generally considered the first corporation to apply benchmarking. Robert Camp (1989), a former Xerox employee, wrote one of the earliest books on benchmarking. Camp described how U.S. businesses took their market superiority for granted and were thus unprepared when higher-quality Japanese goods disrupted U.S. markets. © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.1Defining Evaluation in Action Research • Competitive: Uses performance metrics to assess how well or poorly an organization is performing against direct competitors, such as measuring quality defects between the companies’ products • Comparative: Focuses on how similar processes are handled by different organiza- tions, such as two organizations’ recruitment and retention activities • Collaborative: Involves sharing knowledge about particular activity between compa- nies, with the goal of learning Bogan and English (2014) described benchmarking types a bit differently, noting the activity might focus on processes (e.g., order fulfillment or billing processes, similar to comparative), performance (e.g., comparing competitive positions, similar to competitive), and strategy (e.g., identifying winning tactics across an industry, perhaps similar to collaborative). Almost any issue of interest can be benchmarked, including processes, financial results, investor per- spectives, performance, products, strategy, structure, best practices, operations, and manage- ment practices. Benchmarking could be part of the data collection process in OD, an interven- tion, or the basis of an evaluation. Table 6.1 shows typical benchmarking steps. Table 6.1: Typical benchmarking process Benchmarking step Example 1. Identify process, practice, method, or product to benchmark. Identifying best practices for recruiting and retaining a diverse work force 2. Identify the industries with similar processes. Finding the companies that are best at retaining a diverse work force, even those in a different industry 3. Identify organization leaders in a target area. Selecting the organizations against which to benchmark 4. Survey the selected organizations for their measures and practices. Sending a survey to the target companies asking for information on issues such as turnover and hire rates, formal retention programs (e.g., orientation, development), management training, and rewards 5. Identify best practices. Analyzing data to identify best practices to implement. Analysis depends on the type of data collected—that is, whether it is statistical (quantitative data), such as from a survey of employees on attitudes about diversity, or interpretive (qualitative data), such as from inter- views with employees who quit. 6. Implement new and improved practices. Implementing best practices, such as new recruitment and retention strategies, affinity groups, or rewards for managers who develop a diverse staff Other Purposes of Evaluation Caffarella (1994) and Caffarella and Daffron (2013) identified 12 specific purposes of evalu- ation data. Evaluation helps to 1. adjust the intervention as it is being made in terms of design, delivery, management, and evaluation; 2. keep employees focused on the intervention’s goals and objectives; 3. provide information to inform the continuation of the intervention; © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.1Defining Evaluation in Action Research 4. identify improvements needed to design and deliver the intervention; 5. assess the intervention’s cost-effectiveness; 6. justify resource allocations; 7. increase application of participants’ learning by building in strategies that help them transfer learning back to the organization; 8. provide data on the results of the intervention; 9. identify ways to improve future interventions; 10. cancel or change an intervention that is poorly designed or headed for failure; 11. explore why an intervention fails; and 12. provide intervention accountability. Moreover, during the planning phase, evaluation can help consultants assess needs and make decisions about how best to intervene. The Leadership Academy’s goal was to improve lead- ership, but James and Leah had to assess the content that would be most appropriate for lead- ership in public health. Then, when the participants were selected, they had to make further assessments to ensure the program was relevant to the participants’ particular needs. Evaluation may also help test different theories and models of addressing the problem. In the case of the Leadership Academy, James and Leah based their interventions on theories and models of leadership. They threw out what did not resonate with the participants or work well during sessions and revised the program for the second cohort. Evaluation also helps monitor how the intervention is going during implementation so it can be adjusted accordingly. Such adjustments occurred throughout the Leadership Academy implementation over the course of a year. Finally, evaluation helps determine whether the intervention goals were met and what impact the change had on individuals and the organization. Measuring this type of impact may require more longitudinal study than other types of evaluation. The evaluation of impact helps con- sultants decide whether to extend the intervention, change it, or abandon it altogether. The Leadership Academy will be continually reevaluated as new cohorts participate each year. Clearly, evaluations have the potential to accomplish a variety of goals. Throughout the OD process, it is critical to stay focused on an evaluation’s purpose. Have you experienced any of the evaluation activities discussed here? Steps in Evaluation Just as with action research models, so too are there many approaches to undertaking evalu- ation. That is, there are different ways to model the steps in the process. Two are discussed here. Evaluation Hierarchy Rossi, Lipsey, and Freeman (2004) offered an evaluation hierarchy that recognizes the impor- tance of engaging in evaluation from the beginning of the action research process. That is, evaluation should occur during the initial client contacts, be built into the plan for interven- tion, and be ongoing throughout the implementation, prior to the formal assessment of the © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.1Defining Evaluation in Action Research intervention’s impact, cost, and efficiency. Doing evaluation is a matter of conducting a mini- action research project. Caffarella’s Systematic Program Evaluation Caffarella (1994) outlined the steps generally taken during an evaluation. Her steps have been modified to address key OD issues in the following points. Caffarella’s steps are intended to be sequential under ideal conditions, although reality may be quite different. Note that Caffarella has proposed a lot of steps. She has elaborated more on the steps than some other models but still follows an action research process. 1. Secure support for the evaluation from stakeholders such as the client and key management. This step should be a provision of the contract, as discussed in Chap- ter 3. It is the process of getting management to commit to the time and resources needed to evaluate the process, as well as being willing to pay attention to the findings. 2. Identify individuals who can be involved in planning and overseeing the evaluation, such as the participants, management, client, and others affected by the interven- tion. This is usually led by the consultant and client and would involve employees who are engaged in the implementation. It could also involve those affected by the change who did not necessarily participate in it, such as customers or suppliers. 3. Define the evaluation’s purpose and how the results will be used. This step is elaborated on in a later section of this chapter. The evaluation’s focus should be determined and then built accordingly. For example, is it aimed at improving a process or judging an outcome? Does it pertain to planning the intervention or the intervention itself ? Is it aimed at assessing adherence to budget or performance outcomes? 4. Specify what will be judged and formulate the evaluation questions. This step is driven by the evaluation’s purpose. If you decide to evaluate how satisfied employ- ees are with a new performance appraisal process, questions should relate to that change and be used to judge whether it was effective and should continue. 5. Determine who will supply the evidence, such as participants, customers, manage- ment, employees, or others affected by the intervention. 6. Specify the evaluation strategy in terms of purpose, outcomes, timeline, budget, methods, and so forth. 7. Identify the data collection methods and timeline. Data collection was discussed extensively in Chapter 5. The selected methods should match the evaluation’s purpose. 8. Specify the data analysis procedures and logistics (covered in Chapter 5). However, the analysis should be focused on making decisions and changes to the interven- tion, not on diagnosing the problem. 9. Define the criteria for judging the intervention. This can be somewhat subjec- tive unless the metrics are defined in advance. For example, if the intervention were aimed at improving employee retention, would a consultant measure simply whether it improved or look for a certain benchmark (such as 10\%) to deem it successful? 10. Complete the evaluation, formulate recommendations, and prepare and present the evaluation report. These steps mirror the data analysis steps presented in Chapter 5 and the feedback meeting strategies in Chapter 4. © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.1Defining Evaluation in Action Research 11. Respond to recommendations for changes as appropriate. Adapted from Planning Programs for Adult Learners: A Practical Guide for Educators, Trainers, and Staff Developers (pp. 255– 256), by R. S. Caffarella, 1994, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. © John Wiley & Sons. Table 6.2 compares the action research model used in this book to Rossi, Lipsey, and Free- man’s and Caffarella and Daffron’s evaluation steps. These models vary in terms of detail and number of steps, but they essentially follow the three phases of action research: planning, doing, and checking. Evaluation is essentially conducting research within an action research process, as shown by these three examples. Table 6.2: Comparing the action research model to evaluation models Action research model Rossi, Lipsey, and Free- man evaluation model Caffarella and Daffron evaluation model Planning 1. Assess intervention cost and efficiency. 2. Assess intervention outcome or impact. 1. Secure support for the evaluation from stakeholders. 2. Identify individuals who can be involved in planning and overseeing the evaluation. 3. Define the evaluation’s purpose and how the results will be used. 4. Specify what will be judged and formulate the evaluation questions. 5. Determine who will supply the evidence. 6. Specify the evaluation strategy in terms of purpose, outcomes, timeline, budget, methods, and so forth. 7. Identify the data collection methods and timeline. 8. Specify the data analysis procedures and logistics. 9. Determine the specific timeline and the budget needed to conduct the evaluation. Doing 3. Assess intervention implementation. 10. Complete the evaluation, formulate recommendations, and prepare and present the evaluation report. Checking 4. Assess intervention design and theory. 5. Assess need for the intervention. 11. Respond to recommendations for changes as appropriate. Caffarella and Daffron’s steps are comprehensive, covering the key tasks that must be com- pleted during an intervention’s evaluation. However, it may not always be possible to follow these clearly articulated steps; evaluation can be unpredictable and may present challenges that are often unanticipated. For example, if an implementation has been challenging, a cli- ent may balk at the evaluation out of fear of receiving negative feedback; on the other hand, employees may be reluctant to participate if trust levels are low. Thus, it helps to pay atten- tion to relevant dynamics and expect the unexpected. Evaluation provides critical information about an intervention’s impact both during and after its implementation. Thus, no matter what model is followed for performing an evaluation, it is essential to begin planning it before the intervention is well underway. A consultant’s job is © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.2Types and Categories of Evaluation to ensure that evaluation is integrated into the OD process from start to finish. Unfortunately, evaluation is often overlooked in favor of wanting simply to take action on the problem, and too many consultants consider their work finished once the intervention has occurred. In other cases, consultants go about evaluation haphazardly. If they cannot demonstrate that their action was effective, however, they risk undermining their client’s confidence in the OD effort, fail to permanently solve the problem, and put themselves at risk of repeating similar mistakes on future assignments. 6.2 Types and Categories of Evaluation Theorists have proposed different types and categories for evaluation. This section identifies some of these different approaches. Types of Evaluation Evaluation can be either formative or summative, depending on the intervention’s goal (Scriven, 1967, 1991a, 1991b). Scriven is considered a leader in evaluation; you can view one of his lectures by visiting the media links provided at the end of this chapter. Formative Evaluation Making changes to an implementation that is already in progress is called doing a forma- tive evaluation. Formative evaluation is concerned with improving and enhancing the OD process rather than judging its merit. The following types of questions might be asked when conducting a formative evaluation: • What are the intervention’s strengths and weaknesses? • How well are employees progressing toward desired outcomes? • Which employee groups are doing well/not so well? • What characterizes the implementation problems being experienced? • What are the intervention’s unintended consequences? • How are employees responding? What are their likes, dislikes, and desired changes? • How are the changes being perceived culturally? • How well is the implementation conforming to budget? • What new learning or ideas are emerging? For example, consider an intervention focused on changing reporting relationships as part of a work redesign in a manufacturing plant. A consultant might discover that some of the new arrangements do not make sense once implemented. These might therefore be modified as Consider This Think of an evaluation in which you have participated. How well did it follow the plan–do– check steps? © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.2Types and Categories of Evaluation the work redesign progresses. Asking questions pertaining to the problems, the employees’ perspectives, their likes and dislikes, and so forth yields information that helps tweak and improve the process. Formative evaluation is generally ongoing throughout the implementation. Summative Evaluation Undertaking evaluation at the end of the OD implementation, with the goal of judging whether the change had the intended out- comes and impact, is called summative evaluation. Summative evaluation is also known as outcome or impact evaluation because it allows the intervention’s overall effectiveness to be ascertained. A consul- tant can then decide whether to continue or terminate it (Patton, 1997). The following types of questions might be asked by the consultant, management, or an external evaluator when conducting a summative evaluation: • Did the intervention work? • Did the intervention satisfactorily address the performance gap? • Should the intervention be continued or expanded? • How well did the intervention stick to the budget? Summative evaluations should follow four steps: 1. Select the criteria of merit—what are the sought metrics? 2. Set standards of performance—what level of resolution is sought? 3. Measure performance—conduct the evaluation. 4. Synthesize results into a judgment of value. (Shadish, Cook, & Leviton, 1991, pp. 85–94) Adequate levels of both formative and summative evaluation must be incorporated into the OD process. Failure to conduct formative evaluation leads to missed opportunities to adjust and improve on the implementation as it is in progress. Omitting the summative evaluation means never learning the intervention’s outcomes and impact or lacking adequate data on which to base future decisions. Consider This What types of formative evaluation have you participated in or observed? Vgajic/E+/Getty Images Plus An OD consultant must always assess interventions to learn the outcomes and impact, which serve as a foundation for future decisions. © 2020 Zovio, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.2Types and Categories of Evaluation Cervero’s Evaluation Categories Cervero (1985) identified seven categories of evaluation for planners of educational pro- grams that have relevance for OD. His list has been adapted for OD interventions in terms of categories of evaluation: 1. Intervention design and implementation. This could be either formative or summa- tive, because the design and intervention are assessed for fit and impact. Imagine implementing a new performance appraisal process. Formative evaluation might involve piloting the evaluation and evaluating how well it worked for both employees and supervisors. The performance appraisal would then be modified and imple- mented. Summative evaluation in this case might examine whether the new perfor- mance appraisal process improved performance, satisfaction, and learning. 2. Employee participation. This type of evaluation assesses employees’ level of involve- ment in the intervention. This could also be formative or summative. In the case of performance evaluation, a consultant might examine the level of involvement and seek feedback from employees. A summative evaluation might evaluate whether the level of employee participation was adequate and whether it yielded positive outcomes. 3. Employee satisfaction. This type of evaluation assesses employees’ level of satis- faction in the intervention. This could also be formative or summative. In the case of performance evaluation, a consultant might examine the level of satisfaction with the new performance appraisal or its implementation process. A summative evaluation might evaluate how satisfied employees are once the new performance appraisal system is in place. 4. Acquisition of new knowledge, skills, and attitudes. This type of evaluation measures learning … BUS370.W3A1.04.2021 Description: Total Possible Score: 6.00 Identifies the Type of Change Occurring Total: 1.00 Distinguished - Clearly and accurately identifies the type of change occurring. Proficient - Identifies the type of change occurring. Minor details are slightly unclear or inaccurate. Basic - Vaguely identifies the type of change occurring. Relevant details are unclear and/or inaccurate. Below Expectations - Attempts to identify the type of change occurring; however, significant details are unclear and inaccurate. Non-Performance - The identification of the type of change occurring is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions. Develops the Action Research Process Total: 1.00 Distinguished - Comprehensively develops the action research process. Proficient - Develops the action research process. Minor details are missing. Basic - Partially develops the action research process. Relevant details are missing. Below Expectations - Attempts to develop the action research process; however, significant details are missing. Non-Performance - The development of the action research process is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions. Selects the Diagnostic Process for the Planning Phase and Defends the Reasoning for the Choice Total: 1.00 Distinguished - Selects the appropriate diagnostic process for the planning phase and clearly defends the reasoning for the choice. Proficient - Selects the diagnostic process for the planning phase and defends the reasoning for the choice. Minor details are missing or slightly unclear. Basic - Selects a somewhat appropriate diagnostic process for the planning phase and partially defends the reasoning for the choice. Minor details are missing and/or slightly unclear. Below Expectations - Attempts to select a diagnostic process for the planning phase and defend the reasoning for the choice; however, significant details are missing and unclear. Non-Performance - The selection of a diagnostic process for the planning phase and defense of the reasoning for the choice are either nonexistent or lack the components described in the assignment instructions. Classifies the Intervention Type Total: 0.50 Distinguished - Accurately classifies the intervention type. Proficient - Classifies the intervention type. Minor details are inaccurate. Basic – Vaguely classifies the intervention type. Relevant details are inaccurate. Below Expectations - Attempts to classify the intervention type; however, significant details are inaccurate. Non-Performance - The classification of the intervention type is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions. Defines How to Implement the Intervention Type Total: 0.50 Distinguished - Thoroughly defines how to implement the intervention type. Proficient - Defines how to implement the intervention type. Minor details are missing. Basic - Minimally defines how to implement the intervention type. Relevant details are missing. Below Expectations - Attempts to define how to implement the intervention type; however, significant details are missing. Non-Performance - The definition of how to implement the intervention type is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions. Utilizes the Action Research Checking Phase to Validate the Change Outcome Total: 0.50 Distinguished - Completely utilizes the Action Research Checking phase to validate the change outcome. Proficient - N/A Basic - Partially utilizes the Action Research Checking phase to validate the change outcome. Relevant details are incomplete. Below Expectations - N/A Non-Performance - The utilization of the Action Research Checking phase to validate the change outcome is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the assignment instructions. Written Communication: Control of Syntax and Mechanics Total: 0.25 Distinguished - Displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains no errors and is very easy to understand. Proficient - Displays comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains only a few minor errors and is mostly easy to understand. Basic - Displays basic comprehension of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains a few errors which may slightly distract the reader. Below Expectations - Fails to display basic comprehension of syntax or mechanics, such as spelling and grammar. Written work contains major errors which distract the reader. Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions. Written Communication: APA Formatting Total: 0.25 Distinguished - Accurately uses APA formatting consistently throughout the paper, title page, and reference page. Proficient - Exhibits APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout contains a few minor errors.  Basic - Exhibits limited knowledge of APA formatting throughout the paper. However, layout does not meet all APA requirements.  Below Expectations - Fails to exhibit basic knowledge of APA formatting. There are frequent errors, making the layout difficult to distinguish as APA. Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions. Intro, Thesis, & Conclusion Total: 0.25 Distinguished - The paper is logically organized with a well-written introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion. Proficient - The paper is logically organized with an introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion. One of these requires improvement. Basic - The paper is organized with an introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion. The introduction, thesis statement, and/or conclusion require improvement. Below Expectations - The paper is loosely organized with an introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion. The introduction, thesis statement, and/or conclusion require much improvement. Non-Performance - The introduction, thesis statement, and conclusion are either nonexistent or lack the components described in the assignment instructions. Written Communication: Page Requirement Total: 0.25 Distinguished - The length of the paper is equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages.  Proficient - The length of the paper is nearly equivalent to the required number of correctly formatted pages.  Basic - The length of the paper is equivalent to at least three quarters of the required number of correctly formatted pages. Below Expectations - The length of the paper is equivalent to at least one half of the required number of correctly formatted pages.    Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions. Written Communication: Resource Requirement Total: 0.50 Distinguished - Uses more than the required number of scholarly sources, providing compelling evidence to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment. Proficient - Uses the required number of scholarly sources to support ideas. All sources on the reference page are used and cited correctly within the body of the assignment. Basic - Uses less than the required number of sources to support ideas. Some sources may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are used within the body of the assignment. Citations may not be formatted correctly. Below Expectations - Uses an inadequate number of sources that provide little or no support for ideas. Sources used may not be scholarly. Most sources on the reference page are not used within the body of the assignment. Citations are not formatted correctly. Non-Performance - The assignment is either nonexistent or lacks the components described in the instructions. Powered by