The Dynamics of Midstream Consulting

The Dynamics of Midstream Consulting W. Warner Burke Miriam Javitch Janine Waclawski Allan H. Church The prevalence of change in the business world today has resulted in the needfor organizational consultants to learn new skills and approaches to working with their client systems. Typically, this process includes integrating consulting efforts with preexisting client initiatives, efforts, and directives, a trend called midstream consulting. After an overview of the changing nature of the field, two case examples are used to help illustrate the issues and concerns involved in midstream consulting efforts. The first case describes issues that arose from the authors' involvement in an organization in the midst of a major reengineering and restructuring plan, and the second concerns the integration of a large-scale survey assessment with existing organizational initiatives regarding leadership and team spirit. Each case is described in terms of the context of existing organizational change initiatives, the practitioners' role in the consulting efforts, and subsequent outcomes and implications arising from the process and the relationship.

If you have a history of consulting with organizations, perhaps you have noticed. Organizational consulting is not what it used to be. First, the client does not wait for us to get there. He or she is already under way with change activities and, so far, without our advice! What organizational consulting used to be was what the textbooks taught us; that is, the client waits for us to make our entry, to establish a contract with the client for our services, and then we go to work: gathering data, analyzing the data, determining a diagnosis, formulating potential interventions, providing feedback, facilitating interventions that have been agreed to by the client, evaluating the degree of success of the intervention^), and moving on to our next as-

Teachers College, Columbia University W. Warner Burke Associates Inc.

signment (with, it is hoped, the same client, since we know that 80% of our business is an extension of our current client work). Unfortunately, this textbook process is based on an assumption that our client is not going to do anything about organizational change until we get there and provide the requisite expertise. We may indeed possess considerable expertise, but these days, so do our clients, or at least they believe that they are knowledgeable and are therefore acting. They are typically underway with some kind of change effort, call it reengineering or new business planning, that suggests some organizational redesign of structure or perhaps a strategic alliance or joint venture with another organization, and we as consultants are expected to get on board now and help them manage the change that is already taking place. The likelihood is that the change effort is not going very well—that's why we were asked to drop by—and they have forgotten about or chosen to ignore for the time being such things as the organization's culture, leader commitment, the technical support (read software) required to pull the change off successfully, clarity of roles and responsibilities for those involved, a com-

W. Warner Burke is with the Department of Organization and Leadership, Teachers College, Columbia University. Miriam Javitch, Janine Waclawski, and Allan H. Church are with W. Warner Burke Associates Inc., Pelham, New York. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Allan H. Church, W. Warner Burke Associates Inc., 201 Wolfs Lane, Pelham, New York 10803. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet [email protected].

Copyright 1997 by the Educational Publishing Foundation and the Division of Consulting Psychology, 1061-4087/97/S3.00 Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 49, No. 2,83-95

83

mensurate change in the reward system, large-scale employee involvement activities, and so forth. The point is this: Rare today is the opportunity to start at the beginning, to get the client to sit still while we collect our data and to wait for our diagnosis and recommendations for interventions. The cases presented in this article illustrate this point. In each instance the client organization was already under way with significant change. We had to get on board and attempt to have an influence, and perhaps even provide some change in direction, while the client organization was traveling rapidly down a path that we had not been involved in creating, and mistakes were being made daily. Second, change management consulting is very hot today. Consequently, as Jimmy Durante used to lament back in the days of black-and-white television, "Everybody wants to get in on the act!" In other words, competition is very fierce. Rarely today are you the only one being considered by the client. The skill required today prior to entry (i.e., establishing contact and rapport with the client) is selling. And often the person to whom you are making your pitch is not the ultimate client but rather a "screener," so the client will have to choose only from among two or at most three. Thus, how do you sell yourself, or your team, and how do you sell the soft stuff that is so endemic to change management: culture change, conflict resolution, behavior change of managers, developing leaders, changing the reward system, maintaining motivation and morale under conditions of ambiguity if not chaos, and so forth? Being clear about the consulting expertise and competencies that we possess and how to differentiate ourselves from other consultants are key ingredients of the selling process. Also knowing how to frame our presentation via theory and/or a model, whether directly included in our pitch or not, is critical. Third is speed. Whatever it is that you can provide as a consultant, the client wants

84

it now. Data gathering? Maybe, but be quick about it. And don't you already know what needs to be done without all of this elaborate interviewing, conducting focus groups, and administering this questionnaire that is too long? After all, you've seen all of this before, haven't you?These client comments and questions are uttered in one breath while in the next clients are telling you how unique they are as an organization and how special the problems are that they are trying to solve with the changes that they already have under way. They just want you to help them do what they know needs to be done, and to do it rapidly. "Time is money" and other phrases that you have heard before are expressed in the interest of creating a sense of urgency. We are therefore expected to respond, to get on board quickly and begin to deliver results while we are gathering our precious data for diagnosis. In other words, we are having to learn such new consulting skills as (a) using interventions as a form of further data gathering and diagnosis, (b) involving many people simultaneously in the change effort (large group interventions; see, e.g., Bunker & Alban, 1997), and (c) conducting action learning activities (i.e., helping clients to solve current organizational problems and at the same time to learn more about group process and leadership). Now let us consider two actual consulting cases that help to illustrate some aspects of the points made so far.

Case 1: Getting Caught in the Cross-Currents of Reengineering and Restructuring Recently we began working with a large nonprofit organization that produces testing and educational materials. At the time, this organization was in the midst of two strategic change initiatives intended to respond to increasing competitive pressures that it faced in the marketplace. Specifically, competitors were entering a market in which,

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research Spring 1997

historically, this organization had a virtual ing, and restructure the new division so that monopoly. Furthermore, customers were de- employees could develop testing materials manding testing materials that could be de- for all customers using the new test creation veloped more quickly, could be administered process. The committee needed to complete via computer technology, and would cost these tasks over the course of 6 to 7 months. no more than the current testing materials A leader for the new division would not be produced. As a result of these pressures, this selected for at least 3 more months. In the organization was beginning to lose a sig- meantime, an interim merger team chairman nificant portion of its market share to emerg- was assigned. This person worked in an exing competitors who were more flexible, ecutive staff capacity not associated with either of the two divisions but had great fafaster, and less expensive. In response to these pressures, two major miliarity with the two divisions and their strategic initiatives were undertaken to distinct work processes. streamline the test development process used Three organizational issues quickly surto create and produce testing materials for faced as this merger planning team began its customers. One initiative involved re- work. First and foremost, there was the obviengineering the current test creation process, ous animosity between the merger planning which produced high-quality testing mate- team and the test creation reengineering rials but was slow, cumbersome, and very team. The merger planning team expected expensive. The second initiative focused on the reengineering team to provide a strucmerging into one division two divisions that, ture for the new test creation process that the at the time, worked separately to develop merger planning team could then use as the and produce testing materials for different basis for merging the two divisions and plangroups of customers. These two divisions ning the move and physical layout of emused different work processes to create tests ployees in the new building. Unfortunately, for their customers and therefore had very the reengineering team did not have a welldistinct cultures. The ultimate goal of these defined organizational structure for the new two initiatives was to create a merged divi- test creation process and sought input from sion that would move into a new building so the merger planning team to help with dethat employees from the two old divisions veloping the new structure. The merger plancould be colocated and reorganized to work ning team was resistant to participating in with the newly reengineered test creation developing the new structure because of the process. These restructuring and reengi- overwhelming sentiment of the employees neering projects were intended to stream- in the two divisions that this reengineered line the organization so that it could offer process might in fact damage their ability to customers a larger volume of new testing create and produce the high level of quality materials in a shorter period of time at prices testing products they currently believed they that were competitive with those offered by provided for customers. Because their emother companies. There were no intentions ployees felt so intensely negative about the to lay off any employees currently working reengineered process, the merger planning in the two divisions. team did not want to be too closely associInitially, we were engaged to facilitate ated with the reengineering team. the weekly meetings of the merger planning team, which was composed of the directors who ran the two divisions that would be merged. This committee was charged by the executive vice president to merge the two divisions, move people into the new build-

The second issue concerned the fact that employees in the two divisions were also very resistant to the merger. Each division had distinct work processes that it felt were superior, and neither division wanted to be subsumed into the other division's structure

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research Spring 1997 '

85

and work processes, let alone those dictated by the reengineered process. Finally, the third issue was that there was no leader championing the importance of both these change efforts and motivating employees across the two divisions to work together to make this happen. It became obvious that the organizational change work that had to be done in this organization was far more complex than simply facilitating weekly merger planning team meetings. What we were really dealing with were 400 employees who were skeptical and afraid of the two major change initiatives that were intended to help them work better and be able to respond more effectively to the needs of their customers. They were resistant to both the merger and the reengineering processes because both initiatives were about to change radically the way many of them had been working for more than 20 years. Individual employees felt a loss of control over the nature of the work they would be doing and how they would be expected to do it. Their fundamental work identities were being destroyed, and they did not have a clear understanding of what their future work life would be.

Understanding the Causes of Employee Resistance to Change Based on Lewin's three-stage model for change (Lewin, 1958), this organization was in the midst of the second stage of change, movement, where actions are taken to change the structure and social systems from their current state to a new level of operating (Burke, 1994). In our case, the organization was pursuing two major initiatives to change significantly the way the organization was structured and the processes by which employees did their work. In order to complete successfully this second stage of change, employees involved in the change effort needed to take ownership of the changes, commit to working to achieve the future state, and be-

86

gin letting go of the current state (Beckhard & Harris, 1987). However, as described earlier, employees were extremely resistant to both the merger and the reengineered process. In the midst of the change efforts, employees felt a lack of control over their personal destinies and did not clearly understand how these efforts would affect their day-today work lives. They were unable to let go of the current state that they understood so well and liked in order to embrace a future state that was not yet well conceived or articulated very clearly. Through a series of interviews we conducted with executives in the two divisions, it became apparent that there were two primary reasons for the difficulty employees were having in embracing these changes and moving toward a new organizational form and a new work process. The first reason concerned the fact that these two divisions had never engaged in unfreezing, the first stage in Lewin's change process (Lewin, 1958). During this stage, members of the organization are provided with compelling data and feedback from a variety of sources including surveys that show what types of problems, including competitive and customer pressures, are driving the need for change. By confronting the issues creating the need for change in the organization, employees are able to begin letting go of the current state and to decide what change initiatives need to be pursued in order to achieve a future state that will deal with the problems and issues that have been identified. Because employees in the two divisions had never participated in an unfreezing process in which they could begin to understand the compelling business case for pursuing the merger and the reengineering process, they still believed that their current structures and related work processes would provide customers with the highest quality products and service. The second reason employees were so resistant to these changes had to do with their lack of involvement in designing both the

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research Spring 1997

new test creation process and the new structure within which they would work. Both scholars and practitioners (Burke, 1994; Wiesbord, 1987) in the fields of organizational and social psychology have noted that people will support implementing what they help create. When everyone is involved in the decision process, carrying it out will occur more quickly and with significantly less resistance. In contrast, not involving employees sufficiently in decision-making processes seems to create a high level of resistance to change and is often a problem that arises when steering committees, representative teams, and other types of groups are charged with implementing strategic change initiatives (Bunker & Alban, 1997). In our case, while the merger planning team and the reengineering team were composed of members from the divisions that would undergo the change, these two teams did not engage the rest of the employees sufficiently in decision-making processes about changes that would significantly alter how people would be organized to do their work. It's not surprising, then, that employees' resistance to these change efforts was so high despite the fact that the changes were strategically sound.

Involving Employees in Determining Their Own Future Traditional approaches to change have involved processes in which change initiatives are cascaded down through the organization by a small group of executives (Bunker & Alban, 1997). Typically these executives recognize the business case for change and use this as a basis for determining which specific change initiatives the organization should implement. They then cascade these changes down through the organization by assigning various steering committees and representative committees to implement specific change efforts. Employees and external stakeholders (such as

customers and suppliers) are not usually involved in these upper-level discussions and decisions despite the fact that their input would be valuable in assessing what types of changes are necessary and in creating a shared vision of what the future should look like. In our case, employees from the two divisions were not involved in any of the strategic decisions that led to the two change projects under way. However, based on our assessment of employees' resistance to the merger and the reengineered process, the merger planning committee agreed that in order to implement effectively the merger and the new test creation process, employees from both divisions needed to be involved in designing their organization structure for the new division. This process of involving the whole system in redesigning its own structure is referred to as participative design and is based on work originally conducted by Fred and Merrelyn Emery (Emery, 1993). When the whole system is involved in the design process, workers take ownership of the new structure and related work processes because they will have to live with the decisions they make. This bottom-up approach to organizational design has been used successfully in a variety of organizational contexts (Emery, 1993) and is reported to engender a great deal of positive energy and motivation among employees to implement the structures they design. After introducing the merger planning committee to these concepts of participative design, we decided that this approach would help employees overcome their resistance to change by actively involving them in making significant decisions about their new organizational design and work processes. What follows is a description of the participative design process we used with employees from these two divisions. The design for this session is a modification of what the Emerys originally conceived, but both are grounded in the principle that involving employees in a process in which they

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research Spring 1997

87

decide how they should be organized to perform their work effectively will yield the best organizational design and create a group of employees who are truly motivated and empowered to implement and work in the new structure. The first step in this process is to decide who will attend the participative design session. It can be composed of all employees who will be affected or a large representative group of employees from all departments that will be involved in the restructuring. The merger planning team decided that because of financial constraints, representatives from each department would be selected to attend the design session. In total, 90 people attended the session. These participants were selected by allowing members of their departments to vote on who they wanted representing them at this design session. Departments from each of the two divisions were represented by three to six employees who were currently involved in creating test items and developing tests. This action is similar to one of the two experimental conditions of the Coch and French (1948) study. One condition was total participation and the other was representation. The study showed that total participation was superior to the representation condition, yet the latter was superior to the control condition (i.e., no involvement). Thus, while not optimal, this election of division representatives for the forthcoming session was certainly better than having no involvement at all. The second step in this process is to determine what minimal criteria the participants will need to meet and adhere to in designing their own structure. The merger planning committee provided a list of guidelines to the participants before the session was held specifying a set of criteria that had to be met. For example, one of the criteria was that each of the new departments created could not simply be composed of two separate groups representing the old structures and work processes that had existed in

the two separate divisions. Each of the new departments had to have a structure that integrated people from the two old divisions into a new structure that used the new reengineered test creation process to complete its work. The third step in the process is to determine how each group of representatives will follow through on their design recommendations after the session has been held. First, each group was required to report back to the departments it represented. Based on the feedback they received from other members of their departments, the representative group finalized a draft of the structure for their new department that they then presented to the merger planning team for final approval. An important ground rule was that the merger planning team would accept all recommended designs unless they violated the criterion of fully integrating the two old departments into one new department. Upon approval by the merger planning team, each representative group was charged with implementing the new structure and beginning the process of designing the work processes that the new department would use. The fourth step in the process is actually to hold the participative design session. This was a full-day session held in a large banquet room at a local hotel. The setup included 12 round tables that could seat up to 10 people. Table tents indicated which department was meeting at which table. Each table of participants had a flip chart and markers to use to develop their design ideas for presentation to the whole system. The session opened with each of the leaders from the two old divisions speaking for 15 minutes. They were each asked to provide a compelling and inspiring message to the participants about why the merger was important to the organization's overall success and why the participants' design recommendations were critical to making the merger and the new test creation process a success. Each leader spoke about letting go of the old ways and striving to achieve a

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research Spring 1997

new and better organization for all of the employees. They emphasized how important employee input was to this change effort and that they, as leaders, had no intention of imposing an organizational structure on their people. Following their opening presentations, the leaders left the room and came back only at the end of the day to hear each group's presentation on their new structure. The rest of the day was organized into three sessions. During the first session, each group worked alone to brainstorm a preliminary design for its new department. The second session involved each group presenting its design to the whole system and asking for feedback. These presentations were visual and colorful and quite entertaining. The energy in the room as each group presented was positive and supportive. Participants were excited and animated in their discussion. The purpose of these presentations was to give participants an opportunity to share and learn from each other. The third session provided groups with another opportunity to modify their designs based on the feedback they received on their own design and what they learned from other groups' presentations. During the last hour of the session, the leaders returned, and each group presented its final design to the leaders. The session concluded with closing remarks, the leaders focusing on their commitment to implementing the design recommendations presented and their gratitude for the work that had been accomplished by the participants. The participants applauded at the end of the day, and the sense of accomplishment was evident on their faces and in their conversations as they left the session.

Reflections on the Experience Feedback on the session from participants and members of the merger was extremely positive. There was a real sense of accomplishment and hope that the future changes would provide new and better ways of work-

ing for all employees who would make up the new division. Empowering employees in the two divisions to design and implement their new departmental structures helped to transform their negativism and resistance to change into a positive commitment for implementing a new organizational structure that would support the reengineered test creation process. Furthermore, by locating responsibility for an important change effort (restructuring) at the level at which the work gets done, we were able to help these two divisions create a systematic change that would assist the organization in achieving its longer term strategic goals.

Case 2: Integrating Organizational Initiatives With Assessment Midstream consulting efforts can be very much like walking into a movie that has started without you. If you are an experienced and savvy diagnostician, you can get a general sense of what events have preceded your arrival, but, like coming into the middle of a movie, you have undoubtedly missed some pretty important stuff. Given the preponderance of organizations undergoing change initiatives these days (Hamal & Prahalad, 1994), it is more than likely that, as a consultant, one can expect to become increasingly involved in midstream consulting efforts. In these types of efforts, the consultant is often faced with either (or sometimes both) of the following situations: (a) picking up the pieces of someone else's unsuccessful consulting attempts or (b) piecing together all of the current initiatives being undertaken by the organization with the hope of making sense of "what is going on" in order to determine his or her role. Regardless of a consultant's moment of entry into a given organizational system, one very important area that should be examined during any type of development or change initiative is the perceptions and attitudes of organizational members (i.e., employees,

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research Spring 1997

89

managers, and leaders). One of the most effective means for a consultant to gain a better understanding of a client organization is through the conduct of an organizational survey (Burke, Coruzzi, & Church, 1996). In addition to providing an excellent means of assessing employee perceptions and attitudes, surveys are useful in gathering other types of important information as well (e.g., population demographics, employees' understanding of organizational initiatives, progress toward the organization's mission). In this way, surveys can provide the midstream consultant with much of "the missing picture." In fact, data-based feedback, either through the use of large-scale organizational surveys or multisource feedback—that is, behavioral-based ratings of managers by their supervisor, peers, direct reports, and clientsis one of the most powerful and effective forms of facilitating positive change (e.g.. Church & Bracken, 1997; Church, Javitch, & Burke 1995; London, 1997; Nadler, 1977, Rea& Parker, 1992;Waclawski, 1996). Survey feedback, for example, was used after the SmithKline Beecham (SB) merger as a means to help monitor how much progress the company was making toward achieving its mission of creating a "simply better" culture. At the same time, multisource feedback from direct reports and/or peers was used to measure and reinforce the important behavioral practices and objectives required by all for the success of SB (Bauman, Jackson, & Lawrence, 1997; Burke & Jackson, 1991). In this way, feedback can be a powerful tool for change and can be used to stimulate and catalyze organizational transitions. The purpose of the next case description is to provide an actual example of how databased survey feedback can be used as a diagnostic and integrative tool to explore the relationships between management practices and employee outcomes in a midstream consulting effort. In particular, this case focuses on an analysis of survey data collected from a recent consulting effort in the marketing

90

division of a multinational Pharmaceuticals corporation. This analysis explores the impact of leadership and managerial behaviors on employee satisfaction, feelings of contribution, and perceptions of team spirit. By linking these behavioral assessments to attitude-based outcomes, we hope to demonstrate through application the utility of survey-based feedback as a tool for effective midstream consulting. Let us begin with the background of the consulting project.

Integrating Initiatives Through Diagnosis Recently, we were involved in a largescale survey project designed to explore a number of issues related to the overall effectiveness of a specific business unit (i.e., the marketing division) of a multinational pharmaceuticals corporation. Prior to our entry into the organization, the client had already made a significant investment in the study and development of organizational leadership based on Kouzes and Posner's (1987, 1990) leadership practices framework and their questionnaire, the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI). Based on these analyses, two different organizational improvement initiatives were identified: (a) enhancing seniorand middle-level leadership behaviors and (b) building a climate of teamwork or "team spirit" both at the work group level and across different groups within the organization. In addition, this particular business unit had recently embarked on a major change effort regarding its vision and direction for the future. Given the division's new vision and the importance and relevance of leadership and work group climate behaviors to the successful attainment of this vision (see Figure 1), the question was raised internally regarding the extent to which managers throughout the organization were actually engaging in these practices already. To this end, two separate internal task forces—one focused on leadership and one on team spirit— were initiated.They were each chartered with

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research Spring 1997

Employee Outcomes

Senior Managers

^ 1 ^ Managers

Work Group Members

Figure 1. A model for achieving organizational success.

investigating, diagnosing, and making recommendations for improvement. Previous analyses of in-house training and development efforts as well as other individual feedback data (using Kouzes and Posner's 1990 LPI) had already determined that perceptions of middle management leadership in the marketing division had decreased over time, most dramatically in the areas of "enabling others to act," "encouraging the heart," and "challenging the process." Moreover, earlier research and consulting work with this client had determined that the enabling others to act and encouraging the heart dimensions of the LPI had the strongest empirical relationship to employees' perceptions of empowerment. That is, the more managers engaged in these sets of practices, the more empowered their organization became (i.e., employees experienced increased levels of significance, competence, community, and enjoyment; Coruzzi & Burke, 1994). Given these declining trends in perceptions of leadership at the middle management ranks, along with the importance of building stronger teamwork and a work group climate for achieving the organization's desired future state while simultaneously achieving positive employee outcomes (e.g., satisfaction and team spirit), it became clear to us, entering the situation midstream, that a more advanced, data-based assessment and

intervention strategy was needed. Thus, a large-scale organizational survey assessment process was initiated as an integrating intervention that would (a) provide a "snapshot" of the entire marketing division across different departments and levels of management regarding the current practice of both leadership behaviors and managerial and member behaviors related to work group climate, (b) yield a quantitative assessment of employees' current levels of satisfaction and feelings of team spirit, and (c) provide an opportunity to determine empirically the relationships among various leadership, management, and work group member practices and employee attitudinal outcomes.

The Assessment Process Surveys were administered to all 2,500 employees of the marketing division. Completed response forms were returned to us for data processing and statistical analysis. This approach encouraged anonymity among the responses obtained. After a period of 4 weeks, we received 1,428 survey returns representing 57% of the total population. Although 43% of the population did not participate in the assessment process, the demographic characteristics of the returns obtained matched almost exactly those of the population statistics in terms of location (i.e., field sales versus internal staff), gender, and length of service with the organization. The 108-item assessment survey was developed in collaboration with members of both the Leadership and Team Spirit task forces. Questions were presented in four different sections pertaining to specific content areas of interest: (a) leadership practices, (b) senior management, (c) behaviors relating to work group climate, and (d) employee contribution, satisfaction, and team spirit outcomes. All survey items were rated on a 1 to 5 extent-practiced scale on which 1 represented to a very small or no extent and 5 represented to a very great extent. A definition of terms was provided at the beginning

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research Spring 1997

91

of the questionnaire booklet to ensure consistency of responses. The instructions requested that each item be answered on the basis of the respondent's present perceptions, experiences, and working conditions only. In addition to some assorted demographic items, a series of write-in questions were included at the end of the instrument for employees to identify any remaining issues or concerns.

Organizational Diagnosis Although the detailed results of this survey process can be found elsewhere (i.e., Church, Margiloff, & Coruzzi, 1995), some general findings and comments can be summarized. With respect to leadership, it was clear from the data collected, for example, that while middle managers were very good at modeling the values of ethics, integrity, and commitment in their day-to-day behaviors, their ability to empower their subordinates through coaching, development, increased autonomy, and support was indeed an area in need of significant improvement. Similarly, while the work group climate was one that reinforced high performance standards, members did not feel that they had enough opportunities or encouragement to participate actively and fully. In addition, but perhaps not surprising given the continual process of reengineering and restructuring occurring in many organizations such as this one, there were significant conflicts among different groups internally, particularly between staff and field personnel, with regard to cross-functional tasks and projects. Respondents reported experiencing a higher degree of team spirit in their immediate work groups, for example, than in the organization as a whole. In other words, while employees felt connected to their own teams, there was far less crossfunctional or cross-department team spirit being experienced. These low ratings of team spirit throughout the division signaled a larger systemic issue that needed

92

to be addressed in future change and development efforts as well. Senior management was also criticized quite heavily, as is the case in many large-scale diagnostic organizational surveys of this nature (Burke et al., 1996). In short, although the senior managers of the marketing division did receive relatively positive assessments for their ethics and integrity (a finding that was, interestingly enough, at odds with some of the more volatile write-in comments, such as "We perpetuate our successes despite the incompetencies and fears of our leaders"), employees were not impressed with their ability to work together as a team or to follow through with their actions. The last section of the survey contained items designed to examine employee attitudes and perceptions at the individual level; these items were used as outcomes for analysis purposes. Based on the data for these items, it was clear that while employees were highly satisfied with their own jobs, they were unhappy with their overall level of contribution to the organization; that is, they felt that their unique talents and abilities were being underused. This identified an important concern for the task force personnel and human resources staff to understand and address in their own respective areas. At the request of the client, we explored the data further using plots of various combinations of items such as high-low satisfaction and high-low contribution by different departments and locations (see Figure 2). This process allowed us to identify which areas or groups in the division were experiencing positive results—and therefore could be used for benchmarking purposes—and which were in need of the most attention. From here, best practices and recommendations for change could be developed. This is one of the ways in which survey data can be used most effectively.

Reflections on the Experience This case demonstrates the usefulness of organization surveys in midstream consult-

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research Spring 1997

Employee Satisfaction 4.401 Location 7

4.25

High

High Sat Low Contrib

High Sat High Contrib

4.10

Function 2 '

Location 1 Location 2 •

Function 1

3.95 Location 5 . Function 3 Location 3 .

3.80

Low Sat Low Contrib

Function'4 Function 5

Low Sat High Contrib

Function 6

Low Location 8

i* Location 6

3.65

Location 4 3.50 3.00

3.15

3.30

3.45

3.60

Low

3.75

3.90

4.05

4.20

High

Employee Contribution Figure 2. Sample analysis of business unit/location by employee outcomes. Sat = satisfaction; Contrib=contribution.

ing efforts. By showing, through application, the utility of survey-based feedback as a tool for organization change and development, it should be clear that organizational surveys can be a highly effective tool, catalyst, and integrative force for different types of change efforts. As a tool, surveys provide a means for assessing the current state of an organization with regard to employees' understanding of such areas as mission and strategy, degree of change being achieved, leadership and management practices, organizational culture, reward systems, commu-

nication flow, motivation, and individual needs and values (e.g., Burke et al., 1996). Surveys can also serve as a catalyst for change by (a) communicating desired messages (e.g., what the core values of the company should be, how managers are expected to behave) and (b) involving people in the development, interpretation, and action planning stages of the effort. They provide a powerful means for identifying, through statistical methods, specific levers for changing the conditions of people's lives in organizations. Finally, as an integrating mechanism, surveys

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research Spring 1997

93

are extremely valuable communication and assessment tools that bring to the forefront the key issues facing an organization in both the present and future. They should always be seen as a starting point (or perhaps a midpoint) in the process, however, not as the end result.

Burke, W. W., Coruzzi, C. A., & Church, A. H. (1996), The organizational survey as an intervention for change. In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Organizational surveys: Tools for assessment and change (pp. 41-66). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Burke, W. W., & Jackson, P. (1991). Making the SmithKline Beecham merger work. Human Resource Management, 30, 69-87. Church.A. H., & Bracken, D.W. (1997). AdvancSummary ing the state of the art of 360-degree feedback: Special issue editors' comments on the research Relative to the past, and not too many and practice of multirater assessment methods. Group & Organization Management, 22, years ago at that, organizational clients to149-161. day are more demanding. They want help Church, A. H., Javitch, M., & Burke, W. W. when they are stuck with a change effort that (1995). Enhancing professional service qualdoes not seem to be working as planned, and ity: Feedback is the way to go. Managing Serthey want the help now without a lot of divice Quality, 5(3), 29-33. agnostic work. They know what the problem Church, A, H., Margiloff, A., & Coruzzi, C. A. (1995). Using surveys for change: An applied is, and you as the consultant are supposed to example in a Pharmaceuticals organization. fix it, and be quick about it. Leadership and Organization Development These kinds of demands require new conJournal, /6(4), 3-11. sultant skills. We have suggested some, such Coch, L., & French, J. R. P. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, I, as large group interventions and sophisti512-532. cated uses of survey design and feedback. Coruzzi, C. A., & Burke, W. W. (1994, NovemWith these two cases, we have also attempted ber). The many facets of empowerment. Paper to illustrate some ways of consulting with presented at Empowerment in Organizations organizations that are somewhat down the Conference, Nottingham, England. stream of change and not at the source of the Emery, M. (Ed.). (1993). Participative design for participative democracy. Canberra, Ausstream (i.e., the beginning). Gareth Morgan tralian Capital Territory, Australia: Austra(1988), in his book of a few years back, Riding lian National University, Center for Continuthe Waves of Changes, wrote metaphorically ing Education. about what we as consultants are experienc- Hamal, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston: Harvard Business ing today. With most of our clients, we are School Press. not riding a wave that is already flowing, and we must not only surf the wave skillfully but, Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary at times, get inside it without drowning. things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1990). The LeadReferences ership Practices Inventory (LPI):A self-assessment and analysis. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer. Bauman, R. P., Jackson, P., & Lawrence, J. T. (1997). From promise to performance. Bos- Lewin, K. (1958). Group decision and social change. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & ton: Harvard Business School Press. E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psyBeckhard, R., & Harris, R.T. (1987). Organizachology (pp. 163-226). New York: Holt, tional transitions: Managing complex change Rinehart & Winston. (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bunker, B. B., &Alban, B.T. (1997). Large group London, M. (1997). Job feedback: Giving, seeking and using feedback for performance iminterventions: Engaging the whole system for provement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. rapid change, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Burke, W. W. (1994). Organization development: Morgan, G. (1988). Riding the waves of changes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. A process of learning and changing (2nd ed.). Nadler, D.A. (1977). Feedback and organizational Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

94

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research Spring 1997

development: Using data-based methods. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Rea, L. M., & Parker, R. A. (1992). Designing and conducting survey research: A comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Waclawski, J. (1996). Using organizational sur-

vey results to improve organizational performance. Managing Service Quality, 6(4), 53-56. Weisbord, M. R. (1987). Productive workplaces: Organizing and managing for dignity, meaning, and community. San Francisco: JosseyBass.

Instructions to Authors Authors should prepare manuscripts according to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (fourth ed.). Original, camera-ready artwork for figures is required. APA policy prohibits an author from submitting the same manuscript for concurrent consideration by two or more publications. Manuscripts and computer disks will not be returned so authors are strongly encouraged to retain copies. Masked Review. Manuscripts accepted by the Editor are submitted to masked review by members of the Editorial Review Board. To ensure anonymity, each manuscript should contain a separate title page with authors' names and affiliations, and these should not appear anywhere else on the manuscript. Reviewers are instructed to provide comments that will help authors revise and improve their manuscripts. The final decision regarding publication will be made by the Editor in consultation with the reviewers regarding the manuscript's quality, importance, and relevancy. Schedule and Submission Deadlines. Manuscripts for articles are accepted at any time. Authors should expect the review/revision process to take 6 to 9 months. Deadlines for submission of advertisements, divisional news, letters to the editor, etc., are January 1, April 1, June 1, and September 15 for the Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall issues, respectively. Send Manuscript Preparation. Manuscripts manuscripts and diskettes to the Incoming Edishould be submitted on 5-1/4-in. or 3-1/2-in. tor, Richard Diedrich, Hay/McBer, 116 HunDOS-formatted disks as well as on 8-1/2 by 11- tington Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 021165712. Phone (617) 425-4540. in. paper (three copies), double-spaced format.

Mission and Purpose. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research is published by the Educational Publishing Foundation in collaboration with the Division of Consulting Psychology of the American Psychological Foundation (Division 13). The mission of this journal is to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and ideas regarding the field of consultation to the commmunity of psychologists and others interested in consultation. Consulting Psychology Journal publishes articles in the following areas: (1) theoretical/conceptual articles with implications for application to consulting; (2) original research regarding consultation; (3) in-depth reviews of the research and literature in specific areas of consultation practice; (4) case studies that demonstrate the application of innovative consultation methods/strategies, that highlight critical or often overlooked issues for consultation, or that have unusual features that would be of general interest to other consultants; (5) articles on consultation practice development; and (6) articles addressing the unique issues encountered by consulting psychologists in applying their knowledge and skill to the problems of clients. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research also publishes special topic issues with guest editors on a regular basis. Topics for these issues are suggested by the members of Division 13.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research Spring 1997 '

95