Organizational Diagnostic Model Case Study Examples
[Organizational Diagnostics Models]
Whole food market is American food supermarket specialized in natural and organic foods. The company is experiencing some major issues related to their working environment (Johnston, 2008). Organizational diagnostic model exists for improving the organizational effectiveness. Diagnostics strategies are designed to implement appropriate change strategies within an organization. Organizations look at these diagnostic models as specific tools for implementing the desired change strategies in the organizations. The paper aims at preparing a brief review of the major diagnostic models of organizations. It will further focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the each model for assessing diagnostic strategies. Based on this evaluation, the best model will be selected and recommended for improving the situation for determining various aspects of whole food market (Falletta, 2006).
Overview of the organizational diagnostic models
A brief overview of the major organizational Diagnostic models has been presented in their chronological order.
Force field analysis (1951)
Kurt Lewis presented this model for analyzing and managing organizational problems in 1951. The model is built upon change processes and social implications of the change process. According to this model change process occur simultaneously in dynamic organizations (Thomas, 1985).
Simple to understand and easy to visualize
Identifies both driving and retaining forces in the organization
It requires full participation and can’t be applicable where there is no full participation.
The results many rise consensus among groups in organizations.
This model specifies particular variables like organizational structure, technological variables, and human resource considerations into account. According to this model a change in variable will affect the other variables. This model ignored the role of external environment in changing any of the organizational variables (Orlikowski & Hoffman, 1997).
It decides whether a change will be feasible for organization or not.
It ignores the role of external environment in bringing about the change in organizational variables.
Likert system analysis
This framework includes another variable i.e., motivation, communication, interaction, control in managing organizational changes (Falletta, 2006). Likert’s framework is based on four systems.
Most universal method for collecting responses
It is also quick, efficient and cheap method
It takes time to construct good attitude scales.
Difficult to achieve internal consistency of scale
Weisbord’s six box model (1976)
The model was presented by Weisbord, who presented model of organizational life. The six broad categories of the model are purposes, structures, relationships, leadership, rewards and helpful mechanism. The model also stated the role of external model in bringing about the change in any organization.
Most comprehensive model including major internal and external factors of change
It poses diagnostic questions for each model
Gap between formal and informal systems
Fit between organization and environment
Omits interconnection between different boxes
In short, Weisbord model proposes questions regarding internal issues of the organization. Then organizations have to choose ‘what is’ and’ what should be’(Falletta, 2006).
The congruence model for organizational analysis
Congruence model is more comprehensive model for measuring organizational analysis. It is similar to Leavitt’s model and Weisbord’s six box model. The model worked on some inputs which flow towards outputs in accordance with open system theory. The model is based upon certain assumptions. These are
Organizations are open social systems
Organizations are dynamic entities
Organizational behaviors occur at different level. These are individual, group and system levels.
Interaction occur between different groups
Inputs may be environment, resources, history and strategy. System components are task, individuals, organizational arrangements and informal organizations. Outputs of this model are individual behaviors and their effects, group and intergroup behaviors and system functioning. This model also elaborated congruence at different levels i.e., individual, organization, group level (Falletta, 2006).
Provides rigorous framework for analyzing organizations
It helps the organization in managing change effectively
Application of model could be long and involves high cost
Absence of direct way for incorporating group dynamics
Absence of fit between different components may affect the performance
McKinsey 7S Framework
McKinsey model is regarded as most effective and easily recognizable model in managing changes in business organizations. The author of the model recognizes change variables in the form of seven layers. These layers are style, staff, systems, strategy, structure, skills, and shared values(Falletta, 2006).
All parts are interrelated so it is necessary to address all parts
Effective way of diagnostic management
Provides guide for organizational change management
It ignores differences
Companies adopted it experience high degree of failure
The Burke Litwin model
It is newer model for managing organizational changes. Developed by Litwin and others and refined by Burke in 1980s.The model included several key features exceptional to previously discussed models. The model hypothesized several linkages that effect organizational performance externally and internally (Falletta, 2006).
Integrates major change factors
It maintains the hierarchy and causality between elements
Distinguished between set of variables that are influencing and influenced.
Changes are initiated by internal factors rather than external factors
Issues of the Whole food markets
The company is facing many issues while managing to grow and progress in competitive business world (Herbin & Humphrey, 2010).
Ineffective distribution channels
One of the major issues is that their distribution channel is not as most effective and efficient as of their national competitors. The major competitors like Starbucks are having efficient distribution channels which allow being the leading in whole food industry (Herbin & Humphrey, 2010).Whole Food Market Inc lacks that system of distribution of goods. The company is unable to open new stores to provide their products on larger scale. Until 2006, they could open only three stores that jeopardize their existence in whole food industry.
Differentiation competitive advantage
It is very important for organizations to maintain their competitive advantage. Whole Food Market Inc needs to differentiate their product offering as a mean for gaining enough competitive advantage in the business. Their differentiation advantage has lowered down due to competition encroachment at niche level (Herbin & Humphrey, 2010).
Appropriate model of change:
It is necessary for Whole Food Market Inc to bring about some organizational changes to cater the marketing challenges. As discuses above company is facing issues regarding their distribution channels and competitive advantage strategies. These issues should be addressed. This suggested that there is need to adopt a change management system which can change the system externally as well as internally. So the best model which can address these issues efficiently is the Burke Litwin Model.
As discussed above, this model can successfully investigate the internal as well external factors influencing the organizations. Whole Food Market Inc is facing challenges internally and externally. Internally there is need to improve the distribution mechanism while externally it should compete with competitors successful strategies.
Recommendations to diagnose issue identified
Burke Litwin Model suggested that there are some external and internal factors which are crucial for organizational success in the long run (Burke & Litwin, 2009).
Open new stores
As per discussion, issue of distribution could be improved by changing the distribution mechanism. One major recommendation to improve this mechanism is to open new stores. There is need to introduce new management and leadership. Burke Litwin model suggested that there is direct link with strategy and performance. External environment works as moderating variable in that case. Leadership an important factor for enhancing company performance. For managing efficient distribution mechanism, company can open new stores. Several studies also suggested that leadership is also major factor for improving organizational performance.
Efficient promotional campaigns (Reward system)
Company need to differentiate its products from its competitors. It is necessary that customer of Whole Food Market Inc should realize that they are getting some exceptional goods from Whole Food Market Inc. If company did not provide them exceptional products then customers will not buy as much as they buy from Wal-Mart or Kroger. This will improve their share in whole food market. Consequently Whole Food Market Inc will be able to gain competitive advantage in the whole food industry.
A study by Kerr and Slocum (1987) suggested that there is association between reward systems of industries like food industry. Such reward systems are also parts of Burke Litwin model of change. Kerr and Sloccum (1987) also interpret that such award systems like promotional campaigns have long lasting impacts on the organizational performances. Whole Food Market must incorporate reward system for maintaining competitive advantage in whole food industry.
Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (2009). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Organizational change: A comprehensive reader, 273-299.
Falletta, S. V. (2006). Organization Diagnostic Models: A review and synthesis.
Harbin, J. L., & Humphrey, P. (2010). Whole Foods Market, Inc. Journal of Case Research in Business and Economics, 2, 1-17.
Johnston, J. (2008). The citizen-consumer hybrid: ideological tensions and the case of Whole Foods Market. Theory and Society, 37(3), 229-270.
Kerr, J., & Slocum, J. W. (1987). Managing corporate culture through reward systems. The Academy of Management Executive, 1(2), 99-107.
Orlikowski, W., & Hoffman, D. (1997). An Imporvisational Model for Change Managment: The Case of Groupware Technologies. Inventing the Organizations of the 21st Century, MIT, Boston, MA, 265-282.
Thomas, J. (1985). Force field analysis: a new way to evaluate your strategy.Long Range Planning, 18(6), 54-59.