Description
PART 2 THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT
TOP-
MANAGEMENT TEAM AT ORTIV GLASS CORPORATION
he Ortiv Glass Corporation produces and meetings were often interrupted by “urgent” markets plate glass for use primarily in phone messages for various members, includthe construction and automotive industries. ing the plant manager, and in most cases, the
The multiplant company has been involved recipient would leave the meeting hurriedly to in OD for several years and actively supports par- respond to the call. ticipative management practices and employee The group had problems arriving at clear involvement programs. Ortiv’s organization design decisions on particular issues. Discussions is relatively flexible, and the manufacturing often rambled from topic to topic, and memplants are given freedom and encouragement bers tended to postpone the resolution of proto develop their own organization designs and blems to future meetings. This led to a backlog approaches to participative management. It of unresolved issues, and meetings often recently put together a problem-solving group lasted far beyond the two-hour limit. When made up of the top-management team at its group decisions were made, members often newest plant.
reported problems in their implementation. The team consisted of the plant manager and Members typically failed to follow through on the managers of the five functional departments agreements, and there was often confusion reporting to him: engineering (maintenance), about what had actually been agreed upon. administration, human resources, production. Everyone expressed dissatisfaction with the and quality control. In recruiting managers for team meetings and their results. the new plant, the company selected people Relationships among team members were with good technical skills and experience in their cordial yet somewhat strained, especially respective functions. It also chose people with when the team was dealing with complex some managerial experience and a desire to issues in which members had varying opinions solve problems collaboratively, a hallmark of par- and interests. Although the plant manager pubticipative management. The team was relatively licly stated that he wanted to hear all sides of new, and members had been working together the issues, he often interrupted the discussion for only about five months.
or attempted to change the topic when memThe team met formally for two hours each bers openly disagreed in their views of the week to share pertinent information and to problem. This interruption was typically foldeal with plantwide issues affecting all of the lowed by an awkward silence in the group. In departments, such as safety procedures, inter- many instances, when a solution to a pressing departmental relations, and personnel prac- problem did not appear forthcoming, members tices. Members described these meetings as either moved on to another issue or they inforinformative but often chaotic in terms of deci- mally voted on proposed options, letting majorsion making. The meetings typically started ity rule decide the outcome. Members rarely late as members straggled in at different discussed the need to move on or vote; rather, times. The latecomers generally offered these behaviors emerged informally over time excuses about more pressing problems occur- and became acceptable ways of dealing with ring elsewhere in the plant. Once started, the difficult issues.
solving among the departments in the plant. The structure also seems to provide team members with the freedom necessary to regulate their task behaviors in the meetings. They can adjust their behaviors and interactions to suit the flow of the discussion and problem-solving process.
Assignment Question(s):
Please read the case study entitled as Top Management Team at Ortiv Glass Corporation. available in your textbook Organization Development & Change 10th edition by Cummings, T and Worley, C and answer the following questions:
Q.1Why it is important for a group design to be congruent with the larger organization design. Support your answer using twoexamples from this case study (1.5 marks) (Words 200-300)
Q.2How the group designof Ortivs Glass Corporationcouldpositively or negatively impact on the diagnosis of design components at the individual level.(1.5Marks) (Words 200-300)
Part 2:
Discussion questions: please refer to chapter five in your textbook and answer the following questions on the basis of your understanding:
Q.3 Discuss why alignment is fundamental to diagnosis in OD. (1 mark) (Words 150-200)
Q.4 Discuss how the rate of change and complexity of environments could influence organizations. (1 mark) (Words 150-200)