Search results1 – 7 of 7
We argue that in order to address the contemporary challenges that organizations and societies are facing, the field of organization development (OD) requires frameworks…
We argue that in order to address the contemporary challenges that organizations and societies are facing, the field of organization development (OD) requires frameworks and skills to focus on the eco-system as the level of analysis. In a world that has become economically, socially, and technologically highly connected, approaches that foster the optimization of specific actors in the eco-system, such as individual corporations, result in sub-optimization of the sustainability of the natural and social system because there is insufficient offset to the ego-centric purposes of the focal organization. We discuss the need for OD to broaden focus to deal with technological advances that enable new ways of organizing at the eco-system level, and to deal with the challenges to sustainable development. Case examples from healthcare and the agri-foods industry illustrate the kinds of development approaches that are required for the development of healthy eco-systems. We do not suggest fundamental changes in the identity of the field of organizational development. In fact, we demonstrate the need to dig deeply into the open systems and socio-technical roots of the field, and to translate the traditional values and approaches of OD to continue to be relevant in today’s dynamic interdependent world.
This chapter analyzes the success factors, outcomes, and future viability of large-group methods. We have used an exploratory action research approach focusing on eight…
This chapter analyzes the success factors, outcomes, and future viability of large-group methods. We have used an exploratory action research approach focusing on eight variously purposed large-group methods (AmericaSpeaks, Appreciative Inquiry, Conference Model®, Decision Accelerator, Future Search, Participative Design, Strategic Change Accelerator/ACT (IBM), and Whole-Scale™ Change). We interviewed nine leading practitioners and creators for each method, as well as six clients who had played key roles in most of these methods' execution at their organizations, asking them to reflect on the current practices and outcomes and the future of each respective large-group method, as well as the methods as a group of interventions. Based on our findings derived through theme and content analysis of interviews, we purport that both the Art (excellence in method execution) and the Artist (the right facilitator) are necessary for achieving desired outcomes of the large-group methods. We stipulate that critical elements of the Art include these five common elements (or five “I”s): having the right Individuals in the room; aiming the method at resolving the right Issue; having Intentional process (including pre-work, intra-method process, and follow-up); having the right Information in the meeting; and using the right Infrastructure (such as appropriate physical space, technology, etc.). We suggest that while these elements of Art are important, the simultaneous requisite role of the Artist is to manage the tension between the rigidity of the Art (the 5 “I”s) and the emerging human dynamics occurring between the large-group method process and the associated evolving client objectives. That is, to achieve desired outcomes, the execution of large-group method needs to be both highly premeditated and ingenious. We supplement our findings with client case descriptions and quotes from the practitioners and conclude that these large-group methods are particularly appropriate for resolving a variety of issues facing today's organizations operating under the conditions of high technology saturation, interdependence, globalization, economic downturn, and others – and that this, with some exceptions, will likely remain the case in the future. However, the future use of these methods will be challenged by the availability of Artists who can execute the methods so they lead to desired outcomes. We close with discussion of open questions and directions for future research.
Recent events such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 against the United States and the national disaster of Hurricane Katrina demonstrated the acute need for…
Recent events such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 against the United States and the national disaster of Hurricane Katrina demonstrated the acute need for interagency collaboration. Using a semi-inductive method, we conducted two studies with senior homeland security leaders to learn more about organizations’ collaborative capacity during the early planning stages. In study One, we used an interorganizational systems perspective to identify factors that create or deter effective collaboration. Study Two elicited vignettes from a second group of senior homeland security leaders to gain further insights into the ways in which their organizations are successfully building collaborative capacity.
According to the definitions presented for agility drivers, it can be mentioned that supply chain risk factors in terms of feature have very close roles to agility drivers…
According to the definitions presented for agility drivers, it can be mentioned that supply chain risk factors in terms of feature have very close roles to agility drivers and both of these factors impact the uncertainty in the environment. However, the risk factors with a wider domain are more comprehensive. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of risk as a driver on the organizational agility.
To conduct the research, after identification of influential risk factors of supply chain and indicators of organizational agility, questionnaires needed for the research were designed and after confirming their validity and reliability were distributed among the member of the sample. To assess the relationship between supply chain risk and the amount of organizational agility, data obtained from the questionnaires were analyzed using structural equation modeling technique.
The results of data analysis showed that supply chain risk factors could be considered as a driver affecting the organizational agility. In addition, in this study, supply chain risk factors were ranked using interpretive structural modeling. The presented comprehensive model indicated that based on causal relationships between risk factors, sovereign risk as the basis for model (three levels) and product and customer satisfaction risks as the output of the model (Level 1) were considered.
This paper fulfills an identified need to study how the risk factors as drivers of supply chain agility can have effect on agility.