Adding new recruits to any organization is the headache of most human resource managers. When individuals are recruited for a job position in an organization, most of the time, the assumption is made that since their resume suggests that they have worked in a similar position then they are given little training expecting them to produce a high level performance. It is important for new recruits to be allowed to start small working on less technical assignments so that in the case of any mistakes there will be less impact on total performance. The time that will be wasted correcting the major mistakes made by new recruits will be reduced. The human resource manager can then monitor the performance of the individual and then begin to increase the level of difficulty over a weekly or biweekly basis until the new recruit is able to comfortably produce a good performance of the assigned role. It is important for the new recruits to be allowed some time to learn and understand the structure and culture of a new organization and then performance can follow. Knowing who to report to and how to conduct oneself in an organization is as important as the performance. Usually, when the individual understands the assigned task as well as the role she or he plays in the organization, then the individual can then concentrate on increasing pace to produce an increase in performance.

Managers of various small and large organizations expect new recruits to start producing high levels of performance on the first few days of starting but it is important for new recruits to be allowed time to adjust and contribute to the overall performance of the organization.

According to Natemayer and Hersey (2011), groupthink is one of the concepts, which resulted from the introduction of interpersonal and group behavior. Groupthink usually occurs in a group when individuals in the group refuse to acknowledge the alternatives or options available to them but rather decide to adhere to the cohesive group whose main aim is to maintain their unanimity (Janis, 1982). Janis (1982) explains further by indicating that, any group, which engages in groupthink, typically, makes the best effort to hide relevant information from the leader or manager by protecting the interest of their group and its leader. Groupthink usually has individuals in the group antagonizing group leaders outside their group as well as members of such groups. For example, the human resource department as a group may consider the leader of the finance or accounts department of the organization as hindering the progress of the programs of the department by making it difficult for them to gain funding for such programs. Vice versa, the employees in the finance or accounting department may be stringent when working on funding for programs of the human resource department based on bad perceptions spread in the department about the human resource manager and the employees in the department. Members of a group involved in groupthink usually do not welcome expert advice and consider it as outside opinion, even though such a resource may have valuable information that could better inform and improve the decisions made by the group (Natemayer & Hersey, 2011).

Managing Group Effectiveness

There are several steps that a leader can put in place to ensure that group effectiveness is achieved, and the negative effects of groupthink are avoided. One of such strategies is to encourage members of each group to raise objections and provide relevant information, which may challenge other members of the group to become critical of the statements made in the group. The leader can also create an atmosphere, in which the decisions made by one group, can be independently evaluated, and analyzed by another group with a different group leader. This would ensure that the decisions made by the group are well founded and relevant for achieving the set goals. For example, effective communication of information should be prioritized by the leader to empower the members of each group with the right information for decision-making. It also ensures that the members of the group work hard to ensure that the final decision reached at the end does not reflect group interest, necessarily, but a consensus which aims to provide the best solution to the problem at hand. Demonizing of outside group leaders and their members, which is typical of groupthink, may be reduced or avoided, when leaders implement such strategies. Another critical strategy to reduce or avoid groupthink involves putting measures in place to ensure that members from each group evaluate all the decisions made, to ensure that consensus is reached, before the final decision from such activity, is made (Janis, 1982).

In order for group members to avoid groupthink, they need to be able to help in making the relevant decisions by supporting and contributing to critical thinking towards achieving the set goals in the group but does not harm the harmony in the group (Janis, 1982). The author explains further by indicating that members of the group can avoid groupthink by challenging decisions made in the group to ensure that the best decisions are made; and not worry too much about protecting group norms and harmony within the group. Leaders should make it a point to ensure that each member of a group has well-defined roles as well as encourage the use of laid down procedures to ensure critical thinking in decision-making. The more a group is encouraged to become more objective, the more they are able to reflect on the risks associated with each decision they make which in turn will help prevent the sense of invulnerability, which is typical of individuals involved in groupthink (Natemayer & Hersey, 2011).

References

Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Retrieved from http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/theory/grpthink.html

Natemeyer, W. E. & Hersey, P. (Eds.). (2011). Classics of Organizational Behavior (4th ed., pp. 163-229). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

According to Cady and Caster (2000), the DIET model is the acronym for Diagnosis, Intervene, Evaluation, and Transfer model. The DIET model uses an approach, the authors call ‘the balanced approach’ to solve organizational problems. The balanced approach incorporates the problem-solving approach of action research and the anticipatory reality approach of appreciative inquiry. The need to combine the attributes of the two approaches is warranted by three main problems  associated with the action research model, which include the cumbersome nature of the steps involved in action research, the need to combine the principles of action research and the anticipatory reality effect of appreciative inquiry as well as the limitations associated with the problem-solving approach of action research. Cady and Caster (2000) indicated that in an interview conducted by two researchers, Glotches and Ludema (1995), with the father of appreciative inquiry, Cooperrider , he stated that since action research focuses on the human deficit for solving problems in the organization, once feedback has been given by the practitioner and the client understands the process, the client-consultant relationship ceases to   continue after the intervention process.

According to Cady and Caster (2000), the diagnosis phase of the DIET model looks into how the organization operates currently to help them design viable solutions to them. The authors posit that the diagnosis phase uses the balanced approach to gain clarity on the root causes of the problem as well as the contingencies associated with the past successes of the organization. The authors explain further by stating that the diagnosis involves a collaborative process of data collection, analyses, and interpretation that sets the pretest evaluation record to be compared with the posttest record. According to the authors, it is important for the client to be involved in a consensus to be reached with regards to designing the data collection instrument as well as the interpretation of the analyzed data. Cady and Caster (2000) posit that while using the balanced approach, it is usually easier and safer to use the positive aspects of the organization to help build consensus around the problem-focused conclusions. It is important for the organizational development practitioner to recognize that during the diagnosis process that some leaders in the organization may engage in witch-hunting to identify participants who identify problems, which may undermine their leadership credentials and so it is very critical to protect the confidentiality of participants. The authors stated that using the fact-judgement-emotion model and treating each component separately during the feedback session is important to ensure a well-informed and successful action planning process. According to the authors, the statistically-based facts enables the judgments or conclusions on those facts to more objective and effective as well as helps to gain emotional responses which support the course of action to make the change process successful. The important question that the consultant needs to put to the stakeholders involved in the change process after the feedback process is: “based on what we have discussed and concluded thus far what do you choose to do?” In summary, the diagnosis process involves three main sections; identification of the problem using the balanced approach, data collection, analysis, and interpretation, as well as the design of the action plan.

The intervention phase of the DIET approach follows the action planning stage and involves two main sections that include the design of the intervention and execution of the intervention. According to Cady and Caster (2000), while it is important to build the design around the appreciative inquiry approach to help to identify the brilliance in the organization and expand on it, overemphasis on only the positive aspect of the organization may result in the participants feeling complacent leading to lack of urgency in the implementation process. The suggestion from the authors is that the balanced approach should be used to help identify both the negative and positive aspects of the organization. The execution stage will not be successful if the key leadership in the organization are not involved in implementing the desired changes in the organization (Cady & Caster, 2000).

After the implementation process, the actions implemented can be evaluated, the small successes can be celebrated, and then any necessary changes can be made to correct the identified failure areas. Kirkpatrick (1998) posits that there are four main levels for evaluating the actions taking during the change process and these include reaction, learning, behavior, and business results. The first level known as reaction asks the question to determine if the members of the organization liked the intervention that had been made. The second level known as learning asks the question to determine if the members of the organization learned anything from the intervention process. The third level known as behavior asks the question to determine if there were any changes in the behavior of the members of the organization as a result of the change intervention. The fourth level known as business results asks the question to determine if there were any improvements in the performance of the organization as a result of the interventions made (Kirkpatrick, 1998). According to Cady and Caster (2000), the evaluation phase produces the post-test record that can then be compared with the pre-test record produced in the diagnosis. The authors explain further by stating that depending on the scope of the change intervention, the post-test record may take a few days or some years to manifest. Interventions made in a smaller setting such as a department can produce post-test results in a few days or months while an entire change in the culture of a large organization could take some years to produce post-test results. The evaluation process using the balanced approach also checks to see if the root causes of problems were identified and resolved as well as determine whether the positive stories were enhanced in the organization (Cady & Caster, 2000).

Cady and Caster (2000) stated that while the traditional action research usually terminates the consultant-client relationship after the transfer phase, the balanced approach aims to ensure continual development of the competencies of members of the organization.

References

Cady, S.H. & Caster, M.A. (2000). A diet for action research: An integrated problem & appreciative focused approach to organization development, Organizational Development Journal, Winter 2000, 18(4), pp 79

Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1998). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco; Berrett-Koehler.

Psychological Contract

             According to Rousseau (1995), the psychological contract may refer to the set of assumptions about promises that are given and accepted voluntarily in the context of a relationship which has a voluntary exchange character between two or more parties such the employee and employer. According to Sturges et.al. (2005), the psychological contract has the capacity to generate increases in productivity, job satisfaction as well as low employee turnover which may also be attributed to the organizational effectiveness that is promoted by the psychological contract (Schein, 1980). According to Robinson and Rousseau (1994), the expectation of each party involved in the psychological contract is assured of being met when both parties hold their end of the bargain but when one party fails to honor its obligations as stated in the contract then there is a breach of the psychological contract that was agreed upon. According to the author, the psychological contract serves two main functional purposes, which include; the capacity to predict how much output the employee will produce for the employer as well as the capacity to predict the rewards that employees will get from employers for the outputs they produce.

Steps To Ensure Relevance Of Psychological Contract

According to Hiltrop (1996), over the years there has been increasing changes in the psychological contracts that employers offer to their employees in an environment, which has increasingly become insecure for the continuous employment of the employees. According to Rousseau (1994), explains that since the psychological contract is informal, subjective, and dynamic in nature, it is difficult to put detail to the contract at the time it is created. The author explains further by stating that as a result of the informal nature of the psychological contract, people, in this case, the employer, keep changing the terms of the contract in an inconsistent manner but which has important implications for the organization. According to Hiltrop (1996), as the conditions of employment are continually and unilaterally changed by employers, job insecurity increases and people feel betrayed due to a breach of the psychological contract. The author explains further by stating that in comparison with the new terms in the psychological contract which include; a short-term relationship, self-reliance, flexibility, and focus on achieving immediate results, the old contract featured; permanence, stability, fairness, predictability, tradition as well as mutual respect among members of the organization. Doherty and Horsted (1995) stated in their work that their suspicion is that in the new psychological contract, the organizations are buying just half of the contract, which leads to job insecurity among employees, but at the same time, the organization expects the employees to be committed and loyal to the organization.

According to Herriot (1992), in order for organizations to achieve the ideal employee who is loyal and committed to the organization, there needs to be continual review and renegotiation of the psychological contract over time after the employee has been admitted into the organization. With regards to ensuring the relevance of the psychological contract between the consultant and client organization, based on the assertion of Herriot (1992) as well as Hiltrop (1995), it is important for the consultant to renegotiate the terms of the contract as the relationship between the consultant and client change; as the role of the consultant may change.

References

Doherty, N. & Horsted, J. (1995). Helping survivors stay on board, People Management, January, pp. 26-31.

Herriot, P. (1992). The career management challenge: Balancing individual and organizational needs. London: Sage Publications.

Hiltrop, J. M. (1996). Managing the changing psychological contract, Employee Relations, 18(1), 36–49. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/235207262?accountid=144789

Hiltrop, J.M. (1995). The changing psychological contract: The human resource challenge of the 1990s, European Management Journal, 13 (3), p. 286.

Robison, S.L, & Rousseau, D. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm, Journal of Organizational Behavior. 15: 245 – 259.

Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rousseau, D. (1994). Two ways to change and keep the psychological contract: Theory meets practice, Executive Summary for the International Consortium for Executive Development Research, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Schein, E. (1980). Organizational Psychology. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sturges, J., Conway, N., Guest, D., & Lieffohe, A. (2005). Managing the career deal: The psychological contract as a framework for understanding career management, organizational commitment and work behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior. 26(7): 821 – 838.

According to Schein (2010), the fields of organizational development (OD) and human resource management (HR) may have been preoccupied with economic factors in both business and non-profit organizations that five (5) evolving trends have been overlooked, and these include:

1. Complex organizational functions as a result of new technological sophistication.      OD: Complex processes for survey methodology, strategic analysis, leadership development, large systems change, group dynamics, culture change, and lean manufacturing leading to licensing requirements for practitioners.                                HR: Specialization requirements for pay systems, labor relations, management development programs, as well as health, environment and safety programs.

2. Technological changes in how work is done and organized including new communication and control mechanisms such as virtual teams.
3. Evolving policies that cut across national borders as companies aim to expand to other territories.
4. Complexities resulting from multicultural diversity as companies engage with different national cultures, organizational cultures, and occupational cultures.
5. The issue of the western business system not applying to many other countries with different cultures which impact issues concerning: social responsibility, business ethics, retirement age, entry age, shareholders, customers, work-family balance, as well as gender.

Reference

Schein, E.H. (2010). The role of organization development in the human resource function. In Vogelsang, J., Townsend, M.,  Minahan, M., Jamieson, D.,  Vogel, J., Viets, A., Royal, C., & Valek, L. (ed.). Handbook or strategic HR: Best practices in organization development from the OD network.  New York, NY: AMACOM.