Department of Management Sciences
BBA 8th Morning
Organizational Development
Organization Confrontation Meetings and Intergroup
Relations Interventions in Mechanistic Organization
Table of Contents
Executive Summery................................................................................................................................. 2
Organization Confrontation Meeting ..................................................................................................... 3
Confrontation Meeting Process /Application Stages: ............................................................................. 3
Results of Confrontation Meeting .......................................................................................................... 4
Intergroup Relations Interventions......................................................................................................... 4
Microcosm Groups .................................................................................................................................. 5
Microcosm Group Process /Application Stages ...................................................................................... 6
Resolving Intergroup Conflict ................................................................................................................. 7
Application Stages ................................................................................................................................... 8
Results Of Intergroup Conflict Interventions ........................................................................................ 10
Large Group Interventions .................................................................................................................... 11
The range and purpose of Large Group Interventions ......................................................................... 13
Conducting meetings ............................................................................................................................ 13
Meeting Process .................................................................................................................................... 15
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 16
1
Executive Summery
This report describes three things: confrontation meetings, intergroup interventions, and large
group interventions. The organization confrontation meeting is a way of mobilizing resources
for organizational problem solving and seems especially relevant for organization undergoing
stress. The intergroup relations approaches are designed to help solve a variety of
organizational problems. Microcosm groups can be formed to address particular issues and
use parallel processes to diffuse group solutions to the organization. The intergroup conflict
resolution approach involves a method of mitigating dysfunctional conflicts between groups
or departments. Conflict can be dysfunctional in situations in which groups must work
together. It may, however, promote organizational effectiveness when departments are
relatively independent of each other. Large group interventions are designed to focus the
energy and attention of a whole system around organizational processes such as a vision,
strategy, or culture. It is best used when the organization is about to begin a large scale
change effort or is facing a new situation. These three processes interventions represent
important, time-honored, and successful methods of introducing change in organization.
2
Organization Confrontation Meetings and Intergroup
Relations Interventions in Mechanistic Organization
Group Roll # 46-54
Organization Confrontation Meeting
The confrontation meeting is an intervention designed to mobilize the resources of the entire
organization to identify problems, set priorities and action targets, and begin working on
identified problems. Originally developed by Beckhard, the intervention can be used at any
time but is particularly useful when the organization is in stress and when there is a gap
between the top and the rest of the organization. General Electric’s “Work-Out” program is
an example of how the confrontation meeting has been adopted to fit today’s organizations.
Confrontation Meeting Process /Application Stages:
The organizational confrontation meeting typically involves the following steps:
1. A group meeting of all those involved is scheduled and held in an appropriate
place. Usually the task is to identify problems about the work environment and
the effectiveness of the organization.
2. Groups are appointed representing all departments of the organization.
3. The point is stressed that the groups are to be open and honest and to work hard at
identifying problems they see in the organization.
4. The groups are given an hour to identify organization problems.
5. The group then reconvene in a central meeting place. Each group reports the
problems it has identified and sometimes offers solutions.
6. Either then or later, the master list of problems is broken down into categories.
7. Participants are divided into problem-solving groups whose composition may,
and usually does, differ from that of the original problem-identification groups.
8. Each group ranks the problems, develops a tactical action plan, and determines an
appropriate timetable for completing this phase of the process.
9. Each group then periodically reports its list of priorities and tactical plans of
action to management or to the larger group.
10. Schedules for periodic follow-up meetings are established.
3
Results of Confrontation Meeting
Because organization confrontation meetings often are combined with other
approaches, such as survey feedback, determining specific results is difficult. In
many cases, the result appear dramatic in mobilizing the total resources of the
organization for problem identification and solution. Beckhard cites a number of
specific examples in such different organizations as a food products manufacturer, a
military products manufacturer, and a hotel. Positive results also were found in a
confrontation meeting with 40 professionals in research and development firm.
The organization confrontation meeting is a classic approach for mobilizing
organizational problem solving, especially in times of low performance. Although the
results of its use appear impressive, little systematic study of this intervention has
been done. There is a clear need for evaluative research.
Intergroup Relations Interventions
It is very important for OD practitioners to diagnose and understand the inter group relations
because
1 To achieve the goals of the group they must work with and through other groups.
2 Groups can create problems within the organization
3 The level of the organization effectiveness depend upon the quality of relationship between
the groups
There are two OD Interventions:
1 Microcosm Group
2 Inter Group Conflict Resolutions
In microcosm group members comes from different groups to solve the wide problem of the
organization. Issues that create in the group are explaining in this context and then solution is
implemented in the organization.
When two groups work out then inter group conflict resolution help them. These two
approaches used to increase organizational effectiveness and improve the inter group process.
4
Microcosm Groups
In microcosm group small members of individuals presents who reflect the problem that
arises and help to solve it. For example there is a diversity problem create in the organization
then microcosm group is made which is consist of members which belong to different ethnic
background, race and culture because they reflect the problem of diversity and help to solve
this problem. OD practitioners assisted this group that can create process and programs to
solve this particular issue.
While this microcosm group solve the problem of diversity it also help to carry out
organization diagnosis, integrate two cultures, solve the communication problem, smooth the
adjustment in new culture and also solve the dysfunctional political problem.
Microcosm group work through parallel process it is the process in which unconsciously
changes occur in the individuals when two or more group interact with each others. When
groups are interacting then after interaction members of group realize that the characteristics
of their roles and interaction changes from the group whom they belong before interaction.
So simple is that groups seems to be infect and can be infected by others.
Alderfer give the following example to clear the work of parallel process. An organizational
diagnosis team assigned its members five different departments each member from every
department in a small manufacturing company. Members of the team interviewed head of
each department and members of each department and also observe the department meetings.
The team members observe the meeting with the head of the department and were trying to
predict the group behavior.
At first they have no rational basis to observe the behavior of the top management because
from direct observation they have no data. They decide to play the role of group meetings
that they had never seen. The members of diagnostic team behave as they are the heads of
department and the result was strange. Team member found that they easily engaged with one
another and they emotionally involved with each other. When they actually observed the
meetings with the department’s head they surprised that how closely imitation meetings had
approximated the actual session.
If a small group is successful to solve the problem of the complex organization then they are
in a position to solve the problem in the larger organization.
5
Microcosm Group Process /Application Stages
There are five stages of microcosm group to solve the problem of the organization.
1 Identify an issue
In this step we find the problem that is present in the system of organization. This can be as a
result of organization diagnosis or may be as a result of idea created by task force or member
of organization. He concerned that information that they received directly from them is
different from the information that they get from the informal conversion of people in
different divisions.
2 Convene the group
When once the problem identify then microcosm group formed. The most important principle
of convening is that the group members reflect the suitable mix of stakeholders that relate
with the issue. If the issue is communication problem then people select from different
hierarchical level in a group and if possible then also include staff members and unions. But
if problem is the cultural differences and merge of two cultures then members of group select
from both culture to understand the culture of each others. In this way the group itself
determines its members.
Convening the group directed our attention to the issue and status of the group. Members of a
group perceived as credible representative of the problem. The result of is that any
suggestions that they give will follow the members of the organization.
3 Provide group training
When the group formed then training provide to the group members about how to solve
problem and take decision. This training focus on the group mission, working relationship
among the members, decision making and definition of problem that is to be solved.
OD practitioner may be observe and comment on how the group is formed. Because
microcosm group through its attitude and behavior reflect the problem in the organization for
example if group solve the problem of communication and is likely to have difficulties in
communication within the group. The problem or issue that creates within the group the
reorganization of that problem is the first step to solve the problem in large organization.
6
4 Address the issue
In this step we solve the problem and implement the solution. OD practitioners help in the
diagnosis of group, design, and implementation and evaluate the changes. An important issue
of this step is getting the permission in the large organization to implement the solution of the
group. There are many factors which facilitate this ownership like if the activities of group
relate with organization then it can implement the solution. It may be include publishing
minutes from team meetings and invite the members of organization such as middle manager,
union representative, hourly workers and for different organizational members making the
presentation.
Second issue is that group members have easily access to the manager and labor of
organization. It helps in the formation of appropriate recommendations that is formed by
using the appropriate resources and support.
Third step of problem solving process is that participation from organization members also
include. Different methods of data collection used to gain input of the members to solve the
problem and provide the solution.
5 Dissolve the group
In it after successful implementation of problem group is dissolved. This may include holding
a final meeting or writing a final report.
Resolving Intergroup Conflict
Intergroup conflicts have existed throughout human history, however, the current
proliferation of ethnic conflicts warrants our attention and concern as scientists and citizens.
Over the past 20 years, we have witnessed an explosive growth in the field of conflict
resolution (Susan Cross, 2008).
Intergroup conflicts arise between people due to ethnic or racial problems in the department
of the same organization, union and management. These conflicts can be arisen by the
availability of scarce resources and there are various methods in dealing these conflicts
(Fisher, 2000).
The intergroup conflict interventions are designed for the purpose of helping two
interdepartmental groups in the same organization for the resolution of dysfunctional
conflicts. Intergroup conflicts can both be bad or good and in some areas it is necessary for
the organization to increase productivity because when there is a little participation, little
7
interdependence among departments and competition among them can boost up productivity
levels. For instance, structures of the organization around different products lines may have
the target to promote competition with rivals so that the overall effectiveness of the
organization can be enhanced.
In some organizations which have interdependent departments, the results of conflicts may
create an environment of dysfunctional. The consequences can be intense and organization
members may develop defensiveness and negative stereotyping of other groups. Polarization
can be described as “any solution which is presented to resolve problem may be wrong” or
“nobody will cooperate with us” or “what do you expect of those idiots?” sometimes it
happens that whenever an intergroup communication is essential for being productive then
this level usually drops off and groups may treat like enemies instead of positive or neutral
attitude. As much the amount of communication decreases the amount of problems and
conflicts arise (Worley, 2007).
Application Stages
There are some common tactics for interpersonal conflict resolution programs and it includes
some types or rewards and punishments, deception and evasion, threats and emotional
blackmailing and flattering. Unresolved conflicts may be recycled and then they can reach to
the level of termination and breakdown of the relationships (Fisher, 2000).
1. Perception changes:
One of the major strategies used for improving intergroup conflicts is to change the
perception of the individuals (misperception) that two groups having for each other. This
concept was given by Blake and his associates who include following ten steps:

An external consultant obtains two group agreements to work directly on improving
intergroup relationships because it is impossible to interact with groups having
conflicts among them.

Then a time is set for the group to have a meeting usually away from their working
environment.

The consultant with the manger of those groups elaborate the purpose and main theme
of the meeting sp that each and every person can explore the perceptions of the other
group and they are provided with these questions: ‘what attributes are present in our
group that best describe it? ‘What qualities describe the other group?
8

The groups are presented with some questions and they are allotted separate rooms
and asked to write their answers to those three questions

After completing the list the groups reconvene .A representative from each group
presents the written statement

When the groups thoroughly understand the content of the list they separate again.

Now many of the discrepancies have been put to light. Task of the groups is to
analyze and review the reasons for these misconceptions.

After going through the problem the groups meet up to share the identified problems
and solutions to them.

Groups are asked to develop specific plan of action for solving the problems.

Once the action plan is made at least one follow up meeting is scheduled so that the
groups can report on actions that have been implemented (Worley, 2007).
2. Win-lose approach:
It is all too common. People learn the behaviors of destructive conflict early in life –
competition, dominance, aggression and defense permeate many of our social
relationships from the family to the school playground. The “fixed pie” assumption is
made, often incorrectly, that what one party gains, the other loses. The strategy is thus to
force the other side to capitulate. Sometimes, this is done through socially acceptable
mechanisms such as majority vote, the authority of the leader, or the determination of a
judge. Sometimes, it involves secret strategies, threat, and innuendo whatever works is
acceptable like the ends justify the means.
3. Lose-lose strategy:
It is exemplified by smoothing over conflict or by reaching the simplest of compromises.
In neither case is the creative potential of productive conflict resolution realized or
explored. Disagreement is seen as inevitable, so therefore why not split the difference or
smooth over difficulties in as painless a way as possible? Sometimes, this is indeed the
reality of the situation, and the costs are less than in the win-lose approach, at least for the
loser. Each party gets some of what it wants, and resigns itself to partial satisfaction.
Neither side is aware that by confronting the conflict fully and cooperatively they might
have created a more satisfying solution.
9
4. Win-win approach:
It is a conscious and systematic attempt to maximize the goals of both parties through
collaborative problem solving. The conflict is seen as a problem to be solved rather
than a war to be won. The important distinction is we (both parties) versus the
problem, rather than we (one party) versus them (the other party). This method
focuses on the needs and constraints of both parties rather than emphasizing
strategies designed to conquer (Fisher, 2000).
Results Of Intergroup Conflict Interventions
Numbers of studies have been done on the results of intergroup conflict resolution. There are
positive that have been developed by several researchers including union management
relations and government organization and some private firms. The results include attitudinal
changes like increased trust, improved perceptions, and less stereotyping and also improved
quality and work. If some people having conflict are assigned to perform some common task
then there comes a marked result which is not only about improvement in communication
among people but also the improved product quality in the firm.
Another theory has suggested that conflict can be functional or dysfunctional and it totally
depends on the circumstances but if conflicts are intense then they must be reduced.
There are some other consequences for intergroup conflict interventions which are as follow:
Behavioral and Perceptual Change:
When intergroup confli c t o f w i n - lose orientation occurs, competition among members
within each group is reduced, and the groups become more cohesive . The group
members tend to conform to the group norm more, and they become l o ya l t o t h e
g r o u p . A l t h o u g h t h i s i s t e m p o r a r y, t e a m c o n f o r m i t y a n d l o ya l t y increase
substantially. In each group there are increases in task-oriented behaviors relative to
relations-oriented behaviors (Schein, 1980).
Structure Formation
Intergroup conflict may result in the emergence of autocratic leaders and the
establishment of a new power structure. Very often it is the aggressive person or
the ones who express themselves clearly and well who takeover. Sometimes those
10
who like fights emerge in leadership positions. Those members who can provide
the best leadership and the most skillful leadership processes often are submerged
along with the questioning and sounder thinking which they would foster (Likert
& Likert, 1976, p. 61)
Decision Process
Differences among in-group members that can lead to better decisions are no
longer tolerated. Any member who questions the quality of a decision is
renou n c e d o r o s t r a c i z e d , a n d p r e s s u r e i s a p p l i e d o n h i m o r
h e r t o c o n f o r m (Schechter, 1968). This suppression of intergroup conflict
b l o c k s t h e p r o c e s s that could lead to effective solutions. The groups establish
the means of negotiation, which are usually bargaining, u l t i m a t u m s , a n d
n o n n e g o t i a b l e d e m a n d s . T h e s e r e s u l t i n f u r t h e r r a t i o n i n g o f information
or deliberate distortion of facts. Contacts with other group(s) be -come formal,
rigid, and carefully defined (likert, 2007).
Large Group Interventions
Large Group Interventions (LGIs) are technologies that have been used extensively
throughout the world since the 1980s. Their development was rooted in a range of theories
and approaches, including Kurt Lewin and Gestalt Psychology, Systems Theory, Open
Systems and Power and Systems Labs and the work on Socio-Technical systems of Bion and
later, Emery and Trist. In the 1970s, this work was further shaped by Beckard, Lippitt and
Merrelyn Emery, who developed the Search Conference. Marvin Weisbord developed this
further in the 1980s through his work on “getting the whole system into the room”.
Traditional approaches to change tend to be:
• Top-down and therefore often misunderstood or resisted by people lower down in the
organization
• Led by a selected working or project group, representative of the workforce. This approach
often starts off well, but over time, the representatives become distanced and isolated from
their colleagues as they gather enthusiasm for their work and are privy to much more
information than their colleagues back in the workplace.
11
• Bottom –up, where individual teams of employees are accountable for making change sin
the way they themselves do business. Whilst this generates enthusiasm and empowerment,
teams using this approach largely end up working independently of each other and do not
necessarily develop in line with corporate goals and objectives
• Pilot strategies, identifying a specific part of the organization as the flagship or leader for
change. They have a well-defined task, the support of the organization’s leaders and are often
given the necessary (and sometimes excessive) resources to ensure success. Ultimately,
however, it can be difficult to replicate their good results throughout an organization, for
many legitimate reasons and the “not invented here” syndrome can become prevalent when
rollout is attempted throughout the rest of the organization.
The difference in using the principles of any of the Large Group Interventions is just that: that
there are some fundamental principles and advantages behind all of them that need to be
incorporated into the design and worked with consciously throughout the intervention. These
principles are many, but the key ones are:
• Getting as much of a whole system into the room as possible. With a team, it would include
all members, plus its senior managers and could, depending on the theme, also include key
stakeholders
and
customers,
potentially
internally
and
sometimes
externally.
• An understanding and belief that if people are given all the information they need, they are
able to be innovative and creative, contributing good and workable ideas at the initial stages,
they will work better and more collaboratively together and will be able to contribute
significantly to the vision and strategic direction of the organization or team. They will also
feel much more empowered and are likely to perform much more effectively.
• Understanding that there are a range of different perspectives within any team or
organization and, depending where people are, both in terms of their level/ grade in the
organization and in terms of their functional role, really listening to and taking account of as
wide a range of perspectives as possible is more likely to ensure that the change is a success.
• Getting everyone involved, even if it initially takes more time to plan and conduct change,
is more efficient than trying to implement change quickly using a small planning group. This
is because when everyone has been involved in a large group method, the implementation
happens much more immediately and positively. One major advantage is that it is not
necessary to tell, re-sell or force the change for everyone.
• The people who are closest to the problem or issues being discussed often have the critical
information that will significantly enrich the strategy and plans for implementation and
12
delivery.
• The diversity that comprises the whole system often creates a synergy that leads to a more
innovative and creative change and future way of working. It harnesses people’s talents,
contributions and enthusiasm.
The range and purpose of Large Group Interventions
There is now a comprehensive range of LGI’s, each coming with their own methodologies
and processes. The main Large Group Interventions are listed in this article, with a brief
summary of the purpose, methodology and optimum size of each, where applicable. It is
possible, using some LGI’s, to work highly effectively with thousands of people together all
at once and there have been some stunning outcomes, that many people would not have
thought possible, from many of these events throughout the world.
There is a separate page on Appreciative Inquiry, which is not technically classed as one of
the original Large Group Interventions but which is a very different approach to change and
OD that has fast been gaining popularity and credibility over the last few years.
If you want to run any type of Large Group Intervention, you will need to appoint a
consultant who has been specially trained to use them, as it is critical to their success that the
facilitator/s not only thoroughly understand the design and methodologies, but also
understand how to apply the fundamental principles by which they work.
Several of them require certification through the developers/ designers of that particular LGI.
For example, you could not run an event around the Conference Model unless you had
completed the appropriate training and been fully certified.
Conducting meetings
Open Space Technology (OST) is an approach for hosting meetings, conferences, corporatestyle retreats and community summit events, focused on a specific and important purpose or
task—but beginning without any formal agenda, beyond the overall purpose or theme.
Self-Organization
Highly scalable and adaptable, OST has been used in meetings of 5 to 2,100 people. The
approach is characterized by few basic mechanisms:
1. a broad, open invitation that articulates the purpose of the meeting;
2. participant chairs arranged in a circle;
13
3. a "bulletin board" of issues and opportunities posted by participants;
4. a "marketplace" with many breakout spaces that participants move freely between,
learning and contributing as they "shop" for information and ideas;
5. a "breathing" or "pulsation" pattern of flow, between plenary and small-group
breakout sessions.
The approach is most distinctive for its initial lack of an agenda, which sets the stage for the
meeting's participants to create the agenda for themselves, in the first 30–90 minutes of the
meeting or event. Typically, an Open Space meeting will begin with short introductions by
the sponsor (the official or acknowledged leader of the group) and usually a single facilitator.
The sponsor introduces the purpose; the facilitator explains the "self-organizing" process
called "Open Space." Then the group creates the working agenda, as individuals post their
issues in bulletin board style. Each individual "convener" of a breakout session takes
responsibility for naming the issue, posting it on the bulletin board, assigning it a space and
time to meet, and then later, showing up at that space and time, kicking off the conversation,
and taking notes. These notes are usually compiled into a proceedings document that is
distributed physically or electronically to all participants. Sometimes one or more additional
approaches are used to sort through the notes, assign priorities and identify what actions
should be taken next. Throughout the process, the ideal facilitator is described as being "fully
present and totally invisible" (see Owen, User's Guide), "holding a space" for participants to
self-organize, rather than managing or directing the conversations.
In his book "Open Space Technology: A User's Guide", Harrison Owen explains that this
approach works best when these conditions are present, namely high levels of (1) complexity,
in term of the tasks to be done or outcomes achieved; (2) diversity, in terms of the people
involved and/or needed to make any solution work; (3) real or potential conflict, meaning
people really care about the central issue or purpose; and (4) urgency, meaning that the time
to act was "yesterday".
According to Harrison Owen, originator of the term and the approach, Open Space works
because it harnesses and acknowledges the power of self-organization, which he suggests is
substantially aligned with the deepest process of life itself, as described by leading-edge
complexity science as well as ancient spiritual teachings.
14
Meeting Process
At the beginning of an Open Space the participants sit in a circle, or in concentric circles for
large groups (300 to 2000 people and more).
The facilitator will greet the people and briefly re-state the theme of their gathering, without
giving a lengthy speech. Then someone will invite all participants to identify any issue or
opportunity related to the theme. Participants willing to raise a topic will come to the centre
of the circle, write it on a sheet of paper and announce it to the group before choosing a time
and a place for discussion and posting it on a wall. That wall becomes the agenda for the
meeting.
No participant must suggest issues, but anyone may do so. However, if someone posts a
topic, the system expects that the person has a real passion for the issue and can start the
discussion on it. That person also must make sure that a report of the discussion is done and
posted on another wall so that any participant can access the content of the discussion at all
times. No limit exists on the number of issues that the meeting can post.
When all issues have been posted, participants sign up and attend those individual sessions.
Sessions typically last for 1.5 hours; the whole gathering usually lasts from a half day up to
about two days. The opening and agenda creation lasts about an hour, even with a very large
group.
After the opening and agenda creation, the individual groups go to work. The attendees
organize each session; people may freely decide which session they want to attend, and may
switch to another one at any time. Online networking can occur both before and following the
actual face-to-face meetings so discussions can continue seamlessly. All discussion reports
are compiled in a document on site and sent to participants, unedited, shortly after.
In this way, Open Space Technology begins without any pre-determined agenda, but work is
directed by a "theme" or "purpose" or "invitation" that is carefully articulated by leaders, in
advance of the meeting. The organizers do outline in advance a schedule of breakout times
and spaces. The combination of clear purpose and ample breakout facilities directly supports
the process of self-organization by meeting participants. After the opening briefing, the
facilitator typically remains largely in the background, exerting no control over meeting
content or participants, though possibly supporting the compiling of whatever sort of
document is produced by participants.
Small groups might create agendas of only a few issues. Very large groups have generated as
many as 234 sessions[ running concurrently over the course of a day and longer meetings
may establish priorities and set up working-groups for follow-up.
15
Bibliography
Fisher Ron Sources of Conflict and [Journal] // International Peace and Conflict Resolution. - 2000. p. 17.
likert managing intergroup conflict [Online] // scribd.com. - 7 may 2007. - 2011. http://www.scribd.com/doc/51639269/37/EFFECTS-OF-INTERGROUP-CONFLICT.
Susan Cross Robert Rosenthal Three Models of Conflict Resolution: Effects on Intergroup
Expectancies and Attitudes [Online] // findarticles.com. - june 2008. - 2011. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0341/is_3_55/ai_58549261/pg_12/?tag=mantle_skin;conten
t.
Worley Thomas G. Cummings & Christopher G. Organization Development & Change [Book]. - New
York : SOUTH-WESTERN CENGAGE Learning, 2007.
16