Organization Development & Change
Thomas G. Cummings University of Southern California
Christopher G. Worley
University of Southern California Pepperdine University
a • Brazil • Canada • Mexico • Singapore • Spain • UnitedKingdom • UnitedStates
Hf
SOUTH-WESTERN
CENGAGE Learning
Feeding Back Diagnostic Information
Perhaps the most important step in the diagnostic process is feeding back diagnostic information to the client organization. Although the data may have been collected with the client's help, the OD practitioner often organizes and presents them to the client. Properly analyzed and meaningful data can have an impact on organizational change only if organization members can use the information to devise appropriate action plans. A key objective of the feedback process is to be sure that the client has ownership of the data.
As shown in Figure 8.1, the success of data feedback depends largely on its ability to arouse organizational action and to direct energy toward organizational problem solving. Whether
feedback helps to energize the organization depends on the content of the feedback data and on the process by which they are fed back to organization members.
In this chapter, we discuss criteria for developing both the content of feedback information and the processes for feeding it back. If these criteria are overlooked, the client is not apt to feel ownership of the problems facing the organization. A flexible and potentially powerful technique for data feedback that has arisen out of the wide use of questionnaires in OD work is known as survey feedback. Its central role in many large-scale OD efforts warrants a special look.
DETERMINING THE CONTENT OF THE FEEDBACK
In the course of diagnosing the organization, a large amount of data is collected. In fact, there is often more information than the client needs or can interpret in a realistic period of time. II too many data are led back, the client may decide thai changing is impossible. Therefore, OD practitioners need to summarize the data in ways that enable clients to understand the information and draw action implications from it. Tin-techniques for data analysis described in Chapter 7 can inform this task. Additional criteria for determining the content ol diagnostic feedback are described below.
Several characteristics ol effective feedback data have been described in the literature.1 They include the following nine properties:
1. Relevant. Organization members are likely to use feedback data for problem solving when they find the information meaningful. Including managers and employees in llie initial data collection activities can increase the relevance of the data.
2. Understandable. Data must be presented to organization members in a form that is readily interpreted. Statistical data, for example, can be made understandable through the use ol graphs and charts.
3. Descriptive. Feedback data need to be linked to real organizational behaviors if they are to arouse and direct energy. The use of examples and detailed illustrations can help employees gain a belter feel for the data.
4. Verifiable. Feedback data should be valid and accurate if they are to guide action. Thus, the information should allow organization members to verily whether the
140
PART 2   The process of organization Development
[Figure 8.1]-
Posssible Effects of Feedback
FEEDBACK OCCURS
Energy to deny /-or fight data
IS ENERGY CREATED BY THE FEEDBACK?
Yes
WHAT IS THE DIRECTION OF THE ENERGY?
Energy to use data to identify and solve problems
SOURCE: FEEDBACK AND ORGANIZATON DEVELOPMENT by Nadler, D. © 1977. Reprinted by permission of Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
findings really describe the organization. For example, questionnaire data might include information about the sample of respondents as well as frequency distributions for each item or measure. Such information can help members verily whether the feedback data accurately represent organizational events or attitudes.
5. Timely. Data should be fed back to members as quickly as possible after being collected and analyzed. This will help ensure that the information is still valid and is linked to members' motivations to examine it.
6. Limited. Because people can easily become overloaded with too much information, feedback data should be limited to wbat employees can realistically process at one lime.
7. Significant. Feedback should be limited to those problems thai organization members can do something about because it will energize them and help direct their efforts toward realistic changes.
CHAPTER 8    Feeding Back Diagnostic Information
8. Comparative. Feedback data can be ambiguous without some benchmark as a reference. Whenever possible, data from comparative groups should be provided to give organization members a better idea of how their group fits into a broader context.
9. Unfinalized. Feedback is primarily a stimulus for action and thus should spur further diagnosis and problem solving. Members should be encouraged, for example, to use the data as a starting point for more in-depth discussion of organizational issues.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FEEDBACK PROCESS
In addition to providing effective feedback data, it is equally important lo attend to the process by which that information is led back to people. Typically, data are provided to organization members in a meeting or series of meetings. Feedback meetings provide a forum for discussing the data, drawing relevant conclusions, and devising preliminary action plans. Because the data might include sensitive material and evaluations about organization members' behaviors, people may come to the meeting with considerable anxiety and fear about receiving the feedback. This anxiety can result in defensive behaviors aimed at denying the information or providing rationales. More positively, people can be stimulated by the feedback and the hope that desired changes will result from the feedback meeting. Because people are likely lo come to feedback meetings with anxiety, fear, and hope, OD practitioners need to manage the feedback process so that constructive discussion and problem solving occur. The most important objective of the feedback process is lo ensure that organization members own the data. Ownership is the opposite of resistance to change and refers to people's willingness to take responsibility lor the data, their meaning, and the consequences of using them to devise a change strategy.- If the feedback session results in organization members rejecting the data as invalid or useless, then the motivation to change is lost and members will have difficulty engaging in a meaningful process of change.
Ownership of the feedback data is facilitated by the following live features of successful feedback processes:5
1. Motivation to work with the data. People need to leel that working with the feedback data will have beneficial outcomes. This may require explicit sanction and support from powerful groups so that people feel free to raise issues and to identify concerns during the feedback sessions. II people have little motivation to work with the data or feel that there is little chance to use the data for change, then the information will not be owned by the client system.
2. Structure for the meeting. Feedback meetings need some structure or they may degenerate into chaos or aimless discussion. An agenda or outline for the meeting and the presence of a discussion leader can usually provide the necessary direction. If the meeting is not kept on track, especially when the data are negative, ownership can be lost in conversations that become too general. When this happens, the energy gained from dealing directly with the problem is lost.
3. Appropriate attendance. Generally, people who have common problems and can benefit from working together should be included in the feedback meeting. This may involve a fully intact work team or groups comprising members from different functional areas or hierarchical levels. Without proper representation in the meeting, ownership of the data is lost because participants cannot address the problem(s) suggested by the feedback.
4. Appropriate power. It is important to clarify the power possessed by the group. Members need to know on which issues they can make necessary changes, on which they can only recommend changes, and over which they have no control. Unless there are clear boundaries, members are likely to have some hesitation about using the feedback data for generating action plans. Moreover, if the group
142
PART 2   The process of organization Development
has no power to make changes, the feedback meeting will become an empty exercise rather than a real problem-solving session. Without the power to address change, there will be little ownership of the data. 5. Process help. People in feedback meetings require assistance in working together as a group. When the data ore negative, there is a natural tendency to resist the implications, deflect the conversation onto safer subjects, and the like. An OD practitioner with group process skills can help members stay focused on the subject and improve feedback discussion, problem solving, and ownership.
When combined with effective feedback data, these features of successful feedback meetings enhance member ownership of the data. They help to ensure thai organization members fully discuss the implications of the diagnostic information and that their conclusions are directed toward relevant and feasible organizational changes.
Application 8.1 presents excerpts from some training materials that were delivered to a group of internal facilitators at a Fortune 100 telecommunications company.4 It describes how the facilitators were trained to deliver the results ol a survey concerning problem solving, team functioning, and perceived effectiveness.
SURVEY FEEDBACK
Survey feedback is a process of collecting and feeding back data from an organization or department through the use of a questionnaire or survey. The data are analyzed, led back to organization members, and used by them lo diagnose the organization and to develop interventions to improve it, Because questionnaires often are used in organization diagnosis, particularly in OD efforts involving large numbers of participants, and because it is a powerful intervention in its own right, survey feedback is discussed here as a special case of data feedback.
As discussed in Chapter I, survey feedback is a major technique in the history and development of OD. Originally, this intervention included only data from questionnaires about members' attitudes. However, altitudinal data can be supplemented with interview data and more objective measures, such as productivity, turnover, and absenteeism.5 Another trend has been to combine survey feedback with other OD interventions, including work design, structural change, large-group interventions, and iutergroup relations. These change methods are the outcome of the planning and implementation phase following from survey feedback and are described fully in Chapters 12 through 23.
What Are the Steps?
Survey feedback generally involves the following five steps:''
1. Members of the organization, including those at the top, are involved in preliminary planning of the survey. In this step, all parties must be clear about the level of analysis (organization, department, or small group) and the objectives of the survey. Because most surveys derive from a model about organizational or group functioning, organization members must, in effect, approve thai diagnostic framework. This is an important initial step in gaining ownership of the data and in ensuring that the right problems and issues are addressed by the survey.
Once the objectives are determined, the organization can use one of the standardized questionnaires described in Chapter 7, or it can develop its own survey instrument. If the survey is developed internally, pretesting the questionnaire is essential to ensure thai it has been constructed properly. In either case, the survey items need to reflect the objectives established for the survey and the diagnostic issues being addressed.
Training OD Practitioners in Data Feedback
Aspart of a large-scale, employee involvement (EI) program, a large telecommunications company and lite Communications Workers of America union were working to build an internal o gauization tevelopmem consulting capability. This involved the hiring and development of several union and management employees lo work with managers, facilitate EI problem-solving team meetings, and assist in the implementaiion ol recommcr acd changes. The implementation process included an evaluation componenl and (he Id facilitators were expected to collect and leed back data to the organization.
The data collected included ohserva on ol various work processes and problem-solving meetings; unobtrusive measures such as minutes front all ffliJelings, quarterly income statements, operational Spbrts, and communications; and questionnaire mm interview data. A three-page questionnaire was administered every three months ami it asked participants on EI problem-solving teams for their perceptions of team functioning and performance. Interna! EI facilitators were appointed from both phagenient and union employees, and pan of their work required them to leed back the results of the quarterly surveys.
To provide timely feedback to the problem-Solving learns, the HI facilitators were trained to deliver survey feed back. Some of the material developed for thai training is summarized below.
I. Planning for a Survey-Feedback Session
The success of a survey-feedback meeting often has more to do with the level of preparation for the meeting than with anything else. There arc-several things lo do in preparing for a survey-feedback meeting.
A. Distribute copies of the feedback report in advance. This enables people to devote more time at the meeting to problem solving and less to just digesting the data. This is especially important when a large quantity of data is being presented.
B. Think about substantive issues in advance. Formulate your own view of what the
data suggest about the strengths and weaknesses of the group. Does the general picture appear to be positive or problematic? Do the data fit the experience of the group as you know it? What issues do the data suggest need group attention? Is the group likely lo avoid any of these issues? If so, how will you help the group confront the difficult issues'?
C. Make sure you can answer likely technical questions about the data. Survey data have particular strengths and weaknesses. Be able to acknowledge that the data are not perfect, but thai a lot of effort has gone into ensuring thai they are reliable and valid.
D. Plan your introduction to the survey-feedback portion of the meeting. Make the introduci ion brief and to the point. Remind the group of why it is considering I lie data, set the stage for problem solving by pointing out that many groups find such data helpful in (racking their progress, and be prepared to run through an example thai shows how lo understand the feedback data,
II. Problem Solving with Survey-Feedback Data
A. Chunk the feedback. II a lot of data are being fed back, use your knowledge of tfie group and the data lo present small portions of data. Stop periodically to see if there are questions or comments about each section or "chunk" ot data.
13. Stimulate discussion on the data. What follows are various ways lo help get the discussion going.
1.   Help clarify the meaning of the data by asking
• What questions do you have about what the data mean?
• What does ja specific number] mean?
• Does anything in the data surprise you?
• Whai do the data tell you about how we're doing as a group?
144
PART 2   The process of organization Development
2. Help develop a shared diagnosis about the meaning of die dale by commenting
• What I hear people saying is ... Does everyone agree with that?
• Several people are saying that ... is a problem. Do we agree that this is something the group needs to address?
• Some people seem to be saying ... while other comments suggest ... Can you help me understand how the group sees this?
• The group has really been struggling with [specific issue thai the facilitator is familiar with], bin the data say thai we are strong on this. Can someone explain this?
5. Help generate action alternatives by asking
• What are some of the things we can do to resolve .,. ?
• Do we want to brainstorm some action steps to deal with ...?
C. Focus the group on its own data. The major benefit of survey feedback for El teams will be in learning about the group's own behavior and outcomes. Often, however, groups will avoid dealing with issues concerning their own group in favor of broader and less helpful discussions about what other groups are doing right and wrong. Comments you might use to help get the group on track include:
• What do the data say about how we are doing as a group?
• There isn't a lot we can do about what other groups are doing. What can we do about the things that are under our control?
• The problem you are mentioning sounds like one this group also is facing [explain]. Is that so?
D.    Be prepared for problem-solving discussions ihdi are only loosely connected to the data. It is more important for the group to use the data lo understand itself better and to solve problems than il is to follow any particular steps in analyzing ihe data. Groups often are not very systematic in how they analyze survey-feedback data. They may ignore issues that seem obvious to them and instead focus on one or two issues that have meaning lor them. F.    Hot issues and how to deal with them. Survey data can fie particularly helpful in addressing some hot issues within the group that might otherwise be overlooked. For example, a group often will prefer to portray itself as very effective even though group members privately acknowledge that such is not the case. If the data show problems ihat are not being addressed, you can raise this issue as a point for discussion, If someone denies lhat group members feel there is a problem, you can point out that the dala come from the group and thai group members reported such-and-such on the survey. Be careful not to use a parental tone; if you sound like you're wagging your finger at or lecturing [lie group, you're likely lo get a negative reaction. Use the data to raise issues for discussion in a less emotional way. Ultimately, the group itiusi take responsibility for its own use ol the dala. There will be times when you see the issues differently from (he way group members see them or times when il appears certain 10 you that the group has a serious problem that it refuses to acknowledge. A facilitator cannot push a group to do something it's not ready to do, but he or she can poke the group at limes to find out if il is ready lo deal with tough issues, "A little irritation is what makes a pearl in the oyster."
CHAPTER 8    Feeding Back Diagnostic Information
2. The survey instrument is administered to all members of the organization or department. This breadth of data collection is ideal, but it may be appropriate lo administer the instrument to only a sample of members because of cost or lime constraints. If so, the size of the sample should be as large as possible to improve the motivational basis for participation in the feedback sessions.
3. The OD consultant usually analyzes the survey data, tabulates the results, suggests approaches to diagnosis, and trains client members to lead the feedback process.
4. Data feedback usually begins at the top of the organization and cascades downward to groups reporting to managers at successively lower levels.
This waterfall approach ensures that all groups at all organizational levels involved in the survey receive appropriate feedback. Most often, members of each organization group at each level discuss and deal with only that portion of the data involving their particular group. They, in turn, prepare to introduce data to groups at the next lower organizational level if appropriate.
Data feedback also can occur in a "bottom-up" approach. Initially, the data lor specific work groups or departments are fed back and action ileitis proposed. At this point, the group addresses problems and issues within its control. The group notes any issties that are beyond its authority and suggests actions. That information is combined with information from groups reporting to the same manager, and the combined data are fed back to the managers who review the data and the recommended actions. Problems thai can be solved at ibis level are addressed. In turn, their analyses and suggestions regarding problems of a broader nature are combined, and feedback and action sessions proceed up the hierarchy. In such a way, the people who most likely will carry out recommended action get the lirst chance to propose suggestions.
5. Feedback meetings provide an opportunity to work with the data. At each meeting, members discuss and interpret their data, diagnose problem areas, and develop action plans. OD practitioners can play an important role during these meetings,7 facilitating group discussion to produce accurate understanding, locus-ing the group on its strengths and weaknesses, and helping lo develop effective action plans.
Although the preceding steps can have a number of variations, they generally reflect the most common survey-feedback design. Application 8.2 presents a contemporary example of how the survey-feedback methodology can be adapted to serve strategic purposes. The application describes how Prudential Real Estate Affiliates combines atlitudinal surveys with hard measures lo increase change ownership in real estate sales offices.8
Survey Feedback and Organizational Dependencies
Traditionally, the steps of survey feedback have been applied to work groups and organizational units with little attention to dependencies among them. Research suggests, however, that the design of survey feedback should vary depending on how closely the participating units are linked with one another.'' When the units are relatively independent and have little need to interact, survey feedback can locus on the dynamics occurring within each group and can be applied to the groups separately. When there is greater dependency among units and they need to coordinate their efforts, survey feedback rnusi take into account relationships among the units, paying particular attention to the possibility of intergroup conflict. In these situations, the survey-feedback process needs to be coordinated across the interdependent groups. The process will typically be managed by special committees and task forces representing the groups. They will facilitate the intergroup confrontation and conflict resolution generally needed when relations across groups are diagnosed.
Operations Review and Survey Feedback at Prudential Real Estate Affiliates
Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc. (PREA) is a subsidiary of the Prudential Insurance Company of America. Throughoul the United Stales, it franchises the Prudential name to independently owned and operated real estate offices that help people buy and sell homes and commercial real estate. PREA works with approximately 1,200 ol these offices. Although some real estate firms are large, multiol'fice organizations, many are small independent offices with an owner/manager and several sales associates. PRIiA's primary work is to help the offices do their job better by offering a range of support services, including technical support, sales [raining, advertising, and business assistance.
PREA has adapted successfully the survey-feedback technology to assist its customers in improving profitability, productivity, and sales associate work satisfaction. The survey-feedback methodology is called an "operations review." Ii is a voluntary service annually provided free of charge to any office. PREA describes the operations review as an "interactive process." Each office manager is required to gather internal information about its operations and to scud the data to PREA. In addition, each sales associate completes a confidential 43-item opinion survey that is returned directly to PREA for analysis.
These data are entered into a database, and a four-color report is produced. The report is then fed back to the owner/manager of a single office or to die management team in the larger offices. In the best cases, all or part of the data is then shared with the sales associates at a sales meeting. The data are discussed, areas of improvement are identified, and action plans are developed. "When there are discrepancies, especially on the sales force attitudes, it is a great opportunity tor discussion," says Skip Nevvberg, one ot the process designers.
The data are presented in three major areas: financial performance, including income, expense, and profit ratios; productivity, including units sold or revenues per full-time sales associate; anil management practices, including office climate, service orientation, and sales associates' attitudes. The data
for each question are presented in colorful graphs that compare the office's productivity with that of similar offices (in terms of size or struciure) and with the productivity of the top-performing sales office in the country. "Presenting the data in this simple way has an impact. Reams ot computer printouts with numbers are not interesting.... Graphs and colors grab a manager's attention," says Nevvberg.
Although the financial and productivity data are important, it is the management practices data that gel the most attention in the feedback process. Nevvberg believes that "the power is not in the primed book; the power is in the skill of the people who sit down with the sales office people and help litem interpret it. A skilled person can show an office their strengths and weaknesses in such a way that they can use the, data to make improvements." The "management practices" section examines three areas that are related to sales office performance; climate, service orientation, and fundamental attitudes. Climate refers to the associates' perceptions of the extent and degree to which their work and well-being are promoted by management and other associates. It also indicates the degrees to which associates have a sense of pride in their office. Items in the survey, such as "This real estate office is considered to be a leader by others in Ihe market" and "We gel a lot ol customers in this office based on customer referrals," lap that dimension. Service orientation relets to an office's emphasis on service quality and customer satisfaction. To assess I his dimension, the survey asks sales associates to agree or disagree with statements such as "Our office places so much emphasis on selling to customers that ii is difficult to serve customers properly" and "Our advertising is consistent with the service we deliver." Finally, fundamental attitudes of sales associates and their perceptions of management's altitudes can range from optimistic to pessimistic. The survey taps these attitudes with statements such as "Clients have no loyalty regardless of how you treat them" and "diving customers truly excellent custom service takes too much; it's just noi worth it."
CHAPTER 8    Feeding Back Diagnostic Information
Including sales office performance next to sales associates' opinions ami altitudes provides an important motivational aspect to the feedback process. Newberg believes thai ''there isn't a manager alive who doesn't want to know how they compare to their peers. The profil and productivity information gets the office's attention and makes it easier to gel the message across." The message he refers to is the results of research conducted by PREA. II has produced some remarkable evidence of relationships between sales office performance and [be attitudes and opinions of the sales associates. For example, PREA'S research has provided strong evidence of a positive relationship between the fundamental altitudes of sales associates and sales office profitability.
Invariably during the leedback session, owner/ managers or senior managers say, "OK, that's great—sales associate attitudes and office perlorm-ance are related. Hut how can I improve sales associate attitudes?" Glenn Sigmund, a PRC A manager who has worked extensively with the operations review, says, "If we can get managers to
this point, we have their interest, motivation, and most importantly, commitment to address change." Additional research by PREA found certain key behaviors, practices, and polities thai were directly related to positive scores on fundamental attitudes, service orientation, and office climate. These practices and policies give the sales office something tangible to work with and implement.
Response to the system has been favorable. More than 20,000 sales associates have taken the survey, and many offices are back for the third year ol leedback. One CEO from a large nuiliiol'tice firm said, "This is one of the most valuable services PREA offers. Our managers see it as a great tool and one of the besl mechanisms for leedback from our sales associates to check how we're really doing." Another manager in a smaller office reported thai "the operations review has had a definite impact. It helps us locus on carrying out our business plan and increase profits. We also use it to help our sales associates plan how to improve dieir own effectiveness,"
Limitations of Survey Feedback
Although the use of survey feedback is widespread in contemporary organizations, the following limits and risks have been identified:10
1. Ambiguity of purpose. Managers and staff groups responsible for the survey-feedback process may have difficulty teaching sufficient consensus about the purposes of the survey, its content, and how it will be fed back to participants. Such confusion can lead to considerable disagreement over the data collected and paralysis about doing anything with them.
2. Distrust. High levels of distrust in the organization can render the survey feedback ineffective. Employees need to trust that their responses will remain anonymous and that management is serious about sharing the data and solving problems jointly.
3. Unacceptable topics. Most organizations have certain topics that they do not want examined. This can severely constrain the scope of the survey process, particularly if the neglected topics are important to employees.
4. Organizational disturbance. The survey-feedback process can unduly disturb organizational functioning. Daia collection and leedback typically infringe on employee work time. Moreover, administration of a survey can call attention lo issues with which management is unwilling to deal, and can create unrealistic expectations about organizational improvement.
148
PART 2   The process of organization Development
Results of Survey Feedback
Survey feedback has been used widely in business organizations, schools, hospitals, federal and state governments, and the military. The navy has used survey feedback in more than 500 navy commands. More than 150,000 individual surveys were completed, and a large bank of computerized research data was generated. Promising results were noted among survey indices on nonjudicial punishment rates, incidence of drug abuse reports, and performance of ships undergoing refresher training (a posto-verhaul training and evaluation period).11 Positive results have been reported in such diverse areas as an industrial organization in Sweden and the Israeli Army.12
One of the most important studies of survey feedback was done by Bovvers, who conducted a five-year longitudinal study (the Intercompany Longitudinal Study) of 23 organizations in 1 5 companies involving more than 14,000 people in both white-collar and blue-collar positions.11 In each of the 23 organizations studied, repeat measurements were taken. The study compared survey feedback with three other OD interventions: interpersonal process consultation, task process consultation, and laboratory training. The study reported thai survey feedback was the most effective of the four treatments and the only one "associated with large across-the-board positive changes in organization climate."14 Although these findings have been questioned on a number of methodological grounds,1'* the original conclusion that survey feedback is effective in achieving organizational change was supported. The study suggested that any conclusions to be drawn from action research and survey-feedback studies should be based, al least in part, on objective operating data.
Comprehensive reviews of the literature reveal differing perspectives on the effects of survey feedback. In one review, survey feedback's biggest impact was on attitudes and perceptions of the work situation. The study suggested that survey feedback might best be viewed as a bridge between the diagnosis of organizational problems and the implementation of problem-solving methods because little evidence suggests that survey feedback alone will resit 11 in changes in individual behavior or organizational output.'6 This view is supported by research suggesting that the more the data were used to solve problems between initial surveys and later surveys, the more the data improved.17 Another study suggested that survey feedback has positive effects on both outcome variables (for example, productivity, costs, and absenteeism) and process variables (for example, employee openness, decision making, and motivation) in 53% and 48%, respectively, of the studies measuring those variables. When compared with other OD approaches, survey feedback was only bettered by interventions using several approaches together—for example, change programs involving a combination of survey feedback, process consultation, and team building.1* On the other hand, another review found that, in contrast to laboratory training and team building, survey feedback was least effective, With only 33% of the studies that measured hard outcomes reporting success. The success rate increased to 45%, however, when survey feedback was combined with team building.1''1 Finally, a meta-analysis of OD process interventions and individual attitudes suggested that survey feedback was not significantly associated with overall satisfaction or attitudes about co-workers, the job, or the organization. Survey feedback was able to account lor only aboul 1 1 % of the variance in satisfaction and other attitudes.20
Studies of specific survey-feedback interventions identify conditions that improve the success of this technique. One study in an urban school district reported difficulties with survey feedback and suggested that its effectiveness depends partly on the quality of those leading the change effort., members' understanding of the process, the extent to which the survey focuses on issues important to participants, and the degree to which the values expressed by the survey are congruent with those of the
CHAPTER 8    Feeding Back Diagnostic Information
149
respondents.21 Another study in the military concluded that survey feedback works best when supervisors play an active role in feeding back data to employees and helping them to work with the data,'- Similarly, a field study of funeral cooperative societies concluded that the use and dissemination of survey results increased when organization members were closely involved in developing and carrying out the project and when the consultant provided technical assistance in the form of data analysis and interpretation." Finally, a long-term study of survey feedback in an underground mining operation suggested that continued, periodic use of survey feedback can produce significant changes in organizations.11
SUMMARY_
This chapter described the process of feeding back data 10 a client system. It concerned identifying the content of the data to be led back and designing a feedback process that ensures ownership of the data. Feeding back data is a central activity in almost any OD program. II members own the data, they will be motivated to solve organizational problems. A special application of the data collection and feedback process is called survey feedback. It is one of the most accepted processes in organization development, enabling practitioners to collect diagnostic data from a large number of organization members and to feed back that information for purposes of problem solving. Survey feedback highlights the importance ol contracting appropriately with tlie client system (discussed in Chapters 4 and 7), establishing relevant categories for data collection, and feeding back the data as necessary steps for diagnosing organizational problems and developing interventions for resolving them.
NOTES
1. J. Folkman, The Power of Feedback; 33 Principles for Turning Feedback from Others into Personal and Professional Change (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2006); S. Mohrman, T. Cummings, and E. Lawler III, "Creating Useful Knowledge with Organizations: Relationship and Process Issues," in Producing Useful Knowledge for Organizations, eds. R. Kilmann and K. Thomas (New York: Praeger, 1983), 61 3-24.
2. C. Argyris, Intervention Theory and Method: A Behavioral Science View (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970); P. Block, Flawless Consulting: A Guide to Getting Your Expertise Used, 2d fed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999).
3. D. Nadler, Feedback and Organization Develop-ment: Using Data-Based Methods (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wcsley, 1977): 156-58.
4. G. Ledford and C. Worley, "Some Guidelines for Effective Survey Feedback" (working paper, Center for Effective Organizations, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1987).
5. D. Nadler, P. Mirvis, and C. Canimann, "The Ongoing Feedback System: experimenting with a
New Managerial Tool," Organizational Dynamics 4 (Spring 1976): 63-80.
6. F. Mann, "Studying and Creating Change," in The Planning of Change, eds. W. Benin's, K. Benne, and R. Chin (New York: Holl, Rinehart, & Winston, 1964), 605-15; Nadler, Feedback; A. Church, A. Margiloff, and C. Coruzzi, "Using Surveys for Change: An Applied Example in a Pharmaceuticals Organization," Leadership and Organization Development Journal 16 (1995): 3-12; .1. Folkman and .1. Zenger, Employee Surveys That Make a Difference: Using Customized Feedback Tools to Transform Your Organization (New York: Executive Excellence, 1999).
7. Ledford and Worley, "Effective Survey Feedback."
8. This application was contributed by S. Newbcrg and G. Sigmund ol Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc.
9. M. Sashkin and R. Cooke, "Organizational Structure as a Moderator of the Effects of Data-Based Change Programs" (paper delivered at the thirty-sixth annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Kansas City, 1976); D. Nadler, "Alternative Data-Feedback
150
PART 2   The process of organization Development
Designs for Organizational Intervention," The 1979 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators, eds. J. Jones and J. Pfeiffer (La Jolla, Calif.: University Associates, 1979), 78-92.
10. S. Seashore. "Surveysin Organizations," m Handbook of Organizational Behavior, ed. J. Lorsch (Englcwood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1987), 142. U.K. Forbes, "Quo Vadis: The Navy and Organization Development" (paper delivered at the Fifth Psychology in the Air Force Symposium, United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colo., April 8, 1976).
12. S. Rubenowitz, Gotlenbnrg, Sweden: Göteborg Universitet, personal communication, 1988; D. Eden and S. Shlomo, "Survey-Based OD in the Israel Defense Forces: A Field Experiment" (undated manuscript, Tel Aviv University).
13. D, Bovvers, "OD Techniques and Their Result in 23 Organizations: The Michigan ICL Study," Journal of Applied Beha vioral Science 9 (Janua ry-M a reft 1975): 21-43.
14. Ibid.. 42.
1 5, VV. Pasmore, "Backfeed. The Michigan 1CJ. Study Revisited: An Alternative Explanation of the Results," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 12 (April-June 1976): 245-51; W. Pasmore and D. King, "The Michigan ICL Study Revisited: A Critical Review" (working paper no. 548, Krannert Graduate School of Industrial Administration, West Lafayette, Ind., 1976). 16. F. Priedlander and L. Brown, "Organization Development," in Annual Review of Psychology, eds. M. Rosenzweig and L. Porter (Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews, 1974).
17. D. Born and J. Mattheit, "Differential Effects of Survey-Guided Feedback: The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Poorer," Group and Organization Management 21 (1996): 388-404.
18. I. Porras and P. O. Berg. "The Impact of Organization Development," Academy of Management Review 3 (April 1978): 249-66.
19. J. Nicholas, "The Comparative Impact of Organization Development Interventions on Hard Criteria Measures," Academy of Management Review 7 (October 1982): 531-42.
20. G. Neunian, J. Edwards, and N. Raju, "Organizational Development Interventions: A Metaanalysis oT Their Effects on Satisfaction and Other Attitudes," Personnel Psychology 42 (1989): 461-83.
21. S. Mohrman, A. Mohrman, R. Cooke, and R. Duncan. "Survey Feedback and Problem-Solving Intervention in a School District: 'We'll Take the Survey But You Can Keep the Feedback, " in Failures in Organization Development and Change, eds. P. Mirvis and D. Berg (New York: John Wiley tr Sons, 1977), 149-90.
22. F. Conlon and L. Short, "An Empirical Examination of Survey Feedback as an Organizational Change Device," Academy of Management Proceedings (1983): 225-29.
2 3. R. Sommer, "An Experimental Investigation of the Action Research Approach," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 23 (1987): 185-99. 24. J. Gavin, "Observation from a Long-Term Survey-Guided Consultation with a Mining Company," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 21 (1985): 201-20.