Organizational Diagnostic Models JAKKS Pacific

According to Cummings and Worley (2014), the relevance of organizational diagnostic models cannot be overstated when it comes to the identification of the appropriate data required to highlight the deficiencies as well as strengths of a company, and the existing opportunities to improve operations and processes. For this discussion, the following organizational diagnostic models will be highlighted; the 7S model, the congruence model, the Burke-Litwin model, Leavitt’s model, force field analysis, and the Weisbord’s six-box model.

This model seeks to highlight the organizational design of an entity by focusing of seven primary internal elements. The said elements include; strategy, structure, skills, style, staff, systems, and shared values (Falletta, 2005). In essence, the goal in this case is to determine whether these elements are aligned in a way that permits an entity to effectively pursue its objectives. It is important to note that as per the 7S model, the said elements are interconnected – effectively meaning that no single element ought to be considered in isolation. One key benefit of this model is practicability and ease of application from an analytical point of view. The broad nature of the model also permits the coverage of an entity’s most critical factors. However, it should be noted that in addition to failing to embrace external factors, the model does not take into consideration the political nature of organizations (Harrison, 2005). This is more so the case given that the shared values element does not appreciate conflicts that may arise amongst key players in an organizational setting.

In seeking to highlight key issues affecting the performance of an organization, the congruence model is yet another important OD model. As per the model, four elements lie at the heart of stellar performance. These are culture, structure, people, and tasks (Falletta, 2005). It is these elements that ought to be congruent for enhanced performance to be realized. This effectively means that incompatibility of the said elements brings about suboptimal performance – necessitating the need for amendments to the organizational design. One of the key strengths of the congruence mode is that it comes in handy in the management of change, specifically in the analysis of the impact of change. It reminds key players in the organizational setting that missteps could have knock on effects which could get in the way of the organization achieving its objectives. However, the model may not be appropriate for large organizations running complex global operations. This is more so the case given that the model does not have a structured mode of application, with the resulting flexibility being a boon for the development of valid and tested setups for diagnosis in complex settings.

This model identifies a number of organizational dimensions, twelve in total, that are of great relevance in the effecting of organizational change. It looks into the cause-and-effect relationship between the said 12 key areas, thus helping identify the need and reason for change. It therefore comes in handy in not only the analysis but also the diagnosis and prediction of how change impacts the entity. The dimensions highlighted include; “external environment, mission and strategy, leadership, organizational culture, structure, management practices, systems, work unit climate, task requirement and individual skills, motivation, individual needs and values, and individual and organizational performance” (Falletta, 2005). The design and nature of this particular model makes it a useful and key tool in the management of organizational change. However, the model overlooks the fact that external factors are not the only triggers of organizational changes. Factors internal to the organization could also set change in motion.

According to Leavitt, the designer of this model, there are four interactive components that make up an organization. These include “task variables, structure variables, technological variables, and human variables” (Falletta, 2005). This model proposes that the fate of an organization is determined by the four components’ interaction. This is more so the case when an organization is pursuing integrated change. Leavitt pointed out that changes in any of the four components did have an impact on the other components – effectively meaning that to ensure that the change is accommodated, the other elements have to be tweaked as well. This model is specifically helpful to organizations seeking to initiate change while at the same time encouraging teamwork and reducing resistance to the said change. Falletta (2005), however, points out that “that the model is too simple to make any direct causal statements regarding the four variables.”

Proposed by Kurt Lewin, this model basically highlights the various change-related challenges an organization ought to tackle. Here, forces working against change efforts are lined up against pro-change forces. According to the model, no change is likely to occur if the forces restraining change cancel out with those driving change, i.e. when an equilibrium of sorts is attained. It, therefore, follows that change can only take place in instances where the restraining forces are exceeded by the pro-change forces. This model is of great relevance in the identification of obstacles that could frustrate change efforts. In this case, measures can be formulated to reduce the impact of such obstacles. The model, however, calls for organization wide participation. In a dynamic work setting, this can be difficult to achieve.

Six categories are proposed in this model; purposes, relationships, structures, helpful mechanisms, rewards, and leadership (Falletta, 2005). This model places great emphasis on the design and structure of an organization. Thus, factors including, but not limited to, performance assessment, remuneration standards, planning, etc. are given significant prominence. Generally, the model is simple and straightforward in application. Burke (2010), however, is of the opinion that “although categorizing the many organizational dimensions into six boxes helps to simplify and provide quick understanding, organizations are far too complicated to be represented by only six categories” (p. 197).

Burke, W.W. (2010). Organizational Change: Theory and Practice (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: SAGE.

Cummings, T.G. & Worley, C.G. (2014). Organizational Development and Change (10th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

Falletta, S.V. (2005). Organizational Diagnostic Models: A Review & Synthesis. Sunnyvale, CA: Leadersphere, Inc.

Harrison, M.I. (2005). Diagnosing Organizations: Methods, Models, and Processes (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Hung, P.C. (Ed.). (2015). Mobile Services for Toy Computing. New York, NY: Springer.

Parr, R.L. & Smith, G.V. (2015). Intellectual Property: Valuation, Exploitation, and Infringement Damages 2015 Cumulative Supplement. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.