This paper surveys the major organizational development (OD) diagnostic models, tracing their evolution from Kurt Lewin's Force Field Analysis (1951) through Leavitt's variable categories, Likert's System Analysis, Weisbord's Six-Box Model, the Nadler-Tushman Congruence Model, and the McKinsey 7S Framework. It explains how each model contributed to—and in some cases fell short of—capturing the role of feedback and external environmental factors. The paper then justifies the application of Open Systems Theory as the most comprehensive diagnostic lens and uses it to assess BMW's competitive position, market outlook, and strategic responses to macroeconomic pressures such as currency fluctuation, rising steel prices, and intensifying global competition in the luxury automobile sector.
The paper demonstrates comparative theoretical synthesis: it does not merely describe each OD model in isolation but evaluates each against shared criteria (treatment of external environment, feedback mechanisms, variable interdependence). This technique allows the author to justify a specific theoretical choice for the applied section, showing readers how literature reviews can function as argumentative scaffolding rather than background filler.
The paper opens with a rationale for OD models in general, then moves through six named frameworks in roughly chronological order. A pivot section introduces Open Systems Theory as a unifying framework that corrects the blind spots of earlier models. The final two sections apply that framework to BMW, covering competitive rivals in both European and American markets before closing with a market outlook discussion. The reference list follows APA conventions throughout.
The Organizational Development (OD) model represents an organization in a form that makes its overall understanding easier and faster. It is a reflection of observable affairs within the organization. Burke has identified numerous ways showing the utility of organizational models (in Howard and Associates, 1994):
A properly selected OD model is crucial for the accurate diagnosis of issues prevailing in an organization and also streamlines the analysis phase. An OD Practitioner may develop a model for the organization based on intuition, yet correct diagnosis is available only through an explicit model. It helps the OD Practitioner collect the right type of information from the immense data available within an organization. The model reduces the probability of relying on hunches for data collection and thematic analysis. It provides a clear and quick picture of the key variables in a particular organizational setting. Information about key variables is more readily available because those variables have been identified and explored in previous research. The model also helps in understanding the relationships among variables and enables the OD Practitioner to categorize them systematically.
Force Field Analysis is a simple model developed in 1951 by Kurt Lewin. It focuses on analyzing problems prevailing in organizational settings and their resolution (French & Bell, 1995; Fuqua & Kurpius, 1993; Lewin, 1951). This is an accessible model that requires little effort to visualize. It identifies two types of forces acting within an organization. The first type is driving forces, which support change in organizational settings; environmental factors most often act as driving forces. The second type is restraining forces, which take the form of organizational factors and resist change initiatives. Examples of restraining forces include low employee morale and limited resources. The model begins with the identification and clear definition of these two types of forces, steps that illuminate the organizational issues to be addressed. The OD Practitioner then determines the desired direction for the organization and devises strategies and goals to adjust the equilibrium accordingly.
The focus of Force Field Analysis is to shift the present equilibrium toward the desired state by simultaneously working on both driving and restraining forces. Driving forces are strengthened while restraining forces are reduced or eliminated. The change process begins with built-in social awareness and understanding and continues until a new equilibrium is established; a period of disequilibrium is therefore expected during the transition.
Fourteen years after Lewin's Force Field Analysis, Leavitt (1965) proposed a comparatively simpler model. He set aside the concepts of driving and restraining forces and instead introduced specific categories of variables operating within organizations. His categorization was based on task, structure, technology, and people (Burke, in Howard, 1994; Leavitt, 1965).
Leavitt's model resembled Lewin's in that it too recognized relationships among variables that could be either positive (driving) or negative (restraining). It differed from Lewin's model, however, in its treatment of external environmental variables and their impact on organizational issues. Leavitt's model also did not determine causality among the four variable categories; it simply considered them interdependent and dynamic, without undertaking a deeper analysis of cause-and-effect relationships between them.
Likert rejected both Lewin's notion of forces and Leavitt's variable categories. He proposed a new framework identifying seven organizational dimensions and presented four management systems observed in organizational settings. The management systems were derived from these dimensions, which include performance, motivation, interaction, control, communication, goal setting, and decision making (Likert, 1967).
To lend empirical support to his framework, Likert developed a 43-item survey containing questions about the seven organizational dimensions. The survey helped him identify which management system was operating in a given organization by collecting and measuring employees' perceptions at all levels regarding the seven dimensions and their organizational impact.
After Likert's framework, no significant innovation emerged in this field for some time; however, his work was refined and updated by subsequent scholars. Nelson and Burns (1984) added new terminology, categorizing organizations as reactive (System 1), responsive (System 2), proactive (System 3), and high-performing (System 4). Later, Baker (1996) relabeled these systems based on his own research, calling System 1 "Coercive," System 2 "Competitive," System 3 "Consultative" (approximating Likert's original model), and System 4 "Collaborative."
You’re 31% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.