Organizational Diagnostic Models Applied to JAKKS Pacific

Introduction to Organizational Diagnostic Models

According to Cummings and Worley (2014), the relevance of organizational diagnostic models cannot be overstated when it comes to identifying the appropriate data required to highlight a company's deficiencies and strengths, as well as existing opportunities to improve operations and processes. The following organizational diagnostic models are examined in this discussion: the 7S model, the Congruence Model, the Burke-Litwin Model, Leavitt's Model, Force Field Analysis, and Weisbord's Six-Box Model.

The 7S Model

This model seeks to highlight the organizational design of an entity by focusing on seven primary internal elements: strategy, structure, skills, style, staff, systems, and shared values (Falletta, 2005). The goal is to determine whether these elements are aligned in a way that permits an entity to effectively pursue its objectives. As per the 7S model, these elements are interconnected — meaning that no single element ought to be considered in isolation.

One key benefit of this model is its practicability and ease of application from an analytical standpoint. Its broad nature also permits 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 particularly evident in the shared values element, which does not adequately account for conflicts that may arise among key players in an organizational setting.

The Congruence Model

The Congruence Model is another important organizational development (OD) tool for highlighting key issues affecting an organization's performance. According to the model, four elements lie at the heart of stellar performance: culture, structure, people, and tasks (Falletta, 2005). These elements must be congruent for enhanced performance to be realized. Incompatibility among them produces suboptimal performance, necessitating amendments to the organizational design.

One of the model's key strengths is its usefulness in managing change, specifically in analyzing the impact of change. It reminds key players that missteps could have knock-on effects that impede the organization from achieving its objectives. However, the model may not be appropriate for large organizations running complex global operations, given that it lacks a structured mode of application. This flexibility can be a drawback when developing valid and tested diagnostic setups for complex settings.

The Burke-Litwin, Leavitt's, and Force Field Models

The Burke-Litwin Model identifies twelve organizational dimensions that are of great relevance to effecting organizational change. It examines the cause-and-effect relationship among these twelve key areas, thereby helping identify the need and reason for change. The model is therefore useful not only for analysis but also for diagnosing and predicting how change impacts an entity. The dimensions identified 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). Despite its utility in managing organizational change, the model overlooks the fact that external factors are not the only triggers of organizational change — internal factors can also set change in motion.

According to Leavitt, the designer of the model bearing his name, four interactive components make up an organization: "task variables, structure variables, technological variables, and human variables" (Falletta, 2005). Leavitt's Model proposes that an organization's fate is determined by the interaction of these four components — particularly when an organization is pursuing integrated change. Leavitt pointed out that changes in any one of the four components have an impact on the others, meaning that to accommodate change, the remaining elements must also be adjusted. This model is especially helpful to organizations seeking to initiate change while encouraging teamwork and reducing resistance to change. Falletta (2005), however, notes "that the model is too simple to make any direct causal statements regarding the four variables."

Proposed by Kurt Lewin, Force Field Analysis highlights the various change-related challenges an organization must tackle. Forces working against change are lined up against pro-change forces. According to the model, no change is likely to occur when restraining forces and driving forces reach an equilibrium. Change can only take place when the driving forces exceed the restraining forces. This model is highly relevant for identifying obstacles that could frustrate change efforts, enabling organizations to formulate measures to reduce those obstacles' impact. The model does, however, call for organization-wide participation — something that can be difficult to achieve in a dynamic work environment.

References

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.