Research Note 84-130

Co

ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE U.S. ARMY PROGRAM OF

o ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

U.S. James. Mitchell D. McCorcle, and A.J. Brothers

Arthur Young and Company

Laurel W. Oliver

Army Research Institute

Submitted by

William W. Haythorn, Acting Chief

Leadership and Management Technical Area

and

Joyce L. Shields, Director

Manpower and Personnel Research Laboratory

ILL2

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences a20oo/ 03 ASO 0

November 1984

Approved for public releasem distribution unlimited.

other primary distribution and will be avala0ble to reqestoers ONy throuoh DTIC or other reference services such

*the National Technical tnfe-M ation Service 4NTIS. The views. opinions, end/or findinp ontainod In this ieorwae those of the oeumhr(s) and should not be construed a een offia Depantmnt of ftheAmy position.

or decision, Bolicy, unless so dCesignad by other offic documanualton.

Best Available Copy C
UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (W7h.n Doma Enteeed)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE - EPORECOMPLETRIG FORM

1. REPORT NUMBER 2.GOVT ACCESSION NO0. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

Research Note 84-130 ~I~ ' 4. TITLE (and Subtliffe S. TYPE OFREPORT &PERIODOCOVERED

Final Pepor~t

ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE U.S. ARMY PROGRAM19018

OF ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS G. PERUOO21uIG ORG.. REPORT NUMBER

1. AUTI4OR(o) S. CONTRACT Oft GRANT NUMBER(&)

U. S. James, M. D. McCorcle, A. J. Brothers, MD903-0C-0.147

and Laurel W. Oliver.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS 10t. PROGKAM* ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASKC AMEA 6,116ORtI&WUIT MU04BERS

Arthur Young and Company

1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 2Q2637310~9,2

Washington, D.C.. 20036 Task A, Work Unit 002

11. CONTROLLIN~G OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT- DATE

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral November 1984

and Social Sciences 13. NUMBDEROF PAGES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333 19

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME 4 AOORESS(it difforeng from Conftoffinji Office) IS. SECURIITY CLAMS . himoont)

E2CLUssrFIED1

Ilia. OECC.SS#FiCATIOMIDOWMORADING

SCREQIILE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of tAl. Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the &botract .enered In Block 20. it different (too Roped)

I0. SIJPPL9MEI;.TARY NOTES

It. IKEY WORDS (Continue an tovsese side It necessary end Identify by block numbo,)

Organizational effectiveness

Organizational development

Organizational change

20. ABSTRACT (omtsaw 40 raveork ol~ffN~m.i~. 18"u,. 6F ck .nvftl.~, itr

- -~ Tisreport dd1"riibe!4 MEse=~ to ted tip a~s'~te impact of the

Army's Organizational Effectiveness (OE) program on the Armty. The researchers interviewed Users (Commanders), OE Consultants, and others who had participated in 35 selected CE operations. Results indicated that the most

successful operations are those interfacine, interpers;onal -r. intergroup pro-.

cesses with technological processes or issues but which do not require outside

resources or support. True macro-level operations are very difficult to implement succes~sfully. 'The key role in an OE operation is. that --,(ontinued)

DD 1 jo=171 1473 EDITION 0f I NOV 65 IS OPSOLETE NLSSFE

i SECURiTY CL.ASSIFCATOP THIS PAGE (When Dots Entered)
.. 4 XM.'.'- -

UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Whe• Does Antered)

20. (Continued)

5Zof an actively involved leader. Structuring (clarifying outcomes and organizing change strategies) and diffusion (circulating information: throughout the

system and obtaininq feedback) are processes important to the success of an

operation. The OE consultant is important in coaching the User in desirable

behaviors and in actively participating in the diffusion process. It was not

possible, in the time available at each installation, to obtain reliable data

on costs and benefits of OE operation. Implications of the findings for

leader development and OE consultant training are discussed.

Accession For

NTIS GRA&I

.D?.C TV3

UwzM-1o-cunz-ed

Jt tif cat i c

I 'Ds I ~ . ---.- .v*- .'.h' u lot O-I

UNCLASSIFIED

ii SECURITY CL.ASSIFICATION ýir THIS PAGE(WYon Date Entered)
p ;. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE U.S. ARMY PROGRAM OF

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

The Army's Organizational Effectiveness (OE) progrmi.Uses management and

behavioral science technology to assist Army leaders to improve mission performance and combat readiness. This assistance is provided.by Organizational

Effectiveness Consultants, who have been trained in a 16-week. course at Fort

Ord, California. The p. rpose of the research described. ini this report was to

assess the impact of the OE program on the Army. Specifically, the research

sought to identify the most effective types of OE operations- and the characteristics associated with the more successful operations. In-addItion,. the

research sought to assess the costs an,, benefits of the ceations....

Procedure:

Data were collected on 35 selected OE operations representing: a variety

of interventions and organizational levels. The researchers interviewed OE

Consultants, Users (commanders) , User subordinates, and othcr-ms wo-.had been

involved in the OE operations. Interview data were coded and analyzed.

Analyses included correlations of pertinent variables and comparisons, of the

characteristics of the more successful and less successful oqperations•.

Findings:

"The most successful operations were those which interfaced interpersonal

or intergroup processes with technological processes or issues but which did

not depend on outside resources or support. Although the: number of such cases

was very small, the least successful operations were those irnolving, complex

systems requiring decision making or coordination of components or o.rganizations beyond the boundaries of the User's organization.

Tf- key -role in an OE operation is that of the User. Users should have

a strong goal orientatLicn, be able to define measurable outcomes., be: able to

identify support for and opposition to their OE operation,, and. to.be, actively

involved in the processes of structuring (clarifying outcomes, understanding

and organizing strategies for change, providing training, etc.) anddiffusion

(disseminating information throughout the system and chtainina feedback).

The structuring a;-. Aifrusioii prvces~ts .UL ImJoLLcint to tne success of an

operation. The OE Consultalit is important in coaching the User in desirable

behaviors and in becoming actively involved in the diffusion process. It was

not possible, in the time available at each installation, to obtain reliable

data on. costs and benefits of OE operations.

•.ii:iii
Utilization of Findings:

The findings have implications for leader development and for the training of OE Consultants. Leaders need to receive training and assignments that

will develop their skills in managing orqanizational change, and OE Consultants need training in how to assist leaders in this function. Leaders need

exposure to management tools such as sociotechnical systems analysis, and OE

Consultants need training and field experience in approaches which involve a

technological component. In addition, the findings of this research should

be incorporated into the OE Information System now under development.

iv
ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE U.S. ARMY PROGRAM OF

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION.................................................... .. .. .......

Background.................................................. .. ....... 1

Problem.......... . ..... . .... .. .. .. ................... 1

R~esearch Approach ................................................ 2

Model of organizational Change........................3

METHOD........................................................................7

Sample of OE-Oper~ations................................ ................ 7

Ins trument s. .................................... 12

Data Collection...........................................................12

Design and Analysis ....................................................... 1

RESULTS........................................................ ............... 16

Statistical Properties of Scales......................16

Characteristics of the OE Operations............................17

Success Scale Comparisons............................... ................ 21

Costs, and Benefits........................................................26

DISCUSSION........................................ .. ...... ................. 26

Types of Most Effective operations.....................26

Characteristics of Successful OE Operations. ........................... 28

Cost and Benefits...................................................... 29

Model of organizational Change........................I..................29

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................. . .. .. ...... 29

REFERENCES...................................................... .......... 31

APPENDIX A. USER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS.....................................A-1

B. OE USER TARGET INTERVIEW QUESTIONS...............B-i

C. OE CONSULTANT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS...............C-i

D. OE OPERATION CODING WORKSHEET .. ....................... D-1

E. CASE OUTCOMES SUMMARY REPORT ........................ . .. E-i

F. OVERALL CASE ASSESSMENT (OCA) CODING COMMNTON AND FORM F-i

G. STANDARDIZED COSTS..........................................G-1

V
CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

APPENDIX H. OPERATIONS CODING WORKSHEET SCALES ..... ... ....... .H-I

I. OVERALL CASE ASSESSMENT SCALES . .... I-i

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. User Classes . ....... .................. 8

2. OE Operation Classes .. ......... ........... 9

3. Matrix of cases ...... ........ . . ........................ 10

4. Statistical properties of OE Operation Coding Worksheet

(OCW) scales .... ........... ................. .. 16

5. Statistical properties of Overall Case Assessment scales . . 17

6. Intercorrelations of OE Operation Worksheet scales ... ....... 20

7. Intercorrelations of Overall Case Assessment scales ... ... .. 20

8. User and Operation Classes for OE operations rank ordered

by Success scores ...... ...... ............... 22

9. Success scale means and standard deviations for OE operations

classified by Cluster, User Class, and Operdtion Class .... 23

10. Operations Coding Worksheet items showing significant differences between above-median and below-median groups ........ ... 24

11. Operations Coding Worksheet items showing significant at .10

level for above-median and below-median group ... ...... ... 25

12. Costs and benefits of OE operations . ... .... ........... 27

13. Operations Coding Worksheet scales ..... ......... ........ H-2

14. Overall Case Assessment scales ............... 1-2

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure l. A model of the oryanizational change process in Army

organization ......... .• . .............. 4

vi
- I I I I I-,

ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE U.S. ARMY PROGRAM,

OF ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

INTRODUCTION

Background

The Army's Organizational Effectiveness (OE) program uses management and

behavioral science techtology to assist Army leaders to improve missiora performance and combat readiness. These management and behavioral science approaches are known as Organizational Development (OD) in the civilian community.

Army OE is the application of OD technology in an Army setting. The objective

of the OE program is to provide assistance to Army leaders to improve mission

performance and combat readiness. This assistance is provided primarily by

Organizational Effectiveness Consultants (OECs) who have been trained in a 16-

week coutse at the Organizational Effectiveness Center and School (OECS) at

Fort Ord, California.

Problem

There is little systematic evidence concerning the impact of OD on, civilian organizations (Porras & Berg, 1978), even though OD methodology usually

includes a requirement to assess or evaluate the outcome of each OD application

(known as an intervention). The Army OE approach similarly has an evaluation

phase. However, as reported in the interim report for this project (James &

Oliver, 1981), there has been very little evaluation performed by OECs in the

field. Most of the evaluation conducted to date has been performed by OECS. 1

The research reported here attempts to provide additional insights from an

outside, objective viewpoint that supplements OECS evaluation efforts.

Specific queslions addressed by this research include:

1. What are the most effective types of OE operations?

2. What are the characteristics of successful OE operations?,

3. Can costs and benefits be identified for OE operations?

4. To what extent does this research support the model of organizational change prolpsed by James, Oliver, and McCorcle (1981)?

It is dnticipat. I that the findings and conclusions presented in. this report will contribute to OEC development--i.e., to provide input for curriculum

change and-guidance for consultants in the field. In addition, the findings will

provide information needed for an automated OE information system being developed by the Army Research Institute (ARI). The principal purpose of the automated system will be to obtain and store information on OE operations so that

LThe reader should note that OECS refers to the Orqanizational Effertiveness

Center and School, while OECs is the plural- of the acronym for OE Consultant.
OECs can selectively retrieve and use Oh case inf.'m ation to improve ongoing

operations.

The field of organizational effectiveness has received a great deal of

attention over the past several years. It has been the focus of multiple research efforts and the subject of debate among and between academics and executives, as well as the rationale for numerous organizational change efots. In spite of the attention given touorganiZational effectiveness, it

has been difficult to determine what makes one effort to accomplish organizational change more effective than another (Clark & Ford, 1970; Strauch, 1975).

Research Approach

The present evaluation was guided byseveral basic considerations. First,

it was assumed that evaluation research differs from traditional research.

-hile concerns about randomization, internal and external validity, and reliability are useful criteria by which to design a research project, the primary

concern in this study was to produce:.high quality evaluation research, that

is, to produce timely, usable, decision-relevant data. For this reason, the

emphasis was on the Utility of the in fOrmation at hand, though the methodologi- cal nuances and Statistical properiies of the instruments and scales will be

reported where appropriate. The basic design of this research was an adaptation of the comparative analysis, or theory-generating methods, advocated by

Glaser and Strauss (1967). Such an approach., in addition to its primary focus

on developing, testing, and elaborating hipotheses and substantive theory,

afforded the opportunity to conduct a "behavioral census" (Barker, 1963) to

determine the type and frequency of the various behaviors or activities associated with this sort of work. It also required a field study, despite

Berg's warning Lhat studying behavior in organizational settings involves

surrendering "a measure of control over our 'experiment'". (1978, p. 1).

Another set of methodological choices was based on assumptions concern- ing the nature of the phenomena under study.. Evaluation and change are potentially traumatic processes, as evidenced in studies of performance evaluation in industry (Meyer, Kay, & French, 1964) and in research on resistance

to change (Kaufman, 1971). It would follow that research efforts to ev.Aluate

change might be met by defensiveness and mistrust. Therefore, every attempt

was made to collect nonreactive data (Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, Sechrest, &

Grove, 1981) , relying whenever possible on published reports, records, and

the like, to provide background. However, Van Maanen's. (1979) distinction

between "presentational data," those which concern the appearances or images

of themselves that individuals or groups strive to promote or enhance in the

eyes of outsiders (e.g., through p ublished reports) , and "o[;erational data,"

the spontaneous conversations and activities engaqed in by the individuals

or ,roups, would indicate that examining archival datia alone would be insufficient. Direct observation of consultant and client behavior also would be

required. .5o a strategy was devised whereby the data collection methods became increasingly reactive as trust in the data collector grew.

Further 'juidance reqarding change processes in general was derived from

the work of Arqyris (1970) , especially what hti calls the "primary tasks of

ititerventionistis" (Chapter 1) , which guided the developmerit of [Ortions of

the conceptual of successful change p.rojects to be presented later.

Also useful regardinq change evaluation in Army settings were the work (it
Oliver (1961) and Spencer and Cullen (1978, 1979). Although. there is no

standardized procedure for evaluating militar, orqanizational effectiveness

-orerations, these previous studies supported development of research methods

for this particular project.

The final consideration influencing the research approach.was one of:

ethics and etiquette. The researchers were committed to leaving all personal

and professional relationships which they observed at leastas good as they

found them. Adhering to this commitment required attention to-.the impactý of

the researchers' presence on the everyday work behavior of the. fieldi organizations and efforts to minimize the disruptiveness of the data. collection.

(For a related discussion, see Argyris, 1970, Chapters 4and.5.)

Model of Organizational Change

The basis for this research was a model of organizational change pre-

"sented by James, Oliver, and McCorcle (1981). Measures to be described later

operationalize key elements of the model. Briefly, the model postulates, that

the success of an OE operation is a function of the actors, who.are: linked by

their roles.to a set of processes that result in the priduction..of a- series

of outcomes-. This set of relationships is further influenced,.by several mediating factors. (Figure 1 depicts the model, James et al., .981J.)

There are three types of actors:

1. The User--the person who is in charge of the organization.(the

commander).

2. The OEC--the Or-ganizational Effectiveness Consultant. •

3. User subordinates--the individuals below the User in, the organiza--

tional hierarchy; more specifically, those individuals who are involved in

an intervention or change project because their future support is required.

"or the change to be successful.

There are four types of critical processes which must. be managed during

any change. These processes include applying a theory of practice,. supplyinq

structure, insuring diffusion of information, and psycho-econmic transactions.

SI. A~tLilyiflryact •iceo_. In some 'espects, OE consultants are similar to researchers. To be f ect i ye, each must have a mAJel in mind., The. OE

con:-ultant must be q-gided by a coherent ,.et of alternative strateqies throuqh

which a change process can be executed. Weisbord (1971) calls st.ch. a set of

:-tr.ategies t a "practice the(ory. " [lscwhez e, Argyr is and Schon (1978,. Chaptur I

refer simil,rly to .- "theory, ,f action" or a "theory-in-use." The OEC's. overall strategy is generally based on an action research model and., depending on

User needs, may emp,hasize certain aspects of this or another modelmore than

(other:;. It is of ,Ireit imlo)rt.ance that an outcome orientation be a part of

this practice. The OE consultant furnishes the practice theo•• concepts

throuqh which the User can t.evelop a desired future. As the chanqe process

progIresses, the theory can be altered in any dimension. Hkoever, the theory

must be there for thu Uu:er to know where to proceed anid wAere he/she has been.

T'1hus, intendu.! outc'ihw•s for each stop of the strate(y are defincd- and assessed

L-.1
Io u

U. C

uJ C

E6 t

<U 0

o 0

S 'E

Cc 0 a I *ec a~ oi w 0 LU

U -

0 0. o cc~

zS

0 W o * C
in conjunction with the next step. For planned :hanqe to occur, the desired

organizational outcomes must be clearly identified and defined in measurable

terms by the User and User subordinates as early in the change process as

possible.

2. Supplying structure. In complex organizations, the role :of manager

often becomes synonymous with a responsibility for structure. Miller (1973)

contends that the primary functions of leaders in open human systems are "structuring" and "destructuring." In effective OE operations., the OE consultant assists the leader (User) in supplying structure appropriate to a particular stage of the change project. The OEC might, for example, clarify the

User's intended outcomes, organize them in a meaningful manner, and provide

any needed training in order to eliminate unnecessary confusion and obstacles

as the intervention progresses. The role of the OE consultant is in this case

analogous to that of a construction engineer who must build a bridge between

the organization's present condition and the User's intended outcomes for that

organizat ion.

3. insuring dit fuz;ikn of information. Finally, the OE consultant must

become a communications engineer, developing and energizing systems for exchanging information about the OE operation. This information exchange progresses from areas of greater concentration of information to areas of lessei.

.concentration of information and back again. The User and User subordinates

must also be meaningfully involved in this pro-,ess. (For related ideas, the

reader is encouraged to consult the voluminous literature on the "diffusion of

innovation," including, for example, Havelock, 1968, and Katz, 1961.)

4. Psjcho-economic transactions. As the GE intervention continues, User

subordinates become increasingly active and are able to influence the functionin'; of the organization. Subordinates then experience a return on their contributions to organizational functioning. The series of cycles of contributions and returns constitute the process called psycho-economic transactions.

The primary means by which the actor- are connected to the. processes is

through their roles. Role definition is an importait element, for as Clark

and Ford (1970) note, the consultant and client roles in planned chanqe are

at best ambiguous.

1. The role of the User is to seek to understand the data and practice

theLr-/ strategy irvid-d by the consultant in order that future actions can

be taken to remedy problem areas. This requirement necessitates significant

commitment since frc:puintly the User is part of the identified problem. The

Use.r must al:;o be will tit t o, irivolve subordinates both in findingq a solotion

arld in the implemertat i on ',r those solutions which require their support.

2. The role ) I th1c consultant is one of considerable complexity. It

includes three major re!;',orv;ibi.lities:

a. Asiistisri, the Uisier in choxsing and defining issues/problems suitable for an OE operation. The OlE consultant must be able to clarify the potential benefits and risks involved in the use of OE methodoloqy.

b, Actively it•eiraLin(g both User and subordinate needs in a way

which uses valid information as a basis for all activity.

I
c. Providing art apropriate and flexible practice theory strategy

"which stres,e:; outcomes, is supported by necessary structure, and is diffused

* throuq;hout, t,•ise p.arts-of the organization affected by the intended change.

3. The role of subordinates is a reactive one at first. The role becomes more active as subordinate iIdividUals are qiven more opportunities to

influence tile way in which the organization functions. As they are given

these o pportunities, they develop expectations about the future return on 5 their contribution. As noted above, the many cycles of contributions and

returns are referred to as psycho-economic transactions. Throughout an operation, these transactions have an important cumulative effect. For the

" rcatest subordinate commitment to occur, individuals must experience returns

on their contributions which meet or exceed expectations. If their expectations are met and they are permitted to assist in finding solutions to important organizational issues, it is very likely that they will be committed to

the result ant soltitiozis.

As noted in Figure 1, there are three sets of outcomes suggested by the

"model, arranged sequentially. First, given the necessary preconditions, roles,

and change processes, it is hypothesized that a change climate will be engendered in which (a) valid information can be collected and communicated to all

.- relevant parties, (b) free choices can be made about what should be done to

change (or maintain) the organization, and. (c) conditions will be such that

internal commitment is generated to carry out the choices made in (b). The

theoretical basis for these intermediate steps is Argyris' (1970) pioneering

work on intervention theory, in particular his ideas about the primary tasks

of interventicn activities. These tasks become at once the results of the

earlier stage of the change process and the necessary precursors of innovation

and change, which in turn precede an increase in organizational effectiveness.

"For an intervention to be successful, it is hypothesized that the mediating factors depicted in the model must be present. It is hypothesized

that there are four factors which mediate the relative success of the change

process: (a) a need for change within the organization, (b) a change that is

"within the control of the unit involved, (c) a goal orientation on the part

of the actors, and (d) a supportive environment.

" * The success of the change effort will be greater to the extent that there

* is a legitimate need for change within the organization. The success of the

change will be further enhanced if the members of the organization have perceptions that a change is needed.

Giv:n the dependence of an organization on its environment, organizational

"inertia, and the entrenched nature of some organizational practices, factors

which require alteration are not always within the control of those who would

wish to change them. The model proposes that successful change is more likely

when the needed change is within the control of the organizational unit.

The personality or leadership style of the major actors may affect the

likelihood of change. In particular their inclination toward setting, moni-

*" toring, and achieving goals is predicted to moderate the change process. The

greater the goal orientation of the actors, the greater the probability of

"change.

* 6
As mentioned above, organizations are increasingly dependent on their

environments. Given that change requires excess resources as well as will-i

ingness to take risks and alter established patterns of interactica, a

portive environment is important. This does not mean that the environment

should be calm and malleable, but rather that the environment is willing and

able. to allocate required resources and tolerate the rizs'-taking associated

with change.

METHOD

"Sample of OE Operations

* .Since the Army wished to gain a representative picttices of what had taken

place in the Army OE program in the past, as well as to cbtain focused, valid

data upon which to make decisions for the future directicot of the program,

"the OE project cases were chosen deliberately, not randomly.

In order to obtain information on the outcomes of several tyt.:ý,s of OE

. operations in several different organizational settings, theý orjoj[ct team reSquested that the Army identify four cases representing each pos.ible combination of User Class, or type of user organization (see Table I), and OE Opera-

"tion Class, or type of issue/time to impact/need for ext'rnai su.;I.,rt (see

• :Table 2). The four cases were to include two more successful and tw-_ less

successful cases for each of the 12 combinations of User and OE. Operation.

The following rules were used to classify OE operations for. inclusion it. .ach

* class:

1. User Class (I, II, III, or IV): Classifiedby intended organizational target for the OE operation as agreed upon by the OEC/User

prior to implementation. The intent of the organizational target

"to be classified based on the most complex Class of target contained in the operation's objectives.

* 2. OE Operation Class (A, B, or C) : Classified by intended objective

for the OE operation as agreed upon by the OBC/User prior to imple-

%-. mentation. The intent of the operation to be classified based on

: the most complex class of an objective contained in the operation's

* objectives.

"The User and OE Operation Classes were obtained in two steps. First,

available case data on OE projects (e.g., Hallen, Schmidt, & Weingart, 1979;

Minton, Bedoian, Weingart, & Schmidt, 1978; Schaefer Weingart, 1979; Spencer

& Cullen, 1979) were analyzed and natural categories empirically derived.

"Second, during preliminary interviews, the research team developed a twodimensional matrix for the research plan. One side of the matrix is bounded

. by OE operations in which the intended change objective ranges from least to

greatest complexity; the other side is bounded by Army organizations from

.. least to greatest complexity. The resulting matrix is shown in Table 3, us-

"* ing the dimensioni previously defined in Tables 1 and 2. Although two more

* successful and two less successful cases were sought for each cell in Table 3,

it was not possible to secure interventions of all types.,. especially in the

more complex organizational units.

7
Table I

User Classes

Four User Classes of U.S. Army Organizations are identified based on increasing size and complexity. - ..

Class I Small line combat, combat support, and combat service support

"* units (battalion-size units or smaller) and internal staffs involving military Personnel in User's immediate work group.

Class II = Staffs, internal components of large organizations, or components

of User's organization where decision making and coordination are

complicated by organizational sub-group components of significantly different characteristics (e.g., civilian-military or

union-management groups).

Class III Large line combat, combat support, and combat service support

units (e.g., division-size units) where authority structure is

complicated by lack of direct control over policies, implementation processes, and rewards and sanctions of individuals or

groups in intended outcomes.

Class IV = Complex system involving decision making or coordination of components or organizations across. the boundaries of the organizational hierarchy of the User. The User does not have direct control over policies, implementation process, and rewards and

sanctions of the individuals or groups involved in the intended

outcomes.

8
-. -

Table 2

OE Operation Classes

Class A = Intended outcomes involve interpersonal or intergroup relationships

_ _and/or process issues. Objectives may include: -organrizational

climate, managerial leadership, peer leadership, group process, or

satisfaction. S* Because of high personnel turnover and the emphasis

* on personal or group issues, these operations generally have a

short-term impact estimated to be less than a year.

• Class B = Intended outcomes involve the interface ot process issues (interpersonal/intergroup) with technological processes or systems. Because they deal with semi-permanent processes or systems, they

usually have a longer-term impact estimated to be greater than a

year. The objectives are not complicated by policy, resource, or

* support needed from the external environment or other organizaS * tions. Objectives may include interface with any of the following

technological systems or processes: job redesign:, personnel systems, management information or financial control systems, organi- * zational design, combat operations, or strategic planning.

Class C = Intended outcomes are the same as for Class B operations and, in

* iaddition, the objectives are complicated by policy, resource, or

support needed from the external environment or other organizations.

!9
Table 3

Matrix of Cases

OE Operation Classes

Class A Class B Class C

Interpersonal Process issues; Process issues;

or intergroup interface with interface with

User Classes relationship technological technological

or process; system issues; system issues;

short term long term im- long term imimpact, pact; external pact; external

support not support needed

needed from from environenvironment. ment.

Class I: Small line MS = 3 MS = 6 MS = 0

combat, combat support, combat LS 9 LS = 0 LS = 1

service support units (4.BN) or

military staffs. Total = 12 Total 6 Total 1

Class II: Staffs, internal

components of large organizations or components of user's

organization; decision-making

coordination complicated by MS = 3 MS = 3 MS = 0

subgroups of significantly LS z 2 LS = 0 LS = 2

different characteristics,

Total = 5 Total = 3 Total = 2

Class III: Large combat,

combat support, combat service

support units (>Div); decision

making/coordination complicated MS = 0 MS = 1 MS = 0

by a lack of direct control over LS = 0 LS = 3 LS = 0

policies, implementation

processes, and rewards. Total = 0 Total = 4 Total = 0

Class IV: Complex systems

involving decision-making or

coordination across boundaries MS = 0 MS = 0 MS = 0

of the organizational hierarchy LS = 0 LS = 0 LS 2

of the change sponsor.

Total = 0 Total f 0 Total 2

aMS = More successful

LS = Less successful

10

"" ' - , N U •, . . . . . . V ' . . -
Since CECs generally possess local autonomy and are not directed by any

central agency, there was no single authority through which to identify cases.

Hence, a data collection procedure was developed in cooperation with the -- -.. --.----.----- ..---- ...... project's sponsor and the Contracting Officer's Representative (CDR), from

ARI. The sponsor--the OE Program Officer of Headquarters, Department of the

Army (HQDA)--provided guidelines for securing a representative, sample of the

.population- of OE operations. Emphasis was placed on obtaining cases from

major commands (KACOMs) such as the Forces Command (FORSCOM), the Training

and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), and the Materiel Development and Readiness

Command (DARCOM). After determining the desired MACOM representation, the

sponsor directed the team to contact OE offices in the field. Visit arrangements were made with the senior consultant of an installation OE office

for cases within that office's jurisdiction.

Case selection was restricted by several factors. The research design

included a requirement to interview both the OEC and the User wha parLicipated

in the operation. Further, short-term, predictably successful operations such

as the "transition workshop" 2 were not included. Case selection was evena more

constrained at Forces Command (FORSCOM) installations. At FORSCOML posts, the

team was required to collect six cases in 1 week due toFORSCOM regulations

governing data collections.

Consequently, the resulting sample has some shortosmings. Taken as a

whole, the cases may be skewed toward more success than actually exists in

the field, as it appeared in several instances that OECs attempted to lead

the team to their more successful operations and avoid their less successful

ones. At the outset of the study, HQDA OE Office indicated a great interest

in "large system" OE operations because of the intended future direction of

the OE program. During the period of the data collection, there were very

few "large system" cases available. Consequently, the cells of the matriy

representing such cases are not as complete as the team had hoped. Data were

collected in rJ.S. Army Europe (USAREUR), with the understanding that operations which specifically addressed "combat-related OE" were available. However, such cases were not provided. Finally, there was evidence of a few

OECs steerinc the team away from cases involving general officers. The OECs

concerned regarded their work at that organizational level as sensitive, and

they did not want to run the risk of unknown outsiders jeopardizing their

operations.

The researchers collected data for 35 cases. Included were several

long-teric. and large-system operations as well as small, company-sized applications. There were four cases in which the User was a, general officer..

There were five operations classified as complete or partial failures by the

OEC. In general, OECs do not formally evaluate their operations. As a consequence, they have a limited knowledge of whether an operation was more or

less successful.

2

A workshop designed to facilitate the integration of a new leader/commander

into an organization.

11
,,.: .•,."v'v* '\: ,',-•.-.•.. s-.•v ..-.•?-.,--_ --,.A "- ,-,•: 1⁄2<." j"tV,•.,,, . ¶,.. *- - ..... M.77777- -

Instruments

Interview Schedules. The interview schedules were based on case analysis

procedures deveŽloped by Dunn and Swierczek (1977), an, Spencer and Cullen

(1979). The questions, which followed the chronologylof the OE operation,

were tested inl preliminary interviews and refined to- Pocus on those aspects

of the OE prccess that were most inmportant to the Use4 and the OEC. The appendices contain schedules for User interviews (Appenlix A), User target interviews (Appendix B), and OE Consultant interviews (Appendix C).

OE Operations Coding Worksheet. Interviews with Users, User target

groups, and OE Consultants were recorded. The OE Operation Coding Worksheet

(Appendix D) was completed as soon after the interviey as possible, using

the taped interviews. The Worksheet summarized demogtaphic information on

the Army unit, identified reasons for the operation, delineated the process

of the operation (data collccted, feedback mechanismsj implementation techniques, process observations, etc.), and attempted to determine what intended

and Unintended outcomes of the interventions occurredt

Case Outcomes Summary Report. After completing the Worksheet, the data

collector prepared a summary of the case using the structured format in Appendix E. The Case Outcomes Summary Report summarized information on longitudinal data collected, attainment of objectives, cost of operations, demographic information related to the operation, and a syimmary assessment of the

operation.

Overall Case Assessment (OCA) Form. The investigators completed an OCA

form (see Appendix F) for each case using the Workshe~t and the Case Outcomes

Summary Report. The OCA was developed from Worksheet !variables which were

linked to the model of organizational change previously described.

Data Collection

Telephone contact was made with the senior OEC I 'month or more before a

desired visit, and plans for this visit were made. The OEC was asked to provide operations with the following characteristics:

1. Operations involving larger, four-step (Assessment, Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation, or "APIE") operations as opposed to

small, usually successful, operations such as transition workshops.

2. Operations for which both OEC and User were still available to

interview.

3. Operations for which enough time had elapsed to enable some desired

outcomes to have taken place..

The OEC was requested to provide two operations considered more successful and

two operations considered less successful.

The goal of the case collection process was for two investigators to obtain the data and complete workpapers for one case in 2ý days. The data

12
7M.

collection was conducted using a three-stage process. First, the User and

the OEC were interviewed separately for about 2 hours using the semi-structured

interview instruments contained in Appendices A and C. In cases in which the

operation also targeted a subordinate command, a separate interview~protocol ...

was used ("OE User Target Interview Questions" in Appendix B) . The entry process was crucial to the success of the interview. Itwas important that the

research team approached the User independently of the OEC to lessen the possibility of being viewed as allies of an OEC out to justify his/her job.

Also, having the User introduce the researcher into the organization facilitated the collection of indicator data. In any case, the role of third-party

evaluator was a tenuous one, requiring careful attention to objectivity on the

one hand and to relationship building on the other.

Two investigators conducted interviews. Notes were taken and, in most

cases, the interviews were tape. recorded. The interview was not limited to

those questions in the instrument. The objective was to obtain as much knowledge of the process employed in the operation as possible. After the interviews, relevant portions of the OE Operation Coding Worksheet were coded. At

the conclusion of the User interview, the team requested permi sion to interview a group or groups of persons meeting the following criteria:

1. They had been assigned to the organization fLom the beginning of the

operation to the time of the team's visit.

2. They had been somehow directly involved in the operation.

3. They were representative of the organizational breadth and depth of

the operation targeted.

To the extent feasible, chain-of-command relationships were avoided within the

interview group.

The research team's request was never refused. M•St of the subordinate

level focus group interviews resulted in meeting with one group of about eight

persons. Often, because of very high turnover rates, few persons still remained in the organization who had been directly involved in the operation

from its inception. Larger operations in organizations having less turnover

required as many as seven focus group interviews.

The focus group was first briefed about the research. The investigators

stressed their interest in all outcomes stemming from the operation, undesirable as well as beneficial. It was also emphasized that strict confidence

would be maintained concerning the interviewees' comments. The investigators

reque.;ted that each person in the group note individually on paper any beneficial or undesirable outcomes stemming from the operation. When finished,

they were asked to discuss the outcomes without concern for mutual agreement.

The discussions were tape recorded. After the discussion, group members were

asked to write down any ideas which might lead the team to available records

that would provide tangible evidence of the changes they discussed. These

papers were collected and added to the case working papers. The final stage

of the data collection process occurred when the team attempted to follow the

leads provided in all interviews--OEC, User, and focus qroup(s).. As one would

expect, those cases which were viewed as great successes by the focus groups

usually resulted in a willingness to introduce team members to the recordkeeper

13
and to the acquisition of tangible evidence in records such as those pertaining to monthly operational readiness rates or retention. The opposite was

true for less successful operations.

On completion of all data collection, the User was briefed about the

team's findings in a way which did not violate any subordinate confidence.

He/she was also asked questions to fill in any missing information and thanked

for assisting in the project. The OE Operation Coding Worksheet (Appendix D)

was completed, and case findings were compiled using the Case Outcomes Summary

Report format (Appendix E).

Two persons required 1 day to collect data on smaller operations and up

to 6 days on large, long-term operations. In addition to interview information, data were collected which attempted to assess the extent to which a particular OE operation's objectives were met. Data from User, OEC, and User

subordinate interviews were used to focus on outcome measures which might be

expected to be affected by the OE operation in that particular User's organization, since tailored, specific measures are more likely to detect the type

of change occurring in process-oriented organization development than are

more global organizational effectiveness measures. Developing situationspecific measures avoids the problem of using universally applicable outcome

criteria which may or may not be appropriate for any given organization.

The Research Plan for this project stated that standardized governmental

accounting cost figures would be used wherever feasible in computing cost input and benefit outcomes for various OE operations. Standardized person-day

costs were used and are included in Appendix G. The same standardized figures

were used to compute cost savings based on reduced staffing or tasking requirements. Other outcomes were not reasonably translatable to dollar amounts

even though classified as "hard outcomes"--i.e., improved operational readiness rates, fewer Annual General Inspection (AGI) discrepancies, and more commendations in Army Training and Evaluation Programs (ARTEPs). Instead of attempting to derive a very carefully defined but superficial cost and benefit

outcome for each case, the "hard outcomes" for each case were conservatively

estimated using a weighted scale. The assigned weights for each case suummary

included those dollar ratios which could be calculated using standardized

person-day or person-hour calculations. The weights assigned also reflected

the importance and strength of the causal relationship the User and User

subordinates assigned to those changes they believed to have resulted from

the operation. Given the diversity of targets undertaken by OE operations

and the difficulty of confidently establishing a direct causal effect stemming

from an operation's impact, it is doubtful that a realistic cost accounting approach can be developed using existing data sources and not requiring an

excessive amount of time.

Another set of data was collected which provided demographic information

about the User's organization, such as the personnel composition, the formal

organizational structure, and turnover rates from 6 months prior to the operation to a year afterward. Both the impact data and demographic data were recorded in case descriptions using the standard format provided in Appendix E.

In addition to collecting the data noted above, the researchers attempted

to collect "hard" data at each OE case field site which might indicate the impact of OE efforts within the organization. These data included retention

14
rates, AWOL rates, accident rates, etc. Investigators attempted to coilecc

this information at the beginning of the field data collection phase, but the

effort was abandoned because of the difficulty of the task.

Design and Analysis

This research involved a comparative examination of 35 separate OE projects viewed in parallel to highlight their similarities and, differences. Yin

(1981) has referred to this design as the "case comparison approach-" The basis

for these comparisons was the stages of the OE process (Kolb & Frohman, 1973).

Measures. The measures used in the analyses were derived front the Operation Coding Worksheet and the Overall Case Assessment (OCA) form. Itern.s from

the Worksheet were grouped by the researchers into the followinq nine scales:

External Support, User Goal Orientation, User Role, OEC Role, Structuring,

Diffusion, Practice Theory, Evaluation, and Outcomes. (Items constituting

the scales are contained in Appendix ri.) The Outcomes scale is a ne•-iure of

the positive results of an OE operation, and the other eight scale-g Lm-rationalize variables which were hypothesized to be related to the outcomez of an

operation.

The researchers also combined selected OCA items into nine scales. Of

these scales, four represented mediating factors the researchers hypothesized

would be important in organizational change: External Need for Change, Control over Intended Change, Superior Affect Toward User. and Internal Need for

Change. Four other scales operationalized the antecede it conditions. hypothesized to be related to organizational change: Roles, Goal Orientation, Structuring, and Diffusion. (These scales and their respective items are. contained

in Appendix I.)

The remaining scale, Success, was a measure of the degree of success of

an OE operation. It should be noted that no project is completely successful,

nor does one completely fail. Rather, planned change efforts are complex enterprises that can result in a number of anticipated and unanticipated outcomes, some of which may be beneficial and others detrimental to the, organization. Hence, a composite success scale was developed fronm a number of

separate dependent (outcome) measures. Such disparate factors as User (client) and subordinate expectations, hard and behavioral outcomes, and cost

and benefit estimates were taken into account. (Appendix I contains. the

Success scale items.) Cases were rated on the scale for each, item. and the

ratings summed for a total success scale score. The resulting distribution of

"success" scores was bimodal, with a large number of high scores and low

scores, but few scores in between. Therefore, splitting the total, sample at

the median produced two distinct subsamples.

Analyses. The results presented in this report are based on descriptive

statistics, correlations, and chi. square analyses. Characteristics of the OE

operations are described primarily in terms of the percentage of cases falling

into a given category. Correlations are reported for all pairs of scales derived from the Operations Coding Worksheet and the Overall Case Assessment

form. Rank ordering the 35 cases by Success scale scores revealed, that they

fell into four discrete clusters as shown below.

, 15
-7 '77

Number of cases Success Success

Clusters in cluster score mean score range

1 - .5 308 270to 364

2 12 177 139 to 221

[16 60 22 to 93

-3 96

4 2 -21 -29 to -13

The 17 cases above the median on the Success Scale of the Overall Case

Assessment were compared with 18 cases below the median on this variable, using a contingency chi square.

RESULTS

Statistical Prop~erties of Scales

Operation Coding Worksheet (OCW) Scales. Table 4 repo)rts statistical

properties of the nine OCW scales. As can be seen in the tables, most scales

contain a substantial number of items. The measure of internal consistency

(coefficient alpha) for Outcomes is acceptably high (.85), and the alphas for

the other scales range from .19 to .80.

Table 4

Statistical Properties of 0E Operation Coding Worksheet (OCW) Scales

Internal

No. of Standard Consistency

Scale Items Mean Deviation (•)

1. External Support 2 .882 .22 .45

2. User Goal Orientation 3 .276 -33 .53

3. User Role 35 .449 .15 .72

4. OECD Role 8 .296 .23 .65

5. Structuring .11 .239 .25 .80

6. Diffusion 10 .411 .18 .44

7. Practice Theory 9 .806 .43 .45

8. Evaluation 3 1.620 .36 .19

9. Outcomes 13 .463 .28 .85

Ovorall Case Assessment (OCA) Scales. Statistical data on the OCA scales

Are shown in T,Able 5. Of the nine scales, six contain only one item. The coefficient alphais for tiv, remaining scales are .83, .86, and .90.

I0
r: 7. -177 - -::. 7 ý-7

Table 5

"Statistical Properties of Overall Case Assessment Scales

No. of Standard Internal

Scale Items Mean Deviation Consistency

1. External Need for Change 1 .68 .94 --a

2. Control over intended change 1 1.71 .52 a 3. Superior affect toward user 1 .75 1.52 a

a4. Internal need for change 1 1.88 .81

5. Roles 3 2.75 1.19 .86

6. Goal orientation 3 2.29 .94 .83

7. Structuring 1 2.89 1.28 --a

8. Diffusion 1 3.23 1.24 --a

9. Success 10 130.82 98.95 .90

Internal consistency estimates cannot be calculated for scales of only one

item.

Characteristics oC the OE Operations

Description of the Sample. The sample of OE operations included in this

researcn is described below.. The percentage reported indicates the percentage

of 35 cases with that characteristic.

1. Most operations (29 or 83%) were conducted in smaller organizations

or organizational components, i.e., battalions, companies, or staff components

of larger organizations.

2. About half (17) the operations focused on short-term: interpersonal

or inter/intra-group relationships or process objectives only. Slightly more

than a third (13 or 37%) of the operations focused their change objectives

nct only on interpersonal or inter/intra-group relationships/process objectives

but also on some technological system issue. (In this context, technological

means those practices which require a predictable and verifiable degree of

skill or command of fundamentals through which tasks are accomplished.)

3. Thirty of the cases (86%) did not require significant resources or

supplort from the environment.

4. Thirty-one (H9%) of the OECs were trained at OECS. The others had

received comparable training prior to becoming OECs.

5. Thirty-one (89%) of the OECs had no formal organizational relationshi p to the Usur. Their role was in essence that of an external consultant.

6. The Users included nine battalion commanders, eight heads of secondand third-echelon staff directorates in noncombat related organizations, eight

17
staff heads in fourth-echelon commands or below, three company commanders, and

one each of the following: division commander, chief of staff of an infantry

division, the head of an industrial/support base directorate, installation

"commander, head of a school directo-ite, head of a dental-aet-ivity-, -and-a- de----

tachment commander.

7. Sixteen (46%) of the cases came from FORSCOM, six (17%) from TRADOC,

four (11%) from USAREUR, and the remaining cases (26%) -from a variety-of other.

.ACOMs.

B. Twenty-five Usars (71%) had previous knowledge or experience with OE.

9. Fourteen (40%) of the problems which were addressed were interpersonal

and inter/intra-group in nature and most often (37%) included leader/subordinate relationships, peer-level relationships (25%), inter-group relationships

with task involvfement (31%), and intra-group relationships with task involvement (14%).

10. Thirty data c:ollection processes employed individual interviews (86%),

18 employed group interviews (51%) , and 16 employed obscrvation (46%). As can

be seen below, the data were primarily collected froii. leadership/management

levels of the organiz.-tion.

Level of Number of Percent of

data collection cases cases

Top management 30 86

Middle management -.-:-. 26 74

Lower management 23 66

Non-management 20 57

11. In 28 (80%) cases, initial Feedback was given to the User by the OEC

without inyone else present. The feedback to subordinates was most often conducted irn a single group session with the User present about three-fourths of

the time.

12. OEC-guidud implementation activities of some type occurred in 23 (66%)

of the operationLs. Implementation activities included problem solving, goal

setting, and action planning with the OEC in about half of the operations. The

top ind middle leadership/mariag4ement was most often involved, with the User

j'rosent at the sessions dbout 50% of the time. Of those operations which conducted problem solving, goal setting, and action planning with the OEC, 13 (76%)

trx)k place in groups of nine persons or more.

18
13. A training activity with the OEC was employed in 15 (43%) of- the

operations.

14. The User perceived some improvements in the organization as aý direct result of the operation in 34 (97%) of the cases. Improved. outcomes

cited in descendini order of frequenL1 were behavior (74%) reactions (attitudes) (63%), hard foutcomes/results (54%), and knowledge/learning (29%).

15. eollow-on technical assistance and support were provided by: 'ECs

in 13 (37%) of the bperations.

16. Twenty-seven Users (77%) reported that their superior generally

supported the use cf OE at the outset of the operation. Of the 27 cases

which were purportedly in a follow-up technical assistance and' support phase,

23 Users (85%) reported that their superiors supported the OE operation at

that point.

17. The OECs formally evaluated only 3 (9%) operations. The User informall.y estimated Ian operation to be successfui in 29 (83%) operations, a

partial success in 15 (14%) operations, and a failure in 1 (3•). operation.

OECs estimated an qperation was successful in 30 (86%) cases, a. partial success in 2 (6%) caseps, and a" failure in 3 (9%) cases.

Id. Terminatilon (that point at which the User and the OEC explicitly

decide to stop work! on the oper-tion) was generally not planned and had not

occurrc- in 21 (60%1) operations. Termination was planned in 7 (20%) operations and had occur!red (planned and unplanned) in 14 (40%) cases.. The reason

most often qiven folr termination (in 13 of the i4 terminations) was that the

original contract had been fulfilled (37% of the total sample). Of the 14

cases which uid terninate, 6 occurred after feedback, 6 after planned implementation activitieb (i.e. ,-problem solving/goal setting/action planning/

trainingJ) , I during1 the action phase, and 1 after evaluation.

Intercorrelatiýns of OE Operations Worksheet Scales. Scales 1-8 of the

OE Operations Worksheet represent variables that were hypothesized to be antecedent conditions ftr satisfactory outcomes of OE operations. As can. be seen

in Table 6, six of the nine scaler correlated significantly with Outcomes

(Scale 9), with correlations ra-ging from .34 to .51. Neither User Goal, Oriontation (Scale 2) nor Structuring (Scale 5) correlated 3iqnificantly with Outcomes. External Support (Scale I) correlated significantly only with Outcomes.

The other seven scales correlated significantly with two to four other scales:

User Goal Orientation and Structuring (two scales), OEC Role, Diffusion, and

Evaluation (three scales), and Fractice Theory and User Role (four scales).

Intercorrelations of Over~ill Case Assessment Scales. Table 7 cont|ains

the intercorrelation's of the Overall Case Assessment Scales. The Success

scale of the Overall Case Assessment scale. generally corresponds to the Outcome scale derived from the Operation Coding Worksheet. Scales 1-4 operationalizc the hypothes sized "medii tin(, factors" in orqanizational chani;e. As

can be seen in Table 7, none of these mediatinq factors (External Need for

Change, Control over Intended Change, Superior Affect Toward User, and Internal Need for Change) correlated significantly with Success. Scales 5-8

(Roles, (;oal Orientation, Structuring, anti Diffusion), which olvrationalize

19
Table, 6

Intercorrelations of OE Operation Worksheet Scales

_____________Scale______

Scale 1 2 ý3 11 5 6 7 8 9

1. External Support

*2. User goal orientation .11 -

3. User role .16 .10 --

4. OEC role .17 -.124 .52* --

5. Structuring .07 .16 .-6* .26 --

"" 6. Diffusion .19 .13 .63"* .51"* .30 -- 7. Practice theory .29 .36* .27 .31 .55"* .27 --

8. Evaluation .30 .42* .29 -. 02 .28 .31 .52"* --

--. 9. Outcomes .39"* .09 .40' .37* .25 .51"* .34* .37* --

• ".'. p<.05

Table*7

"Intercorrelations of Overall Case Assessment Scales

Scale

Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. External need for change

2. Control over intended

change -. 52o* -

3. Superior affect toward

* user .25 -. 23 -

-4. Internal need for change -. 19 .28 -. 34"* --

5. Roles -. 03 .20 .34' -. 13 --

" 6. Goal orientation .18 .07 .06 .19 .58** --

7. Structuring .13 .04 -. 16 .06 .47"* .58"* --

8. Diffusion .17 .15 .12 .04. .57** .56** .67* --

* 9. Success .04 .21 .20 .24 .64"* .70** .60** .67**

"*p < .05

00*p < .O2

S ;• 20
"the hypothesized "antecedent conditions" for organizational change, all cor-

. related significantly with Success, with correlations ranging from .-6& to

.70. In addition, these four antecedent condition scales (Scales 5-8) all

correlated significantly with each other, with correlations ranging from .47

to .67. Roles (Scale 5) was the only antecedent condition to correlate significantly with any mediating factor (.34 with Superior Affect Toward User).

- There were also two significant inverse correlations:-- External, Need for Change

with Control over Intended Change (r = -. 52) and Superior Affect Toward User

Swith Internal Need for Change (r -. 34).

.-. Success Scale Comparisons

"Comparisons by Cluster, User Class, and Operation"Class. In Table 8, the

User Class and Operation Class-are shown for the 35 OE:operations. rank ordered

, by Success score. The 35 casescluster naturally into four suqces-s.score

." groups, as can be seen in the table. Table 9 contains Success scale means and

standard deviations for the 35 cases classified by success score cluster (1,

2, 3, 4) , by operation class (A, B, C) , and by User Class MI, II, ITI, IV) .

As should be expected,the mean. success scores are significantly different for

the various clusters (F = 133.22, df = 3,31, p < .01). User Class is not as-

* sociated with differences in Success scale scores (F = .41, df = 3,31, n.s.),

although Operation Class is significantly associated with differences in Suc-

- cess scores (F = 11.34, df = 2,31, p < .01) , with Class B operations (those

, involving process issues interfacing with technical issues with no external

resources/support. required) tending to be most successful.

Contingency Chi Square Analyses. Table 10 contains dichotomous (Yes/No) items that showed significant chi square values (at the .05 level or less)

for differences between groups split at the median on Success5 scale- scores. Table 11 contains items that attained a p between .10 and .05 for; chi square

. comparison of the same two groups. Note that expected frequencies, in the

2 x 2 contingency tables for four items in Table 10 and for two items in

Table 11 did not exceed 5 in all cells. Hence these results should be viewed

more conservatively than the reported sicrnificance levels would suggest.

Most ot the items in Tables 10 and 11 involve the User. Users in the

• ' above-median group were able to identify groups and individuals who opposed

* - the OE operation, used the OEC coaching to create a favorable climate during

feedback sessions, and perceived improvement in hard outcomes resulting from

the OE operation. The OECs in the above-median group took action to encourage openness and participation during data collection..

Tables 10 and 11 also suggest that above-median Users could identify

. those supportive of the OE operation, understand the OEC's helping relationS- ship, considered the operation a success (rather than a failure or a mixture

L . of success and failure) , took various specific actions to ensure support of

,. the operation by both superiors and subordinates, and tended to be in their

"" present positions less than 2 months prior to the operation. IL was also more

* - .. likely that the scope or objectives of OE operations in the above-median group

I changed as a result of the feedback of the session and that the objective involved intragroup relationships with task involvement.

. 21
Table 8

User and Operation Classes for OE Operations Rank Ordered by Success Scores

Zuccess Score Operation Classa User Classb

Cluster I (n 12)

364 B I

328 B I

306 B I

274 B I

270 B I

Cluster- 2 (n 12)

221 B II

215 A I

211 B I

202 B I

185 A i

183 B II

177 B II

151 CII

A47 A II

145 A II

142 A II

139 A I

Cluster 3 (n 16)

93 C I

93 A II

87 B III

76 I

72 C IV 67 C ii

66 A A

64 A I

64 B III

54 A I

52 A II

46 A I

43 A I 35 c IV

27 A I

22 A I

Cluster 4 (n =2)

-13 A I

-29 A I

aOperation Class: A s Interpersonal/intergroup process with short-term impact;

B = process issues interface with technical system issues, long-term impact,

external resource/support not needed from environment; C z same as B with

external resource/support required.

bUser Class: I = small line units (battalion or smaller) or staffs; II

Staffs or internal components of large organizations; III large units (division

or larger); IV z complex systems requiring boundary spanning for decision

making.

22

* " " - C • • ' -.. " " ' " ' . . . .- . . • . . . .. ..
6:

Table 9

Success Scale Means and Standard Deviations

for OE Operations Classified by Cluster, User

Class, and Operation Class

Success Score

Group Standard

N Mean deviation F ratio

Cluster

1 5 308.40 35.04 133.22 (p < .01)

2 12 176.50 29.62

3 16 60.01 21.16

4 2 -24.50 8.00

Operation Class a

A 17 82.23 67.08 11.34 (F < .01)

B 13 212.54 92.35

C 5 83.60 38.48

User Classb

I 19 134.79 115.66 .Ai (n.s.)

II 10 137.80 50.21

III 4 133.25 100.07

IV 2 53.50 18.50

Operation Class: A - Interpersonal/intergroup process with short-term impact;

B - process issues interface with technical system issues, long-term impact,

external resoutrce/support not needed from environment; C - same as B with

external resource/support required.

bUser Class: I - small line units (battalion or smaller) or staffs, II -

Staffs or internal comporents of large organizations; III - large units (division

or larger); IV - complex systems requiring boundary spanning for decision

making.

23

46..
Table 10

Operations Coding Worksheet Items Showing Significant

Differences between Above-median and Below-median Groups

Itemra X2 value

1. User perceives improvement in hard

outcomes/results. 4.93 .03

2. User uses OEC coaching to create

climate of psychological safety

during feedback sessions. 4.63 .04

3. User identifies opposing groups and

individuals. 3.91 .05

4. OEC takes action to encourage openness

and participation during data 10.47 .01

collection.

5. Data feedback session changes scope b

or objectives of operation. 4.73 .04

6. User evaluates operation as a success

rather than as a failure or a mixture b

of success and failure. 4.69 .04

7. At beginning of operation, User

understands helping relationship

of OEC. 4.69 .04

altem responses were dichotomous (Yes/No).

"Expected frequencies for this item do not exceed 5 in all cells of the 2 x 2

contingency table.

24

-Si

", S .• 'a• ' ,• •• •%,• • - , "•••""r •- - . , . .-.-.-. : • •z-j.-,--• • , •- .••t,
Table 11

oper''ions Coding Worksheet Items Showing Significant

Differences at .10 Level for Above-median and Below-median Groups

Itema X value R

1. User identifies supporting groups

and individuals. 3.62 .10

2. User takes specific action prior to

feedback session to encourage support. 3.65 .10

3. User takes specific aztion to inform

top management of and encourage their

support for objectives and planned

activities. 2.82 .10

4. Planned operation's objective after

feedback session involves intragroups

relationships with task involvement. 2.72 .10

5. After operation, User initiates action

rewards, or sanctions to support

implementation of action. 3 .2 4 b .10

6. User in his/her position less than

two months prior to operati'.n. 2 . 7 1 b .10

aItem responses were dichotomous (Yes/No).

bExpected frequencies for this item do not exceed 5 in all cells of 2x2

contingency table.

25
Costs and Benefits

One of the purposes of the research reported here was to identify, if

possible, the costs and benefits of the OE operations. As Umstot (1980)

noted, there is little evidence that military OD is cost effective. However,

costs and benefits aie very difficult to asses6. The costs referred to here

are relatively stable since they pertain primarily to estimates of OEC and

User or User subordinate person-hours expended during an operation. Some of

the benefit figures are also reasonably stable, particularly those which rely

primarily on person-hour estimates. However, some of the benefit estimates

are very unstable, particularly those which relate to changes in equipment

operational readiness rates. These figures could vary greatly, depending on

the perspective used to generate the value.

some dollar estimates of benefit are missing, even though from a commander's perspective a benefit most -certainly resulted. For example, one

mechanized infantry battalion passed its Annual General Inspection (AGI)

about 2 weeks after it had returne, from a successful Army Training and Evaluation Program (ARTEP) exercise in Southern California. It was the first

battalion that was able to pass this inspection successfully on the first attempt in that division in over 2 years. To have passed at all was significant.

To have passed 2 weeks after a demanding exercise in which the battalion's

vehicles had used about 50 percent of their allotted maintenance life was

even more significant. The User and his subordinates attributed a major portion of this success to an OE operation which assisted the battalion in planning and implementing AGI preparations. The tangible outcome was passing the

AGI. Certainly dollar benefits accrued. It would have been very difficult if

not impossible to calculate the dollar savings for this project.

In recognition of the above, estimates of cost and benefit were not used

as if they were accurate, reliable measures. They were employed as an additional "weiqht of evidence" to help us distinguish successful from less successful operations. It is emphasized that the figures reported in Table 12

are estimates only.

DISCUSSION

Types of Most Effective Operations (See Table 9, page 23.)

OE O•peration Class. The results of the Overall Case Assessment Success

scale comparison clearly demonstrated that Class B operations were the most

successful. (As defined in Table 2, Class B operations involve the interfacing of interpersonal or intergroup -processes with technological processes or

issues which have a long-term impact but which do not depend on outside resources or support.) This finding appears to be related to a basic principle

of sociotechnical theory which holds that both the social system and the techSnical system must be considered in organizational change (Susman, 1981).

Hence it would follow that an intervention which focused only on improving

interpersonal or intergroup interactions would be less effective than one

which also took into account technological/structural requirements.

Although the number of cases is small (five), it appears that even when

the interpersonal intergroup approach- is combined with technical issues,

26
success is impaired when outside resources and support are required. The

necessity for securing outside support complicates the operation and makes

success less likely.

Table 12

Costs and Benefits of OE Operations

Number of Average Average Cost/benefit

Group cases costs benefit ratio

Cluster 1 5 $35,140 $699,350 1:20

Cluster 2 12 22,758 127,014 1:6

Cluster 3 16 93,616 5,101 18.1

Cluster 4 2 8,104 0 -

Above median

group 17 26,340 295,348 1:11

Below median bgroup 18 84,115 4,534 19:1

Entire sample 35 56,082 145,787 1:3

aClusters 1 and 2

bClusters 3 and 4

Level at Which Operation Conducted. As noted previously, true macro-level

operations were difficult to find. These are the User Class IV operations descr4'ed in Table 1. They involve complex systems requiring decision, making or

coordination of components or organizations beyond the boundaries of the User's

organizational hierarchy. Thus, the User does not have direct control over

the policies or processes of all the individuals or groups involved in the intended outcomes of the OE operation. The scope of such an operation is vastly

wider than that of the typical operation, and the difficulties. of conducting

this kind of operation are correspondingly greater. Because of the small number of macro-level operations (two), no statistically significant differences

were found for the level at which the operation was conducted. However, the

Success scale mean for the two User Class IV operations was far below the

means of the other three User classes. It is probably not only the larger

size of such an operation but also the necessity for boundary spanning across

organizations not under the direct control of the user that: makes success

more problematic for macro-level operations.

27
Characteristics of Successful OE Operations

The characteristics found to be associated with more favorable OE outcomes

.. tended to be related to people and processes. These characteristics were identified through three analyses: (a) intercorrelations of the OE Operations

Coding Worksheet scales, (b) intercorrelations of the Overall Case Assessment

scales, and. (c) comparisons of cases above the Success scale median with those

cases below the median. The findings are discussed below under the respective

analysis.

OE Operations Coding Worksheet Scales. The Outcomes scales of the OE

Operation Coding Worksheet correlated significantly with all but two (User

Goal Orientation and Structuring) of the other Worksheet scales. This finding

suggests that the hypothesized antecedent conditions are generally related to

the outcomes of an OE operation. The Diffusion scale, which had the highest

correlation with Outcomes, was highly correlated with OEC* Role and User Role,

indicating that activities by users and consultants may be instrumental in

achieving diffusion, which is in turn strongly related to favorable outcomes.

Although the Diffusion and Structuring scales were not significantly related to each other, User Role was significantly related to both -Diffusion

and Structuring. It appears that the User may play a key role in both these

activities. High scores on the User Role scale are associated with a User

who understand OE, accepts the approach, and is actively involved in various

actions to insure the success of the OE operation. Diffusion-type items include dissemination of feedback, operation objectives, and implementation

plans as well as positive support by members of the target group. Both the

User and OEC seem to play an important part in insuring that diffusion occurs.

While one might expect both Users and OECs to be equally involved in structuring activities, results did not support this prediction. Instead, it appeared

to be the User who was closely associated with structuring activities such as

establishing criteria for action, documenting action steps, and providing

needed training.

Overall Case Assessment Scales. None of the hypothesized "mediating

factors" in organizational change was significantly correlated with the Success scale of the Overall Case Assessment. It is possible that these variables are not associated with the success of an OE operation. Or, alternatively, the Overall Case Assessment items may not be valid measures of the

hypothesized, mediating factors. Each of the four scales consists of a single

item, and single-item scales are less reliable than multi-item scales. Since

the degree of reliability determines the upper limits of the validity of a

measure, the lower reliability results in lower Validity. On the other hand,

all the antecedent conditions were significantly correlated with each other

and with the Success scale, yet two of these scales (Structuring and Diffusion)

were also single-item scales. Accordingly, no conclusions can be drawn concerning the failure of the mediating factors to correlate significantly with

the success of an OE operation.

The pattern of the Overall Case Assessment intercorrelations supports the

previous discussion of the Operation Coding Worksheet results. Stricturing

and diffusion emerge as important variables along with Roles (although these

are not separated by User and OEC as in the Worksheet scales). The goal orientation of the Users, their subordinates, and the OECs also seems to be

28
important, with measurable outcomes clearly associated with the. rated' success

of the OE operation.

Comparison of Cases Above and Below Success Scale Median. The pattern

of results from the chi square analyses supports the view that more. successful

OE operations involve active leaders (Users) who are comitted to bringing

about change in their organizations. These leaders can identify individuals

and groups who will support or oppose OE operations. They engage in specific

actions during various phases of the OE operation to generate support for the

operation both within their own organization and from top manxgement. These

leaders accept coaching from the OEC on desirable behaviors and employ those

behaviors. There emerges a picture of a leader who takes an active role in

both structuring and diffusion activities and.who works closely with. the OEC

to ensure the success of the operation. Thus, the findings suggest that it

is the User who occupies the crucial role with respect to the success of an

OE operation. But the results do not reveal to what extent the OEC might be

involved in developing an atmosphere conducive to the leader's assuming responsibility for ensuring the success of the operation.

* Cost and Benefits

As explained previously, cost/benefit data were difficult to obtain or

estimate. Rarely, if ever, are baseline data of this type obtained prior to

an operation. The validity and reliability of records data that are obtainable after an operation has been completed are unknown. The. authors estimated

that about 50% of the operations investigated cost more than they produced in

some form of benefit for the organization.

To obtain meaningful cost/benefit data, however, would require that 1E

consultants plan to do so (and spend considerable time and effort on the project) from the-beginning of an OE operation. Also needed (James & Oliver, 1981)

is a manual of standard costs for the use of consultants in costing operations.

Model of Organizational Change

This research provides support for the model of organizational change

proposed by James et al. (1981). Specifically, the structuring and diffusing

processes postulated by the model were associated with favorable. outcomes as

measured by the Success scale used in the research.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On the basis of the results presented in this report, we believe the

following assertions can be made:

1. The OE consultant should not limit operations to those involving

interpersonal and intergroup interactions. The purpose of such operations

should be to free up participants so they can accomplish organizational problem solving that results in positive technical/structural changes in the

orqanization.

29
2. Macro-level operations must be very carefully planned and implemented.

The difficulties of working in complex systems are enormous, and something less

than complete success can be anticipated in first attempts.

3. Structuring activities, which lay the groundwork for moving the organization from its present state to the desired outcome, and diffusion activities, which insure the dissemination of information about the operation to

. all organizational levels, emerge as the-crucial processes in an OE operation.

4. The key role in an OE operation is that of the User. Specifically,

the User should have a strong goal orientation,. define measurable outcomes,

be able to identify support and opposition, and be actively involved in the

structuring and diffusion processes.

5. Also important is an OE consultant who can coach the User in desirable behaviors and become actively involved in the diffusion process.

We believe the findings of this research have important implications for

Army leader development and for the training of OE. consultants. Accordingly,

we make the following recommendations:

1. Army organizations responsible for leader development must ensure

that leaders receive training and assignments that will develop their skills

in managing organizational change. The new technologies which are already

entering Army organizations make it imperative that leaders understand the

change process and how to control it. Some of this skill can be obtained in

*the schoolhouse and some can be acquired on the job.

2. OE consultants should be trained in how to assist leaders in understanding and managing organizational change. In particular, OECs need guidance and training in how to work with leaders to help them develop a strong

goal orientation, to accept coaching of desirable behaviors, to devise and

engage in structuring activities (including what has been referred to here as

applying practice theory and identifying organizational support and opposition), and to be actively involved in the diffusion process.

3. In both leader and OEC training, more emphasis should be placed on

how to ensure that successful organizational change has a technological/

structural component. Approaches such as sociotechnical systems analysis

might receive more classroom and field training exercise (FTX) time during

OEC training.

4. A continued effort needs to be made by OECS to train OECs to evaluate the OE process and its outcomes. OECs must help Users clarify their objectives and relate those objectives to the OE operation. The evaluation

process should ';e planned from the beginning of an operation and modified as

needed.

5. The design of the OE Information System now under development by ARI

should make use of the findings of this research. For example, the structured

case format should contain items that tap factors found to be related to the

successful outcomes of OE operations.

30
/- --

REFERENCES

Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention theory and method. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of

action persEective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Barker, R. G. (1963). The stream of behavior. New York- Appleton-CenturyCrofts.

Berg, D. N. (1978). Intergroup relations in an outpatient psychiatric facility. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.

Clark, P. A., & Ford, J. R. (1970). Methodological and theoretical problems

"in the investigation of planned organizational change. Sociological Review,

18, 29-57.

Dunn, W. N., & Swierczek, F. W. (1977) . Planned organizational change--

Toward a grounded theory. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 13,

135-147.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:

Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Hallen, J. F., Schmidt, W. H., & Weingart, S. R. (1979). One conference

that made a real difference: Action planning at the Department of Army

Staff level (Tech. Rep. TM 6183-002-00) . Washington, DC: System Development Corporation.

Havelock, R. G. (1968). Knowledge utilization and dissemination: A bibliography. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of

Michigan.

James, U. S., & Oliver, L. W. (1981). A preliminary assessment of the impact of the Army's Organizational Effectiveness (OE) program. (ARI Working

Paper LMTA 81-4) . Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences.

James, U. S., Oliver, L. W., & McCorcle, M. D. (1981). Assessing the

impact of the Army's Organizational Effectiveness (OZ) program:

Model, methodology, and illustrative cases. Proceedings of the Z3rd Annual Conference of the Military Testing Association (Vol. It) (pp. 1551-

1568). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences.

Katz, E. (1961). The social itinerary of technical change: Two studies on

the diffusion of innovation. Human Organization, 20, 70-82.

Kaufman, H. (1971). The limits of organizational change. Tuscaloosa, AL:

University of Alabama Press.

Kolb, D. A., & Frohman, A. L. (1970). An organization development approach

to consulting. Sloan Management Review, 12, 51-65.

31
Meyer, H. H., Kay, E., & French, J.R.P., Jr. (1964).. Split roles in performance appraisal. Harvard Business Review,. 43, 124-129.

Miller, J. A. (1973). Structuring/destructuring: Leadership in open systems.

Rochester, NY: Management Research Center, University of Rochester.

(NTIS No. AD 762745).

Minton, M. E., Bedoian, J., Weingart, S. R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1978). The

effect of key personnel changes during an OE episode. (Tech. Ren. TM-6138-

001-00). Washington, DC: System Development Corporation.

Oliver, L. W. (1981) . Organizational Effectiveness Staff Officer (OESO)

perceptions of the Army's Organizational Effectiveness (OE) program. (ARI

Research Note 83-16) . Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for

the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Porras, J. I., & Berg, P. 0. (1978). Evaluation methodology in organization

development: An analysis and :ritique. Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science, 14, 151-173.

Schaefer, C. P., & Weingart, L;. R. (1979). An infantry division takes an

active research approach to establishing policy and direction. (Tech.

Rep. TM-6183-004-00). Washington, DC: System Development Corporation.

Spencer, L. M., Jr., & Cullen, B. J. (1978). A taxonomy of organizational

development research: A review of the literature on research variables

and methods. (Tech. Rep. DAHC 19-78-C-000?-l). Boston: McBer & Company.

Spencer, L. M., Jr., & Cullen, B. J. (1979). Evaluation of Army organizational development interventions. (Tech. Rep. DAHC-19-78-C-0003-3).

Boston: McBer & Company.

Strauch, R. E. (1975). "Squishy" prolems and quantitative methods. Policsx

Sciences, 6, 175-184.

Susman, G. I. (1981). Action research: A sociotechnical systems perspective.

In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Umstot, D. D. (1980). Organization development technology and the military:

A surprising merger? Academy of Maragement Review, 5, 189-201.

Van Maanen, J. (1979). The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography.

Administrative Science 2uarterly, 24, 539-550.

Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., Sechrest, L.,. & Grove, J. B.

(1981) . Nonreactive measures in the social sciences (2nd ed.) . Boston:

Houghton Mifflin.

Weisbord, M. (1978). Teaching orc-nizational diagnosis as a "practice theory."

Exchange: The Orcanization,,l -anavior Teaching Journal, 3, 1.8-24.

Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 26, 56-65.

32
Z-%*r- 77Z7j 77

APPENDIX A

User Interview Questions

A-i
USER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

I. Preliminary Instructions for the interview

I am going to rsk you a lot of specific questions about the way

this OE operation was conducted. Tf you would, please answer each

question in considerable detail. Your responses will be kept in

the strictest confidence. If any of the information is used in

the study, all of the specifics ccnnecting it to you will be

removed prior to use.

The interview has been structured chronologically. The questions

are intended to fCcus Qur 'discussi.on in an orderly fashion so

that we can obtain critical information about the operation within

the time limits we have arranged.

II. Background

1. How many people are In your command7

(Breakdown major groups.)

2. How long has the cormar.d been in its present configuration?

Location?

3. What is your primary mission'?

4. Do all of the people whr, wer,'! inv.:lved in the OE operation

report directly thro..ugh the :hain of command to you? (If

the answer is no, probe whet'her there is indirect control

or no act.ual control over re',ards and sanctions for the

individuals involved.)

5. Were you involved in the CE ':peration from its start? Have

any key personnel been translerred since the start of the

OE operaticn? Do you believ'3 the transfers affected the

results of the operation?

6. At what point in its trainiz• cycle was the command when

the operation took place?

III. Questions

A. Scouting

1. How did the OE program come to your attention?

A-2
2. Had you had any direct experience with the program

previously? What were the results?

3. How did you make the decision to use OE services? (Probe

for pressures to solve a problem, internal or exterial

pressuzes, OE marketing or other pressures such as those

resulting from a superior's wishes for subordinates to become

involved in OE.)

4. How did you make contact with the OESO (who initiated)?

B. Entry

1. What happened at the first meeting with the OESO?

2. What were your objectives at this point? Problems? What

did you want?

3. At this point, what groups of people in your organization

did you think should be involved in the operation? Were

there any individuals or groups who supported or opposed

the operation?

4. Have you had any particular problems that are directly

related to how various sub roups work together? (i.e.,

union/management, military!civilian, male/female, racial

groups, or young/old personnel)

S5. Did you feel you and OESC were "on the same wavelength?"

Why/why not? How did you know?

6. Did the OESO identify or recommend any specific actions or

rnext steps for you to consider?

7. What objectives did you and the OESO agree on?

4.8 What specific operation implementation activities did you

and the OESO agree on?

9. Were you clear abouc the mechanics of what would happen?

Were you reasonably comfortable? What were they to be?

0. What time, personnel or other resources did you agree to

provide? Did you/OESO feel these were adequate?

1.. How did you feel about the prospects for the OE operation

at this point?

12. Was anyone else in your command included at this point?

13. Were any specific actions taken to inform and get your organization and/or the people involved to support the OE

operation?

A-3

p.
14. Did any specific individual(s) from your organization act

as a link between the people involved and the OFS' and you?

15. How did your superiors view OE involveinent?

16. In your view, what was the OESO's role in relation t-, the

operation? (Helping relationship, expert Rrocess role.)

17. At this point, what purpose did you believe data collection

would fulfill? (Catalytic versus specific problem

identification.)

18. Did you and/or the OESO have a clear idea about any po.:ential measurable outcomes?

C. Data Collection and Diagnosis

1. How were your decisions made about the way data wculd be

collected?

2. How were respondents informed about the data coriection

effort? Did you do anything to inform them?

3. How did the OESO collect data? (Individual interviews?

Group interviews? Surveys? Observation? Cther?)

4. Who was data collected from? (Sampling design: number and

percentage of respondents at each level?)

5. Were you or the participants asked to provide .n-for-atio.

about the ways to collect data?

6. Was any specific action taken to -ncourage , tion

and openness? (Probe for climate2 of psych • t;',-i1 *fety)

7. Was there any opposition to the cperation at thi.L p-int?

What did you do?

8. Did you participate in collecting the data? *id anyc.ie else

in your organization help collect the data?

9. Did you/they feel adequately informed about purpose-, uses,

confidentiality?

10. How were the results of the data collection presentsd to

you?

1i. Did you feel that the data had been reduced to the hasic

key issues? Did you feel that too much or too little data

was presented? Was it presented in a way which was

appropriate? At that time, what purposes did you believe

the data collection and feedback process had?

A-4
pI

12. If group feedback was used, was any action taken to encourage

trust and openness during the feedback session?

. 13. Did you keel that zhe analysis was accurate? Were multiple data sources used to back up the analysis? Were there any surprises? Did you ask for any additional data collection

to back up the analysis.

14. What specific next steps were recommended to you by the OESO

at this point?

15. What specific operation objectives and activities did you and the OESO agree upon at this point?

16. Did you think that clarity existed around the roles,

responsibility and collaboration required on the part of

yourself and the OESO at this point? What sort of evidence

would r;4port tbis view?

17. At this point, whr-t specific actions were taken to inform

and get the people involved to support the objectives and

planned operation activities?

D. Feedback

1. What outcoimes were you expecting from the feedback session?

In the event feedback, problem solving and action planning

were planned to be conducted simultaneously:

Were measuracle outcomes for the activity established

zric- to the sessions? How were these outcomes

9 .nat:ed to the participants?

2. •ow were t'ie feedback ý'ecipients chosen?

3. Who was in;olveO in the data feedback sessions? What levels

c! -1-upsr How many srssions? In what order?

4 How were you and the feedback recipients prepared for the

feedback sessions? Did you help prepare subordinates for

the sessions? Dit! you take any specific action to get

support for the sessions?

5. How were the feed;;ack sessions designed? Did you or your subordinates have a hand in the design of the sessions? Did

you or your suborCdinates actually present the feedback to

the persons involved? Did you or your subordinates receive

!ny training to do this^ What specific action was taken to

encourage trust, openness and participation during the

sessions?

6. How much time elapsed from completion of the data collection V activity until the feedback sessions? Do you feel that the

feedback sessions were timely?

A-5

~1~!
'01

7. Did you think the data was presented appropriately? (Pzcbe for appropriateness of amount, display and complexity of

"data presentation.)

8. Did you feel that you were able to maintain control over

the operation to a sufficient degree during this process?

9 How did the sessions go? Any resistance? What kind? D.d

you do anything? (Evidence re: psychological safety) Data/diagnosis right? Did they tell you anything you didn't

know? Problems (actual)? Ideas for change (ideal)?

10. What sort of actions were taken to reduce resistance that

surfaced?

11. What were the outcomes? (Probe: initial problem solving

or goal setting.)

12. Did your objectives for the operation begin to change in

any way after the sessions?

13. How much time elapsed between the feedback sessions and

additional implementing activities?

__ - ~ - V-

*-i .. Planning for Operation's Implementing Activities

1. How was any future activity planned?

2. How were the decisions to take specific actions made?

3. How were participants chosen?

4. Were participants included in any portion of the plannin~.?

5. At this point, what intended outcomes did you envision :.r

the operation's activities? Were they the same as the OESO' Z?

6. Were intended objectives disseminated? How? What was -he

response? From whom?

7. Did you and the OESO have any specific indicators in mi-Ad r that would measure the success of the operation?

8. Was a plan for the operation's activities disseminated? How? To what level? What was the response? From whom?

SF. Problem Solving/Goal Setting/Action Planning Activities

A-6

"0#
1. How were these activities planned?

2. How were the decisions -c, takc ýpecrj.c actions made?

3. How were participants 7hosen?

4. Were participants included in any portion of the planning?

5. At this point, what specific objectives did you envision?

Were they the same as the OESO's?

6. Were intended objectives disseminated? How? What was the

response? From whom?

7. Were indicators determined at this point as to how to measure

success or failure of the activities?

8. To what extent did you fee) that you had direct control over,

policy, implementation itctivity, and zewards and sanctions

of the people who would be involved in im.plementing the

intended objectives?

9. What specific problem solving, goal setti:ng and action

planning activities were planned?

10. What was the design of session: Theory?

Practice/Experience? Appropriatenes3? (Varied learning

styles or awareness of recipients "maturity" levels?

Appropriate learning styles or "maturity" level in design?)

11. Did the sessions appear to relate well to your objectives?

12. How were the participar;ts preper!'e• t-- pa.ticipate in the

sessions? Was any spacific action tker to g(t persons

involved to support the activities7 Wha,: was your role?

13. Was problem-solving ccnducted during :he session? How?

What was the result?

14. Was any particular technical expertise rrequired to assist

you and the participants to identify potential solutions

and action steps to resolve the .ssues? What resource was

used to provide the expertise? Did you feel comfortable

with the data provided by the expert rescurce?

15. Were any goals set during the session? -:xample?

(Challenging yet realistic/nontrivial? Measurable? Due

dates?)

16. Were action steps identified during the session to reach a

goal? Example? Were there any evaluation methods included

to measure progress and/or attainment?

A-7
I  .r V V k. 

17. Is this operation likely to have any impact on other parts

of the organization? Who? What?

18. Di.1 you'participants feel any part of the operation needed to be changed? Did the OESO pick up on this? Did he/she change anything? (Feedback loops)

19. Were the results of the session communicated to nonparticipants? How? What was the response?

20. Do you have any plans for further contact with the OESO?

L . Action

1. What did you or others in your command do as result of

operation? (Probe for specifics -- techniques, skills or

'Knowledge applied, structure changed, rewards/sanctions

implemented, etc.)

2. Were planning actions disseminated to members of your

organization other than to participants in the action

planning activities?

3. What percent of recommended action steps from the action

planning session were tasked to lower levels for

implementation? What specific actions have already been

implemented?

4. Did inability to control policy, implementation activity, or

rewards and sanctions of the people involved prevent

implementation of the actions? Have you changed your

't:-.ct:. ,es? How?

.,g hndsiqht, could any of the outside interfereijces been

Pvv\.ded?

. e the-tre any outside influences that enhanced

L m.).1iet..tation of the action?

7. Has the OE operation improved your unit effectiveness? How

do you know?

8. Do you feel the operation was related to your planning

objectires?

9. Have you personally done anything differently since the

operation?

H. Foliow-up Technical Assistance and Support

I. Have you been in touch with OESO since the session? Who

contacted whom?

A-8
2. Has the OESO given you any help or feedback on your change

activities? What?

3. How does your superior (top management) feel _ýc t - T

effort at this point? How do you feel?

4. Has anyone received any positive or negative recognition

for taking any action stemming from the operation?

5 Have participants gotten together since the oeration

(reference group)?

6. Has the operation had any impact on other parts cf the

organization? What?

I. Evaluation

I. Is the operation being evaluated? How long after h"

event did evaluation begin? How is evaluation tebin" oc ?

What are your criteria of success/failure? ArY tney the

same as those which were developed during the planning

sessions?

2. How will findings be used? Who gets them? Wh±t r', actiocn?

J. Termination

1. How would you rate the effectiveness of your orL.anizai:,;.

in relation to other similar Army organization:E on :-0

performance? On overall job satisfaction? (As; use:z te

rate on scale of high, medium or low.)

2. How would you describe the managerial style yot, .e -n. no"!. L

day to day operations? What do you do that ' , ,

describe your style in this way?

3. How do you feel people have responded to thi, -sy'e4. Have you used any of the skills/knowledge/tecnn.qjes imparted in the operation on your own? Gotten an-thi-•

can use?

5. How did termination occur? Why?

6. All in all, do you feel operation was a success or fai1ure"-

Why?

7. What specific action do you think contributed :_,it to *-ither

success or failure?

8. Is there anything about the operation that you would like

to add?

A-9

S S S S S - -q -~ f
IV. Departure

At the close of thP >,;terview recioest permission to make a

departure call onj tnh user. .isc:- thn. call is made ask:

1. Is there anything aboot the operation you would like tu add?

X.'

NI

FS

A-1O

-r-4-
.-. ¶

'0*

4...

,.. 4*

S.,

4.. .4...

S..'

.4 4.

.4..

'V. APPENDIX B

QE User Target Interview Questions

.4..: -v

?. ,'

4. a, .

-4

.4%

4..

-4..'

-4..4,

4-

.4.

. a'

./4

.4.,

5*4

0

0

4..

I.'-...

4..

.4.

.4..

B-i

V4.

V4.
-

OE User Target Interview Questions

I. Preliminary Instructions for the Interview

I am going to ask you a lot of specific question about the way

this OE operation was conducted. If you would, please answer each

question in considerable detail. Your responses will be kept in

the strictest confidence. If any of the information is used in

the study, all the specifics connecting it to you will be removed

prior to use. The interview has been structured chronologically.

The questions are intended to Locus our discussion in an :rler-!

fashion so that we can obtain critical information about the

operation within the time limits we have arranged.

II. Background

1. How many people are in your command?

(Breikdown major groups.)

2. How loiig has the command been in its present configurazion?

Location?

3. What is your primary mission?

III. Diffusion and Support Questions

1. How did you find out about the effort?

2. Were you consulted about being involved in the effort? .ere

you informed about a specific issue or problem which

generated the effort? How?

3. Did you think the objectives of the effort were addressing

the right problem or issues?

4. Did you think the approach was correct? What did you expect

would be the results?

5. How did you learn about the data collection effort?

6. Were you consulted about the best way to collect data?

7. Did you think that the methods used to collect the data were

appropriate to the problem and the people involved?

B-2

"p
8. Sid -You nartic*Pate in the data cs''*Iactin? :i

work for you participate? How many an! what levels?

9. Did you get. results from_ the data collection? How was -s e

information presented to you? Did you think the me:hod of

presenting the data was appropriate? How did you feel when

you got the data?

10. Was the data understandable? Did you think the data

identified a real problem? Did you think the data addressed

the right problem?

1l. How %tre you included in the planning for action process? Were the methods used for- planning appropriate? Were the

right people included? What results did you expect?

12. How did the sessions go? What happened?

13. Were any goals and objectives set as a result of the planni:n= session? Did you agree with them? Did you think they were

realistic? What sort of documentation of zoals or objectives

did you actually see after the planning session?

14. What action did you see as a result of the activity? We.e

-you told to take any action? Was your organization to_ "-

do anything? What did you actually do?

Is. Were you asked to evaluate the iTmpact of the action on your organization? How did you evaluate the impact of the action?

How could you evaluate the impact of the action?

16. What specific costs or benefits did you see as a result othe activity? What were the overall outcomes (results of

the effort), in your opinion?

17. In your opinion, was the operation a success? Why. or why not? What parts? What factors caused it to fail'

I8. What was the single most importanz action which caused "_z

to succeed or fail?

19. Is there anything else about the operation that you would

like to add to the information I have requested?

B-3

S

V.

A .-. ~ t ~ w > ~ A P
APPENDIX C

OE Consultant Interview Questions

-'p1

j
OE CONSULTANT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

I. Preliminary Instructions for the Interview

I am going to ask you a lot of specific questions about the way in which this OE operation was conducted. If you would, please

answer each question in considerable detail. Your responses will

be kept in the strictest confidence. If any of the infornation

is used in the study, all the specifics connecting it to you or

your client will be removed prior to use.

The interview has been structured chronologically. The questions

are intended to focus our discussion in an orderly fashion so

that we can obtain critical information about the operation within

the time limits we have arranged.

II. Background

1. Whtire did you obtain your OE consultant training? Have you

had any training in addition to OEC&S?

2. How many "four step" OE operations have you conducted? As

lead consultant? In an assist role? How many users have

been involved?

III. Questions

A. Scouting

1. How did the user come to your attention?

2. When the user contacted you, did the user state any particular reason for contacting you at that point?

3. What did you know about user at that point? Find out?

4. Was an OE consulting team established at that point?

Describe the team. Were consultants from other than your

organization involved?

5. Did the assignment of consultants to the operation remain

the same throughout the operation? Lead Consultants?

Assistant Consultants?

6. How much time elapsed from the initial contact with the usir

until your first in depth discussions with the user about

conducting the operation?

C-2
7. When appropriate, ask if the difference in rank or between

+he OESO and user status presented any problems that may have affected the conduct of the operation. What sort of

problems?

B. Entry

1. On entry, was your first contact with the user? What were

the results of this meeting?

2. Did you sense that the user's superior in the chain cf command

did or did not support OE operations?

3. Did you talk to anyone else in the user's organization?

4. Did you feel you and user were "on the same wavelength?" Why/why not? (Probe: congruence? Recognition of client felt needs?)

5. What target group seemed to be emerging?

6. On entry, what did you see as the user's problem, needs or

objectives? What did he/she want?

7. How did you feel about prospects for the operation at this

point?

8. What objectives for the operation did you aqree on? Were

they potentially measurable? Did you talk about that?

9. What specific operation activit.ies did you agree on?

10. What resources, time or personnel romtirnerits %,s t*e user

willing to provide at this point? Did you .nink th.:se were

adequate? Did you say anything?

11. What specific actions did the user take to leoit.irrize the

operation within his/her organization?

12. Was there anyone in the user's organization wh:. acted as an

internal consultant or link between you, the user, and lower

levels of the organization; If so,

What was his/her previous training and what sort of influence

did this linking person have on the operation?

13. How did the user view you (Type of role and OESO expertise)?

14. What understanding do you believe the .ser had atrout data

collection and feedback?
C. Data Collection and Diagnosis

1. flow did you decide what data collection method to use? Was

this driven by previous events in the user's organization?

2. What method did you use? (Individual interviews? Group

Interviews? Surveys? Observation? Other?)

3. Who did you get data from? (Sampling design? Number and

percentage of respondents at each level?)

4. How were respondents informed about the data collection

effort?

5. Did the respondents suggest ways to collect data?

6. Did persons in the user's organization assist in the data

ccllection?

8. Was a standard data collection instrument used? If not,

please describe the method that was used to develop the

survey instrument or interview protocols.

9. Did the data collection effort surface any significant

opposition to the operation? Was any specific action taken

to reduce opposition or build support for the operation?

What sort of action?

10. How did you go about analyzing and consolidating the results

of the data collection effort? What criteria did you use?

How many separate issues or problem areas were identified

for preserEtation Lo the user as potential objectives for .Lrproveme5 •?

11. What process did you u3e for presenting the data feedback

to the user? if group feedback was used, what levels were

involved and what percent of persons from each level were

present at the feadback session?

12. Were specific objectives for the operation specified at this

time? Who decidel on the objectives?

13. Was any additional data co'lection or anlysis required after

feedback to the u~jer in order to clarify or further justify

an issue area?

14. What purposes do you believe the user understood the feedback

process to have?

15. What specific next steps were identified to the user at this

point?

C-4
16. What specific activities and schedule did you and the user

agree upon at this point? Were they potentially measurable?

Did you and the user discuss that?

17. Did you think that clarity existed around the roles,

responsibilities and collaboration required on the part of

yourself and the user at this point? What sort of evidence

would support this view?

18. What actions did you advise the user to take in preparation for future activities?

19. Was any additional action required to prepare your consulting

team or to establish and expanded consulting team to conduct

the operation's activities at that point? If the team was

expanded, identify the role and relationship of new members

of the team.

20. Did you coach the user in any way to help create a climate of

trust and participation around the data collection effort.

D. Feedback I..

1. What outcomes were you seeking from the feedback activity? Where the outcomes disseminated to participants? Were they imeasurable.

2. How were the feedback recipients chosen?

- 3. Who was involved in the data feedback sessions? (Family

group or other)

4. How were the feedback recipients prepared for the sessions?

5. What was the design of the sessions? Were the groups with

or without leaders? What levels of personnel were involved

in each feedback session?

C-5
6. What role did the user have in the sessions? Were the groups

"*with or without leaders? What levels of personnel were

involved in each feedback session?

7. In the event feedback, problem solving, and action planning

were planned to be conducted in the same session, ask the

following questions:

Were measurable outcomes for the activity established

prior to the sessions? How were these outcomes

disseminated to the participants?

8. Was concepts training included as a precondition to the

feedback session? Describe briefly the design of the

concepts training sessions. (Probe to see if it specifically

attempted to train the users to be better users of OE

services.)

9. Were any specific actions taken to gain Fupport for the

feedback session? (Prcbe actions to create climate of

psychological safety.)

10. How much time elapsed between the time data collection was

completed and the feedback sessions began?

11. Did the OESO or persons from the user'u organization present

the feedback to the group? Did persons giving.feedback

other than OESO's receive any training for giving feedback?

12. How did you run the session? (Probe: p!.rticl-ant inputs

to objectives, agenda, how long?,

13. How did it go? Any rebistar,nce Whiat !:Indl (Prcbe: evidence

re: psychological safety.)

14. What were the outcomes? Was data verified by additional

data from participants7 Oid participant.t accept or deny

the data? (Probe for initial problem-solving or goal

setting.)

15. Did feedback sessions seem consistent with grcup and

organization values? (Probe for trust, open communications,

participation.)

16. Did feedback data appear to threaten significant numbers of

participants? (Probe for threats to job security, power or

authority.)

17. How much time elapsed from the completion of feedback to

the start of additional implementation activities?

•.-. C-6

-p*•

U_
Lv00 E. Planning for the Operation's Implementing Activities

1. How was any future activity planned?

2. How were the decisions to take specific actions made?

3. How were participants chosen?

4. Were participants included in any portion of the planning?

5. At that point, what intended outcomes did you envision for

the operation's activities? Were they the same as the user's?

C. Were intended outcomes disseminated? How? What was the

response? From whom?

7. Were the intended outcomes measurable?

8. Was a plan for the operation's activities disseminated? How?

To what level? What was the response? From whom?

F. Problem Solving/Goal Setting/Action Planning Activities

1. Hc4 were these activities planned? What did the consulting

Leam do to prepare?

2. How we.:e thE, decisions to take specific actions made?

3. how were pazticipants chosen? How many participants?

4. Were participants included in any portion of the planning?

5. At this point, what intended outcomes did you envision? Were

they the same as the user's?

6. Were intended outcomes disseminated? How? What was the

response? From whom?

7. Were the intended outcomes measurable? Did you discuss this

with the user?

6. To what extent did the user have direct control over policy, implemcntation activity, and rewards anL sanctions of the

people who would be involved in implementing the intended

outcomes?

9. What specific problem solving, goal setting and action

planning activities were planned?

C-7

I WqII
r

10. What was the design of these activities? (Varied learning

styles or awareness of "maturity" level of recipients.) Did

they seem to be getting it? (Appropriate learning style or

"maturity" level in de3ign.)

11. Was the user present at these sessions? Did you or the user

take any specific action to create an atmosphere of trust,

openness or participation? (Probe for climate of

psychological safety.)

12. What specific problem solving techniques were employed

during the activities? (Probe for group size, composition,

and techniques such as OMR, force field, criterion based,

demand based, etc.)

13. Did participants solve any problems during the sessions?

What were they? How did they solve them?

14. Did participants set any goals during the session? Example

of goal set? (Challenging but realistic, measurable, dve

date?)

15. What constraints, links, impact or effect on other parts r.of

the organization did participants identify and consider

during the activities?

16. Did participants use data and/or concepts training to

identify alternative solutions to identfied problems? Wc-e

criteria established for alternative choices and then used

to make a decision?

17. Were action steps identified by the participants? Example?

18. Was a method for evaluating the results of action established

at this point?

19. Did anytiing during the activities lead you to modify your

operation's implementation activity?

20. Were the results of the session ccmmunicated co nonparticipants How? What was the response?

21. Do you have any plans for further contact with the clieL?

22. Was any particular technical expertise required to assist I the user and the participants to identify potential

solutions and action steps to resolve the issues? Could

you provide the techical expertise? If not, what did you

do to get the required expertise?

C-8
G. Action

1. What did the user do as a result of the operation?

2. Were planned actions disseminated to members of the user's

organization other than to the participants in the action

planning activities?

3. Were action steps delegated to the lowest level for

implementation? What percent of the recommended action

steps were tasked for implementation? What percent have

been completed?

4. Did user lack of control over policy, implementation activity, or rewards and sanctions of the people involved

prevent implementation of any of the actions?

5. What outside interferences prevented implementations of the

actions?

* 6. In hindsigh-t, could any of the outside interferences been

avoided? How?

7. Were there any outside influences that enhanced

implementation of the action?

H. Follow-up Technical Assistance Fnd 3upport

1. Have you been in touch with user since the implementation

session? Who contacted whom?

2. What did you do? (Technical assistance, feedback on goal

progress.)

3. How does the user's top management feel about the operation? (Support/lack of support)

4. Have participants received any rewards/sanctions for actions

as a result of the operation?

5. Has the operation had any effect on the rest of the user

irganization? (Probe for continued lower level involvement,

continued use of activities such as data collection, problem

solving, and acticn planning sessions.)

C-9
SI. Evaluation

i. Is the operation being assessed? How? When? What are the

criteria for success/failure? Are they the same as those

which were developed prior to action/implementation?

2. How are the findings being used? Who gets them? What

reactions?

J. ~Termination

I. Has client used any of the skills/knowledge/techniques

imparted in the operation on his/her own? (Evidence of

transferred capability)

2. How did termination occur: Why?

3. All in all, do you feel the operation was a success or

failure? Why?

4. What specific action do you think contributed most to either

success or failure?

S. Is there anything else about the operation that you would

like to add?

C-10
.1 OE~ Operation Coin Worksheet

.D-
OE OPERATION CODING WORKSHEET

CODING DATE

CODER CHECK CODER

CASE DESCRIPTION

DATE: COMMENCE TERMINATE ON:GOING

I. GENERAL (This section is to be completed after final coding and

classification of the case)

1. CASE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: ( )( )( )( ) ( )

(Sequential)

2. CASE OUTCOME ASSESSMENT:

(1) Success

(2) Failure

3. USER CLASS:

(1) Class I

(2) Class II

(3) Class III

(4) Class IV

4. OE OPERATION CLASS:

(1) Class A

(2) Class B

(3) Class C

D-2

=**'q* " ~ ~ . ~. * -'-• ~ ~ t ~ q'l"• ~ ~ ~ A -- t 
II. OESO DESCRIPTION

1. NAMEE --

2. TITLE:

3. POSITION/RESPONSIBILITIES:

(1) Director OE staff

(2) OE Lead Consultant

(3) OE Assistant/Intern Consultant

4. REPORTING RELATIONSHIP TO USER:

(1) Internal

.-- (2) External

5. M:LITARY RANK. Pay Grade:

6. CIVILIAN GRADE. GS Grade:

7. JOB RELATED TRAINING:

(1) OEC&S Ccnsultant Training Course

(2) On Job Training

(3) Academic MA Psychology

(4) Academic PHD Psychology

(5) Academic MA Organizational Behavior

(6) Academic PHD Organizational Behavior

(7) Academic Other

(8) Other

S. CONSULTING EXPERIENCE. NUMBER OF "FOUR STEP" OPERATIONS

WITH DIFFERENT USERS CONDUCTED:

9. NUMBER CONDUCTED PRIOR TO OPERATION BEING DISCUSSED:

10. .. CERTAINTY. TURNOVER OF LEAD OESO DURING OE OPERATION

PROCESS (Indicate last process step completed by initial

lead consultant):

D-3
I.'

""(1) Scouting

(2) Entry

(3) Data Collection

(4) Diagnosis

(5) Feedback

(6) Problem solving/goal setting/action planning

(7) Action

S•(8) Follow-up

(9) Evaluation

(10) Termination

(11) Does not occur

11. OESO'S ACTIVE INVOLVEMENT IN OPERATION CEASES AFTER:

(1) Scouting

(2) Entry

(3) Data Collection

(4) Diagnosis

(5) Feedback

(6) Problem solving/goal setting/action planning

(7) Action

(8) Follow-up

(9) Evaluation

(10) Termination

12. STATUS DIFFERENTIAL OESO/USER:

(1) OESO Junior more than 3 grades

(2) OESO Junior 3 grades

(3) OESO Junior 2 grades

(4) OESO Junior 2 grade

(5) OESO equivalent

D-4
U

(6) OESO senior 1 grade

(7) OESO senior 2 grades

(8) OESO senior 3 grades

(9) OESO senior mcre than 3 grades

(10) OESO Military/User Civilian

(11) OESO Civilian/User Military

13. STATUS DIFFERENTIAL PRESENTED PERCEIVED PROBLEMS:

- (1) Yes

(2) No

ID-5

q°
III. USER DESCRIPTION

1. NAME _

2. TITLE3. USER RANK/GRADE:

4. POSITION/RESPONSIBILITIES:

(1) Company Cdr

(2) Battalion Cdr

(3) Brigade Cdr

(4) Division Cdr

(5) Army Cdr

(6) Head Staff Directorate HODA level

(7) Head Staff Directorate 2nd Echeleon

(8) Head Staff Directorate 3rd Echeleon

(9) Cdr Industrial/Support Base

(10) Head, Directorate Industrial/Support Base

(1i) Other, Specify .. ..

S. SIZE OF USER ORGANIZATION. NUMBER OF PERSONNEL:

6. MILITARY PERSONEL COMPOSITION OF USER ORGANIZATION BY

PERCENTAGE:

7. CIVILIAN COMPOSITION OF USER ORGANIZATION BY PERCE.NTAGE:

a. PRESENCE OF UNION REPRESENTATION IN WORK FORCE:

(1) Yes

(2) No

9. MISSION OF COMMAND:

(1) Combat

D-6
- (2) Combat support

(3) Combat service support

(4) Industrial support

(5) Personnel support

-(6) Training support

(7) Operations support

(8) Logistics support

(9) Other, specify

10. CHAIN OF COMMAND:

(1) FORSCOM

(2) TRADOC

(3) USAREUR

(A) EUSA

%5) Other, Specify

11. POINT IN TRAINING CYCLE:

(1) Within 6 months prior to annual training readiness

exercise

(2) During annual training readiness exercise

(3) Three months after annual training readiness exercise

(4) Three to six months after annual training readiness

exercise

(5) Six to twelve months after annual training readiness

exercise

(6) Twelve to twenty-four months after annual training

readiness exercise

12. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE TYPE:

(1) Company

(2) Battalion

(3) Brigade

D-7

a.
• " . 4.>d .. . -.. - . - ' -. -d- -. - -.. . Q " * - , - . . - - ' . " • ' B Jo• r o- "-' • . • % % - - . • .o

I.I

-(4) Division 'I

j (5) Agency

(6) Base Installation

(7) Directorate

(8) Staff/Directorate of large system

(9) Department of Agency or Base Installation

(10) Other, specify

13. UNCERTAINTY. TIME USER IN ASSIGNMENT SUBSEQUENT TO

OPERATION.

.NUMBER OF MONTHS:

14. UNCERTAINTY. TIME IN POSITION PRIOR TO OPERATION.

N.U4BER OF MONTHS:

15. UNCERTAINTY. TURNOVER OF USER OCCURS DURING OE OPERATION

PROCESS (indicate last process step where initial user was

involved):

(1) Scouting

(2) Entry

(3) Data Collection

(4) Diagnosis

(5) Feedback

(6) Problem solving/goal setting/action planning

(7) Action

(A) Follow-up

(9) Evaluation

(10) Termination

(11) Does not occur

16. PROBLEM LCCUS. SUBGROUP VARIABLES AFFECTING OPERATION:

D- 8
(1) Union-management

(2) Military-civilian

(3) Male-Female

(4) Race

(5) Young-old

(6) Other, specify

17. USER RATING OF HISTORICAL SYSTEM E}'ECTIVENESS. JOB

PERFORMANCE:

(1) Low

(2) Medium

(3) High

1i. USER RATING OF HISTORICAL SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS. JOB

SATISFACTION:

(1) Low

(2) Medium

03) High

19. UNCERTAINTY. TURNOVER OCCURS. INITIAL USER TAKE ACTION TO

INCREASE LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OF THE OPERATION OR

ATTAINMENT OF THE OPERATION'S OBJECTIVES:

(1) Tasks all action prior to detachment

(2) Publishes planned objectives and action to multi-levels

of the organization

(3) Establishes Special Group to monitor and/or expedite

action

(4) Briefs new USER on planned actions

(5) Obtains support of new USER for transition workshop

(6) Briefs seniors on planned actions prior to detachment

(7) Other, specify

D-9
TV. SCOUTING

1. INITIATION OF CONTACTI

(1) OESO initiated

(2) User initiated

(3) Other, specify

2. USER REASON FOR INVOLVEMENT IN OE:

(1) External pressure from seniors in chain

(2) Other external pressure, specify

(3) Internal pressure around specific issue, specify

(4) OESO marketing activity

(5) Previous knowledge/experience with OE

(6) Other, specify

3. OESO REASON FOR INITIATION OF CONTACT WITH USER:

(1) Known supporter/prevlous user of OE.

(2) Subordinates of USER contact OESO about a problem.

(3) OESO referred to USER by USER peer as a potential

supporter..

(4) Other OESO contact/knowledge indicates USER potential

supporter.

(5) OESO directed by senior of USER to contact USER

because of known problem.

(6) Other, specify

D-10
' -a .... + '- .. - -- .- .- 4 • , ... w • r d... *,.,. , . +. ,.•.... '. . .- +" - S ' . . - . -. - ". , ' .. .. 

V. ENTIRY

1. TOP MANAGER SUPPORT. USER IS COMMANDER, DIRECTOR, ETC.:

(1) Yes

(2) No

2. USER'S SENIOR IN CHAIN OF COMMAND SUPPORTS OF OPERATION:

a, (1) Yes

"(2) No

-, (3) Unknown

3. PROBLEM LOCUS. ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTION:

(1) Operations

(2) Operational support

(3) Administrative support

(4) Technical support

(5) Strategic support

(6) Other, specify

4. PROBLEM LOCUS SIZE:

(1) Individual

(2) Interpersonal

(3) Intragroup

(4) intergroup

(5) System

5. PROBLEM LOCUS. ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL XNVOLVED:

(1) Non-management

(2) Lower management-4th level, reports to 3rd level

(3) Middle Management-3rd level, reports to 2nd level

D-11

_:,,
(4) Top Management-2nd level, reports directly to Top Manageme

(5) Top Management

6. PROBLEM LOCUS. TYPE:

(1) Task problem-how work is carried out and organized

I (2) Goal problem-unclear goals and objectives or failure

to meet them

(3) Interdependence problem-necessity for joint agreement

or joint action

(4) Power problem-misuse/abuse of authority, failure to

follow orders. Excessive/unnecessary rules or

regulations.

(5) Climate problem-catchall! lack of cooperation,

unwillingness to do more than minimum -- could be

related to standardized measures

7. OESO UNDERSTANDS DEFINITION OF CLIENT PROBLEMS:

(1) Yes

(2) No

8. USER HAS POWER OR STATUS TO LEGITIMIZE OE OPERATION AMONG

ALL LEVELS AND GROUPS INVOLVED:

(1) Yes

(2) No

9. USER IDENTIFIES PROMOTING/RESTRAINING FORCES FOR DESIRED

CHANGE:

(1) Supporting individuals and groups

(2) opposing individuals and groups

(3) Problems involving control or authority to make change

10. MANAGER TAKES ACTION THAT ENCOURAGES PERSONNEL TO COOPERATE:

(1) Yes

(2) No

11. INIT1AL OBJECTIVES FOR OPERATION INVOLVE:

(1) Interpersonal relationships

D-12
(2) Work group processes

(3) Job redesign

(4) Personnel systems

(5) Management information/Financial control

(6) Organizational design

(7) Combat operations processes

(8) Organizational assessment

(9) Other, specify

12. OESO AND USER AGREE ON INITIAL OBJECTIVES FOR CPERATION:

(1) Yes

(2) No

13. OESO IDENTIFIES TO USER POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS FOR ADDRESSING

CLIENT NEEDS AND OBJECTIVES:

(1) Yes

(2) No

14. USER EXPRESSES UNDERSTANDING ABOUT OE:

(1) Helping relationship of OESO

(2) OESO's expert process role

(3) Data collection/analysis/feedback purpose is as a

catalyst for action vice final problem identification

(4) The need to build commitment within target group frcm

outset

(5) The need to establish, measure, evaluate outcomes &

objectives

15. OESO AND USER AGREE ON OPERATION IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES:

(1) Yes

(2) No

16. OESO/USER INTENDED ACTIVITIES INVOLVE:

D-13

WIIo

• . • . . . . . . ~ ~ ~ 4 54 f
(1) Individual consultation

(2) Unstructured group training

(3) Structured group training involving educational

activity

(4) Structured group training involving team building

(5) Process consultation

(6) Survey guided development

(7) Other, specify

17. INTENDED FEEDBACK METHOD:

(1) Data handback

(2) Data feedback

(3) Not intended

18. INTENDED RECIPIENTS OF DATA FEEDBACK OR HANDBACK:

(1%/ Non-management

(2) Lower management

(3) Middle management

(4) Top management

(5) Others, specify

19. OESO CONSIDERS RESOURCES ADEQUATE:

(1) Yes

(2) No

20. USER EXPECTATIONS FOR OE OPERATION:

(1) Negative

(2) Positive but unrealistic

(3) Positive but realistic

D-14

•._..
"21. OESO EXPECTATIONS FCR OE OPERATION:

(1)' Negative

(2) Positive but unrealistic

(3) Positive but realistic

22. USER TAKES ACTION TO INFORM AND GET ORGANIZATION AND/OR

PERSONS INVOLVED TO SUPPORT OE OPERATION TO LEVEL INDICATED:

(1) None

(2) Non-management

(3) Lower management

(4) Middle management

(5) Top management

(6) Other, specify

23. USER IDENTIFIES AND TASKS INTERNAL RESOURCE TO ACT AS LINK

BETWEEN OESO, TARGET OF CHANGE AND USER:

(1) Yes

(2) No

24. INTERNAL RESOURCE LINK IS IN:

(1) Non-management

(2) Lower management

(3) Middle management

(4) Top management

(5) Other, specify

25. INTERNAL RESOURCE LINK IS TRAINED IN OE:

(31) Yes

(2) No 77f

0 _D-15

'4.
26. USER INCLUDES PERSONS OTHER THAN HIM OR HERSELF IN ENTRY

PROCESS:

(1) External persons

(2) Internal persons

(3) Non-management

(4) Lower management

(5) Middle management

(6) Top management

D-16
A

VI. DATA COLLECTION

"1 1. DECISIONS FOR DATA COLLECTION METHODS MADE, BY:

(1) OESO-user approval

(2) OESO-user joint decision

) OESO-user target decision S(3 

2. DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND INSTRUMENTS USED:

(1) Individual Interviews

(2) Group Interviews ,=.

(3) Observation

°5 (4) Document Analysis

(5) co0

(6) WEQ

(7) OESO Designed Survey

(8) LEAD

(9) FIRO-B

(10) Managerial Style Questionnaire

(11) Learning Style Inventory

(12) Other, Specify ...

3. INT.ERVIEW A"%TD/OR OESO DESIGNED SURVEY:

(1) Based on entry objectivies

(2) Based on survey data

(3) Open-ended issue identification

(4) Other, specify

4. RESPONDENTS:

PERCENT

.. D1

D-17

"4'

.4
7L.

None 1-25 25-50 50-75 75-100

"',U on-Managament ( 1) (2) ( 3) ( 4) ( 5)

Lower Management (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Middle management (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)

Top management (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)

or

S. METHOD USED TO INFORM RESPONDENTS ABOUT DATA COLLECTION

EFFORT:

(1) Formal written notification, i.e. DF

(2) User Briefing

(3) OESO Briafing

(4) User/OESO Briefing

(5) OESO trained user group personnel

(6) Other, specify

(7) None used

6. ACTION TAKEN TO ENCOURAGE OPENNESS AND PARTICIPATION BY USER

IN DATA COLLECTION:

(1) Formal written notification, i.e. DF

(2) Briefing of non-management

. (3) Briefing of lower management

(4) Briefing middle management

(5) Briefing top management

(6) Briefing of all respondents

(7) None taken

7. ACTION TAKEN TO ENCOURAGE OPE.IESS AND PARTICIPATION BY - CESO:

(1) Formal written notification

(2) Briefing of non-management

D-18
(3) Briefing of lower management

(4) Briefing of middle management

(5) Briefing of top management

(6) Briefing of all respondents

(7) None taken

8. OESO/USER BELIEVES USER ADEQUATELY INFORMED ABOUT

PURPOSE/USES AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA COLLECTION EFFORT:

. P4OESO USER

Yes (1) (2) No (3) (4)

9. OESO/USER BELIEVES RESPONDENTS ADEQUATELY INFORMED ABOUT

PURPOSE, USES, AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF DATA COLLECT:ON EFFORT:

OESO USER

Yes (1) (2)

No (3) (4)

10. DATA COLLECTION EFFORT SURFACES SIGNIFICANT OPPOSITION TO

OE OPERATION:

(1) Yes

(2) No

11. USER TAKES ACTION TO REDUCE OPPOSITION AND ENCOURAGE SUPPORT

FOR OPERATION:

(1) Yes

(2) No

12. OESO COACHES USER IN BEHAVIORS TO ENCOURAGE OPENNESS

AND PARTICIPATION DURING DATA COLLECTION:

(1) Yes

(2) No

D- 1

<I
VII. DIAGNOSIS/FEEDBACK

1. METHOD OF PRESENTING INTTIAL FEEDBACK TO USER:

(1) Data Handback

(2) Individual Feedback

(3) Group Feedback

2. INITIAL FEEDBACK TO USER/GROUP LEVELS INVOLVED:

q (1) Non-management

(2) Lower management

(3) Middle management

(4) Top management

(5) Other, specify

.. C
3. USER TAKES ACTION TO ENCOURAGE TRUST AND OPENESS WHEN

INITIAL FEEDBACK IS IN A GROUP SESSION:

(1) Yes

(2) No

4. OESO ANALYZE DATA FOR PRESENTATION AND IDENTIFIES

ACTUAL/IDEAL DISCREPANCIES FOR ISSUES:

(1) Yes

(2) No

5. CONSOLIDATES DATA INTO KEY ISSUES.

(1) OESO (3) Both

(2) User (4) Number Presented to User

6. CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING KEY ISSUES:

(1) User objectives from entry phase

(2) 10 most pcsitive/10 least positive responses

(3) Comparison of data to data from similar units

(4) CoLmmon themes

(5) Other, specify

7. USES MULTIPLE TYPES OF DATA SOURCES TO BACK UP ANALYSIS

PRESENTED IN FEEDBACK TO USER:

(1) Yes

(2) No

8. USER CONSIDERS DATA

(1) Accurate

(2) Identifies unexpected issues

(3) Incomplete, requires additional data

[D-2] "
(4) Excessive in quantity

9. ACCEPTANCE BY USER:

(1) high

(2) medium

(3) low

10. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR IMPLEMENTATION DETERMINED BY USER:

(1) Prior to completion of feedback to non-management

(2) Prior to completion of feedback to lower management

t (3) Prior to completion of feedback to middle management

(4) Prior to completion of feedback to top management

11. USER VIEWS VALUE OF FEEDBACK AS WAY OF IDETIFYING:

(1) Emerging issues

(2) Developing commitment for change

(3) Problem identification

D -22
- oo

12. INTENDED OUTCOMES FROM FEEDBACK ACTIVITY;

(1) Acceptance of data

(2) Additional data regarding issue/problem areas

(3) Famliarization of leadership with data for feedback to

lower levels

(4) Data for planning/modifying planned implementing

activities

(5) Initial problem solving, future formal problem solving session scheduled

(G) Initial action planning, future formal action planning

session scheduled

(7) Problem solving/no further group participation

scheduled

(8) Action planning/no further group participation

scheduled

I (9) Refinement of issue/problem areas to limit planned OE

activities in future

k10) Delegation of issue/problem

(11) Refinement of OE operation objectives

(12) Other, Specify .

13. OESO/USER ESTABLISHED SUCCESS AND FAILURE MEASURZS FOA

OUTCOME OF FEEDBACK ACTIVITY:

(1) Yes

(2) No

14. INTENDED OUTCOMES FOR FEEDBACK ACTIVITY DISSLEMINATED TO

PARTICIPANTS:

(1) Yes

(2) No

D-23

prv
S15. DESIGN OF GROUP FEEDBACK SESSIONS:

Individual Data Group User Presen-- FB HB FB (at least partially)

None (0)

"Non-management (1) (2) (3) (4)

Lower management (5) (6) (7) (8)

Middle management (9) (10) (11) (12)

Top management (13) (14) (15) (16)

Peer group (17) (18) (19) (20)

Family group (21) (22) (23) (24)

" "_,-._" Other, specify

16. CATEGORIES OF PERSONNEL CONSCIOUSLY INCLUDED IN FEEDBACK

"SESSIONS:

(1) Not considered

(2) Military

(3) Civilian

(4) Union

(5) Management

(6) Representative racial/ethnic mix

(7) Representative male/female mix

(8) Young/old

(9) Other, specify

04' 17.. CONCEPTS TRAINING CONDUCTED AS PRECONDITION FOR FEEDBACK

SESSIONS:

(1) Yes

D- 24
-4

V'.

'(2) No (3) Other, Specify

18. FEEDBACK SESSION PARTICIPATION. RATIONALE FOR SELECTING

PARTICIPANTS IN FEEDBACK SESSIONS:

(1) None used

(2) User desires

(3) OESO recommendation

(4) User/OiSO joint agreement

(5) Include Top Managers

(6) Include.Middle Managers

(7) Limit to leader/manager of work group involved

(J) Include all work group personnel

4

(9) Include all personnel

(10) Include managers and persons considered influential

as informal leaders

(11) Include persons known to be supportive

(12) Exclude persons known to be non-supportive

(13) Include persons known to be non-supportive

(14) Others, specify

19. USER TAKES SPECIFIC ACTION PRIOR TO FEEDBACK SESSION TO E!ENCOURAGE SUPPORT:

(1) Yes

(2) No

20. USER PRESENT AT GROUP FEEDBACK SESSION AND TAKES SPECIFIC

ACTION TO ENCOURAGE TRUST, OPENNESS, AND PARTICIPATION:

(1) Yes

(2) No

21. ROLE OF USER WHEN PRESENT AT GROUP FEEDBACK SESSION:

(1) Supports only by presence

(2) Presents objectives and data for feedback

(3) Presents own analysis

D-2r
(4) Proposes solutions

(5) Other, specify

22. USER USES OESO COACHING ON BEHAVIORS TO CREATE CLI'IATE OF

PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY:

(1) Yes

(2) No

23. GROUP FEEDBACK SESSIONS, FAMILY GROUPS. NORMAL GROUP LEADER

PRESENT

(1) Yes

(2) No

"24. GROUP FEEDBACK SESSIONS, FAMILY GROUPS. LEADER PRESENT AND

TAKES ACTION TO E!COURAGE TRUST, OPENNESS, AND PARTICIPATION:

(1) 'es

(2) No

25. LEADERS PRESENT DATA F---DBACK TO FAMILY GROUPS:

(1) Yes

(2) No

(3) Mixed

26. FEEDBACK SESSIONS INVOLVING PEER LEVEL GROUPS. LATA FEEDBACK

PRESENTED BY:

(1) OESO

(2) Persons from group

(3) Mixed

27. FEEDBACK SESSIONS INVOLVING MIXED LEVELS AND FAMILY CROUPS.

DATA FEUDBACK PRESENTED BY:

(1) OESO

%2) Permonz from target group

(3) E..xeL

D-26
28. PERSONS GIVING FEEDBACK RECEIVE TRAINING TO GIVE FEEDBACK

(1) Yes

(2) No

29. USER CONSIDERS DATA PRESENTED IN SESSIONS:

(1) Appropriate (2) Not Appropriate

(3) Amount Appropriate (4) Amount Not Appropriate

(5) Display Appropriate (6) Display Not Appropriate

(7) Complexity Appropriate (8) Complexity Not Appropriate

30. AVERAGE TIME ELAPSED FROM COMPLETION OF DATA COLLECTION

AND FEEDBACK TO TARGET GROUPS, NO. OF WEEKS:

31. GENERAL PARTICIPANT REACTION TO DATA AT END OF FEEDBACK

SESSION:

(1) Accept data

(2) Reject data

(3) Mixed

32. EVIDENCE THAT FEEDBACK DATA THREATENED JOB SECURITY, POWER

OR AUTHORITY OF SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF INFLUENTIAL PERSONS:

(1) Yes

(2) No

33. USER CONSIDERED THAT HE/SHE MAINTAINED SUFFICIENT DEGREE OF

CONTROL OVER DATA FEEDBACK PROCESS:

(1) Yes

(2) No

34. OUTCOMES FROM FEEDBACK ACTIVITY (AS RELATED TO INTENTIONS

OF USER):

(1) Acceptance of data

(2) Additional data regarding issue/problem areas

(3) Familiarization of leadership with data for feedback

to lower levels

D- 27
(4) Data for planning/modifying planned implementing

activities

(5) Initial problem solving/future formal session scheduled

"(6) Initial action planning/future formal session scheduled

(7) Problem solving/no further group participation

scheduled

(8) Action planning/no further group participation

scheduled

(9) Refinement of issue/problem areas to limit planned OE

activities in future

((10) Delegation of issue/problem

(11) Refinement of OE operation objectives

(12) Other, specify

35. DATA FEEDBACK SESSION CAUSES CHANGE TO OBJECTIVES FOR OE

OPERATION:

(1) No

(2) Yes, specify

(3) Redefines scope, specify

36. USER OR OESO CHANGE OPERATION IMPLEMFNTITG ACTIVITILS AS

RESULT OF FEEDBACK SESSION:

(1) No

(2) Yes, specify

(3) Redefines scope, specify

37. TIME ELASPED FROM COMPLETION OF DATA FEEDBACK SESSION TO

TARGET GROUPS UNTIL NEXT PLANkM9 IMPLEMENTING ACTIVITY IN

DAYS:

D-28
Vill. PLANNING

1. DETERMINATION OF INTENDED SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR OPERATION.

DECISION METHOD:

(1) OESO

(2) User

(3) OESO and User

(4) OESO and user and target

2. OPERATION'S OBJECTIVE. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS.

SPECIFIC ACTIVITY MAY INVOLVE THE FOLLOWING:

(1) Interpersonal/intergroup relationships (general)

(2) Leader/subordinate relationships

(3) Peer level relationships

(4) Intergroup relationships, no task involvement, i.e.

black/white, male/female

!.A

D-29
.,.

*, (5) Intergroup relationships, with task involvement

(6) Intragroup relationships, no task involvement

(7) Intragroup relationships, with task involvement

(8) Other, Specify

. 3. OPERATION'S OBJECTIVE. JOB REDESIGN. ISSUE INVOLVES

ALTERING RESPONSIBILITIES, TASK INTERACTION, OR THE WAY

TECHNICAL WORK IS DONE. SPECIFIC ACTIVITY MAY INVOLVE THE

FOLLOWING:

(1) Job redesign (general)

(2) Job enlargement

(3) Job enrichment

(4) Job rotation

(5) Work simplification

(6) Changes in working conditions

(7) Structural change in work itself

(8) Other, specify

4. OPERATION'S OBJECTIVE. PERSONNEL SYSTEMS. ISSUE INVOLVES

MODIFYING EXISTING PERSONNEL SYSTEMS. SPECIFIC ACTIVITY MAY

SINVOLVE FOLLOWING:

(1) Personnel systems (general)

(2) New employees: recruitment

(3) New employees: selection

(4) New employees: training

(5) New employees: placement

(6) New employees: other, specify _

(7) Existing employees: terminaý.ion

(8) Existing employees: reassignment/retraining

(9) Existing employees: retirement

IV

D-30
% (10) Existing employees: job performance standards

(11) Existing employees: other, specify

(12) Changes in rewards and/or sanctions

(13) EO programs or manpower planning systems

(14) Involves military personnel

(15) Involves civilian personnel

5. OPERATION'S OBJECTIVE. MANAGEMENT INFORMAT ION/ FINANCIAL

CONTROL SYSTEMS. ISSUE INVOLVES ACTIVITY TO ESTABLISH OR

MODIFY EXISTING MANAGEMENT INFORMATION/FINANCIAL CONTROL

SYSTEMS. SPECIFIC ACTIVITY MAY INVOLVE THE k"•LLOWING:

"(1) Management Information/Financial Control System

"." (general)

"(2) MBO system

(3) Performance evaluation

(4) Cost avoidance analysis

(5) Cost/benefit analysis

(6) Systems to track or evaluate performance

(7) Other, specify

6. OPERATION'S OBJECTIVE. ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN. ISSUES

INVOLVE AUTHORITY AND REPORTING RELATIONSHIPS. SPECIFIC

ACTIVITY MAY INVOLVE THE FOLLOWING:

(1) Organizational Design (general)

"(2) Changes in reporting relationships

, (3) Establishing matrix project teams

- (4) Changes in authority

(5) Decentralization

(6) Consolidation of units/groups

(7) Other, specify

7. OPERATION'S OBJECTIVE INVOLVE CHANGE IN:

D-31
(1) Pooled interdependence

(2) Sequential interdependence

(3) Reciprocal interdependence

(4) Coordination by standardization

(S) Coordination by plan

(6) Coordination by mutual adjustment

9 . OPERATION'S OBJECTIVE. COMBAT OPERATIONS PROCESSES. ISSUES

INVOLVE OPERATIONAL PROCESSES OF UNITS INVOLVED IN COMBAT

OR COMBAT SIMULATIONS. SPECIFIC ACTIVITY MAY INVOLVE THE

FOLLOWING:

(1) Combat operations processes (general)

(2) Sensing

(3) Communicating information

(4) Decision making

(S) Stabilizing

(6) Communicating implementation

(7) Coping actions

(8) Feedback

9. OTHER: ISSUES CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS ABOVE. SPECIFIC

ACTIVITY MAY INVOLVE THE FOLLOWING:

(1) Transition of commanders

(2) Open systems planning, specify

(3) U.S. Army component issues (military & civilian)

(4) U.S. Army/other service issues

(5) U.S. Army/governmental agency issues

(6) U.S. Army/civilian community issues.

(7) Other, specify

10. EXTENT TEAT USER HAS CONTROL OVER FACTORS RELATED TO OBJECTIVE -

D-32
Implementation Rewards & Sanctions

Policy Processes of Personnel Involved

No direct control (1) (2) (3,

Indirect Control (4) (5) (6)

Direct Control (7) (8) (9)

11. CESO AND USER AGREE ON:

Yes No

Objecvives (1) (2)

NeXt st3t.gs (3) (4)

12. PLAMThED ACTIVITIES INVOLVE INfDIVIDUAL CONSULTATION:

(1) One on one helping relationship with user

(2) One on or~e helping relationship with one target person

other than user

13. PLANNED ACTIVITIES INVOLVE UNSTRUCTURED GROUP TRAINING:

(1) T-Group or sensitivity training

N. (2) Uninstrumented :acial awareness workshop

(3) Uninstruinented teem building centered only on

interpersonal relationships

(4) Other, specify ... .

14. PLANNED ACTIVITIES INVOLVE STRUCTURED GROUP TRAINING

INNJV OLVING EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY INTENDED AS TEAM BUILDING

EXERCISE:

(1) Communications

(2) Problem solving

(3) Grid Phase I

(4) Transactional analysis

(5) KBO

1-33

A -

-I l . . . . .
I %~

4-°

(6) Supervisory skills

(7) EO course

(8) Substan~ce abuse course

(9) Other, specify ..

15. PLANNED ACTIVITIES INVOLVE GROUP TRAINING INVOLVING

STRUCTURED EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY INTENDED AS EDUCATIONAL

ACTIVITY ONLY:

"II! (1) Communications

(2) Problem solving

(3) Grid Phase I

(4) Transactional analysis

"'" "" (5) M30

(6) Supervisory skills

(8) Substance. abuse course

(9) Other, specify

16. PLANNED ACTIVITIES INVOLVE PROCESS CONSULTATION A.TD DATA

COLLECTION BY:

(1.) Observation

(2) Individual interviews

F ~ (3) Group interviews

. (4) Document analysis

(5) Data feedback sessions

(6) Problem solving sessions

*" (7) Action planning sessions

"(8) Other, specify

17. PLANNED ACTIVITIES INVOLVE SURVEY GUIDED DEVELOPMENT ANID

"DATA COLLECTION BY:

L) 3-
(1) Observation

(2) Individual interviews

(3) Group interviews

(4) Document analysis

(5) Survey, specify

(6) Other, specify

18.

19. PLANNED FEEDBACK METHOD:

Handback Feedback

Non-management (1) (2)

Lower Management (3) (4)

Middle management (5) (6)

Top management (7) (8)

20. PLANNED PARTICIPANTS IN OPERATION'S ACTIVITIES:

Concepts Problem Action

Training Solving Planning

Non-management (1) (2) (3)

Lower management (4) (5) (6)

Middle management (7) (8) (9)

Top management (10) (11) (12)

D-35
21. CONCEPTS TRAINING DESIGN EMPHASIS:

(1) General organizational theories and skills

(2) Grounded findings specific to user's organization

(3) How to receive feedback

(4) How to best use OESO services (i.e., how to receive

help/the helping relationship)

(5) Transition Workshop Design (includes how to receive feedback)

22. PROCESS CONSULTATION INVOLVES TARGETS EXTER-NAL TO USER

COMMAND GROUP:

(1) Yes

(2) No

23. SURVEY GUIDED DEVELOPMENT INVOLVES TARGETS EXTERNAL TO USER

COMMAND GRO'P.

(1) Yes

(2) No

24. USER CONSIDERS ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES AM COLLABORATION

REQUIRED BY USER AND OESO WERE CLEAR:

(1) Yes

(2) No

25. OESO CONSIDERS ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND COLLABORATION

REQUIRED BY USER AND OESO WERE CLEAR:

(1 ) Yes

(2) No

0

26. USER TAKES SPECIFIC ACTION TO INFOPM PEOPLE AND ENCOURAGE

SUPPORT FOR OBJECTIVES AND PLANNED ACTIVITIES:

(1) No

- (2) Written notification

Briefings to:

(3) Non-management

(4) Lower management D-36

-*-- d . . . * *. . . . .
"-.

(5) Middle management

(6) Top management

(7) Other, Specify

27. PLANNING FOR IMPLE4ENTING ACTIVITY. DECISION MAKING FOR

ACTIVITY:

(1) QESO

(2) User

(3) User/OESO joint aggreement

(4) User/OESO/target group representation

28. PLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTING ACTIVITY. LEVEL OF TARGET GRCUP

REPRESENTED:

(1) Top management

(2) Middle Management

(3) Lower management

(4) Non-management

29. PLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTING ACTIVITY. METHODS FOR CBOZSI.NG

TARGETS FOR PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES:

(1) User desires

(2) OESO recommendation

(3) User/OESO joint agreement

(4) Limit to leader or manager of work group involved

(5) Include all work group personnel involved

(6) Include all personnel

(7) Include managers and persons considered influential as

informal leaders

(8) Include persons known to be supportive

(9) Exclude persons known to be non-supportive

(10) Include persons k,,cwn to be non-supporttve

D-37
-- . - *

(11) Other, specify

3U. OBJECTIVES FOR OE OPERATION DISSEMINATED TO TARGET GROUP:

(2) Written notification

Briefing to:

(3) Non-management

(4) Lower management

(5) Middle management

(6) Top management

(7) Other, specify

31. USER/OESO ESTABLISHED MEASURES FOR SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF

IMPLEMENTING ACTIVITIES:

(1) Yes

(2) No

32. DISSEMINATION OF PLAN FOR OPERATION IMPLEMENTING ACTIVITIES.

LEVEL:

(1) Top management (5) Complete dissemination

(2) Middle management (6) Partial dissemination

(3) Lower management

(4) Non-management

33. TARGET GROUP PERSONNEL INCLUDED IN PLANNING FOR IMPLEMNTING

* ACTIVITIES:

(1) Yes

(2) No

34. TARGET GROUP RESPONSE TO DISSEMINATION OF OBJECTIVES:

(1) Support by significant numbers of target group

(2) Support by key managers in target group

D-38
(3) Opposition by significant numbers of target group

(4) Opposition by key managers in target group

(5) No significant opposition

(6) Mixed

(7) Other, specify

35. TARGET GROUP RESPONSE TO DISSEMINATION OF PLAN FOR

OPERATION'S IMPLEMENTING ACTIVITY:

(1) Support by significant numbers of target group

(2) Support by key managers in target group

(3) Opposition by significant numbers of target group

(4) Opposition by key managers in target group

(5) No significant support or opposition

(6) Mixed

(7) Other, specify

36. OESO CONDUCTS TEAM BUILDING FOR CONSULTING TEAM FOR

IMPLEMENTING ACTIVITIES:

(1) Yes

(2) No

(3) Not applicable

37. P-ANNING FOR IMPLEMENTING ACTIVITIES INVOLVED FOLLOWING SUBCATEGORIES OF PERSONNEL BY INTENT RELATED TO OB,TSCTIVES:

(1) Military

(2) Civilian

(3) Union/management

(4) Representative racial/ethnic mix

(5) RepresAntative male/fei"sle mix

(6) Young/old

D-39
(7) Other, specify

(8) Not considered

38. OBJECTIVES ARE RELATED TO ISSUES/PROBLEMS INVOLVING

FOLLOWING SUBGROUPS OF PERSONNEL:

(1) Military

(2) Civilian

(3) Union/management

(4) Racial groups

(5) Male/female

(6) Young/old

(7) Other, specify -I

(8) Not considered

39. USER AND OESO HAVE SAME INTENDED OUTCOMES FOR OPERATI1:

User OESO

Yes (1) (2)

No (3) (4)

40. UNCERTAINTY. USER ROTATES OUT OF ORGANIZATION. ACTION

TAKEN TO ENSURE CONTINUATION AND/OR SUCCESS OF OE OPERATION.

(1) No action taken

(2) Outgoing USER includes top and/or middle management

in activities as a strategy for continuity

(3) Outgoing USER formalizes activities and promulgates

widely as strategy for continuity

(4) Outgoing USER convinces incoming USER to continue

operation

(5) Outgoing USER takes early action to build internal

support for opera'ion

(6) Incoming USER supports continuation willingly

(7) Incoming USER does not support continuation

(8) Other actions outgoing USER takes.

Specify

D-40
.1°

IX. PROBLEM SOLVING/GOAL SETTING/ACTION PLANNING ACTIVITIES

1. ACTIVITY PLANNING. REPRESENTATION FROM TARGET GROUP

INCLUDED IN PLANNING:

(1) Yes

(2) No

2. ACTIVITY PLANNING. DATA FROM FEEDBACK SESSIONS AS WELL AS

INITIAL DATA COLLECTION USED FOR ACTIVITY PLANNINGi

(1) Yes

(2) No

3. ACTIVITY PLANNING. PARTICIPANT SELECTION:

(1) User desires

(2) OESO recommendation

(3) User/OESO joint agreement

(4) Limit to leader/manager of work group involved

(5) Include all workgroup personnel

(6) Include all personnel

(7) Include managers and personnel considered influential

as informal leaders

(8) Include persons known to be supportive

(9) Exclude persons known to be non-supportive

(10) Include persons known to be non-supportive

(11) Other, specify

4. DECISION ON OUTCOMES FOR ACTIVITY MADE BY:

(1) User

(2) OESO

(3) OESO/User joint agreement

D-41

; Ids
(4) OESO/User/target group representative joint agreement

(5) Other, specify

5. DESIGN OF PROBLEM SOLVING, GOAL SETTING AND ACTIOb PLA.NNING

SESSIONS. SUBCATEGORIES OF PERSONNEL INCLUDED BY INTENT

RELATED TO OBJECTIrE:

(1) Military

(2) Civilian

(3) Union/management

(4) Representative racial/ethnic group mix

(5) Representative male/female mix

(6) Young/old group

(7) Other, specify _

(8) Not considered

6. PARTICIPANTS IN:

Problem Goal Action

solving setting planning

sessions sessions sessions

User (1) (2) (3)

Non-management (4) (5) (6)

Lower management (7) (8) (9)

Middle management (10) (1i) (12)

Top management (13) (14) (15)

7. PARTICIPA1NTS:

Problem Goal Action

solving setting planning sessions sessions sessions

In user's

i.mmnediate organization (1) (2) (3)

Outside of user's

organizational hierarchy (4) (5) (6)

D-42
a. EXTENT OF USER CONTROL OVER POLICY RELATED TO OBJECT:VES

(NOT ACTIVITY OUTCOMES) OF THE IMPLEMENTING ACTIVITY:

Implementation Rewards and Sanctions

Policy Processes of Fersonnel Involved

No control (1) (2) (3)

Indirect control (4) (5) (6)

Direct control (7) (8) (9)

OBJECTIVES TO BE ADDRESSED DURING THE PROBLEM SOLVING, GOAL

SETTING, AND ACTION PLANNING ACTIVITIES INCLUDE THE FOLLOW.NG.

THESE ITEMS REFLECT ANY CHANGE AS A RESULT OF THE FEEDBACK SESSIONS.

9. OPERATION'S OBJECTIVES. I.rTERPERSONNEL INTERGROUP

RELATIONSHIPS. SPECIFIC ACTIVITY MAY INCLUDE THE FOLLOW:NG:

(1) Interpersonnel/intergroup relationships (;eneral)

(2) Leader/subordinate relationships

(3) Peer level relationships

(4) Intergroup relationships, no task involvement, i.e.

black/white, male/female

(5) Intergroup relationship, with task involvement

(6) Intragroup relationship, no task invo~ve:.Len_

(7) Intragroup relationship, with task involvement

(8) Other, specify

10. OPERATION'S OBJECTIVE. JOB REDESIGN. ISSUE INVOLVES

ALTERING RESPONSIBILITIES, TASK IN'rERACTION, OR THE WAY

TECHNICAL WORK IS DONE. SPECIFIC ACTIVITY MAY INV;OLVE THE

FOLLOWING:

(1) Job redesign (general)

(2) Job enlargement

(3) Job enrichment

(4) Job rotation

D-43

Iit •.,.%% , •,: i . -: • -•.,,•..•.• .. '\.'--"• ''-"".k '••.J•• i.."• 1 J"••" ,"•• ,
(5) Work simplification

(6) Changes in working conditions

(7) Structural change in work itself

(8) Other, specify

11. OPERATION'S OBJECTIVE. PERSONNEL SYSTEMS. ISSUE I.VOLVES

MODIFYING EXISTING PERSONNEL SYSTEMS. SPECIFIC ACTIVITY MAY

INVOLVE THE FOLLOWING:

() Personnel systems (general)

(2) New employees: recruitment

(3) New employees: selection

* 2(4) . New employees: training

(5) New employees: placement

(6) New employees: other, specify

(7) Existing employees: termination

(8) Existing employees: reassignment

(9) Existing employees: retraining

(10) Existing employees: job performance standards

(11) Existing employees: other, specify

(12) Changes in reward and/or sanctions

(13) EO programs or manpower planning systems

(14) involves military personnel

(15) Involves civilian personnel

"12. OPERATION'S OBJECTIVE. MANAGEMENT INTFORMATION/FINAUNCIAL

"CONTROL SYSTEMS. ISSUES INVOLVES ACTIVITY TO ESTABLISH OR

MODIFY EXISTING MANAGEMENT INFORMATION/FINANCIAL CONTROL

* SYSTEMS. SPECIFIC ACTIVITY MAY INVOLVE THE FOLLOWING:

"(1) Management information/financial control systems - (general)

(2) MBO system

D-44

~. .[''•.. ... * *'.,- .. , ">• ; V '. .. ' . .*. . .. -.. '..-. .-. - ..
(3) Performance evaluation

(4) Cost/avoidance analysis

(5) Cost/benefit analysis

(6) Systems to track or evaluate performance

(7) Other, specify

13. OPERATION'S OBJECTIVE. ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN. ISSUES

INVOLVE AUTHORITY AND REPORTING RELATIONSHIPS. SPECIFIC

ACTIVITY MAY INVOLVE THE FOLLOWING:

(1) Organizational design (general)

(2) Changes in repnrting relationships

(3) Establishing matrix project te-ms

(4) Changes in authority

(5) Decentralization

(6) Consolidation of units/groups

(7) Other, specify

14. OPERATION'S OBJECTIVES INVOLVE

(1) Pooled interdependence

(2) Sequential interdependence

(3) Reciprocal interdependence

(4) Coordination by standardization

(5) Coordination by plan

(6) Coordination by mutual adjustment

15. OPERATION'S OBJECTIVE. COMBAT OPERATIONS PROCESSES. ISSUES

INVOLVE OPERATIONAL PROCESSES OF UNITS INVOLVED IN COMBAT

OR COMBAT SIMULATIONS. SPECIFIC ACTIVITY MAY INVOLVE THE

FOLLOWING:

(1) Combat operations processes (general)

(2) Sensing

D-45
i-

(3) Communicating information

(4) Decision making

(5) Stabilizing

(6) Communicating implementation

(7) Coping action

(8) Feedback

16. OTHER. ISSUES CANI•OT BE CLASSIFIED AS ABOVE. SPECIFIC

ACTIVITY MAY INVOLVE THE FOLLOWING:

(1) Transition of commanders

(2) Open systems planning, specify

(3) U.S. Army component issues (military and civilian)

-- (4) U.S. Army/other service issues

(5) U.S. Army/governmental agency issues

(6) U.S. Army/civilian community issues

(7) Other, specify

17. EXTENT THAT USER HAS CONTROL OVER FACTORS RELATED TO

OBJECTIVE:

Policy ImplementationReward & Sanctions

Processes of personnel

involved

No direct control (1) (2) (3)

Indirect control (4) (5) (6)

Direct control (7) (8) (9)

18. PROBLEM SOLVING, GOAL SETTING AND ACTION PLANNING GROUP

STRUCTURE USED:

(1) NA

(2) Vertical

(3) Horizontal levels

D-46

0 -

S... 'l• "•'- : -" ,- •. ,,.. • *' :." •-..'-,',•'; '.." ."•":.. -•','.: .:'';. ',: .t'. v- • % ./ ''-v-,•' "- . ,--'-" , v . .. .-.-. ,.. .-. ..
(4) Diagonal groups

(5) Cther, specify

19. PROBLLM SOLVING, GOAL SETTING, .ND ACTION PLA.NNING METHODS

USED:

(1) Large group (9 or more)

(2) Small groups (8 or less)

(3) Outcomes/methods/resources model

(4) Force field analysis

(5) Criterion based model

(6) Open system (demands) model

(7) Other, specify

20. USER TAKES ACTION TO CREATE CLIMATE OF TRUST, OPENNESS, AND

PARTICIPATION:

(1) Yes

(2) No

21. GOCALS SET AS A RESULT OF PROBLEM SOLVING ARE:

(i) Challenging but realistic (not trivial)

(2) Measurable

(3) Due date specified

(4) Documented, specify how

22. EXPLICIT CRITERIA ARE ESTABLISHED AND USED BY PARTIIk.NTS

AS A BASIS FOR SELECTING ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR ACTICN:

(1) Yes

(2) No

23. PARTICIPANTS EXPLICITLY IDENTIFY CONSTRAINTS, LINKS, .AND

IMPACT OR EFFECT ON OTHER PARTS OF THE ORGANIZATION AS A

PART OF THE PROBLEM SOLVING, GOAL SETTING, AND ACTION

PLANNING ACTIVITY:

(1) Yes

D-47

0•

-o * ** .
(2) No

24. DECISION .IAWING ON FINAL GOALS I'NVOLVES:

(1) User only

(2) User and top management

(3) and middle management

(4) and lower management

(5) and non-management

25. ACTION STEPS ARE IDENTIFIED FOR IMPLEMENTATION TO USER:

0-.() Yes

(2) No

26. DECISION MAKING FOR ACTION STEPS TO BE IMPLLME.NTED IN'CLV".S:

(I) User only

(2) User and top management

(3) and middle management

(4) and lower management

(5) and non-management

27. ACTION STEPS ARE DOCUMENTED

(1) Yo

(2) Yes, specify how

28. EXTENT USER HAS CONTROL OVER ACTION STEPS:

Policy Implementing Rewards

activity and sanctions

No direct control (1) (2) (3)

Indirect control (4) (5) (6)

Direct control (7) (8) (9)

D-48

C, ' 4 * " "4 d' 4 .Pd. "4". '.d.4", *.." . • , " P . b ." ,- .¢"," "° " q"- f . " . " • .w I*i • ....
"29. ACTION STEPS INCLUDE:

Measures for Tasking to lowest level

evaluation appropriate for implementation

Yes (1) (2)

No (3) (4)

30. PLANNED OE OPERATION IMPLEMENTING PROCESSES CHANGED OR

MODIFIED AS A RESULT OF CLIENT REACTIONs

-' (1) Yes

(2) No

31. USER CONSIDERS DESIGN OF SESSIONS:

"(1) Not appropriate

(2) Appropriate to maturity of group

(3) Appropriate balance between theory and application

32. USER TAKES SPECIFIC ACTION TO GET PERSONS INVOLVED TO SUPPORT

THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SESSIONS:

-. ' (1) Yes

.p. (2) No

"33. TECHNICAL EXPERTISE IS RZQUIRED TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL

SOLUTIONS AND ACTION AND IS PROVIDED TO GROUP BY:

(1) Internal expert from organization

(2) OESO includes external technical resource as tear. &mt:

0 (3) External resource provided by user

(4) Other, specify ,

34. USER CONSIDERS THAT RESULTS WILL HAVE IMPACT ON OTHER PARTS

OF THE ORGANIZATION WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN AN EXPLICIT PART CF

THE OPERATIONs

(1) Yes

(2) No

35. USER CONSIDERS ACTIVITIES OF TH:S PART OF OPERATOCN SHCULZ

* HAVE BEEN MODIFIED BY OESO TO MA.KZ THEM MORE APPROPR:ATEI

"(1) Yes

* [u-49
.(2) 'No

36. RESULTS OF THE SESSION7 COMMUNICATED TO NON-PARTICIPANTS:

iv'. (1L) No

(2) By formal document (i.e. DF)

(3) Verbal briefing

(4) Other, specify

37. USER/OESO CONTRACT FOR FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES:

(1) Yes

(2) No

38. DECISION TO CCNDU•T OE TRAINING ACTIVITIES BASED ON:

(1) User desires

(2) OESO recommendation

(3) Target group request

(4) Requirement imposed by authority senior to user

39. OBJECTIVES OF OE TRAINING ACTIVITIES BASED ON:

(1) Specific problem or deficiency identified in data

collection

(2) Concepts training as precondition to data feedback

(3) Tasking in support of of OE operation action plan

(4) Other, specify ._.

40. TRAINING METHOD PROVIDES PARTICIPANT OPPORTUNITY TO LZA.k.!

BY INCLUDING FOLLOWING STEPS:

(1) Recognize the thought, skill, or behavior

(2) Understand the thought, skill, or behavior

(3) Self assess own abilities in relation to thought, skill,

or behavior

(4) Practice the skill or behavior in psychologically safe

environment

D-50
v-,-.

(5) Perform the skill or behavior in a 4ob related task

41. USER CONSIDERS TRAINING WAS APPROPRIATE TO LEVEL OF

PERSONNEL INVOLVED:

(1) Yes

(2) No

42. TRAINING PLANS INCLUDE METHOD TO ASSESS WHETHER INDIVIDUALS

DEMONSTRATE LEARNED SKILLS OR BEHAVIOR ON THE JOB:

(1) Yes

(2) No

43. OESO COACHES USER IN BEHAVIORS TO CREATE CLIMATE OF TRUST

OPENNESS AND PARTICIPATION:

(1) Yes

(2) No

D-51

',,,--
'6"

X. ACTION

1. PLA.NNZED ACTIONS DISSEMINATED TO MEMBERS OF USER'S

ORGANIZATION OTHER THAN THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED IN

IMPLEMENTING ACTIVITIES:

(1) No

(2) Written notification

(3) Briefing

(4) Other, specify

2. PERCENTAGE OF RECOMM.ENDED ACTION STEPS TASK-D FOR

IMPLEMENTATION: %

3. IMPLEMENTATION PREEVEN.TED BECAUSE OF LACK OF CCNTROL OVZR:

(1) Policy

(2) Implementors

(3) Rewards and sanctions over people involved

(4) External interferences

4. USER CONSIDERS T-AT EXTERNAL FORCES COULD HAXZE:

(1) Been avoided (if interferring) with proper strategy

(2) Enhanced implementation with proper strategy

(3) Other, specify _

5. PERCENT OF COMPLETED ACTION STEPS:

6. USER PERCEIVED IMPROVEMENT IN GENERAL AREA OF:

(1) No improvement

(2) No improvement and worsened condition

(3) Reaction

(4) Knowledge/learning

(5) Behavior

(6) Outcomes/results

D-52

AN
0-1• - t -1, N.

XI. FOLLOW-ON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT

1. USER/OESO COUTACT SUBSECUENT TO ACTION PLANINI.G ACTIVITY OR

OTTRER IMPLEMENTING ACTIVITY WITH CONTACT INITIATED BY:

(1) No one/no contact

(2) User

(3) OESO

(4) Member of target group in user organization

2. USER TAKES ACTION TO LEGITIMIZE LOWER LEVELS TO CONTI:.\--

INVOLVEMENT IN OE OPERATIONS:

A (1) Yes (3) Other

(2) No

3. USER REPORTS THAT TOP M.AAGEMENT OF HIS OR HER ORGANIZATION

SUPPORTS OE EFFORT:

(1) Yes

(2) No

4. TYPE OF OESO INVOLVEMENT IN FOLLOW UP ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT:

(1.) Individual consultation to user

(2) Technical assistance to user/target group members

(3) Monitoring/feedback on goal progress

(4) Training assistance to user/target group

(5) Consulting activity to target group involving

diagnosis, problem solving, goal setting, and action

planning

(6) Other, specify

0 5. EVIDENCE THAT USER INITIATED ACTION, REWARDS OR SANCTICNS

TO ENCOURAGE PERSONNEL TO SUPPORT IMPLF-MENTATION OF ACTION:

(1) Yes

(2) No

D-53
"6. LOWER LEVEL OF USER ORGANIZATION RECUESTED ADDITIONAL 0ESO

"ASSISTANCE:

(1) Yes

a-

• •..' ( 2) No

7. EVIDENCE TRAT OPERATION HAD AFFECT ON ORGANIZATION OTHER

THAN TARGET GROUP, I.E., CONTINUED LOWER LEVEL INVOLVEMLENT-

"CONTINUED USE OF ACTIVITIES SUCH AS DATA COLLECTION, PROBLEM.

SOLVING AND ACTION PLANNING SESSIONS:

"(1) Yes

(2) No

a-

• • D-54

°I.

I'

Id.
p•

XII. EVALUATION

1. OPERATION FORMALLY ASSESSED BY:

(1) No one

(2) User

(3) OESO with user's approval

(4) Formal assessment planned but not completed. Reason.

2. OPERATION INFO•"WLLY ASSESSED BY:

(1) No one

(2) User

(3) OESO

(4) User and OESO

3. LENGTH OF TIME BETWEEN END OF OESO INVOLVEMENT AND FORMAL

ASSESSMENT IN MONTHS:

4. ASSESSMENT RELATED TO GOALS AND ACTION PLANS THAT WERE

OUTCOMES OF OPERATION'S ACTIVITIES:

(1) No

(2) Yes

(3) Mixed

5. ASSESSMENT INDICATES CHANGES IN REACTIONS:

(1) Perceived effectiveness

(2) Attitudes

(3) Norms

(4) Tension release

(5) Organizational climate

(6) Other, specify

6. ASSESSMENT INDICATES CHANGE IN:

(1) Motive structure

D-55
, 

(2) Cognitive domain

(3) Affective domain

(4) Other, specify .

7. ASSESSMENT INDICATES CHANGES IN BEHAVIOR/PERFORMANCE:

(1) Skills

(2) Group process

(3) Approach adoption

(4) Job procedures

(5) Other, specify

a. ASSESSMENT INDICATES CHANGES IN FOLLOWING OUTCOMES:

CESO User

Lz~roved Ceteriorated Irdicated I.-dicated

AfaP score (1) (2) (3) (4)

!a L'spe•-icn (5) (6) (7) (8)

Technical Proficiency L-ispectior (9) (10) (11) (12)

CCMET scre (13) (14) (15) (16) TAS0 score (17) (18) (19) (20)

S•r score (21) (22) (23) (24)

Field day score (25) (26) (27) (28)

FoT.s flown (29) (30) (31) (32)

Accident rate (33) (34) (35) (36) Missi. n cjbectives accomplished (37) (38) (39) (40)

0peratiorAl Poadiness rate (41) (42) (43) (44)

Deadline reports (time

to rempair equipment) (45) (46) (47) (48) Equipent casualty rates (49) (50) (51) (52)

Maintenance a-u-ests (Flo 2404) (53) (54) (55) (56)

(Time elapsed frc request to

service rendered/maintenance

finLished)

Parts requisition (57) (58) (59) (60) Equipment cest reports (61) (62) (63) (64)

Service request rates (65) (66) (67) (68)

Service response rates (69) (70) (71) (72)

Cost budgetimg (73) (74) (75) (76) Pra•otons (77) (78) (79) (SC)

Educ-tion (81) (82) (83) (84) Physical educaticn (85) (86) (87) (86)

_p.. D-56
Unit citations (89) (90) (91) (92)

Individ-ual citations and (93) (94) (95) (96)

merit ratings

9. ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES CONTINUED:

Retention rates (military or civilian)(1) (2) (3) (4)

Article 159 (5) (6) (7) (8) Court-martia.1 actiona (9) (10) (11) (12)

AWCL rates (13) (14) (15) (16)

Drug cbarge rate (17) (18) (19) (20)

Assault rate (21) (22) (23) (24)

Theft rate (25) (26) (27) (28)

LWI rate (29) (30) (31) (32)

Sick call/leave rate (33) (34) (3S) (36) Alcchol abuse rate (37) (38) (39) (4c)

Drug abuse referral rate (41) (42) (43) (44)

Psychiatric caplaint rate (45) (46) (47) (48) Racial incident rate (49) (S0) (51) (52)

SO indicators (53) (54) (55) (56) Divorce rate (57) (58) (59) (60)

aiw.ly counseling request rate (61) (62) (63) (64)

Credit & financial mirt. coun- (65) (66) (67) (68)

seling request rate

Indebtedness rate (69) (70) (71) (72)

Civilian arrest rate (73) (74) (75) (76)

* C•i~ -ty C relations nmt(73) (74) (75) (76) Equipai.t (77) (78) (79) losses (Lnit) (81) (82) (83) (84)

SIDPES slotting accuracy (85) (86) (87) (88)

Readiness (89) (90) (91) (92)

"" Discipline (93) (94) (95) (96)

10. ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES CONTINUED:

P.esconsiveness (1) (2) (3) (4)

Teamwork (5) (6) (7) (8)

:,•rate (9) (10) (1) (12) Procedures (13) (14) (15) (16)

Performance (17) (18) (19) (20) Attitude (21) (22) (23) (24)

Climate (25) (26) (27) (28)

Other, specify

11. FINDINGS FROM ASSESSMETT BEING USED AS FEEDBACK FOR NZW.4

PROBLEM SOLVING, GOAL SETTING, OR ACTION PLANNING:

(1) Yes

"D-57
(2) No

12. FINDINGS FROM ASSESSMEN'T DISSEMINATED TO FOLLOWING LEVMLS:

(1) Higher authority

(2) Lower Levels of organization

(3) Not disseminated

13. FINDINGS FROM ASSESSMW4T DISSLMINATED FOR FOLLOWING

PURPOSES:

(1) OE program justification

(2) Increased OE program support from seniors in chain

(3) Positive or negative recognition of individuals

involved in action

(4) Feedback within organization for additional activi-y

(5) Other, specify

14. REACTIONS FROM DISSLMINATION OF ASSESSMENT TO HIGHER L.VEL

FAVORABLE:

(1) Yes

(2) No

(3) Mixed

15. REACTIONS FROM DISSEMINATIONS OF ASSESSMENT TO LOWER LEVE.-2S FAVORABLE:

(1) Yes

(2) No

(3) Mixed

D-58

:;? ;• :.•2:• •`:••:••` ; • *` `` .• `•:;••: ..',..'-..,.:. ... ,,;,;..,,./...-,,.€.•; 'r• :•-Z; ,.P,.. 
XIII. TERMINATION

1. TERMINATION:

(1) Not planned, hes not occurred, no further activities

planned at this time

(2) Not planned, has occurred

(3) Planned by user

(4) Planned by OESO

(5) Planned by joint agreement of user and OESO

(6) Has not occurred

2. REASON FOR TERMINATION:

(1) Original contract fulfilled

(2) User dissatisfaction at any stage

(3) OESO dissatisfaction at any stage

(4) Target group dissatisfaction influenced user

(5) Other, specify

3. TERMINATION OCCURS DU'RING FOLLOWING STEP OF INTERVENTION:

(1) Scouting

(2) Entry

(3) Data collection

(4) Diagnosis

(5) Feedback

(6) Problem solving/goal setting/action planning

(7) Action

(8) Follow-up

(9) Evaluation

(10) Planned termination

D-59

to 1'RL11A
4. OVERALL EVALUATION OF OE OPERATION BY USER:

(1) Success

(2) Failure

(3) Mixed

5. OVERALL EVALUATION OF OE OPERATION BY OESO:

(1) Success

(2) Failure

(3) Mixed

6. USER PERCEIVED SPECTFIC ACTION CONTRIBUTING MOST TO SUCCESS

OR FAILURE OF OPERATION:

(1) Specify

7. OESO PERCEIVED SPECIFIC ACTION CONTRIBUTING MOST TO SUCCESS

OR FAILURE OF OPERATION:

(1) Specify

D-60

%"
XIV. DIFFUSION AND SUPPORT IN CONJUNCTICYr WITH TARGET ELE.-1EN.TS OUTSIDE

OF USER'S IMMEDIATE ORGANIZATION

i. TARGET ELEMENT:

(1) Reports directly to user

(2) Reports through tntermediate level of command

(3) Is outsid. hierarchical boundaries of user's command

2. TOP MANAGER OF TARGET ELEMENT INFORMED OF OE EFFORT BY:

(1) Formal prior notification, i.e. DF, letter

(2) Informal prior notification by user

(3) Informal prior notification by OESO

(4) Appear&nce of OESO team on scene

(5) Other, specify

3. TOP MANAGER OF TARGET ELEMENT:

S (1) Involved in decision to be a part of OE operation

(2) Volunteers to be involved in OE operation

(3) Becomes involved primarily because of pressure to do

so from user

(4) Becomes involved as a strategy to influence outccmes

(5) Becomes involved because of joint concern with pri.ary

user about joint problem/issue.

4. TOP MANAGER OF TARGET ELEMENT CONSIDERS OBJ-"CTIVES OF

OPERATION ADDRESSED REAL PROBLEM/ISSUE:

(I) Yes

(2) No

5. CONGRUENCE EXISTS BETWEEN USER STATED OBJECTIVES AND TOP

MANAGER OF TARGET ELEMENT RE: U"NDERSTANDING OF OBJECTIVES:

(1) Yes

D-61
-p (2) •o

6. TARGET ELEMENT UDTERSTANDING OF OBJECTIVE. INTERPERSONA.L

RELATIONSHIPS. SPECIFIC ACTIVITY MAY INVOLVE THE FCLLOWt'TG.

(1) Interpersonal/intergroup relationship (general)

(2) Leader/subordinate relationships

(3) Peer Level relationships

(4) Intergroup relationships, no task involved, i.e.,

black/white, mali/female

S(5) Intergroup relationships, with task involved

(6) Intragroup relationships, no task involved

(7) Intragrcup relationships, with task involved

(S) Other, specify .

7. TARGET ELEMENT UNDERSTANDING OF OBJECTIVE. JOB DESIGN.

ISSUE I.VOLVES ALTERING RESPONSIBILITIES, TASK INTERACTION,

OR THE WAY TECHNICAL WORK IS DONE. SPECIFIC ACTIVITY MAY

INVOLVE THE FOLLOWINGs

(1) Job redesign (general)

(2) Job enlargement

(3) Job enrichment

(4) Job rotation

(5) Work simplification

(6) Changes in working conditions

(7) Structural change in work itself

(8) Other, specify ._ _.

8. TARGET ELFMENT UNDERSTANDING OF OBJECTIVE. PERSONNEL

SYSTEMS. ISSUE INVOLVES MODIFYING EXISTZNG PERSONNEL

SYSTEMS. SPECIFC ACTIVITY MAY INVOLVt 'OLLOWING:

r (1) Personnel systems (general)

(2) New employees; recruitment

D-62
(3.) New employees:, selection

(4) New employees: training

S(5) New employees: placement

"(6) New employees: other, specify

(7) Existing employees: termination

(8) Existing employees: reassignment/reatraining

(9) Existinq employees: retirement

(10) Existing employees: job performance standards

(11) Existing employee: other, specify

"(12) Changes in reward and/or sanctions

(13) ZO programs or manpower planning systems

(14) Involves military personnel

(15) Involves civilian personnel

9. TARGET ELF-MENT UNZERSTANDING OF OBJECTIVE. MANAGEMENT

IN7ORMATION/FINANCIAL CONTROL SYSTEMS. ISSUE INVOLVES

ACTIVITY TO ESTABLISH OR MODIFY EXISTI1G MANAGLMLET

INFORMATION/HINANCIAL CONTROL SYSTEMS. SPECIFC ACTIVITY

MAY INVOLVE TRE FOLLOWING:

(1) Management Information/financial control systems (general)

(2) MBO system

(3) Performance evaluation

(4) Cost/avoidance analysis

(5) Cost/benefit analysis

(6) Systems to trac% or reevaluate performance

10. TARGET ZLF.4ENT UNDERSTANDING OF OBJECTIVE. ORG&.AIZATICNAXL

DESIGN. ISSUES INVOLVE AUT..ORITY AND REPORTING

RELATIONSHIPS. 3PECIFIC ACTIVITY KAY INVOLVE THE FOLLOWQ:.G

(1) Organizational desi.;i (general)

D-63
(2) Changes in reporting relationships

(3) Establishing matrix project teams

(4) Changes in authority

(5) Decentralization

(6) Consolidation of units/group

(7) Other, specify _ _ .

11. OPERATION OBJECTIVES INVOLVE CHANGES IMPACTING ON:

(1) Pooled interdependence

(2) Sequential interdependence

(3) Reciprocal interdependence

(4) Coordinating by standardization

(5) Coordination by plan

(6) Coordination by mutual adjustment

12. TARGET ELEMENT UNDERSTANDING OF OBJECTIVE. COMBAT

OPERATIONS PROCESSES. ISSUES INVOLVE OPERATIONAL PROCESSES

OF UNITS INVCLVED IN COMBAT OR COMBAT SIMULATIONS. SPECIFIC

ACTIVITY MAY INVOLVE THE FOLLOWING,

(1) Combat operations processes (general)

(2) Sensing

(3) Communicating information

(4) Decision making

(5) Stabilizing

(6) Communicating implementation

(7) Coping action

(8) Feedback

13. TARGET ELEMENT UNDERSTANDING OF OBJECTIVE. OTHER: ISSUES

CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS ABOVE. SPECIFIC ACTIVITY MAY I.\TVOLVE

THE FOLLOWING,

D-64

.e
(1) Transition af commanders

(2) Open systems planning, specify

(3) U.S. Army component issues (military, civilian)

(4) U.S. Army/other service issues

(5) U.S. Army/governmental agency is3ues

(6) U.S. Army/civilian community issues.

(7) Other, specify

14. TOP MANAGER OF TARGET ELEMENT AGREES THAT OVERALL INITIATED

PLAN FOR OPERATION WAS CORRECT:

(1) Yes

(2) No

15. TOP MANAGER OF TARGET ELEMENT EXPECTATIONS FOR OPERATICNS:

(1) Negative

(2) Positive

(3) Positive yet realistic

(4) Mixed

16. METHOD USED TO INFORM TARGET ELEMENT ABOUT DATA COLLECTICO

EFFORT:

(1) Formal prior notification, i.e. DF, letter

(2) Informal prior notification by user

(3) Informal prior notification by OESO

(4) Appearance of OESO team on scene

(5) Other, Specify ._..

17. TOP MANAGER OF TARGET ELEMENT:

(1) Consulted about methods to collect data within target

e.lement

(2) Consulted about best method to employ in data collection

D-65

A
(3) Not consulted

18. TOP MANAGER OF TARGET ELEMENT CONSIDERS DATA COLLECTICN

METHODS USED WERE:

(1) Appropriate to problem

(2) Appropriate to persons involved

(3) Not appropriate

19. TARGET ELEMENT PERSONNEL:

(1) Did not assist in data collection

(2) Were trained to assist in data collection

(3) Assisted in data collection

20. LEVEL OF PERSONNEL IN TARGET ELEMENT WHO WERE PARTICIPANTS

IN DATA COLLECTION EFFORT:

0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%

Non-management (1) (2) (3) (4)

Lower management (5) (6) (7) (8)

Middle management (9) (10) (11) (12)

Top management (13) (14) (15) 16)

21. SUBCATEGORIES OF PERSONNEL IDENTIFIED TO PARTICIPATE IN DATA

COLLECTION EFFORT BASED ON PLANNED OBJECTIVES:

(1) Military personnel

(2) Civilian personnel

(3) Union representation

(4) Representative racial/ethnic groups

(5) Representative male/female

(6) Young/old

(7) All

(8) Other, specify

D-66
22. TOP MANAGER OF TARGET ELEMENIT RECEIVED FEEDBACK FROM DATA

COLLECTION EFFORT:

(1) Yes

(2) No

"23. METHOD USED TO PRESENT DATA FEEDBACK TO TOP MANAGER TARGET ... ELEMENT :

(1) Data handbook

(2) Individual feedback

(3) Group feedback session with user

(4) Group feedback with personnel from target element

(5) Other, specify

24. TOP MANAGER OF TARGET ELEMENT CONSIDERS M4ETHOD FOR FEEDBACK:

(1) Not Appropriate

(2) Amount appropriate

(3) Display appropriate

(4) Complexity appropriate

25. TOP MANAGER OF TARGET ELEMENT CONSIDERED DIAGNOSIS

IDENTIFIED:

(1) Real problem

(2) Additional data around planned objectives

(3) Additional data that should have caused a modification

to planned objective

26. IN PLANNING FOR THE OE OPERATION, TOP MAZNAGER OF TA.RGET

ELEMENT:

(1) Included

(2) Considers planning appropriate

(3) Considered appropriate levels of personnel included

27. TOP MANAGER OF TARGET ELEMENT EXPECTED OUTCOMES FRCM

IMPLEMENTING ACTIVITIES TO HAVE:

D-67
(1) Little impact on organization's operations or procedures

(2) Major impact on organization's operations or procedures

28. TOP MANAGER OF TARGET ELEMENT CONSIDERED METHODS USED CURING

PROBLEM SOLVING, GOAL SETTING, AND ACTION PLANIN G

APPROPRIATE:

(1) Yes

(2) No

29. AS A RESULT OF PROBLEM SOLVING SESSIONS, TOP MANAGER OF

TARGET ELEMENT:

(1) Identified goals and objectives set

(2) Agreed with goals and objectives set

(3) Set realistic goals and objectives

(4) Set achieveable goals and objectives

(5) Set measurable goals and objectives

30. TOP MANAGER OF TARGET ELEMENT RECEIVED DOCUMENTATION OF GOALS

OBJECTIVES AND ACTION PLAN RESULTING FROM IMPL&LM•ENTING

ACTIVITIES:

(1) Yes

(2) No

31. TOP MANAGER OF TARGET ELEMENT TASKED TO TAXE ACTION AS ".

RESULT OF ACTION PLAN:

(1) Yes

(2) No

32. TARGET ELEMENT ACTIONS INVOLVE INTERPERSONAL RELATICNS..-?S.

SPECIFIC ACTIVITY MAY INVOLVE THE FOLLOWING:

(1) Interpersonal/intergroup relationships (general)

(2) Leader/subordinate relationships

(3) Peer level relationships

(4) Intergroup relationships no task involved, i.e.

black/white, male/fe-nale

D-68
•. • • . . • °- °. - - - . . • • , , . -' • •o•.. • rM r. .. ** • .- . -. . - *.. * * D,"

(5) Intergroup relationships with task involved

(6) Intragroup relationships no task involved

(7) Intragroup relationships with task involved

(8) Other, specify

33. TARGET ELEMENT ACTIONS INVOLVE JOB REDESIGN. ISSUE INVOLVES

ALTERING RESPONSIBILITIES, TASK INTERACTION, OR THE WAY

TECHNICAL WORK IS DONE. SPECIFIC ACTIVITY MAY INVOLVE THE

FOLLOWING:

(.) Job redesign (general)

(2) Job enlargement

(3) Job enrichment

(4) Job rotation

(5) Work simplication

(6) Changes in working conditions

(7) Structural change in work itself

(8) Other, specify ._.

34. TARGET ELEMENT ACTIONS INVOLVE PERSONNEL SYSTEMS. ISSUE

INVOLVES MODIFYING EXISTING PERSONNEL SYSTEMS. SPECIFIC ACTIVITY MAY INVOLVE FOLLOWING:

(1) Personnel system (general)

(2) New employees: recruitment

(3) New employees: selection

(4) New employees: training

(5) New employees: placement

(6) New employees: other, specify . _.

(7) Existing employees: termination

(8) Existing employees: reassignment/retraining

(9) Existing employees: retirement

D-69

a 11I
(10) Existing employees: job performance standards

(11) Existing employees: other, specify

(12) Changes rewards and/or sanctions

(13) EO pro.•rams or manpower planning systems

(14) Military personnel

(15) Civilian personnel

35. TARGET ELEMENT ACTIONS INVOLVE MANAGEMENT

INFORMATION/FINANCIAL CONTROL SYSTEMS. ISSUES INVOLVING

ACTIVITY TO ESTABLISH OR MODIFY EXISTING MANAGEMENT

INFORMATION/FINANCIAL CONTROL SYSTEMS. SPECIFIC ACTIVITY

MAY INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

(1) Management information/financial system (general)

(2) MBO system

(3) Performance evaluation

(4) Cost avoidance analysis

(5) Cost/benefit analysis

g (6) Systems to track or reevaluate performance

(7) Other, specify

36. TARGET ELEMENT ACTIONS INVOLVE ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN.

ISSUES INVOLVE AUTHORITY AND REPORTING RELATIONSHI.S.

SPECIFIC ACTIVITY MAY INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

(1) Organizational design (general)

(2) Changes in reporting relationships

(3) Establishing matrix project teams

(4) Changing in authority

(S) Decentralization

(6) Consolidation if units/groups

(7) Other, specify

37. TARGET ELEMENT ACTIONS INVOLVE CHANGES IMPACTING ON:

D-70

ffV J- MC WV -q O & 0 WAWA ILI NA. . . .. . .- .
(1) Pooled interdependence

(2) Sequential independence

(3) Reciprocal interdependence

- ., (4) Coordination by standardization

(5) Coordination by plan

(6) Coordination by mutual adjust•.ent

;: 38. TARGET ELEMENT ACTIONS INVOLVE COMBAT OPERATIONS PROCESSES.

ISSUES CONCERN OPERATIONIAL PROCESSES OF UNITS INVOLVED IN

COMBAT OR COMBAT SIMULATIONS. SPECIFIC ACTIVITY MAY INCLUDE

THE FOLLOWING:

(1) Combat operations process (general)

"(2) Sensing

-_ (3) Communicating information

(4) Decision making

(5) Stabilizing

(6) Communicating implementation

(7) Coping action

(8) Feedback

"39. TARGET ELEMENT ACTIONS INVOLVE ISSUES WHICH CANNOT BE

"CLASSIFIED AS ABOVE. SPECIFIC ACTIVITY MAY INVOLVrE THE

"FOLLOWING:

(1.) Transition of commanders

"(2) Open systems planning, specify =

(3) U.S. Army component issues (military, civilian)

(4) U.S. Army/other service issues

(5) U.S. Army/governmental agency issues

(6) U.S. Army/civilian community issues

* -. •" (7) Other, specify

D-7 1

Nil 0.:
• .~ S .. , • W 4 J. r< 

. ... .Q 9 . W. Md . S, m.o- ,.*- 9 . -.-.  -~ .. . . i, • , Q • • • • •

40. TARGET ELEMENT TAKES ACTION IN RESPONSE TO USER ACTION PLAN:

(1) Yes

(2) No

41. TARGET ELEMENT TASKED TO EVALUATE IMPACT OF OE OPERATION ON

TARGET ELEMENT:

(1 ) Yes

(2) No

42. TOP MANAGER OF TARGET ELEMENT HAS EVALUATED IMPACT:

(1) Yes

(2) No

43. TOP MANAGEF OF TARGET ELEMENT CONSIDERS EVALUATION:

Feasible Necessary

Yes (i) (2)

No (3) (4)

44. ASSESSMENT IN TARGET ELEMENT INDICATES CHANGE IN REACTIONS:

(1) Perceived effectiveness

(2) Attitudes

(3) Norms

(4) Tension release

(5) Organizational climate

45. ASSESSMENT IN TARGET ELEMENT ITDICATES CF{ANGE 'N LZARN.:•-G:

(1) Motivation

(2) Knowledge

(3) Cognitive

(4) Interpersonal

46. ASSESSMENT IN TARGET ELEMENT INDICATES CHAkNGE IN

BEHAVIOR/PERFORMANCE:

D-72

W'IVA ft-% ý- &A A- 9 A *' -.A % AW ¶ AtA
(1) Skills

(2) Group process

(3) Approach adoption

(4) Job procedures

47. ASSESSMENT IN TARGET ELD•4NT INDICATES CHANGE I.N FOLLOWING

OUTCOMES:

•-OEO Target Elerent

I.proved Deteriorated Indicated Irdicated

Ar"EP score (1) (2) (3) (4) SIG irvcin(5) (6) (7) (8)

T-echnical Proficiency Inspecticn (9) (10) (11) (12)

CCtAZ score (13) (14) (IS) (116)

TAO5 score (17) (18) (19) (20)

SOT score (21) (22) (23) (24) y Field day score (25) (26) (27) (28)

Fcurs flown (29) 30) (31) (32)

Accident rate (33) 4) (35) (36)

Mission objectives acconplished (37) 038) (39) (40)

Operaticnal Peadiness rate (41) (42) (43) (44)

Deadline reports (time (45) (46) (47) (48)

to repair equipnent)

Equipmen casualty -rates (49) (50) (51) (52)

Maintenance Pecquestes (Fonn 24C4) (53) (54) (55) (56)

(Time elapsed from requested to

service rdndered/maintenance f inishled)

Parts requisiticns (57) (58) (59) (60)

Emuipm-nt Lost reports (61) (62) (63) (64)

Service recauest, rates (65) (66) (67) (68)

Service response rates (69) (70) (71) (72)

Cost budqeting (73) (74) (75) (76) Proamotins (77) (78) (79) (80)

E Fducaticn (81) (82) (83) (84)

Physical education (85) (86) (87) (88)

.Unit citaticns (89) (90) (91) (92)

g . Individual citations and (93) (94) (95) (96)

merit ratings f...1

48. ASSESSME-NT OUTCOMES CONTIZTUED

Retention rates (1) (2) (3) (4)

Ar-ticle 15s (5) (6) (7) (8)

Court-martial ac-ins (9) (10) (11) (12)

D-73

-0_

Vo%'

I Y.a'*.•...
qACL rates (13) (14) (15) (16)

Drug cu're rate (17) (18) (19) (20)

Assault rate (21) (22) (23) (24)

Theft rate (25) (26) (27) (28)

ow! rate (29) (30) (31) (32)

Sick call rate (33) (34) (35) (36)

Alcchol abuse rate (37) (38) (39) (40)

Drug abuse referral rate (41) (42) (43) (44)

Psychiatric ccrzplaint rate (45) (46) (47) (48)

Racial incident rate (49) (50) (51) (52)

EO indicators (53) (54) (55) (56)

Divorce rate (57) (58) (59) (60)

Family counseling request (61) (62) (63) (64) rate

Credit & financial mqpt. (65) (66) (67) (68)

counseling request rate

Indebtedness rate (69) (70) (71) (72)

Civilian arrest rate (73) (74) (75) (76)

ity relations (77) (78) (79) (80)

._uicmert losses (unii) (81) (82) (83) (84)

SfDPkS slctting accuracy (85) (86) (87) (88)

Readiness (89) (90) (91) (92)

Discipline (93) (94) (95) (96)

49. ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES CONTINUED

Responsiveness (1) (2) (3) (4)

Tearwork (5) (6) (7) (8)

Mrale (9) (10) (11) (12) roccedues (13) (14) (15) (16)

Performance (17) (18) (19) (20)

Attitude (21) (22) (23) (24)

Climate (25) (26) (27) (28)

other, specify

50. OVERALL EVALUATION OF OE OPERATION BY TOP MANAGER OF TA-RGET

ELEMENT:

(1) Success

(2) Failure

(3) Mixed

51. SINGLE ACTION TOP MANAGER OF ELEMENT CONSIDERS CONTRIBUTED

4OSr TO SUCCESS OR FAILURE:

(1) Specify,

D-74

0*'
p°.

- XV. IMPACT STUDY ASSESSMENT

1. ASSESSMENT INDICATES CHANGE IN REACTIONS:

(1) Perceived effectiveness

- (2) Attitudes

(3) Norms

(4) Tension release

"(5) Organizational climate

2. ASSESSMENT INDICATES CHANGE IN LEARNING:

(1) Motive structure

"(2) Cognitive domain

(3) Affective domain

(4) Other

"3. ASSESSMENT INDICATES CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR/PERFORMANCE:

(1) Skills

(2) Group process

(3) Approach adoption

(4) Job procedures

4. ASSESSMENT INDICATES OPERATION WAS A SUCCESS. d •CRITERIA:

(1) Positive reactions S

(2) Positive behavior

(3) Significant hard outcomes

5. ASSESSMENT INDICATES OPERATION WAS A FAILURE.

CRITERIA:

(1) Negative reactions

V (2) Negative behavior

(3) Cost exceeds value

D- 75

L 'hI"'nI IýW ''V qk'mx w" it 1. V -t-rrM
6. ASSESSMEN`T INDICATES CHANGE IN FOLLOWING

OUTCOMES:

Inroved Dtariorated e

ARTEP score (1) (2) (3) (4) IG L-.pect icn (5) (6) (7) (8)

Technical Proficiercy Lispecticn (9) (10) (11) (12)

CCt.Tr score (13) (14) (I5) (16)

T750 score (17) (18) (19) (20)

SOT score (21) (22) (23) (24)

Field day score (25) (26) (27) (28)

Fzurs f•own (29) (30) (31) (32)

Accident rate (33) (34) (35) (36)

Missicn cbJectives accrplished (37) (38) (39) (40)

Cperaticnal Readiness rate (41) (42) (43) (44)

Deadline reports (t4L-m (45) (46) (47) (48)

to repair equipment)

* E.uipmnt casualty rates (49) (50) (51) (52)

4aintenance ,equests (FTn= 24C4) (53) (54) (55) (56)

(Tt:ne elapsed .4rc requested to

service rendered/maintenarnce

finished)

Pa--ts requisiticns (57) (58) (59) (60)

Equipment lost reports (61) (62) (63) (64) Service reauest rates (65) (66) (67) (68)

Service response rates (69) (70) (71) (72) C-st tudgeting (73) (74) (75) (76) . -•oticns (77) (78) (79) (80)

Eucaticn (81) (82) (83) (84) Physical educaticn (85W (86) (87) (88) Unit citaticns (89) (90) (91) (92)

Individual citations and (93) (94) (95) (96)

merit ratir~s

7. ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES CONTINUED

Retention rates (1) (2) (3) (4)

A-rticle 15s (5) (6) (7) (a)

Couxrt-martial acticrs (9) (10) (la) (12)

D-76

*Vw. _.: r V%~f *w- r-W W, WI.rs.1- Mrs W-. -
•.CL. rates (13) (14) (15) (16)

D'm.q &ALe rate (17) (18) (19) (2C) ,Assault, rao (21) (22) (2?) (24)

T...t rate (25) (26) (27) (29)

sA rate (29) (30) (31) '32) Si~ck c:L.1 =to ~ (33) (34) (35) (36)

A~lcdhol abu=e rate (37) (38) (39) (40)

Cru abuse resferral rate (41) (42) (43) (44)

Psychiatric rpl.a.int -rate (45)(46) (47) (48)

Racial inciderm rate (49) (50) (51) (52)

o ±z±caw. s (53) (54) (55) (56) Di.vcre= rmt (57) (58) (59) (60)

fanily 8mtseL±j, request (61) (62) (63) (64)

rate

Credit a fLncial wut. (65) .(66) (67) (GB)

cCmuosL-qre~ quest rats

L-t.ebtedres.; I-t (69) (70) (71) (72)

Civilian a'a. rate - (73) (74) (75) (76)

Cmmm'iy relaticns (77) (78) (79) (80)

Equ±p& I,,ess (=it) (81) (82) (83) (a4)

SIWzt~ s1.ot:•- ac---acy (85) (96) (87) (S)

Traininq ladiness (89) (90) (91) (92)

D.scip1•., (93) (94) (95) (91)

8. ASSESSMMIT OUTCOMES CONTIZT1ED

Roaponsxm ,vees (1) (2) (3) (4)

Teomark (5) (6) (7) (8)

?r.le (9) (10) (1.1) (12) l• (13) (14) (15) (16)

pae•o=wn (17) (18) (19) (20)

Atti.tide (21) (22) (23) (24)

CLim.t (25) (26) (27) (28)

EquDipiw; t rsadiness rates (29) (30) (31) (32)

Perscr-al ti.m utilization (33) (34) (35) (36)

Nwime of billets rapuired* (37) (830) (39) (40)

BiLet. qgde Iemvl canqa (41) (42) (43) (44)

EFM (45) (46) (47) (48)

*Divraved indicates billet requirwian elimin~ated or grafe level required for billet

reduced. Deteriorated indicts billet added or grade level i.=msed.

D-77
m.

'p

0

I-
i.-~

CASE OUTCOMES SUMMARY REPORT

Case outcomes will be summarized in a report that follows the

following format.

Cover Sheet: Include case number

Include case description

Include a block flow diagram that illustrates

the significant activities of the case.

SECTION I: LONGITUDINAL DATA COLLECTED

a. Longitudinal data should be collected for a period of

one year prior to the operation and one year subsequent to the operation. When this is not possible, the introduction to this section should

state the periods of time that were actually used.

b. Prepare a concise paragraph for each different type of

longitudinal data that summarizes your evaluation of the data.

If the data is found not to be useful, then a brief statement

that indicates your reason should be included. Cost avoidance

or savings or losses, or value of productivity gained or

lost should be indicated for any item where data indicates either

improving or degrading trends. Where quantifiable cost data is

not available, the trend should be associated with an appropriate

general organizational effectiveness factor such as performance, morale, organizational climate, etc. The assessment outcomes

contained in Section XV of the Case Coding Worksheet provide lists

of suitable categories.

c. Prepare a summary paragraph listing general categories of

change along with the value of quantifiable outcomes. Indicate

in the summary paragraph of this section those changes that

were directly related to a planned objective of the operation.

Indicate in the summary if there is any pending evaluation of

longitudinal data by the OESO.

SECTION 11: ATTAINMENT OF THE STATED OBJECTIVES OF THE OE OPERATION

a. The stated objectives and/or plan of action for the operation should provide the basis for this section. Indicate whether the

objectives or action were stated in measurable terms or not.

V...

b. Prepare a concise paragraph for each operation objective

or major action that summarizes your evaluation of the attainment

of the objective or action. Quantifiable value of the change should

be indicated when available. Non quantifiable changes should be

associated with the appropriate general organizational effectiveness

factor described in Section I above.

E-2

•," ....- *p •i -.
c. Prepare a summary paragraph listing general categories of

change.

SECTION III: COST OF THE OPERATION

Prepare a summary of the total cost of the operation by

category as indicated below.

OE Operation: OESO personnel cost

Client personnel cost

Materials cost

TDY and/or transportation costs

OE Training cost: Include if scheduled as a result of an

operation objective.

OESO personnel cost

Client personnel cost

Materials cost

TDY and/or transportation costs

SECTION IV: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION RELATING TO THE OPERATION

a. Include a simple block diagram of the organizational

structure and relationships of the groups included in the operation.

b. Provide a brief table of the rank, grade and numbers of

people involved in the operation.

c. Indicate the turnover rate of personnel since the initiation

of the operation. If available, indicate the personnel turnover

rate for the year prior to the operation.

SECTION V: SUUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF THE OPERATION

a. Prepare a summary assessment of the operation that includes

your overall assessment as well as the following:

Percentage of objectives or actions actually completed

along with percent of objectives or actions in progress.

A summary of the total cost of the operation as compared to

the total quantified outcome value of the operation along

with net cost/value.

A summary of the general-organizational effectiveness

factors identified as improving or degrading.

E-3
i• APPENDIX F

Overall Case Assessment (OCA)

Coding Convention and Form

°.°

4<."

.p.

4 ..
k 'AOVERALL CASE ASSESSMENT (OCA)

CODING CONVENTION AND FORM

The form (Attachment 1) includes a factor called confidence level or

"confidence". This factor should be scored using the following

convention as a guide and choosing the appropriate value to enter in

',C-• the summary grid:

1: Very low confidence level. The scoring is based on very

"limited or ambiguous information from the User and his/her

subordinates

33: Moderate confidence level. The scoring is based on a

- moderate amount of information from the User and his/her

*. subordinates which is also moderately clear and straight

forward.

5: Very high confidence level. The scoring is based on a very

sufficient amount of information from User and his/her

•subordinates - which is emphatically clear and very well

A' defined.

The next five sections of this coding convention provide the

"definitions of those values to be used in scoring the remainder of

*- the OCA Form.

mm

,.)

F- 2

LOA-
I. ROLES

I.1 OEC

Rate the OEC on the degree to which he/she appears to take

a role as integrator between -he needs of the subordinates and

the needs of the User.

1: Sides primarily with the User. Views the User as the only

client. Willingly supports actions which are primarily

driven by User desires. Is not concerned about generating

conditions for subordinate commitment but only about

reducing opposition the to User's desired change.

3: Sides with the Us-r and conscientiously trys to advise User

about the desirability for generating needed commitment. In

undertaking this advice OEC's posture is non-confrontive and

he/she generally abides by User desires.

5: Actively pursues a practice theory strategy designed to

create a situation in which subordinates will be committed

to changes generated by the operation. Skillfully confronts

the User when necessary to attain this objective.

1.2 User Objectives

"Rate the User on the degree to which he/she uses the OE

"process to accomplish his/her own pre-conceived objectives, or

as a way of identifying and solving problems/issues with

subordinates' strong participation.

1: User uses OE to accomplish objectives set by him/her. In

F-3

N I
0I

general, these objectives are based primarily on User needs.

They may or may not be viewed as necessary objectives by

the User's organization.

3: User uses OE to accomplish own objectives and wants to

integrate these objectives with those generated through

subordinates as well.

5: User uses OL as a way for him/her to identify and solve

problems jointly with subordinates.

1.3 User Solutions

Rate the User on the degree to which he/she uses own

solutions or uses subordinates' solutions.

1: User acquires data from OE process and then makes his/her

own decisions. Subordinates are involved in the decision

but User clearly dominates decision process.

3: User and subordinates make a joint decision

5: User is prepared to abide with any decision subordinates

develop, within reason.

1.4 Score appropriate boxes. First elements the User is his/her

own target of change when the initial purpose of the operation

is for the User to change his/her own behavior. Second elementi

occasionally, when the User constitutes a major problem in the

organization, the focus of the operation will inevitably shift

from another target to the User. If that is the case, score this

element accordingly.

II. STRUCTURING AND DIFFUSING

P-4

"9 .
II.1 Structure

Score the extent to which the OEC in conjunction with the

User, or the User alone, provides the necessary structuritng in

the Operation. Structuring - those actions which provide the

needed, skill, information, knowledge or situation to those

concerned in an OE operation. The purpose of this structure is

to implement an efficient practice theory which removes obstacles

to change and/or permits individuals to understand and be

competent enough to take advantage of appropriate influence ii opportunities afforded by the operation.

1: Very low structure is provided throughout operation. Little

energy is spent on instrument, conference, workshop, meeting

or process planning and design. Inputs from the User or the

organization are generally not sought after nor used to

shape the activities of the operation. Instead, a "general"

approach is taken.

"3: Moderate structure is provided throughout the operation.

"5: Very high structure is provided throughout the operation.

Every event in the operation is carefully considered, is

"shaped by the OESO and User and subordinates to the extent

feasible. Designs of all activities are carefully crafted

for the specific application. They consider group process A7

* issues and include necessary skill building, training or

education.

See Attachment I for a list of some possible structuring

* activities in the data collection, feedback, planning and

implementation phases of an operation.

11.2 Diffusion '._
Score the extent to which the OEC, in conjunction with the

User, or the User alone, provides information about the operation's

processes and outcomes to those affected by the operation.

1: Very low diffusion is provided throughout the operation. In

general, information is collected from lower parts of the

organization, is used as deemed appropriate by the User, and

no information is returned to the lower portions from the

User level. Further, to obtain the information, certain

implied or explicit promises were made which are later

ignored.

3: Moderate diffusion is provided throughout the operation.

5: Very high diffusion is provided throughout the operation.

Every event in the operation is carefully preceded and

followed by actions designed to keep participants informed.

These diffusion activities generally take place through the

chain of command and are carefully fashioned to avoid being

labeled as "OE propaganda". They are also designed so that

they do not raise expectations about the future to

unrealistically high levels.

See Attachment 2 for a list of some possible diffusion activities

in the data collection, feedback, planning and implementation

phases of an operation.

III. EXPECTATIONS ABOUT THE OE OPERATION

Score the extent to which expectations appear to have been met

at each organization level on the grid, using the following

behavioral indicators:

12 Expectations were not met. Persons making statements like:

r-6

S .. . .* .-.. .. -. • -* .
"I was led to believe that a lot was going to change as a

result of OE. I haven't seen a thing change."

"I had high hopes that a lot could be accomplished, but

nothing has been."

"My expectations for the operation have been destroyed

by .......

3: Some expectations were met, but not all. Persons making

statements like:

"Some of the objectives they developed have been achieved,

but not all."

My expectations haven't been met, but some results have been

achieved."

5: Most if not all expectations have been or are being met.

Persons making statements like:

"We accomplished everything and more than we ever intended.

The operation exceeded my expectations."

"I'm very pleased with the operation. It met my

expectations."

"There are still some things to be done, but the operation

met most of my expectations."

IV. MEDIAT'ING FACTORS

Mediating factors are those factors which are a part of the

situation, and affect the intensity and outcomes of the operation.

F-7
IV.l Need for change.

The need for change is divided into two components. Both

may be present. The first component is defined as an externally

imposed event of importance to the organization which requires

large portions of the organization's resources. It may be planned

as a part of the unit's normal task cycle i.e. ARTEP or AGI, or

it may be an unplanned, one time event, i.e. preparations to become

a part of the Rapid Deployment Force. If the event is in evidence

at the time of the operation, it is to be viewed as a reason for

change and scored yes.

The second component refers to internal conditions which

obviously require change because of unacceptable past performance

or indications of serious future problems which require immediate

recognition and continuing attention until they are solved.

IV.2 Control over intended change

The extent to which the User possess the necessary authority

over those organizational elements affected by the intended

change. If this control is essentially complete, score yes. If

not, use the other options as appropriate.

IV.3 Affect of Superiors or Peers on the User

Whether those persons superior to the User, and in some

instances, the User's peers, view OE as a positive or neutral or

undesirable activity.

IV.4 Goal Orientation

The extent to which a person posesses an outcome orientation

in which objectives for each process step or ultimate outcome

777

F-8

.5.
are clearly defined in measurable, time phased, and realistically

achievable ways.

1:. Very low goal orientation. Outcomes are mentioned in vague

terms. The person generally focuses on an activity which

• .can produce an outcome and can describe a desired reaction

to the activity, but he/she does not describe a desired

-. outcome resulting from the activity in behavioral or hard

outcome terms, e.g. "Conduct an issues identification

"workshop for the command and staff groups. Afterwards, they

will indicate that they enjoyed it and tcund it worthwhile."

"3: A person specifies desired behavioral or hard outcome

changes but not in measureable terms, e.g. "Conduct a workshop

that results in improved face to face communications between

the command and staff groups."

5: The person specifies measurable behavorial changes which

lead to desired hard outcome changes which are also

specified. E.S. Hard outcome changes:

"Exchange information about the future month's and operation

requirements between all members of the command and staff

.. groups. Obtain resolution on all conflicts so that each

member affected says words to the effect- "I agree with,

fully understand and will support that decision". As a

• result, reduce the number of crises from ten to five per

week. A crisis is -- (definition)."

Score Goal Orientation for the User, key User subordinates

O'* who may have been influential in the operation, and for the OEC.

V. OUTCOMES

",°.

"0 .

"O"V

S* .

..'..........."* -*-,* ~jq
V.1 Reaction Intensity

The extent to which those involved express sentiments of

satisfaction/dissatisfaction to the operation. This element is

defined seaprately for the User, and for subordinate levels.

User

1: The User expresses mixed sentiments about the operation which

lack a comparative or superlative description.

"The operation was good/bad".

3: The User expresses sentiments about the operation which use

the comparative case.

"The operation was very good/very bad, very beneficial/not

very beneficial."

5: The User expresses sentiments of satisfaction/dissatisfaction about the operation which use the superlative

case.

"The operation was the best/worst, most/least beneficial."

Subordinate levels - Agreement

After choosing the appropriate value (I through 5), enter it in

the correct line/column.

1: All subordinates concerned at the level express a mixture

of positive and negative sentiments about the operation

(about 50%/50%).

r-10

4.

= 4
3: All subordinates concerned at that level express a mixture

of sentiments wtich leans in a positive or negative direction

(75%/25%).

5: All subordiantes concerned at that level express the same Si

t sentiments about the operation.

Subordinate levels - Intensity

1: Descriptions of the reactions are very low key. Voices are

not animated and avoid the use of any comparative or

superlative phases. There does not appear to be much concern

or interest.

N

3: Descriptions of the reactions are moderately animated.

Discussions are fairly lengthy and use occasional

comparative cases in describing the operation.

5t Descriptions of the reactions are very animated. Discussions

have to be managed so that completion can take place.

Superlative and comparative cases are frequently used in

describing the operction.

V-2. Unintended Outcomes

An unintended outcome is one which occurs but was never

explicity defined as a desired outcome resulting from planned

implementation actions by the User. Behavioral or hard outcome

change can not be quantified because there is nothing to compare

the unintended outcomes with. For example, in evaluating the

outcomes of an operation, the number of personnel compliants in

IG inspections decreased significantly and that change was

attributed to the OE operation. If the change was not specified

prior to implementation actions, it is an unintended change. These

4A

r-II
type pf changes can only be scored for presence or absence, and

the degree to which persons affected believe they are important

to the organization.

Degree of Importance The following describes the degrees of

importance to be used in scoring each outcome:

1: Of very little or little importance.

"The changes made very little difference to the

organization. They were of little importance."

2: Some importance.

"The changes were of some importance to the organization."

3: Important. "The changes are/were important."

4: Very important. Persons involved use the comparative case

when discussing the outcomes.

"The changes were/are very important."

5: Most important. Personq involved use the superlative case

when talking about the outcomes.

"The changes were/are most important. They have caused major

improvements in our organization." P

V.3 Intended Outcomes Fi

In the case of intended outcomes, actual outcomes can be compared

to what was planned or intended to determine a level of intended

success. Scoring should be accomplished for both behavior and

F-12
hard outcomes using a subjective scale even though the outcomes

may not have been specified in completely measurable terms (i.e.

"improve communications", or "improved OR rates.")

Behavioral Change

1: There is a minimal indication that some of the desired

behavioral change may have occured but there is little

confidence

3: At least 75% of those persons directly affected and

knowledgeable about the intended change indicate that at

least half of the intended objectives were met.

5: All persons directly affected and knowledgeable about the

intended change indicate that all of the intended objectives

were met.

Intended Hard Outcomes

1: Less than 20% of the desired outcomes were achieved.

3: More than 60% of the desired outcomes were achieved.

5: 90% or more of the desired outcomes were achieved.

For the Degree of Importance section of this porticn of the

assessment, use the same instructions as those given in V.2.

V.4 Change Attributed to OE

Score the organizational levels indicated using the

following criteria:

"F-13

.4Y
All: The changes, intended and unintended, are all

attributed to OE.

Most: A majority of the change were attributed to OE

and the rest to some other cause or "they would

have happed anyway."

Some: About half of the changes were attributed to OE

and the rest to some other cause or - "they

would have happened anyway.

Little: A small percentage, arbitrarily about 20%, are

attributed to OE. The rest are attributed to

some other cause or - "They would have happened

anyway."

Practically

none: Perhaps a very small smount of change can be

attributed to OE, but those changes were very

minor, and not enough to make much difference.

Don't know: Persons say they "don't know" and are not even

willing to guess. Typically they will also

say:

"What is OE?"

V.5 ESTIMATED COST AND BENEFIT

Estimate the costs associated with the operation from

commencement through and including implementation and enter

them in the space provided. If they can be converted to

dollars, include costs which may have resulted from the

operation and are viewed by the User as negative outcomes.

F-14

t•', ~ P ; ." K"% "• 'V "4,• .,•• •-"-"•• -•IA •-•• '. • ' ' ' ' .' -. ''.° .'' . ."r '
Estimate the beneficial hard outcomes that can be converted

into dollars and enter them in the space provided.

Please base the above estimates on the following as

"appropriate:

- The assumption upon which you base the estimate must

be clear to you (i.e., it is based on the original cost

of the equipment and material, or the average

replacement cost, or the cost of needed spare parts

plus installation time, etc.).

- The value of cost or benefit should only be costed over

a period of one year.

The specific descriptive or weighting factors you used

rz• . must be clear to you (i.e., saved one E-7 four hours

per week for one year - in this instance, E7 and time

saved are the specific factors needed).

"- Generally concern yourself only with marginal change.

In the case of benefits, assume that. the improved

resources resulting from an operation were employed

effectively. For example, if an E-7 will save four

hours per week and you are not certain that this

additional time will be used productively, assume that

*_ it will be.

While only the figures resulting from the cost and benefit

estimates will be entered on the form, the rationale for the

*6 figures should be maintained in the case file.

The amount of variance which can be attributed to the benefit

figures is estimated by scoring the degree of constraint.

F-15

'N
The following definitions are to be employed in assigning

the appropriate value:

1: Very constrained and should be used with great caution.

Depending on how the benefit is computed, the dollar amount

is potentially quite variable and is based on the assumptions

Which were made when the figure was calculated.

3: The benefit figure is reasonably stable and could vary no

more than about 30%

5: The benefit figure is very stable and should not vary more

than about 10%.

F-16
ATTACHMENT 2: EXAMPLES OF STRUCTURING

IN AN OE OPERATION

DATA COLLECTION

1. Contributors to the data collection effort are briefed about

its purpose, composition, confidentially, and manner in which it

will be used in relation to the contributor and the organization.

A check for understanding with an opportunity for dialogue is

created.

2. Data collection instruments are designed to specifically address

the collection requirements in the organization concerned.

3. The execution of the data collection is well organized and

performed in a consistent, well thought-out manner.

FEEDBACK

4. Feedback data is reduced and presented so that it can be

assimilated and understood with relative ease.

5. Feedback of assessed data is preceded by relevant preparatory

training.

6. The selection of participants in groups are appropriate with

respect to the data involved. For example, the commander's data

is normally only shared with his or her immediate subordinates,

not with an E3 in a Platoon.

7. Rules of feedback are employed and enforced.

PLANNING

F-17

v4,7
a. The OEC structures the meeting so that there are defiinod, intended

outcome(s), an agenda, and an agreed upon process for problemsolving.

9. As a result of planning, the desired future implementation

activity outcomes are carefully defined.

IMPLEMENTATION

10. The activity is carefully designed in terms oft

- Participant selection

- Outcome definition

- Careful explanation of all processes employed

- Flow/timing

- Skill/education given/required

- Assessment.

11. The activity is evaluated.

12. Future actions are:

- Measureable

- Time-phased

- Realistically achievable.

go_181

/

I
ATTACHMENT 3t EXAMPLES OF

DIFFUSION IN AN OE OPERATION

DATA COLLECTION

1. User is given opportunity and encouraged to generate questions

to be used in collection instrument(s).

2. Key User subordinates are given opportunity and encouraged to

generate information with which to design collection

instrument(s).

3. The maximum number of sources data is to be collected from is

sought considering the purpose of the collection, i.e., for a

general assessment or a focused assessment. In the best case,

all relevant sources are used.

4. Using appropriate methods to collect data. In general, it is more

l likely that a situation for commitment will be created using an

individual interview because of the information exchange which

can take place. This opportunity becomes less likely as one

proceeds down the list below. However, morc tthods and

perspectives are betti'r than less.

Individual interview

Group interview

Survey questionnaire

p.t

* *
Unobtrusive data collection

FEEDBACK

5. Feedback takes place within a short time span after data

collection (i.e. 2 weeks or less).

6. The persons included in feedback include all those who contributed

to the data collection effort.

7. The feedback method employed has the designated key leader

actively and constructively involved in the feedback process.

a. The primary purpose of feedback is to validate, refine, and specify

issues and problems.

9. The feedback session is designed collaboratively with the key

leader involved.

PLANNING

10. Planning methodically employ the results of feedback.

11. Those persons are included in planning who are likely to be most

important in future implementation and action, i.e., their support

will be required or they will actually be responsible for action

resulting from the change.

12. The planning process takes place within a short time span after

feedback (i.e. 2 weeks or less).

13. The results of the planning process, the intended plan and

objective(s) of the plan are disseminated to all those who were

involved in feedback. Dissemination occurs prior to

implementation activity.

F-20
IMPLEMENTATION

14. Ocurs within a short time span after planning (i.e. 2 weeks or

less).

15. Participants include those key persons whose support will be

required or who will be responsible for future action.

16. Results of the activity are disseminated to all those involved

in the intervention up this point.

F-21
ATTACHMENT 4: CONSTRUCTION OF THE CUMULATIVE

CASE OUTCOME SCALE

Scale Items

An overall scale for case success was constructed from items on

the Overall Case Assessment rating forms. The following items were

included in this scale.

1. Expectations. This item was measured on a five point scale. The

lowest score of 1 corresponded to "expectations not met" while

the highest score of 5 corresponded to "most or all expectations

met." Expectations were recorded for applicable levels ranging

from the User, 1st Level through 3rd level to the Target Command.

2. Unintended Outcomes. The presence or abse'nce of unintended hard

or behavioral outcomes was noted. Such outcomes could be positive

or negative and the degree of importance, a numerical score which

ranged from 1 to 5 was attached.

3. Intended Outcomes. The degree of accomplishment of intended

outcomes was scored on a scale of 1 to 5 for each organizational

level from User to Target Command. Scores were attached to

behavioral and hard outcomes and the degree of importance was

also rated on a scale of 1 to 5.

4. Reaction Intensity. This item could be either positive or

negative and was scored between 1 and 5 for each applicable

organizational level from User to Target Command.

F-22

V.

.1ml I -l i • i i • , . , - . . . .
5. Change Attribution. 7rhe degree of change attributed to CE was

rated on a scale of 5, representing "all change attributed to

3E", to I representing "practically no change attributed to OE."

This item was measured for all applicable organizational levels

from User to Target Command.

6. Cost/Benefit. When estimated costs exceeded estimated benefits,

a sccre of +10 was assigned. When estimated benefits were greater

than estimated costs, a score of -10 was assigned.

Scale Construction

The overall success measure was an additive combination of the

scale items described above. Because not all cases involvee all

organizatonal levels, direct addition of scale items would produce

non-comparable scores. To correct this problem, scale items were

inputed' for missing levels. For example, if actual expectations were

observed for three organizational levels. User, 1st Level and 2nd

Level, ev-:.'tations would be inputed for the 3rd Level and the Target

Comnmand. scale items for missing organizational levels were inp'ited

to be the average of scale items for observed levels. For example, if

the actual expectations observed were 5, 5, and 4, the Jnrnited

expectations for the remaining levels would be 4 2/3, 4 2/3.

In addition to inputation of items for missing organizational

levels, unintended and intended outcomes were weighted by the degree

* of importance. For intended outcomes, the degree of accomplishment

was multiplied by the degree of importance. When unintended outcomes

"were present and positive, the degree of importance was multiplied by

+1 and added to otheL scale items. When unintended outcomes were

* negative, the degree of importance was multiplied by -1 and added to

"other scale items.

F-23

"• 4 4"
Coder: OVERALL CASE ASSESSMENT FORM Date Coded:

Case #: Organization : _ _ Location_:

I. Roles

1.1 QEC © QOC) 0 ©4 0

Sides primarily Sides with User Actively pum

with User. tries to advise a t situation in which

camnwle t isA. cmad-t can ba

geserated.

1.2 User Cbjectives: ( 3©0

Uses CE to accoaplish Uses CE to acolisb Use C4E Jointly

mn cjectives. own objectives and to inte- with subordinates to idengrate subordinate objective% tify and solve probilm.

1.3 User Solutions: C

Gathers info from Joint decision

subordinates and with subordinates. Suxbdinates make

mkes own decisions, decisions.

1.4 User is his/her own target of change. ) (D

User becomes target of change as operation progresses. (D 0

II. STRUCTURING AND DIFFUSING

ir.1 Structuring

"Wery Low Moderate Very High

11.2 Diffusio C

Vtey LON Moderate Very Higb

F-24

.. - .5vL %GA-*P
I"

EXP. ECTATIONS

ftectation not Sms emectatios Mot or all

mt Met. not all mectation met

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. C

user_

• ' 3L-d Level

P 4th L l

"•IV. WEIATING. FACTORS

IV,1 Need for Change

Yen Patial No C

2 1 0

"ii External

-" Internal,

lV.2 Control over intended change

ys Prtial No C

2 1 0

lV.3 Affect of superiors or peers on User

"Positive Neutral Undesirable C

1 o -1

.V.4 Goal Orientatoron

Very low Moderate Very high

outcdImf vague 8Pi~ifie¶ bu not M easurabl

mneasurable1! C "1. 2. 3. 4. 5. C

"User _ ° I ________ ________

Key (JRer

subordinates

OEC ..

F-25

~A
I .

_~ I

+--

I'i

I~ I L-,

12 ii 1' ii ,• , l l llII -i
\*1

'0*

I.

St

APPENDIX G

Standardized Costs V'

hr

*, .

%.' .-.

S.

S.

4.

S..

V.. 4/..

0

3⁄4

V.

S...'.

0

C....

4.

S

p.. C-i
:1

STANDARDIZED COSTS

1. ANNUAL SALARY FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL

Monthly basic pay for various military pay grades is calculated

using the average of the pay for all grades for under 2 years to

26 years in grade. Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) rate

used is the average of the rates for without dependents and

with dependents. Basic allowance for substence is applied only to the commissioned and warrant officer pay grades. The

pay scales effective 1 October 1979 are used. Annual salary is determined as indicated below.

Monthly basic pay + Basic Allowance for Quarters +

Subsistence x 12

PAY GRADE ANNUAL SALARY

0-10" $51,786.60

0-9* 48,293.76

0-8 46,011.12

0-7 40,749.96

0-6 32,360.52

0-5 28,628.52

0-4 25,598.16

0-3 23,173.80

0-2 18,936.48

0-1 15,286.44

W-4 21,903.12

W-3 19,600.28

W-2 17,566.32

W-1 16,018.56

E-9 19,834.80

E-8 17,223.00

E-7 14,166.48

E-6 12,410.88

E-5 11,020.88

E-4 9,679.32

E-3 8,622.24

E-2 7,552.80

E-1 6,904.80

*As Limited By Level V of the Executive Schedule

G-2

JI

", -o " •-• . . i• ,w ....................................................................................................... S•q. -. "..°, -.
2. ANNUAL SALARY FOR CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

The annual salary for civilian personnel used is the annual

salary for Step 5 of the appropriate grade level using the pay

schedule effective 1 October 1979.

PAY GRADE ANNUAL SALARY

GS-I $ 8,170.00

"GS-2 9,002.00

GS-3 10,144.00

GS-4 11,389.00

GS-5 12,743.00

GS-6 14,203.00

GS-7 15,781.00

GS-8 17,479.00

GS-9 19,307.00

GS-10 21,260.00

GS-11 23,359.00

GS-12 27,995.00 .7 GS-13 33,291.00

GS-14 39,341.00

GS-15 46,276.00

GS-16* 47,498.40

GS-17 47,498.40

GS-18* 47,498.40

*As Limited by Level V of the Executive Schedule

3. COST PER APPLIED MAN DAY (C/AMD) FOR CLIENT PERSONNEL

The cost of each applied man day of client time applied

to the OE operation is calculated in the following manner.

C/AMD = Salary/Yr. x 2.5

220 (days worked in a year @ 100% applied)

* 2.5 = fringe benefits, overhead and general

administrative costs.

"The C/AMD for military personnel in client organizations

is calculated as indicated below:

[ G-3

Il -1~.*
PAY GRADE C/AMD

0-10 $588.48

0-9 548.79

0-8 522.85

0-7 463.06

0-6 367.73

0-5 325.32

0-4 290.88

0-3 247.02

0-2 215.18

0-1 173.70

W-4 248.89

W-3 222.73

W-2 199.61

W-1 182.02

E-9 225.39

E-8 195.71

E-7 160.98

E-6 141.03

E-5 125.23

E-4 110.50

E-3 97.98

E-2 85.82

E-1 78.46

The C/AMD for civilian personnel in client organizations is

calculated as indicated below.

PAY GRADE C/AMD

GS-l $ 92.84

GS-2 102.29

GS-3 115.27

GS-4 129.42

GS-5 144.80

GS-6 161.39

GS-7 179.32

GS-8 198.62

GS-9 219.39

GS-10 241.59

GS-11 265.44

GS-12 318.12

GS-13 378.30

GS-14 447.05

GS-15 525.86

GS-16 539.75

GS-17 539.75

GS-18 539.75

G-4

p ' •""*" """" m °• "° o q . • * • . . . . " o °% • . " , " q - p
4. COST PER APPLIED MANDAY (C/AMD) FOR OECs

The cost of each applied manday of OEC time applied to the

OE Operation is calculated in the following manner.

(h OE training cost ) C/AND - Salary/yr x 2.5 + $5000 (amortized in 1 year )

.75 (Percent of total days worked applied directly

to OE operations) x 220 (days worked in 1 year)

OR

C/AMD - Salary/Yr. x 2.5 + $5r000

165

The C/AMD for military and civilian OEC's is calculated.

as indicated below:

PAY GRADE C/AMD PAY GRADE C/AKD

0-6 $520.61 GS-14 $626.37

0-5 464.06 GS-13 534.71

0-4 418.15 GS-12 454.46

0-3 381.42 GS-11 384.22

0-2 317.21 GS-l0 352.42

0-1 261.91 GS-9 322.83

E-9 330.83 GS-8 295.13

E-8 291.25 GS-7 269.40

E-7 244.94 GS-6 245.50

E-6 218.34 GS-5 223.37

-_ G-5

S-_
APPENDIX C

STANDARDIZED COSTS

1. ANNUAL SALARY FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL

Monthly basic pay for various military pay grades is calculated

using the average of the pay for all grades for under 2 years to

26 years in grade. Basic Allowance for Quarters (SAO) rate

used is the average of the rates for without dependents and

with dependents. Basic allowance for substence is applied only to the commissioned and warrant officer pay grades. The

pay scales effective 1 October 1979 are used. Annual salary is determined as indicated below.

Monthly basic pay + Basic Allowance for Quarters +

Subsistence x 12

PAY GRADE ANNUAL SALARY

0-10" $51,78S.60 0"9* 48,293.76

0"8 46,011.12

0-7 40,749.96

0-6 32,360.52

0-5 28,628.52

0-4 25,598.16

0-3 23,173.80

0-2 18,936.48

0-1 15,286.44 W-4 21,903.12

W-3 19,600.28 . W-2 17,566.32

W-1 16,018.56 E-9 19,834.80

E-8 17,223.00

E-7 14,166.48 E-6 12,410.88

E-5 11,020.88

E-4 9,679.32

E-3 8,622.24 E-2 7,552.80

E-1 6,904.80

*As Limited By Level V of the Executive Schedule

p. -

i..

0'l

B..

4.%

.• _."J ," •". . ,'.."v•.''. v•-•"• *". '. ""-'" ." .""•'" " • •°.'' ' "... " • " " " .° '" " '" '""" '"." '"•*" %*'

I **
r,.L

4. COST PER APPLIED MANDAY (C/AMD) FOR OEC,

The cost of each applied manday of OEC time applied to the

OZ Operation is calculated in the following manner.

"(hi OE training cost )

C/AND - Salary/yr x 2.5 + f5000 (amortized in 1 year ) .75 (Percent of total days worked applied directly

to O operations) x 220 (days worked in 1 year)

OR

C/AND S Salary/Yr. x 2.5 + $54000

The C/AMD for military and civilian owc', IN caLculated.

as indicated belowt

P. PAY GRADE C/AMD PAY GRADE C!AM

0-6 $520.61 G8-14 $626.37

0-5 464.06 08-13 534.71 . 0-4 418.15 GS-12 454.46

0-3 381.42 GS-11 384.22

"0-2 317.21 GO-10 352.42

0-1 261.91 06-9 322.83

"i-9 330.83 05-8 295.13

E-8 291.25 G0-7 269.40

E-7 244.94 05-6 245.50

E-6 218.34 GO-5 223.37

0 0

V.

b.-
APPENDIX H

Operations Coding Worksheet Scales

H-i
Table 13

Operations Coding Worksheet Scales

Scale No. of Item

No. Scale Nane Items Number(s)

I External Support 2 V.2.(l), XI.3.(l)

2 User Goal Orientation 3 MlV.(l), V.9.(l), V.9.(2)

3 User Role 35 V.14.03), V.14.04), V.1-4-0),

V.22.(l), V.22.(2), V.22.03),

V.22.(4), V.22.05), VI.6.(1,q

VI.6.(Z), VI.6.(3), VI.6.(4),

VI.6.(5), VI.6.(6), VI.6*.(7),

IX.20.(1), IX.24.(1), IX.24.(2),

IX.24.(3), IX.24.(4), IX.26.(l),

IX.26. (2),. IX-26.(3), IX.26.(4),

IX.32! (1), XI.5.(l)

4 OEC Role 8 VI.7.(l), VI.7.(2), vi.7.(3),

VI.7.(4), VI.7.(5), VI.7.(6),

VI.12.(l), IX.43.(l)

5 Structuring 11 VII.7.(1), 1X.19.(4), IX.19.(6),

IX.22.(I), IX.27.(2), IX.39.(l),

IX.40.(l), IX.40.'%2). IX.40.(3),

IX.40.(4), IX.40.(5)

6 Diffusion 10 V.18.(1), V.18.(2), V.18.03),

V.18.(4), V.18.(5), VII.14.(1j.

VIII.30.(6)., VIII.32.(l), VIII.32.(2),-

VIII.34.(l)

7 Praictice Theory 9 V.I..(2), VtI.13.(), V11.18.04),

IX.4.(3), IX.30.(l), XII.2.(4)

8 Evaliuaiton 8 XII.4.(2), XI[.4.03), XITI.4.(1),

XIII.5.(2), X11I.3.03)

9 Outcomes 13 XI.7.(1), XV.l.(1), XV.l.(2), XV.1.(3)

XV.1.(4), XV.I.(5), XV.3.(1), XV.3.(2)

XVA.4 (3)

ui- 2
Ocw

NO. 1I EXTERNAL SUPPORT (2 items)

V.2 USER'S SENIOR IN CHAIN OF COW1AND SUPPORTS OE OPER&TLON::

()Yes

XI.31 USER REPORTS THAT TOP M&NAGF24ENT OF HIS OR HER ORCANIZArtm SUPPORTS.

OE EFFORT:

(1) Yes
"NO. 2 = USER GOAL ORIENTATION (3 items)

IV. 1 INITIATION OF CONTACT:

(1) OESO initiated

V.9 USER IDENTIFIES PROIOTING/RESTRAINING FORCES FOR DESIRED CHANGE:

(1) Supporting individuals and groups

(2) Opposing individuals and groups

,I

0 0-4

" "" ,= C. I ' .= . + ' .. . +" +' ,+ -" , - * ,'. '. .+• .•.. ..
.- a.--. ,. ...

OCW

NO. 3 = USER ROLE (35 items)

Vý1t4-- USER EXPRESSES- UNDERSTANDING-ABOUT-OE: -..

(3) Data collection/analysis/feedback purpose is as a catalyst for

action vice final problem identification

(4) The need to build commitment within target, group from outset

(5) The need to establish, measure, evaluate outcomes and objectives

"V. 22 USER TAKES ACTION TO INFORMM AND GET ORGANIZATION AND/OR PERSONS INVOLVED

TO SUPPORT OE OPERATION TO LEVEL INDICATED:

(1) None

S(2) Non-management

(3) Lower management

(4) Middle management

* .(5) Top management

VI.6 ACTION TAKEN TO ENCOURAGE OPENNESS AND PARTICIPATION BY USER IN DATA

COLLECTION:

(1) Formal written notification, I.e. DF

(2) Briefing of non-management

. . . (3) Briefing of lower management

(4) Briefing middle management

. . (5) Briefing tcp management

- (6) Briefing of all respondents

- - - (7) None takon

VI.11 U5.F: IAKES ACTION TO RLDUCE OPPOSITION ANI FNCOURAGE SUPPORT FOR

OPERATION:

" (1) Yes

VII.3 USER TAKES ACTION TO ENCOURAGE TRUST AND OPENNESS WHEN INITIAL FEEDBACK

IS IN A GROUP SESSION:

(1) Yes

Ht-5

II- %

* ~~*,q **Ii. . ... '.~* .* q

- % '• -''' .,, **"*.,.$ ,"* ,. * 0 % -. . " . • 3⁄4 ,"• • ,"- .. 4 • • *. q....... .. . . .• ,'..4 I ,.. •.- ''''• ''.,.
OCW

NO. 3 = USER ROLE (35 items) (continued)

IVII.9 ACCEPTANCE BY USER:

(1) high

VII.Il USER VIEWS VALUE OF FEEDBACK AS WAY OF IDENTIFYING:

(1) Emerging issues

(2) Developing commitment for change

(3) Problem identification

VII. 19 USER TAKES SPECIFICACTION PRIOR TO FEEDBACK SESSION TO ENCOURAGE

SUPPORT:

(I) Yes

VII.20 USER PRESENT AT GROUP FEEDBACK SESSION AND TAKES SPECIFIC ACTION TO

ENCOURAGE TRUST, OPENNESS, AND PARTICIPATION:

(I) Yes

VII.22 USER USES OESO COACHING ON BEHAVIORS TO CREATE CLIMATE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL

SAFETY:

(I) Yes

IX.20 USER TAKES ACTION TO CREATE CLLMATE OF TRUST, OPENNE'SS, AND

PART IC IPAT ION

(1) Yes

IX.24 DECISION MAKING ON FINAL GOALS INVOLVES:

(1) User only

(2) User and top management

(3) and middle .ianagement

(L) and lower management

IX.26 DECISION MAKING FOR ACTION STEPS TO BE LPLM1ENTED INVOLVES:

(1) User only

.(2) User and top management

(3) and middle management

(4) and" lower management

%-t-
OCw

NO. 3 USER ROLE (35 items) (coantluued)O

IX.32 USER TAKES SPECIFIC ACTION TO GET PERSONS INVOLVED TO SUPPORT THE

ACTIVITIES OF THE SESSIONS:

(I) Yes

XI.5 EVIDENCE THAT USER INITIATED ACTION, REWARDS 0. SANCTIONS TO ENCOURAGE

PERSONNEL TO SUPPORT LMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIOaI:

(1) Yes

H-7

',,'. ,*. ,*, ,.., '*,'*,*. *y*..**,*.*. ... *,* .'.*. ... . . ... •. *'. *....,.. 
Ocs

NO. 4 = OESO ROLE (eight items)

VI.7 ACTION TAKEN TO ENCOURAGE OPENNESS AND PARTICIPATION BY OESO:

(1) Formal written notification

(2) Briefing of non-management

(3) Briefing of lower management

(4) Briefing of middle management

(5) Briefing of top management

(6) Briefing of all respondents

VI.12 OESO COACHES USER IN BEHAVIORS TO ENCOURAGE OPENNESS AND PARTICIPATION

DURING DATA COLLECTION:

(1) Yes

IX.43 OESO COACHES USER IN BEHAVIORS TO CREATE CLIIMATE OF TRUST OPENNESS

AND PARTICIPATION

(1) Yes

II-
OCS

NO. 5 STRUCTURING (11 items)

VII.7 USES MULTIPLE TYPES OF DATA SOURCES TO BACK UP ANALYSIS: PRESENTED IN

FEEDBACK TO USER:

(1) Yes

IX.19 PROBLE4 SOLVING, GOAL SETTING, AND ACTION PLA,'NIXG METHODS USED:

(4) Force field analysis

(6) Open system (demands) model

IX.22 EXPLICIT CRITERIA ARE ESTABLISHED AND USED.BY PARTICIPANTS AS A BASIS

FOR SELECTING ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR ACTION:

(1) Yes

IX..27 ACTION STEPS ARE DOCUMENTED

(2) Yes, specify how

IX.39 OBJECTIVES OF OE TRAINING ACTIVITIES BASED ON:

(1) Specific problem or deficiency identified in data collection

IX.40 TRAINING METHOD PROVIDES PARTICIPANT OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN BY INCLUDING

FOLLOWING STEPS:

(1) Recognize the thought, skill, or behavior

(2) Understand the thought, skill, or behavior

(3) Self assess own abilities in relation to thlught, skill, or

behavior

(4) Practice the skill or behavior in psychologically safe

environment

(5) Perform the skill or behavior x.n a job related task

II-9

: ,o~e .iB,,¢ .- • , . .ul.f.,...m .• t ,- .. • . * , -, .m• , - * P* ,.* " * ',Q** * *.* 
OCW

NO. 6 = DIFFUSION (10 items)

V.18 INTENDED RECIPIENTS OF DATA FEEDBACK OR BANDBACK:

(1) Non-management . .. . .. .

(2) Lower management

(3) Middle management

(4) Top manage-lent

(5) Others, specify

VII. 14 INTENDED OUTCOMES FOR FEEDBACK ACTIVITY DISSEMINATED TO PARTICIPANTS:

(1) Yes

VIII.30 OBJECTIVES FOR OE OPERATION DISSEMINATED TO TARGET GROUP:

(6) Top management

VIII.32 DISSEMINATION OF PLAN FOR OPERATION LIHPLEMENTING ACTIVITIES.

LEVEL:

(1) Top management

(2) Middle management

VIII.34 TARGET GROUP RESPONSE TO DISSEMINATION OF OBJECTIVES:

(1) Support by significant numbers of target group

H-10

*,-*.es . . . . * . . *. . . . .
OCW

NO. 7 PRACTICE THEORY (nine items)

VI.1 DECISIONS FOR DATA COLLECTION METHODS MADE BY:

(2) OESO-user joint decision

VII. 13 OESO/USER ESTABLISHED SUCCESS ABD FAILURE MEASURES FOR OUTCOME OF

FEEDBACK ACTIVITY:

(1) Yes

VII.18 FEEDBACK SESSION PARTICIPATION. RATIONALE FOR SELECTING- PA4I1CIPA.NTS

IN FEEDBACK SESSIONS:

(4) User/OESO joint agreement

VII. 34 OUTCOMES FROM FEEDBACK ACTIVITY (AS RELATED TO INTENTIONS OF USER4

111) Refinement of OE operation objectives

VIII.I DETER•.INATION OF INTENDED SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR OPERATION.

DECISION METHOD:

(3) OESO and user

VIII.31 USER/OESO ESTABLISHED MEASURER FOR SUCCESS OR FAILU•RE OF IMPLE•ENTING

ACTIVITIES:

(1) Yes

IX.4 DECISION ON OUTCOMES FO.A ACTIVITY MADE BY:

(3) OESO/tser joint agreement

IX.30 PLANNED OE OPERATION IMPLEMENTING PROCESSES CHANGED OR. MODIFIED AS A

RESULT OF CLIENT REACTION:

(1) Yes

XII.2 OPERATION INFORMALLY ASSESSED BY:

(4) User and OESO

S.~~- ht
OCw

NO. 8 EVALUATION (eight items)

XII.4 ASSESSHENT RELATED TO GOALS AND ACTION4 PLANS THAT WERE OUTCOMES OF

OPERATION'S ACTIVITIES:

(2) Yes

(3) Mixed

XIII.4 OVERALL EVALUATION OF OE OPERATION BY USER:

(1) Success

(2) Failure

(3) Mixed

XIII.5 OVERALL EVALUATION OF OE OPERATION BY OESO:

(1) Success

(2) Failure

(3) Mixed

H-*12
ocw

NO. 9 =OUTCOMES (13 items)

XI. 7 EVI DENCE THAT OPERATION HAD AFFECT ON ORGANIZATION: OTHER? THAXL TARGET

GROUP, I.E., CONTIN`UED LOWER LEVEL INVOLVEMENT: CONTINUEDV USE: OF

ACTIVITIES SUCH AS DATA COLLECTION, PROBLEM SOLVIN-AND.A ACIOxt

PLANNING -SESSIONS:

(I) Yes

XV.1 ASSESSM4ENT INDICATES CHANGE IN REACTIONS:

(1) Perceived effectiveness

(2) Attitudes

(3) Norms

(4) Tension release

-(5) Organizational climate

XV. 3 ASSESSMENT INDICATES CHANGE IN BEHAV 10K/PERFORMAKCE:-

(I) Skills

(2) Group process

(3) Approach adoption

(4) Job procedures

XV. 4 ASSESSM4ENT INDICATES OPERATION WAS A SUCCESS. CRITERIA:

(1) Positive reactions

(2) Positive behavior

(3) Significant hard outcomes
I

A.PPNDIX I

Overall Case Assessment Scales

, U

.4

,U.

,1

I"

s\.

I1I

U.s. .9

0

V.

0

M

V

*4/

I

. .

9.

1*

I-I

S
Table 14

Overall Case Assessment Scalesa

Scale No. of Item

No. Scale Name Items Number(s)

1 External Need for Change 1 IV.l: External

2 Control over Intended Change 1 IV.2

3 Superior Affect toward User 1 IV.3

4 Internal Need for Change 1 IV.l: Internal

d

5 Roles 3 1.1, 1.2, 1.3

6 Goal Orientation 3 IV.4: User, Key User

Subordinates, OEC

7 Structuring 1 11.1

8 Diffusion 1 11.2

9 Success 5 Items from Outcomes

Summary: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

" Derived from Cumulative Case Outcome Scale
OCA

No. I = External Need for Change (I item)

C1v-.1 Need for Cbage

Yfes Pari-a No C

2 1 0

Dcternal . .|

1-3
,S OCA

No. 2 = Control over Intended Change (I item)

XV.2 Control over Intended cb&ngo

Yes Parti-l N C 2 1 0

1-4

-- _ - - - - - - -- -
/

OCA

No. 3 - Superior Affect toward User (I Item)

1V.3' Affect of superiors or peers on User

positive Neural Undesirable

-15

II

-. I-S

II
.- w ..-. . • . . .. - -. -

6 OCA

No. 4 =Internal Need for Change (1 item)

VP

C )Need for Change

Yes Partl NO C

2 1 0

t•ernal

Internal

-.--

_ .

°-.
OCA

"No. 5 Roles (3 items)

"4.

"- D, OEC

(7%1( 1. (4 0

Sides primaily Sides with User Actively pursues wi th user. trios to advise aiiou Situation in wbucb

""ee•,rted.

.2 User Objectives:

UssG to acwwLiab Uses (E to acco1iab Uses CE jointly x obn jectiv. an Objectives and to into- with subordinates to iden.

grate subordinate objectived. ti_'y and solve prc.-'m.

(I3~ User Solutions:

C

- Gahers info fr= Joint decision

subordinates and with subordia . Sue

.~kes own decis ions. decisions.

.---

•-w .j:

S-.,.

0 o

-•- 5-5

sJm

, "

+ • • 4•,m • e. i•i.I i.i 1-7. •,i.I I Ii. . . . .I .I. .. + t+ ..
OCA

No. 6 - Goal Orientation (3 items)

Goal Orientation

Very 1c Moderate Very hib O~tcaw Sp ified but nat Measrale

Measurable

1. 2. 3. 4. S.

User

Key User

subordinates

CEC

I-8
-•,o''• ' o ... *, . , ." .- . . ". ,. ,•*..• ." •. S . - •. .S* • •, • • . *' -, . ,°..''-_. , .~ °• ,.• -. . . -_,., .- • b J.7••'J . •

OCA

No. 7 = Structuring (1 item)

1.1 User is bis/her own target of change. 2

User becomec target of change as operation progresses.& • •

II. STRUCTURING AND DIFFUSING

II.1 Structuring

00

Very Lo oderat.e Very High

1-9

p•
* OCA

s No. 8 -Diffusion (1 item)

N1.2 Diffusion

Ve~ry Low Moderate Very Hi~b

I-10

6-

0I

QNW fbMafl r;/v ~wjljw rvjWVtw AI% 4 AAM %
OCA

No. 9 Success (5 items)

P..1 11t COw. P.. ffeg CORI. P"n. oft. COW. so C4111.

gel (-1 (.3 4-1 4.3 1-1

lei L.,.iot ve ati

love Level Id iI. MECTATIONS

3rd Lo..d ExpectatiorA not Saze expectations Most or all

Mt met. n ot all w.ctatims mt

6th L"1. 2. 3. 4. S.C

2ad Level____________

Tanet _ _ _I

DAMONts Hoed toomowo

Do~ oves AN'. owMie son". Lkb. PygI. mom.. Don' KNOW Conl. of. Aomae.p Cent. ofS5. . COO Inwi.L C401.

0~ 0_ ___ _

KOW - -V too VO Vw 10,21 w_ "_ VV_ PL__1 V_ RRI_ __VM _ _ _