Large Group Interventions: Case Study: Organizational Development And Change
Trident University International
Luis Velazquez
Large Group Interventions
Case Study, Module 2
Organizational Development and Change, MGT 423
Professor: Dr. Robert W. Touro
3 May 2017
XYZ Corporation In the case of XYZ corporation, the CEO should use future research. The main issues here are to help a large and diverse group understand common purposes and values. The company has been growing at a growing rate, but over the past months, it has hit a plateau implying that it is not growing much. There is a need for the people within the organization to create together a desired future. Changes are required to be made, and although all the senior managers from the main department have agreed, there is the difference in opinions. …show more content…
It will create a condition where the maximum potential of every person will be realized. One of the strengths of this approach is that relies upon participants to organize themselves and set their agendas. Following this, it has fewer demands on event facilitators. In other methods, because of the large scale of participants, it becomes difficult to organize as well as stressful for facilitators. According to the research conducted by Owen (2008), open source technology overcomes all these limitations. This means that it is the best approach for the CEO to apply considering the number of the participants expected to play a …show more content…
This means that they should not have already formed decisions. The decisions formed should be from the opinions, ideas, and suggestion of all the participants. In this case, one of the mistakes the CEO did was to dictate on what the agenda should be discussed. This was supposed to come from the participants collective. It is important to note that although some of the concerns might be common, at the time the interest of the employees varies. In open source technology, one should provide the minimum control and structure (Nixon, 1998). In this case, it was mandatory that every individual should attend and only specific issues should be discussed. The CEO should have understood “Whoever comes is the right person” (Leith, 1996). Following this, there was no need to force people to come even those who were not interested. Further, the participants were not allowed to display their responsibility and passion. One of the reasons employees was reluctant to implement the ideas they felt that the recommendation never represents their
Luis Velazquez
Large Group Interventions
Case Study, Module 2
Organizational Development and Change, MGT 423
Professor: Dr. Robert W. Touro
3 May 2017
XYZ Corporation In the case of XYZ corporation, the CEO should use future research. The main issues here are to help a large and diverse group understand common purposes and values. The company has been growing at a growing rate, but over the past months, it has hit a plateau implying that it is not growing much. There is a need for the people within the organization to create together a desired future. Changes are required to be made, and although all the senior managers from the main department have agreed, there is the difference in opinions. …show more content…
It will create a condition where the maximum potential of every person will be realized. One of the strengths of this approach is that relies upon participants to organize themselves and set their agendas. Following this, it has fewer demands on event facilitators. In other methods, because of the large scale of participants, it becomes difficult to organize as well as stressful for facilitators. According to the research conducted by Owen (2008), open source technology overcomes all these limitations. This means that it is the best approach for the CEO to apply considering the number of the participants expected to play a …show more content…
This means that they should not have already formed decisions. The decisions formed should be from the opinions, ideas, and suggestion of all the participants. In this case, one of the mistakes the CEO did was to dictate on what the agenda should be discussed. This was supposed to come from the participants collective. It is important to note that although some of the concerns might be common, at the time the interest of the employees varies. In open source technology, one should provide the minimum control and structure (Nixon, 1998). In this case, it was mandatory that every individual should attend and only specific issues should be discussed. The CEO should have understood “Whoever comes is the right person” (Leith, 1996). Following this, there was no need to force people to come even those who were not interested. Further, the participants were not allowed to display their responsibility and passion. One of the reasons employees was reluctant to implement the ideas they felt that the recommendation never represents their