1.Company resistance to change.
2.“Us” versus “them” view of practitioners forms company’s viewpoint. B. Micro
1.Professor/external practitioner ended too soon; did not provide direction or continuity. 2.“In-group” image perpetuated by OD group.
3.President too involved in details at beginning.
4.“Internal” consulting group was mostly outsiders and not accepted by the company at large. 5.OD group had little familiarity with nature of firm (except maybe George Kessler). 6.OD program too ostentatious and too costly for company.
7.Lack of unity in purpose and techniques within OD group.
8.Kay and Indar’s isolation from others and closeness to president had negative effects in OD group. 9.Budgeting not clarified at beginning.
10.Evaluation late - 1 year later and then almost a do or die evaluation.
1.Group too cohesive and creates images of “in-group.”
2.“Fancy” atmosphere perpetrated.
3.President too involved at first.
4.Company not prepared for OD and its needs and purposes.
5.OD groups consisted almost entirely of outsiders.
III. Systems affected
1.Structural - changing whom the OD group reports to will only confuse purpose and goals; Blake is not prepared. 2.Psychosocial - the OD group has caused at least as much antagonism as it has good results. 3.Technical - no reference to OD group’s effectiveness.
4.Managerial - too top-down thus far.
5.Goals and values – No indication that the company including top management (other than the OD group) knew or bought-in to the OD program. It was just a management training program.
1.Keep as is.
2.Put under Blake.
3.Have professor help organize and budget for OD.
Alternative three with central contact person and clear budget. If size of Hexadecimal allows, make OD a separate department with its own vice president. Keep reporting to president but keep him personally removed...