Characteristics of Effective OED Interventions

Effective Organizational Effectiveness and Development (OED) interventions are distinguished by several critical attributes that ensure both immediate impact and long-term sustainability. These characteristics are outlined below:

Characteristics	Importance
Strategically aligned	Helps ensure that plans reinforce, complement, and build on each other and support overall organizational goals and strategies
Collaborative	Facilitates discovery of causes and development of solutions with critical input from those most closely involved (managers, supervisors, and employees) in intervention area
Supported by top management	Helps reduce resistance to eventual change
Producing sustainable results	Changes that can continue to deliver long-term results, perhaps because of management preparation or group involvement and acceptance of new processes and success criteria
Supporting continuous improvement	Aims at strengthening the organization in an ongoing manner by identifying weaknesses and opportunities and engaging employees in performance improvement (Continuous improvement is a basic tenet of the quality management programs to which many organizations today have committed.)
Using common tools	Allows for easy comparisons and collation of data
Using common language	Avoids confusion and misunderstanding
Explicit assumptions	Allow the validity of underlying assumptions to be challenged
Fact-based	Clarifies the difference between what is known and what is supposed
Evidence-based	Uses current best evidence to identify problems/ issues specific to the organization through a commitment to continuous, up-to-date information and knowledge gathering and analysis
Oriented toward systems and processes	Uses systems theory to analyze problems (discussed elsewhere in further detail).
Flexibility	Recognizes and accepts that assumptions are likely to change
Multiple perspectives	Provides access to diverse perspectives

 

Assessing OED Interventions and Why They Fail

OED interventions must be assessed once they are concluded, so time must be allowed following the intervention to accurately measure its efficacy. The measurement should use KPIs that track the process or unit that underwent the intervention to determine if it actually succeeded at achieving its stated goals. Measuring too soon, or without using quantifiable data, may result in the organization being unable to accurately determine if further action is required to address the identified issue.

In addition to measurement of the intervention itself, the client's perception of the experience is also an important part of the assessment. Clients may be surveyed or interviewed about whether their expectations were fulfilled. Were objectives achieved? Did HR communicate the process well during the planning phase and then throughout the process? Did HR involve and listen to stakeholders (such as employees)?

Finally, HR should assess its own effectiveness and efficiency in conducting the intervention. Did HR achieve its own quality goals throughout the intervention? Did members of the team execute their roles properly? Were commitments to the client met in terms of project deliverables (such as written reports) and promised delivery dates?

The results of this assessment process can guide steps forward for the organization and encourage continuous improvement for the OED process. Not every assessment will be successful, so it is important to remember all the difficulties that can surround an intervention as it is planned, implemented, and sustained.

Some interventions fail because they never get started. Those involved may be afraid of the effect of change on the organization and may hold back. They collect data, they analyze it, they discuss possible actions, but in the end they fail to act. This is often called "analysis paralysis," but the analysis is not the problem. The real issue is a reluctance to take reasonable risks. Some other interventions fail because they are not based on data but on conjecture. This happens when insufficient or inappropriate data is collected or if no data is available.

Other interventions fail because their objectives are too grand or the number of changes necessary is too great. The hurdles may be limited resources or an organization that is not skilled at change. The requirements for the objectives to be met may not have been thoroughly defined, and therefore the organization is not prepared or equipped to implement the changes. The impact of external forces may be underestimated. The gaps between the current and envisioned organizational cultures may be too great to overcome in the amount of time allocated. Small steps may be required rather than great leaps.

And sometimes interventions fail because the planners focus on their solution and not on the people who will make the solution work. Interventions involve change, and implementing change involves the entire organization. Some of the specific communication pitfalls and possible remedies for them are the following:

·          Leadership does not get involved. Sometimes decisions about major organizational changes are made at the top management level and then news is allowed to trickle down to employees. As a result, why and how the organization is changing may be unclear. Leaders and HR professionals should roll out a clear, universal, consistent message to everyone in the organization at the same time, even across multiple sites and locations.

·          The wrong messengers are used. Studies have found that employees tend to trust information from managers. Understanding the organization's culture will indicate who is the best messenger for change-the manager, the senior executive team, or HR. Middle and front-line leaders are the primary communicators to employees; communication from them should be frequent and consistent. Everyone affected by the change needs to know what it entails, why and how it is happening, and what's in it for them. Don't impose change; engage employees in a conversation about it. Ask them what they think and how they are feeling. They will talk if you listen.

·          Communication is too sudden. Leaders and managers need to prepare employees for change, allow time for the message to sink in, and give them an opportunity to provide feedback before a change is initiated.

·          Communication is too late. If anxieties are not managed in a timely manner, it will take longer for changes to be accepted, and, during this period, productivity and employee engagement will suffer. To avoid this problem, HR should be involved in change planning early to help motivate employees to participate. While the solution is being developed, HR needs to develop a plan for communicating the program to the organization-both the content of the message and the way in which it will be communicated. Change-related information should be communicated to employees via multiple forms (for example, e-mails, meetings, training sessions, internal social media, press releases).

·          Communication is not aligned with organizational realities. Messages should be honest and include the reasons behind the change and the projected outcomes.

·          . Communication is too narrow. If the communication focuses too much on detail and technicalities and does not link change to the organization's goals, it will not resonate with employees.