baldrige assessment and organizational learning
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning
1/17
www.asq.org 9
Baldrige Assessment andOrganizational Learning:
The Need for Change ManagementMATTHEW W. FORD, UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATIJAMES R. EVANS, UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
2001, ASQ
Self-assessment using the Malcolm Baldrige Award
Criteria for Performance Excellence (CPE) has become
a widespread practice among all types of organiza-
tions. Empirical evidence suggests that Baldrige
Award-based assessment typically results in improve-ments to managerial processes. Although the notion of
process change is embedded within the CPE frame-
work, the criteria do not explicitly address how an
organization manages such change. In this article,
the linkage between the criteria and change manage-
ment is described. It is suggested that an effective
process change management model can be derived
from the framework of the criteria for performance
excellence. Using concepts from the literatures on
organizational change, assessment, and learning, a
model for managing change in the context of the cri-
teria is generated. The change process model parallels
the model of strategic change that has been historical- ly well specified by the CPE and refines the criteria
notion of learning. These two models are linked by the
exchange of information between the organizational
performance review item and diagnostic self-assess-
ment activities. Suggestions on how the organization-
al performance review item in the criteria can be
expanded to incorporate change management as an
explicit area to address are made.
Key words: evaluation, organizational change,
quality management, self-assessment
Self-assessment using the Malcolm Baldrige Award
Criteria for Performance Excellence (CPE) has been an
increasing phenomenon inside organizations (for
example, Jordan 1994; Knutton 1994; Zaremba and
Crew 1995; Brereton 1996; Wu, Wiebe, and Politi 1997;
Caravatta 1997; Fountain 1998). Data suggest that
many firms are using self-assessment as the basis for
improvement. For example, a study of 70 companies in
the United Kingdom revealed that approximately two-
thirds had at least experimented with self-assessment
using a quality management framework similar to the
CPE (Finn and Porter 1994). Here, self-assessment
using the CPE means an evaluation of an organiza-
tions performance management processes against the
criteria, with the objective of identifying key strengthsand opportunities for improvement. Key strengths can
be leveraged and refined, while opportunities for
improvement are intended to lead to actions that will
take the organization to higher levels of performance.
Self-assessment activities are governed primarily by the
organizations managers, although external
consultantsoften current or former Baldrige Award
examinersmay be included to enhance objectivity.
The increase in self-assessment coincides with the
diffusion of the CPE as a basis for evaluating perfor-
mance management system effectiveness. In additionto the national award program for manufacturing, ser-
vice, and small business, which has been in existence
since 1988 (nonprofit, education, and health care sec-
tors were added in 1999), many state and local quality
award programs based on the CPE have been initiated.
NIST (1998) reported that Baldrige Award-based state
quality award programs increased from 6 in 1991 to 43
in 1997. Many of these programs also allow nonprofit
-
8/3/2019 Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning
2/17
10 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 3/ 2001, ASQ
Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning: The Need for Change Management
service organizations and government agencies to
apply. The CPE have spread internationally as well, as
some 25 countries have developed Baldrige Award-
based award programs (Nabitz, Quaglia, and Wangen
1999).As the CPE becomes the basis for more formal
award programs, applicants are motivated to conduct
internal assessments to prepare for the formal evalua-
tion process (Meyers and Heller 1995; Blazey 1998).
Regardless of whether firms enter the formal award
process, increased diffusion of the criteria exposes more
managers to the framework, which, in turn, encour-
ages increased use of the CPE for organizational evalu-
ation or assessment (Herrington 1994).
Few formal studies have investigated the conse-
quences of Baldrige Award-based self-assessment. In aninvestigation of a self-assessment that included organi-
zations using criteria other than the CPE, Van der Weile
et al. (2000) found that self-assessment generally led to
better agreement on the organizations strengths and
improvement opportunities and better planning.
Organizations that practiced self-assessment also
appeared to realize better improvements in market
share and profitability than organizations that did not
practice self-assessment.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that Baldrige Award-
based self-assessment frequently leads to organization-al changestemming from managerial actions to
improve management processes and practices based on
assessment findings (Meyers and Heller 1995; Markels
1999; Prybutok and Spink 1999). In the criteria, such
process change is supported by the core value of
organizational learning. Organizational learning
refers to continuous improvement of existing
approaches and processes and adaptation to change,
leading to new goals and/or approaches (NIST 2000,
2), and is described as a four-stage learning cycle
that includes planning, execution of plans, assessmentof progress, and revision of plans (NIST 2000, 7).
Indeed, the CPE scoring guidelines clearly seek evi-
dence of systematic evaluation and improvement
and organizational learning/sharing as key man-
agement tools for strengthening the effectiveness of
these processes (NIST 2000, 45). Although the frame-
work encourages process change, the criteria, however,
do not explicitly address how an organization manages
such change. The authors premise is that managing
the process change resulting from self-assessment
should be viewed as a critical leadership process in the
criteria.As Baldrige Award-based self-assessments represent
a catalyst for change, organizations need a clearly
defined approach for effecting change to its key man-
agement processes that result from self-assessments. In
this article, the link between the CPE and change man-
agement is described. It is suggested that an effective
process change management model can be derived
from the framework of the criteria for performance
excellence. Using concepts from the literatures on
organizational change, assessment, and learning, a
model for managing change in the context of the crite-ria is generated. The implications of this work, includ-
ing how the CPE might be expanded to incorporate
process change management as an explicit area to
address are also discussed.
STRATEGIC CHANGE VERSUSPROCESS CHANGEIt is important to differentiate between organizational
changes resulting from strategy development and imple-mentation (that is, strategic change), and organiza-
tional changes resulting from self-assessment (that is,
process change). The theoretical aspects of strategic
change are well captured by the CPE (Ford and Evans
2000). Indeed, a key objective of the CPE is to provide a
framework for performance management excellence
based on the development and implementation of strate-
gy (NIST 2000, 6). Strategic change stems from strategic
objectives, which the CPE defines as follows :
An organizations major change (authors
emphasis) opportunities and/or the fundamentalchallenges the organization faces. Strategic objec-
tives are generally externally focused, relating to
significant customer, market, product/service, or
technological opportunities and challenges.
Broadly stated, they are what an organization
must change (authors emphasis) or improve to
remain or become competitive. Strategic objec-
-
8/3/2019 Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning
3/17
Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning: The Need for Change Management
tives set an organizations longer-term directions
and guide resource allocations and redistribu-
tions. (NIST 2000, 29)
Strategy might be built around or lead to any or
all of the following: new products, services, andmarkets; revenue growth; cost reduction; busi-
ness acquisitions; and new partnerships and
alliances. Strategy might be directed toward
becoming a preferred supplier, a low-cost produc-
er, a market innovator, and/or a high-end or
customized service provider. (NIST 2000, 12)
This empirical view aligns closely with the theoreticalnotion of strategic change (for example, Ansoff 1965,
Andrews 1971, Hofer and Schendel 1978, Nadler andTushman 1989). Strategic change is broad in scope, is
driven by environmental forces, and is tied closely tothe organizations ability to achieve its goals.
In contrast, change resulting from self-assessmentactivities might be viewed as more of an operationalexercise. These changes result from an examination oforganizational processes and aim at changing organi-zational infrastructures the organizations
processes for achieving results. Evans (1997) noted thatthe CPE requirements addressed a number of infra-structural processes; he identified more than 40 man-agerial processes in the 1996 version of the Baldrige
Award criteria. These managerial processes are oftenthe focus of self-assessment activities.
Empirical evidence supports the notion that
Baldrige Award-based assessments result in process
change. Solectrons first feedback report in 1989 sug-
gested a lack of customer focus and long-range plan-
ning. The company subsequently initiated a customer
executive survey to identify long-term technology and
production needs and established ahoshin kanri
strategic planning process (Markels 1999). When aBaldrige Award-based self-assessment of a health care
organization revealed weaknesses in the organizations
ability to collect and analyze information, manage-
ment subsequently approved a $50 million information
system upgrade (Prybutok and Spink 1999). Self-
assessment findings at an AT&T division suggested that
many employees did not recall the divisions strategic
vision, which prompted managers to increase meetings
and interactions with employees to improve communi-
cation (Meyers and Heller 1995). One of the 1999
Baldrige Award winners, BI, a consulting firm inMinneapolis, did not receive the award until its tenth
tryclear evidence of continual process change in the
face of evolving criteria.
Although change to a business process tends to have
lasting effects, the change tends to be narrow in scope.
Unlike strategic change, which motivates organization-
wide changes in behavior, process change is often con-
fined to a particular unit, division, or function of the
organization. For example, changing an organizations
process for measuring customer satisfaction usually
requires substantive adjustment to a limited number of functional areas, such as marketing or information
systems. Nadler and Tushman (1989) labeled such
change as tuningincremental change of narrow
scope to increase organizational efficiency, but usually
www.asq.org 11
Table 1 Strategic versus process change.
Strategic change Process change
Theme of change Shift in organizational direction Adjustment of organizational processes
Driv ing fo rce Usual ly env ironmen ta l fo rcesm arket, Usual ly in ternal"How can we bett errival, technological change align our processes?"
Typical antecedent Strategic planning process Self-assessment of management system
How much of the Typically widespread Often narrow divisional or functionalorganization changes?
Examples Entering new markets Improving information systemsSeeking low cost position Establishing hiring guidelinesMergers & acquisitions Developing customer satisfaction measures
2001,ASQ
-
8/3/2019 Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning
4/17
12 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 3/ 2001, ASQ
Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning: The Need for Change Management
not in response to an immediate problem. In Table 1,
the characteristics of strategic change are separated
from those of process change.
The processes for developing and implementing
strategic change have been addressed by scholars instrategic management. Recently, Ford and Evans
(2000) demonstrated that the criterias processes for
managing strategic change, centered on the CPEs
strategic planning framework, aligned considerably
with scholarly theory. However, the link between the
notion of process change and theory is not as direct.
The characteristics of process change just noted resem-
ble the change construct often addressed by organiza-
tional scholars, particularly those researchers who have
defined the organizational development (OD) literature
(see, for example, Bennis, Benne, and Chin 1962;Leavitt 1965, 11441170; Beckhard and Harris 1977;
Beer 1980; Dyer 1981; Harrison 1989; McLennan 1989).
Consider the following definition by Beer (1980, 10).
Organizational development is a system-wide
process of data collection, diagnosis, action plan-
ning, intervention, and evaluation aimed at: (1)
enhancing congruence between organization
structure process, strategy, people, and culture;
(2) developing new and creative organizational
solutions; and (3) developing the organizationsself-renewing capacity.
Although the notion of change in the OD context
displays some of the general character of strategic
change (for example, change determination followed
by change implementation), there are some important
differences as well. First, unlike the notion of strategic
change, change in the OD context tends to be driven by
internal motivation to improve the existing relation-
ship between various organizational elements (revisit
Beers definition above). Usually, there is little analysis
of the organization inside the larger market and com-petitive environment. Consequently, the view of organi-
zational change in the OD context usually assumes a
narrow perspective (Lundberg 1989, 6182; Woodman
1989). Second, consistent with the clinical groundings
of OD in behavioral and organizational psychology,
change in the OD context usually follows a diagnosis
of the current, usually dysfunctional, organizational
situation (for example, Levinson 1972). The data gen-
erated from diagnosis provide better understanding of
the organizational system by its members (Alderfer
1976). Finally, once the pathology has been diagnosed,
then a change is determined and implemented throughwhat is commonly termed an intervention (for
example, Kotter 1978). The intervention changes orga-
nizational work and behavior in a way that the organi-
zation is better able to achieve its objectives.Effective organizational diagnosis and intervention
promotes a state of congruence (Nadler and Tushman1980) between organizational objectives and the struc-tural variables for achieving those objectives. Consider,
for example, an organization that is pursuing an exter-nal market focus. An organizational diagnosis might
reveal that particular aspects of the organizationsstructure do not support a market-focused orientation.For example, supervisors might be practicing com-mand-and-control behavior that inhibits individuals
from making fast, customer-oriented decisions. Thereward system might encourage cost reduction ratherthan customer satisfaction. Service representatives maynot know how to effectively interact with customers
when a problem arises. Effective intervention wouldeliminate these dysfunctions, and promote better con-gruence between the organization and its objectives.
In this context, it is possible to view Baldrige Award-based self-assessment as a process for achieving effec-tive organizational diagnosis and intervention. Indeed,self-assessment appears to contribute to what has beenlabeled in the OD literature as implementation theo-ry (Bennis 1966; Argyris 1970; Porras and Robertson1987, 157). Implementation theory focuses on specif-ic intervention activities necessary to carry out achange initiative.
The CPE can be viewed as supporting processes tomanage both strategic change and process change. The
processes for managing strategic change in the CPEhave been well defined historically and align consider-ably with scholarly work (Ford and Evans 2000). A
framework for managing process change is also presentin the criteria, although it is less obvious. It can bearticulated by coupling elements of the CPE to theoreti-cal notions from organizational research. In the fol-lowing sections a CPE-based framework for managing
process change is developed.
-
8/3/2019 Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning
5/17
Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning: The Need for Change Management
THE CPE AND CHANGEMANAGEMENT STRUCTUREThe CPE are built upon a set of 11 core values and con-
cepts (Table 2). The core values serve as the foundationfor substantive requirements of the criteria (NIST 2000,
2). Evans and Ford (1997) found evidence to support
this claim. Using an earlier version of the CPE, the
researchers found that the criterias substantive content
significantly reflected the core values and concepts. The
core value of managing for innovation, introduced in
the 2000 criteria, suggests a strong change management
orientation. In the Baldrige Award context, innovation
relates to making meaningful change to improve an
organizations products, services, and processes.
Organizations should be structured in such a way
that innovation becomes part of the culture and daily
work. (NIST 2000, 4) The criteria also note that,
although many people associate the notion of innova-
tion to technology, [innovation] is applicable to all key
organizational processes that would benefit from break-
through improvement and/or change. (NIST 2000, 4)
This core value supports the practice of Baldrige Award-
based self-assessment, since self-assessments frequently
drive improvement of key managerial processes that
affect organizational performance. As noted, this type of
change is labeled as process change.
How do the substantive requirements of the CPE
encourage or specify process change? The criteria are
focused primarily on strategic change. Since their
inception, the CPE have gradually evolved from a tacti-
cal focus on quality improvement toward a focus on
the development and implementation of strategic
change that provides centrality to the CPE framework
(Ford and Evans 2000). Although process changes may
be realized in the CPE model via the deployment
of action plans, strategic change processes seem
inappropriate for managing the development andimplementation of most process changes. Process
changes are narrow in scope (Table 1); they lack the
broad, organizationwide imperative that befits change
to be installed via the CPEs strategic planning process.
Nevertheless, process changes are important to an
organizations future growth and effectiveness. A different CPE requirement provides structure for
managing process change. The requirement, termedorganizational performance review, appears underthe leadership category of the criteria. The intent of the
organizational performance review isTo cover all areas of performance, thereby pro-
viding a picture of the state of health of your
organization. This includes not only how well
you are currently performing, but also how well
you are moving towards the future. It is antici-
pated that the review findings will provide a reli-
able means to guide both improvement and
change. (NIST 2000, 30)
According to the CPE, the organizations senior
leadership is expected to conduct the performance
review. Leadership involvement in organizational
processes has been a historical theme of the CPE, and it
reflects a long-standing core value of the framework
(Table 2). The substantive questions that organizations
must answer in response to this item appear in Table 3.
A distinguishing feature of the organizational per-
formance review is its big picture perspective. Rather
www.asq.org 13
Table 2 Core values and concepts of the Baldrige Award criteria.
Visionary leadership Customer driven
Organizational and personal learning Valuing employees and partners
Agility Focus on the future
Managing for innovation Management by fact
Public responsibility and citizenship Focus on results and creating value
Systems perspective 2001,ASQ
-
8/3/2019 Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning
6/17
14 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 3/ 2001, ASQ
Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning: The Need for Change Management
than focusing on the status of a particular strategic ini-
tiative, the organizational review encourages managers
to step back from operations and assess the overall stateof the organization and its future viability. The broad
perspective of the organizational review sets it apart
from the conventional diagnostic managerial control
systems (Anthony 1965; Merchant 1985) that con-
tribute to the effective achievement of strategic change.
The organizational performance review item pro-
vides an outlet for using the findings of Baldrige Award-
based self-assessments to initiate change. Self-assess-
ments generate process-oriented feedback that enables
managers to obtain a snapshot of how well organiza-
tional processes are functioning and of where processimprovements can be made. Such feedback should be
valuable in the conduct of the organizational perfor-
mance review, since the intent of the organizational
review is to provide a reliable guide for both improve-
ment and change (NIST 2000, 30).
The CPE specify that the data used in the organiza-
tional performance review stem from information that
comprise the business results category of the criteria
(NIST 2000, 10). Business results encompass a number
of areas, including those related to customers, financial
performance, human resources, supplier/partners, andother operational results indicative of organizational
effectiveness (NIST 2000, 2426). Since interventions
stemming from Baldrige Award-based self-assessments
are focused on improving management processes, it is
likely that the business results category related to organi-
zational effectiveness would be highly reflective of self-
assessment activity. Organizational effectiveness results
are intended to capture measures or indicators of pro-
duction and support processes, as well as progress toward
accomplishing key organizational performance goals(NIST 2000, 26). Organizational effectiveness results
would likely include key measures of accomplishing the
process change resulting from self-assessment.
The information and analysis category provides the
conduit for connecting business results with the orga-
nizational performance review. The information and
analysis category examines the organizations perfor-
mance measurement system and how the organization
utilizes performance data and information (NIST 2000,
16). Analysis provides a basis for effective decisions and
helps managers prioritize and select opportunities forimprovement, as well as to monitor the effectiveness of
change strategic objectives (NIST 2000, 27). The crite-
ria require the provision of information and analysis to
support the senior executives performance review, par-
ticularly the effectiveness of the analysis to address the
overall health of the organization (NIST 2000, 17).
Baldrige Award-based self-assessments can be viewed as
the analytical tool that generates the process-based
findings that are used in the conduct of the organiza-
tional performance review.
To summarize, the CPE, through the organizationalperformance review, information and analysis, and
business results items, provide a general framework for
managing process change. The criteria, however, lack a
specific approach for managing diagnostic activity and
ensuring the successful implementation of interven-
tions. These researchers suggest that Baldrige Award-
based self-assessments provide a substantive, diagnostic
Table 3 Questions that compose the CPE Organizational Performance Review item (NIST 2000, 10).
How do senior leaders review organizational performance and capabilities to assess organizational health, competitiveperformance, and progress relative to performance goals and changing organizational needs? Include the key performancemeasures regularly reviewed by your senior leaders.
How do you translate organizational performance review findings into priorities for improvement and opportunities forinnovation?
What are your recent performance review findings, priorities for improvement, and opportunities for innovation? How arethey deployed throughout your organization and, as appropriate, to your suppliers/partners and key customers to ensureorganizational alignment?
How do senior leaders use organizational performance review findings and employee feedback to improve their leadershipeffectiveness and the effectiveness of management throughout the organization?
2001,ASQ
-
8/3/2019 Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning
7/17
Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning: The Need for Change Management
component for the organizational performance review.
Self-assessments generate findings for senior managers
to conduct the organizational review. Before specifying
a Baldrige Award-based model for managing process
change, some theoretical perspective to lend some con-tent validity to the prospective model is sought.
INSIGHTS FROM THELITERATUREThree literature streams provide useful theoretical
insight upon which a model based on self-assessment
and the CPE can be based. These literatures relate to
organizational assessment, organizational learning,
and organizational change.
Organizational AssessmentIn the organizational context, assessment refers to the
process of measuring the effectiveness of an organiza-
tion from the behavioral or social-system perspective
(Lawler, Nadler, and Cammann 1980, 9). A distinguish-
ing feature of organizational assessments is a holistic
perspective. True to the tenets of systems theory
(Forrester 1958; Churchman 1968; Ackoff and Emery
1974) and to the widely noted linkage between the
organization and its environment (Lawrence andLorsch 1967), the unit of analysis is the organizational
system and its relationship to performance, rather than
myopic focus on the systems individual moving parts.
An important factor in organizational assessments
is the model (or models) upon which the evaluation is
based. Models help answer an important question:
What gets assessed? Hausser (1980, 132161) noted
that all organizational assessments employ models,
regardless of whether the model is explicit or not.
Models used in organizational assessments are primar-
ily models of organizational behavior and functioning(Nadler 1980, 119 131). An assessment model
includes constructs that reflect aspects of organization-
al behavior, and at least one construct that reflects an
outcome or effectiveness measure.
Many aspects of organizations can be assessed.
Examples include culture (Schein 1985; Kilmann
1985, 351369; Kotter and Heskett 1992), work and
group behavior (Hackman and Oldham 1975;
Hackman 1987, 315342; Ancona 1990), and politics
(Pfeffer 1981; Enz 1989). Each organizational aspect,
of course, may require a different model.
In the context of this work, the authors are primari-ly interested in models used in the assessment of overall
organizational effectiveness. Drawing from the intent
of organizational performance review item defined in
the criteria, the managerial questions may be several,
including the following:
How healthy are we as an organization?
Are our organizational processes capable of
achieving long-term objectives?
How can we improve the structure of our
organization? An effective model that assesses organizational
effectiveness helps answer such questions. Scholars
have developed a variety of organizational effectiveness
models. (See Cameron and Whetten 1983 for some
frameworks.) The variation among these models is
considerable; the models content depends mainly on
the developers perspective of just what constitutes
organizational effectiveness (Cameron 1986).
Consider, for example, the number of possible ways that
organizational effectiveness can be measured. Dozensof organizational effectiveness indicators have been
observed or proposed. (See Goodman and Pennings
1977 for a review.)
Consistent with Nadlers (1980, 119131) general
depiction of an assessment model, the CPE framework
reflects a model of organizational functioning. The
criteria contain several constructs that reflect processes
of organizational behavior (leadership, strategic plan-
ning, customer and market focus, information and
analysis, human resource focus, and process focus),
and a construct that reflects the output of those process-es (business results). Although the CPE framework has
been empirically derived from the collective wisdom of
practitioners, it resembles some of the organizational
effectiveness frameworks found in the literature. For
example, Day and Wensley (1988) proposed an organi-
zational effectiveness model based on concepts of
customer focus and sustainable competitive advantage
www.asq.org 15
-
8/3/2019 Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning
8/17
16 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 3/ 2001, ASQ
Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning: The Need for Change Management
that closely parallels the CPE model. Thus, the CPE
framework can be viewed as an empirically derived
model for assessing organizational effectiveness.
Organizational LearningSelf-assessment encourages organizational learning. In
its basic form, organizational learning can be viewed
as the organizations detection and correction of error,
where error is a mismatch between the organizations
intentions and what really happened (Argyris 1989, 5).
Learning that results in improved organizational per-
formance usually derives from experience or action
(Fiol and Lyles 1985; Huber 1991; Nevis, DiBella, and
Gould 1995, 73). In this sense, organizations learn by
doing. Although recent work appears to have elevatedthe status of the learning organization (Senge
1990), many believe that all organizations engage in
collective learning as work progresses (Child and Kieser
1981, 2864; Schein 1993).
A fundamental concept in the literature is the dis-
tinction between single- and double-loop levels of
learning (Argyris and Schon 1978). Single-loop learn-
ing is the most common level of learning, and encom-
passes the organizations ability to perceive deviations
from perceived performance and fix them. Single-
loop learning occurs, for example, when managersdetect that a problem in implementing a specific strate-
gic initiative and then take action to correct the devia-
tion. Most diagnostic management control systems
(Anthony 1965; Lorange and Scott Morton 1974; Otley
and Berry 1980; Merchant 1985; Simons 1995) exhibit
single-loop learning characteristics.
Double-loop learning is more sophisticated, since
the organization must review the underlying assump-
tions that created the problem to be fixed in the first
place, and adapt a better set of assumptions to support
future performance. Extending the earlier example, inaddition to correcting the immediate deficit from plan,
managers might also step back and question their
assumptions and policies that led them to believe that
the strategic initiative was effective and could be imple-
mented. Such questioning might cause them to revise
some key organizational processes, such as leadership
processes or processes for understanding market behav-
ior, so that future strategic initiatives will be more effec-
tively implemented. Diagnosis of assumptions and
processes, and subsequent improvements, characterize
double-loop learning.
Organizational learning is enhanced when peoplegather for dialogue, which is defined as a sustained
collective inquiry into the processes, assumptions, and
certainties that compose everyday experience (Isaacs
1993). An important consequence of effective organiza-
tional dialogue is the reduction of defensive routines
(Argyris 1985). A defensive routine is a policy, practice,
or action that prevents people involved in a group
activity from being embarrassed or threatened, and, at
the same time, prevents people from learning how to
reduce the causes of embarrassment or threat.
Defensive routines can adversely impact the organi-zations ability to implement large-scale strategic
change (Janis 1989). Argyris (1989) reported the results
of an experiment where executives learned to overcome
defensive routines by engaging in dialogue that forced
the managers to articulate their underlying assump-
tions and reservations about particular strategic
decisions to be implemented in their organizations.
After the experiment, most managers reported that their
strategies were being implemented more effectively.
The organizational performance review item in the
CPE encourages double-loop learning. The organiza-tional performance review requires managers to assess
the organization from a holistic perspective, where the
focus is on the evaluation of processes that produce
results. The review process encourages dialogue about
the current assumptions behind current structural
decisions. Consequently, defensive routines that hinder
good decision making are better understood and likely
reduced.
Note that Baldrige Award-based self-assessments
enhance the double-loop learning process, since the
CPE framework provides specific guidance on problem-
atic processes that require improvement.
Organizational ChangeHow does self-assessment and organizational learning
translate into organizational change? The linkage
between self-assessment and organizational change is
-
8/3/2019 Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning
9/17
Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning: The Need for Change Management
not well understood (Ford 2000); however, some gener-
al concepts of change developed in the organizational
literature can be drawn.
Change has been commonly portrayed as moving
through three phases. Lewin (1958) called these phas-es: unfreezing, movement, and refreezing. Beckhard
and Harris (1977) proposed a conceptually similar
model, referring to three organizational states: the
current state, the transition state, and the future state.
A large portion of change management research
can be placed in the initial phase. In the organization-
al literature, much has been written about diagnosing
the current state of the organization and determining
the appropriate change based on the diagnosis
(Levinson 1972; Alderfer 1976; Beckhard and Harris
1977; Harrison and Shirom 1999). Considerably less isknown about the other two phases of change, which
deal primarily with implementation.
Scholars have developed a wealth of frameworks to
model the organizational change process. Some of the
more prominent organizational models used in the
context of change management include the following:
Weisbords (1976) six box model; Nadler and
Tushmans (1980) congruence model; the McKinsey
seven-Smodel (Peters and Waterman 1982); Tichys
(1983) change framework and TPC (technical, politi-
cal, cultural) matrix; and the Burke-Litwin model(Burke and Litwin 1992).
Few change models have been rigorously validated
(Nadler 1980, 119131). Rather, the validity of most
change models has been tested less formally, usually
through consultant-based applications with clients and
through comparison to empirical observation (for
example, Weisbord 1976; Tushman and OReilly 1997;
Burke and Litwin 1992; Kotter 1995). The plethora of
change models in use suggests that there are many
viewpoints of how organizational change is achieved.
The success by which a number of these models havebeen employed by scholars and consultants in empiri-
cal situations suggests that a number of these view-
points are valid.
One commonality among these change models is a
teleological perspective of organizational change. Van
de Ven and Poole (1995) suggested the teleological
perspective as one of four categories of change process
theory. Teleological change theory posits that organiza-
tions change through an iterative process of goal
setting, implementation, evaluation, and revision. The
unit of analysis is the individual organization. Unlike
other theories of change that suggest the environmentas the dominant change force (Alchian 1950; Hannan
and Freeman 1977; Aldrich 1979), teleology represents
change as a deliberate undertaking by individuals
affiliated with the organization.
The CPE framework contains components of teleo-
logical change theory. Most visibly, these components
are reflected in the CPEs overall orientation as a
framework for developing and implementing strategic
objectives. (See Ford and Evans 2000 for an overview.)
Using the teleological perspective, the management of
large-scale strategic change can be viewed as a two-stepmodel of moving from strategy development to strategy
implementation. The more narrow process change can
be viewed in a similar fashion. In the OD paradigm, an
organizational change is determined through diagno-
sis, and then implemented via an intervention.
At a fundamental level, managing change requires
two basic categories of structured activities: one set
related to determining the change, and one set for
implementing the change. Depending on the type of
change, for example, a strategic change versus a
process change (Table 1), the structure that reflects thetwo general constructs likely differs. Precisely how the
constructs would differ depending on the scope of the
change is an opportunity for future research.
Self-assessment can contribute to both the change
determination and change implementation categories
of change process. Regarding change determination,
self-assessment provides information that leads to
effective diagnosis of organizational problems. If the
self-assessment is done using the Baldrige Award crite-
ria, the information largely points to key managerial
processes that can be improved via process change. Theappropriate changes, or interventions, can then be
determined.
Regarding change implementation, self-assessment
can be viewed as enhancing managerial control (Ford
2000). One problem that hinders the effectiveness of
diagnostic managerial control systems is that many
processes requiring control are difficult to measure or
www.asq.org 17
-
8/3/2019 Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning
10/17
18 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 3/ 2001, ASQ
Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning: The Need for Change Management
quantify (Simons 1995). Monitoring and controlling a
change in culture, for example, has been notoriously
difficult, due in part to the lack of objectiveparticu-
larly quantitativedata that can be generated about
the changes status. Self-assessment provides objectiveinformation on the status of current process interven-
tions, perhaps initiated from a previous assessment
cycle, which may be difficult to capture using other
means. For example, routine Baldrige Award-based
assessments can update managers on the status of an
initiative to implement remedial training programs for
service personal, or to realign the reward system with
the organizations new strategy. If the assessment find-
ings suggest that the implementation is not effectively
proceeding, then managers can follow up. Effectively
following up on useful information allows managers tokeep things on track, which is the hallmark of diag-
nostic managerial control systems (Merchant 1985;
Simons 1995).Self-assessment findings might also lead to longer-
term improvement in change implementation by pro-
viding managers with insight on the effectiveness of theorganizations change process itself. For example, a
Baldrige Award-based self-assessment might reveal that
the various functional areas, such as production,research and development, and customer service, have
varied views on the objectives of the organization andthe importance of the current strategic thrust. Such
feedback might encourage managers to deeply exam-ine the organizations general processes for communi-
cating change initiatives; substantive changes made to
the general communication process will affect theimplementation of not only the current change initia-
tive, but future initiatives as well.
A CRITERIA-BASED CHANGE
MANAGEMENT STRUCTUREIt has been suggested that the CPE framework specifiesboth strategic change (well defined) and process
change (weakly defined) in its substantive require-
ments. The two fundamental constructs of change
development and change implementation allow elabo-
ration on the relationships between strategic change
and process in the context of the criteria.
In Table 4, key points from the literature are high-
lighted and connected to relevant elements of the CPE.
The CPE requirements linked to strategic planning
describe a model for creating, deploying, and monitor-
ing strategic change in organizations, as shown inFigure 1. Organizational performance review provides
the initial direction and catalyst; strategic planning
and deployment provides the process for deployment;
and measurement and analysis of performance the
means of monitoring and control. Organization perfor-
mance review is linked to both strategic planning and
deployment since findings from the performance
review can be applied to change the trajectory of strate-
gy implementation as well as toward revision to strate-
gic plans. The strategic planning category represents
the core process for developing and implementing alarge-scale strategic initiative in the organization. For
example, the strategic planning category and its link-
ages to other CPE categories provide the structure for
installing a particular change. This structure facilitates
single-loop learning, since change implementation
structure provides for the detection of a deficit from
plan and its subsequent correction.
Although the organizational performance review
item provides a useful element to the single-loop,
change-specific strategic change process portrayed in
Figure 1, the real value of this item may be in its poten-tial to provide a big picture assessment of the perfor-
mance management system as a whole and its ongoing
capability to achieve results. In effect, it requires man-
agers to evaluate how do we change in general? Such
inquiry facilitates the determination of whether the
organization has the processes in place to sufficiently
adapt to current and, perhaps, future environmental
demands.
Figure 2 presents a conceptual model of a process
change management structure, using items derived
from an analogy with Figure 1. This model refines thelearning cycle concept in the criteria, links it more
clearly to areas to address (item 1.1b,) and provides a
construct suitable for further study and empirical
research. Specifically, organizational performance
results, particularly those related to organizational
effectiveness, are used by senior managers in a self-
assessment mode. The self-assessment is a big pic-
-
8/3/2019 Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning
11/17
Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning: The Need for Change Management
ture evaluation of how the organization, through itsmanagement processes, is achieving its long-term
objectives. Managers learn about any assumptions and
design flaws in current processes that are impeding the
organization from achieving success. For the organiza-
tion to better adapt in the future, the fundamental
processes that derive and implement change must be
adjusted.
The answers obtained from self-assessment can
facilitate double-loop learning. Managers engage in
dialogue as part of the organizational review to under-
stand fundamental organizational processes and theimpediments to achieving long-term results. Changes
to these processes, such as improved leadership activi-
ties, better customer listening posts, or a more efficient
value chain, reflect a revised managerial perspective
a change in the assumptions and policies that under-
pin the design of processes that produce results.
The models in Figures 1 and 2 are linked by the
relationship between the organizational performancereview item and the need for diagnostic self-assess-
ment. Findings from the organizational performance
review may provide insight on the organizations ability
to manage change, which might help the diagnostic
self-assessment effort. Self-assessment provides infor-
mation on the status of change initiatives and the
effectiveness of the organizations change process in
general. This information may be useful for effective
strategic management. This change management
information could be made available to the strategic
management process if self-assessment findings werereviewed as part of the organizational performance
review. Information exchange between the organiza-
tional performance review item and diagnostic self-
assessment of change process helps connect processes
for managing strategic change with those for manag-
ing process change.
Such a framework offers some advantages over
www.asq.org 19
Table 4 Key literature concepts and relationship to CPE change management structure.
Key literature concept Relationship to CPE as change management structure
Large-scale change as a process of change determination CPE Strategic Planning category as core process for developing
and change implementation. and implementing strategic change.
Single loop learning occurs when a deviation from expected The Strategic Planning category, and its linkages to other CPEperformance is detected and corrected. categories, provides structure for the monitoring and control of a
particular strategic initiatives implementation.
Assessment as the process of measuring the effectiveness Organizational Performance Review item requires managers toof an organization from the behavioral or social system assess organizational performance relative to goals and changingperspective. needs.
Data from the Information and Analysis category provideanalytical content for the Organizational PerformanceReview item.
A model used for assessing the organizations ability to The CPE include six categories (Leadership, Strategic Planning,achieve change should contain variables that reflect change- Customer & Market Focus, Information & Analysis,
related activity and at least one variable that reflects change Human Resource Focus, Process Management) that reflectachievement. processes used to achieve strategic results, and one
category (Business Results) that reflects the output of the processes.
Double-loop organizational learning occurs when managers The Organizational Performance Review item requiresquestion the underlying assumptions and processes that cause managers to assess the general health of the organizationproblems, and subsequently adjust these underlying processes. in relation to its objectives, and to take process-centered
action to ensure organizational alignment.
A key mechanism for organizational learning is dialogue, In the Organizational Performance Review, managers engagewhich tends to encourage the reduction of defensive routines in a "big picture" inquiry of whether the current processesthat impede strategic change. in place are achieving strategic organizational objectives.
2001,ASQ
-
8/3/2019 Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning
12/17
20 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 3/ 2001, ASQ
Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning: The Need for Change Management
4.1 Measurementof organizational
performance
Figure 1 Baldrige Award criteria-based model of strategic change.
2001,ASQ
4.2 Analysisof organizational
performance
1.1b Organizationalperformance
review
2.1 Strategydevelopment
2.2 Strategydeployment
7.0 Businessresults
Self-assessment:Diagnosis ofopportunities
(Fig. 2)
Externalforces
Measurement
of changeperformance
Figure 2 A model of self-assessment and change management.
2001,ASQ
Analysisof change
performance
Self-assessment:Diagnosis ofopportunities
Changedetermination
Changeimplementation
Changeresults
Organizationalperformancereview 1.1b
(Fig. 1)
Changeforces
-
8/3/2019 Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning
13/17
Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning: The Need for Change Management
other models of change. Unlike most of the abstract
models proposed in the literature, the constructs of the
CPE model have been detailed by the substantive CPE
requirements. Since the CPE represent the collective
wisdom of practitioners, the model garners consider-able face validity among managers. Specificity and face
validity are important characteristics of useful assess-
ment models (Nadler 1980, 119131).
A unique feature of a CPE-based change model is
that it considers change management at three levels of
analysis. The measurement and analysis of organiza-
tional performance provides a framework to assess pri-
orities for change in terms of their relevance and
impact to the organization. The substantive require-
ments for strategy development and deployment
encourage managers to evaluate activities during a
specific change. Such strategic controls help managers
to monitor the implementation of large-scale change,
to diagnose specific problems during installation, and
to effectively correct significant deviations between per-
formance and plan. The organizational performance
review prompts a higher-level assessmentmanagers
must evaluate the organizations overall ability to
achieve change. This big picture evaluation is con-
sistent with the classic perspective of organizational
assessment (Lawler, Nadler, and Cammann 1980).
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CPEAND RESEARCHIn this investigation, the link between the Baldrige
Award criteria and organizational structure for manag-
ing change was explored. It was concluded that the
CPE encourages managers to engage in a self-assess-
ment of the organizations ability to change and adapt.
Self-assessment encourages organizational learning,particularly learning of the double-loop variety, that
results in the adjustment of the processes used by the
firm to develop and implement strategic change.
Indeed, self-assessment contributes to Adlers (1999)
notion of enabling bureaucracy, since self-assess-
ment provides structure that supports and improves
organizational processes.
While organizational learning is a key core value
and its importance is clearly reflected in the criteria
scoring guidelines, the criteria do little to explicitly
require an effective approach and deployment. Change
management capabilities embedded in the Baldrige Award criteria should be made more explicit at the
process-change level. Although the organizational per-
formance review item prompts managerial assessment
of overall performance, the language of the item could
be oriented more toward evaluating the organizations
ability to change. The question How are [performance
review findings] deployed throughout your organiza-
tion, and, as appropriate, to your suppliers/partners
and key customers to ensure organizational align-
ment? (NIST 2000, 10) does not clearly articulate the
importance of change management. To strengthen thecriteria in this respect, the authors suggest changing
the title of item 1.1b from Organizational
Performance Review to Organizational Performance
Review and Managing Change, and adding an
additional diagnostic question.
How do senior leaders effectively manage organiza-
tional change to promote organizational learning and
appropriate improvements to the organizations man-
agement infrastructure?
In the accompanying notes to the criteria item, the
authors also suggest a reference to self-assessment asone of the possible means for generating diagnostic
information that could contribute to developing effec-
tive change initiatives and for monitoring the imple-
mentation of those initiatives. These additions would
strengthen the CPEs application as a diagnostic self-
assessment tool, and provide clearer guidance to senior
leadership toward improvement efforts.
From a research standpoint, scholars have been
slow to embrace both the CPE and the phenomenon of
self-assessment. Van der Weile et al.s (2000) recent
investigation of self-assessment practices and perfor-mance constitutes a rare formal study of these two
areas. Their findings suggested that self-assessment
helps managers focus on process strengths and areas
for improvement, and that performance benefits may
accrue to organizations that practice self-assessment
routinely. But little is known about how self-assessment
actually focuses managements attention or how subse-
www.asq.org 21
-
8/3/2019 Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning
14/17
22 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 3/ 2001, ASQ
Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning: The Need for Change Management
quent improvements occur. Lathams (1997) findings
suggested that characteristics of the feedback report to
the client organization are an important factor in the
effectiveness of a Baldrige Award-based self-assessment.
Ford (2000) proposed that the defining element of theself-assessment process is the venue, usually a meeting,
where managers gather to analyze and discuss self-
assessment findings. Such a meeting might encourage
information sharing, consensus building, and organi-
zational learningperhaps by reducing defensive
routines (Argyris 1985) that impede effective execution
of planned change. Since there are many organization-
al variations on how Baldrige Award-based self-assess-
ments are conducted (for example, some with feedback
reports/some without, some with review meetings/some
without), it should be possible to conduct some com-parative studies to better pin down the salient variables
of self-assessment process.
Early research and anecdotal evidence suggests that
Baldrige Award-based self-assessment findings can be
applied toward improving managerial processes,
toward planning of future change initiatives, or per-
haps even toward correcting the trajectory of change
initiatives in progress. These plausible outcomes of self-
assessment require elaboration and verification. Case
studies that identify outcomes of self-assessment events
and that follow the outcomes through the organization
would be useful in shedding light onto the mechanism
of self-assessment process and how outcomes of the
process feed into other organizational processes for
managing change.
Finally, conditions under which self-assessment
might be practiced should be investigated. Van der Weile
et al.s (2000) findings suggest, for instance, that small-
er organizations may not practice self-assessment to the
degree that larger organizations do. Ford (2000) sug-
gested other possible antecedents, such as the perceived value of the assessment model, factors present in the
organization that promote learning, and management
involvement. Research that studies the salient properties
of the self-assessment process, its downstream conse-
quences, and the conditions that encourage the practice
of self-assessment should put scholars and managers on
a path toward better theory and practice.
Postscript While this paper was being prepared, the Baldrige
Award criteria were undergoing their annual revision.
Coincidently, the following question was added to thenew Organizational Profile (formerly called the
Business Overview) in the 2001 Criteria.
How do you maintain an organizational focus
on performance improvement? Include your
approach to systematic evaluation and improve-
ment of key processes and to fostering organiza-
tional learning and knowledge sharing.
This question is intended to help the applicant and
examiners set a context for an applicants approach to
performance improvement, since it is an assessment
dimension used in the scoring system to evaluate the
maturity of organizational approaches and deploy-
ment. However, it is not part of the actual criteria and
hence, is not directly included in the scoring or com-
ment evaluation as has been suggested.
REFERENCES
Ackoff, R. L., and F. Emery. 1974. On purposeful systems.Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Alchian, A. A. 1950. Uncertainty, evolution, and economic theo-ry.Journal of Political Economy58, no. 2:211221.
Adler, P. S. 1999. Building better bureaucracies. Academy ofManagement Executive13, no. 4:36 47.
Alderfer, C. P. 1976. Boundary relations and organizationaldiagnosis. In Humanizing organizational behavior, edited by L.Meltzer and F. Widkert. Springfield, Ill: Charles C. Thomas.
Aldr ich, H. E. 1979. Organizat ions and environments .Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Ancona, D. G. 1990. Outward bound: Strategies for team sur-vival in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 33, no.2:334365.
Andrews, K. 1971. The concept of corporate s trategy.Homewood, Ill.: Irwin.
Ansoff, H. I. 1965. Corporate strategy: An analytical approachto business policy for growth and expansion. New York: McGrawHill.
Anthony, R. N. 1965. Planning and control systems: A frame-work for analysis. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate Schoolof Business Administration, Harvard University.
-
8/3/2019 Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning
15/17
Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning: The Need for Change Management
Argyris, C. 1970. Intervention theory and method: A behavioralscience view. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
. 1985. Strategy, change, and defensive routines. Boston:Putnam.
. 1989. Strategy implementation: An experience in learn-ing. Organizational Dynamics 18, no. 2:515.
Argyris, C., and D. A. Schon. 1978. Organizational learning: Atheory of action perspective. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Beckhard, R., and R. Harris. 1977. Organizational transitions:Managing complex change. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Beer, M. 1980. Organization change and development: A sys-tems view. Santa Monica, Calif.: Goodyear Publishing Company.
Bennis, W. G. 1966. Changing organizations. New York:McGraw Hill.
Bennis, W. G., K. D. Benne, and R. Chin. 1962. The planning ofchange. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Blazey, M. L. 1998. Insights into organizational self-assessments.Quality Progress 31, no. 10:47 52.
Brereton, M. 1996. Introducing self-assessment One of the keysto business excellence. Management Services 40, no. 2:22 23.
Burke, W. W., and G. H. Litwin. 1992. A causal model of orga-nizational performance and change.Journal of Management18,no. 3:523 545.
Cameron, K. S. 1986. Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus andconf l ic t in concept ions of organizat ional e f fect iveness.Management Science32, no. 5:539 553.
Cameron, K. S. , and D. A. Whet ten, edi tors. 1983.Organizational effectiveness: A comparison of multiple models.
New York: Academic Press.
Caravatta, M. 1997. Conducting an organizational self-assess-ment using the 1997 Baldrige Award criteria. Quality Progress30, no. 10:87 91.
Child, J., and A. Kieser. 1981. Development of organizationsover time. In Handbook of organizational design, edited byN. C. Nystrom and W. H. Starbuck. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Churchman, C. W. 1968. The systems approach. New York:Delacorte Press.
Day, G. S., and R. Wensley. 1988. Assessing advantage: Aframework for diagnosing competitive superiority. Journal of
Marketing52, no. 2:1 20.Dyer, W. G. 1981. Selecting an intervention for organizationchange. Training and Development Journal35, no. 4:62 68.
Enz, C. 1989. The measurement of perceived intraorganizationalpower: A multi-respondent perspective. Organization Studies 10,no. 2:241 251.
Evans, J. R. 1997. Critical linkages in the Baldrige Award crite-ria: Research models and educational challenges. QualityManagement Journal5, no. 1:13 30.
Evans, J. R., and M. W. Ford. 1997. Value-driven quality.Quality Management Journal4, no. 4:19 31.
Finn, M., and L. J. Porter. 1994. TQM self-assessment in the UK.TQM Magazine6, no. 4:56 61.
Fiol, C. M., and M. A. Lyles. 1985. Organizational learning.Academy of Management Review10, no. 4:803 813.
Ford, M. W. 2000. A model of change process and its use inself-assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University ofCincinnati.
Ford, M. W., and J. R. Evans. 2000. Conceptual foundations ofstrategic planning in the Malcolm Baldrige Award criteria forPerformance Excellence. Quality Management Journal 7, no.1:826.
Forrester, J. W. 1958. Industrial dynamics: A major break-through for decision makers. Harvard Business Review 3, no.4:3766.
Fountain, M. 1998. The target assessment model as an interna-tional standard for self-assessment. Total Quality Management9,no. 4:S95 S99.
Goodman, P. S., and J. M. Pennings, editors. 1977. New per-spectives on organizational effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. R. 1987. The design of work teams. In Handbook oforganizational behavior, edited by J. Lorsch. Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Hackman, J. R., and G. R. Oldham. 1975. Development of thejob diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 60, no.2:159170.
Hannan, M. T., and J. Freeman. 1977. The population ecology oforganizat ions. Amer ican Journal of Sociology 82, no.5:929964.
Harrison, M. I. 1989. Diagnosis and planned organizationalchange.Journal of Management Consulting5, no. 4:34 42.
Harrison, M. I., and A. Shirom. 1999. Organizational diagnosisand assessment: Bridging theory and practice. Thousand Oaks,Calif.: Sage Publications.
Hausser, D. L. 1980. Comparison of different models for organi-zational analysis. In Organizational assessment: Perspectives onthe measurement of organizational behavior and the quality ofworking life, edited by E. E. Lawler III, D. A. Nadler, andC. Cammann. New York: Wiley.
Herrington, M. 1994. Why not a do-it-yourself Baldrige AwardAward?Across the Board31, no. 9:34 38.
Hofer, C., and D. Schendel. 1978. Strategy formulation: Analyticconcepts. St. Paul, Minn.: West.
Huber, G. P. 1991. Organizational learning: The contributingprocesses and the literatures. Organization Science 2, no.1:88115.
www.asq.org 23
-
8/3/2019 Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning
16/17
24 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 3/ 2001, ASQ
Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning: The Need for Change Management
Isaacs, W. N. 1993. Taking flight: dialogue, collective thinking,and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics 22, no.2:2439.
Janis, I. L. 1989. Crucial decisions. New York: The Free Press.
Jordan, D. W. 1994. Using the Baldrige Award criteria for self-assessment. Engineering Management Journal6, no. 2:16 19.
Kilmann, R. 1985. Five steps for closing culture gaps. In Gainingcontrol of corporate culture, edited by R. Kilmann, M. Saxton,R. Serpa & Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Knutton, P. 1994. A model approach to self-assessment. WorksManagement47, no. 12:12 16.
Kotter, J. P. 1978. Organization dynamics: Diagnosis and inter-vention. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
. 1995. Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail.Harvard Business Review73, no. 2:59 67.
Kotter, J. P., and J. L. Heskett. 1992. Corporate culture and per-formance. New York: The Free Press.
Latham, J. R. 1997. From strategy to results: Understanding,evaluating, and improving organizations through self-assessmentusing non-prescriptive criteria. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Walden University.
Lawler, E. E. III, D. A. Nadler, and C. Cammann, editors. 1980.Organizational assessment: Perspectives on the measurement oforganizational behavior and the quality of work life. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Lawrence, P. R., and J. W. Lorsch. 1967. Organization and envi-ronment. Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School ofBusiness Administration, Harvard University.
Leavitt, H. J. 1965. Applied organizational change in industry. InHandbook of organizations, edited by J. G. March. New York:Rand McNally.
Levinson, H. 1972. Organizational diagnosis. Cambridge,Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Lewin, K. 1958. Group decisions and social change. In Readingsin Social Psychology, edited by E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb,and E. L. Hartley. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Lorange, P., and M. S. Scott Morton. 1974. A framework formanagement control systems. Sloan Management Review16, no.1:4156.
Lundberg, C. C. 1989. On organizational learning: Implicationsand opportunities for expanding organizational development. InResearch in organizational change and development, vol. 3,edited by R. W. Woodman, and W. A. Pasmore. Greenwich,Conn.: JAI Press.
Markels, A. 1999. The wisdom of Chairman Ko. Fast CompanyMagazine(November): 259276.
McLennan, R. 1989. Managing organizat ional change.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Merchant, K. A. 1985. Control in business organizations .Marshfield, Mass.: Pitman.
Meyers, D. H. and J. Heller. 1995. The dual role of AT&Ts self-assessment process. Quality Progress 28, no. 1:79 83.
Nabitz, U., G. Quaglia, and P. Wangen. 1999. EFQMs newexcellence model. Quality Progress 32, no. 10:118120.
Nadler, D. A. 1980. Role of models in organizational assess-ment. In Organizational assessment: Perspectives on the mea-surement of organizational behavior and the quality of workinglife, edited by E. E. Lawler III, D. A. Nadler, and C. Cammann.New York: Wiley.
Nadler, D. A., and M. L. Tushman. 1989. Organizational framebending: Principles for managing reorientation. Academy ofManagement Executive1, no. 3:194204.
. 1980. A model for diagnosing organizational behavior:Applying the congruence perspective. Organizational Dynamics9, no. 2:35 51.
Nevis, E. C. , A. J. DiBe l la, and J. M. Gould. 1995.Understanding organizations as learning systems. SloanManagement Review(winter): 7385.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 1998.State quality award statistics.http://www.quality.nist.gov/fm97s&l.htm .
. 2000. Criteria for performance excellence. Gaithersburg,Md.: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Otley, D. T., and A. J. Berry. 1980. Control, organization, andaccounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society5, no.2:231246.
Peters, T. J., and R. H. Waterman, Jr. 1982. In search of excel-lence. New York: Harper & Row.
Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in organizations. Marshfield, Mass.:Pitman.
Porras, J. I., and P. J. Robertson. 1987. Organization develop-ment theory: A typology and evaluation. In Research in organi-zational change and development, vol. 1, edited by R. W.
Woodman and W. A. Pasmore. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI press.
Prybutok, V. R., and A. Spink. 1999. Transformation of a healthcare information systems: A self-assessment survey. IEEETransactions of Engineering Management46, no. 3:299 310.
Schein, E. H. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
. 1993. How can organizations learn faster? The challengeof entering the green room. Sloan Management Review34, no.2:8492.
Senge, P. M. 1990. The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.
Simons, R. 1995. Levers of control: How managers use innova-tive control systems to drive strategic renewal. Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press.
-
8/3/2019 Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning
17/17
Baldrige Assessment and Organizational Learning: The Need for Change Management
Tichy, N. M. 1983. Managing strategic change: Technical, politi-cal, and cultural dynamics. New York: Wiley.
Tushman, M. L., and C. A. OReilly, III. 1997. Winning throughinnovation: A practical guide to leading organizational changeand renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Van de Ven, A. H., and M. S. Poole. 1995. Explaining develop-ment and change in organizations. Academy of ManagementReview20, no. 3:510 540.
Van der Weile, T., A. Brown, R. Millen, and D. Whelan. 2000.Improvement in organizational performance and self-assessmentpractices by selected American firms. Quality Management
Journal7, no. 4:8 22.
Weisbord, M. R. 1976. Organizational diagnosis: Six places tolook for t rouble wi th or wi thout a theory. Group andOrganization Studies 1, no. 4:430447.
Woodman, R. W. 1989. Organizational change and develop-ment: New arenas for inquiry and act ion. Journal of Management15, no. 2:205228.
Wu, H., H. A. Wiebe, and J. Politi. 1997. Self-assessment oftotal quality management programs. Engineering Management
Journal9, no. 1:25 31.
Zaremba, D., and T. Crew. 1995. Increasing involvement in self-assessment: The Royal Mail approach. TQM Magazine 7, no.2:2932.
BIOGRAPHIES
Matthew W. Ford is a visiting assistant professor of operationsmanagement and entrepreneurship at the Universi ty of Cincinnati. He received his Ph.D. in operations management fromthe University of Cincinnati. His research interests include strate-gic operations, quality management, corporate entrepreneurship,and the implementation and control of change. Prior to receivinghis doctorate, Ford served as corporate quality systems managerfor a large U.S. manufacturer, where his duties included thedesign and management of a Baldrige Award-based self-assess-ment program for the companys operating divisions.
James R. Evans is professor of quantitative analysis and opera-t ions management and the director of the Total Qual i tyManagement Center in the College of Business Administration atthe University of Cincinnati. He holds a Ph.D. in industrial andsystems engineering from Georgia Tech and has published over70 papers in academic research journals and has served onnumerous journal editorial boards, including currently Quality
Management Journal. He is lead author ofThe Management andControl of Quality(5th edition), and Total Quality: Management,Organization, and Strategy(2nd edition), as well as other bookson management science, operations management, simulationand risk analysis, statistics, and creative thinking. Evans servedas an examiner for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award from 19941996, senior examiner from 19971999,and alumni examiner in 2000; is a senior examiner and memberof the training team for the Ohio Award for Excellence; and is ajudge for the Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce SmallBusiness of the Year Award.
The authors may be contacted as follows: College of Business Administration, University of Cincinnati, PO Box 210130,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0130; 513-556-7052; Fax: 513-556-5499; E-mail: [email protected] .
www.asq.org 25