The Congruence Model for Organisation Analysis
As the name suggests, this diagnostic model is based on the concept of congruence, specifically the degree to which the needs, demands, goals, objectives, and/or structures of one component are consistent with the needs, demands, goals, objectives, and/or structures of another (Nadler and Tushman 1980, cited in Falletta 2005).
The Congruence Model includes a fit construct (Hunton 2001) and is associated with contingency organisation theories (Aldrich and Mindlin 1978; Burrell and Morgan 1979; Greening and Gray 1994, cited in Spicer 1997). The assumptions on which the Congruence Model is based are that organisations are open systems that exist within a larger environment; that organisations are dynamic in terms of change; that organisational behaviour happens at the individual, group, and systems level; and that interactions occur between individuals, groups, and systems. The components of this model are inputs (i.e. environment, resources, and history); the transformation process (i.e. task, individual, informal organisation, and formal organisational arrangements); and outputs (i.e. organisation, group, individual) (Falletta 2005).
The Congruence Model and the T-LP Framework both emphasise the interrelationships and fit among the various aspects of an organisation. Common variables include strategy (Congruence Model)/organisation goals (T-LP Framework); task (Congruence Model)/process (T-LP Framework); individual (Congruence Model)/job-performer (T-LP Framework); and formal organisation (Congruence Model)/organisation design (T-LP Framework). The Congruence Model explicitly addresses the softer side of the organisation including the informal organisation, organisational history, and individual and group behaviours contrasted to the T-LP Framework which avoids these aspects. The T-LP framework assigns strong emphasis to the management aspects of the organisation contrasted to the Congruence Model, which does not specifically address organisational management.
The strengths of the Congruence Model vis-à-vis the T-LP Framework are that it includes informal organisation and behavioural factors and addresses organisational culture. The major strength of the T-LP Framework vis-à-vis the Congruence Model is that it addresses management variables at the organisation, process, and job-performer levels. The major weakness of the Congruence mode is that it does not specifically address organisational management. The primary weakness of the T-LP Framework is that it does not explicitly address cultural aspects of the organisation.
Harrison’s Model for Diagnosing Individual and Group Behaviour
Harrison’s Model focuses on outputs, specifically individual and group organisational performance and quality of work life. The model specifically denotes the external environment, as a provider of resources, with minimal boundaries with the organisation itself. Other than the environment and outputs, Harrison’s Model consists of five sets of variables at three levels organisation, group, and individual. At the organisation level, the single set of variables includes purposes, processes, structure, technology, behaviour, and culture; at the group level, one set of variables includes group composition, structure, and technology and the other includes group behaviour, processes, and culture; and at the individual level, one set of variables includes individual characteristics and the other includes individual attitudes, beliefs, and motivation. (Harrison 1987, cited in Falletta 2005).
Harrison’s Model and the T-LP Framework share the three-level construct in common the organisation, group, and individual levels for Harrison’s Model and the organisation, process, and job-performer levels for the T-LP Framework. Harrison’s Model explicitly portrays the external environment and shows inputs and outputs; these are implicit in the T-LP Framework for exploration as part of the diagnostic questioning and for illustration on a separate relationship map. Harrison’s Model identifies culture at the organisation, group, and individual levels; the T-LP Framework does not include culture as a variable. Both Harrison’s Model and the T-LP Framework address business processes, Harrison’s Model at the organisation and group levels and the T-LP Framework as a discrete level.
The strengths of Harrison’s Model vis-à-vis the T-LP Framework include explicitly reflecting the external environment and cultural variables. The primary strength of the T-LP Framework vis-à-vis Harrison’s Model is its inclusion of process as a discrete level. The weaknesses of Harrison’s Model are that it identifies resources as the only input from the external environment and that the quality of work output seems somewhat misplaced as it does not seem to rise to the level of a separate outcome in the model. The weaknesses of the T-LP Framework are that it does not explicitly address the external environment or the internal organisational culture.
Rummler and Brache’s Three-Levels of Performance Framework was selected as the benchmark diagnostic model for comparison with three other models used for diagnosing organisational functioning. If there was a bias going into the analysis, it was that Rummler and Brache’s model was far superior to other diagnostic models. That notion was shattered during the analysis. Although this model is rigorous and robust as originally contended, it nevertheless lacks an emphasis on two important organisational variables organisational culture and explicit depiction of the external environment. Organisational culture is extremely important because it affects organisation, process, and individual functioning and performance and, at the same time, is affected by these factors. Depiction of the external environment is important because the organisation does not exist in a vacuum. The organisation is an open system, receiving inputs from and providing its outputs to its external environment. Perhaps Rummler and Brache’s framework could be enhanced by adding a double frame around the nine-variable grid with the inside frame representing internal culture and the outer frame representing the external environment. Supporting diagnostic questions could then be designed to ensure adequate coverage of these two important components.
In closing, organisational observers should remember that one diagnostic model is typically not sufficient for all situations. Howard (1994, cited in Falletta 2005) writes that if one particular viewpoint drives the diagnostic process, a consultant can easily miss important issues in the organization. In addition, because a model by definition is a simplified representation of some real world phenomenon (Robbins 1998, 22), emphasising one factor or set of factors over others, exclusive use of a single model can produce a biased diagnosis (Cummings and Worley 1993). Using multiple models for different situations and incorporating elements of several models into a single selected model seem to be desirable approaches to diagnosing organisational functioning.
Tags: diagnostics, framework, management, organisations, performance
