Suchergebnisse

When human resource development fails, it is frequently for causes that could have been prevented. The author discusses the implications of using quick-fix interventions without first formally linking them to organizational objectives and societal impact, presents a holistic frame of reference for determining and diagnosing organizational needs and smaller, derivative perspectives, and suggests differing roles and responsibilities for different organizational levels. Organizational efforts, organizational results, and societal impacts are linked by the "Organizational Elements Model" and two dimensions in an organi- zational analysis, "what is" and "what should be," are identified. Finally, steps for determining and diagnosing organizational needs are presented.

Organization development and improvement models, like the people they intend to help, come in a bewildering array of sizes, shapes, types, and intentions. Many have been developed, but few seem to do the job for which they were intended. This paper and the conceptual model it offers help to identify the major varieties of models and methods and analyze the characteristics of some of the best understood and recognized among them. The author proposes that most models are only descriptive and fail to offer predictive and control aspects that are considered to be central to success. A predictive "synthesis" termed "Transactional Life-Cycle Theory" is offered: a combination of existing models, including selected aspects of Hersey and Blanchard's Life-Cycle Theory, some role behavior aspects of Transactional Analysis (but not the whole therapy model) and aspects of Greenwald's Direct Decision Therapy. Some additional consid erations of this model are presented, including one relating to sexism and sex-role stereotyping.

Empirical evidence suggests that profit sharing, gainsharing, employee ownership, worker participation, and Total Quality Management (TQM) may increase productivity and firm performance. Nevertheless, one needs to ground the case for government intervention in support of each of these programs on arguments concerning externalities or merit goods. This paper argues that no one yet has offered a convincing case of this nature. It also discusses the U.S. government's support for ESOPs and suggests reasons for its disappointing results in the hope that future policy experiments will not repeat these mistakes.