baldrige assessment and organizational learning

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 historically 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


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-


3/17


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


4/17

12 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 3/ 2001, ASQ


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.


5/17


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


6/17

14 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 3/ 2001, ASQ


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


7/17


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


8/17

16 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 3/ 2001, ASQ


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


9/17


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


10/17

18 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 3/ 2001, ASQ


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-


11/17


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


12/17

20 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 3/ 2001, ASQ


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


13/17


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


14/17

22 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 3/ 2001, ASQ


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.


15/17


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


16/17

24 QMJ VOL. 8, NO. 3/ 2001, ASQ


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.


17/17


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

baldrige assessment and organizational learning

Documents