Managers must continually identify and find solutions to problems caused by

mismatched components within the organization. A unique approach that

will help managers perform this vital function is offered in . . .

A Model for Diagnosing

Organizational Behavior

David A. Nadler
Michael L. Tushman

3i anagement's primary job is to make organi-

zations operate effectively. Society's work
But organizational behavior must
be managed in spite of this overwhelming
gets done through organizations and man- complexity; ultimately the organization's
agement's function is to get organizations to work gets done through people, individually
perform that work. Getting organizations to or collectively, on their own or in collabora-
operate effectively is difficult, however. Un- tion with technology. Therefore, the man-
derstanding one individual's behavior is agement of organizational behavior is central
challenging in and of itself; understanding a to the management task—a task that involves
group that's made up of different individuals the capacity to understand the behavior
and comprehending the many relationships patterns of individuals, groups, and orga-
among those individuals is even more com- nizations, to predict what behavioral re-
plex. Imagine, then, the mind-boggling com- sponses will be elicited by various manage-
plexity of a large organization made up of rial actions, and finally to use this under-
thousands of individuals and hundreds of standing and these predictions to achieve
groups with myriad relationships among control.
these individuals and groups. How can one achieve understand-

Organizational Dynamics, Autumn 1980. © 1980, AMACOM, a division of

American Management Associations. All rights reserved. 0090'2616/80/OQ15-0035/$02.00/0 35
ing and learn how to predict and control or-
ganizational behavior? Given its inherent
complexity and enigmatic nature, one needs
tools to unravel the mysteries, paradoxes,
and apparent contradictions that present
themselves in the everyday life of organiza-
tions. One tool is the conceptual framework
or model. A model is a theory that indicates
which factors (in an organization, for ex-
ample) are most critical or important. It also
shows how these factors are related—that is,
which factors or combination of factors David A. Nadler is an associate professor at
cause other factors to change. In a sense the Graduate School of Business, Columbia
then, a model is a roadmap that can be used University. He received his M.B.A. from the
Harvard Business School and a Ph.D. in
to make sense of the terrain of organiza-
psychology from the University of Michigan.
tional behavior. Before coming to Columbia, he was on the
The models we use are critical be- staff of the Institute for Social Research at the
cause they guide our analysis and action. In University of Michigan, His research on
organizational behavior has focused on
any organizational situation, problem solv-
questions of planned organizational change, the
ing involves the collection of information use of feedback as a tool, and problems of
about the problem, the interpretation of that groups in organizations. He has written many
information to determine specific problem articles and five books on management and
types and causes, and the development of ac- organizational behavior, including Managing
Organizational Behavior (Little. Brown, 1979),
tion plans accordingly. The models that indi-
which he coauthored mith Richard Hackman
viduals use influence the kind of data they and Edward Lawler. In the course of his
collect and the kind they ignore; models research and consultation he has worked with
guide people's approach to analyzing or in- many major organizations on problems of
terpreting the data they have; finally, mod- organizational design, planned organizational
change, and management. He is on the
els help people choose their course of action.
editorial board of Organizational Dynamics
Indeed, anyone who has been ex- and the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.
posed to an organization already has some
sort of implicit model. People develop these
roadmaps over time, building on their own
experiences. These implicit models (they us- behavior over the last four decades, it is pos-
ually are not explicitly written down or sible to use scientifically developed explicit
stated) guide behavior; they vary in quality, models for analyzing organizational behav-
validity, and sophistication depending on ior and solving organizational problems.
the nature and extent of the experiences of We plan to discuss one particular
the model builder, his or her percept iveness, model, a general model of organizations. In-
his or her ability to conceptualize and stead of describing a specific phenomenon or
generalize from experiences, and so on. aspect of organizational life (such as a model
We are not solely dependent, how- of motivation or a model of organizational
ever, on the implicit and experience-based design), the general model of organization
models that individuals develop. Since there attempts to provide a framework for think-
has been extensive research and theory de- ing about the organization as a total system.
36 velopment on the subject of organizational The model's major premise is that for organi-
zations to be effective, their subparts or
components must be consistently structured
and managed—they must approach a state
of congruence.
In the first section of this article, we
will discuss the basic view of organizations
that underlies the model—that is, systems
iheory. In the second section, we will present
and discuss the model itself. In the third sec-
tion, we will present an approach to using
the model for organizational problem anal-
ysis. Finally, we will discuss some of the
model's implications for thinking about or- Michael Tushman is an associate professor of
ganizations. organizational behavior at the Graduate School
of Business, Columbia University, He received
his B.S. in electrical engineering from
Northeastern University, his M,S. in
A BASIC VIEW OF ORGANIZATIONS organizational behavior from Comell. and his
Ph.D. in organizational behavior from the
There are many different ways of thinking Sloan School of Management at M.l.T.
Professor Tushman s research interests focus on
about organizations. When a manager is understanding the process of innovation and
asked to "draw a picture of an organi- new product/process development in
zation," he or she typically draws some ver- technology-based firms. He has used the
sion of a pyramidal organizational chart. congruence model as both a research and
This is a model that views the stable, formal consulting tool in several high technology
organizations. He has published his research in
relationships among the jobs and formal many journals and is a member of the
work units as the most critical factors of the Academy of Management, 7,/.M.S.. A.A.A.S.
organization. Although this clearly is one and the Product Development Association. His
way to think about organizations, it is a very book with David Nadler and Nina Hatvany,
limited view. It excludes such factors as lead- Approaches to Managing Organizational
Behavior: Readings and Cases, will soon be
ership behavior, the impact of the environ- published by Little, Brown Inc.
ment, informal relations, power distribu-
tion, and so on. Such a model can capture
only a small part of what goes on in organi-
zations. Its perspective is narrow and static. system is a set of interrelated elements—that
The past two decades have seen a is, a change in one element affects other ele-
growing consensus that a viable alternative ments. An open system is one that interacts
to the static classic models of organizations with its environment; it is more than just a
is to envision the organization as a social set of interrelated elements. Rather, these
system. This approach stems from the obser- elements make up a mechanism that takes in-
vation that social phenomena display many put from the environment, subjects it to
of the characteristics of natural or mechan- some form of transformation process, and
ical systems. In particular, as Daniel Katz produces output. At the most general level,
and Robert L. Kahn have argued, organiza- it should be easy to visualize organizations
tions can be better understood if they are con- as systems. Let's consider a manufacturing
sidered as dynamic and open social systems. plant, for example. It is made up of different
What is a system? Most simply, a related components (a number of depart- 37
ments, jobs technologies, and so on). It re- work with the high-performing group's out-
ceives inputs from the environment—that is, put would feel the pressure of work-in-pro-
labor, raw material, production orders, and cess inventory piling up in front of them. If
so on—and transforms these inputs into some type of incentive is in effect, other
products. groups might perceive inequity as this one
As systems, organizations display a group begins to eam more. We would pre-
number of basic systems characteristics. dict that some actions would be taken to put
Some of the most critical are these: the system back into balance. Either the rest
• Internal interdependence. Ghanges of the plant would be changed to increase
in one component or subpart of an organiza- production and thus be back in balance with
tion frequently have repercussions for other the single group, or (more likely) there
parts; the pieces are interconnected. Again, would be pressure to get this group to mod-
as in the manufacturing plant example, ify its behavior in line with the performance
changes made in one element (for example, levels of the rest of the system (by removing
the skill levels of those hired to do jobs) will workers, limiting supplies, and so on). The
affect other elements (the productiveness of point is that somehow the system would de-
equipment used, the speed or quality of pro- velop energy to move back toward a state of
duction activities, the nature of supervision equilibrium or balance.
needed, and so on). • Equifinality. This characteristic
• Capacity for feedback—that is, of open systems means that different system
information about the output that can be configurations can lead to the same end or to
used to control the system. Organizations the same type of input-output conversion.
can correct errors and even change them- Thus there's no universal or 'one best way"
selves because of this characteristic. If in our to organize.
plant example plant management receives in- • Adaptation. For a system to sur-
formation that the quality of its product is vive, it must maintain a favorable balance of
declining, it can use this information to iden- input or output transactions with the envi-
tify factors in the system itself that contrib- ronment or it will run down. If our plant
ute to this problem. However, it is important produces a product for which there are fewer
to note that, unlike mechanized systems, applications, it must adapt to new demands
feedback information does not always lead and develop new products; otherwise, the
to correction. Organizations have the poten- plant will ultimately have to close its doors.
tial to use feedback to become self-correcting Any system, therefore, must adapt by
systems, but they do not always realize this changing as environmental conditions
potential. change. The consequences of not adapting
• Equilibrium—that is, a state of are evident when once-prosperous organiza-
balance. When an event puts the system out tions decay (for example, the eastern rail-
of balance the system reacts and moves to roads) because they fail to respond to envi-
bring itself back into balance. If one work ronmental changes.
group in our plant example were suddenly to Thus systems theory provides a
increase its performance dramatically, it way of thinking about the organization in
would throw the system out of balance. This more complex and dynamic terms. But al-
group would be making increasing demands though the theory provides a valuable basic
on the groups that supply it with the infor- perspective on organizations, it is limited as
38 mation or materials it needs; groups that a problem-solving tool. This is because a
model systems theory is too abstract for use as being people, tasks, technology, and
in day-to-day analysis of organizational be- structure. The model we will present here
havior problems. Because of the level of ab- builds on these views and also draws from fit
straction of systems theory, we need to de- models developed and used by James Seiler,
velop a more specific and pragmatic model Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch, and Jay Lorsch
based on the concepts of the open systems and Alan Sheldon.
paradigm. It is important to remember that we
are concerned about creating a model for be-
havioral systems of the organization—the
A CONGRUENCE MODEL OF system of elements that ultimately produce
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR behavior patterns and, in turn, organization-
al performance. Put simply, we need to deal
Given the level of abstraction of open the- with questions of the inputs the system has
ory, our job is to develop a model that re- to work with, the outputs it must produce,
flects the basic systems concepts and charac- the major components of the transformation
teristics, but that is more specific and thus process, and the ways in which these com-
more usable as an analytic tool. We will ponents interact.
describe a model that specifies the critical
inputs, the major outputs, and the transfor-
mation processes that characterize organiza- Inputs
tional functioning. Inputs are factors that, at any one point in
The model puts its greatest em- time, make up the "givens" facing the orga-
phasis on the transformation process and nization. They're the material that the orga-
specifically reflects the critical system prop- nization has to work with. There are several
erty of interdependence. It views organiza- different types of inputs, each of which pre-
tions as made up of components or parts that sents a different set of "givens" to the organi-
interact with each other. These components zation (see Figure 1 for an overview of in-
exist in states of relative balance, consis- puts).
tency, or "fit" with each other. The differ- The first input is the environment,
ent parts of an organization can fit well to- or all factors outside the organization being
gether and function effectively, or fit poorly examined. Every organization exists within
and lead to problems, dysfunctions, or per- the context of a larger environment that in-
formance below potential. Our congruence cludes individuals, groups, other organiza-
model of organizational behavior is based on tions, and even larger social forces—all of
how well components fit together—that is, which have a potentially powerful impact on
the congruence among the components; the how the organization performs. Specifically,
effectiveness of this model is based on the the environment includes markets (clients or
quality of these "fits" or congruence. customers), suppliers, governmental and
The concept of congruence is not a regulatory bodies, labor unions, competi-
new one. George Homans in his pioneering tors, financial institutions, special interest
work on social processes in organizations groups, and so on. As research by Jeffrey
emphasized the interaction and consistency Pfeffer and Gerald Salancik has suggested,
among key elements of organizational be- the environment is critical to organizational
havior. Harold Leavitt, for example, identi- functioning.
fied four major components of organization The environment has three critical 39
c
o u
2 .2 "« ^ o
« c ffl ^ '"'
> .2 D. -ii
E V

'-' *—
j= •*^ *v
a re o «
-a ^
ti re
X
S
u> S
a* -=
a*
Ji .^
re
X
•" "5. E r
o 2 -6
u £k. £t . re F: E
X .5 3! K E 0 S X Of

c
E S
—
i.'-' .2£ '5
.a I -S -^
C "5
"^ -JC "^ ^
re 3 - K

c ,
re re

Q -a
re « a
z
u
« c
O X
1 "
* in
O 2

00
c 01 -±3 E S
Ic w O
C
.§ S
ib
00 T2 X o > c
.5 > •" -§ -I c o
01
-2 .5 o £ .5 -2
§ c c
5 .2
•= .2 C N o c 15
'^ o § X -:::•.= ^
b re5
•r*
> X
""?!Cift-— a»re >
= •2
S ?
>> t i re
5 -^ 60
ex o

40
features that affect organizational analysis. of key leaders, the nature of past crises and
First, the environment makes demands on the organization's responses to them, and the
the organization. For example, it may re- evolution of core values and norms of the or-
quire certain products or services at certain ganization.
levels of quality or quantity. Market pres- The final input is somewhat differ-
sures are particularly important here. Sec- ent from the others because in some ways it
ond, the environment may place constraints reflects some of the factors in the organiza-
on organizational action. It may limit the tion's environment, resources, and history.
activities in which an organization may en- The fourth input is strategy. We use this
gage. These constraints range from limita- term in its broadest context to describe the
tions imposed by scarce capital to prohibi- whole set of decisions that are made about
tions set by govemment regulations. Third, how the organization will configure its re-
the environment provides opportunities that sources against the demands, constraints,
the organization can explore. When we an- and opportunities of the environment within
alyze an organization, we need to consider the context of its history. Strategy refers to
the factors in the organization s environment the issue of matching the organization's re-
and determine how those factors, singly or sources to its environment, or making the
collectively, create demands, constraints, or fundamental decision of "What business are
opportunities. we in?" For analysis purposes, several as-
The second input is the organiza- pects of strategy are important to identify.
tion's resources. Any organization has a First, what is the core mission of the organi-
range of different assets to which it has ac- zation, or how has the organization defined
cess. These include employees, technology, its basic purpose or function within the larg-
capital, information, and so on. Resources er system or environment? The core mission
can also include less tangible assets, such as includes decisions about what markets the
the perception of the organization in the organization will serve, what products or
marketplace or a positive organizational cli- services it will provide to those markets, and
mate. A set of resources can be shaped, de- how it will compete in those markets. Sec-
ployed, or configured in different ways by ond, strategy includes the specific support-
an organization. For analysis purposes, two ing strategies (or tactics) the organization
features are of primary interest. One con- will employ or is employing to achieve its
cerns the relative quality of those resources core mission. Third, it includes the specific
or their value in light of the environment. performance or output objectives that have
The second concerns the extent to which re- been established.
sources can be reshaped or how fixed or flex- Strategy may be the most impor-
ible different resources are. tant single input for the organization. On
The third input is the organiza- one hand, strategic decisions implicitly de-
tion's history. There's growing evidence that termine the nature of the work the organiza-
the way organizations function today is tion should be doing or the tasks it should
greatly influenced by past events. It is partic- perform. On the other hand, strategic deci-
ularly important to understand the major sions, and particularly decisions about ob-
stages or phases of an organization's devel- jectives determine the system's outputs.
opment over a period of time, as well as the In summary, there are three basic
current impact of past events—for example, inputs—environment, resources, and history
key strategic decisions, the acts or behavior —and a fourth derivative input, strategy, 41
-a
O ra
e (3
c E
p
ra ra
a y O.
3 53 u
O
c
E 3
0
U 1

C J2

X T)
3 C
3 "S
c
" o ra J2 .2 &b u
3 -
P 3J S
C -a p
> f.
tA ra *-* <n
O .5
u "i; 00 2

s
uo .J:. C
•^ _o

S. I T3
Know 'ledge and skil

Backs[round fact ors

a. 2 ra
[ndivi dual needs
indivi duals have

° c
Perce]ptions and

tn ra
expec tancies.

z
prefei ences.

J 00
K X "-^
O in P
>•
C w
ii X
2 .E
u ra

1 -^ .S S « .E
tkN S ^O r 3)
c c 0)
y
i! X
u
5:
.u
(!
P
•-• g I ra
u ra
>.« -
^^ ' ^ ^ C I
X c o

It 4 -1°
p
.a "^
I
The

'in W X X
ra c
X p H ;S .g .E I

.a

£ O
•c **-
42 u
which determines how the organization re- (affective reactions such as satisfaction, stress,
sponds to or deals with the basic inputs. or experienced quality of working life) may be
Strategy is critical because it determines the desired outputs in and of themselves.
work to be performed by the organization
and it defines desired organizational outputs.
The Organization as a
Transformation Process
Outputs
So far, we've defined the nature of inputs and
Outputs are what the organization produces, outputs of the organizational system. This
how it performs, and how effective it is. leads us to the transformation process. Given
There has been a lot of discussion about the an environment, a set of resources, and his-
components of an effective organization. For tory, "How do I take a strategy and implement
our purposes, however, it is possible to iden- it to produce effective performance in the or-
tify several key indicators of organizational ganization, in the group/unit, and among in-
output. First, we need to think about system dividual employees?"
output at different levels. In addition to the In our framework, the organization
system's basic output—that is, the product— and its major component parts are the fun-
we need to think about other outputs that damental means for transforming energy
contribute to organizational performance, and information from inputs into outputs.
such as the functioning of groups or units On this basis, we must determine the key
within the organization or the functioning of components of the organization and the cri-
individual organization members. tical dynamic that shows how those com-
At the organizational level, three ponents interact to perform the transforma-
factors must be kept in mind when evaluat- tion function.
ing organizational performance: (1) goal at-
tainment, or how well the organization
meets its objectives (usually determined by Organizational Components
strategy), (2) resource utilization, or how There are many different ways of thinking
well the organization makes use of available about what makes up an organization. At
resources (not just whether the organization this point in the development of a science of
meets its goals, but whether it realizes all of organizations, we probably do not know the
its potential performance and whether it one right or best way to describe the differ-
achieves its goals by building resources or by ent components of an organization. The task
"burning them up"), and (3) adaptability, or is to find useful approaches for describing
whether the organization continues to posi- organizations, for simplifying complex phe-
tion itself in a favorable position vis-a-vis its nomena, and for identifying patterns in what
environment—that is, whether it is capable
may at first blush seem to be random sets of
of changing and adapting to environmental
activity. Our particular approach views or-
changes.
ganizations as composed of four major com-
Obviously, the functioning of groups ponents: (1) the task, (2) the individuals, (3)
or units (departments, divisions, or other sub- the formal organizational arrangements, and
units within the organization) contribute to (4) the informal organization. We will dis-
these organizational-level outputs. Organiza- cuss each of these individually (see Figure 2
tional output is also influenced by individual for overviews of these components).
behavior, and certain individual-level outputs The first component is the organi- 43
zation's task—that is, the basic or inherent perform tasks consistent with organizational
work to be done by the organization and its strategy. The broad term, organizational
subunits or the activity the organization is arrangements, encompasses a number of dif-
engaged in, particularly in light of its strat- ferent factors. One factor is organization de-
egy. The emphasis is on the specific work ac- sign—that is, the way jobs are grouped to-
tivities or functions that need to be done and gether into units, the internal structure of
their inherent characteristics (as opposed to those units, and the coordination and con-
characteristics of the work created by how trol mechanisms used to link those units to-
the work is organized or structured in this gether. A second factor is the way jobs are
particular organization at this particular designed within the context of organization-
time). Analysis of the task would include a al designs. A third factor is the work envi-
description of the basic work flows and func- ronment, which includes a number of factors
tions with attention to the characteristics of that characterize the immediate environment
those work flows—for example, the knowl- in which work is done, such as the physical
edge or skills demanded by the work, the working environment, the available work
kinds of rewards provided by the work, the resources, and so on. A final factor includes
degree of uncertainty associated with the the organization's formal systems for attract-
work, and the specific constraints inherent in ing, placing, developing, and evaluating hu-
the work (such as critical time demands, cost man resources.
constraints, and so on). Since it's assumed Together, these factors create the
that a primary (although not the only) rea- set of formal organizational arrangements —
son for the organization's existence is to per- that is, they are explicitly designed and spe-
form the task consistent with strategy, the cified, usually in writing.
task is the starting point for the analysis. As The final component is the infor-
we will see, the assessment of the adequacy mal organization. Despite the set of formal
of other components depends to a large de- organizational arrangements that exists in
gree on an understanding of the nature of the any organization, another set of arrange-
tasks lo be performed. ments tends to develop or emerge over a pe-
A second component of organiza- riod of time. These arrangements are usually
tions involves the individuals who perform implicit and unwritten, but they influence a
organizational tasks. The issue here is identi- good deal of behavior. For lack of a better
fying the nature and characteristics of the or- term, such arrangements are frequently re-
ganization's employees (or members). The ferred to as the informal organization and
most critical aspects to consider include the they include the different structures, pro-
nature of individual knowledge and skills, cesses, and arrangements that emerge while
the different needs or preferences that indi- the organization is operating. These arrange-
viduals have, the perceptions or expectancies ments sometimes complement formal orga-
that they develop, and other background nizational arrangements by providing struc-
factors (such as demographics) that may po- tures to aid work where none exist. In other
tentially influence individual behavior. situations they may arise in reaction to the
The third component is the formal formal structure, to protect individuals from
organizational arrangements. These include it. They may therefore either aid or hinder
the range of structures, processes, methods, the organization's performance.
procedures, and so forth that are explicitly Because a number of aspects of the
44 and formally developed to get individuals to informal organization have a particularly
critical effect on behavior, they need to he ously, if the individual's knowledge and skill
considered. The behavior of leaders (as op- match the knowledge and skill demanded by
posed to the formal creation of leader posi- the task, performance will be more effective.
tions) is an important feature of the informal Obviously, too, the individual-task
organization, as are the patterns of relation- congruence relationship encompasses more
ships thai develop both within and between factors than just knowledge and skill. Sim-
groups. In addition, different types of infor- ilarly, each congruence relationship in the
mal working arrangements (including rules, model has its own specific characteristics.
procedures, methods, and so on) develop. Research and theory can guide the assess-
Finally, there are the various communication ment of fit in each relationship. For an over-
and influence patterns that combine to create view of the critical elements of each congru-
the informal organization design. ence relationship, see Figure 3.
Organizations can therefore be
thought of as a set of components—the task,
The Congruence Hypothesis
the individuals, the organizational arrange-
ments, and the informal organization. In any The aggregate model, or whole organiza-
system, however, the critical question is not tion, displays a relatively high or low degree
what the components are, but what the na- of system congruence in the same way that
ture of their interaction is. This model raises each pair of components has a high or low
the question: What are the dynamics of the degree of congruence. The basic hypothesis
relationships among the components? To of the model, which builds on this total state
deal with this issue, we must return to the of congruence, is as follows: "Other things
concept of congruence or fit. being equal, the greater the total degree of
congruence or fit between the various com-
ponents, the more effective will be the orga-
The Concept of Congruence
nization—effectiveness being defined as the
A relative degree of congruence, consisten- degree to which actual organization outputs
cy, or "fit" exists between each pair of orga- at individual, group, and organizational lev-
nizational inputs. The congruence between els are similar to expected outputs, as speci-
two components is defined as "the degree to fied by strategy."
which the needs, demands, goals, objectives, The basic dynamic of congruence
and/or structures of one component are con- sees the organization as most effective when
sistent with the needs, demands, goals, ob- its pieces fit together. If we also consider
jectives, and/or structures of another com- strategy, this view expands to include the fit
ponent." between the organization and its larger envi-
Congruence, therefore, is a meas- ronment—that is, an organization is most ef-
ure of how well pairs of components fit to- fective when its strategy is consistent with its
gether. Consider, for example, two compon- environment (in light of organizational re-
ents—the task and the individuaL At the sources and history) and when the organiza-
simplest level, the task presents some de- tional components are congruent with the
mands on individuals who would perform it tasks necessary to implement that strategy.
{that is, skill/knowledge demands). At the One important implication of the
same time, the set of individuals available to congruence hypothesis is that organizational
do the tasks have certain characteristics problem analysis (or diagnosis) involves de-
(their levels of skill and knowledge). Obvi- scription of the system, identification of 45
Figure 3
DEFINITIONS OF FITS

Fit Issues
Indiv idual/Organization How are individual needs met by the organizational arrangements?
Do individuals hold clear or distorted perceptions of organiza-
tional structures? Is there a convergence of individual and organ-
izational goals?
Individual/Task How are individual needs met by the tasks? Do individuals have
skills and abilities to meet task demands?
Individual/Informal organization How are individual needs met by the informal organization?
How does the informal organization make use of individual re-
sources consistent with informal goals?
Task/Organ ization Are organizational arrangements adequate to meet the demands
of the task? Do organizational arrangements motivate behavior
that's consistent with task demands?
Task/Informal organization Does the informal organization structure facilitate task perfor-
mance or not? Does it hinder or help meet the demands of the
task.
Organization/Informal organization Are the goals, rewards, and structures of the informal organiza-
tion consistent with those of the formal organization?

problems, and analysis of fits to determine (although in some areas the research is more
the causes of problems. The model also im- definitive and helpful than others). The im-
plies that different configurations of the key plication is that the manager who wants to
components can be used to gain outputs diagnose behavior must become familiar
(consistent with the systems characteristic of with critical aspects of relevant organiza-
equifinality). Therefore the question is not tional behavior models or theories so that he
how to find the "one best way" of managing, or she can evaluate the nature of fits in a par-
but how to find effective combinations of ticular system.
components that will lead to congruent fits The congruence model provides a
among them. general organizing framework. The organi-
The process of diagnosing fits and zational analyst will need other, more spe-
identifying combinations of components to cific "submodels" to define high and low
produce congruence is not necessarily intui- congruence. Examples of such submodels
tive. A number of situations that lead to con- that might be used in the context of this gen-
gruence have been defined in the research lit- eral diagnostic model include the following:
erature. Thus in many cases fit is something (1) the job characteristics model to assess
that can be defined, measured, and even and explain the fit between individuals and
quantified; there is, in other words, an em- tasks as well as the fit between individuals
pirical and theoretical basis for assessing fit. and organizational arrangements (job de-
The theory provides considerable guidance sign), (2) expectancy theory models of moti-
46 about what leads to congruent relationships vation to explain the fit between individuals
Figure 4
A CONGRUENCE MODEL FOR ORGANIZATION ANALYSIS

7ronsformation Process

/
Informal
Inputs Organization Outputs
X X
/ X^ \

o
Envl ronment Organi
ResQ urces Formal
Strategy^
Task Organizational Group
Hisu)ry ^ 1 — ^ Individ uai
Arrangements
\ 1
/
i . I L

Individual
\ ^

Feedback

and the other three components, (3) the in- the pragmatic question of how to use this
formation processing model of organization- model for analyzing organizational prob-
al design to explain the task-formal organi- lems.
zation and task-informal organization fits,
or (4) an organizational climate model to ex-
plain the fit between the informal organiza- A PROCESS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL
tion and the other components. These mod- PROBLEM ANALYSIS
els and theories are listed as illustrations of
how more specific models can be used in the The conditions that face organizations fre-
context of the general model. Obviously, quently change; consequently, managers are
those mentioned above are just a sampling of required to continually engage in problem-
possible tools that could be used. identification and problem-solving activities.
In summary, then, we have de- Therefore, managers must gather data on or-
scribed a general model for the analysis of ganizational performance, compare the data
organizations (see Figure 4). The organiza- with desired performance levels, identify
tion is seen as a system or transformation the causes of problems, develop and choose
process that takes inputs and transforms action plans and, finally, implement and
them into outputs—a process that is com- evaluate these action plans. These phases
posed of four basic components. The critical can be viewed as a generic problem-solving
dynamic is the fit or congruence among the process. For long-term organizational viabil-
components. We now turn our attention to ity, some type of problem-solving process 47
Figure 5
BASIC PROBLEM ANALYSIS STEPS USING THE CONGRUENCE MODEL

Step Explanation
1. Identify symptoms. List data Indicating possible existence of problems.
2. Specify inputs. Identify the system.
Determine nature of environment, resources, and
history.
Identify critical aspects of strategy.
3. Identify outputs. Identify data that define the nature of outputs at vari-
ous levels (individual, group/unit, organizational).
This should include desired outputs (from strategy),
and actual outputs being obtained.
4. Identify problems. Identify areas where there are significant and meaning-
ful differences between desired and actual outputs.
To the extent possible, identify penalties; that is, spe-
cific costs (actual and opportunity costs) associated
with each problem.
5. Describe components of the organization. Describe basic nature of each of the four components
with emphasis on their critical features.
6. Assess congruence (fits). Conduct analysis to determine relative congruence
among components (draw on submodels as needed).
7. Generate and identify causes. Analyze to associate fit with specific problems.
8. Identify action steps. Indicate the possible actions to deal with problem
causes.

must operate—and operate continuously. causes are. Symptomatic data are important
Experience with using the congru- because the symptoms of problems may in-
ence model for organizations for problem dicate where to look for more complete data.
analysis in actual organizational settings has
led to the development of an approach to us- 2. Specify inputs: Once the symp-
ing the model that's based on these generic toms are identified, the starting point for
problem-solving processes (see Figure 5). In analysis is to identify the system and the en-
this section, we will "walk through" this pro- vironment in which it functions. This means
cess, describing each step in the process and collecting data about the nature of environ-
discussing how the model can be used at ment, the type of resources the organization
each stage. Here are the steps in the problem- has, and the critical aspects of its history. In-
analysis process: put analysis also involves identifying the
overall strategy of the organization—that is,
1. Identify symptoms: In any situ- its core mission, supporting strategies, and
ation initial information (symptomatic data) objectives.
may indicate that there are problems, but
48 not what the problems are or what the 3. Identify outputs: The third step
is an analysis of the organization's outputs at scribed and their congruence assessed, the
the individual, group, and organizational next step is to link together the congruence
levels. Output analysis actually involves two analysis with the problem identification
elements; (1) defining the desired or planned (step 4). After analyzing to determine which
output through an analysis of strategy that are the poor fits that seem to be associated
explicitly or implicitly defines what the or- with, or account for, the output problems
ganization wants to achieve in terms of out- that have been identified, the patterns of
put or performance indicators, and (2) col- congruence and incongruence that appear to
lecting data that indicate the type of output cause the patterns of problems are deter-
the organization is actually achieving. mined.

4. Identify problems: Symptoms 8. Identify action steps: The final

may indicate problems—in this case, signifi- step in problem analysis is to identify possi-
cant difference between desired or planned ble action steps. These steps might range
output and actual output. Such problems from specific changes to deal with relatively
might be discrepancies (actual vs. expected) obvious problem causes to a more extensive
in organizational performance, group func- data collection designed to test hypotheses
tioning, individual behavior, or affective re- about relatively more complex problems and
actions. These data tell us what problems causes.
exist, but they still don't tell us the causes.
(Note; Where data are available, it's fre- In addition to these eight steps,
quently also useful to identify the costs asso- some further steps need to be kept in mind.
ciated with the problems or the penalties the After possible actions are identified, prob-
organization incurs by not fixing the prob- lem solving involves predicting the conse-
lem. Penalties might be actual costs—in- quence of various actions, choosing the
creased expenses, and so on—or opportunity course of action, and implementing and
costs, such as revenue lost because of the evaluating the impact of the chosen course of
problem.) action. It is, of course, important to have a
general diagnostic framework to monitor the
5. Describe organizational compo- effects of various courses of action.
nents: At this step the analysis to determine The congruence model and this
the causes of problems begins. Data are col- problem-analysis process outline are tools
lected about the nature of each of the four for structuring and dealing with the complex
major organizational components, including reality of organizations. Given the indeter-
information about the component and its minate nature of social systems, there is no
critical features in this organization. one best way of handling a particular situa-
tion. The model and the process could, how-
6. Assess congruence (fits): Using ever, help the manager in making a number
the data collected in step 5 as well as applica- of decisions and in evaluating the conse-
ble submodels or theories, an assessment is quences of those decisions. If these tools
made of the positive or negative fit between have merit, it is up to the manager to use
each pair of components. them along with his or her intuitive sense
(based on experience) to make the appro-
7. Generate hypotheses about prob- priate set of diagnostic, evaluative, and ac-
lem causes: Once the components are de- tion decisions. 49
FUTURE DIRECTIONS ganizational problem solving ultimately
requires some sense of the types of problems
The model we've presented here reflects a that may be encountered and the kinds of
particular way of thinking about organiza- patterns of causes one might expect. It is rea-
tions. If that perspective is significant, the sonable to assume that most problems en-
model might be used as a tool for handling countered by organizations are not wholly
more complex problems or for structuring unique, but are predictable. The often ex-
more complex situations. Some directions pressed view that "our problems are unique"
for further thought, research, and theory de- reflects in part the lack of a framework of
velopment could include these: organizational pathology. The question is:
Are there basic "illnesses" that organizations
suffer? Can a framework of organizational
1. Organizational change. The issue
pathology, similar to the physician's frame-
of organizational change has received a good
work of medical pathology, be developed?
deal of attention from both managers and
The lack of a pathology framework, in turn,
academics. The question is how to effective-
reflects the lack of a basic functional model
ly implement organizational change. The
of organizations. Again, development of a
problem seems to center on the lack of a gen-
congruence perspective might provide a
eral model of organizational change. It is
common language to use for the identifica-
hard to think about a general model of orga-
tion of genera] pathological patterns of orga-
nizational change without a general model of
nizational functioning.
organizations. The congruence perspective
outlined here may provide some guidance
and direction toward the development of a 4. Organizational solution types.
more integrated perspective on the processes Closely linked to the problem of pathology
of organizational change. Initial work in ap- is the problem of treatment, intervention, or
plying the congruence model to the change solutions to organizational problems. Again,
issue is encouraging. there's a lack of a general framework in
which to consider the nature of organiza-
tional interventions. In this case, too, the
2. Organizational development over
congruence model might be a means for con-
time. There has been a growing realization
ceptualizing and ultimately describing the
that organizations grow and develop over
different intervention options available in re-
time, and that they face different types of
sponse to problems.
crises, evolve through different stages, and
develop along some predictable lines. A
model of organizations such as the one pre-
sented here might be a tool for developing SUMMARY
typology of growth patterns by indicating
the different configurations of tasks, individ- This article has presented a general approach
uals, organizational arrangements, and in- for thinking about organizational function-
formal organizations that might be most ing and a process for using a model to ana-
appropriate for organizations in different en- lyze organizational problems. This partic-
vironments and at different stages of devel-
ular model is only one way of thinking about
opment.
organizations; its clearly not the only model,
nor can we claim it's definitively the best
50 3. Organizational pathology. Or- model. It is one tool, however, that may be
useful for structuring the complexity of orga- components of our congruence model would in-
nizational life and helping managers create, clude: J. Richard Hackman and Greg Oldham's
maintain, and develop effective organiza- job design model; Victor Vroom and Edward
tions. Lawler's work on expectancy theory of motiva-
tion and decision making—see Vroom's Work
and Motivation (Wiley, 1964) and Lawler's Moti-
vation in Work Organizations (Wadsworth Pub-
lishing Co., 1973); Jay R. Galbraith, Michael
Tushman, and David Nadler's work on informa-
tion processing models of organizational design;
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY and George Litwin and Robert Stringer's work on
organization climate—see Litwin and Stringer's
For a comprehensive review and synthesis of re- Motivation and Organizational Climate (Harvard
search in organizational behavior, see Marvin University Graduate School of Business Admini-
Dunnette's Handbook of Industrial and Organiza- stration, 1968).
tional Psychology (Rand-McNally, 1976). Daniel David Nadler's "An Integrative Theory
Katz and Robert Kahn's seminal work on organi- of Organizational Change," to appear in the
zations as systems. The Social Psychology of Or- Journal of Applied Behavioral Science in 1981,
ganizations (John Wiley & Sons, 1966), has been uses the congruence model to think about the gen-
revised, updated, and extended in their 1978 edi- eral problems of organizational change and dy-
tion. See their new book for an extensive discus- namics. Several distinct levers for change are de-
sion of organizations as open systems and for a veloped and discussed. Other pertinent books of
unique synthesis of the literature in terms of sys- interest include: Jay R. Galbraith's Organization
tems ideas. Design (Addison-Wesley, 1979), Jay R. Galbraith
For a broad analysis of organizational and Daniel A. Nathanson s Strategy Implementa-
behavior, see David Nadler, J. Richard Hack- tion: The Role of Structure and Process (West,
man, and Edward E. Lawler's Managing Organi- 1978), George C. Homans's The Human Croup
zational Behavior (Little, Brown, 1979) and see (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1950), Paul R.
Charles Hofer and Daniel Schendei's Strategy For- Lawrence and Jay W. Lorsch's Developing Orga-
mulation: Analytical Concepts (West, 1978) for a nizations: Diagnosis and Action (Addison-Wes-
discussion of strategy. ley, 1969), Harold J. Leavitt's "Applied Organiza-
For an extensive discussion of output tion Change in Industry" in J. G. March's (ed.)
and effectiveness, see Paul Goodman and Johan- Handbook of Organizations (Rand-McNally,
nes Pennings's New Perspectives on Organization- 1965) Harry Levinson's Organizational Diagnosis
al Effectiveness (Jossey-Bass, 1977) and Andrew (Harvard University Press, 1972), Harry Levin-
Van de Ven and Diane Ferry's Organizational son's Psychological Man (Levinson Institute,
Assessment (Wiley Interscience, 1980). 1976), Jay W. Lorsch and Alan Sheldon's 'The In-
For more detail on organizational ar- dividual in the Organization: A Systems View" in
rangements, see Jay R. Galbraith's Designing J. W. Lorsch and P. R. Lawrence's (eds.) Manag-
Complex Organizations (Addison-Wesley, 1973); ing Group and Intergroup Relations (Irwin-Dor-
on job design and motivation, see J. Richard sey, 1972), David A. Nadler and Noel M. Tichy's
Hackman and Greg Oldham's Work Redesign 'The Limitations of Traditional Intervention
(Addison-Wesley, 1979); and on informal organi- Technology in Health Care Organizations" in N.
zations, see Michael Tushman's "A Political Ap- Margulies and J. A. Adams's (eds.) Organization
proach to Organizations: A Review and Rationale" Development in Health Care Organizations (Ad-
(Academy of Management Review, April 1977) dison-Wesley, 1980), Edgar H. Schein's Organiza-
and Jeffrey Pfeffer's new book. Power and Politics tional Psychology (Prentice-Hall, 1970), and
in Organizations (Pittman Press, 1980). James A. Seiler's Systems Analysis in Organiza-
Submodels corresponding to the various tional Behavior (Irwin-Dorsey, 1967). 51