Free Essay On Managing Organizational Change

The main purpose of this meeting is to bring together the various groups and teams involved in the project, review the work done by these teams and therefore identify standout patterns and themes that can be used to make an efficient action plan. Simply put, the session will aim to identify what works and what does not. By reviewing the work done by various action teams, it will also be possible to identify the courses of action that are worth pursing and those that that necessitate key emphasis. The sessions will also create a path for the enactment of relevant changes that will ensure that the achievement of the final objective happens. In a nutshell, the goal of the session is to come up with a comprehensive action plan that will be utilized for the project.
Unfortunately, not all sessions of this nature tend to be successful. Occasionally, sessions may take place but the ultimate goal of the session may not be realizes, for example, a comprehensive action plan might fail to be developed. This means that an entire session might have been useless. To prevent such an occurrence, it is crucial that a structured approach is adopted. A structured approach will ensure that the session does not deviate from its core goals and key components are not left out. It will be critical for the timing and will also be used to control decision making inputs.
One of the best approaches that can fulfil this purpose and that seems very ideal for the task at hand is the Nominal Group Technique. The Nominal Group Technique refers to a structured method or model for group brainstorming that provides a platform for problem identification and solving as well as efficient decision making (Macphail, 2001). Normally, an effective session is one that encourages creativity, discourages criticism and allows everyone to make contributions. The Nominal Group Technique facilitates all these. It promotes creativity, discourages negative criticism and ensures that everyone contributes sufficiently (Macphail, 2001).
This model was developed by VandeVen and Delbecq and has been used widely throughout the years where it has been proven to be quite effective (Macphail, 2001). This approach prevents the domination of a session by one single person, group or entity and instead encourages all members in the session and from different groups to take part. This then results in the formulation of prioritized recommendations or solutions.
This approach will ensure that the goal of the session which is to come up with a comprehensive action plan is met. It will ensure that a comprehensive review of each team work takes place, that each member from each team makes sufficient contribution and that finally, a set of solutions and recommendations that every member aggress with is formulated. It will therefore ensure that no one feels left out in the formulation of the final action plan and the plan developed essentially represents the goals of each team and is one that has the highest potential to achieve the overall goal of the project.
For the session to be considered successful, members of the team must work together. In addition, each one must make sufficient contribution. As mentioned earlier, the Nominal Group Technique encourages participation from everyone. This will take place by first allowing team members brainstorm all the suggested ideas and jot down the most promising ones. This will then be followed by collective discussion of the ideas that team members have identified as most promising.
During this part of the session, questions might be asked and clarification might be sought. However, there will absolutely be no room for criticism as it may harm group cohesion and the working together of team members since some might feel like they are being targeted intentionally.
After this, the main ideas identified will be shared across the group. This will involve every member making a response one a time. The main idea will then be recorded on a flip chart or table. Any one with a question will be allowed to ask and those seeking clarification for various aspects will be given an opportunity to be answered.
This will then be followed by personal or individual evaluation of the ideas followed by anonymous voting of the ones that have the greatest potential and promise. The next step will involve the tabulating of the votes and the preparation of group report that indicates the ideas that received the main points and that will this be part of the final action plan. The final step will involve allowing each group to make a brief presentations of their suggested solutions.
As shown in the preceding discussion, there will be a total of 7 steps or tasks for the achievement of this goal. It is crucial to remember that time is of the essence and while each step must be allocated sufficient time, the time allocated might must not be too much such that by the time the session is over, the overall workability of the session has gone down in value. It is crucial to remember that this session is part of a larger project which has its own distinctive timeline. The time allocated for each step will therefore be one hour, after which each group will move on to the next step. Voting as described above will be the 5th step and for such a project, a specific voting system is required.
For this kind of project and because of the number of people involved, a secret ballot system is the most preferable. This will maintain the anonymity of the voting direction of each member and this sustain respect between members even if they vote differently since none will know how each voted. Tabulating of the vote will then take place publicly to remove any discrepancies or potential fraud.
The final outcome of this session is a comprehensive action plan that has strong components and elements designed to propel the entire project to the next step. This action plan is what the group will present to the other levels accompanied by suggestions for implementation and evaluation.

References

Macphail, A. (2001). Nominal Group Technique: a useful method for working with young people. British Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 161-170.