PSYCH 6373 Week 6 I/O Psychology for Nonprofit Organizations Discussion

timer Asked: Feb 6th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $9.99

Question Description

This requires a substantive, referenced written response with a minimum of 250 words per DQ. as well as reading the writings of other students and responding to at least their primary postings. Additionally, you must read the writings of all other students and respond in a substantive way to at least two of their primary postings. Your responses should contribute scholarly to the discussion by challenging a position, providing additional support, or taking the debate in a new but reasonable direction.

All DQ responses to be supported by current research, i.e. journal articles published within the last 10 years.

In your DQ responses, do not use recently published journal articles for support; using articles I provide as additional readings do not count toward this requirement. An additional twenty points will be deducted from your weekly points if sources are not properly cited. These sources should be integrated into your response, not simply placed in a sentence within the response.


DQ #1

When we discuss organizational assessment, we often think of for profit companies. But, what about non-profit organizations? Would they also benefit from I/O consulting efforts? Read the article by Krause, Bryant, and Bhatia (2014) along with Davidson (2010). What insights do they provide? How do the two articles differ in their approach and application? What do these differences mean to you as a future practitioner?

Davidson, E. J. (2010). Strategic evaluation of the workplace assessment program. In J. C. Scott & D. H. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of Workplace Assessment (pp. 729-756). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Krause, J., Bryant, M., & Bhatia, A. (2014). Rigor and burden: Striking the right balance in organizational capacity assessments. Organization Development Journal, 32(2), 9-33.



After reading the articles by Silzer and Davis (2010) plus Scott and Pearlman (2010), how does assessing an organization differ from assessing individuals? Are there instances in which you would use both types of assessment tools? If so, what are these situations? If not, how would you justify relying solely on one type of assessment?

Scott, J. C., & Pearlman, K. (2010). Assessment for organizational change: Mergers, restructuring, and downsizing. In J. C. Scott & D. H. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of Workplace Assessment (pp. 533-575). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Silzer, R., & Davis, S. L. (2010). Assessing the potential of individuals: The prediction of future behavior. In J. C. Scott & D. H. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of Workplace Assessment (pp. 495-532). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.





Unformatted Attachment Preview

Rigor and Burden: Striking the Right Balance in Organizational Capacity Assessments Joanne Krause, BA Boston University School of Public Health Malcolm Bryant, MPH, MBBS Boston University School of Public Health Amiya Bhatia, BA Harvard School of Public Health Abstract Joanna Krause is a current student at the Boston University School of Public Health expecting an MPH in May 2014. Her interests include public health program management and forced migrant health issues. She has coordinated programs in malaria control and vocational training and job placement. She holds a BA in Anthropology from New York University. Conducting an organizational capacity assessment is a key first step in identifying need for capacity-building. A variety of organizational capacity assessment tools are available to nonprofits. This review compares 24 publicly available tools Malcolm Bryant is a Clinical Associate Professor at Boston University’s School of Public Health. He has over 30 years of working as a teacher, researcher, and implementer of public health programs in low, middle, and upper income countries, with a focus on sub-Saharan Africa. He teaches courses in health systems and health service implementation. His research interests include health systems and quality of care, and organizational development. based on the time and energy it takes an organization to complete the assessment process and their scientific rigor. We make the case for nonprofits to select the most scientifically rigorous process with the smallest amount of burden to the organization. _______________ Amiya Bhatia has worked on research studies examining organizational development of NGOs in Ethiopia and India. Her interests include health equity, child health and organizational development. She is currently enrolled in the Harvard School of Public Health and holds a BA in Social Anthropology from the University of Cambridge. Krause, Bryant, and Bhatia 9 Background An Contact Information: Joanna Krause, BA Malcolm Bryant, MPH, MBBS +1-978-790-5661 Boston University School of Public Health 801 Massachusetts Avenue Boston MA 02118 Amiya Bhatia +1-857-260-9432 effective nonprofit organization makes progress towards fulfilling its mission and accomplishes its stated goals (Sawhill & Williamson, 2001)(Herman & Renz, 1998). But how does an organization build and obtain the resources and skills necessary to carry out its mission? What factors and components are necessary for an organization to be successful? In the nonprofit arena, there is little consensus on the answers to these questions, and even less agreement on effective methodologies to assess whether an organization has the required capacities to reach its goals. Although answers to these questions remain murky, capacity-building is playing a growing role in international development, raising questions about how best to implement and evaluate capacitybuilding interventions. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has defined organizational capacity building as “the strengthening of internal organizational structures, systems and processes, management, leadership, governance, and overall staff capacity to enhance organizational, team and individual performance” (USAID & AIDSTAR-Two, 2011). Capacity-building is a frequently debated term and many organizations that engage in building capacity have their own definitions. For the purpose of this paper, we define capacity-building, 10 Organization Development Journal l Summer 2014 as a continuous process whereby efforts are taken organizational sustainability a lower priority to to improve an area or areas of an organizational capacity-building for immediate project needs, function to assist in meeting goals, improving and projects are aligned to donor priorities, rather performance, and increasing outputs or efficiency. than organizational priorities. Some major donors, In organizational capacity-building, this process is such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Malaria applied to an organization as a whole (Goldberg & and Tuberculosis, have realized the short-comings Bryant, 2012; Horton, 2002; USAID & AIDSTAR- of project-based funding and have made efforts to Two, 2011; Vita & Fleming, 2001; Wing, 2004). move towards capacity-building funding driven Organizational capacity building is beneficial by the priorities of the country recipient (Atun & because—when done correctly—it will contribute Kazatchkine, 2009; Goldberg & Bryant, 2012). to the long-term sustainability of an organization As donors move towards supporting (Lafond & Brown, 2003)(Mizrahi, 2004). This begs organizational capacity building rather than funding the question: how does an organization or a donor projects, there is substantial criticism on the know where to focus capacity-building efforts in allocation of these funds (Easterly & Williamson, order to realize improvement in organizational 2012). In the European Centre for Development Policy Management’s theme paper for the project capacity? Historically, it has been easier for nonprofits “Capacity, Change, and Performance,” David and community-based organizations to secure Watson highlights the problems in the allocation, funding to implement specific projects rather than use, and accounting for these funds: to fund efforts to increase organizational capacity. This is mostly due to the priority of donors who operate with time-bound projects with distinct, easy-to-measure programmatic outputs, allowing the donor to weigh their financial investment against the outputs of the program (Campobasso & Davis, 2001) (Mizrahi, 2004)(Backer, 2000) (Lusthaus, Adrien, Anderson, Carden, & Plinio Montalvan, 2002). The project-funding model may not always be the most effective use of funds because it makes “The results of capacity enhancement efforts in the public sector of developing countries have been disappointing. Some causal factors relate to the problematic political and institutional environments in which these interventions take place. Development agencies themselves appear to be part of the problem, especially if they apply formal results-based management/ logical framework approaches rigidly to programme design, after what may be flawed analyses of capacity needs.” (Watson, 2006) The precise amount of funding allocated to capacity-building activities is difficult to Krause, Bryant, and Bhatia 11 determine. Donors voluntarily report their 20.8 billion in 2004 (27 percent of total net ODA).” allocation of aid spending to the Organization for (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Development, 2006) Due to the voluntary reporting Development Assistance Committee. Reporting nature of these data, data collection inconsistencies categories range from the most broad—general as the DAC has changed its reporting structure budget support, where the donor does not earmark over time (Easterly & Williamson, 2012), and the funds for any specific use—to specific, project- likelihood that donors may report capacity-building type interventions which prescribe activities to expenses under multiple reporting categories, the take place in a clearly delineated geographic region amount of global annual expenditure on capacityduring a certain time frame with a defined budget building activities is likely to be a figure in the USD (Committee, 2009). billions and continues to grow. Spending on organization capacity-building may be classified under the Along with the unclear picture of global category of “Other Technical Assistance”, which expenditure on capacity-building, little data are is any technical aid falling outside of projects. In available on the effectiveness of these funding 2011, this was just shy of three percent of total aid, efforts. A review by Canada’s International or USD 46 million (Organization for Economic Co- Development Research Centre review found operation and Development, 2012). However, this few studies analyzing organizational capacity of figure does not provide an accurate representation of organizations receiving funding or loans from the dollar amount spent on these activities as project- development banks (Lusthaus et al., 2002). type interventions often include capacity-building In 2004, the Foundation Center called for expenditures. The 2006 OECD Development donors to evaluate their capacity-building and Assistance Committee (DAC) report titled The fund outcomes effectiveness research on different Challenge of Capacity Building: Working towards types of capacity-building efforts (Light, Hubbard, good practice noted that “some estimates of donor- Kibbe, & Patrizi, 2004). This paper concurs with assisted capacity development efforts suggest that the Foundation Center and presents a review and more than a quarter of total net ODA is spent on comparison of assessment tools which are available technical cooperation. DAC members’ spending to evaluate organizational capacity. The companies on technical cooperation with developing countries and organizations that designed the organizational and multilateral organizations amounted to USD capacity assessments included in this review aimed 12 Organization Development Journal l Summer 2014 to identify an organization’s areas of strengths and ones (Affairs, 2010) (Backer, 2000) (Touré, 2012) weaknesses, assess an organization’s capacity to (USAID & AIDSTAR-Two, 2011) (Milen, 2001) implement projects, and measure an organization’s (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, 2009) readiness for change. The article evaluates these (Connolly & York, 2003) (McKinsey & Company, methodologies and discusses the factors donors and 2001) (Goldberg & Bryant, 2012) (Nu’Man, King, organizations should consider when choosing an Bhalakia, & Criss, 2007). assessment methodology. We argue that reliable and The U.S. government Office of Personnel replicable tools that allow longitudinal assessment Management says “you cannot afford not to do a of capacity enable the most rigorous assessment of front-end analysis” when determining training organizational development. needs, in order to identify gaps. (“US OPM The Challenge of Measurement Training Needs Assessment,” n.d.) A clearly Donors have struggled to account for the various documented assessment process should take some factors that make the organizations they support measurements of an organization’s systems and succeed or fail in meeting their goals. In an era then assess readiness to take on further projects, of what some have harshly termed “bungled aid as well as identify gaps and plan efforts to close efforts” (Smillie, 2001) it is essential that donors these gaps (Fredericksen & London, 2000) (United take appropriate steps at the planning phase Nations Development Programme, 1998). Over- to ensure that an organization has the capacity enthusiasm to provide funding to add or expand to operate effectively and to manage their aid. projects can lead to disastrous consequences when Government aid agencies and development groups the organization does not have the capacity to absorb including USAID, the Norwegian Agency for the funds and effectively run new or larger projects Development Cooperation (NORAD), the Ministry (IDD and Associates, 2006). of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, the World Health According to Judge and Douglas in their Organization, and the African Development Bank 2009 article in the Journal of Organizational Change Group are in agreement that an assessment of an Management, 70 percent of planned organization organization’s capacity is a critical first step when change initiatives fail (Judge & Douglas, 2009) vetting an organization for a grant to determine an (Pellettiere, 2006). They attribute this to the lack of organization’s strengths and areas needed to improve reliable measurement tools to assess an organization’s in order to sustain current projects or take on new current capacity, ability to grow, and to reassess this Krause, Bryant, and Bhatia 13 capacity over time. A previous review of tools to functions that comprise an organization so for this measure the impact of capacity-building initiatives article we use the term “organizational domains” conducted by Measure Evaluation at the Carolina when discussing the components that comprise an Population Center identified sixteen diverse tools. organization. These tools employed a range of qualitative and While there is growing consensus that it is quantitative instruments for use in self-assessment a best practice to employ measurement tools for and external assessment of capacity. Few of the organizational capacity-assessment, there is a lack tools included in their review were validated. The of clarity of what organizational domains to measure review found few of the tools to provide objective and the type of instruments to use to conduct this measures of the organization’s capacity (Brown, measurement. Methods Lafond, & McIntyre, 2001). Existing assessment methodologies also We conducted a review to determine assume that there are consistent organizational what types of methods are being used to conduct norms that hold throughout different cultures, assessments of organizational capacity. We were and in different size organizations, with different interested in examining the commonalities between goals and objectives. Experience working across tools to determine if there is consensus on how cultures suggests that these assumptions may not be organizations should be assessed and what factors valid. Other frameworks are more specific, and are comprise a strong organization. We also wanted intended to analyze a specific type of organization to compare the design and scope of assessment operating in a specific setting or location. These tools and assess whether the tools available to specific frameworks may be applied in other organizations or donors conducting a baseline or contexts, but would need to be tested. Across these reassessment of an organization would provide a broad groupings of assessment methodologies reliable result. there remains a lack of consensus in defining what A literature search was conducted using constitutes a strong organization, with the only areas Google Scholar, Pub Med, and Web of Science for of agreement being that an organization should have the terms “organizational assessment,” “capacity functional leadership, governance, and information assessment,” “organizational capacity assessment,” and financial management. The literature lacks “capacity development,” “organizational common terminology to describe the systems and development assessment,” and “capacity building” 14 Organization Development Journal l Summer 2014 to identify assessment tools and literature about called toolkits) which allow the user to design the organizational assessment. assessment process are also available, but were Assessment tools are comprised of one or not the focus of this review. The assessment guide more instruments which are intended to be used process includes choosing the number and type of as-is. The fixed nature of the instruments allows domains to analyze, as well as selecting the methods, for comparison between completed assessments and designing questions. Because it is unknown and implies that the instruments will be utilized in how each organization would interpret the guide, a systematic way. Assessment guides (sometimes these guides were not included in the analysis. Krause, Bryant, and Bhatia 15 The assessment tool may include itself, cost for specialized software necessary to instruments, such as surveys, checklists, interviews, use the tool, cost to access the summarized results group discussion, observation, tests and/or review of the tool) and thus were not included in the final of existing data and documentation. An assessment analysis. The reason for the exclusion of the tools tool may include a qualitative instrument such as available for purchase is that organizations in a discussion guide or organizational profile, but low-income countries seeking methodologies for the quantitative instrument included in the tool is capacity assessment may not be able to access the the basis of this analysis. Assessment tools are tool due because of cost or for a logistical reason comprised of one or more of these instruments and such as not having a Visa or MasterCard required provide the organization with an organizational to make the online purchase of the tool. Table 1 capacity score upon completion. The assessment lists the twenty-four of the 44 assessment resources may be completed internally or externally facilitated. which met the inclusion criteria for analysis. Each quantitative assessment instrument included Analysis in this review is a set of questions in the form We developed a set of variables for each of a survey, checklist, grid, or interview which tool as follows: each tool was categorized by may be administered on paper, via Microsoft generalizability potential, assessment methodology, Excel, or through an online system. The tools in type and number of individuals intended to this analysis were found from previous review participate in the assessment, subjective versus articles of organizational assessments (Brown et objective lines of questioning, number and type al., 2001) (McNamara, n.d.) (Fitzgerald, Posner, of domains, the use of compound indicators, and & Workman, n.d.) and the internet and database whether or not the assessment recommends a search mentioned above. Forty-four organizational reassessment as part of the process or leads to next capacity assessment tools were originally identified. steps. Analysis was conducted by examining each Fifteen were classified as guides and excluded from instrument as well as any literature or instructions the analysis. Criteria for inclusion were that the available accompanying each instrument. Data on tools must be intended for organizational capacity each variable was organized into a spreadsheet, by assessment and be available publicly online. There tool. The areas of categorization mentioned here are was a charge to access at least one important the components used in a final analysis comparing component of five of the tools (cost for the tool these tools on their scientific rigor and practicality. 16 Organization Development Journal l Summer 2014 Results recommended for use by government, donors and Generalizability Potential for-profit enterprise. The tools and guides have been Generalizability potential refers to the used to assess both large and small organizations in number of locations and organizations where the the United States, Canada and developing nations assessment methodology may be utilized. All of the in the Caribbean, Central and South America, Asia tools and guides in the sample are designed for use and Africa (Table 2). Some tools were designed by nonprofits, civil society organizations and other for use in a specific location, with a specific type of similar designations. Seven tools (29%) are also organization. Some tools may have been designed Krause, Bryant, and Bhatia 17 for use in a specific context, but no literature fields, and with different types of organizations. describing the context was found. In this case, the Staff and Stakeholder Level of Involvement in instrument’s “previous location of use” is listed Assessment as “unspecified”. While all tools and guides are The tools are designed to be used with specifically designed to a ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

School: UCLA



I/O Psychology for Nonprofit Organizations
Discussion #1
Institutional Affiliation




The industrial-organizational psychology commonly known as I/O psychology is the
scientific study of human behaviors in the workplace. It enhances the understanding and
measuring of human behavior in the workplace to improve employee satisfaction in the
workplace. It also improves the employer’s ability to select, screen, employ, and promote the
most ideally suited candidates for a job position. It thus makes the workplace a better
environment for employees. Nonetheless, I/O psychology has been applied to profitorganizations; however, the question arises whether it is also applicable to nonprofit
organizations as noted by (Wicker and Breuer, 2013). It is imperative to note that I/O psychology
is the field of psychology that is dedicated to understanding and managing the employment and
organizational relationships. Industrial psychologists thus works directly with organizations in
the advisory roles in which they provide counseling to employees and offer tips to finding and
hiring the right employees to the organization. It therefore means that the success of any
organization relies on how well they incorporate the roles of I/O psychologists within the
organizational framework (Landy & Conte, 2016). Regardless of whether an organization is forprofit or not-for-profit, these organizations stand to benefit a great deal with the help of industrial
organizational psychologists.
From the two articles; Krause, Bryant, and Bhatia (2014) and Davidson (2010), it is
evident that strategic evaluation is imperative approach within an organization since it assist
organizations in meeting their goals, improving performance, and most importantly increasing
output and efficiency in the bottom line. Davidson (2010) contends to the fact that strategic
evaluation is much more than just measurement and analysis, it involves finding useful and
important answers to important questions that can enhance strategic decision making within the
organization. In other words, strategic decisions should be driven by organizational priorities and



evidence rather than hunches and opinions. On the other hand, Krause, Bryant, and Bhatia (2014)
focuses on capacity building which focuses on improving organizational performance to assist in
meeting goals and increasing the overall organizational output. In their opinion, they align their
argument to the fact that when capacity building is done correctly, it will contribute to the longterm sustainability of the organization. In comparing the insights provided by Krause, Bryant,
and Bhatia (2014) and Davidson (2010), it is essential to note that Krause, Bryant, and Bhatia
(2014) focuses on capacity building as an essential means of improving ...

flag Report DMCA

Thanks, good work

Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors