establishment of the relationship between ... - Euroasiapub.org

IJRESS Volume 2, Issue 3 (March 2012) ISSN: 2249-7382ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND ORGANIZATIONALEFFECTIVENESS (A CASE STUDY OF S.K.G. REFRACTORIES LTD.-NAGPUR MARKETING OFFICE)Rumi Dasgupta*INTRODUCTIONOrganization Development (OD) is a process by which behavioural science knowledge andpractices are used to help organizations to achieve greater effectiveness, including improvedquality of life, increased productivity, and improved product and service quality. Its focus ison improving the organization's ability to assess and to solve its own problems. Moreover,OD is oriented to improving the total system - the organization and its parts in the context ofthe larger environment that impacts upon them.Stoner (HR Management researcher) points out that OD is not designed to solve a single ortemporary problem in the organization. Its intention is to move the organization to a higherlevel of functioning - that is, to improve the performance and satisfaction of organizationmembers.As it is possible to see in the next section, OD has experienced major changes through time;for that reason it is difficult to arrive at a clear and definitive definition of OD. Nevertheless,it is important to point out that OD is a managerial theory whose focus is satisfaction of bothpeople and organizations. In addition, OD techniques are useful in any situation, butespecially when a change occurs in the organization. The term ‘Organizational Development’is often used interchangeably with ‘Organizational Effectiveness’ (OE), especially when usedas the name of a department or a part of the Human Resources function within anorganization. Organizational effectiveness is the concept of how effective an organization isin achieving the outcomes the organization intends to produce. Organizational effectivenessis determined by the degree to which it attains its objectives.*Research Scholar, Nagpur University.International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences 38http://www.euroasiapub.org

IJRESS Volume 2, Issue 3 (March 2012) ISSN: 2249-7382OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDYThe objective of the study is to analyze the concept of Organizational Development and itsrelevance in the process of attaining Effectiveness of the organization and to establish arelationship between OD & OE in relation to a particular case study in an organizationdealing with refractory products.This case study can be related to any industry for a similar or partly similar situation. It isfocused on the adaptation of new sales and marketing strategies.LIMITATIONSThe limitations of this research study are that, it is focused on a particular case study of anorganization and the data were collected through the concerned managers of the same. It wasnot a field work by the researcher. So, the dependence on collected data was a compulsion.PLACE :- SKG REFRACTORIES LTD,214, JP CHAMBER,SOUTH AMBAZARI ROAD,NAGPUR-440010METHODOLOGYThe first category of sample consisted of nine (9) middle management staff (General-.Manager, Managers, Deputy and Assistant Managers etc.) those were directly related to themarketing and sales of the products. Their aptitude score before and after a ‘skilldevelopment program’ by H.R.D. department were collected and analyzed by statisticaltechniques; interpretation was drawn.The second category of sample were 54 sales data (in Tons) which were sold to customersover a period of 9 months (Jan 2009 to Sept. 2009). These sales data (after the conduction ofsales campaign) were analyzed and interpreted by statistical techniques.The third category of sample were 18 sales data (in tons) over a period of three months Oct.2009 to Dec. 2009. These data were tested by statistical techniques after providing somecoordination and indirect incentives to the client organizations.PROCEDURE & RESULTSProcedureIt started with keeping permission from the authorities concerned of SKG Refractories Ltd.Marketing office, Nagpur, to involve managers of their industry for the research study. Afterfixing a particular date by prior appointment, the G.M. (Marketing) provided the datarequired for pursuing the research study. All the relevant data required to conduct theInternational Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences 39http://www.euroasiapub.org

IJRESS Volume 2, Issue 3 (March 2012) ISSN: 2249-7382research study were collected, analyzed and interpretations were drawn by the results ofstatistical calculations.ResultsA) To improve the sales of the special refractory products A, B, C, D, E & F, special skilldevelopment program in sales and marketing was conducted and 9 managerial staff tookpart in that.The aptitude score of the employees before and after the program were noted as follows:Participants 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Score before the program 46 45 49 43 44 46 48 44 45Score after the program 48 47 48 45 43 45 50 47 44Let us suppose the score before the program as ‘x’ and that after the program ‘y’. we take thenull hypothesis that the mean of the difference is zero, we can write:H O : µ 1 = µ 2 which is equivalent to test H O : D = 0H O : µ 1

IJRESS Volume 2, Issue 3 (March 2012) ISSN: 2249-7382Standard deviation of differences∂ diff. =∑D 2 i−− (D) xnn −1=229 − ( −0.778)9= 1.7159 −1t =−D−0 − 0.778 − 0= = -1.361∂ / n 1.715/ 9diffDegrees of freedom = n – 1 = 9 – 1 = 8.As H a is one sided, we apply one-tailed test (in the left tail as H a is of less than type) fordetermining the rejection region at 5% level of significance which comes to as under usingthe table of ‘t’ distribution of 8 degrees of freedom:R:t < - 1.860The observed value of t = -1.361Which is it the acceptance region so we accept H 0 and can conclude that difference betweenthe scores before and after the developmental programme is insignificant.Hence we can conclude that, the programme was not effective.B) Typical sales data (in MT) from January 2009 to Sept. 2009 are furnished below.After the sales campaign programme, the sales increased. The decline in sales is clear in May2009 and June 2009, from July 2009 onwards it took the desired shape.Sales in 2009(MT)Prod Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug SeptABCDEF8946517866829044.5538064788845528165849244557967828339487161798540466963758838457465799042.547776980894146807081Average of sales of in the month of Jan, Feb, March, April 2009International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences 41http://www.euroasiapub.org

IJRESS Volume 2, Issue 3 (March 2012) ISSN: 2249-7382ProductsASales in MT89 + 90 + 88 + 924= 89.75B46 + 44.5 + 45 + 444= 44.875CDEF51+53 + 52 + 55478 + 80 + 81+79466 + 64 + 65 + 67482 + 78 + 84 + 824= 52.75= 79.5= 65.5= 81.5Average of sales of individual product in May & June 2009 (decline)ProductsASales in MT83 + 85= 842BCD39 + 40248 + 46271+692= 39.5= 47= 70E61+63= 622F79 + 752= 77International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences 42http://www.euroasiapub.org

IJRESS Volume 2, Issue 3 (March 2012) ISSN: 2249-7382Average of sales individual product in the months July, Aug & Sept. 2009 (increase)ProductsSales in MTABCDEF88 + 90 + 89= 89338 + 42.5 + 41= 40.5345 + 47 + 46= 46274 + 71+80= 77365 + 69 + 70== 68379 + 80 + 81= 803Let us suppose the sales (in tons) before and after the extensive promotional campaignprogram are ‘x’ and ‘y’ respectively.The null hypothesis is the sales were not improved after the campaign.H O : µ 1 = µ 2 (eqvt. To test H 0 : D = 0)H a : µ 1 < µ 2 (campaign has been a success)t =−D−0∂ diff/ nSales after Diff. D i = x ii -Products Sales beforecamp. X ii camp. Y ii y iiA8489-5B39.540.5-1C4746+1D7077-7E6268-6F7780-3Diff. sqr. D i251149369ΣD i =-21 ΣD i 2 =121International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences 43http://www.euroasiapub.org

IJRESS Volume 2, Issue 3 (March 2012) ISSN: 2249-7382∑D i21D = = − = −3.5n 6∂ diff. =∑−2D − (D)in −12n=121−( −3.5)6 −1− 3.5− 0t = = -2.7483.08/ 62x6= 3.08Degrees of freedom = (n-1) = 6-1 = 5.H 0 is one sided, a one-tailed test is applied in the left tail as H a is less than one type. Fordetermining the rejection region at 5% level of significance which comes to as under, usingtable of t distribution for 5 d.f.R: t < -2.015.The observed value of t is -2.784 which falls in the rejection region and thus we reject H o at5% level and conclude that sales promotional campaigning program has been a success.In the 1 st week of Sept. 2009, as proposed by HRD another attempt (described below) wastaken by the Company for further sales growth of the aforesaid products.Free services by way of deputation of application engineers were offered by the company tothe customers who were for first time, using these products or who needed applicationguidance during shutdown jobs.This drive of providing solutions (not only selling products) indeed helped the organization toearn the customers confidence.This was an indirect incentive to the client organizations. After this declaration, the sales ofthe months of October, November and December 2009 were analyzed and the mean wascalculated.International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences 44http://www.euroasiapub.org

IJRESS Volume 2, Issue 3 (March 2012) ISSN: 2249-7382The table is given belowProductsABCDEFSales (in MT)October 2009 November 2009 December 200991454970698492435169.57285Mean of sales for the above months of the products (in tons)91 + 93 + 93A == 92345 + 43 + 44B == 44349 + 51+52C == 50.667370 + 69.5 + 75D == 71.5369 + 72 + 73E == 71.333384 + 85 + 84.5F == 84.53934452757384.5Let us suppose the sales (in tons) before and after the declaration of the incentives are x & yrespectively.The null hypothesis is the sales were not improved after the announcement of the incentiveoffer.H 0 : µ 1 = µ 2 (equivalent to test H 0 : D =0)H a : µ 1 < µ 2 (announcement of incentives has been a success)t =−D−0/ n∂ diff .International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences 45http://www.euroasiapub.org

IJRESS Volume 2, Issue 3 (March 2012) ISSN: 2249-7382Calculation for ‘t’Products Sales beforethe declarationof theincentives tothe clientorgnaizations2Diff. D i = x iii - Diff. sqr. D i Sales after they iiideclaration ofthe incentivesto the clientorgnaizationsy iiix iiiA89B40.5C46D77E68F80∑D i13.5D = = − = −2.25n 6924450.66771.571.33384.5-39-3.512.25-4.667 21.78+5.530.25-3.333 11.089-4.520.25ΣD i =--13.5 ΣD 2 i =104.619∂ diff. =∑−2D − (D)nin −1=104.619−(−2.25)6 −126=74.244= 3.8535t =−D−0∂ diff/ n=− 2.25− 03.853/ 6− 2.25= =−1.43031.573Degrees of freedom = (n-1) = 6-1 = 5H 0 is one sided, a one tailed test is applied at the left tail as H a is less than one type. Fordetermining the rejection region at 5% level of significance which comes to as under, usingthe table of t distribution for 5 degrees of freedomR : t < -2.015The observed value of ‘t’ is -1.4303 which falls in the rejection region so we reject H o at 5%level of significance and accept H a ; it can be concluded that the incentives to the customers orclient organizations has been a success.International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences 46http://www.euroasiapub.org

IJRESS Volume 2, Issue 3 (March 2012) ISSN: 2249-7382CONCLUSIONIn this research study, to increase the decreased sales was the organizational effectiveness(partly), which helped the organization to achieve its sales target (goal) and the organizationaldevelopment interventions (apart from interventions from other areas) were (A) Marketingand Sales Development approach towards the key persons (9 managerial staff in this case)(B) Specially Designed, Extensive Sales Promotional Campaign and (C) Incentives andemployees to the customers to sustain sales growth.It has been proved by several Hypotheses that, out of these three OD efforts, ‘skilldevelopment program’ of the required executives was not successful, but, ‘salespromotional campaign’ and ‘incentives to the customers’ were effective and yielded thedesired results (target/ objective/ goal).INTERPRETATIONBusinessGrowthORG.EFFECTIVENESSIncrease of declined sales ofsome products and also furthersales growth of the products.(Short term Goal/ Objective)1)Development ofthe key persons inthis areaThis intervention did notwork .ODINTERVENTION3) Incentives to theclient-organization.This approach yieldedfurther increase in sales.2) Extensive salespromotional campaignspecially designed byH.R. expertsThis approach broughtthe desired target.International Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences 47http://www.euroasiapub.org

IJRESS Volume 2, Issue 3 (March 2012) ISSN: 2249-7382Hence, properly designed OD intervention for any particular unwanted situation canbring OE. So, it can be concluded that proper OD process (or processes) is directlyproportional to the desired OE in a business organization and it enhances the businessgrowth.REFERENCESBooks:1. Ackroyd S. Crowdy P.A. 91990). ‘CAN CULTURE BE MANAGED’ PersonnelReview, New York.2. Adams J.L. (1987). ‘CON CEPTUAL BLOCK BUSTING’ Penguine. U.S.A.3. Branes, B. (1996). ‘MANAGING CHANGE’ Pitman, New York.4. Blair, G. & Mendows, S. (1996). ‘THE REAL LIFE GUIDE TOORGANISATIONAL CHANGE’ Grower, India.5. Gordon, Judith. R. (1996). ‘ORGANISATIONAL BEHAVIOUR’. Prentice Hall,New Jersey.6. Kanter R.M. (1989). ‘WHEN GIANTS LEARN TO DANCE’. Unwin. London.7. Mintzberg, H. (1989). ‘MINTZBERG ON MANAGEMENT’ Free Space, New York.8. Senge P. (1995). ‘THE FIFTH DISCIPLINE FIELDBOOK’. Brearly. London.9. T.N. Chhabra (2000). ‘HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: CONCEPTS ANDISSUES’. Dhanpat Rai. Delhi.10. Uday Pareek (1994). ‘MAKING ORGANISATIOAL ROLES EFFECTIVE’. TataMcGraw Hill. New Delhi.11. Wilson, D. (1992). ‘A STRATEGY OF CHANGE’ Routledge, London.12. William Scott Mackey (1983). ‘RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONSENSUS ONCRITERIA OF EFFECTIVENESS AND RATINGS OF EFFECTIVENESS’Lincoln.Journals1. Indian Management (the journal of A.I.M.A.) Volume-45, Issue-3, March 2006, p. 61,p. 71-76.2. Indian Management (the journal of A.I.M.A) Volume-45, issue-4, April 2006, p. 10-14.Websitewww.BPOIndia.orgwww.wikipedia.orgInternational Journal of Research in Economics & Social Sciences 48http://www.euroasiapub.org