The Analysis of Organizational Diagnosis on Based Six Box Model in Universities

Purpose: The analysis of organizational diagnosis on based six box model at universities. Research method: Research method was descriptive-survey. Statistical population consisted of 1544 faculty members of universities which through random strafed sampling method 218 persons were chosen as the sample. Research Instrument were organizational diagnosis questionnaires with 77 items that by use of cronbach alpha coefficient, www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 1, No. 1; June 2011 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 85 reliability coefficients were obtained equal to 0.94. Out of 218 questionnaires we received 200 completed questionnaires. This represents a response rate is quite suitable for this type of study. Finding: Analysis of the results indicated that mean the organizational diagnosis in dimensions of leadership, relationships and motivation & reward was bigger than average and in dimensions of purpose, structure and helpful mechanisms was smaller than average. There was not a positive and significant difference between views of faculty members about organizational diagnosis on based of gender, employment status and scientific degree.


Introduction
Today, the organizing of working environment and creating a calm and efficient working atmosphere which can lead to a better activation of human force and their happiness as well as decreasing depression and increasing positive services which in turn result in productivity are among the hallmark concerns of organizations' executives since the organizational functions are getting more and more complicated.Can organizing of working environment and creating a calm and efficient working atmosphere for human force provoke their creativity and improve the performance of organizations?How strong is the role of executives in providing their work force with the above mentioned facilities?These are important questions which are continuously raised and asked in the work force management discussions.Generally, work force need to have a healthy and appropriate mental and physical environment to be able to obtain higher and more efficient outcomes for their organizations (Iraqi Khalil, 2004).
The most important concern of human resource management is absorbing, keeping and promoting human force so that if managers can employ experts, keep them for the organization using different motivational and legal rights and promote their position and ranking, they have actually created the best and the most desirable environment for their staff.This environment quality must be continuously improved and the staff decisions are incorporated till they feel justice is met about them and that they have enough job security (Iraqi Khalil, 2004).
Appropriate use of human resource requires actions for securing their physical and mental health.These actions include recreational and medical facilities, encouraging plans, job compatibility, job security, job planning (job enrichment and improvement), paying attention to the position and raking of the individual, staff promotion and training (Cascio, 2000).Working environment has quality if and only if its staff is taken into consideration and has learning opportunities (Raduan, 2006).Undoubtedly, the provision of facilities and requirements of the staff leads to their peace of mind and consequently their job satisfaction (Cole, 2006).In order for the purposes of the organization to be identified and obtained, organizations inevitably need to design and implement evaluative systems to identify the obstacles in the way of their purposes using organizational error detection frameworks.Such frameworks include the current system performance identification process and collecting necessary information for planning its changing interventions.

Organizational Diagnosis
Organizational diagnosis requires defining and using a pattern for understanding organizational problems, data collection and analysis and drawing conclusions based on the findings with the purpose of making necessary changes and probable modifications.This organizational diagnosis is a group process meaning it requires the existence of common and similar approaches and purposes.Individuals should seriously take active part in planning interventions and their implementation.Therefore, Organizational diagnosis, in contrast with medical diagnosis, necessitates not only removing the problem but also making changes and taking new paths.Such changes can help improve the future performance and developments of the organization (Cummings, 2005).
The context in which organizations work is very important in organizational diagnosis.Organizations are open systems so that everything outside of the organization can affect their daily activities.Organizations which work in a stable environment have generally a dynamic nature and from an organizational diagnosis perspective need very little changes.Organic organizations are really flexible.Those in charge of organizational diagnosis need to know the type of organizations in order to make decisions as to the choice of appropriate patterns and theories.Incorrect understanding can cause inappropriate problems (Smither, 1996).
One of these organic organizations which have a dynamic interaction with the environment is universities.The main task of universities is training and educating experts and professional human resource for the society and at the same preparing the ground for stable developments.The quality & development of knowledge greatly depends on the quality of work environment in universities.Therefore, analyzing the quality of university working environment helps top executives of higher education systems get the needed feedback for making decisions and their future strategic planning on the one hand and universities themselves become aware of their quality and take measures for its improvement on the other.One of such actions is paying enough attention to the faculty members' welfare and the quality of their knowledge and its improvement because it highly affects the quality of higher education and university environment.As universities have the major role of societies' improvement power in scientific, cultural and social dimensions and must technically and scientifically always be one step ahead of other institutions, they must have the quality by which they can improve the quality of other organizational environments.

Six Box Model
In Marvin R. Weisbord's Six-Box Model, six categories are used to perform an organizational diagnosis: purposes, structure, relationships, rewards, leadership and helpful mechanisms.To perform an organizational diagnosis, it is essential to have a basic understanding of what "diagnosis" means and why it must be done.According to Weisbord, identifying and solving a problem must be done systematically by the same people, because by so doing, they learn from their own situation and then seek improvement.
One step in this process is diagnosis.By definition, diagnosis is a way of looking over an organization to determine the "gap" or variance-between what is and what ought to be.3It implies that data are collected and then conclusions are drawn by assigning meaning, weight, priority and relationships to the facts.4Thus, based on available data, diagnosing would entail an analysis of what the data mean and determine its impact on what actually ought to be happening.Moreover, the gaps or variances identified are then prioritized in relationship to action plans that, if needed, rectify any variances.Utilizing Weisbord's Six Box Model can help only if the provider acts upon the diagnosis.Having used the six boxes pattern, the problems of the organization are identified and their quality improved.The components of the six boxes pattern are namely; purpose, structure, relations, rewards, leadership and helpful mechanisms.
Organizational purposes are the same missions and perspectives.These purposes must be clear for all the members and they have to abide by them even if they have totally different philosophies in comparison to that of the organization, they have to go along the same stipulated purposes and rules.The structure of an organization is the big picture of its levels of power and formal relations between functional groups of the organization.Structure must offer a true and appropriate picture of the legal power and also must be taken into account as a formal way of facilitating things for getting the purposes of the organization.Relations include individuals, groups, technology and other functional sections which effectively work together.Rewarding systems (official and unofficial) must be analyzed.Data must contain such information to create enough motivation in the individuals.Helpful mechanisms are methods which help the staff coordinate their activities.Examples of such mechanisms are namely; description of organizational approaches, seminars, notes, reports or positions which are created with the purpose of making appropriate relations between sections of the organization.Managers use human resources, materials and other equipment for helping the purposes of organization come true.They increase cooperation between the staff for the production of a single product.Some of the methods they use for such a purpose are intensive leadership style, focusing on duties and relations, identifying management purposes and problems and being responsive.The efficacy of a manager is the degree of authority his staff feel he has (Binder, 1995).Considering the importance of organizational diagnosis and its role in improving organizational processes, the present study aims to investigate the organizational diagnosis strategies of Isfahan public universities based on Wiesboard six boxes model.

Review of Literature
In obtaining the results and summaries of performed studies in Iran and other countries about the organizational diagnosis of universities, no research having the same subject with this study was found.So the abstracts of relatively the same studies are presented here.Ramazani (2001) in his research revealed there to be a direct relationship between desirable working life qualities, the reduction of working problems, absence, leaving the job or getting promotions and employers can reduce these problems by increasing personnel quality of work life.Robert and Foti (2002) analyzed the relationship between "self leadership, job structure and their relationship with job satisfaction.Job satisfaction level was high in two groups of the personnel, 1-those who had a high self leadership ability working in a weakly structured environment and 2-those who had low levels of self leadership ability working in a highly structured environment.Therefore if individuals with high self leadership work in highly structured environments, their job satisfaction considerably drops.Studies show that organizations cannot reach their purposes unless both the organizational and personnel purposes are met.
A study titled "the role of team work in improving individual abilities and the quality of organizational processes" by Golshiri (2003) was conducted.Findings indicated that encouraging team work by managers could not only improve the quality of organizational processes but also can be used an ability improvement strategy.
Another study titled "the behavior pathology of Bakhtar power company staff" was conducted by Lajavardi ( 2004) in which the findings indicated a high organizational commitment and culture, an appropriate organizational climate and high levels of job stress together with negative attitude of half of the personnel towards the organization.The diagnosis of industrial units based on European model of quality management by Akhavan Sarraf ( 2004) was conducted.The results indicated that the organization has not been successful in creating job satisfaction for the staff (e.g.Salary, promotion etc) and providing enough motivation or learning opportunities.They also had not paid any attention to their customers or had any contacts with them.Various job related problems, environmental issues and having old personnel were other reasons of the organizations failure.Polities (2005) in his study titled "the role of leadership and work environment in creativity and productivity improvement" found a positive & significant relationship between leadership and motivational dimensions of work environment in productivity improvement.Motivational dimensions of work environment had a significant effect on creativity and productivity as well.Leader in this point of view has the role of a provider.He provides the essential framework for creativity and productivity.Izadi (2006) conducted study titled "analysis organizational structure in University of teacher training in which the findings indicated a significant difference between the current and the favorable organizational structures.Meanwhile the staff wanted a more formal and professional environment, these features were literally not visible in the structure.They expected the convergent structure to be changed with a professional bureaucratic one.Khaghanizadeh (2007) investigated the relation between job stress and quality of work life of nurses employed in armed force hospitals.Findings indicated that the job stress levels of the majority of the nurses (90%) was at normal level and had significant correlation with sex and marital status, negative correlation with age and positive correlation with weekly working hours.The quality of work life level of 81% of the nurses was average and had significant correlation with marital status and negative correlation with weekly working hours.Nurses were not satisfied with the balance between their jobs and their lives.Findings also indicated a negative correlation between nurses' job stress and working life quality and a positive correlation between most quality of work life dimensions.
A study titled "the challenges, problems and obstacles in personnel empowerment" was done by Shahrani (2008) the findings indicated a negative relationship between the ambiguity of purposes, lack of authorization and personnel's levels of ability.Hynes (2008) analyzed the effect of office environment on productivity and found that it had the greatest effect on office productivity.
Another study was conducted by Bissel, (2008) titled "organizational assessment and organizational diagnosis" in which he found out that organizational problems put personnel under a lot of stress and if this stress continues, it can paralyze the whole organization.Jamali (2008) conducted a study titled "learning organization: diagnosis & measurement in a developing countries" and found out that the main power of Lebanese organizations lies in their personnel systematic training.Zali (2009) started working on organizational diagnosis in public company.This company had problems in the areas of purposes (mean: 2.78), leadership (mean: 2.78), structure (mean: 2.51), rewarding (mean: 1.94), coordination mechanisms (mean: 2.52) and organizational changes (mean: 2.46).The most problematic area was rewarding system whereas the least was company purposes.Nikookar (2009) investigated the "components of organizational diagnosis in center of Iran carpet".The findings of this study revealed that the most problematic area was rewarding, the components of useful mechanisms (soft ware factors), organizational purposes, structure, relationships and finally leadership problems.Also, a significant relationship was found between carpet export and the problems of Iran national carpet center.
Tavakkoli (2009) worked on the diagnosis of human resource management toward improvement and development.The findings indicated that the priority of the problems of each component and the causes of each problem were structural problems, employment, assignments, promotions, performance analysis behavioral components, job motivation and satisfaction, organizational culture, job security respectively.The least problematic areas were consultants and architects.Elloy (2009) started working on the relationship between self leadership behaviors and organizational variables in a self management work teams environment.He found that what we can do to improve the efficacy of self performing teams is creating a climate of trust, boosting team interactions, giving feedbacks, rewarding, creating noble behaviors and making decisions.Vicic (2009) worked on a study titled "Organizational change according to Burke and Litvin model in the head nurses system of management in health care and social welfare institutions found changing components must include the out-side organization climate.Also and as for welfare and healthcare centers, changing of nursing leadership and management systems are necessary.Leadership changes are only required for welfare institutes.Blanchard (2009) investigated the "a combination of work environment factors and individual difference variables in work interfering with family.Findings indicated a positive relationship between job stresses, family clashes, mental health and depression on the one hands and a negative relationship between Organizational Support and family clashes about working.
1.4 Hypotheses H1: Organizational diagnosis in six dimensions (purpose, structure, leadership, relationships, motivation & rewards and helpful mechanisms) is bigger than average.H2: There is a significant difference between organizational diagnosis in terms of demographic variables (gender, scientific degree, field of study, scientific degree, university of service location and employment status).

Methodology
This study was conducted using the survey method.The statistical population consists of 1544 individuals from the faculty members of selected Universities of Isfahan.The sample was selected by stratified randomized sampling proportional to the volume of 218 respondents (Table 1).
The tools for gathering data was a researcher-made questionnaire for organizational diagnosis with 77 items based on ten-point scale (1= always and 10= never).In total, 200 questionnaires were circulated to targeted population.Out of 218 questionnaires we received 200 completed questionnaires.This response rate is quite suitable for this type of study.By using Alpha Cronbach coefficient, reliability coefficients were obtained equal to 0.94 for researcher made organizational diagnosis questionnaire.Also, questionnaire was confirmed by 30 faculty members in the university in terms of nominal and content validity.The analysis of the data was performed in inferential level (correlation coefficient, ANOVAs and t-test), using SPSS16 statistical software.

Analysis Result
H1: Organizational diagnosis in six dimensions (purpose, structure, leadership, relationships, motivation & rewards and helpful mechanism) is bigger than average.Analysis of the results related to H1 in table2 indicated that mean the organizational diagnosis in dimensions of leadership, relationships and motivation & reward was bigger than average and in dimensions of purpose, structure and helpful mechanisms was smaller than average.H2: There is a significant difference between organizational diagnosis in terms of demographic variables (gender, scientific degree, and field of study, university of service location, scientific degree and employment status).
According to the obtained results from H2, the observed F did not show significant difference among the means of the components of the organizational diagnosis in terms of gender, employment status and scientific degree(instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, full professor) (P≤ 0.05).The observed F showed a significant different among the components of the process of organizational diagnosis in faculty members in terms of, field of study and university of service location (P≤ 0.05).

Discussion and Conclusion
Organizational diagnosis requires an acceptable reason so that counselor uses his experience for analysis at the level of organization and attract members support at the same time.As we saw in the hypothesis section, universities have a lot of problem provoking weak points.These problems were in the areas of helpful mechanisms, purposes, structure, Leadership, relationships, motivation and reward respectively.The analysis of the components mean as for the purposes component indicated that the mean was a little lower than the average, Which may be due to the ambiguity of purposes, Lack of or Law awareness of activity area purposes, incompatibility between University policies towards purposes, incompatibility between qualitative and quantitative purposes, paying attention to Organizational or individual purposes and unreasonable expatiations of University from the members.The results of this study was similar to that of Zali (2009), Nikookar (2009) and Rober and Foti (2002).
According to the obtained results from H1 the analysis of the components mean revealed that, the mean was a little below average in the structure component.Unclear and Uncertain structure in the activities area, the structure of training over research, lack of cooperative decision making style, making certain and repetitive decisions, not wooing new procedures and methods, violating the rules and law of the organization, changing the rules based on individual preferences, weak distribution of human resource and inappropriate assignment of duties.The findings of this study were in line with that of Izadi (2006), Zali (2009), Nikookar (2009), Robert andFoti (2002) and Vicic (2009).
The analysis of the components mean in the leadership component illustrates the fact that, the mean was above average which might be a result of managers and top executives laziness with the purpose of the members promotion, unreasonable expectations of managers from members, weak preparation of managers for members in meeting and seminars, or granting studying opportunities, little support of manager from the members offered plums, lack of managers support for members creativities, limited authority of the members, little managers' honesty, little support of managers for the members against the students' unreasonable expectations, managers' vulnerability against the pressures and individuals' contacts with the university counsel.The results of this study were also similar to that of Zali (2009), Nikookar (2009) and Vicic (2004).
The components' mean analysis in the relationships area indicated that the mean was above average which may be due to the members' dissatisfaction with their colleagues' behaviors, lack of common activities among members, having clashing view with others on professional issues, lack of unity among members, hidden arguments of members, lack of honesty among members and managers, members' indifference towards each other, the existence of unsolved problems at the university, lack of necessary connections at work environment and lack of dialogue between members and managers.The results of the study were similar to that of Zali (2009), Nokookar (2009), Vicic (2004) and Akhavan Saraf (2004).
The mean was above average in the motivation component which may be because of the lake of balance between the lack of satisfaction with rewards based on competency, dissatisfaction with facilities, little growth potential, lack of balance between Salaries and duties, lack of members' assessment based on the standards, lack of appropriate rewarding system for novelties, lack of varieties, unfair behavior of the manager with members, members' illegibility, lack of balance between facilities and educational resources.The results of the study were in line with that of Zali (2009), Nikookar (2009) and Akhavan Saraf (2004).
The mean was below average in the helpful mechanisms' component which could have been due to strict university control ambiguities of rules and principles, difficulty of the rules, lack of standard criteria determination for training performance assessment, lack of enough preparations for putting the errands in order.The results of the study were similar to that of Zali (2009), Nikookar (2009) andAkhavan Saraf (2004).
According to the obtained results from H2, the observed F did not show significant difference among the means of the components of the organizational diagnosis in terms of gender, employment status and scientific degree (instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, full professor) (P≤ 0.05).The observed F showed a significant different among the components of the process of organizational diagnosis in faculty members in terms of, field of study and university of service location (P≤ 0.05).
Finally it is suggested that university purposes, purposes clarification, purposes explanation, purposes and policies' coordination, organizational and individuals' purposes compatibility, compatibility between the qualitative and quantitative purposes of university, having reasonable expectations from members be prioritized.The priority in the area of structure is clarification of structures, creating cooperative decision making styles, appropriate authorization of positions and duties and paying enough and simultaneous attention to education and rules.The priorities in the area of leadership are having reasonable expectations from managers, promoting members knowledge and status, managers' support for members' attendance in seminars and meetings, granting study opportunities, supporting members' creativities, reducing members' limitations, creating member consultation systems, promoting managers' honesty and supporting members against students' expectations.The priorities in the area of relationships must be improving members' cooperation, friendly sharing of experiences, eliminating the fight over power among members, setting friendly sessions of manager-staff dialogue and discussion and promoting honest between managers and personnel.The priorities in the area of rewards and motivation are promoting rewards based on eligibilities, improving facilities, growth potential, balance between Salaries and duties, proper members' assessment based on the standards, appropriate rewarding system for novelties, welcoming varieties, fair behavior of the manager with members, members' illegibility and creating balance between facilities and educational resources.The priorities in the area of helpful mechanisms are changing negative supervision and control to positive one, making decisions based on reasoning, improving flexibility in rules and principles, determining reasonable criterion for training performance assessment, creating efficient informative centers and making members aware of their duties.Big organizations like universities can make use of such strategies for both improving their performance and facilitating their organizational diagnosis power.Other researchers can also use other patterns for organizational diagnosis or apply these to their own organization.(Weisbord, 1978)

Table 3 .
ANOVA of organizational diagnosis in terms of demographic variables.
200 Purpose of error (MSW): mean of within group error.Figure 1. Six-box Model