Organizational Development Activities

The organization for analysis is the Air Force Sergeants Association (AFSA) that has adopted various strategies for building their military human capacity. AFSA is a non-profit-making organization whose work focuses on protecting the interests of both active and retired representatives of the armed forces. They strive to preserve this part of the population’s rights, improve the quality of their lives, and lobby interests since their service was challenging and required many victims.

Department Responsible for ODA

AFSA’sThe Human Resources Management Department handles AFSA’s organizational development activities. Their responsibilities include coordination, management, and supervision of this activity. Moreover, the department conducts a practical analysis of the training needs of military professionals. The HR manager also provides an analysis of the overall ODA design, streamlines the structures, delivers the required training programs, and demonstrates the returns on resources invested in this area.

Supporting Methods

Additionally, based on the assessment of the AFSA, it is demonstrating a team-building technique. The Human Resource department is utilizing high interaction group activities to increase the level of trust and openness among the military workforce. It applies the organizational development activities within the groups as well as at inter-group levels within an interdependent framework. Further, HR’s representative new task is to provide sensitivity training. It is a method concentrated on changing the behavior of military professionals through unstructured interactions within the group. For instance, the technique focuses on creating awareness of how military professionals are perceived and developing a more realistic self-image, great cohesiveness, and reduction in dysfunctional interpersonal conflicts.

IT Support of ODA in AFSA and Inhibiting Factor

Fundamentally, the organizational development activity techniques at AFSA have integrated the IT systems in its process. For instance, the AFSA’s Human Resource department has designed an information-driven system. It supports the interactions among the military professionals, encouraging the sharing of information and developing new sets of behavior to improve their capacity to cope and perform in various military assignments. Finally, from a personal perspective, I believe that the Human Resource Department at AFSA is aware of potential factors, which inhibit learning processes. For example, the United States’ military secretive culture limits the sharing of critical knowledge necessary to improve officers. To address the learning inhibitor, AFSA’s HRM has implemented information policies and regulations that ensure that the soldiers’ data remains within the organization’s boundaries.

Conclusion

To conclude, the organizational development activities improve the effectiveness and productivity of individuals within the administrative setup. They commence with the identification of a problem and end with the desired results. The OD activities at AFSA focus on individual military professionals and provide sensitivity training and team building to improve the members of armed forces’ performance. The specifics of the military sphere impose certain restrictions, but practice aimed at the development is as crucial as in organizations of another type.

References

Ashforth, B. E., &Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20−39. Web.

Clifford, J., & Thorpe, S. (2007). More ways than one… exploring the use of different learning methods in organizations. Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(5), 267−271. Web.

Ng, T. W. H., Butts, M. M., Vandenberg, R. J., DeJoy, D. M., & Wilson, M. G. (2006). Effects of management communication, opportunity for learning, and work schedule flexibility. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(3), 474–489. Web.

Orpen, C. (1997). The effects of formal mentoring on employee work motivation, organizational commitment, and job performance. The Learning Organization, 4(2), 53−60.