The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lipshitz, R.
Right arrow Articles by Sherwood, J. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 14, No. 4, 493-509 (1978)
DOI: 10.1177/002188637801400405
© 1978 NTL Institute

The Effectiveness of Third-Party Process Consultation as a Function of the Consultant's Prestige and Style of Intervention

Raanan Lipshitz

Haifa, Israel (P.O.B. 1409)

John J. Sherwood

Krannert Graduate School of Management, Purdue University

The present study examines the effects of process consultation on group performance and group cohesiveness. Two factors were studied: (a) the consultant's prestige (high vs. low) and (b) the style of intervention (instrumental process analysis vs. interpersonal process analysis). The results of the study are summarized as follows:

  1. 1. Task groups using process analysis, with or without a consultant, improved more in their work processes and cohesiveness than task groups which did not use process analysis.
  2. 2. Groups which were facilitated by a third party were not significantly different from groups which performed process analysis on their own.
  3. 3. There were no differences due to the prestige of the consultant.
  4. 4. Instrumental process analysis was followed by greater improvements in work process and performance than was interpersonal process analysis. There were no differences in cohesiveness as a consequence of the two styles of intervention.
  5. 5. The interaction between prestige and styles of intervention did not follow any consistent pattern.
The results of this study are consistent with a "specificity proposition" stating that an intervention is more likely to succeed in those areas on which it is focused. Implications of this proposition for organization development are discussed in some detail.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Applied Behavioral ScienceHome page
A. W. Woolley
Effects of Intervention Content and Timing on Group Task Performance
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, March 1, 1998; 34(1): 30 - 46.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Group Organization ManagementHome page
R. L. Hughes, W. E. Rosenbach, and W. H. Clover
Team Development in an Intact, Ongoing Work Group: A Quasi-Field Experiment
Group Organization Management, June 1, 1983; 8(2): 161 - 186.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Journal of Applied Behavioral ScienceHome page
R. E. Kaplan
The Conspicuous Absence of Evidence That Process Consultation Enhances Task Performance
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, July 1, 1979; 15(3): 346 - 360.
[PDF]