A Case Study adapted of Experimental Approach to Organization Development “Brighter Future”


Brown, D. (2014) A Case Study adapted of Experimental Approach to Organization Development’ 8th Edition. Harlow, Essex: A Pearson Education Limited.

The following report highlights a more in-depth analysis of main issues of concern, problems, and likely solutions facing Brighter Futures. However, the purpose of the executive summary is highlighting significant recommendations before moving over to more important findings that affect Brighter Future (Stipek, 1993).

Brighter Future is a U.K based large-sized company with about four hundred employees supplying computer components to worldwide computer manufactures (Meldrum, 1995). The firm utilizes new OLED (organic light-emitting diodes) technology and also produces a majority of other high-tech products. Bob Moore is the CEO of the company claiming that the company gained an increasingly rapid growth since its establishment twenty-years ago and the organization is successfully moving to nanotechnology in advanced electronics (Meldrum, 1995).

Critical Analysis

The significant, challenges faced by Brighter Future include lacks proper coordination and integration of training activities at a more budgetary control (Tarascon, & Armand, 2001). A common language facilitates coordination, and the sensitivity of a common language is tested when they decide to participate in proper coordination. In the study cooperation of psychology, we get some subtopic Coordination problems. Although coordination in an ongoing area of psychology, it helps in perceive cheater and to recognize individuals (Cosmides & Tooby, 2005). Apart from other benefits of coordination, it also possesses several challenges that are not a motivational epistemological problem which results from difficulties in conveying a single solution. According to Cosmides and Tooby (2005), the natural selection formed the human living history and recognition help solve the problems coordination.


To be able to improve an organization’s performance structure, it is vital to understand the possible causes of dissatisfaction of internal and external customer needs and requirements (Stipek, 1993). However, it is crucial to correctly understand the concept of structured problem-solving processes that enable the identification, analyzing, and eliminating discrepancies between several existing standards (Lewis, 2003, p. 325-344). Additionally, it is necessary for the Executive Committee to collect data through research, interviews, and survey which offer as a source of data for analysis (Reinharz, & Davidman, 1992). In times of conflict and disagreements between various departments of an organization, the committee is strongly advised to set up a standard structured problem-solving technique for the team as research shows it to be highly beneficial.


In successfully improve a company’s overall performance that causes dissatisfaction with internal and external disagreements, it is essential for the Executive Committee to provide a process that is possible of eliminating problems through prevention steps. Improving a company’s performance enables ease in problem-solving thus able to reach a more rationalized conclusion (Tarascon, & Armand, 2001).


Appelbaum, E. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why high-performance work systems pay off. Cornell University Press.

Brown, D. (2014) an experiential approach to organizational Development’ 8th Edition, Harlow, Essex: A Pearson Education Limited Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. sociology, 6(1), 1-22.

Lee, K., & He, X. (2009). The capability of the Samsung group in project execution and vertical integration: Created in Korea, replicated in China. Asian Business & Management, 8(3), 277-299.

Lewis, D. (2003) a Theory of Organization and management of non-governmental development organizations towards a composite approach. A Public Management Review, Vol. 5 Issue 3, p. 325-344

Louviere, J. J., & Lancsar, E. (2009). Choice experiments in health: the good, the bad, the ugly and toward a brighter future. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 4(4), 527-546.

Meldrum, M. J. (1995). Marketing high-tech products: the emerging themes. European Journal of Marketing, 29(10), 45-58.

Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M. (2003). Gaining a competitive advantage. Irwin: McGraw-Hill.

Reinharz, S., & Davidman, L. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. Oxford University Press.Shaw, M. E. (1932). A comparison of individuals and small groups in the rational solution of complex problems. The American Journal of Psychology, 44(3), 491-504.

Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D. C., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. D. (1998). Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Research in Brief. National Institute of Justice. Shin, N., Jonassen, D. H., & McGee, S. (2003). Predictors of well structured and ill-structured problem-solving in an astronomy simulation. Journal of research in science teaching, 40(1), 6-33.

Stipek, D. J. (1993). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice.Tarascon, J. M., & Armand, M. (2001). Issues and challenges facing rechargeable lithium batteries. Nature, 414(6861), 359-367.

Thomas, K. A., DeScioli, P., Haque, O. S., & Pinker, S. (2014). The psychology of coordination and common knowledge. Journal of personality and social psychology, 107(4), 657.