Https www 123test com team roles test index php

1 Organization Development: An Introduction to the Field, Its History, and Practices

©Sally Elford/Ikon Images/Corbis

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

Describe the �ield of organization development in terms of its purpose, philosophy, and de�initions.

Summarize the history of organization development, including the key practices of each period.

Explore the roles, values, competencies, professional associations, and ethics of an organization development practitioner.

More than 2,500 years ago, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus observed, “Change is the only constant” (Mark, 2010). This sentiment is still true today. From �luctuations in weather and seasons to the growth and aging of your own body, change is not an option—it is a fundamental principle of existence. What changes have you experienced recently? Perhaps you became ill or recovered from an illness, enrolled in or dropped out of a class, were promoted at work or changed jobs, ended a relationship or got married, or simply changed your mind about something.

As these examples suggest, sometimes change is intended, but just as often it is unanticipated or even unwanted. For example, few of us welcomed the recent global economic downturn, which required us to adjust our budgets and behaviors to cope. Were these changes planned or unplanned?

Unplanned change refers to changes that were unexpected, like the loss of a job, surprise successes, the sudden death of a loved one, a failed relationship, natural disasters, or new opportunities. What unplanned changes have been the most signi�icant in your life?

Assessment: Change Readiness

Most people think they are open to change. But are they? When change comes, do you �ind yourself curious and even exhilarated, or are you angry, frustrated, and worried that you are unprepared? Take a few minutes to assess your readiness for change.

http://www.ecfvp.org/�iles/uploads/2_-change_readiness_assessment_0426111.pdf (http://www.ecfvp.org/�iles/uploads/2_-change_readiness_assessment_0426111.pdf)

Planned change refers to shifts that are intended and prepared for, such as getting an education, learning new skills, moving to a new city, starting a new hobby, or �inding a new job. Over the past few years, what signi�icant changes have you planned? Have you been successful at implementing these changes?

Tips and Wisdom

Bebop was about change, about evolution. It wasn’t about standing still and becoming safe. If anybody wants to keep creating they have to be about change.

—Miles Davis (1926–1991), U.S. jazz musician and composer

Embracing change is not always easy, but it rewards us with new experiences, new insights, and new creations.

http://www.ecfvp.org/files/uploads/2_-change_readiness_assessment_0426111.pdf
©ImageZoo/Corbis Organization development (OD) helps organizations cope with change on a global scale.

1.1 What Is Organization Development?

Like individuals, organizations are continually required to adapt to a dizzying number, variety, and pace of change if they are to thrive. These unplanned changes include globalizing markets, emergence of the knowledge economy, advancing technology, growing customer diversity, shif-ting customer preferences, economic upturns or downturns, natural disasters, unanticipated competition, and abrupt reorganizations or changes in management. To navigate such shifts, organizations engage in planned change, an intentional process in which they take action to solve problems or overcome challenges. Examples of planned change in organizations include intentional shifts in products or markets, mergers and acquisitions (at least for the controlling company), prearranged reorganizations, expansion into new regions or countries, and new product development.

Although individuals often manage planned change independently, organizations frequently seek help so that the planned change is systematic, effective, and lasting. This assistance is known as organization development (OD). On its simplest level, OD is a process of helping individuals, groups, and organizations become more effective through planned change.

De�ining OD

Among the many de�initions of OD, no single one is universally accepted. Beckhard (1969) offers an early de�inition that is now considered classic: “Organization development is an effort (1) planned, (2) organization-wide, and (3) managed from the top, to (4) increase organization effectiveness and health through (5) planned interventions in the organization’s ‘processes,’ using behavioral-science knowledge” (p. 9).

Beckhard’s (1969) de�inition points to several key aspects of OD:

1. It is a planned, intentional process to address a problem or issue that needs to change. 2. It is organization wide, based on an understanding that the organization is an integrated system and that a

change made in one place may have rami�ications in others. 3. Top management provides buy-in and support of the OD effort. 4. OD activities address both the effectiveness and the health of the organization by boosting its performance

while making it a more humane place to work. 5. It is an intentional process, grounded in evidence derived from the behavioral sciences.

You can see Beckhard’s points in other popular de�initions of OD, such as this one from Cummings and Worley (2009): “Organization development is a system wide application of behavioral science knowledge to the planned development, improvement, and reinforcement of the strategies, structures, and processes that lead to organization effectiveness [emphasis added]” (pp. 1–2).

Similarly, Anderson (2012) advocated: “Organization development is the process of increasing organizational change through the use of interventions driven by social and behavioral sciences knowledge [emphasis added]” (p. 3).

In other words, OD is an intentional change process that involves the total system. It takes an evidence-based approach to planning change that improves the effectiveness and health of the organization. Moreover, management

is personally invested in making the organization more effective and healthy. Consultants who work with organizations to identify and implement appropriate interventions practice OD.

OD Consultants and Clients

Many organizations rely on professionals to steer them through complex and changing environments with planned responses to problems and challenges. These professionals are known as organization development consultants. Also known as OD practitioners, human resource developers, human resource managers, or learning and development professionals, OD consultants are skilled at assessing problems, providing direct feedback to the organization, and in�luencing change. OD consultants lead organizations through interventions that are based on careful study and preparation and are grounded in the behavioral sciences.

The key stakeholder in the OD process is known as the client. Sometimes there is more than one type of client. For instance, the person who initially contacts the OD consultant may provide introductory information about the problem but not be the owner of the problem or the person paying for the services. It is important for OD consultants to correctly identify the client—an issue we will cover in Chapter 3.

When Is OD Warranted?

Beckhard (2006) notes there are certain conditions that warrant an organization engaging in an OD effort. These include when a client or organization wants to

1. change a managerial strategy; 2. develop an organization that better meets the needs of employees, the organization, and the environment in

which the organization works (markets, community, and so forth); 3. change cultural norms; 4. change structure and roles; 5. build intergroup collaboration; 6. improve communications; 7. improve planning; 8. tackle issues related to mergers; 9. address motivation issues among the workforce; and

10. better adapt to a changed environment.

Have you experienced an OD effort at an organization you have worked for? If so, what motivated it?

Interventions

When someone decides to make a change, they usually do something speci�ic. For instance, if you decided to rein in your spending, you might establish a budget, create a spreadsheet to track it, switch to electronic banking, visit a �inancial planner, or change your saving habits. Actions like these that are taken to improve a situation are known as interventions. What are some problems you have experienced and interventions you have made?

In OD an intervention is a corrective action made to resolve problems or address challenges. Interventions in OD focus on tackling organization challenges such as low morale, quality defects, shifting markets, new management, leadership problems, strategic planning, and so forth.

Philosophy of OD

Most of us want to do meaningful work in an organization that has pleasant working conditions, with colleagues who are respectful, and where our work is recognized and rewarded. OD seeks to honor the individual and advance

organization goals. This commitment to bene�it all organizational stakeholders is grounded in the philosophy of humanism.

Humanism is the belief in the inherent good of human beings, their capacity to reach full potential in life, and their right to be treated fairly and humanely. “The OD value is not about change but about change that makes people better—humanistic values” (Marshak in Wheatley, Tannenbaum, Yardley Grif�in & Quade, 2003, p. 4). OD experts herald OD’s humanistic values as the �ield’s distinguishing feature (Greiner & Cummings, 2004; Porras & Bradford, 2004; Wirtenberg, Abrams, & Ott, 2004), embracing the notion that “the individual has to gain in the long-term for the organization to gain in the long-term” (Porras & Bradford, 2004, p. 401).

Wirtenberg, Abrams, and Ott (2004) capture this sentiment:

The need in organizations to manifest socially responsible values and create win–win business results has never been greater. OD is in an excellent position to seize the opportunity to build bridges, �ind common ground, and address organizational and cultural divides. (p. 479)

If you are fortunate enough to work in an organization with a highly functioning OD process, you should observe an operation engaged in continual improvement for individuals, teams, and the organization itself. As you read the case study on Sparklite, ask yourself if this company is engaging in humanistic practices.

Case Study: Is Sparklite a Candidate for OD?

Sparklite, a spark plug manufacturing plant, underwent a management change 6 months ago when John Stevenson became the plant manager. Stevenson replaced Al Smith, who was a beloved manager and had run the plant for 20 years. Smith was a hands-on manager. He was always willing to roll up his sleeves and work on a problem, whether it involved a machine in the plant or a con�lict with a customer. He was not a micromanager; rather, he would work closely with the team to solve problems. He listened to input, whether from the janitor or the vice president. He expected all management personnel to behave similarly. People who worked in the plant respected Smith and felt respected by him. Over time a true community atmosphere evolved, and the plant was one of the highest performing in the company.

Stevenson, on the other hand, spends a lot of time in his of�ice, reading over production numbers, talking on the phone, and holding meetings with his management team. Rarely does he go out onto the manufacturing �loor and talk with employees or listen to their ideas. When one of his managers suggests, “It might be helpful if you spent more time getting to know our workers,” Stevenson barks, “That is what I pay the supervisors to do. My time is better spent on �inding ways to cut costs and improve our margin.” Stevenson is very driven by numbers: When they are not good, he slams his �ist on the table and demands that the next shift “pick up the slack.”

It does not take long for the supervisors to become afraid of Stevenson and to quit coming to him with problems. The convivial atmosphere the plant had enjoyed for so many years quickly erodes into an atmosphere of fear. Soon the plant’s performance begins to suffer. Morale sinks. Members of the management team begin applying for transfers to other locations. Longtime workers are exploring other employment options. This only makes Stevenson more frustrated, agitated, and frightening to the workers.

One day a corporate vice president comes for a plant tour and visit. It is immediately clear to her that the plant has taken a turn for the worse. She talks with several employees and can see that something has to change.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. How might planned change play a role in turning things around at Sparklite? 2. How aligned with humanism is the organization emerging under Stevenson’s leadership?

Characteristics of OD

As we have already learned, OD is a planned change process that is grounded in a humanistic philosophy. It also has the following key characteristics (Beckhard, 2006, p. 9).

OD Is Systems Based

OD interventions are planned with consideration for the whole organization as a system. Like medicine, OD intends to “�irst, do no harm.” Recall that the tenets of humanism require that OD bene�it all stakeholders. This means, for example, that before implementing a change to work �low, the OD consultant would check to make sure the adjustments do not have a negative impact elsewhere in the organization. For instance, a work-�low change might expose employees to repetitive-motion injuries or make the work �low in another area unmanageable.

Top Management Is Committed

Effective OD secures management’s awareness of and commitment to the chosen intervention and its management from the very beginning. Employees look to management for approval and example, and it is imperative for organization leadership to visibly support any change effort. OD consultants play a key role in holding management accountable for demonstrating sustained and visible commitment to the OD change process.

The Intervention Is Tied to the Organization’s Mission

A key aspect of securing management commitment is helping leaders see how the OD initiative helps actualize the organization’s mission. It is also important for employees to understand this connection. For example, in the Sparklite case study, the organization’s mission to produce quality products on a timely basis was facilitated by a collegial, collaborative atmosphere that was being eroded by Stevenson’s behavior. If an intervention were made to help Stevenson and other managers change their managerial style to a more participative one, everyone would have to understand and buy in to how the new behaviors would help the organization meet its mission.

There Is Long-Term Commitment to Implementing the Intervention

Although OD interventions can sometimes be relatively simple and quick to implement, they often require a long- term commitment, sometimes 2 to 3 years or more. Interventions that change work practices, beliefs, or standards do not succeed overnight. Making lasting organization change needs long-term commitment and action from all levels of the organization.

Consider a large change made by your organization—perhaps a shift to a new database, marketing plan, or procedure. How long did it take? Make a list of a few changes you can recall and estimate how long they took. Chances are, the more complex changes required more time and resources.

OD Has a “Bias for Action”

Management guru Tom Peters, coauthor of In Search of Excellence, one of the best-selling business books of all time, became famous for saying that

Shannon Fagan/Taxi/Getty Images The goal of OD is to take timely, meaningful action to address problems, challenges, and opportunities within the organization.

effective organizations have a “bias for action” (1982; 2004). This means that an organization engages in active decision making and moves quickly to action, rather than being caught in an incessant cycle of planning without action. Although OD implementation can take a long time, it is based on taking action, analyzing how the action is working, tweaking it, and repeating the process for as long as necessary.

OD Focuses on Changing Attitudes or Behavior

Lasting change occurs when people alter their ways of thinking and doing. This is why OD can be powerful and can also take a long time to implement. For example, when leaders experience opportunities for leadership development and receive feedback that indicates they are not as effective as they think they are, they usually engage in introspection and change. Becoming less autocratic may not happen overnight, but real, lasting change occurs as leaders experiment with new ways of thinking about their role as leaders and when they implement new behaviors, such as listening or including others in decision making.

OD Tends to Incorporate Experiential Learning

We will learn throughout this book that when people change, they learn new ways of thinking and doing. OD favors action; thus, interventions often create opportunities for employees to experience new ways to think and act. Can you recall a time when you participated in a change that prompted new learning? For example, when I participated in a leadership development initiative, I learned how to coach employees in a way that focused on helping them solve problems on their own, rather than me giving them the answer. Although there was a chance to learn about coaching from books, I did not internalize it until there was an employee in front of me with a problem and I made a conscious effort to behave differently.

OD Is Largely a Group Process

Most OD is not done in isolation. Even when consultants make individual interventions such as providing training or coaching, the goal is usually to help the person function better with others. Similarly, changes in processes require that groups understand and collectively implement the changes. As we will discover, the �ield of group dynamics and facilitation grew out of OD.

Realities and Misconceptions About OD

To better understand what OD is, it is useful to explore what it is not. Table 1.1 compares some common realities and misconceptions about OD.

Table 1.1: OD Realities and Misconceptions

OD realities OD misconceptions

OD is a systematic process of planned change to address organization problems or issues. It follows the action research model (introduced later in this chapter).

OD is not management consulting or performance improvement activities that focus on making speci�ic expert, functional interventions that are disconnected from the organization system.

OD realities OD misconceptions

OD is humanistic in that it seeks to improve organizations through performance enhancements and improvements to people that make an organization a better place for all stakeholders.

OD is not oriented toward processes that only bene�it the organization and economic values of performance and productivity.

OD is strategic, and its interventions include a range of activities.

OD is not simply training and development initiatives, although often these interventions are erroneously prescribed to address problems.

OD is a long-term commitment to change that requires buy-in at multiple levels.

OD is not a short-term, quick �ix for problems.

OD interventions are customized to address needs speci�ic to the organization and its goals.

OD does not come with a one-size-�its-all set of interventions. Matching the right consultant with the problem is important for effective OD.

The next section of this chapter examines OD’s origins and the interventions that have developed over the past 70 years.

Take Away 1.1: What Is Organization Development?

People constantly experience both planned and unplanned change in the course of their personal and work lives. OD is a planned change effort that is supported by management and applied system-wide to increase organization effectiveness and health through interventions targeted at organization challenges or problems. OD is practiced by individuals who help the organization cope with and respond to change, also known as OD consultants. They work with the key organizational stakeholders or clients to resolve problems. OD is grounded in the philosophy of humanism that assumes human goodness and seeks to do no harm to the individuals or their organizations when making changes. Key characteristics of OD include: it is systems-based, top management is committed, the intervention is tied to the organization’s mission, there is a long-term commitment to implementing the intervention, there is a bias for action, it focuses on changing attitudes or behavior, it tends to incorporate experiential learning, and it is largely a group process.

1.2 The History of OD

If you work at a company, belong to a nonpro�it board, participate in a professional organization, or are a member of a church, it is likely you have engaged in team-building exercises, �illed out climate surveys, collected data about the organization, solved problems, developed talent, devised strategy, or sought to change the organization. These activities emerged during the historical evolution of OD, beginning in the 1940s. These interventions are discussed in chronological order in this section, which also introduces you to some key terminology used in the �ield. (Refer to the Key interventions in the history of OD interactive timeline for a summary of OD’s historical development.)

Key interventions in the history of OD

T-Groups and the Emergence of OD (1940s)

Kurt Lewin (1898–1947) is widely regarded as the father of OD for his innovations in group dynamics and action research, although he died before the term organization development came into use in the mid-1950s. It is dif�icult to overstate Lewin’s contributions to the �ield. As Burke (2006) notes, “His thinking has had a more pervasive impact on organization development, both directly and indirectly, than any other person’s” (p. 25).

Associated Press Kurt Lewin contributed to OD with innovations in group dynamics and action research. For this reason he is often referred to as the father of OD.

Author of the well-known saying “If you want truly to understand something, try to change it” (as cited in Neill, 2004), Lewin applied his logic by working in organizations to facilitate change. His practice and research led to some of the most important discoveries about group dynamics and factors that help organizations make effective change. Lewin founded the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 1944. His key contributions include understanding group facilitation, inventing action research, and demonstrating that social interactions could be studied with controlled experiments. Lewin developed many of the classic OD interventions still in use today. These are discussed further in this chapter and throughout this book.

Can you recall a time when you discussed a process with a group you belong to? Or a situation in which it would have been helpful to re�lect on issues such as “What were your assumptions when you disagreed with the decision?” “What did you really want to say?” “What just happened here?” or “How did our behaviors impact the meeting?” When a group engages in such conversations, it is known as a training group, or T- group. This is a small group in which participants receive input about their own behaviors and discuss how they affect the group dynamics. Lewin accidentally discovered the process used in T-groups, known as laboratory training or sensitivity training. This “accident” represented the founding of OD.

The �irst T-group occurred in 1946 when Lewin, then a faculty member at MIT and director of the Research Center for Group Dynamics, conducted

a training program aimed at improving community leadership and interracial relationships for the American Jewish Congress of New York’s Commission on Community Interrelations. The T-group evolved when program participants were invited to observe the daily posttraining debrie�ing between community leaders and program facilitators.

The observers did not remain in that role for long; instead, they jumped into the discussion to clarify, build on, or dispute the observations raised by the trainers and researchers. Lewin’s “aha moment” during these interactions was the power of this act of re�lecting on the day’s experience and questioning the assumptions and behaviors of the individuals in the training program. These re�lections, in other words, were more powerful than the training itself, particularly in enabling participants to transfer their new insights about group process back to relationships in their workplace.

You may have unknowingly experienced an informal T-group if you have ever met with coworkers to debrief a meeting in which you spoke frankly and tried to make meaning of your own and others’ actions during the meeting. Sometimes this is known as “the meeting after the meeting.” These exchanges are often much more enlightening and educational than the formal meetings themselves.

Who Invented That? The Flip Chart

Ronald Lippitt and Lee Bradford are among those who helped popularize the use of the �lip chart, a �ixture in most meeting rooms today. They used the �lip chart to record group insights and issues raised during the 1946 T-group sessions (French & Bell, 1999).

Although T-groups are still used today, their popularity has waned because it is challenging to transfer insights from the experience back to the workplace. Moreover, T-groups tend to focus on individual behaviors and therefore are not always effective at moving the group or organization to the next level. Eventually, these limitations led to the emergence of team building, representing OD’s �irst shift from the individual to the group unit of analysis.

Sociotechnical Systems (1940s)

During the post–World War II era of rapid industrialization in which T-groups emerged in the United States, changes were also afoot in the United Kingdom, where Eric Trist and Ken Bamforth of the Tavistock Institute (http://www.tavinstitute.org/) encountered problems in their consultancy with a coal mining company. The mining teams were cohesive work groups that were responsible for managing their work and received pay based on group effort. However, they experienced problems when management improved their equipment and technology in ways that fractured their previously cohesive working arrangements.

Trist and Bamforth (1951) worked with the company to reestablish the social elements that worked so well before the technology changed. This was the �irst time that a relationship between social and technical systems was recognized. Both aspects had to be considered when implementing change because they affected each other. In short, organizations were now understood as sociotechnical systems in which social and technical systems are interrelated and interdependent.

Consider your own experience in school or at work. What are the social and technical systems? How do they impact each other? How has one affected the other?

Action Research and Survey Feedback (1940s–1950s)

Lewin is known for saying, “There is nothing so practical as a good theory” (as cited in Smith, 2001). He believed that organizations should only enact interventions that are based on sound data. Just as it is good practice for a doctor to run tests to diagnose illness before prescribing treatment, so too should organizations make data-based diagnoses before prescribing treatments for organization challenges. Kurt Lewin, John Collier, and William Whyte believed that research and action had to be connected to help organizations make and manage change. Based on this belief, they developed a process of diagnosing organizational ills in the 1940s known as action research.

Action Research

Action research is a recurring, collaborative effort between organization members and OD consultants to use data to resolve problems. It is essentially a cycle of action and research, followed by more action and research. For example, Yvette might use a new meeting format with her team (action) and decide to interview team members about its effectiveness (research). What she learns is then shared with the team, the meeting format gets modi�ied (action), and so on. The action research process helps the organization collect, analyze, and apply data to make informed decisions and not waste time and money on inappropriate interventions.

The steps of action research include

1. collecting data about organizational problems or functioning, 2. analyzing data to understand the issue, 3. devising and implementing interventions to solve the issue or problem, 4.