Peter senge the fifth discipline apa citation

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. collecting additional data to evaluate the results, and 5. repeating the cycle (back to step 1).

For example, suppose an organization is experiencing high turnover. Rather than just guessing about the cause and trying a program to address it, such as providing training, the action research process would investigate the

http://www.tavinstitute.org/
turnover issue �irst by collecting data. Data might be collected by conducting exit interviews with former employees, surveying current employees about their intentions to leave, conducting a climate survey, or talking with managers.

The second step, analyzing data, involves interpreting the �indings of the data collected in the previous step. The action research process is iterative; that is, the cycle of data collection and action are often repeated, and they inform future action. So in the case of turnover, exit interviews with former employees might reveal that the issue is related to pay, which the organization may want to investigate further by collecting industry data.

Once enough data are collected and analyzed, the organization is ready to move on to the third step, devising an intervention. The best solution in this case might be to adjust the pay scale.

Finally, the organization is ready for step 4, evaluating results. This often involves additional data collection and analysis, such as monitoring the turnover rate to see if the intervention worked. If it did not, then the action research cycle repeats (step 5).

We will return to this action research model throughout this book. Together, the humanistic philosophy and the action research process distinguish OD from other organization problem-solving pro-cesses. Action research is a valuable model to memorize and follow, whether or not you intend to work in the OD �ield.

Tips and Wisdom

A knee-jerk reaction to organization problems is often to prescribe training. Yet training is one of the costliest interventions to implement. When training is an inappropriate intervention, not only have time and money been wasted designing and delivering it, but the root cause of the original problem has gone unaddressed. This outcome can lead to further problems, frustrated employees, and lower organizational performance.

Survey Feedback

Organizations often collect data on employee satisfaction. Have you ever received a survey asking you to rate organization variables related to management, innovation, and satisfaction along a continuum from strongly disagree to strongly agree? If so, you have completed a Likert scale (Likert, 1932) for an OD intervention known as survey feedback.

Survey feedback is usually shared in meetings by providing a consolidated analysis of the results to work groups and their supervisors. During the feedback meetings, the data are discussed and next steps determined. Survey feedback is widely used in all types of organizations today and can be especially useful for monitoring change. Likert became a leading proponent of participative management, probably as a consequence of his immersion in data about management practices through his work in developing survey feedback.

Who Invented That? The Likert Scale

Rensis Likert (1903–1981), a colleague of Kurt Lewin, is best known for creating organization attitude surveys and the commonly used 5-point Likert scale. Likert developed these scales for organizations to measure employee satisfaction on a range of issues. They yield more sensitive results than a simple yes or

no. Today it is easy to create Likert scales with the help of web-based programs such as SurveyMonkey®. You can also purchase surveys from various vendors or work with a consultant to create a customized one for your organization. Likert was a founder of the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. You can learn about its history and his involvement at the institute’s website: http://home.isr.umich.edu/about/history/timeline (http://home.isr.umich.edu/about/history/timeline) .

Participative Management (1960s)

Take a moment to recall managers you have known or worked with. They might have been teachers, pastors, bosses, coaches, board presidents, and so forth. Whom did you really like and respect? Why? Whom did you despise? Why? Chances are that you admired the managers who earned your respect and trust through behaviors such as listening, seeking your input, respecting you as a person, valuing your contributions, and admitting their own mistakes. These behaviors are typical of participative managers or participative management. The rise of participative management emerged as OD consultants sought to apply OD’s humane and democratic principles to management. Likert (1977) developed a categorization of management types and styles that helped popularize participative management. These include:

Exploitative–authoritative: characterized by decision making from the top with little teamwork or communication (other than threats). Benevolent–authoritative: characterized by a master–servant relationship between management and employees, in which rewards are used to motivate, with minimal teamwork and communication. Consultative: characterized by a relationship of trust among management and subordinates, in which both rewards and involvement are used to motivate and there is a higher level of shared responsibility for meeting goals with moderate amounts of teamwork and communication. Participative: characterized by managerial trust and con�idence in employees such that goals are collectively determined and rewarded, the responsibility for meeting organization objectives is shared, work is collaborative, and communication is open.

Which management de�inition typi�ies the organization(s) you belong to? Now that you have guessed, take this management-style quiz to �ind out.

Assessment: Management-Style Quiz

Participative management differs from traditional authoritative management styles that seek minimal input from workers in running the organization and are built on top-down management, decision making, and communication with little lateral interaction or teamwork. Participative managers, in contrast, engage all levels of employees in decision making, problem solving, and strategic planning. Participative management techniques have been found to increase productivity, quality, and satisfaction. OD consultants are trained to help managers become more participative in their managerial practice through activities such as management development and executive coaching.

Use this Leadership Style Survey to assess your management style: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/survstyl.html (http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/survstyl.html) . How would you classify it? Are you happy with it, or do you have some work to do?

http://home.isr.umich.edu/about/history/timeline
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/survstyl.html
Quality of Work Life (QWL) (1950s–1970s)

The quality-of-work-life (QWL) movement emerged in the 1950s and 1960s. It focused on enhancing organizations’ sociotechnical systems by incorporating union–management cooperation, emplo-yee involvement, and self-directed work teams. QWL was grounded in the idea that organizations should promote individual well- being, team functioning, and overall organization health. The in�lation and escalating energy costs characteristic of the 1970s shifted QWL’s focus to global competitiveness, productivity, and employee satisfaction and became known as total quality management (TQM). W. Edwards Deming is credited with being one of TQM’s founders, although his ideas did not develop traction in the United States until the 1980s. He was embraced in Japan much earlier. Typical QWL–TQM activities include quality circles (groups of employees that meet and identify process- improvement projects), employee involvement, employee empowerment, process improvement, team decision making, and self-directed work teams.

Tips and Wisdom

The TQM movement is alive and well today. Certi�ication in TQM is offered by organizations such as the American Society for Quality (http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/total-quality - management/overview/overview.html (http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/total-quality- management/overview/overview.html) ) and iSix Sigma (http://www.isixsigma.com /methodology/total- quality-management-tqm/eight-elements-tqm (http://www.isixsigma.com/methodology/total-quality- management-tqm/eight-elements-tqm) ). Many organizations also apply for the Malcolm Baldrige Award, which recognizes outstanding quality performance (http://www.nist.gov/baldrige (http://www.nist.gov/baldrige) ). The International Organization for Standardization provides international standards for quality management (ISO 9000) (http://www.iso.org/iso/home /standards/management-standards/iso_9000.htm (http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/management-standards/iso_9000.htm) ), with which many organizations also seek to comply.

Who Invented That? Kaizen

Kaizen (Imai, 1986) means “improvement” or “change for the best” in Japanese. The Kaizen principle captures the notion of continuous improvement that became a dominant in�luence in post–World War II Japan and a key idea in the TQM movement. The Kaizen principle applies to work processes, individuals, groups, and all levels of the organization. Deming originated the quality improvement principles that helped Japan develop into a manufacturing powerhouse in the United States, although they did not receive traction in the United States until it became a competitive necessity to improve quality in manufacturing.

Organization Culture (1980s)

http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/total-quality-management/overview/overview.html
http://www.isixsigma.com/methodology/total-quality-management-tqm/eight-elements-tqm
http://www.nist.gov/baldrige
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/management-standards/iso_9000.htm
As OD practice shifted from individuals to groups, the natural progression was to expand that focus to the organization itself and how it could be more effective and ef�icient. With this shift, OD looked to the unique rules, values, and rituals that governed the beliefs and behaviors of organization members; that is, to the study of organization culture. Jacques (1951) de�ines organization culture as

the customary or traditional ways of thinking and doing things, which are shared to a greater or lesser extent by all members of the organization and which new members must learn and at least partially accept in order to be accepted into the service of the �irm. (p. 251)

Schein (1991), a prominent culture scholar, de�ined culture as a pattern of basic assumptions that are invented, discovered, or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with its problems of adaptation to the external environment. He suggested that when we understand culture, we can understand how it impacts its members’ thoughts, feelings, and actions. Think of a culture you belong to and identify some of its beliefs, activities, and customs.

Although the issue of culture was addressed in the study of organizations as early as the 1950s, organizational values and culture were rarely studied systematically until the early 1980s (Peters & Waterman, 1982). The notion driving this shift was that organization culture needed to align with strategy. Consider high tech as an example. Today the culture of these companies values creativity, innovation, and speed. Companies such as Google or Apple demand innovation on what is often referred to as “Internet time”—intense hours and quick turnarounds on projects. In return for the high expectations and long hours, the work environments are casual and cater to every need employees might have, including grooming, eating, health care, child care, and even pet care. This type of culture supports these companies’ strategy of being �irst with the most innovative products and services. In contrast, companies focused on �inance or manufacturing have a very different organization culture.

Every organization has a culture governed by spoken or unspoken rules. For example, some organizations are highly hierarchical, and it would be culturally taboo to skip rank to raise issues with upper management. Although this cultural rule may not be written anywhere, violating it would result in quick correction by the culture’s members. Culture also has artifacts that express its values and rules. The Apple corporation’s icon represents its mantra of “think different” and has become an iconic representation of a culture of innovation and design. Major university sports teams have logos and mascots that carry meaning. For example, the mascot of the University of Georgia is the English bulldog. This symbol holds many meanings, and people often refer to the university as “the Bulldawg Nation” and have a ritual of barking during kickoff at football games.

Planned and Strategic Change (1980s–1990s)

When you set a goal for yourself and intend to be successful, you typically have a plan. Consider your pursuit of a college degree. You have probably plotted your course work, determined your time line, and sought out people and other supports to help you succeed. Without some sort of strategy, your chances of success are slimmer. Similarly, organizations make plans to help achieve their goals. In OD these steps are known as planned and strategic change. The movement toward planned and strategic change emerged as OD consultants recognized the importance of linking organization change initiatives to the broader strategy and goals of the organization.

Earlier in the chapter, OD was described as planned change. OD interventions such as updating software, shuf�ling managers, or introducing new procedures typically �low from decisions to make changes that are associated with a higher performing organization. In contrast, strategic change involves aligning the organization’s strategy with its mission while accounting for technical, cultural, environmental, social, and political systems (Beckhard & Harris, 1977). For example, the organization might reach out to its local community regarding recycling or pollution reduction (environmental and political strategy), adopt a new social networking marketing campaign (technical strategy), or make deliberate efforts to shift the organization culture through leadership development, management reorganization, or mergers and acquisitions (cultural strategy). Strategic change usually follows some type of upheaval that may be unplanned, such as a change in government regulations, competition, new technology, or a

new leader. Such strategic disruptions have occurred on a national scale in the United States—for example, with health care legislation, the rapid and broad adoption of smartphones, and the election of President Barack Obama.

Organization Learning and the Learning Organization (1990s)

OD’s concentration on culture and strategic change fueled the interest in learning as a key lever in creating high- performing organizations in the 1990s. The shift to learning also parallels the rise of the knowledge society, the cultural and social shift away from industrialization to an economy based on service and intellectual work.

How an organization acquires and uses knowledge is known as organization learning. It involves ongoing, collaborative learning among the employees. Song, Joo, and Chermack (2009) describe organization learning “as the collaborative learning process of individuals . . . [the] learning processes that transform local or individual knowledge into collective knowledge” (p. 47). A key bene�it of organization learning is that it can help organizations be more competitive when they enhance their capacity to create, share, and preserve knowledge.

When organizations attempt to use learning as a strategic advantage and create infrastructure and interventions to do so, they are striving to become a learning organization. This concept was popularized by Peter Senge’s 1990 book The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Senge (1990) de�ined learning organizations as “organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free and where people are continually learning how to learn together” (p. 56). Watkins and Marsick (1993) suggested “a learning organization is one that learns continuously and can transform itself” (p. 8). They developed the Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ), which measures learning organization capacity in seven areas:

1. Continuous learning: Opportunities for ongoing education and growth are available, and learning is built into the work itself to promote on-the-job learning.

2. Inquiry and dialogue: The organization culture is built around developing the capacity to listen and inquire into the assumptions and perspectives of others. Questioning and feedback are welcome behaviors.

3. Team learning: Teams are expected to learn and create new knowledge together. 4. Embedded system: Systems to capture and share learning exist and are integrated with work and available

for employees to access. 5. Empowerment: Organization members are involved in creating and implementing a shared vision and share

responsibility for attaining it. 6. System connection: The organization is connected to its broader communities. 7. Strategic leadership: The leaders are committed to using learning as a business strategy and support

learning efforts.

You can take the assessment below to evaluate your organization’s readiness to become a learning organization.

Assessment: Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire

Take the DLOQ to see if your organization is a learning organization at this site: http://www.partnersforlearning.com/instructions.html (http://www.partnersforlearning.com/instructions.html) .

A simple way to think about the difference between organization learning and a learning organization is that organization learning describes how an organization learns. A learning organization is what an organization does to strategically leverage organization learning to improve performance and outcomes.

http://www.partnersforlearning.com/instructions.html
Contemporary Trends (2000s)

“Organization effectiveness” and “employee engagement” are the newest buzzwords on the OD scene. Both terms have gained prominence only in the last decade.

Anderson (2012) explains that the idea of organization effectiveness is not notably different from organization development and that it was part of Beckhard’s (1969) classic de�inition. However, the shift may be away from development, which some viewed as a “soft” term, and more toward more practical efforts to quantify OD activities and outcomes. Nevertheless, former PepsiCo chair Roger Enrico is noted for saying, “The soft stuff is always harder than the hard stuff” (as cited in LeadershipNow, n.d.), meaning that working on “soft” human relations issues such as communication, leadership, team cohesion, con�lict resolution, and the like are much more challenging than repairing “hard” problems related to machinery, correcting defects, and analyzing organizations’ �inancial waste.

To learn about the essentials of an effective organization and how they relate to productivity, Haid, Schroeder- Saulnier, Sims, and Wang (2010) conducted a global study of nearly 29,000 employees from 10 major industry sectors in 15 countries in the Americas, Europe, and AsiaPaci�ic. Review the report “Organization Effectiveness: Discovering How to Make it Happen” at http://www.right.com/thought-leadership/research/organizational- effectiveness -discovering-how-to-make-it-happen.pdf (http://www.right.com/thought- leadership/research/organizational-effectiveness-discovering-how-to-make-it-happen.pdf) .

Interventions that promote employee involvement and satisfaction are collectively known as employee engagement. This trend may harken back to the employee involvement and empowerment initiatives that were characteristic of QWL/TQM programs in the 1980s. Anderson (2012) noted that this return to individual concerns may be a measure to counteract the emergence of organization effectiveness. Noting that organization effectiveness and employee engagement may be too young to gauge as true OD trends, Anderson (2012) observed that they are receiving attention in practice, if not research.

The interventions pro�iled in this section have traced OD from its beginnings in the 1940s with T-groups focusing on individual behavior and accountability, to strategic interventions focusing on the organizational system’s effectiveness and health. OD is both change oriented and learning oriented, and each of these innovations has advanced organization practices and policies.

Now that you have a better sense of what OD involves, you may be wondering who implements it. The next section explores the values, competencies, and ethics of the OD consultant.

Take Away 1.2: History of OD

Historically, OD evolved from T-groups that focused on individual interventions to more systemic and strategic interventions that target overall organization health and functioning. OD has helped us understand organizations as sociotechnical entities in which the social and technical systems affect and are affected by each other. OD has been instrumental in making the workplace more humane with its advocacy of participative management, quality of work life, and total quality management. OD contributed some key tools to organizations during the 20th century, including the �lip chart, Likert scale, action research model, and survey feedback. Contemporary OD seeks to be more strategic and to foster learning, organization effectiveness, and employee engagement.

http://www.right.com/thought-leadership/research/organizational-effectiveness-discovering-how-to-make-it-happen.pdf
Great Stock/Corbis OD practitioners collaborate with clients to plan and implement change. They can be either internal or external to the organization.

1.3 Becoming an OD Consultant

If you are excited about what you are reading or perhaps are already involved in change efforts at work, you might be interested in pursuing a career in OD. Even if this is not the �ield for you, awareness of OD can help you participate more effectively in an organizational intervention or prompt you to decide to talk to an OD consultant to facilitate organization change. This section describes OD consultants and identi�ies the values, ethics, and competencies needed for effective practice as well as professional communities.

Tips and Wisdom

Advanced graduate training is recommended for those interested in pursuing a career as an OD consultant. There are several outstanding graduate programs in OD and human resource development that can provide this specialized training. The Academy of Resource Development maintains a comprehensive listing of graduate programs in this area. See http://www.hrd -directory.org (http://www.hrd- directory.org) .

Who Is the OD Consultant?

There are at least three types of OD consultants (Cummings & Worley, 2009):

The �irst type includes internal or external consultants. Internal consultants are employed by the organization as permanent employees. External consultants are not members of the organization and are hired on a temporary basis. OD consultants typically have advanced training in the �ield, ascribe to humanistic values, and have expertise in group dynamics, facilitation, decision making, coaching, leadership, and other social process areas. The second type are often management consultants working in content-oriented �ields related to OD, such as total quality, organization design, reward systems, information technology, or business strategy (Cummings & Worley). They work in conjunction with OD consultants to implement interventions. The third type includes managers who apply OD to their own functional areas. Although they may not be formally trained in OD, their organizations provide training, and they gain experience from interventions they are responsible for managing. This manager-as-OD- practitioner is on the rise as organizations attempt to rapidly implement change. Managers often build this expertise by working with OD consultants in ongoing change programs in their organizations.

http://www.hrd-directory.org/
Cummings and Worley (2009) note that the distinctions between these three types of OD consultants are blurring. See the Tips and Wisdom in this section for advice on pursuing an OD career.

OD Values and Ethics

Humanism has already been introduced as an underlying philosophy of OD. People who embrace humanism seek to trust and respect others and help them develop and grow. They also value democracy, equity, and fair treatment. In OD this translates into creating healthy, equitable, af�irming organizations for all members.

Anderson (2012) translated OD’s history of humanism into modern-day values that include

1. participation, involvement, and empowerment; 2. groups and teams; 3. growth, development, and learning; 4. valuing the whole person; 5. dialogue and collaboration; and 6. authenticity, openness, and trust.

Each will be discussed in the following sections.

Participation, Involvement, and Empowerment

OD is not about consultants prescribing change in isolation. Rather, it is a collaborative, democratic partnership in which organization members have input throughout the process and co-own the change. This value re�lects an understanding that changes only endure when system members have involvement and say in the changes chosen (Schein, 1990). That is why interventions that promote organization members’ participation, involvement, and empowerment are so highly valued in OD. Examples of these types of interventions include participative management, T-groups, survey feedback, quality of work life, and learning organizations.

Groups and Teams

An organization relies on groups and teams to do its work. Groups and teams are often the focus of OD interventions. Beckhard (1969) emphasized that “the basic building blocks of an organization are groups (teams)” (p. 26). A key competency for OD practitioners is to understand group dynamics and strategies for facilitating group process. High-performing groups and teams are built on productive relationships among members, high levels of communication, clearly de�ined roles, speci�ic goals, the ability to resolve con�lict, and recognition for goal attainment. When groups and teams are high performing, they create great results for the organization.

Growth, Development, and Learning

“Perhaps the value that differentiates organization development from most other management and consulting work is its emphasis on growth, development, and learning” (Anderson, 2012, p. 42). This value is also in sync with the reality that adults are continually learning, developing, and changing throughout their lives (Merriam & Bierema, 2014). A signi�icant amount of adult learning happens in the workplace, whether it is formal education in a �ield such as accounting, formal training on how to use computer software, informal learning where workers observe or ask coworkers how something is done, or incidental learning that is a byproduct of something else (for instance, one might observe interpersonal dynamics between colleagues during a meeting and conclude they do not like each other). Valuing growth, development, and learning also �its with OD’s humanistic philosophy that through learning and development we can turn around nonperforming individuals and teams; learn what is preventing optimal performance; and create organizations that promote, rather than impede, learning.

Valuing the Whole Person

Consider yourself. You probably have a job title, but this is not the totality of who you are. In addition to that, you have roles, hobbies, interests, and relationships outside work. Sometimes in organization life we typecast people based on their positions and fail to consider their input or interest in issues beyond the scope of their job. For example, a secretary might be heavily involved in community service, serving on nonpro�it boards, holding key leadership roles, facilitating meetings, and leading strategic planning. These experiences could provide valuable insights to her organization, yet when it comes to setting organization strategy, no one thinks to engage her because she is a secretary. Valuing the whole person means seeing organization members as people, not positions. It involves treating people with respect and inviting their participation. It also incorporates creating an environment that values diversity and inclusion—one where people feel welcome and valued regardless of age, race, gender, class, national origin, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, physical ability, and so forth.

Dialogue and Collaboration

“A key value in organization development is the creation of healthy environments that promote collaboration rather than competition, with the assumption that a win–win solution is both possible and more desirable than con�lict” (Anderson, 2012, p. 44). How individuals and groups communicate with each other has a signi�icant impact on whether collaboration is possible. Our cultural communication pattern in the United States is debate centered. That is, people often take a win–lose stance in conversations. The exchange is not about creating meaning or understanding, but rather about swaying the other person to your way of thinking. This type of advocacy-based conversation is known as discussion (Ellinor & Gerard, 1998; Senge, 1990). Discussion is not necessarily bad, since advocating ideas is necessary for us to make decisions. Where it breaks down is when an advocacy stance is the only mode of discourse used. All you need to do is turn on talk radio or television to see daily—if not hourly—examples of this highly confrontational, negative, nonproductive form of discourse at its extreme. Sadly, it has become the default way of communicating in many social settings, including organizations.

An alternative form of discourse is one in which you do not seek to prove your views as right or superior, but rather to understand differing, perhaps contradictory viewpoints. This is known as dialogue, or inquiry-based communication. To effectively dialogue, you must suspend judgment of various viewpoints, identify your assumptions, truly listen to others, and practice inquiry and re�lection (Ellinor & Gerard, 1998). When we dialogue, rather than trying to determine who has the right answer, we usually generate new meanings and ways of thinking no one had thought of previously. OD practitioners must become experts at dialogue because it effectively invites the client into the conversation. Rarely should an OD practitioner give clients the answer or tell them what to do. Instead, the consultant might say: “What is not working?” “What is one thing we could do today to begin addressing the problem?” “What I hear you saying is . . .” “Would you say more about that?”