What’s in a Name?

There is the perennial question of “What is OD?”. This is exacerbated by it being such a broad
field. One person’s primary practice may be coaching, another may be in building high
performing teams, while another is doing large scale whole system transformation. And some do
all three… How can all these practitioners claim they are all “doing OD”? Not only is it confusing
to our profession internally, more dangerously, it is confusing to clients as well.
Many people like the Beckhard definition of OD (1969).
Organization Development is an effort that is: Planned, Organization-wide, Managed from the top,
Increase organization effectiveness and health, Through planned interventions in the organization’s
“processes,” using behavioral-science knowledge.
I historically preferred Burke and Bradford (2005):
Organization Development is a system-wide process of planned change aimed toward improving
overall organization effectiveness by way of enhanced congruence of such key organizational
dimensions as external environment, mission, strategy, leadership, culture, structure, information
and reward systems, and work policies and procedures.
I like the emphasis on planned change and the clearly systemic view. But I now find the Jamieson
and Worley adapted definition more compelling:
A process of planned intervention(s) utilizing behavioral and organizational science principles to
change a system and improve its effectiveness, conducted in accordance with values of humanism,
participation, choice and development so that the organization and its members learn and develop.
(adapted from Jamieson and Worley 2008)
The parts for me to highlight include the important addition of “Organizational Science” in
addition to Behavioral Science, an emphasis on OD values, and the explicit call out of
organization learning/developing for individuals in the organization. This speaks to the capacity
building of the company which is implied in the other definitions but made much more visible in
the Jamieson and Worley definition. Adding in organizational science is a way to update and
upgrade so that people are not too fixated on behavioral science.  We could easily find a dozen
definitions of OD (or more), but the important part for OD practitioners is to synthesize the
critical pieces.
Who cares about a formal definition?
So, we have definitions that may or may not be agreed upon in the field. However, what I had
been to drawn to was the view from Bradford and Burke (2005). They suggest that instead of
being overly concerned with the OD field as a whole when describing to clients, to just describe
to people what you do. This may resonate more for practitioners and their clients alike. In the
chapter “The Future of OD” (p 209) they outline several examples of what OD practitioners do
such as:
 We believe in competing against one’s own performance, against standards of excellence,
and against the market competitor. We have approaches that help you achieve that by
learning how to cooperate with colleagues so all can compete better and so we can hold
each other accountable for high performance.
 We know that organizations can’t guarantee lifetime employment. But you can build
increased loyalty and commitment by increasing their employability. We know how to build
learning systems so that your people can perform better while increasing their competencies.
There are over half a dozen of these examples which are all “OD” but speak to the language of
business. Maybe in a way this is more important than a textbook definition of the field. I see some
practitioners who are very good at using this kind of language in describing what they do as OD
practitioners and the outcomes they can provide for the organization. Maybe — and I speculate
here — the external OD practitioners who we see successful in practice are the the ones who have
mastered this translation.
Often an OD initiative is an intervention of some type in an organization. When Argyris gives
guidelines for interventions they reflect OD values. In Intervention Theory and Method: A
Behavioral Science View (1970) he outlined what was required for a good organizational
intervention:
1. valid useful data
2. free informed choice
3. internal commitment
Steps in Planned Change
Once managers and an organization commit to planned change, they need to create a logical
step‐by step approach in order to accomplish the objectives. Planned change requires managers
to follow an eight‐step process for successful implementations, which is illustrated in Figure 1.
1. Recognize the need for change. Recognition of the need for change may occur at
the top management level or in peripheral parts of the organization. The change
may be due to either internal or external forces.
2. Develop the goals of the change. Remember that before any action is taken, it is
necessary to determine why the change is necessary. Both problems and
opportunities must be evaluated. Then it is important to define the needed changes
in terms of products, technology, structure, and culture.
3. Select a change agent. The change agent is the person who takes leadership
responsibility to implement planned change. The change agent must be alert to
things that need revamping, open to good ideas, and supportive of the
implementation of those ideas into actual practice.
4. Diagnose the current climate. In this step, the change agent sets about gathering
data about the climate of the organization in order to help employees prepare for
change. Preparing people for change requires direct and forceful feedback about
the negatives of the present situation, as compared to the desired future state, and
sensitizing people to the forces of change that exist in their environment.
5. Select an implementation method. This step requires a decision on the best way
to bring about the change. Managers can make themselves more sensitive to
pressures for change by using networks of people and organizations with different
perspectives and views, visiting other organizations exposed to new ideas, and
using external standards of performance, such as competitor's progress.
6. Develop a plan. This step involves actually putting together the plan, or the “what”
information. This phase also determines the when, where, and how of the plan. The
plan is like a road map. It notes specific events and activities that must be timed
and integrated to produce the change. It also delegates responsibility for each of the
goals and objectives.
7. Implement the plan. After all the questions have been answered, the plan is put
into operation. Once a change has begun, initial excitement can dissipate in the
face of everyday problems. Managers can maintain the momentum for change by
providing resources, developing new competencies and skills, reinforcing new
behaviors, and building a support system for those initiating the change.
8. Follow the plan and evaluate it. During this step, managers must compare the
actual results to the goals established in Step 4. It is important to determine
whether the goals were met; a complete follow‐up and evaluation of the results aids
this determination. Change should produce positive results and not be undertaken
for its own sake.