Definition: Organization development (OD) is a conceptual, organization-wide effort to increase an

organization's effectiveness and viability. Warren Bennis has referred to OD as a response to change, a
complex educational strategy intended to change the beliefs, attitudes, values, and structure of an
organization so that it can better adapt to new technologies, markets, challenges, and the dizzying rate
of change itself.

Organizational development (OD) is an application of behavioral science to organizational

change. It encompasses a wide array of theories, processes, and activities, all of which are
oriented toward the goal of improving individual organizations. OD stresses carefully planned
approaches to changing or improving organizational structures and processes, in an attempt to
minimize negative side effects and maximize organizational effectiveness.

OD differs from traditional organizational change techniques in that it typically embraces a more
holistic approach that is aimed at transforming thought and behavior throughout an entity. Like
many other organizational change techniques, the basic OD process consists of gathering data,
planning changes, and then implementing and managing the changes. However, OD initiatives
are usually distinguished by the use of "action research," change agents, and "interventions."

Changa Agents : Although the field of OD is broad, it can be differentiated from other systems of
organizational change by its emphasis on process rather than problems. Indeed, traditional group
change systems have focused on identifying problems in an organization and then trying to alter
the behavior that creates the problem. OD initiatives, in contrast, focus on identifying the
behavioral interactions and patterns that cause and sustain problems. Then, rather than simply
changing isolated behaviors, OD efforts are aimed at creating a behaviorally healthy organization
that will naturally anticipate and prevent (or quickly solve) problems.

OD programs usually share several basic characteristics. For instance, they are considered long-
term efforts of at least one to three years in most cases. In addition, OD stresses collaborative
management, whereby managers and workers at different levels of the hierarchy cooperate to
solve problems. OD also recognizes that every organization is unique and that the same solutions
can't necessarily be applied at different companies—this assumption is reflected in an OD focus
on research and feedback. Another common trait of OD programs is an emphasis on the value of
teamwork and small groups. In fact, most OD systems implement broad organizational changes
and overcome resistance largely through the efforts of small teams and/or individuals.

An integral feature of most OD programs is the change agent, which is the group or individual
that facilitates the OD process. Change agents are usually outside consultants with experience
managing OD programs, although companies sometimes utilize inside managers. The advantage
of bringing in outside OD consultants is that they often provide a different perspective and have
a less biased view of the organization's problems and needs.

The drawback of outside change agents-is that they typically lack an in-depth understanding of
key issues particular to the company (or institution). In addition, outside consultants may have
trouble securing the trust and cooperation of key players in the organization. For these reasons,
some companies employ a externalinternal team approach, which combines the advantages of
internal and external change agents.
IMPLEMENTING OD PROGRAMS
OD efforts basically entail two groups of activities; "action research" and "interventions." Action
research was originated in the 1940s by Lewin and another U.S. researcher, John Collier. It is a
process of systematically collecting data on a specific organization, feeding it back for action
planning, and evaluating results by collecting and reflecting on more data. Data gathering
techniques include everything from surveys and questionnaires to interviews, collages, drawings,
and tests. The data is often evaluated and interpreted using advanced statistical analysis
techniques.

Action research can be thought of as the diagnostic component of the OD process. But it also
encompasses the intervention component, whereby the change agent uses actions plans to
intervene in the organization and make changes, as discussed below. In a continuous process, the
results of actions are measured and evaluated and new action plans are devised to effect new
changes. Thus, the intervention process can be considered a facet of action research.

A standard action research model was posited by W.L. French in his essay "Organization
Development: Objectives, Assumptions, and Strategies" in Sloan Management Review, (1969,
Vol. XII, No. 2.). As shown in the chart, the first step in the OD process is recognition of a
problem by key executives. Those managers then consult with a change agent (a group or
individual), which gathers data, provides feedback to the executives, and then helps them
determine change objectives. Next, the agent does new research within the context of the stated
OD goals, gives more feedback, devises a plan of action, and then intervenes in the company to
effect change. After (or during) the intervention(s), data is gathered, feedback is supplied, actions
are planned and implemented, and the process is repeated.

INTERVENTIONS
OD interventions are plans or programs comprised of specific activities designed to effect
change in some facet of an organization. Numerous interventions have been developed over the
years to address different problems or create various results. However, they all are geared toward
the goal of improving the entire organization through change.

In general, organizations that wish to achieve a high degree of organizational change will employ
a full range of interventions, including those designed to transform individual and group
behavior and attitudes. Entities attempting smaller changes will stop short of those goals,
applying interventions targeted primarily toward operating policies, management structures,
worker skills, and personnel policies.

OD interventions can be categorized in a number of ways, including function, the type of group
for which they are intended, or the industry to which they apply. In fact, W.L. French identified
13 major "families" of interventions based on the type of activities that they included—activity
groups included teambuilding, survey feedback, structural change, and career-planning.
One convenient method of classifying OD interventions is by group size and interrelationship,
including: interpersonal relationships, group processes, intergroup systems, and the entire
organization. Typically, an OD program will simultaneously integrate more than one of these
interventions. A few of the more popular interventions are briefly described below.

INTERPERSONAL.

Interpersonal interventions in an OD program are designed to enhance individual skills,

knowledge, and effectiveness. One of the most popular interventions in this class are T-groups,
which help workers become more aware of their own and their coworker's behavior patterns. A
typical T-group consists of 10 to 20 volunteers. They usually meet at a specific time for one or
two weeks. The meetings are unstructured, leaving the group to determine subject matter within
the context of basic goals stipulated by a facilitator. As group members try to exert structure on
fellow members, anxiety ensues and the group becomes more aware of their own and other's
feelings and behaviors.

For example, a group of managers in a marketing department might participate in a T-group

together. The members would then describe their perception of each member's behavior and the
group might suggest improvements. Finally, each member would identify areas of personal
improvement and then act to make changes. The end result would be that the team would
become more proficient because of greater understanding and subsequent efforts to improve.

A second example of an interpersonal intervention is process consultation, which helps a

company understand and alter processes by resolving interpersonal dilemmas. Although they are
similar to T-groups, process consultations are more task-oriented and involve greater input by the
change agent. For example, a change agent may observe an individual manager in meetings and
conversations during a workday, and then make specific suggestions as to how the manager
could alter his or her behavior to improve performance.

Other types of interpersonal interventions include those designed to improve the performance
review process, create better training programs, help workers identify their true wants and set
complementary career goals, and resolve conflict.

GROUP.

OD group interventions are designed to help teams and groups within organizations become
more effective. Such interventions usually assume that the most effective groups communicate
well, facilitate a healthy balance between both personal and group needs, and function by
consensus as opposed to autocracy or majority rule.

Group diagnostic interventions are simply meetings wherein members of a team analyze their
performance, ask questions about what they need to improve, and discuss potential solutions to
problems. The benefit of such interventions is that members often communicate problems that
their coworkers didn't know existed (or were perceived to exist). As a result, many problems are
resolved and group dynamics are improved simply as a result of the meeting(s).
Team-building meetings are similar to diagnostic interventions, but they usually involve getting
the group away from the workplace for a few days. In addition, the group members go a step
further than diagnosing problems by proposing, discussing, and evaluating solutions. The
purpose of the meetings is to formulate specific procedures for addressing problems. The chief
advantage of such interventions is that they help the team reach a consensus on solving problems
(away from the pressures of the workplace), thus eliminating incongruent actions and goals that
diminish the group's efficiency.

Role analysis technique (RAT) is used to help employees get a better grasp on their role in an
organization. In the first step of a RAT intervention, people define their perception of their role
and contribution to the overall company effort in front of a group of coworkers. Group members
then provide feedback to more clearly define the role. In the second phase, the individual and the
group examine ways in which the employee relies on others in the company, and how they
define his or her expectations. RAT interventions help people to reduce role confusion, which
can result in either conflict or the perception that some people aren't doing their job. A popular
intervention similar to RAT is responsibility charting, which utilizes a matrix system to assign
decision and task responsibilities.

INTERGROUP.

Intergroup interventions are integrated into OD programs to facilitate cooperation and efficiency
between different groups within an organization. For instance, departmental interaction often
deteriorates in larger organizations as different divisions battle for limited resources or become
detached from the needs of other departments.

Conflict resolution meetings are one common intergroup intervention. First, different group
leaders are brought together to get their commitment to the intervention. Next, the teams meet
separately to make a list of their feelings about the other group(s). Then the groups meet and
share their lists. Finally, the teams meet to discuss the problems and to try to develop solutions
that will help both parties. This type of intervention helps to gradually diffuse tension between
groups caused by lack of communication and misunderstanding.

Rotating membership interventions are used by OD change agents to minimize the negative
effects of intergroup rivalry that result from employee allegiances to groups or divisions. The
intervention basically entails temporarily putting group members into their rival groups. As more
people interact in the different groups, greater understanding results.

OD joint activity interventions serve the same basic function as the rotating membership
approach, but it involves getting members of different groups to work together toward a common
goal. Similarly, common enemy interventions achieve the same results by finding an adversary
common to two or more groups and then getting members of the groups to work together to
overcome the threat. Examples of common enemies include competitors, government regulation,
and economic conditions.

COMPREHENSIVE.
OD comprehensive interventions are used to directly create change throughout an entire
organization, rather than focusing on organizational change through subgroup interventions. One
of the most popular comprehensive interventions is survey feedback. This technique basically
entails surveying employee attitudes at all levels of the hierarchy and then reporting the findings
back to them. The employees then use the data in feedback sessions to create solutions to
perceived problems. A number of questionnaires developed specifically for such interventions
have been developed.

Structural change interventions are used by OD change agents to effect organizational alterations
related to departmentalization, management hierarchy, work policies, compensation and benefit
incentives programs, and other elements. Often, the implemented changes emanate from
feedback from other interventions. One benefit of change interventions is that companies can
often realize an immediate and very significant impact as a result of relatively minor
modifications.

Sociotechnical system design interventions are similar to structural change techniques, but they
typically emphasize the reorganization of work teams. The basic goal is to create independent
groups throughout the company that supervise themselves, including administering pay and
benefits, disciplining team members, and monitoring quality, among other responsibilities. The
theoretic benefit of sociotechnical system design interventions is that worker and group
productivity and quality is increased because workers have more control over (and subsequent
satisfaction from) the process in which they participate.

A fourth OD intervention that became extremely popular during the 1980s and early 1990s is
total quality management (TQM), which is largely a corollary of Deming's work. TQM
interventions utilize established quality techniques and programs that emphasize quality
processes, rather than achieving quality by inspecting products and services after processes have
been completed. The important concept of continuous improvement embodied by TQM has
carried over into other OD interventions.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING.

While TQM has lost some of its popularity since then, other OD trends and theories have come
to the forefront since the early 1990s. One of the major new developments has been the notion of
the "learning organization," oracontinuously adapting and growing organization that actively
embraces its own evolution to develop new capabilities or competencies. A key impetus behind
this new approach was the critically acclaimed 1990 book The Fifth Discipline: The Art and
Practice of the Learning Organization by MIT organizational studies lecturer Peter Senge. While
the academic study of organizational learning and related phenomena originated a couple
decades earlier, this book did much to popularize the idea and stimulate a host of academic
studies into organizational learning, as well as corporate initiatives geared toward building
learning organizations.
The basic analogy for organizational learning is, of course, human learning. Just as individuals
can amass knowledge and skills through both deliberate attempts to acquire knowledge (reading,
attending school) and inadvertent discoveries (experimentation, failure, insights from
experiences), so too can groups of people, according to the theory. Clearly, the methods by
which an organization "learns" are different from those of the individual, but the process is seen
as similar. Various models of organizational learning posit key stages as knowledge acquisition,
knowledge sharing, and knowledge utilization as the core mechanisms of this collective learning
process.

The specific kind of learning that this discipline is concerned with is on a fundamental,
organizationwide level. OD scholars distinguish between singleloop learning, double-loop
learning, and triple-loop learning. Single-loop learning, the most common, is in essence localized
learning within departments or subunits of the organization, but has few if any implications for
the entire company. Policies and rules remain unchanged. This kind of learning goes on in
virtually all organizations and isn't sufficient to create what most OD specialists would term a
learning organization. Double-loop learning occurs when a discovery or insight causes not only
localized change, but a general revision in corporate policy or strategy that takes into account
this new insight. Triple-loop learning goes one step further, causing management to rethink the
entire business paradigm and make major organizational changes based on the new insight.
Proponents of organizational iearning focus on ways to create organizational structures,
processes, and policies that encourage second- and third-loop learning.

While in some ways organizational learning has taken on some of the trappings of a management
fad, its disciples, including Senge, bristle at this suggestion because they believe it's an enduring
and valuable principle for understanding and influencing organizational development.

APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY.

A less widely known innovation that also garnered attention in the field during the 1990s was
appreciative inquiry, developed by organizational behavior professor David Cooperrider. First
conceived during the 1980s, the approach centers around examining organizational practices that
have proven successful as a way of addressing broad-based development issues. Cooperrider
believed that traditional OD approaches focused too much on hunting down problems and
looking for new solutions, whereas many organizations have numerous successes or strengths
that might hold a better key to an organization's development.

Appreciative inquiry is still an interventionist approach to OD, but its emphasis is on discovering
and identifying current strengths and envisioning a positive future building on those strengths.
Appreciative inquiry also places marked emphasis on the human experience in organizational
development, asking employees to recount their best experiences in the organization and imagine
new possibilities. Usually this approach is reserved for large, company-wide development issues,
including redefining the corporate mission and strategy.

Critics of appreciative inquiry charge that it's too simplistic to be used in very many contexts.
Many advocates also agree that it is a supplement to, rather than a replacement of, established
OD theories and practices.
CASE STUDY