The P P Group

DEMYSTIFYING
ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Vijay Padaki
_____

_____________________________________________________________________________
Prepared to aid thinking and discussion on OD within organizations. May be reproduced freely, with
acknowledgement of the source. Comments may be addressed to the authors at:

The P&P Group, 248 13th Cross Road

Wilson Gardens, Bangalore 560 027
Tel-Fax (80) 2223 6890
E-mail: vijaypadaki@yahoo.co.in
 ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT REVISITED
______________________________________________

The liberalization in the Indian economic environment in the ’nineties has been accompanied by
a quiet but firm demand for better management in all spheres of work. The liberalization process
has also opened up the marketplace for all kinds of goods and services  not excluding packaged
management systems. We can expect a lot of management being marketed in the new
dispensation  more suppliers, more products, more brands, more aggressive selling and, lest we
forget, more dumping. The consumer needs help in the supermarket to make informed choices.
In the management bazaar, too, the consumer could do with some guidance.

Organizational Development (OD) is fast becoming the reinvented wheel by which an

organization may be taken for a ride. The term is used, misused, abused, meaning different
things to different people. In the ’70s OD was in. In the re-engineering ’80s it seemed to be out.
Participation, empowerment, BPR, core competencies, diversity, even gender  they have had
their ups and, sure enough, their downs. At the turn of the century we see the reappearance of a
new formula OD.

If you want to take part in the contest to win exciting prizes you must first buy the corn
flakes. Branded OD, too, can be bought by organizations for the wrong reasons. We need to
educate the consumer on what really makes the most cost-effective, balanced and nutritious
meal, and what they should do themselves to stay healthy.

Most managers (and many management trainers) might not be aware that OD as a conceptual
stream is well over 50 years old. The first attempts at drawing up a methodology were in the
'fifties. (Methodology = theory + methods + tools + operating skills) One of the very first
milestone projects was in India! The term OD itself appeared a little later, in the ’sixties. That
was when there was another project of significance in India. The movement peaked in the
’seventies. As can be expected in all such movements, there was a long and eventful reign (over
a decade in this case), characterized by great convergence among the practitioners. This was
followed by a period of reduced vigour and even divergence, in which 

 newer, more specialized variants were started under newer brand names

 the consumer seemed to be tiring of the product and sought newer fashions

 the thinking shifted (in business and industry) to cost efficient operations for immediate
results in productivity and profit and, therefore, to alternative intervention models.

1
The resurgence of OD in the late ’nineties can be attributed to a few good reasons:

 If the theoretical base in a management system is basically sound, the methodology cannot
become outdated. (One of the most enduring quotes in the literature : “There is nothing so
practical as good theory.”)

 OD is an all embracing concept, and can be seen as relevant even with changed needs in the
organization and changing environments.

 The temples of OD have also become more open and friendly, learning the importance of
demystifying their practices.

A lot of the OD that is re-entering the marketplace might well be repackaged leftovers of the last
season. (But not at a discount price!) It is time, it seems, to understand what the product really is
at the core and how to get the most from it. The basic nature of corn flakes and porridge has not
changed one bit since first introduced.

II

The O in OD stands for organization. What do we mean when we say that we are trying to
develop the organization? It is here that we will have to take in just a little bit of theory  the
bare essentials, in simple terms  so that the legitimacy of OD as a discipline is properly
understood.

1. The Behavioural Field

Most readers of this essay would have had work experience in two or more organizations, or in
two or more divisions / functions / programmes / locations in the same large organization. We
would surely know others who have had such varied work experience. Now, consider this simple
question:

How is it that the same person, with the same bundle of competencies, was productive
in one work context (and recognized as such), but could not accomplish much in another
work context?

Surely there was something about the organizational environment that released the competencies
in the first situation, but hampered its release in the second? (Releasing some alternative
behaviours!) The important point here is that the person is the same in both situations, but the
displayed “personality” is different  productive, hardworking, achievement-oriented, problem-
solving, etc. in one, in contrast to mediocre, non-descript, lacklustre, problem-shelving, etc. in
the other. The interesting thing, of course, is that most of us know that “the environment” is
somehow shaping our behaviours, but we are unable to either explain it or do something about it.
All environments do this to us, not only the work organization. At the railway station, in the post
office queue, in the city market, at a relative’s funeral, at another's wedding, we find different
facets of our personality being released.

2
The behavioural field in any organization can be understood better through the classic
S  P  A model. Every organization has certain Structures, ie. the features that determine how
the various parts relate to each other. Structures invariably determine certain key Processes, such
as communication, leadership, decision making, motivation, etc. The nature of the processes, in
turn, influences Attitudes, ie. the predispositions to actual behaviours.

Viewed in this light, a lot of our labelling of people will be seen as unjustified, unproductive and
unhelpful. How easy it is to call somebody irritable or uncooperative or a shirker, when the fact
probably is that one behaves that way in that particular organizational context, but is quite
another personality outside that context. It would be wrong to say that a person is typically non-
cooperative, when in fact it might be the organizational environment that is typical: it tends to
bring about non-cooperative behaviour in a lot of its people.

2. System Levels of Behaviour

When individuals combine with other individuals to form pairs, small groups, large groups,
groups of groups, and even larger and more complex groupings, the behaviour of the larger body
as a whole acquires its own characteristics, and cannot easily be extrapolated from the
behaviours of the component bodies. Each of the groupings above constitutes a system. The
characteristic behaviour of the system cannot be explained (or predicted) as some aggregate of
the characteristics of constituent members. A large and complex system, such as a group of
business units, may be viewed as systems within systems. We might have noticed instances of
systemic behaviour in several settings. Consider the following examples :

 A certain kind of work is organized around two persons, A and B. Putting two persons with
the best individual competencies for the job does not necessarily produce the best output
from the pair. On the contrary we might find such a combination counter-productive. The
most productive pairs are those in which the talents of A and B are complementary rather
than equally high on the same talents. In other words [AB] is a system in itself and cannot be
viewed as a sum of the talents of A + B.

An analogy might help. We know that water is made up of the elements hydrogen and
oxygen. We know the “talents” of the two elements  oxygen aids combustion and hydrogen
has explosive properties. When combined into the substance called water, however, the two
elements appear to lose their individual characteristics, and the combination can actually be
used to put out fire.

Similar “chemistries” take place in the functioning of larger combinations of people.

 In a site visit we often hear a strong consensus view expressed in a group meeting. Later we
find that it was quite different from the views that we have gathered in individual meetings.
(And vice-versa.) What happened? Were they “lying” when we met them as individuals?
Were they being “political” when we met them in a group? The more experienced manager
realizes that these explanations are too simplistic. The “chemistry” of group dynamics
provides more realistic explanations.

3
 The primary economic activity in an area often requires interactions across two or more
groups of people, each group engaged in some specialized facet of the larger activity. For
instance, producing fabric on handlooms requires inputs not only from weavers but several
other groups of people  carpenters, blacksmiths, cobblers, beam carriers, dye suppliers, and
so on. These occupations often have a community tradition and, in India, a caste basis. Not
surprisingly, there often are inter-group conflicts. When we talk to any one group we are
surprised at their understanding of the whole system and their recognition of the inter-
dependencies among the groups. Yet, collaborative behaviour in the system as a whole does
not take place.

In the examples above it is easy to assume that if we could somehow change the thinking of
people the system as a whole would become effective. Although well intentioned, this approach
is naive and futile. In every one of the cases the people concerned want more effective systems
for themselves, know where the problems lie (better than the outside consultant does!), but seem
to be unable to control some mysterious force that makes them continue to behave in certain
ways.

3. The OD Perspective

OD begins with acceptance of the fact that in any organization  in any task, with any
technology, at any scale of functioning  there are several organizational variables that influence
human behaviour through various system levels down to the single individual. It must be
recognized that this is in direct contrast to the training and HRD approach which makes
assumptions of key individual variables being responsible for organizational wellbeing, and
hopes to change organizations by bringing about changes in individuals.

On surface, the two approaches might appear to differ mainly in the techniques and methods
employed. (“After all, organizational effectiveness comes from individual effectiveness.”) In
reality they differ fundamentally and may be viewed as two very different paradigms.

In his celebrated workshops on quality as a management ethos, Edwards Deming used to startle
his audiences by revealing that in actual practice less than ten percent of the variance in
productivity and quality would be accounted for by so-called “people factors”, and over ninety
percent of it was usually due to “systemic factors”. In other words, with a reasonably good
recruitment process in place, the most important task of management is to ensure conditions for
the people to be able to perform.

4
 Case A : Buying talent vs. releasing talent

In campus interviews for entry point recruitment, every company would like to be a “Day 1
employer”, hoping to get the best of the crop of outgoing students. In reality, the distribution of
scores on course work is so heavily skewed (towards the high end, of course) that it is
meaningless to believe that somebody who has an aggregate of 96.4 percent is really better
than somebody who has 94.6 percent. The Day 3-plus employer who takes students with
aggregates of 75 percent, but has good organizational conditions in place, is more likely to
have a motivated and productive work group than the Day 1 employer who relies heavily on
the cream of the crop. (The attrition rates are also likely to be markedly different!)

In a rapidly growing organization in a "sunrise" business, this fundamental shift in recruitment

policy required an OD perspective to HRM (along with the courage of conviction), rather than
the treadmill operation of tinkering with salaries and benefits.

We know from much experience that the most sincerely designed and implemented training
and HRD programmes have often produced limited and short term results. The frustrating
experience of participants in such programmes is strikingly universal: not being able to
implement learning in back-home situations in the organization. What are the two most common
responses in post-training reviews worldwide? (1) All this is fine in theory, but…. (2) My boss
should attend this programme.

No training programme has succeeded in developing a “creative organization” by dispatching

batches of people to attend creativity training programmes. No organization has produced “high
performance teams” by sending its people to team-building workshops. If we have not detected
and eliminated the organizational perpetrators of un-creative and un-cooperative behaviours the
only gains from these training programmes are for the trainers.

It is most unfortunate that in many quarters the lack of understanding of these fundamentals has
led to a totally incorrect conception of OD. Even the earliest models in OD methodology
recognized the “white spaces” in the organization diagram as important organizational realities 
the processes taking place there under the structures that form the real character of the
organization. The focus on process was in some ways ahead of its time and not fully understood
by all. In the last decade of the twentieth century the methodology of re-engineering has brought
back the focus on processes in a purposeful way.

In sum, it can be said that individual effectiveness might be a necessary condition for organiza-
tional operational performance, but not a sufficient condition for organizational effectiveness.
OD recognizes the creation of favourable conditions in the organization as the central task in the
intervention, so that the implementations from the specific training inputs are made possible. The
“gateway” chosen for the intervention may be any existing procedural system or practice, but the
systemic whole is always kept in view.

5
 Case B : Team building training vs. team building structures

All teams are groups, but not all groups are teams. The real difference between a group and
a team is in the way the work is structured. No amount of sentiment and exhortation
produces teamwork in work organizations without the required team-based work structures.

Certain kinds of work are performed better by teams. One of these is software development.
In the software boom in India, several companies have been set up without a full
appreciation of the demands of team-based work structures. Group-based management
practices (especially in HRM) transposed on software project teams cause dysfunctional
states that are reflected directly in the engineering processes as well as in the team
processes.

The consulting experience in several software organizations has shown that the appropriate
starting point of the OD process is to work towards work practices and support systems that
turn the groups into genuine teams. The methodology for developing the team processes
through a Team Maturation Model (TMM) complements the engineering processes in the
SEI engineering Capacity Maturation Model (CMM).

III

For those readers who are more academically inclined we may note here some (not all) of the
principal tributaries that have combined over time to form the stream now recognizable as OD.
For those interested in further reading a select list is provided at the end.

 The work of Kurt Lewin who brought a phenomenological tradition of psychological science
to the USA in the 'thirties. His research team charted the patterns of group dynamics,
developed Field Theory to explain, predict and shape human behaviours in organizational
settings, initiated the field of Action Research and, in effect, provided the first substantial
base for a methodology in interventions to be called OD. The most important outputs of this
group of scholars came from its eventual base in the Institute for Social Research at the
University of Michigan.

 The work on the other side of the Atlantic at about the same time that led to an understanding
of human organizations as Socio-Technical Systems. Beginning with a clinical heritage in
psychosomatic medicine and behavioural disorders, the Tavistock Institute in London was
able to demonstrate the reality of dysfunctions in human behaviour as a result of the way the
organization and its work were structured.

 British psychologists in the ’sixties recognized the inherent limitations in the field called
Industrial Psychology. It seemed to be too heavily preoccupied with “fitting the person to the
job,” ie. taking the job and the organization as the given conditions. They preferred to use
the term Occupational Psychology, and stressed the equally important task of “fitting the job
to the person,” ie. re-examining organizational variables.

6
 Around this time, General Systems Theory emerged as the unifying theoretical body,
bringing together from diverse fields the essentially similar ideas about how systems
behave. The concept of the organization as an open system had come to stay. The more
quantitatively oriented analyses from Operations Research were major contributors to
systems thinking. Indeed, systems thinking constitutes the very core of OD. Game theory
(“prisoners dilemma”), showing the dynamics of collaborative behaviour in optimization of
gains  the origin of the win-win concept  went on to win a Nobel Prize a quarter century
later. Sub-optimization came to be recognized as a central problem in system health and
effectiveness.

 In India, the applied research in group and organizational behaviour was commenced as early
as 1950 in the Human Resources Division of ATIRA (Ahmedabad Textile Industry’s
Research Association). The programmes of research and implementation benefitted from
long term collaborations that the HR Division had with both ISR in Michigan and the
Tavistock Institute. (Long before either HR or Development came into the management
vocabulary.) It was in the Calico Mills in Ahmedabad that AK Rice carried out his milestone
project of restructuring the socio-technical system of the loomshed to bring about dramatic
results in productivity and quality. In the ’sixties ATIRA applied the Action Research model
(before the term OD had become common) for a comprehensive intervention plan in four
composite textile mills.

 Two streams of behavioural science, from cognitive theories and learning theories,
converged in demonstrating that enduring change in people’s behaviour does not come about
from attempts to change thinking and commitment first. (Eg. the classic KAP and AIDA
models in communication and change.) The reversed sequence is more effective, ie. changed
behaviours, with positive consequences, lead to changed thinking and commitment in a
much more reliable way. Once again, the practical implication was abundantly clear: what do
we do about the organizational environment so that people experience productive and
satisfying outcomes and thus internalize the associated behaviours?

 One other clearly recognizable stream has its origins in the literature on “resistance to
change,” yielding methodology in later years for “learning to learn” and even “seeking to
learn.” This stream benefitted from the systems perspective to then arrive at the concept of
“proactive” orientations in systems (as opposed to the “reactive”). The natural progression in
concepts led to the currently popular premises of a learning organization.

 Beginning in the 'seventies there was an earnest effort in many quarters to find common
ground and arrive at common insights from the many “schools” of OD that had come up by
then. Something like a shared body of theory and methodology emerged. The major texts in
OD tended to be eclectic, ie. referring to several streams of work and attempting an
integration and synthesis. In the post-eighties period, the trend has been towards separate,
“branded” models of OD, and a move away from confluence and synthesis.

7
What is not generally recognized in most treatments of the subject is that the appearance of OD
was in a certain historical context. The rapid development into a methodology and the
enthusiasm with which it was pursued was, perhaps, because of the timeliness. In other words,
OD was a product of its time. The societal context in which OD emerged, certainly in the West,
had several features that appear important, but need not be elaborated upon in this essay.
However, one of these features is worth noting. OD was clearly an actionable agenda in the
humanistic worldview that had appealed to academics, trainers, practitioners and activists alike
in the period. This appears important because OD was never regarded merely as a bundle of
techniques. It was pursued as an alternative paradigm for organizational transformation. As we
know, a paradigm rests on a value position  a set of core convictions about what is good and
desirable and what ought to be done about it. At least one well known text of the ’seventies made
an explicit reference to the values underlying OD practice. (Summarized in the annexure.) In
actionable terms, it means genuine democratization of processes in management and, therefore, a
genuinely alternative view of the management task. One of the most enduring models of OD, job
enrichment, rested clearly on premises from the humanistic paradigm. Although each variant
(“brand”) claims some originality in methods, the core value premises have remained the same.

In the value premises of OD we see a genuinely empowering model of social change. What is
“empowerment” after all? Empowerment implies restoring the natural capacity for problem
solving and development that people have somehow lost owing to the circumstances in which they
exist and work.

There is a growing recognition of the significance of organizational value systems in

organizational health and effectiveness. The “search for excellence” wave of the ’eighties tended
to look at management systems and tools as if they were context-free and value-free. (Where are
those “excellent” companies today?) In contrast, the lesser publicized “robustness” literature of
the ’nineties reveals the importance of values in sustaining organizational performance.

Case C : Appraising performance vs. facilitating performance

Performance appraisal procedures must rank as the most despised and enduringly
exasperating of all management systems. The pertinent question that arises is: Whose
appraisal system is it anyway? At the root of the exasperation lies the systemic problem of
the individual not being in control of the conditions that determine one's performance and,
therefore, the appraisal  a very disempowering situation indeed.

It has been demonstrated that a truly empowering Performance Management System must
have at least three separate procedural systems integrated within it  a work review and
goal-setting procedure (that is owned and managed by work groups themselves), an
individual review and development procedure (that is managed jointly by the individual and
the line manager), and a reinforcer procedural system that serves to enhance organizational
learning from both high achievement and shortfalls in achievement.

Devices within appraisal alone (eg. "360 degree feedback") without an integrated
perspective to performance management can only be expected to enhance exasperation.

8
In the organizational context, this systemic paradigm translates into the following implications:

 OD works towards creating an enduring process sensitivity among members of the

organization  ie. sensitivity to how the circumstances (of their own making) are shaping
their attitudes and behaviour, some helpful, some unhelpful or harmful.

 In overcoming the blocks in attitudes and behaviour, the emphasis is on altering the
organizational variables first, and not on trying to change people per se. Replacing a
“difficult” person does not solve problems inherent in the role and the role structure.

 “Training” or retraining is brought in later, if necessary, essentially to help people fit

smoothly into the restructured circumstances.

Case D : The whole vs. the parts in performance

One of the most common problems in an organization is the sub-optimization in its

performance  the achievement of one department or function at the expense of other
departments or functions. More often than not this arises from a dysfunctional performance-
reward system. Conventional corporate planning and MBO can inadvertently aggravate the
sub-optimization.

Any intervention in such a situation must recognize the crucial importance of strengthening
interfaces across departments and functions. It has been shown that this is best done by
working towards alternative structures and work practices within the senior management
team. "Team building" exercises in isolation, without attending to the causes of dysfunction,
can only reinforce the games-playing in the team.

All of this is in marked contrast to the conventional Training-HRD approach, which has at its
base an individualistic paradigm, with its own implied value system. Indeed, the term “human
resource” itself appears unhelpful, as it implies that, like any other resource, people can be
deployed and “utilized” for maximizing the deployer's gains.

Because of the inevitability of coming to grips with the structural realities, the OD process is
more correctly a part of the strategic responsibility in management. It does not help to view it as
a department or a function, as if it is another procedural responsibility. The mistaken notion that
it is a set of fancy training techniques sometimes puts OD as a sub-set of HRD. (“Let’s do an OD
programme for the department….”) As a strategic task in management, OD should really be a
shared responsibility of a senior management team representing all functions and departments.
The demands made by the OD process will be on all. Some of these demands may, of course, be
in the area of Human Resource Management and, more specifically, in HRD.

9
 Case E : Packaged vs. tailored interventions for OD

Is the OD process different in conditions of sickness and good health? The performance of
organizations can be visualized in 3 broad bandwidths in a spectrum :

 A  clearly healthy, consistently high performance

 B  borderline, neither high nor low in performance, inconsistent
 C  clearly sick, consistently low performance

Considerable work in the Indian textile industry has shown that the three types of
organization need three different approaches in OD.

C units would require urgent intervention at several corporate parameters, to somehow

arrest the galloping vicious cycle of sickness, and to restore flow of funds. The heavy
preoccupation with operational parameters for higher efficiencies in production here would
be self-defeating.

B units would benefit from intervention at operational parameters, for their very
inconsistency in performance is probably an indicator of sizeable gaps between the
achievable and the achieved in their technical efficiencies. In other words, the principal
avenue for higher profitability here would be higher productivity.

A units would also probably benefit very little from intervention in the operational parameters
for improvements in technical efficiencies. They are likely to be high already. Major changes
in the technical profile would be an option; but this would be a corporate parameter, as
would be such other interventions in these firms as diversification, vertical or lateral
integration, foreign operations, higher orders of professionalization, and so on.

IV

The Tasks in Developing Economies

The concept of OD applies to all forms of human organization. Outside business and industry, it
is applied frequently to development programmes, either in a voluntary organization (NGO) or
the communities with which it works. The trend is heartening, but it is not without certain serious
problems. The methods employed are undoubtedly effective at the relatively simpler system
levels of behaviour  enhancing interpersonal and within-group competencies. However, the
development process in the socio-economic system as a whole can be sustained only through
inter-group and inter-organizational collaborative behaviours. These are tasks in which the
available intervention methodology is relatively weak. Indeed, it is seen that the very act of
increasing within-group solidarity comes in the way of inter-group collaboration. In other words,
the well-intended intervention might actually retard the needed development process at another
system level.

10
Inter-group and inter-unit collaborative behaviours require structures and processes at a higher
system level of organization  the social institution. For this purpose an institution may be
defined simply as an organization of organizations. Developing societies are characterized by a
history of exploitation in which the traditional social institutions have eroded, and the
newer, appropriate institutions to carry the development process forward are either missing or
malformed or, worse, commandeered by the vested interests. The resulting sub-optimization in
the system is quite unhelpful. It cannot be sustained. For instance, a traditional community-
based water management system achieved far greater levels of optimized use of natural
resources, ensuring sustainable agriculture. When replaced with a so-called modern system, the
benefits go to a small group of farmers with large land holdings at the expense of a large number
of small farmers. Worse, the system depletes the natural resources in an irreversible way.

Institutional Development (ID) must be recognized as being systemically distinct from OD, and
as the real need in organizational interventions, especially in developing countries. Just as
changing a lot of people through training does not achieve OD, changing a lot of small groups
through OD is not likely to achieve ID. Seen in this light the Nobel Prize for work on
Institutional Economics acquires added significance. The concept of Partnership Management
being developed in India by the author's team (along with a working methodology) is an integral
part of ID.

Case F : Competitive vs. collaborative alliances

When two separate organizations recognize an inter-dependency for the accomplishment of

their individual goals, there is an interface created between them  the mutually recognized
points, means, and scope of the transactions needed. (For instance between a
manufacturer and a trader, a principal and a vendor.) With the two organizations deploying
resources for the agreed common purpose, we have a virtual organization at the interface. It
has all the characteristics of an organization, is expected to perform as one, but is not a
formal organizational entity on its own.
It has been shown that this virtual organization benefits greatly from the OD process, simply
because it has the real needs of appropriate strategy, structure, systems and healthy
processes. For instance, the critical players from the two (or more) partners can undertake a
joint strategic planning exercise for the virtual organization. As ground preparation the two
organizations can do a reciprocal SWOT analysis  ie. each doing it for the other
organization. Organization structure, management information and control systems, human
resource development, performance management  all these are done with a clear
understanding of the resources being deployed by the two organizations.

Several related endeavours, such as the management of strategic alliances and joint ventures,
multiple stakeholder analysis, and so on, will benefit from a perspective of partnership
management and ID. The future of business and industry is in effective collaborative structures
and the management of these partnerships. The field is new and vast, and the task is inevitably
very demanding. One of the greatest challenges is in arriving at compatibilities between
organizational value systems and the management systems and practices adopted for shared
endeavours. We must admit that the task is not fully understood and the methodology far from
perfect. There is a long way to go. The small beginnings appear promising.

11
 UNDERLYING VALUES AND CONCEPTS IN OD

The basic values stated or implied in OD theory and practice include:

1. A concern for human feelings and human needs for support, dignity, and fulfillment in
work.

2. The endorsement of open expression of perceptions, attitudes, and feelings within work
groups and between superiors and subordinates.

3. A belief in the efficacy of confronting interpersonal and interdepartmental issues, rather

than smoothing them over or forcing solutions.

4. A general predilection toward participative decision making, followed by self-direction

and self-control by individuals and work groups.

The key concepts expressed or implied in OD theory and practice include:

1. Basic attitudes and behavioural change are most effectively accomplished through
experiential learning opportunities structured around the Lewinian change model  (a)
unfreezing (through feedback concerning existing attitudes and behaviours), (b) change
(through experimentation with new behaviours in supportive settings), and (c)
refreezing (through positive feedback concerning new attitudes and behaviours).

2. Learning is most effective when it occurs within the natural work group and is related to
existing conditions and requirements.

3. Changed behaviours (policies, procedures, roles) require co-ordination across work

groups and thus the focus of development must extend beyond the individual and the
work group to the entire interdependent socio-technical system.

4. The role of the OD facilitator is not to diagnose process barriers and prescribe
alternatives but to promote the acquisition of process awareness and problem-solving
skills within the work group.

5. As process-learning occurs, work groups become more capable of adjusting to

changing requirements and of working out relationships with other organizational units,
and also with their external environments.

6. As process skills are acquired across the organization, the total system becomes more
adept at devising and implementing policies, procedures, and structures which more
closely match internal and external requirements.

7. Organization development is not a project, but a continuous process, and constant

monitoring of the socio-technical system's processes is required.
________________________________________________________________
Extracted / adapted from:
Miles, R.E., Theories of Management: implications for organizational behaviour and
development. McGraw Hill, 1975.

12
NOTES AND REFERENCES

The literature is vast. To begin with a manageable short list, the following sampler should help.

1. A standard introduction that combines breadth with insightful comment, updated through
several editions, is also available in an inexpensive Indian edition. French, Wendell L. and
Cecil H. Bell. Organization Development : behavioural science interventions for
organization improvement. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India, 1997. (Ninth Indian reprint)
Another useful introduction can be had from the series of slim booklets published by
Addison-Wesley in the 'seventies, which have a seminal quality in the presentations.

2. A highly readable account of the systemic approach of Edwards Deming is in Latzko, W.J.
and David M. Saunders. Four Days with Dr. Dening. Addison-Wesley, 1995.

3. Coming to grips with organizational value systems in OD is crucial. It needs a methodology

of its own, as revealed in the work of the author's team. Padaki, Vijay and Rupande Padaki.
‘Organizational Value Systems : an alternative perspective in OD’. In Ramnarayan, S., et. al.
Organization Development : interventions and strategies. New Delhi: Response Books (A
Division of Sage India Publications), 1998. The value premises in OD are also examined in a
book that seeks connections between theory and practice. Miles, R.E. Theories of
Management : implications for organizational behavior and development. McGraw Hill,
1975.

4. The pioneering work in India in restructuring the socio-technical system is described in the
landmark publication by Rice, A.K. Productivity and Social Organization : the Ahmedabad
experiment. Tavistock, 1958. Also see Herbst, P.G. Socio-Technical Design. Tavistock,
1974. Going beyond training to systemic interventions was the objective in another major
exercise in the Indian textile industry in the 'sixties, spearheaded by the HR Division at
ATIRA. Reported in Roy, S.K. Management in India, Meenakshi Prakashan, 1974.

5. A landmark publication brought in a systems science pespective and influenced a great deal
of rethinking about organizations. Katz, D and R.L. Kahn. The Social Psychology of
Organizations. New York, Wiley 1966. (Revised 1978.)

6. The difference between tinkering with organizations for short term “excellence,” and helping
them to be self-sustaining comes from a perspective of systems science. Ackoff, R.L. The
Democratic Corporation. Oxford University Press, 1994 and Recreating the Corporation.
Oxford University Press, 1999.

7. The robustness of organizational health and effectiveness is from factors that must be
understood better. Collins, James C. and Jerry I. Porras. Built to Last: successful habits of
visionary companies. New York, Harper Collins, 1994.

13
8. Systemic approaches to health and sickness have been dealt with exhaustively in Padaki, V.
and V. Shanbhag (Eds.) Industrial Sickness : the challenge in Indian textiles. ATIRA, 1984.

9. The relevance of systems thinking and the OD perspective in development programmes and
in voluntary / non-governmental organizations is discussed at length in Padaki, V.
‘Organizational Development : yesterday, today, tomorrow.’ In Search Bulletin, XII, No. 1,
1997. Also in Padaki, V. (Ed.) Development Intervention and Programme Evaluation :
concepts and cases. Sage, 1995.

____________________________________________________________________________
In accordance with the code of professional practice in the author’s team, the names of client
organizations in the case illustrations are withheld.

14
_____________________________________________________________________________
Vijay Padaki is a founder-director of The P&P Group, engaged in designing complete
management development systems for a wide variety of organizations  Indian, transnational,
commercial and non-profit.

15