MODULE I

Organization Development
& Change

Professor’s Note:
Module 1 was culled from the works of Tomas D. Andres, Wendell L.
French, Cecil H. Bell Jr. and Robert A. Zawacki. Many of the supplementary readings
were also taken from the United Nations Development Program Website.
OBJECTIVES
After studying this unit, you should be able to:
 Define and explain organization development
 Discuss the old standard definition of organizational development
 Enumerate and define the growth and relevance of organization development
 Discuss organization development theory
 Understand competencies of an effective organization development
practitioner

MODULE OUTLINE
Part I. Organization Development Defined
A. Old Standard Definition of Organization Development
B. Definitions of Organization Development
C. New Definitions of Organization Development
Part II. The Growth and Relevance of Organization Development
A. OD Practitioners: “Organizational Physicians”
B. Maturation of the Field
C. Organizational Development Theory
D. History and Application of Organizational Development Theory
E. A Short History of Organization Development
F. Degree of Organization
G. Domestic vs. International Settings
H. Conceptualization of Planned Change
I. Practice of Planned Change
Part III. Who is the Organization Development Practitioner?
A. Competencies of an Effective Organization Development Practitioner
B. Role of Organization Development Professionals
Part I. ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT DEFINED
Organization development is both a professional field of social action and an
area of scientific inquiry. The practice of OD covers a wide spectrum of activities, with
seemingly endless variations upon them. Team building with top corporate management,
structural change in a municipality, and job enrichment in a manufacturing firm are all
examples of OD. Similarly, the study of OD addresses a broad range of topics, including
the effects of change, the methods of organizational change, and the factors influencing
OD success.
A. An Old Standard Definition of OD
The nature and needs of organizations are changing dramatically. Correspondingly,
the profession of organization development (OD) has been changing to meet the changing
needs of organizations. Therefore, it may be most useful to consider several definitions of
organization development. Here's a standard definition. The next section gives some
contrasting definitions.
For many years, the following definitions were perhaps the standard definition for OD.
The following definitions were developed in 1969 at a time when an organization was
considered to be much like a stable machine comprised of interlocking parts.
B. Definitions of Organization Development
 Is a planned process of change in an organization’s culture through the
utilization of behavioral science technology, research, and theory.
 Refers to a long-range effort to improve an organization’s problem-solving
capabilities and its ability to cope with changes in its external environment
with the help of external or internal behavioral-scientist consultants, or
change agents, as they are sometimes called.
 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.
 is a system wide process of data collection, diagnosis, action planning,
intervention, and evaluation aimed at (1) enhancing congruence among
organizational structure, process, strategy, people, and culture; (2)
developing
new and creative organizational solutions; and (3) developing the organization’s
self-renewing capacity. It occurs through the collaboration of organizational
 members working with a change agent using behavioral science theory, research,
and technology.
 Based on (1) a set of values, largely humanistic; (2) application of the behavioral
sciences; and (3) open systems theory, organization development is a system wide
process of planned change aimed toward improving overall organization
effectiveness by way of enhanced congruence of such key organization dimensions
as external environment, mission, strategy, leadership, culture, structure,
information and reward systems, and work policies and procedures.
New Definitions of OD
Today's organizations operate in a rapidly changing environment. Consequently,
one of the most important assets for an organization is the ability to manage change -- and
for people to remain healthy and authentic. Consider the following definition of OD:
“Organization Development is the attempt to influence the members of an
organization to expand their candidness with each other about their views of the
organization and their experience in it, and to take greater responsibility for their own
actions as organization members. The assumption behind OD is that when people pursue
both of these objectives simultaneously, they are likely to discover new ways of working
together that they experience as more effective for achieving their own and their shared
(organizational) goals. And that when this does not happen, such activity helps them to
understand why and to make meaningful choices about what to do in the light of
understanding.” (Nielsen, 1984).
Experts might agree that the following definitions of OD represent the major focus
and thrust of many of today's OD practitioners.
"Organization development is a system-wide application of behavioral science
knowledge to the planned development and reinforcement of organizational strategies,
structures, and processes for improving an organization's effectiveness...” (Cummings
and Worley, 1997)
"Organization Development is a body of knowledge and practice that enhances
organizational performance and individual development, viewing the organization as a
complex system of systems that exist within a larger system, each of which has its own
attributes and degrees of alignment. OD interventions in these systems are inclusive
methodologies and approaches to strategic planning, organization design, leadership
development, change management, performance management, coaching, diversity, and
work/life and balance.” (Matt Minahan, et. al)
 Part II. THE GROWTH AND RELEVANCE OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT
The rapidly changing conditions of the past few years confirm and accentuate their
relevance. According to several observers, organizations are in the midst of unprecedented
uncertainty and chaos, and nothing short of a management revolution will save them.
Three major trends are shaping change in organizations: globalization, information
technology, and managerial innovation.
First, globalization is changing the markets and environments in which
organizations operate as well as the way they function. New governments, new leadership,
new markets, and new countries are emerging and creating a new global economy with
both opportunities and threats. The toppling of the Berlin Wall symbolized and energized
the reunification of Germany; the European Union created a cohesive economic block that
alters the face of global markets; entrepreneurs appeared in Russia, the Balkans, and
Siberia to transform the former Soviet Union; terrorism has reached into every corner of
economic and social life; and China is emerging as an open market and global economic
influence. The rapid spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), most recently
Ebula and through economic impact clearly demonstrated the interconnectedness among
the social environment, organizations, and the global economy.
Second, information technology is redefining the traditional business model by
changing how work is performed, how knowledge is used, and how the cost of doing
business is calculated. The way an organization collects, stores, manipulates, uses, and
transmits information can lower costs or increase the value and quality of products and
services. Information technology, for example, is at the heart of emerging e-commerce
strategies and organizations. Amazon.com, Yahoo!, and eBay are among the survivors of
a busted dot-com bubble, Google has emerged as a major competitor to Microsoft, and the
amount of business being conducted on the Internet is projected to grow at double-digit
rates. Moreover, the underlying rate of innovation is not expected to decline.
Electronic data interchange—a state-of-the-art technology application a few years
ago—is now considered routine business practice. The ability to move information easily
and
inexpensively throughout and among organizations has fueled the downsizing, delayering,
and restructuring of firms. The Internet has enabled a new form of work known as
telecommuting;
organization members from Capital One and Cigna can work from their homes without ever
going to the office. Finally, information technology is changing how knowledge is used.
Information that is widely shared reduces the concentration of power at the top of the
organization. In choosing “You” as the 2006 Person of the Year, Time magazine noted that
the year was “a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It’s
about... Wikipedia... YouTube and... MySpace. It’s about the many wresting power from
the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world,
but also change the way the world changes.
Organization members now share the same key information that senior managers
once used to control decision making. Third, managerial innovation has responded to the
globalization and information technology trends and has accelerated their impact on
organizations. New organizational forms, such as networks, strategic alliances, and virtual
corporations, provide organizations with new ways of thinking about how to manufacture
goods and deliver services. The strategic alliance, for example, has emerged as one of the
indispensable tools in strategy implementation. No single organization, not even IBM,
Mitsubishi, or General Electric, can control the environmental and market uncertainty it
faces. Sun Microsystems’ network is so complex that some products it sells are never
touched by a Sun employee. In addition, change innovations, such as downsizing or
reengineering, have radically reduced the size of organizations and increased their
flexibility; new large-group interventions, such as the search conference and open space,
have increased the speed with which organizational change can take place; and
organization learning interventions have acknowledged and leveraged knowledge as a
critical organizational resource.
Managers, OD practitioners, and researchers argue that these forces not only are
powerful in their own right but are interrelated. Their interaction makes for a highly
uncertain and chaotic environment for all kinds of organizations, including manufacturing
and service firms and those in the public and private sectors. There is no question that
these forces are profoundly affecting organizations.
Fortunately, a growing number of organizations are undertaking the kinds of
organizational changes needed to survive and prosper in today’s environment. They are
making themselves more streamlined and nimble, more responsive to external demands,
and more ecologically sustainable.
They are involving employees in key decisions and paying for performance rather
than for time. They are taking the initiative in innovating and managing change, rather
than simply responding to what has already happened. Organization development plays a
key role in helping organizations change themselves.
It helps organizations assess themselves and their environments and revitalize and
rebuild their strategies, structures, and processes. OD helps organization members go
 beyond surface changes to transform the underlying assumptions and values governing
their behaviors. The different concepts and methods discussed in this book increasingly are
finding their way into government agencies, manufacturing firms, multinational
corporations, service industries, educational institutions, and not-for-profit organizations.
Perhaps at no other time has OD been more responsive and practically relevant to
organizations’ needs to operate effectively in a highly complex and changing world.
OD is obviously important to those who plan a professional career in the field, either
as an internal consultant employed by an organization or as an external consultant
practicing in many organizations. A career in OD can be highly rewarding, providing
challenging and interesting assignments working with managers and employees to improve
their organizations and their work lives. In today’s environment, the demand for OD
professionals is rising rapidly. For example, large professional services firms must have
effective “change management” practices to be competitive. Career opportunities in OD
should continue to expand in the world. Organization development also is important to
those who have no aspirations to become professional practitioners.
All managers and administrators are responsible for supervising and developing
subordinates and for improving their departments’ performance. Similarly, all staff
specialists, such as financial analysts, engineers, information technologists, or market
researchers, are responsible for offering advice and counsel to managers and for
introducing new methods and practices.
Finally, OD is important to general managers and other senior executives because
OD can help the whole organization be more flexible, adaptable, and effective. Organization
development can also help managers and staff personnel perform their tasks more
effectively. It can provide the skills and knowledge necessary for establishing effective
interpersonal relationships. It can show personnel how to work effectively with others in
diagnosing complex
problems and in devising appropriate solutions. It can help others become committed to
the solutions, thereby increasing chances for their successful implementation. In short, OD
is highly relevant to anyone having to work with and through other in organizations.
A. OD Practitioners: "Organizational Physicians"?
The system of organizations is very similar, if not the same as, the system of human
beings -- after all, organizations are made up of humans! Therefore, when trying to
understand the field of organization development, it might be useful to compare aspects
of the field of organization development to aspects of the field of medicine.
 For example, the study of the theories and structures of organizations (often in
courses called "organizational theory") is similar to the study of anatomy and physiology of
human systems. Similarly, the study of organizational behavior is similar to the study of
psychology and sociology in human systems. Finally, the study and field of organization
development compares to the study and field of medicine regarding human systems.
That is, in OD, practitioners might work in a manner similar to "organizational
physicians" intending to improve the effectiveness of people and organizations by:
1. Establishing relationships with key personnel in the organization (often called
"entering" and "contracting" with the organization);
2. Researching and evaluating systems in the organization to understand
dysfunctions and/or goals of the systems in the organization ("diagnosing" the
systems in the organization);
3. Identifying approaches (or "interventions") to improve effectiveness of the
organization and its people;
4. Applying approaches to improve effectiveness (methods of "planned change" in
the organization),
5. Evaluating the on-going effectiveness of the approaches and their results.
B. Maturation of the Field
OD has a rich field of research, theory, models and practice, with roots in
community and management development.
The topic of organizational change has received a great deal of attention over the
past several decades, as organizations face new and complex challenges like never before.
Correspondingly, the field of Organization Development is receiving a great deal of
attention now, too. As the field has grown, so has the diversity of perspectives on the field.
OD does not have a standard code of ethics or universal accrediting body. Thus,
many assert that OD is a field, rather than a profession. The OD Institute admirably does
suggest levels of certification for OD practitioners, (see the next section, Suggested
Competencies for OD Practitioners), but these do not appear to have become standard for
practitioners who consider them to be OD professionals. The OD Institute has also
suggested an International Organization Development Code of Ethics.
The Organization Development Network is a large organization that also focuses on
developing the field and serving its members, many of whom are OD practitioners.
Many people assert that OD is a field that works from a systems perspective and
according to humanistic values to help people change. Other people respond that other
fields or professions, such as trainers and community organizers, also work from a systems
 perspective and according to humanistic values and, thus, that description is not unique to
OD. They assert that OD must proclaim a scope for their field and suggest that a more apt
description of OD is that it is a field that works from a systems perspective and according
to humanistic values to enhance the performance of organizations.
Another area of diversity about perspectives on Organization Development is in
regard to how people view organizations. Some focus on the structures, operations,
positions, procedures, etc., while others focus on the human relations and interactions. Still
others focus on the politics and power, while others focus on the cultures and values of
the organization.
Concurrently, there seems to be strong focus on "soft" skills in OD, for example,
coaching, leadership development, facilitation, conflict management, process consulting,
etc. However, many would assert that the "hard" skills, such as Balanced Scorecard, quality
management initiatives (TQM, Six Sigma, etc.), strategic analysis, etc., should also be a
focus in OD.
Concurrent to these diverse views, there seems to be strong agreement that the
phrase "organizational change and development" describes the core purpose and practice
of what OD practitioners do -- so much that the phrase "organizational development" is
often used interchangeably to refer to the field itself.
C. Organizational Development Theory
Organizational Development (OD) is a field of research, theory, and practice dedicated
to expanding the knowledge and effectiveness of people to accomplish more successful
organizational change and performance.
OD is a process of continuous diagnosis, action planning, implementation and
evaluation, with the goal of transferring knowledge and skills to organizations to improve
their capacity for solving problems and managing future change.
D. History and Application of Organizational Development Theory
OD emerged out of human relations studies from the 1930s where psychologists
realized that organizational structures and processes influence worker behavior and
motivation.
Lewin's work in the 1940s and 1950s also helped show that feedback was a valuable
tool in addressing social processes.
More recently, work on OD has expanded to focus on aligning organizations with
their rapidly changing and complex environments through organizational learning,
knowledge management and transformation of organizational norms and values.
E. Key Concepts of Organizational Development Theory
i. Organizational Climate
 Defined as the mood or unique "personality" of an organization.
 Attitudes and beliefs about organizational practices create organizational
climate and influence members' collective behavior.
 Climate features and characteristics may be associated with employee
satisfaction, stress, service quality and outcomes and successful
implementation of new programs. Climate features and characteristics
include:
 Leadership, openness of communication, participative
management, role clarity, and conflict resolution, leader support
and leader control.
ii. Organizational Culture
Deeply seated norms, values and behaviors that members share.
The five basic elements of culture in organizations include:
1. Assumptions
2. Values
3. Behavioral norms
4. Behavioral patterns
5. Artifacts
The subjective features (assumptions, values and norms) reflect members' unconscious
thoughts and interpretations of their organizations. The subjective features shape the
behaviours and artefacts take on within organizations
iii. Organizational Strategies
A common OD approach used to help organizations negotiate change, i.e. action
research, consists of four steps.
1. Diagnosis
 Helps organization identify problems that may interfere with its effectiveness
and assess the underlying causes
 Usually done by OD enlisting the help of an outside specialist to help identify
problems by examining its mission, goals, policies, structures and
technologies; climate and culture; environmental factors; desired outcomes
and readiness to take action.
 Usually done through key informant interviews or formal surveys of all
members.
2. Action planning
  Strategic interventions for addressing diagnosed problems are developed.
 The organization is engaged in an action planning process to assess the
feasibility of implementing different change strategies that lead to action.
3. Intervention
 Change steps are specified and sequenced, progress monitored, and
stakeholder commitment is cultivated.
4. Evaluation
 Assess the planned change efforts by tracking the organization's progress in
implementing the change and by documenting its impact on the
organization.
F. A SHORT HISTORY OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT
A brief history of OD will help to clarify the evolution of the term as well as some of the
problems and confusion that have surrounded it. As currently practiced, OD emerged from
five major backgrounds or stems, as shown in Figure 1. The first was the growth of the
National Training Laboratories (NTL) and the development of training groups, otherwise
known as sensitivity training or T-groups. The second stem of OD was the classic work on
action research conducted by social scientists interested in applying research to managing
change.
An important feature of action research was a technique known as survey feedback.
Kurt Lewin, a prolific theorist, researcher, and practitioner in group dynamics and
social change, was instrumental in the development of T-groups, survey feedback, and
action research. His work led to the creation of OD and still serves as a major source of its
concepts and methods. The third stem reflects a normative view of OD.
Rensis Likert’s participative management framework and Blake and Mouton’s Grid®
OD suggest a “one best way” to design and operate organizations. The fourth background
is the approach focusing on productivity and the quality of work life. The fifth stem of OD,
and the most recent influence on current practice, involves strategic change and
organization transformation. Laboratory Training Background This stem of OD pioneered
laboratory training, or the T-group—a small, unstructured group in which participants learn
from their own interactions and evolving group processes about such issues as
interpersonal relations, personal growth, leadership, and group dynamics. Essentially,
laboratory training began in the summer of 1946, when Kurt Lewin and his staff at the
Research Center for Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
were asked by the Connecticut Interracial Commission and the Committee on Community
Interrelations of the American Jewish Congress for help in research on training community
leaders.
A workshop was developed, and the community leaders were brought together to
learn about leadership and to discuss problems. At the end of each day, the researchers
discussed privately what behaviors and group dynamics they had observed. The community
leaders asked permission to sit in on these feedback sessions. Reluctant at first, the
researchers finally agreed. Thus, the first T-group was formed in which people reacted to
data about their own behavior.13 The researchers drew two conclusions about this first T-
group experiment: (1) Feedback about group interaction was a rich learning experience,
and (2) the process of “group building” had potential for learning that could be transferred
to “back-home” situations. As a result of this experience, the Office of Naval Research and
the National Education Association provided financial backing to form the National Training
Laboratories, and Gould Academy in Bethel, Maine, was selected as a site for further work
(since then, Bethel has played an important part in NTL).
The first Basic Skill Groups were offered in the summer of 1947. The program was
so successful that the Carnegie Foundation provided support for programs in 1948 and
1949. This led to a permanent program for NTL within the National Education Association.
In the 1950s, three trends emerged: (1) the emergence of regional laboratories,
(2) the expansion of summer program sessions to year-round sessions, and (3) the
expansion of the T-group into business and industry, with NTL members becoming
increasingly involved with industry programs. Notable among these industry efforts was
the pioneering work of Douglas McGregor at Union Carbide, of Herbert Shepard and Robert
Blake at Esso Standard Oil (now ExxonMobil), of McGregor and Richard Beckhard at General
Mills, and of Bob Tannenbaum at TRW Space Systems. They are closely associated with
that side of OD’s reputation as a “touchy-feely” process. NTL, as well as UCLA and Stanford,
continues to offer T-groups to the public, a number of proprietary programs continue to
thrive, and Pepperdine University and American University continue to utilize T-groups as
part of master’s level OD practitioner education. The practical aspects of T-group
techniques for organizations gradually became known as team building—a process for
helping work groups become more effective in accomplishing tasks and satisfying member
needs. Team building is one of the most common and institutionalized forms of OD today.
 Figure 1
All of the backgrounds support the transfer of knowledge and skill to the client
system and the building of capacity to better manage change in the future. Today, the field
is being influenced by the globalization and information technology trends described earlier.
OD is being carried out in many more countries and in many more organizations
operating on a worldwide basis. This is generating a whole new set of interventions as well
as adaptations to traditional OD practice.
In addition, OD must adapt its methods to the technologies being used in
organizations. As information technology continues to influence organization environments,
strategies, and structures, OD will need to manage change processes in cyberspace as well
as face-to-face. The diversity of this evolving discipline has led to tremendous growth in
the number of professional OD practitioners, in the kinds of organizations involved with
OD, and in the range of countries within which OD is practiced. The expansion of the OD
Network, which began in 1964, is one indication of this growth. It has grown from 200
members in 1970 to 2,800 in 1992 to 4,031 in 1999 and has remained stable with about
4,000 in 2007. At the same time, Division 14 of the American Psychological Association,
formerly known as the Division of Industrial Psychology, has changed its title to the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. In 1968, the American Society for Training &
Development set up an OD division, which currently operates as the OD/Leadership
Community with more than 2,000 members.
In 1971, the Academy of Management established a Division of Organization
Development and Change, which currently has more than 2,600 members. Pepperdine
University, Bowling Green State University, and Case Western Reserve University offered
the first master’s degree programs in OD in 1975, and Case Western Reserve University
began the first doctoral program in OD. Organization development now is being taught at
the graduate and undergraduate levels in a large number of universities.
In addition to the growth of professional societies and educational programs in OD,
the field continues to develop new theorists, researchers, and practitioners who are building
on the work of the early pioneers and extending it to contemporary issues and conditions.
The first generation of contributors included Chris Argyris, who developed a learning and
action-science approach to OD;44 Warren Bennis, who tied executive leadership to
strategic change;45 Edie Seashore, who keeps interpersonal relationships and diversity in
the forefront of practice;46 Edgar Schein, who developed process approaches to OD,
including the key role of organizational culture in change management;47 Richard
Beckhard, who focused attention on the importance of managing transitions;48 and Robert
Tannenbaum, who sensitized OD to the personal dimension of participants’ lives.49 Among
the second
generation of contributors are Warner Burke, whose work has done much to make OD a
professional field; Larry Greiner, who has brought the ideas of power and evolution into
the mainstream of OD; Edward Lawler III, who has extended OD to reward systems and
employee involvement; Anthony Raia and Newton Margulies, who together have kept our
attention on the values underlying OD and what those mean for contemporary practice;
and Peter Vaill, Craig Lundberg, Billie Alban, Barbara Bunker, and David Jamieson, who
continue to develop OD as a practical science.54 Included among the newest generation
of OD contributors are Dave Brown, whose work on action research and developmental
organizations has extended OD into community and societal change; Thomas Cummings,
whose work on sociotechnical systems, self-designing organizations, and trans-
organizational development has led OD beyond the boundaries of single organizations to
groups of organizations and their environments; Max Elden, whose international work in
industrial democracy draws attention to the political aspects of OD; Richard Woodman,
William Pasmore, Rami Shani, and Jerry Porras, who have done much to put OD on a sound
research and conceptual base; and Peter Block, who has focused attention on consulting
skills, empowerment processes, and reclaiming our individuality.
Others making important contributions to the field include Ken Murrell, who has
focused attention on the internationalization of OD; Sue Mohrman, who has forged a link
between organization design and OD; Chris Worley, who has pushed the integration of OD
with strategy and organization design; David Cooperrider and Jim Ludema, who have
 turned our attention toward the positive aspects of organizations; and Bob Marshak, who
alerts us to the importance of symbolic and covert processes during change. These
academic contributors are joined by a large number of internal OD practitioners and
external consultants who lead organizational change. Many different organizations have
undertaken a wide variety of OD efforts. In many cases, organizations have been at the
forefront of innovating new change techniques and methods as well as new organizational
forms. Larger corporations that have engaged in organization development include General
Electric, Boeing, Texas Instruments, American Airlines, DuPont, Intel, Hewlett-Packard,
Microsoft, General Foods, Procter & Gamble, IBM, Raytheon, Wells Fargo Bank, the
Hartford Financial Services, and Limited Brands. Traditionally, much of the work was
considered confidential and was not publicized. Today, however, organizations increasingly
are going public with their OD efforts, sharing the lessons with others. OD work also is
being done in schools,
communities, and local, state, and federal governments.
Several reviews of OD projects were directed primarily at OD in public
administration. Extensive OD work was done in the armed services, including the army,
navy, air force, and coast guard, although OD activity and research activities have ebbed
and flowed with changes in the size and scope of the military. Public schools began using
both group training and survey feedback relatively early in the history of OD. Usually, the
projects took place in suburban middle-class schools, where stresses and strains of an
urban environment were not prominent and ethnic and socioeconomic differences between
consultants and clients were not high.
In more recent years, OD methods have been extended to urban schools and to
colleges and universities. Organization development is increasingly international. It has
been applied in nearly every country in the world. These efforts have involved such
organizations as Saab (Sweden), Imperial Chemical Industries (England), Shell Oil
Company, Orrefors (Sweden), Akzo-Nobel (The Netherlands), the Beijing Arbitration
Commission and Neusoft Corporation (China), Air New Zealand, and Vitro (Mexico).
Although it is evident that OD has expanded vastly in recent years, relatively few of the
total number of organizations in the United States are actively involved in formal OD
programs. However, many organizations are applying OD approaches and techniques
without knowing that such a term exists.
G. Degree of Organization
Planned change efforts also can vary depending on the degree to which the
organization or client system is organized. In over organized situations, such as in highly
mechanistic, bureaucratic organizations, various dimensions such as leadership styles, job
designs, organization structure, and policies and procedures are too rigid and overly
defined for effective task performance. Communication between management and
employees is typically suppressed, conflicts are avoided, and employees are apathetic. In
under organized organizations, on the other hand, there is too little constraint or regulation
for effective task performance. Leadership, structure, job design, and policy are poorly
defined and fail to direct task behaviors effectively.
Communication is fragmented, job responsibilities are ambiguous, and employees’
energies are dissipated because they lack direction. Under organized situations are typically
found in such areas as product development, project management, and community
development, where relationships among diverse groups and participants must be
coordinated around complex, uncertain tasks. In over organized situations, where much of
OD practice has
historically taken place, planned change is generally aimed at loosening constraints on
behavior. Changes in leadership, job design, structure, and other features are designed to
liberate suppressed energy, to increase the flow of relevant information between
employees and managers, and to promote effective conflict resolution.
The typical steps of planned change— entry, diagnosis, intervention, and
evaluation—are intended to penetrate a relatively closed organization or department and
make it increasingly open to self-diagnosis and revitalization. The relationship between the
OD practitioner and the management team attempts to model this loosening process. The
consultant shares leadership of the change process with management, encourages open
communications and confrontation of conflict, and maintains flexibility in relating to the
organization.
When applied to organizations facing problems in being under organized, planned
change is aimed at increasing organization by clarifying leadership roles, structuring
communication between managers and employees, and specifying job and departmental
responsibilities.
These activities require a modification of the traditional phases of planned change
and include the following four steps:
Identification. This step identifies the relevant people or groups who need to be
involved in the change program. In many under organized situations, people and
departments can be so disconnected that there is ambiguity about who should be included
in the problem-solving process. For example, when managers of different departments
 have only limited interaction with each other, they may disagree or be confused about
which departments should be involved in developing a new product or service.
Convention. In this step, the relevant people or departments in the company are
brought together to begin organizing for task performance. For example, department
managers might be asked to attend a series of organizing meetings to discuss the division
of labor and the coordination required to introduce a new product.
Organization. Different organizing mechanisms are created to structure the newly
required interactions among people and departments. This might include creating new
leadership positions, establishing communication channels, and specifying appropriate
plans and policies.
Evaluation. In this final step, the outcomes of the organization step are assessed.
The evaluation might signal the need for adjustments in the organizing process or for
further identification, convention, and organization activities.
In carrying out these four steps of planned change in under organized situations,
the relationship between the OD practitioner and the client system attempts to reinforce
the organizing process. The consultant develops a well-defined leadership role, which might
be autocratic during the early stages of the change program. Similarly, the consulting
relationship is clearly defined and tightly specified. In effect, the interaction between the
consultant and the client system supports the larger process of bringing order to the
situation. Application 2.2 is an example of planned change in an under organized situation.
In this case, the change agent is a person from industry who identifies a multifaceted
problem: University research that should be helpful to manufacturing organizations is not
being shaped, coordinated, or transferred. In response, he forms an organization to tighten
up the relationships between the two parties.
H. Domestic vs. International Settings
Planned change efforts have traditionally been applied in North American and
European settings, but they are increasingly used outside of these cultures. Developed in
Western societies, OD reflects the underlying values and assumptions of these cultural
settings, including equality, involvement, and short-term time horizons. Under these
conditions, it works quite well. In other societies, a different set of cultural values and
assumptions can be operating and make the application of OD problematic. In contrast to
Western societies, for example, the cultures of most Asian countries are more hierarchical
and status conscious, less open to discussing personal issues, more concerned with “saving
face,” and have a longer time horizon for results. These cultural differences can make OD
more difficult to implement, especially for North American or European practitioners; they
may simply be unaware of the cultural norms and values that permeate the society. The
cultural values that guide OD practice in the United States, for example, include a tolerance
for ambiguity, equality among people, individuality, and achievement motives. An OD
process that encourages openness among individuals, high levels of participation, and
actions that promote increased effectiveness is viewed favorably. The OD practitioner is
also assumed 2to hold these values and to model them in the conduct of planned change.
I. Conceptualization of Planned Change
Planned change has typically been characterized as involving a series of activities for
carrying out effective organization development. Although current models outline a general
set of steps to be followed, considerably more information is needed to guide how those
steps should be performed in specific situations. In an extensive review and critique of
planned change theory, Porras and Robertson argued that planned change activities should
be guided by information about (1) the organizational features that can be changed, (2)
the intended outcomes from making those changes, (3) the causal mechanisms by which
those outcomes are achieved, and (4) the contingencies upon which successful change
depends.33 In particular, they noted that the key to organizational change is change in the
behavior of each member and that the information available about the causal mechanisms
that produce individual change is lacking.
J. Practice of Planned Change
Critics have suggested several problems with the way planned change is carried
out.36 Their concerns are not with the planned change model itself but with how change
takes place and with the qualifications and activities of OD practitioners. A growing number
of OD practitioners have acquired skills in a specific technique, such as team building, total
quality management, AI, large-group interventions, or gain sharing, and have chosen to
specialize in that method. Although such specialization may be necessary, it can lead to a
certain myopia given the complex array of techniques that define OD. Some OD
practitioners favor particular techniques and ignore other strategies that might be more
appropriate, tending to interpret organizational problems as requiring the favored
technique. Thus, for example, it is not unusual to see consultants pushing such methods
as diversity training, reengineering, and organization learning, or self-managing work
teams as solutions to most organizational problems.
Effective change depends on a careful diagnosis of how the organization is
functioning. Diagnosis identifies the underlying causes of organizational problems, such as
poor product quality and employee dissatisfaction, or determines the positive opportunities
that need to be promoted. It requires both time and money, and some organizations are
 not willing to make the necessary investment. Rather, they rely on preconceptions about
what the problem is and hire consultants with skills appropriate to solve that problem.
Managers may think, for example, that work design is the problem, so they hire an expert
in job enrichment to implement a change program.
The problem may be caused by other factors such as poor reward practices,
however,
and job enrichment would be inappropriate. Careful diagnosis can help to avoid such
mistakes. In situations requiring complex organizational changes, planned change is a long-
term process involving considerable innovation and learning on-site. It requires a good deal
of time and commitment and a willingness to modify and refine changes as the
circumstances require. Some organizations demand more rapid solutions to their problems
and seek quick fixes from experts. Unfortunately, some OD consultants are more than
willing to provide quick solutions. They sell pre-packaged programs for organizations to
adopt.
Those programs appeal to managers because they typically include an explicit
recipe to be followed, standard training materials, and clear time and cost boundaries. The
quick fixes have trouble gaining wide organizational support and commitment, however,
and seldom produce the positive results that have been advertised. Other organizations
have not recognized the systemic nature of change.
Too often, they believe that intervention into one aspect or subpart of the
organization will be sufficient to ameliorate the problems, and they are unprepared for the
other changes that may be necessary to support a particular intervention. For example, at
Verizon, the positive benefits of an employee involvement program did not begin to appear
until after the organization redesigned its reward system to support the cross-functional
collaboration necessary to solve highly complex problems.
Changing any one part or feature of an organization often requires adjustments in
the other parts to maintain an appropriate alignment. Thus, although quick fixes and
change programs that focus on only one part or aspect of the organization may resolve
some specific problems, they generally do not lead to complex organizational change or
increase members’ capacity to carry out change.
Part III. WHO IS THE ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT PRACTITIONER?
Throughout this text, the term organization development practitioner refers to
at least three sets of people. The most obvious group of OD practitioners are those
people specializing in OD as a profession. They may be internal or external consultants
who offer professional services to organizations, including their top managers,
functional department heads, and staff groups. OD professionals traditionally have
shared a common set of humanistic values promoting open communications, employee
involvement, and personal growth and development.
They tend to have common training, skills, and experience in the social processes
of organizations (for example, group dynamics, decision making. In recent years, OD
professionals have expanded those traditional values and skill sets to include more concern
for organizational effectiveness, competitiveness, and bottom-line results, and greater
attention to the technical, structural, and strategic parts of organizations. That expansion,
mainly in response to the highly competitive demands facing modern organizations, has
resulted in a more diverse set of OD professionals geared to helping organizations cope
with those pressures.1 The second set of people to whom the term OD practitioner applies
are those specializing in fields related to OD, such as reward systems, organization design,
total quality, information technology, and business strategy.
These content-oriented fields increasingly are becoming integrated with OD’s
process orientation, particularly as OD projects have become more comprehensive,
involving multiple features and varying parts of organizations. The integrated strategic
change intervention, for example, is the result of marrying OD with business strategy. A
growing number of professionals in these related fields are gaining experience and
competence in OD, mainly through working with OD professionals on large-scale projects
and through attending OD training sessions. For example, most of the large accounting
firms diversified into management consulting and change management.
In most cases, professionals in these related fields do not subscribe fully to
traditional OD values, nor do they have extensive OD training and experience. Rather, they
have formal training and experience in their respective specialties, such as industrial
engineering, information systems, or health care. They are OD practitioners in the sense
that they apply their special competence within an OD-like process, typically by engaging
OD professionals and managers to design and implement change programs. They also
practice OD when they apply their OD competence to their own specialties, thus spreading
an OD perspective into such areas as compensation practices, work design, labor relations,
and planning and strategy. The third set of people to whom the term applies is the
increasing number of managers and administrators who have gained competence in OD
and who apply it to their own work areas. Studies and recent articles argue that OD
increasingly is applied by managers rather than by OD professionals.
 Such studies suggest that the faster pace of change affecting organizations today
is highlighting the centrality of the manager in managing change. Consequently, OD must
become a general management skill. Along those lines, Kanter studied a growing number
of firms, such as General Electric, HewlettPackard, and 3M, where managers and
employees have become “change masters.” They have gained the expertise to introduce
change and innovation into the organization. Managers tend to gain competence in OD
through interacting with OD professionals in actual change programs. This on-the-job
training frequently is supplemented with more formal OD training, such as the various
workshops offered by the National Training Laboratories (NTL), USC’s Center for Effective
Organizations, the Center for Creative Leadership, the Gestalt Institute, UCLA’s Extension
Service, and others. Line managers increasingly are attending such external programs.
Moreover, a growing number of organizations, including Capital One, Disney, and
General Electric, have instituted in-house training programs for managers to learn how to
develop and change their work units. As managers gain OD competence, they become its
most basic practitioners. In practice, the distinctions among the three sets of OD
practitioners are blurring. A growing number of managers have transferred, either
temporarily or permanently, into the OD profession. For example, companies such as
Procter & Gamble have trained and rotated managers into full-time OD roles so that they
can gain skills and experience needed for higher-level management positions.
Also, it is increasingly common to find managers using their experience in OD to
become external consultants. More OD practitioners are gaining professional competence
in related specialties, such as business process reengineering, reward systems, and
organization design. Conversely, many specialists in those related areas are achieving
professional competence in OD. Cross-training and integration are producing a more
comprehensive and complex kind 48 PART 1 Overview of Organization Development of OD
practitioner—one with a greater diversity of values, skills, and experience than a traditional
practitioner.
A. COMPETENCIES OF AN EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT
PRACTITIONER
The literature about OD competencies reveals a mixture of personality traits,
experiences, knowledge, and skills presumed to lead to effective practice.
For example, research on the characteristics of successful change practitioners yields
the following list of attributes and abilities: diagnostic ability, basic knowledge of behavioral
science techniques, empathy, knowledge of the theories and methods within the
consultant’s own discipline, goal-setting ability, problem-solving ability, and ability to
perform self-assessment, ability to see things objectively, imagination, flexibility, honesty,
consistency, and trust.
Although these qualities and skills are laudable, there has been relatively little
consensus about their importance to effective OD practice.
 Intrapersonal Skills or “Self-Management” Competence. Despite the growing
knowledge base and sophistication of the field, organization development is still
a human craft. As the primary instrument of diagnosis and change, practitioners
often must process complex, ambiguous information and make informed
judgments about its relevance to organizational issues.
 Interpersonal Skills. Practitioners must create and maintain effective
relationships with individuals and groups within the organization and help them
gain the competence necessary to solve their own problems. Identifies group
dynamics, comparative cultural perspectives, and business functions as
foundation knowledge, and managing the consulting process and facilitation as
core skills. All of these interpersonal competencies promote effective helping
relationships. Such relationships start with a grasp of the organization’s
perspective and require listening to members’ perceptions and feelings to
understand how they see themselves and the organization. This understanding
provides a starting point for joint diagnosis and problem solving. Practitioners
must establish trust and rapport with organization members so that they can
share pertinent information and work effectively together. This requires being
able to converse in members’ own language and to give and receive feedback
about how the relationship is progressing.
 General Consultation Skills. Identifies the ability to manage the consulting
process and the ability to design interventions as core competencies that all OD
practitioners should possess. OD starts with diagnosing an organization or
department to understand its current functioning and to discover areas for
further development. OD practitioners need to know how to carry out an
effective diagnosis, at least at a rudimentary level. They should know how to
engage organization members in diagnosis, how to help them ask the right
questions, and how to collect and analyze information. A manager, for example,
should be able to work with subordinates to determine jointly the organizations
or department’s strengths or problems.
 Organization Development Theory. The last basic tool OD practitioners should
have
 is a general knowledge of organization development, such as is presented
in this book. They should have some appreciation for planned change, the
action research model, and the positive approaches to managing change.
They should be familiar with the range of available interventions and the
need for evaluating change programs. Perhaps most important is that OD
practitioners should understand their own role in the emerging field of
organization development, whether it is as an OD professional, a manager,
or a specialist in a related area.
B. Role of Organization Development Professionals
Position Organization development professionals have positions that are either
internal or external to the organization. Internal consultants are members of the
organization and may be located in the human resources department or report directly to
a line manager. They may perform the OD role exclusively, or they may combine it with
other tasks, such as compensation practices, training, or employee relations. Many large
organizations, such as Boeing, Raytheon, Disney, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Procter &
Gamble, Weyerhaeuser, Kimberly Clark, and Citigroup, have created specialized OD
consulting groups.
These internal consultants typically have a variety of clients within the organization,
serving both line and staff departments. External consultants are not members of the client
organization; they typically work for a consulting firm, a university, or themselves.
Organizations generally hire external consultants to provide a particular expertise that is
unavailable internally, to bring a different and potentially more objective perspective into
the organization development process, or to signal shifts in power. They have ready access
to and relationships with clients, know the language of the organization, and have insights
about the root cause of many of its problems. This allows internal consultants to save time
in identifying the organization’s culture, informal practices, and sources of power. They
have access to a variety of information, including rumors, company reports, and direct
observations. In addition, entry is more efficient and congenial, and their pay is not at risk.
External consultants, however, have the advantage of being able to select the
clients they want to work with according to their own criteria. The contracting phase is less
formal for internal consultants and there is less worry about expenses, but there is less
choice about whether to complete the assignment. Both types of consultants must address
issues of confidentiality, risk project termination (and other negative consequences) by the
client, and fill a third-party role. During the diagnosis process, internal consultants already
know most organization members and enjoy a basic level of rapport and trust. But external
consultants often have higher status than internal consultants, which allows them to probe
difficult issues
and assess the organization more objectively. In the intervention phase, both types of
consultants must rely on valid information, free and informed choice and internal
commitment for their success.
However, an internal consultant’s strong ties to the organization may make him or
her overly cautious; particularly when powerful others can affect a career. Internal
consultants also may lack certain skills and experience in facilitating organizational change.
Insiders may have some small advantages in being able to move around the system and
cross key organizational boundaries. Finally, the measures of success and reward differ
from those of the external practitioner in the evaluation process.