Organizational development (OD) encompasses the actions involved with applying the study of behavioral science to organizational change. It covers a wide array of theories, processes, and activities, all of which are oriented toward the goal of improving individual organizations. Generally speaking, however, OD differs from traditional organizational change techniques in that it typically embraces a more holistic approach that is aimed at transforming thought and behavior throughout an enterprise. Definitions of OD abound, but they are all predicated on the notion of improving organizational performance through proactive techniques and activities. It is also worth noting that organizational development, though concerned with improving workforce performance, should not be mistaken for human resource development. "Organization development is the planned process of developing an organization to be more effective in accomplishing its desired goals," wrote Rima Shaffer in Principles of Organization Development. "It is distinguished from human resource development in that HRD focuses on the personal growth of individuals within organizations, while OD focuses on developing the structures, systems, and processes within the organization to improve organizational effectiveness."
ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT BASICS
Although the field of OD is broad, it can be differentiated from other systems of organizational change by its emphasis on process rather than problems. Indeed, traditional group change systems have focused on identifying problems in an organization and then trying to alter the behavior that creates the problem. OD initiatives focus on identifying the behavioral interactions and patterns that cause and sustain problems. Then, rather than simply changing isolated behaviors, the OD process aims at creating a behaviorally healthy organization that will naturally anticipate and prevent problems.
OD programs usually share several basic characteristics. First, they are considered long-term efforts of at least one to three years in most cases. Second, OD stresses collaborative management, whereby managers and employees at different levels of the hierarchy cooperate to solve problems. Third, OD recognizes that every organization is unique and that the same solutions cannot simply be applied at any company—this assumption is reflected in an OD focus on research and feedback. Fourth, OD programs emphasize the value of teamwork and small groups. In fact, most OD systems use small teams—or even individuals—as a vehicle to implement broad organizational changes.
The catalyst—whether a group or individual—that facilitates the OD process is known as the "change agent." Change agents are often outside consultants with experience managing OD programs, although companies sometimes utilize inside managers. The advantage of bringing in outside OD consultants is that they can provide a different perspective and have a less biased view of the organization's problems and needs. The primary drawback associated with outside change agents is that they may lack an in-depth understanding of key issues particular to the company. In addition, outside change agents may have trouble securing the trust and cooperation of key players in the organization. For these reasons, some companies employ an external-internal team approach, which seeks to combine the advantages of internal and external change agents while minimizing the drawbacks associated with the two approaches.
MANAGING CHANGE THROUGH ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Organizational development initiatives do not automatically succeed. The benefits of effective OD programs are myriad, as many executives, managers, and business owners will attest. As with any undertaking, an OD intervention that is pursued in a sloppy, half-hearted, or otherwise faulty manner is far less likely to bring about meaningful change than one that is carried out with the full support of the people involved. The following list presents conditions that should be present in as a part of any OD intervention in order to maximize the likelihood of a successful outcome.
- All those involved in the process need to be genuinely and visibly committed to the effort.
- People involved in OD should be informed in advance of the nature of the intervention and the role they will be expected to play in the process.
- The OD effort has to be connected to other parts of the organization.
- The effort has to be directed by appropriate managers and guided by change agents (which, if used, must be competent).
- The intervention should be based on accurate diagnosis of organizational conditions.
- Owners and managers should show their commitment to OD at all stages of the effort, including the diagnosis, implementation, and evaluation.
- Evaluation is key to success, and should consist of more than asking people how they felt about the effort.
- Owners and managers need to show employees how the OD effort relates to the organization's goals and overriding mission.
IMPLEMENTING OD PROGRAMS
OD efforts basically entail two groups of activities: "action research" and "interventions." Action research is a process of systematically collecting data on a specific organization, feeding them back for action planning, and evaluating results. Data gathering techniques include everything from surveys and questionnaires to interviews, collages, drawings, and tests. The data are often evaluated and interpreted using advanced statistical analysis techniques.
OD interventions are plans or programs comprised of specific activities designed to effect change in some facet of an organization. Numerous interventions have been developed over the years to address different problems or create various results. However, they all are geared toward the goal of improving the entire organization through change. In general, organizations that wish to achieve a high degree of organizational change will employ a full range of interventions, including those designed to transform individual and group behavior and attitudes. Entities attempting smaller changes will stop short of those goals, applying interventions targeted primarily at operating policies, management structures, worker skills, or personnel policies. Typically, organizational development programs will simultaneously integrate more than one of these interventions. A few of the more popular interventions are briefly described below.
Interpersonal interventions in an OD program are designed to enhance individual skills, knowledge, and effectiveness. This type of program utilizes group dynamics by gathering individuals together in loosely structured meetings. Subject matter is determined by the group, within the context of basic goals stipulated by a facilitator. As group members try to exert structure on fellow members, group members gain a greater awareness of their own and other's feelings, motivations, and behaviors. Other types of interpersonal interventions include those designed to improve the performance review process, create better training programs, help workers identify their true wants and set complementary career goals, and resolve conflict.
OD group interventions are designed to help teams and groups within organizations become more effective. Such interventions usually assume that the most effective groups communicate well, facilitate a healthy balance between both personal and group needs, and function by consensus as opposed to autocracy or majority rule.
Group diagnostic interventions are simply meetings wherein members of a team analyze their unit's performance, ask questions about what the team needs to do to improve, and discuss potential solutions to problems. The benefit of such interventions is that members often communicate problems of which their co-workers were unaware. Ideally, such communication will spur problem-solving and improved group dynamics.
Role analysis technique (RAT) is used to help employees get a better grasp on their role in an organization. In the first step of a RAT intervention, people define their perception of their role and contribution to the overall company effort in front of a group of coworkers. Group members then provide feedback to more clearly define the role. In the second phase, the individual and the group examine ways in which the employee relies on others in the company, and how they define his or her expectations. RAT interventions help people to reduce role confusion, which can result in either conflict or the perception that some people are not doing their job. A popular intervention similar to RAT is responsibility charting, which utilizes a matrix system to assign decision and task responsibilities.
Inter-group interventions are integrated into OD programs to facilitate cooperation and efficiency between different groups within an organization. For instance, departmental interaction often deteriorates in larger organizations as different units battle for limited resources or become detached from the needs of other units.
Conflict resolution meetings are one common inter-group intervention. First, different group leaders are brought together to secure their commitment to the intervention. Next, the teams meet separately to make a list of their feelings about the other group(s). Then the groups meet and share their lists. Finally, the teams meet to discuss the problems and to try to develop solutions that will help both parties. This type of intervention, say supporters, helps to gradually diffuse tension between groups that has arisen because of faulty communication.
OD joint activity interventions involve melding members of different groups to work together toward a common goal. Similarly, common enemy interventions achieve the same results by finding an adversary common to two or more groups and then getting members of the groups to work together to overcome the threat. Examples of common enemies targeted in such programs include competitors, government regulation, and economic conditions.
OD comprehensive interventions are used to directly create change throughout an entire organization, rather than focusing on organizational change through subgroup interventions. One of the most popular comprehensive interventions is survey feedback. This technique basically entails surveying employee attitudes at all levels of the company and then disseminating a report that details those findings. The employees then use the data in feedback sessions to create solutions to perceived problems. A number of questionnaires developed specifically for such interventions have been developed.
Structural change interventions are used by OD change agents to implement organizational alterations related to departmentalization, management hierarchy, work policies, compensation and benefit incentives programs, and other cornerstones of the business. Often, the implemented changes emanate from feedback from other interventions. One benefit of change interventions is that companies can often realize an immediate and very significant impact in productivity and profitability (provided the changes are warranted and implemented appropriately).
Sociotechnical system design interventions are similar to structural change techniques, but they typically emphasize the reorganization of work teams. The basic goal is to create independent groups throughout the company that supervise themselves. This administration may include such aspects as monitoring quality or disciplining team members. The theoretic benefit of socio-technical system design interventions is that worker and group productivity and quality is increased because workers have more control over (and subsequent satisfaction from) the process in which they participate.
A fourth OD intervention that became extremely popular during the 1980s and early 1990s is total quality management (TQM). TQM interventions utilize established quality techniques and programs that emphasize quality processes, rather than achieving quality by inspecting products and services after processes have been completed. The important concept of continuous improvement embodied by TQM has carried over into other OD interventions.
Allen, Stephanie. "Water Cooler Wisdom: How to make employees who share knowledge around the water cooler into a community of practice." Training. August 2005.
Dobrianski, John. "Critical Issues in Organizational Development." Contract Management. April 2005.
Golembiewski, Robert T. Ironies in Organizational Development. Marcel Dekker, 2002.
Greenberg, Jerald. Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003.
Humphrey, Stephen. "Jam Science: Improvisation is essential for good jazz—and a great tool for effective teams." CMA Management. May 2004.
Karriker, Joy H. "Cyclical Group Development and Interaction-Based Leadership Emergence in Autonomous Teams: An integrated model." Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. Summer 2005.
Locke, Edwin A. The Blackwell Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior. Blackwell Publishing, 2002.
Miner, John B. Organizational Behavior: Foundations, Theories, and Analyses. Oxford University Press, 2002.
Punnett, Betty Jane. International Perspectives on Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management. M.E. Sharpe, July 2004.
Recardo, Ronald J. "Best Practices in Organizations Experiencing Extensive and Rapid Change." National Productivity Review. Summer 2000.
Shaffer, Rima. Principles of Organization Development. American Society for Training and Development, 2000.
Willging, Paul R. "It's All About Leading and Managing People." Nursing Homes. March 2005.
Hillstrom, Northern Lights
updated by Magee, ECDI
Organizational development is an ongoing, systematic process to implement effective change in an organization. Organizational development is known as both a field of applied behavioral science focused on understanding and managing organizational change and as a field of scientific study and inquiry. It is interdisciplinary in nature and draws on sociology, psychology, and theories of motivation, learning, and personality.
HISTORY OF ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
In the late 1960s organizational development was implemented in organizations via consultants, but was relatively unknown as a theory of practice and had no common definition among its practitioners. In 1969 Richard Beck-hard, an authority on organizational development and change management, defined organizational development as “an effort, planned, organization-wide, and managed from the top, to increase organization effectiveness and health through planned interventions in the organization's processes, using behavioral-science knowledge.”
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s organizational development became a more established field with courses and programs being offered in business, education, and administration curricula. In the 1990s and 2000s, organizational development continued to grow and evolve and its influences could be seen in theories and strategies such as total quality management (TQM), team building, job enrichment, and reengineering. The global marketplace and working remotely with telecommuting teams are aspects of business today that are theorized in up-and-coming organizational development ideologies.
RATIONALE AND IMPLEMENTATION
Organizational development takes into consideration how the organization and its constituents or employees function together. Does the organization meet the needs of its employees? Do the employees work effectively to make the organization a success? How can the symbiotic relationship between employee satisfaction and organizational success be optimized? Organizational development places emphasis on the human factors and data inherent in the organization-employee relationship. Organizational development strategies can be used to help employees become more committed and more adaptable, which ultimately improves the organization as a whole.
The organizational development process is initiated when there is a need, gap, or dissatisfaction within the organization, either at the upper management level or within the employee body. Ideally, the process involves the organization in its entirety, with evidenced support from upper management and engagement in the effort by all members from each level of the organization.
To launch the process, consultants with experience in organizational development and change management are often utilized. These consultants may be internal to the company or external, with the cautionary understanding that internal consultants might be too entrenched in the existing company environment to effectively coordinate and enforce the action plans and solutions required for successful change. Analysts contracted jointly with consultants can also be an effective problem-solving method, and this route is often employed when issues arise among executive leaders.
Data analysis through task forces, interviews, and questionnaires can illuminate likely causes for disconnects throughout an organization. These gaps can then be analyzed, an action plan formed, and solutions employed. This is by no means a linear process, nor is it a brief one. Feedback from all constituents should be elicited throughout the process and used to make adjustments to the action plan as necessary. Constant monitoring during the entire implementation effort is important for its success and acceptance.
THE FUTURE OF ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
There are contradictory opinions about the status and future prospects of organizational development. Is it a theory whose time has come and gone? Does its basis in behavioral science, a “soft” science, make it unappealing? What are the challenges for the future?
An article by Bunker, Alban, and Lewicki proposes six areas that could revitalize the field of organizational development in the future: virtual teams, conflict resolution, work group effectiveness, social network analysis, trust, and intractable conflict. These authors suggest that focusing on these areas will help bridge the gap between research theory (i.e., academics) and practice (i.e., consultants). Getting these two groups to communicate with each other will benefit both groups and promote organizational development efforts.
In a survey conducted by Church, Waclawski, and Berr, twenty individuals involved in the study and practice of organizational development were questioned about their perspectives and predictions on the future of the
field. The most in-demand services, according to those polled, are:
- Executive coaching and development
- Team building and team effectiveness
- Facilitating strategic organizational change
- Systemic integration
- Diversity and multiculturalism
They list the daily challenges in the field as the need for speed, resistance to change, interpersonal skills and awareness, and differentiating organizational development, which refers to the variety of definitions of organizational development among practitioners and how this impacts consultants, clients, and the clients' needs.
The future of organizational development includes an international focus and more thought and theory where multiple cultures collaborate in the world of business. An emphasis on the individual and how he should be counseled will include ideas about ethnicity, culture, and a broader worldview, rather than merely the Euro-American perspective.
The opinions on the future direction of the field vary among its practitioners. Nevertheless, the continuing interest in and value of optimizing an organization's needs and goals with the needs, wants, and personal satisfaction of its employees indicate that organizational development will continue to be relevant to and vital for organizational reform in the future, either in its present form or through evolution into other theories and practices.
SEE ALSO Organization Theory; Organizational Learning; Quality and Total Quality Management; Teams and Teamwork
Beckhard, Richard. Organization Development: Strategies and Models. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969.
Brown, D.R., and D.F. Harvey. An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004.
Bunker, Bargara B., Billie T. Alban, and Roy J. Lewicki. “Ideas in Currency and OD Practice: Has the Well Gone Dry?” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 40, no. 4 (December 2004): 403–22.
Burke, W. Warner. “Internal Organization Development Practitioners: Where Do They Belong?” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 40, no. 4 (December 2004): 423–31.
Cummings, Thomas G., and Christopher G. Worley. Organization Development and Change. 8th ed. Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western, 2005.
French, Wendell L., Cecil Bell, and Robert A. Zawacki. Organization Development and Transformation: Managing Effective Change. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2005.
Jones, Brenda B. and Michael Brazel. The NTL Handbook of Organization and Change: Principles, Practices, and Perspectives. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer, 2006.
Massarik, Fred, and Marissa Pei-Carpenter. Organization Development and Consulting: Perspectives and Foundations. San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2002.
Schein, Edgar H. Organization Development: A Jossey-Bass Reader. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, 2006.
Shifo, Ross. “OD in Ten Words or Less: Adding Lightness to the Definitions of Organizational Development.” Organizational Development Journal 22, no. 3 (2004): 74–85.
Waclawski, Janine, and Allan H. Church. Organization Development: A Data-Driven Approach to Organizational Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.
Wheatley, Margaret, Robert Tannenbaum, Paula Y. Griffin, and Kristine Quade. Organization Development at Work: Conversations on the Values, Applications, and Future of OD. San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2003.