|
Terrence, UK
"The term Organization Development is used loosely since the late 1950s to describe a philosophy, process and set of approaches and methods to improve the functioning of organizations. Typical proponents are Argyris, Beckhard, Bennis, Blake, Lewin, Maslow, McGregor, Schein, Senge. There is no agreed definition of OD, but a very influential one was given by Richard Beckhard in his 1969 book Organization Development: Strategies and Models: "a planned effort that is organization-wide, managed from the top, to increase organization effectiveness and health, organized through planned interventions in the organization's processes, and based on behavioral science knowledge". Behavioral sciences include psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology, economics and political science. Typical for most Organization Development approaches are underlying soft, humanistic, democratic, and socio-ecological values.OD normally involves consultants. The main function of these change agents is to help the sponsoring organization define and solve its own problems. OD is traditionally skeptical towards harder practices and methods such as strategy, restructuring, downsizing, information technology and a business-orientation in general."
|
|
| |
|
Internal and External Change Agents
Heinrich, Deutschland
"Well done. Note that the change agents in organization development can be either employees of the organization (internal consultants) or people from outside the organization (external consultants). Since experts from outside are less subject to the politics and motivations found within the organization, they are believed to be more effective in facilitating significant and meaningful changes." |
|
| |
|
Is OD internally focused?
Jaap de Jonge (Editor), Netherlands
"Thanks Terrence. Indeed when you read into it, the OD definition by Beckhard is widely mentioned. What surprises me is that dealing with the (changing) environment of the organization is completely missing in his definition. May we conclude that the focus of organization development is internal?" |
|
| |
|
Harder Aspects of Organisation Development
Ullhas Pagey, India - Mumbai
"Most of the OD definitions and concepts put forward by various proponets like Schein, Burke, Beckhard et al and of late by French & Bell, which by far has been the most popular in this part of the world, still heavily emphasise on behavioural science interventions; whereas one finds that in growing economies like BRIC Nations, Structural OD interventions tend to be more relevant and meaningful. Being an OD practioner over the past 25 years in the Corporate sector and as an OD faculty in several management schools in India, I find that the traditional and even most of the neo classical literature on OD does not include structural or harder aspects of OD, and often I wonder ; why is it so?" |
|
| |
|
Absense OD focus on structure, harder aspects
Hemant Vora, USA
"Ulhas Pagey raises important point. The focus of OD has been on "human" aspect and almost none on the structure or physical aspects. OD can be achieved by developing human, tools (technology) and resource (infrastructure) aspects of an organization. However, technology has grown exponentially only in last couple of decades and became essential for the OD. Similarly, resulting colateral need for adjustments in infrasturcture also has been "late arrival". These were less critical than "Human" aspect at the initial stage when OD was accepted as a "must" for organizational growth and hence were not included in early discussions nor definitions of OD. Now that the technology and infrastructure have become at least equally important, if not more, for OD, may be it is time to expand the definition of OD." |
|
| |
|
Blending the "Human" and "Structural" aspects of OD
Jon Pratlett, Australia
"As a practitioner who traded heavily on the Human side of OD for 15 years, I was introduced a couple of years ago to the work of Elliot Jacques "Requisite Organisation" and a team of us have been combining both with good results in the mining industry on the East Coast of Australia. By way of example, we worked on the analogy of a glove representing the Structure and Systems of an organisation and the hand as the human side. The glove needs to be functional to meet it's purpose eg. a particular type of safely glove, while the hand (leadership style) can make the glove into a clenched fist or open and supportive." |
|
| |
|
OD encompasses many functions
Anupam, India
"Very interesting discussion this turns out to be! Some very relevant points came out and I read it all intently.
Change, specially in the way employees do things is probably the toughest to bring about and thus many authors mention behavioral interventions. However, I feel that an impact on processes, people, and infrastructure across the entire organization can bring about true, consistent and sustainable OD." |
|
| |
|
Defining Organization Development
Elizabeth Gordon, Australia
"This is a refreshing discussion. I have been looking at employment opportunities over the past 12 months in organization development and I find that in Australia the job market interprets "OD" to mean talent management - a blend of performance management, learning & development and succession planning. The "organization" component has gone missing... It's great to know this is not the case on the global scene." |
|
| |
|
Defining Organization Development
Bhaskar Natarajan, Hyderabad (india)
"One of my favorite questions when it comes to OD:
Is 'organization development' like taking fish out of fish tank, polishing them and then returning them to the filthy water?
When I see all that is happening in the name of OD in organizations today includes employee satisfaction survey, best place to work survey, conducting climate surveys, work-life balance, succession planning etc are done in 'silos' with / without sponsorship from the top management. This is diluting our profession and eventually we may lose credibility." |
|
| |
|
OD Essentials
Jon M. Huegli, USA
"While OD emerged out of Sensitivity Group, T-Group and Encounter Group movements at Bethel, Yale and Eselan, it was more robust in the 70's and 80's and expanded beyond its focus on processes and humanistic psychology applications.
Essential to OD, and quite understated in its successor change management models are two important tenets:
1. Build organizational and leader/member capacity to pro-actively address future complex changes without depending on "expert" sources;
2. Use "action-research" to obtain real-time feedback on the impact of the change plan on the organization. For leaders to make informed decisions about catalyzing the process.
These features of OD are left out of many present popular writers' treatises on their experiences in making changes. Their absence has led to the plethora of "models" that mostly represent prescriptions. Folks like McKinsey want to retain organizational and leader dependence on them and their 7 step process because it pays the bills." |
|
| |
|
Change Management Often Fails
B.Bult, Ntetherlands
"Unfortunately, most programs and projects on change fail (more than 80 %).
People as well as managers are becoming more and more "tired of change". Especially in fast moving area's change is an ordinary turnaround based on hard factors like money and technology. In less fast moving organizations like governmental area's where time is no money, change management is still used without success.
The pocket veto (say yes, act no...) is the hobby. Nowadays scientific based approaches lead to analysis, not to change.
Because of that more and more change agents continue to emphasis the importance of change. What we really need is a paradigm shift in thinking and science on change." |
|
Organization and Change
|
|
|
More on Organization and Change
|
|
|
|
|
All you need to know about management
|
|
|
|
Management Smart Card
|
|
|
|
|
