Part One: An Introduction to Organization Development CHAPTER | The Field of Organization Development Principles and practices in organizations to increase individual and organizational cffectiveness. This BOOK Tells the brand story of organization development—its history, nature and characteristics, theory, methods and values. The focus is organizations and making them function better, that is, Oz development is a systematic process for applying behavioral science To begin the story, this chapter introduces the field of OD, shows some of ite major features in broad outline, round out the story. and presents several illustrations of OD programs. Later chapters Organization development is an organizational improvement strategy. In the late 1950s and arly 1960s, itemerged out of insights from group dynamics and from the theory and practice of planned change. Today the field offers an integrated framework capable of solving most of the important problems confronting the human side of organizations. Organization development is about how people and organizations function and how {0 get them to function better, The field is based on knowledge from behavioral science disciplines such as psychology, social psychology, sociology, anthropology, systems theory, organizational behavior, organization theory, and management, OD practitioners are con. Sultants trained inthe theory and practice of organization development, with knowledge from the underlying behavioral sciences, OD programs are long-term planned, systained efforts. Such efforts begin when a leader identifies an undesirable situation and seeks to change it. The leader contacts an OD Professional, and together they explore whether organization development suits the task at hand. Ifthe answers yes, they enlist others in the organization o help design and implement ‘Scanned with CamScanner2 PART 1 An Introduction to Organization Development ategy that includes rganization toward he functioning of (2) to teach the change program. The participants develop an overall game plan or str a series of activities, each intended to achieve an outcome that moves the o1 its goals. The two major goals of OD programs &e (1) 10 improve the 1 individuals, tearis and the total organization, and the total organization, an organizations members how to continuously improve their own functioning. ems” and “work i ith the gamut of “people problems” ani Crom goo ae Tow productivity, poor quality, inerPer ropriate goals, inappropriate leadership inappropriate organization Struct” poorly designed a mental demands, poor customer relations, inadequate c jign- Trategy, structure, culture, and processes, and the like. In nd organizations are not realizing their potential, OD can systems problems” in organizations; poor mo" sonal conflict, intergroup styles, poor team performance, inadequate response to environ ‘ment among the organization's short, where individuals, teams a improve the situation. conflict, unclear or inapp «the theory and practice of organization development ‘One theme ‘her isthe distinctive nature of OD consulting. A cluster of themes Tocuses on organizational culture, processes, and strucii*e “final theme is “action research.” We will examine these Several themes underli is planned change; anot! describes OD as a process that using a total system perspective. themes in turn Planned Change Change means the new state of things and is diferent from the old state of things. Change ‘Ceverywhere, change willbe the one ofthe few constants during ihe end of this century is about planned change for organizations and the people in and into the next. This book aoe anne feld of organization development was established to help leaders address and vnrace change, to view change as an opportunity rather than a threat. Demands for change sane from forces both external and internal to the organization. External forces include regulators, competitors, market forces, customers, technology, and the larger society. Internal forces include obsolescence of products and services, new market opportunities, new strategic directions, an increasingly diverse workforce, and the like. Regardless of the source, the result is rapid and turbulent change. Change has different facets; for example, it can be deliberate (planned) or accidental (unplanned). Its magnitude can be large or small. It can affect many elements of the organization or only a few. It can be fast (abrupt, revolutionary), or slow (evolutionary). ‘The new state of things can have an entirely different nature from the old state of things (fundamental, quantum, or “second-order” change). each of these facets calls for different actions from leaders and OD practitioners. Early OD efforts primarily addressed first-order change—making moderate adjust- ents to the organization, its people, and its processes. Today the demands on organizations were being reinvented, work tasks reengineered, and the rules of the marketplace rewritten. The fundamental nature of work and organizations is changing. Indeed, the new state of ‘Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER | The Field Organization Developme! things is already vastly different from the old state of things, and the changes are jt beginning Organization Development as a Distinctive Consulting Method A fundamental difference between organization development and other organization im- provement programs is found in the OD consultant's role and relationship to clients. OD consultants establish a collaborative relationship of relative equality with organization members as they together identify and take action on problems and opportunities. OD consultants co-learners and collaborators: they work with people in the organization to discover what needs to be changed and how to go about it. The role of OD consultants is f0 structure activities to help organization members learn to solve their own problems and learn to do it better over time. OD consultants typically do not give substantive solutions to problems. Rather they create learning situations in which problems are identified and solutions are developed. OD consultants are experts on organizational change and organi- zational dynamics, and on structuring learning situations for problem solving and decision making. The aim of leaving the organization members better able to solve their own problems is a distinctive feature of organization development. This process is called “ self-renewal” or “learning how to learn” or “organizational learning” in the literature, and it means teaching clients the key skills and knowledge required for continuous self-improvement. OD consulting thus fosters increased competence, growth, learning, and empowerment throughout the client system. Organization Development as a Process That Focuses on Organizational Culture, Processes, and Structure Using a Total System Perspective You will find this cluster of themes throughout the book—its focus on organizational culture, processes, and structure captures the essence of OD. Organization development is a process in the sense that a process is an identifiable flow of interrelated events moving over time toward some goal or end.! OD is a journey, not a destination. It is an unfolding and evolvit ser aaa Every OD program is unique because every rganl2on-has-unigue problems and opportunities. Yet all OD programs are identifiable flows of interrelated events ‘moving over time toward the goals of organizational improvement and individual devel- opment. — ~~ Major events in the process include sensing that something is wrong and should be corrected; diagnosing the situation to determine what is happening; planning and taking actions to change the problematic conditions; evaluating the effects of the actions; making adjustments as necessary; and repeating as necessary; and repeating the sequence. OD is thus an iterative process of diagnosing, and taking action, All organizational improvement Programs are complex processes of goals — actions —+ redefined goals —> new actions. A powerful insight into the practice of OD is that some elements of the organization are more important than others as sources of effectiveness and ineffectiveness. Specifically, the organization's culture, processes, and structures are key leverage points for determining how well or how poorly the system functions. ‘Scanned with CamScanner4 Parr UAn Introduction to Organization Development Organization culture is defined as the values, assumptions, and beliefs held in common ‘by organization members that shape how they perceive, think, and act. Every organization has a culture. Culture strongly influences individual and group behavior—how people act depends on how they perceive and think about things, which is often embedded in the organization's culture. The culture must be altered if permanent change is 10 oceNr, Warner Burke considers culture change to be the hallmark of OD: “ organization development is a process of fundamental change in an organization's culture *2 Thus norms, values, and assumptions help determine behavior and effectiveness in organizations. OD interventions that have the power to change culture can thereby change individual and organizational performance. Being able to diagnose, understand, and change organization culture is increasingly important in organization development. — Organizational processes are also crucial leverage points for achieving organizational improvement. Processes are how things get done in organizations, the methods for arriving at results. Important processes in organizations include communication, problem solving and decision making, resource allocation, conflict resolution, allocation of rewards, human resource practices, strategic management, exercise of authority, and self-renewal or ‘continuous learning. How things are done in organizations (organizational processes) is as important as what is done. Peter Vail believes that the genius of OD is its focus on organizational processes, He views OD as “a process for improving organizational processes.”> A major thrust in organization development is improving organizational effectiveness by improving organi- zational processes. The power and importance of processes were discovered during esearch or group dynamics and laboratory training. Investigators found it useful to distinguish between “task” and “process.” Task was what the group was working on. To improve the group's functioning it was usually necessary to improve the processes the ‘groups was using. This same relationship holds for improving organizational functioning. Organization structure refers to the overall design of the organization, that is, the “wiring diagram” for how the parts are connected to producer the whole. Structure also refers to how individual work tasks are designed and how these tasks are integrated in a coherent manner. A number of OD interventions help leaders redesign the organization's structure to make it function better. Traditional ways of structuring work and organizations have found wanting: they are associated with excessive waste, inefficiency, inflexibility, and high costs, In addition, certain structures promote responsibility, innovation and initiative whereas other structures thwart these behaviors. Getting the structure right produces immediate, substantial improvements in performance. Organizational structure is an active area of experimentation in OD today. Organizations are complex social systems interacting with the environment, and OD efforts usually focus on improving the total organization, or large parts of it. The target of change is the organization as a system, not its individual members, even though individuals are the instruments of change. Systems theory is an important foundation for OD theory and practice. Shafritz and Ou describe the systems perspective as follows: “The systems school views an organization as a complex set of dynamically intertwined and interconnected elements, including its inputs, processes, outputs, feedback loops, and the environment in which it operates. A change in any element of the system inevitably causes changes in its other elements.”* ‘Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER | The Field Organization Development 5 A systems perspective directs OD practitioners to be aware of interdependencies, interrelatedness, multiple causes, and multiple effects. For example, systems theory suggests that a change in one element of the system, say, strategy, will require changes in other elements such as structures, processes, and culture if the change in strategy is to be effective. If this explanation makes organization change sound complicated, it is, but the systems paradigm helps leaders to understand complicated organizational dynamics and take actions. A primary goal of OD programs is to optimize the system by ensuring that system elements are harmonious and congruent. When organization structure, strategy, culture, and processes are not aligned, performance suffers. Different OD interventions focus on aligning the individual and the organization, aligning organizational elements, and aligning the organization with environmental demands. Organizations are examples of open systems, that is, systems interacting with their environments. Many problems of organizations today stem from rapid changes in environ- mental demands, threats, and opportunities. As the environment changes, the organization must adapt. But that gets harder to do as the pace of change quickens and as the number of shareholders increases. (Stakeholders are groups and individuals who are affected by the organization's activities and who want a say in what the organization does; these units include, for example, labor unions, government regulators, environmentalists, and investors) OD practitioners therefore have to be knowledgeable about both systems thinking and open systems thinking. The Action Research Model Earlier in the chapter we described OD as a process of diagnosing, taking action, rediagnosing, and taking new action. This process assumes a distinct form in OD called action research. Action research is essentially a mixture of three ingredients: the highl participative nature of OD, the consultant nature of (OD: the Consultant role of collaborator and co-Tearner, andthe iterative process of diagnosis and action. “TNE WCtION esearch mode! as applied in OD consists of (1) a preliminary diagnosis, (2) data gathering from the client group, (3) data feedback to the client group, (4) exploration of the data by the client group, (5) action planning by the client group, (6) action taking by the client group, and (7) evaluation and assessment of the results of the actions by the client group—with an OD Practitioner acting as a facilitator throughout the process. The action research model is Powerful; seeking the ideas and energies of a large number of people produces superior results. Participation by client group members ensures better information, better decision ‘making and action taking, and increased commitment to the action programs. Action research yields both change and new knowledge: Change occurs based the actions taken, and new knowledge comes from examining the results of the actions. The client group learns what works, what does not work, and why. This introduction to organization development is intended to give you a basic understanding of what the field is about and how it operates. The themes and characteristics in this chapter will become more familiar as we continue through the book. The following illustrations of actual OD programs provide examples from our experience and from the work of others. Notice how the programs are initiated, how they are planned and executed, and how the central themes of OD are translated into action. ‘Scanned with CamScanner© PART I An Introduction to Organization Development ILLUSTRATION ROBLEMS IN A BUSINESS FIRM Lack of cooperation between subunits, increasing complaints from customers, sagging morale, and rapidly increasing costs induced the president of a medium-sized company to confer with an OD consultant about ways to improve the situation. The wo talked at length, and it became apparent to the consultant that the executive, while having sore apprehen- sions, was generally agreeable to examining the dynamics of the situation, including decision- making processes and his own leadership behavior. He and the consultant agreed that certain organization development efforts might be worthwhile. They decided that a three-day workshop away from the usual routine, with the executive and his entire work team, might be an appropriate ‘yay to start. ; 2 "The president then sounded out several of his subordinates about the possibility of uneasiness. The team agreed the workshops, and reactions ranged from enthusiasm to some : to have the consultant meet with the executive and all his immediate subordinates to explain the typical format of such a meeting and to discuss the probable content of a workshop ‘At the end of this meeting, the group decided to give it a try- : "A few days before the off-site session, the consultant spent an hour interviews nd each member of the team. In essence he asked them, “What things are going well? and “What things are getting in the way of this group and this organization being as successful as you snes ike to be?” The purpose of these interviews was to obtain the data around which to build the design of the workshop. ‘at the beginning of the workshop, the consultant first reported back to the group ihe general themes in the interviews, which he had grouped under these problem headings: “The Boss,” “Meetings,” “Administrative Services,” “Customer Relations,” “Relations Between Departments,” and “Long-Range Goals.” The group then ranked these problem themes in terms of importance and immediacy and chose the problem areas to work on. With the consultant acting more as a coach than as a moderator, the group examined both the underlying dynamics of each problem area and optional solutions to the problems. In addition to making suggestions for breaking into subgroups to tackle certain agenda items, and in addition to providing several 10-minute lectures on such topics. As decision making and team effectiveness, the consultant, upon request, intervened from time to comment on the way the group was working together and to help make explicit the norms under which the group was together and to help make explicit the norms under which the groups seemed to be operating During the three days, the participants had time for recreation activities, such as jogging, basketball, swimming and billards. On two of the three days, the group worked until 6:00 or 6:30 p.m, and then adjourned for a relaxed dinner and socializing. By and large, the three days, although involving intense work, were worked through in the group settings others were worked out informally during breaks from the work agendas. It seemed to the consultant that the group experienced a sense of enhanced camaraderie and team spirit The last morning was spent developing “next action steps” for a dozen or so items discussed under the problem headings. One decision was to spend half a day with the consultant three months in the future to review progress toward problem solutions. During a subsequent meeting between the company president and the consultant, the executive reported that group morale was up substantially and customer complaints and ‘Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER | The Field Organization Development 7 Costs were beginning to go down, but that “we still have a long way to go, including making our staff meetings more effective.” The two then agreed to have the consultant sit in os three staff meetings before the three-month review session The three-month review session with the consultant showed significant progress had been made on some action steps. However, improvement seemed to be bogged down, Particularly in areas requiring the president to delegate certain functions to key subordinates ‘This matter was extensively worked on by the group, and the president began to see where and how he could “loosen the reins,” thus freeing himself for more long-range planning and more contacts with key customers, During the following years, the toy three-day “problem-solving workshop” managers used the consultant's services P-Management team institutionalized an annual involving the consultant. In addition, all the top in conducting comparable workshops with their own subordinates. Over this period, the consultant and the human resources director, whose hiring was a direct outgrowth of one of the sessions, began to work as a consulting team to the organization, with the human resources director gradually assuming more and more of the role of a “change agent.” In addition to having planning and control responsibilities for employment and compensation and other traditional personnel functions, the new human resources director coordinated a management development program decided to supplement the company’s problem-solving workshops. For example, managers could request to attend specialized seminars in such areas as budgeting and finance, group dynamics, and long-range planning. The human resources director thus assumed an expanded role in which he served as an internal OD consultant to the operating divisions, as a linking pin with the external (original) consultant, and as a coordinator of the traditional human resources functions. ILLUSTRATION 2: FROM “MUDDLING THROUGH” TO MAKING MILLIONS The president and seven senior executives of a parts manufacturing company spent a year and @ half working through a strategic planning process facilitated by an OD consultant, At the end of that time they had a clear and uplifting mission; specific goals for customer relations, quality, employee relations, and profits; and a well-conceived strategy for achieving the goals and fulfilling the corporate mission. It was a long, arduous journey; intense three-day work sessions every three to four months were combined with “homework assignments to prepare for the network session. They made tough decisions, launched sey initiatives, and streamlined product lines, As the new strategy was implemented, profits, which had been minimal for years (make a million dollars this year, lose a million dollars next year), started to soar, Profitability increased substantially every year for a number of tat 7 i the president. with a phone call to the consultant from an assistant to the president The epee that ite company’s top management team had decided se its single most important problem was lack of a clear, agreed-upon strategic plan, that im executives wanted to conduct a thorough strategic planning process, and that they ec to help of an outsider, previous do-it-yourself strategic planning attempts had ended in frustration and ‘Scanned with CamScannerr a & Pan Vl An 4 in duction 10 Organization Development Piles ‘The consultant rey M AN expert on strate ae the exec tlven themselves generated the content, “I can facilitate a strategic B Process if that is the kind of help that is wanted,” the consultant said Several phone calls later, a iwo-day visit was arranged. The consultant met with the President and each executive individually for lengthy interviews and exploration. Ata meeting Of the top management team on the second day, the consultant reported in general terms what he had learned, stated that strategic planning was indeed appropriate, and described “process for creating a strategic plan. The process called for five three-day planning sessions stretched over about a year and a half, He explained in detail the activities and desired Outcomes for each session, The team made a "go" decision. The consultant supplied reading materials on strategic ‘Management, and the first sension was arranged, Information on company performance was Prepared for the session. ‘Three goals of the first session were (1) to understand the industry, the competitors. and critical success factors for the industry; (2) to determine what the executives wanted the company to be and to do; and (3) to generate the first draft of a corporate mission statement embodying their aspirations for the company. The consultant structured activities to achieve the three goals and gave assignments to individuals, sub-groups, and the total group throughout the three days, It quickly became apparent that the executives did not work well as a group: Several strong personalities pushed hard for their positions without compromise, considerable scapegoating and intimidating occurred, people did not listen to ‘or accept the opinions of others, the group'jumped from topic to topic without getting closure ‘on subjects, and people held vastly different opinions about what the company should be and do. One half day focused on the industry and the competition. The group explored the following questions: What are industry trends? What are industry success factors? Who are the main competitors? What are their strategies? What do they do well? What do they do that we want to avoid? Next, the group conducted a specific environmental analysis using 4 SWOT analysis (company strengths/weaknesses, environmental opportunities/threats) Discussions and activities centered on the question: What do we want the company {0 be and to do? Differences of opinion were great, as was the strength of conviction shown by the various executives. The consultant's major tasks were to keep the group focused on the topic at hand, to highlight areas of disagreement, and to ensure that all ideas were given a fair hiring. The charge for the third day was to complete the first draft of a corporate mission statement that incorporated what the group wanted the company to be and to do. Individuals wrote their own versions of a mission statement: subgroups used these versions to construct @ subgroup mission statement; next to total group discussed the subgroup reports. In a second iteration subgroups wrote revised statements, and then the total group hammered out a draft, The executives were generally pleased with their progress and with the mission statement, Arrangements were made for the next three layers of management to critique the mission statements before the next work session. The goals of the second session three months later were to finalize the mission statement based on three months of reflection and on the inputs from additional managers, and to agree on corporate goals for the next two to five years. Finalizing the mission statement Plied that outside help on strategic planning comes in two form ‘Bic planning content, or from an expert on facilitating a process ‘Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER | The Field Organization Development 9 was difficult because this document would constitute the guiding principles for the corporation. The input from additional managers provided a healthy reality check, but old differences of opinion among the executives surfaced and were explored until resolved. (In retrospect, the most valuable feature of the strategic planning process was to surface, confront, and resolve differences among the executives. They could not move forward as a company as they resolved their differences and were all committed to a common course of action. But agreeing on the common course of action had never been achieved in the past.) After finalizing the mission statement, the group set goals for quality, customer relations, employee relations, and company profitability. The executives agreed it would be impossible to achieve gains in profits without attending to the foundation of profits: employees and customers. The final task was to decide how to report the results of the second work session to the next three levels of management. The goal of the third session four months later was to develop the strategy or strategies to enact the corporate mission and achieve the corporate goals. The consultant's main tasks were to cause exploration of multiple possibilities, prevent premature closure on disclosure of new ideas, and test for commitment to the mission and goals that had been developed in prior sessions. The executives identified five new strategic initiatives that would enable the company to achieve its goals. To ensure implementation and follow through, a “champion” was assigned responsibility for each initiative. The goal of the fourth session three months later was to assess progress on the five initiatives. Each champion reported on progress to date. Refinements, needed adjustments, additional clarification, and obstacles were all explored. If necessary, additional resources were allocated to the initiatives. Recommitment to the mission, goals, and strategy was obtained. The executives felt good about what they had done because significant positive results were beginning to occur. ‘The fifth and final session was held four months later. The goals were to assess progress on implementation, to build support mechanisms for the five initiatives, and to revisit the corporate goals for the present year. Because profitability was greater than expected, and because they had five months until the end of the fiscal year, the executives decided to"set new, ambitious performance goals for the current year. They subsequently achieved these goals, made a significant profit for themselves, the company, and the employees (who had a gainsharing program in place) and started a record of achievement that the company had never seen before. Strategic planning is really about alignment with environmental demands and oppor- tunities, and alignment and agreement among the top executives about what they want to do and how they intend to do it. The OD approach to strategic planning is to facilitate a process whereby the key executives align their efforts toward common goals and a common “game plan.” Sry rie ILLUSTRATION 3: TAKING ON GLOBAL CHALLENGES WITH THE HELP OF OD Providing IT services is where India has a proven competitive advantage. With all the requisites like technically qualified people, English-speaking professionals, and the other ‘Scanned with CamScannerlo PART | An Introduction to Organization Development competencies required in the services sector, India should do well by conce: Service sector and once the industry matures, software products and consu taken up more seriously. ‘A major disadvantage of the Chinese software industry, itis reported. is a lack of fluency in English among its professionals; this in tun may hamper their growth. Otherwise they have a good infrastructure and a proactive government support which aids in the devel. opment of the software industry. So if China resolves its language barrier, it will certainly give a tough fight to the Indian software industry in the future Given this scenario, software organizations are priming their systems and work processes and gearing themselves to meet future challenges. KPIT is trying to bring abou a change by carrying out Organisation Development activities in its work place. ‘The OD work in KPIT is a proactive approach. It was initiated in 2000 to facilitate vices player. OD basically helps take proactive KPIT in its quest to become a global IT ses steps for introducing planned -change that cuts across departmental and bierarchical boundaries and thus increases transparency. It brings change in the company’s culture, mindset, skills, and organization. ‘OD was taken up as a planned change management exercise. The OD interventions followed by process consultation. The services of began with a diagnostic phase (survey) ° ; an OD consulting firm was used for the initial interventions. After a diagnostic survey, a top management workshop, followed by workshops cutting across the company was conducted. These workshops put people through the concepts of change and its manage- ment, as well as other areas like collaboration, team building and inter-personal expectations ‘and their fulfillment. A restructuring of the compensation and benefits package followed these workshops, and in future, it will be followed by structural changes and a focus on organizational roles played by software experts and consultants. Basically, the OD function in KPIT is a formal process, which aligns the people towards business imperatives. But before proceeding with the action plan the company had a blue print ready with it. There are two ways in which change can be viewed—Transactional and Transfor- mational. Companies with vision would go for transformational change that is in-depth and enduring. This applies to KPIT who basically believed in initiating changes in structure, systems, skills and the other S's described in the 7 S framework, rather than think that the right strategy and structure will automatically lead to business success. The control mechanisms involve periodic review of the performance of the organi- zation. They have a business review every month and a more strategic review held at the top level twice in a year. Besides this, four quarterly reviews are also held when the entire staff of KPIT is invited. This is essentially a participative and an interactive session that updates everyone on the latest developments and initiatives. OD has definitely changed the organization. However, one should remember that this is a process and a journey and not a destination. Change brings bigger challenges, which requires even greater changes. OD has brought about structural changes in the organization, a better collaboration and communication, a better orientation to business and quite a bit of positive energy, which is important to the success of the organization. This could become even more important in the challenges lying ahead of the serious players in the IT services industry as KPIT takes up the task of becoming very competitive. ‘Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER | The Field Organization Development 11 OD in the present context is very essential if an organization wishes to sustain itself in the long run, rather than be focused only on the short term. — CONCLUDING COMMENTS In this chapter, we examined the nature of organisation development and its central themes to establish a foundation for understanding the field. OD is a strategy for change that intervenes in the human and social processes of organizations. The illustrations demonstrate the themes in action—the use of action research, of teams of various configurations, of a consultant-facilitator, and of interventions into the organization’s culture, structure, and processes. In later chapters we will look more closely at the techniques, at the underlying theory and assumptions of OD, and at some of the pitfalls and challenges involved in attempting to improve organizations through behavioral science methods. a NOTES 1. Wendell L. French, Human Resources Management, 4th ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998), p. 6. 2. W. Wamer Burke, Organization Development: A Process of Learning and Changing, 24 ed. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1994), p. 9. 3. Peter B. Vaill, “Seven Process Frontiers for Organization Development,” in The Emerging * Practice of Organization Development, Walter Sikes, Allan B. Drexler, and Jack Gant, eds. (La Jolla, CA: Copublished by NTL Institute and University Associates, 1989), p. 261 4, Jay M. Shafritz and J. Steven Ott, Classics of Organization Theory, 2d ed. (Chicago: The Dorsey Press, 1987), p. 234. ‘Scanned with CamScanneree, CHAPTER 2 Definitions and Historical Overview of Organization Development he literature contains numerous definitions of organization development. We examine several here and present one of our own. A good way to gain an Appreciation for what OD is all about is to see how various authors have described the field over the years. No single accepted definition of OD exists, but there is general agreement on the nature of the field and its major characteristics. Some early definitions of organization development follow.' ‘ganization development is an effort (1) planned, (2) organization ~ wide, and (3) managed ‘from the top. to (4) increase organization effectiveness and health through (5) planned interven tions in the organization's “processes,” using behavioral - science knowledge. (Beckard, 1969) Organization development (OD) is a response to change, a complex educational strategy intended \ to change the beliefs, attitudes, values, and structure of organizations so that they can better \ adapt to new technologies, markets, and challenges and the dizzying rate of change itself. (Bennis, 1969) “op can be defined as a planned and sustained effort to apply behavioral science for system improvement, using reflexive, self-analytic methods. (Schmuck and Miles, 1971) Organization development is a process of planned change-change of an organization’ s culture from one which avoids an examination of social processes (especially decision-making, planning. ‘and communication) to one which institutionalizes and legitimizes this examination. (Burke and Hornstein, 1972) ‘More recent definitions of organization development are these.? [The aims of OD are} ... (1) enhancing congruence between organizational structure, processes, strategy, people, and culture.: (2) developing new and creative organizational solutions; and (3) developing the organization's self-renewing capacity. Organization development is an organizational process for understanding and improving any and all substantive processes an organization may develop for performing any task and pursuing any objectives... A “process for improving processes”-that is what OD has basically sought to be for approximately 25 years. (Vaill, 1989) Organizational development is a set of behavioral science-based theories, values, strategies, and techn‘ques aimed at the planned change of the organizational work setting for the purpose of 12 ee ‘Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER 2 Definitions and Historical overview of Organization Development 13 enhancing individual development and improving organizational performance, through the alter- ation of organizational members’ on-the-job behaviors. (Porras and Robertson, 1992) {OD is] ... a systematic 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, 1993) Organization development is a planned process of change in an organization's culture through the utilization of behavioral science technologies, research, and theory. (Burke, 1994, p.12) As you can see, these definitions overlap a great deal (that’s encouraging), and contain several unique insights (that enlightening). All authors agree that OD applies behavioral science to achieve planned change, likewise, they agree that the target of change is the total organization or system and that the goals até increased organizational effectiveness and individual development, ~ Schmuck and Miles provide an important insight with the words. “reflexive, self. daca In OD, organization members systematically critique how they are doing to Tearn how to do better. Burke and Hornstein’s idea of “legitimizing” an examination of social processes” speaks to the same issue of becoming mor ~ Several definitions emphasize the importance of organization processes (Beckhard, Burke and Hornstein, and Vaill). Vall depicts OD as a “process for improving processes akeen observation. Likewii iti i Tucial role of organization priority targets in most OD programs. Beer and Cummings and Worley emphasize achieving congruence among the com- Ponents of the organization such as strategy, structure, culture, and processes. Cummings and Worley suggest getting the components right (planned development), and keeping them right (reinforcement). Porass and Robertson suggest that OD is a “package” of theories, values, strategies and techniques. This package gives OD its distinct character compared to other improvement strategies. Bennis calls OD both a response to change and an educational s intended to change beliefs, attitudes, values, and organization structure—all directed toward making his organization beter abte To respond to changing envitoamcnl demands. His definition is as relevant today as when it was first written. Porras and Robertson state that the aim of OD is to alter people’s behaviors by changing organizational work settings, Beers definition isthe only one to mention, “developing the organization's self-renewing capacity”—a central goal in all OD programs—but all these authors agree with the desirability of creating self- tenewing, “learning organizations. Collectively, these definitions convey a sense of what organization development is in and does, They describe in broad outline the nature and methods of OD. There is no set definition of OD and no agreement on the boundaries of the field, that is, what practices should be included and excluded. But these are not serious constraints given that the field is still evolving, and that practitioners share a central core of understanding as shown in the preceding definitions. Now let’s turn to our definition of organization development. We do not propose it as the “right” definition, but as one that includes characteristics we think are important for the present and future of the field. Organization development i supported by Y top management to improve-an-organization’s-visioning, empowerment, ‘Scanned with CamScanner14 PART 1 An introduction to Organization Development oing, collaborative managemen, learning, and problem-solving processes, through an ong ams and other of organization culture—with special emphasis on the culture of intact work tec team configurations—using the consultant-facilitator role and the theory And technology of applied behavioral science, including action research. This definition 1s lengthy, but iz includes a number of components we consider essential. We will explain this definition ig some detail By long-term effort we mean that organizational change and development take time— several years in most cases. Ralph Kilmann’s book, Beyond the Quick Fix, tells the story correctly: There is no “quick fix” when it comes to lasting organizational improvement) In fact, it is more accurate to describe “improvement” as a never- ending joumey of continuous change. One program of initiative moves the organization to a higher plateau; then another moves to yet a higher plateau of effectiveness. ‘The phrase led and supported by top management states an imperative: Top manage- ational change is hard, ment must lead and actively encourage the change effort. Organi serious business; it includes pain and setbacks as well as successes. Top management must initiate the improvement “journey” and be committed to seeing it through. Most OD programs that fail to do so because top management was ambivalent, and, lost its commitment, or became distracted with other duties. By visioning processes, we mean those processes through which organization members develop a viable, coherent, and shared picture of the nature of the products and services the organization offers, the ways those goods will be produced and delivered to customers, and what the organization and its members can expect from each other. Visioning means creating a picture of the desired future that includes salient features of the human side of the organization and then working together to make that picture a reality. By empowerment processes we mean those leadership behaviors and human resource practices that enable organization members to develop and use their talents as fully as possible toward individual growth and organizational success. By empowerment, we mean involving large numbers of people in building the vision of tomorrow, developing the strategy for getting there, and making it happen, For empowerment to become a fact of life, it must bs oe into the: very fabric of the organization—its strategy, structure, processes, and By learning processes we mean those interacting, listening, and self-examining processes that fi tate individual, team, and organizational learning. Peter Senge describes learning organizations as“... organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are aware ay Ee aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning ia of “eter oa hte haba cot Ge preven eubarannny and tre bo iat eed ‘ions that prevent embarrassment and threat, : Problem-—solving processes refer to the ways organization members diagnose situations, solve problems, make decisions, and take actions on problems, opportunities, and challenges in the organization's environment and its internal functioning. Michael challen es in i organization's environment, and its internal functioning. Michael Beer’s definition called for “developing new and creative organizational solutions.” We believe solutions to problems are enhanced by tapping deeply into the creativity, commitment, vitality, and common i a ‘Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER 2 Definitions and Historical overview of Organization Development 15 purposes of all members of the organization, in contrast to having only a select few involved We further believe that having a compelling, widely shared vision of a desired future creates the best climate for effective problem solving by all the organization's members. Empow- erment means involving people in problems and decisions and letting them be responsible for results. By ongoing collaborative management of the organization's culture we mean, first, that one of the most important things to manage in organizations is the culture: the prevailing patterns of values, attitudes, beliefs, assumptions, expectations, activities, interactions, norms, sentiments, and artifacts.* And second, managing the culture should be a collabo- rative business, one of widespread participation in creating and managing the culture that satisfies the wants and needs of individuals at the same time that it fosters the one, not just small group, has a stake in making the arganization work. Just as visioning, empowerment, earning, and problem-solving processes are opportunities for collaboration in organization development, so is managing the culture. By including culture so prominently in our definition, we affirm our belief that culture is the bedrock of behavior in organizations. The reciprocal influence among culture, strategy. structure and processes make each important, and each influences the others. Still, culture is of primary importance. Edgar Schein clarifies the nature and power of culture in his definition: “Culture can now be defined as (a) a pattern of basic assumptions, (b) invented, discovered, or developed by a given group, (c) as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, (d) that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore (e) is to be taught to new members as the (f) correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems.” So culture consists of basic assumptions, values, and norms of behavior that are viewed as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel-that is why culture change is necessary for true organizational improvement. Our definition also places considerable weight on organizational processes. Processes are how things get done, we highlight the importance of visioning, empowerment, learning, and problem-solving processes. Processes are relatively easy to change, so they are the place OD programs often begin-getting people to stop doing things one way and start doing them a different way. But change becomes permanent when the culture changes and people accept the new ways as the “right” ways. We believe that when the culture promotes collaboration, empowerment, and continuous learning the organization is bound to succeed. By intact work teams and other configurations we recognize the teams are central to accomplishing work in organizations. We think teams are the basic building blocks of organizations, When teams function well, individuals and the total organization function well. Further, team culture can be collaboratively managed to ensure effectiveness, The most prevalent form of teams in organizations is intact work teams consisting of superior and subordinates with a specific job to perform. Team building and role ahd goal clarification interventions are standard activities in OD programs directed toward intact work teams, But in many organizations today, intact work teams do not have a boss in the traditional sense—the teams manage themselves, These self-directed teams assume com- plete responsibility for planning and executing work assignments. In addition to team building and role and goal clarification, members are trained in competencies such as planning, maintaining quality control, and using management information. Over time, self-directed teams control performance appraisals, hiring, firing, and training. The results are usually gratifying both for the team members and for the organization, ‘Scanned with CamScannerV6 PART 1 An introduction to Organization Development Today's organizations increasingly use ad hoc teams that perform a specif task ang disband when the task is completed. The current method for getting complex tasks don in organizations is to assemble a cross-functional team comprised of members from all th functional specialists required to get the job done, such as design. engineering, manufac turing, and procurement. The old method was to hi problem sequentially. When one function finished with its part of the project, the proceg “threw the results over the wall” to the next functional unit. This method resulted in log of synergy, wasted time much rework, and considerable antagonism among the separate functional specialists.The skills required to work effectively in teams will be at a premiug in such a world. role conveys our belief that leaders cay The phrase using the consultant-facilitato y benefit from seeking professional assistance in planning and implementing OD initiatives, In the early phases, at least, the services of a third-party consultant-facilitator are desirable The third-party role is powerful: That person is typically seen as bringing objectivity neutrality, and expertise to the situation. Also, the third party is not captive to the culture of the unit undertaking the program. This need of objectivity does not mean that the thing party cannot be a member of the organization: rather, it means that he or she should not be a member of the particular unit initiating the OD effort. Part of an effective OD effort is a growing appreciation of the consultant—facilitator role and the growing capability of many organizational members to perform that role, whether on and ad hoc or a more formal basis. Numerous members should be encouraged to increase their consultation skills and use these skills in various ways, such as helping to run more effective meetings or providing counsel to peers. We are thus calling attention to the facilitator role in organizations as well as facilitator persons. By the theory and technology of applied behavioral science, we mean insights from the sciences dedicated to understanding people in organizations, how they function, and how they can function better, OD applies knowledge and theory. Therefore, in addition to the behavioral sciences such and psychology, sociology, and so on, applied disciplines such as adult education, psychotherapy, social work, economics, and political science make contributions to the practice of OD. Porras and Robertson state: Organizational development (OD) is the practical applications of science of organizations. Drawing from several disciplines for its models, strategies, and techniques. OD focuses on the planned change of human systems and contributes to organization science through the knowledge gained from its study of complex change dynamics.* And finally, by action research we mean the participative model of collaborative and iterative diagnosis and taking action on which the leader, organization members, and OD practitioner work together to define and resolve problems and opportunities. Because of the extensive applicability of this model in OD, another definition of organization development could be organization improvement through participant action research. The definition we have just analyzed contains the elements we believe are important for OD. To summatize, here are the primary distinguishing characteristics of organization development. 1. OD focuses on culture and processes, 2, Specifically, OD encourages collaboration between organization leaders and members in managing culture and processes. ave functional specialists work, on th ‘Scanned with CamScannerreer '7 CHAPTER 2 Definitions and Historical overview of Organization Development 3. Teams of all kinds are particularly important for accomplishing tasks and are targets for OD activities, 4. OD focuses on the human and social side of the organization and in so doing also intervenes in the technological and structural sides 5. Participation and involvement in problem solving and decision-making by all levels of the organization are hallmarks of OD. 6. OD focuses on total system change and views organizations as complex social sys- tems . OD practitioners are facilitators, collaborators, and co-learners with the client system. . An overarching goal is to make the client system able to solve it problems on its own by teaching the skills and knowledge of continuous learning through self- analytical methods. OD views organization improvement as Oan ongoing process in the context of a constantly changing environment. 9. OD relies on an action research model with extensive participation by client system members, a saraabeaataete 10. OD takes a developmental view that seeks the betterment of both individuals and the organization. Attempting to create “win-win” solutions is standard practice in OD programs ee These characteristics of organization development depart substantially from traditional consultation modes. Schein identifies the three following basic models of consultation-the first two are not OD, the third model is a good description of OD.? In the “purchase of expertise model” a leader or unit identifies a need for information or expertise the organization cannot supply and hires a consultant to meet that need. Examples includes hiring a consultant to (1) survey consumers or employees about some matter, (2) Find out how organizations organize certain units, or (3) search out information such as the marketing strategy of a competitor. The consultant then makes recommendations. In the “doctor-patient model” a leader or group detects symptoms of ill health in a unit, or more broadly in the organization, and employs a consultant to diagnose what is causing the problem or problems. The consultant, like a physician, then prescribes a course of action to remedy the ailment. In the “process consultation model” the consultant works with the leader and group to diagnose strengths and weaknesses and to develop action plans. Furthermore, in this model the consultant assists the client organization to become more effective in diagnosing and solving problems. The first two models depict traditional management consulting: the third model is more typical of OD consulting. In OD the clients receive help in the ways they go about solving problems. The consultant suggests general processes and procedures for addressing problems. The consultant helps the clients generate valid data and learn from them. In short, the OD consultant is an expert on process—how to structure effective problem solving and decision-making. em A HISTORY OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT The history of organization development is rich with the contributions of behavioral scientists and practitioners, many of whom are well known, as well as the contributions of many people ‘Scanned with CamScannery V8 PART 1 An Introduction to Organization Development nificant contributors, which we y in a short essay. Therefore 1 thrusts of that history, baseq are not mentioned will nop ¢ origins of OD plus some in client organizations. Even if we were aware of all the sigi are not, we could not justice to the richness of this histor all we can do is write about what we believe to be the central on our research to date, and hope that the many people who be offended by our incompleteness. Our focus will be largely th discussion of current trends and the current extent of application Systematic organization development activities have a recent history and, 0 Use the ant trunk stems, One trunk stem consisyy analogy of a mangrove tree, have at least four import nts to complex organizations. A secong of innovations in applying laboratory-training insig) major stem is survey research and feedback methodology. Both stems intertwined with g third, the emergence of action research. Paralleling these stems, and to some extent linked, APE te emergence of-lbe Tevistock;sociousehalest-and-eocioclinies) aj proaches. The key actors in these stems interact with each other and are influenced by experiences and concepts form many fields, as we will see. ee THE LABORATORY TRAINING STEM The T-Group Laboratory training, essentially unstructured small-group situations in which participants plants learn from their own actions and the group's evolving dynamics, began to develop trout 1946 from various experiments in using discussion groups to achieve change sia behavior in back-home situations, In particular, an Inter-Group Relations workshop held ar the State Teachers College in New Britain, Connecticut, in the summer of 1946 influenced the emergence of laboratory training. This workshop was sponsored by the Connecticut Interracial Commission and the Research Center for group Dynamics, then at MIT. The Research Center for Group Dynamics (RCGD) was founded in 1945 under the direction of Kurt Lewin, a prolific theorist, researcher, and practitioner in inter-personal group, intergroup, and community relationships," Lewin had been recruited to MIT largely through the efforts of Douglas McGregor of the Sloan School of Management, who had convinced MIT President Carl Compton of the wisdom of establishing a center for group dynamics. Lewin's original staff included Marian Radke, Leon Festinger, Ronald Lipitt, and Dorwin Cartwright." Lewin’s field theory and his conceptualizing about group dynamics, change processes, and action research profoundly influenced the people associated with the various stems of OD, Through a series of events at the New Britain workshop of 1946, what was later to be called the “T-group” (“T" for training") began to emerge. The workshop consisted of Kurt Lewin, Kenneth Benne, Leland Bradford, and Ronald Lipitt. The latter three served as leaders of “learning groups” (sometimes called “I-groups”). Each group, in addition to group members and a leader, had an observer who made notes about interactions among members: At the end of each day, the observers met with the staff and reported what they had seen: ‘At the second or third evening session, three members of the workshop asked if they could sit in on the reporting session, and were encouraged to do so. One woman disagreed with the observer about the meaning of her behavior during the day's sessions, and a lively discussion ensued. The three workshop members then asked to return to the next reporting ‘Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER 2 Definitions and Historical overview of Organization Development 19 session, and, because of the lively and rich discussion, Lewin and the staff enthusiastically agreed. By the next evening, about half of the 50-60 members of the workshop attended the feedback session, These sessions soon became the most significant learning experiences of the conference, '? is experience led to the National Training Laboratory in-group Development, organized by Benne, Bradford, and Lipitt (Lewin died in early 1947). They held a three week session during the summer of 1947 at the Gould Academy in Bethel, Maine." Participants met with a trainer and an observer in Basic Skill Training Groups (Jater called T-groups) for a major part of each day. The work of that summer evolved into the National Training Laboratory, later called NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, and into contemporary T-group training. Out of the Bethel experiences and NTL grew a significant number of laboratory training centers sponsored by universities. One of the first was the Western Training Laboratory, headed by Paul Sheats and sponsored by UCLA. Inaddition to Lewin and his work, extensive experience with role-playing and Moreno's psychodrama influenced Bradford, Lipitt, and Benne’s invention of the T-group and the subsequent emergence of OD,'4 Further, Bradford and Benne were influenced by John Deweys’ philosophy of education, including concepts about learning, and change and about the transactional nature of humans and their environment.'* Benne, in collaboration with R. Bruce Raup and others, built on Dewey’s philosophy, focusing on the processes by which people who differ reach policy agreements.'® In addition, Benne was influenced by the works of Mary Follett, an early management theorist, including her ideas about integrative solutions to problems in organizations." As a footnote to the emergence of the T-group, the widespread use of flip-chart paper as a convenient way to record, retrieve, and display data in OD activities and in training sessions was invented by Ronald Lipitt and Lee Bradford during the 1946 New Britain sessions, Ina sense, the T-group emerged from an awareness that had been growing for a decade or more, awareness of the importance of helping groups and group leaders focus on group and leadership processes. This growing awareness was particularly evident in adult education and group therapy.'* As the use of the laboratory method evolved, stated goals of T-group experiences tended to include such statements as “(1) self-in sight ... (2) understanding the conditions which inhibit or facilitate group functioning, (3) understanding interpersonal operations in groups, and (4) developing the skills for diagnosing the individual, group, and organizational behavior.!? While thes jhts and skills were practical and relevant for most participants, one driving force for the rapidly growing popularity of T-groups was probably their spiritual and therapeutic (therapy for normals) aspects, Over the next decade, as trainers began to work with social systems of more permanency and complexity than T-groups, they began to experience considerable frustra- tion in transferring laboratory behavior skills and insights of individuals into solving problems in organizations. Personal skills learned in the “stranger” T-groups setting were difficult to transfer to complex organizations, However, the training of “teams” from the same organization emerged early at bethel and undoubtedly was a link to the total organization focus of Douglas McGregor, Hebert Shepard, Robert Blake, and Jane Mouton and subse- quently the focus of Richard Beckard, Chris Agyris, Jack Gibb, Warren Bennis, Eva Schindler- Rainman, and others. All had been T-group trainers in NTL programs, ‘Scanned with CamScanner20 PART 1 An introduction to Organization Development Growth of T-groups in India oups in India. He established Rolf Lynton in 1957 conducted initial gro in order to develop the capacity of youth. He implemented leadership 72 including unstructured group exercise. =e Tn North india, Max Coley, Dean of Teachers, College, Columbia Unive®sx a member of NTL, stayed in Delhi from 1959 101962 as 2 consoltant 10 te Be Eécation. He conducted T-Groupe in his house, and Udai Parcek was one 0 Pax With the help of a recommendation from Coley. Pareek visited USA in 1961 an and was trained by NTL. He became a member and subsequently a Fellow of > hiereturn to India the first full-scale Laboratory Training in India was impleme ae in Ferozpur by Coley and Pareek. In 1960 Lynton shifted to SEIT Institute and Pareek also bases 4 mm 1964. In 1960s, SEIT Institute became members as visiting professors, that, Behavioral Sciences Group in IIM-C had of ‘a base of Laboratory Training in eastern India. Robert Tannenbaum Some ofthe earliest sessions of what would now be called “team building” were condecteé by Robert Tannenbaum in 1952 and 1953 at the U.S. Naval Ordnance test Station at China Like, California?! According to Tannenbaum, the term vertically structured groups WS used wwith groups dealing with “personal topics” (such as departmental sociometrics, interpersonal felationships, communication, and self analysis), and with organizational topics (such 2s deadlines, duties and responsibilities, policies and procedures, and quite extensively—with interorganizational group relations).”> These sessions, which stimulated a 1954 Personnel article by Tannenbaum, Kallejian, and Weschler were conducted “with all managers of 2 given organizational unit present,” “The more personally oriented dynamics of such sessions were described in a 1955 Harvard Business review article by the same authors.** Chris Argyris In 1957, Chris Argyris, then a faculty member at Yale University (later at Harvard), was one of the first to conduct team-building sessions with a CEO and the top executive team. Two of Argyri’s early clients were IBM and Exxon, His early research and interventions with a top executive group are reported in his 1962 book Interpersonal Competence and Organizational Effectiveness. In 1950, while working on a Ph. D. at Cornwell University, Argyris visited Bethel as a member of NTL’s research staff in order to study T-groups. In his words, “I became fascinated with what I saw, and wanted to become a trainer. Several years later ... I was invited to become a staff member. ** Argyris was later to make extensive contributions to theory and research on laboratory training, OD, and organizational learning. One of his several books on OD sabe aation Theory and Method, stands as a classie in the field.?? ‘Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER 2 Definitions and Historical overview of Organization Development 21 Douglas McGregor Beginning about 1957, Douglas McGregor, as a professor-consultant, working with Union Carbide was one of the first behavioral scientists to address the transfer problem and to talk syste’ ly about and to help implement the application of T-group skills in complex organizations.”* John Paul Jones, who had come up through industrial relations at Union Carbide, in collaboration with McGregor and with the support of a corporate executive vice president and director, Birny Mason, Jr. (later president of the corporation) established a small internal consulting group. In large part, this group used behavioral science knowledge to help line managers and their subordinates learn how to be more effective in-groups. McGregor’s ideas were a dominant force in this consulting group; other behavioral scientists who influenced Jone’s thinking were Rensis Likert and Mason Haire. Jone’s organization was later called an “organization development group” 2? Herbert Shepard During the same year, 1957, introductions by Douglas McGregor led to Herbert Shepard’s joining the employee relations department of Esso Standard Oil (now Exxon) as a research associate. Shepard was to have a major impact on the emergence of OD. Although we will focus mainly on Shepard's work at Esso, we also want to note that Shepard was later involved in community development activities and, in 1960, at the Case Institute of Technology, founded the first program devoted to training OD specialists. In 1958 and 1959 Shepard launched three experiments in organization development at major Esso refineries: Bayonne, New Jersey: Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and Bayway, texas. At Bayonne, he conducted an interview survey that was discussed with top management The survey was follower by a series of three-day laboratories for all members of management.” Paul Buchanan, who had worked earlier at the Naval Ordnance Test Station and more recently had been using a somewhat similar approach in Republic Aviation, collaborated with Shepard at Bayonne and subsequently joined the Esso staff. Herbert Shepard and Robert Blake At Baton Rouge, Robert Blake joined Shepard, and the two initiated a series of two-week laboratories attended by all members of “middle” management. At first, they tried to combine the case method with the laboratory method, but their designs soon emphasized T-groups, organizational exercises, and lectures, One innovation in this training program was an emphasis on intergroup as well as interpersonal problems affecting work performance was clearly an organizational effort, between group problem solving had even greater organization develop- ‘ment implications because it involved a broader and more complex segment of the organization. At Baton Rouge, efforts to involve top management failed, and as a result follow-up resources for implementing organization development were not available. By the time the Bayway program started, two fundamental OD lessons had been learned: the requirement for top management's active involvement in and leadership of the program and the need for on-the-job application. Robert Blake and Jane Mouton Several influences on Robert Blake up that point were important in the emergence of OD. While at Berea College majoring in psychology and philosophy (later an M.A. University ‘Scanned with CamScanner4 = BQ PART 1-An incroduction to Organization Development Of Virginia, and a Ph, D, University of Texas). Blake was strongly influenced by the work of Korzybshki and the general semanticists and found that “seeing discrete things a representative of a continuous series was much more stimulating and rewarding than jug seeing two things as ‘opposites."” This thinking contributed in later years 10 Blake conceptualization of the Managerial Grid with Jane Mouton and to their intergroup Fescarc con win-lose dynamics, This intergroup research and the subsequent design of their nteTrow conflict management workshops were also heavily influenced by Muzafer Sherif's fundamep tal research on intergroup dynamics.”! Jane Mouton’s influence on Blake's thinking and oy the development of the Grid stemmed partly, in her words, “from my undergraduate wor (at Texas) in pure mathematics and physics which emphasized the significance of measure ‘ment, experimental design, and a scientific approach to phenomen, (Mouton later attaineg an MA. from the University of Virginia and a Ph. D. from the University of Texas) Richard Beckard Richard Beckhard worked with McGregor at General Mills in 1959 or 1960, where McGregor was working with Dewey Balsch, vice president of personnel and industrial relations a gr attempt to facilitate “a total organizational culture change program which today might be called quality of work life or OD.” Beckhard goes on to say, “The issues that were being worked were relationships between workers and supervision; roles of supervision and nanagement at various levels; participative management for real ... This experience was ‘ne of the influences on Doug's original paper, “The Human side of Enterprise’ ... and from which the book emerged a year or so later.”** Beckhard developed one of the first major nondegree training programs in OD, NTL’s Program for Specialists in Organizational Training and Development (PSOTD). The firs program was an intensive four-week session held in the summer of 1967 at Bethel, Maine the same year that UCLA launched its Learning Community in OD. Core staff members the first year in the NTL program were Beckhard as dean, Warner Burke, and Fritz Stecle ‘Additional resource persons the first year were Herbert Shepard, Sheldon Davis, and Chris Argyris. Warren Bennis During his career, Bennis became vice president for academic affairs at State University of New York at Buffalo, and then president of the University of Cincinnati. His associates and mentors, particularly in the earlier years, included Douglas McGregor, Ed Schein, Mason Haire, Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, Kenneth Benne, Herb Shepard, Leland Bradford, Peter Drucker, and Robert Chin, He was also influenced by the labor economist George Schultz (ater to be Secretary of Labor and Secretary of State). Elton Mayo, and Henry Stack Sullivan. Some of his more notable publications include the book The Planning of Change, written with Kenneth Benne and Robert Chin,” and the essay “Democracy Is Inevitable,” co-authored with Philip Slater. Eva Schindler-Rainman Probably one of the first persons to be an NTL staff member doing OD work and have been trained almost exclusively in the social work field was Eva Schlinder-Rainman Schlinder-Rainman was awarded both a masters and doctorate from the University of - ‘Scanned with CamScanner7 CHAPTER 2 Definitions and Historical overview of Organization Development 17 Southern California with specialties in group work, organizational behavior, and community organization. While employed as director of personnel and training for the Los Angeles Girl Scouts Council, in the early 1950s she attended one of the first events of the Western Training Laboratory. Her T-group trainers there were Gordon Hearn and Marguerite Vanderworker. Schindler-Rainman worked with a wide range of clients, both in the United States and internationally. A few of her well-known publications are The Creative Volunteer Commu- nity,° A Collection of Writings and Team Training for Community Change.”” (The latter three, were co-authored with Ronald Lipitt.) Schlinder-Rainman’s extensive processional training, her collaboration with a number of key mean and women in the early days of NTL and the OD movement, and her early and extensive contribution to the community development movement clearly identify her as one of the pioneers in the laboratory training stem of OD. The Term Organization Development Its not entirely clear who coined the term-organization development, but the term likely emerged more or less simultaneously on two or three places through the works of Robert Blake, Herbert Shepard, Jane Mouton, Douglas McGregor, and Richard Beckhard.® The phrase, development group had been used earlier by Blake and Mouton in connection with human relations training at the University of Texas, and it appeared in their 1956 document distributed for use in the Baton Rouge Experiment.2? (The same phrase appeared in a Mouton and Blake article first published in the journal Group Psychotherapy in 1957 4°) The Baton Rouge T-groups run by Shepard and Blake were called development groups,4! and this Program of T-groups was called “organization development” to distinguish it from the complementary management development programs already underway.‘ Thus, the term emerged as a way of distinguishing a different mode of working with organizations and as a way of highlighting its developmental, systemwide, dynamic thrust. THE SURVEY RESEARCH AND FEEDBACK STEM Survey research and feedback," a specialized form of action research (see chapter 7) constitutes the second major stem in the history of organization development. The history of this stem revolves around the techniques and approach developed over a period of years by staff members at the Survey Research Center (SRC) of the University of Michigan. Rensis Likert The SRC was founded in 1946 after Rensis Likert, director of the Division of Program Surveys of the Federal Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and other key members of the division moved to Michigan. Likert held a Ph. D. in psychology from Columbia, and his dissertation. A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes was the classic study that developed the widely used five-point Likert scale, After completing his degree and teaching at Columbia for a while, Likert worked for the Life Insurance Agency Management Association, There he conducted research on leadership, motivation, moral, and produc. tivity. He then moved to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, where his Division of Program Surveys furthered a more scientific approach to survey research in its work with Various ‘Scanned with CamScannerRT VAn Introduction to Organization Development federal departments, including the Office of War Information. In 1948 after helping develop and direct the Survey Research Center, Likert became the director of anew Insting, for Social Research, which included both the SRC and the Research Center for groy, Dynamics. The latter had moved to Michigan from MIT after Lewin death Floyd Mann, Rensis Likert, and Others Part of the emergence of survey research and feedback wa’ SRC staff members in survey methodology. Another part was the methodology. .s based on refinements made b, evolution of feedbac, ‘The problem of how the company he survey to bring improvere, in management and performance. This led to the development and use of the survey-feedbag nethod. Floyd particularly played a key role inthis developried” He found that when the surve, data were reported to a manager (or supervisor) and be OF she failed to discuss the results wig subordinates. and failed to plan with them what the manager and others should do to bria improvement, little change occurred. On the other hand, when the manager discussed the resuly vialh subordinates and planned with them what to do to bring improvement, substantial favoraty changes ‘occurred.** ‘Another aspect of the Detroit Edison study was the process of feeding back data fron an atitude survey to the participating departments in what Mann calls an “interlocking chaiz aumgartel, who participated in the of conferences. Additional insights are provided by B project and who drew the following conclusions from the Detroit Edison study:” xxperimental study lend support to the idea that an intensive, group discussia ing the results of an employee questionnaire survey can be an effecuvs ee business organization. It may be that the effectiveness « vl training courses, is that it deals with the system a ‘and subordinate can change together) and it deals wit is own job, his own problems, ax The results of procedure for util for introducing positive change in @ this method, in comparison to tradition human relationships as a whole (superior each manager, supervisor, and employee in the context of hi his own work relationships. Links between the Laboratory Training Stem and the Survey Feedback Stem ‘As early as 1940, links occurred between people who were later to be key figures in the laboratory training stem of OD and people who were to be key features in the survey feedbaci stem. These links, which continued over the years, were undoubtedly of significance it the evolution of both stems, Of particular interest are the links between the Likert and Lewit and between Likert and key figures in the laboratory training stem of OD. As Likert states “T met Lewin at the APA annual meeting at State College, Pa. I believe in 1940. When bt came to Washington during the war, I saw him several times and got to know him and his family quite well”.47 THE ACTION RESEARCH STEM In earlier chapters we briefly described action research as a collaborative, client-consultan’ describes four versions of action research, one of which, participant! inquiry. Chapter 7 OO ‘Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER 2 Definitions and Historical overview of Organization Development 27 action research, is used with the most frequency in OD. The laboratory training stem in the history of OD has a heavy component of Action research; the survey feedback stem is the history of a specialized form of action research; and Tavistock projects have had a strong action research thrust, as we will discuss shortly. THE SOCIOTECHNICAL AND SOCIOCLINICAL STEM A fourth stem in the history of OD is the evolution of socioclinical and sociotechnical approaches to helping groups and organizations. Parallel to the work of the RCD, the SRC, and the NTL was the work of the Tavistock Clinic in England. In the latter half of 1960s, 14 individuals from India visited U.S. and studied in NTL, some were supported by IIM-Calcutta and some were self-sponsored, etc (Sinha 1986). They started offering laboratory training to industrial companies and realised soon that facilitators like NTL would be needed in India too. In 1971, by Francis Menezes’ proposal, a two-day conference for establishing an association of T-Group facilitators was held in Pune. Asa result, the Indian Society for Applied Behavioral Science (ISABS) was established in 1972. W.R. Bion, Rickman, and Others The professional staff of the Tavistock Clinic was extensively influenced by such innovations as WOorld War II applications of social psychology to psychiatry, the work of W.R. Bion and John Rickman and others in group therapy, Lewin’s notions about the “social field” in which a problem was occurring, and Lewin’s theory and experience with action research Bion, Rickman, and others had been involved with the a six-week “Northfield Experiment” at a military hospital near Birmingham during World War II. In this experiment each soldier was required to join a group that performed some task such as handicraft or map reading as well as discussed feelings, interpersonal relations, and administrative and managerial problems. Insights from this experiment carried over into Bion’s theory of group behavior. * Eric Trist A clear historical and conceptual connection can be made between the group dynamics filed and the sociotechnical approaches to assisting organizations. Tavistock’s sociotechnical approach is particularly significant in that it grew out of Eric Trist’s 1947 visit to a British coal mine at Haighmoor; his insights as to a relevance of Lewin’s work on group dynamics and Bion’s work on leaderless groups resulted in a new approach to solving mine problems.*? Trist was also influenced by the systems concepts of Von Bertalanffy and Andras Angyal.®° Trist’s subsequent experiments in work design and the use of semiautonomous work teams in coal mining were the forerunners of other work redesign experiments in various industries in Europe, India, Australia, and the United States. In these experiments, terms such as industrial democracy, open systems, and sociotechnical systems were used ky Trist and his colleagues, including Fred Emergy.*' (Emergy’s extensive collaboration with Eric Trist includes the development of “Search Conferences”, to be discussed later.) ‘Scanned with CamScanner