Organization Development and Change



Organization Development and ChangeStephanie L. RappBowling Green State UniversityAbstractThis paper identifies the three main theories of Organization Development and Change. Lewin’s Change Model, Action-Research Model and The Positive Change Model. I also review three additional concepts Appreciative Inquiry, Open Space Theory and Technology of Participation that have come out of the assessment and more recent research of organization development itself. In addition I have related personal experience to all theories and concepts presented. Sources utilized in this paper include Organization Development & Change by Cummings and Worley, journal articles from the Journal of Applied Behavioral, and leadership change anization Development and ChangeThree Main Theories of ODOrganization Development and Change is by one of many definitions, “a process that applies a broad range of behavioral science knowledge and practices to help organizations build their capacity to change and to achieve greater effectiveness…” (Cummings & Worley 2009 p.1). ?To best understand what organization development is, perhaps it is best to first determine what it is not. ?Organization development is not a one-stop shop of solving all problems in a company or business. ?In fact, it is not always about solving problems. ? It is not a group of people that comes into an organization and starts firing or laying off teams of people nor is it human resources as a whole. ? In simple terms, organization development is like logistics that relates operations, human resources and total organization success. ?It is partly analyzing how people work, whether individually or in a group, and utilizing that information to make people, teams or companies reach their goals. It is also enabling organizations or teams with different tools and methods to ensure continued future success.Lewin’s Change Model,?Action-Research Model?and Positive Change Model?are the three theories that set the foundation for Organization Development over 50 years ago (Cummings & Worley, 2009, p. 23). These theories are used in a variety of ways and have multiple methods and measurements.Lewin’s Change ModelLewin’s Change model focuses on a problem and how to fix it in three critical steps: Unfreezing, Moving and Refreezing. The three steps of this model seem simplistic by definition. True to definition of each step it basically takes the current state or status quo, makes necessary changes and then when it has reached the desired success makes it the new status quo. ? I have experienced this as a technique by other leaders and have also used this myself. It can be easily communicated to groups or organizations, gets to the point of the matter quickly and focuses on maintaining an end result. This model seems basic compared to the Action Research Model which has many more steps and complexities.Action Research ModelThe Action Research Model is a more cyclical process and primarily is often utilized for planned change (Cummings & Worley 2009, p. 24). ?This model has eight steps that begin by clearly identifying the root cause or problem and then breaks it down until there is a specific action that is followed by gathering data to determine change effectiveness. ?This model emphasizes assessing to get to a root cause. The Action Research Model appears to be the most complex of the three main theories and contains the following eight steps (Cummings & Worley 2009, p.25). Identify the problem.Consult with a behavioral expert.Gather data and do a preliminary diagnosis.Give feedback to a key client or group.Jointly diagnose the problem.Jointly develop an action plan to address the problem.Put the plan into action.Gather data after the action.I have personally used various action plans to achieve intended results throughout my career. Nearly all of my personal experience with action plans is due to needing to improve a business metric. However, I have learned to be careful because it can be easy to create too many action plans at one time. This can become unproductive and cause members to lose focus of the vision or intended end result. Action plans can become difficult to communicate and follow-up with due to the multiple steps required. I have found that this method is best for reaching goals that may be more complex in operations or involve multiple groups.Positive Change ModelThe last and third model is the Positive Change Model. ?This model completely separates itself from the previous two models. ?This model is not used to focus on a problem, but rather used to determine what positive forces should be built upon to drive better results (Cummings & Worley 2009, p. 27-28). ?This model includes the following five steps: Initiating.Inquiring.Discovery.Envisioning.Delivering the future.This approach can be applied to individuals, teams or entire organizations. As a leader of 90 people I sometimes find it difficult to get all employees motivated to reach the necessary goals to be successful. I utilize approaches similar to the positive change model to help individuals reach specific goals in order to achieve positive results for the entire business.A common theme among all of the reference materials is that organization development is a changing and developing field. Bushe and Marshak (2009) make the point that the two different forms of Organization Development are different because the “old” (diagnostic) OD focuses more on how to fix processes and systems while the “new” (dialogic) focuses on fixing mind-sets (Bushe & Marshak, 2009, p.351). In the article Reflections on the future of organization development, Wirtenberg, Abrams and Ott compare the pros and cons of OD in relation to how it is evolving. (Wirtenberg, Abrams, & Ott, 2004.) It is clear that as OD evolves it becomes much more about reaching individuals in order to achieve a greater goal for the entire organization. This is similar to the well-known theory that the sum of parts is greater than the whole. Three of the newer or dialogic theories of OD are Appreciative Inquiry, Open Space and Technology of Participation used by the Institute of Cultural Affairs (Bushe & Marshak, 2009, p. 352). Appreciative InquiryAppreciative Inquiry (AI) seeks to find out what is working “best” and build upon it. As referenced in the article by Bushe and Marshak (2009) it starts at the first contact between the consultant and the client (Bushe & Marshak, 2009, p.5). It seems similar to the Positive Model in that it focuses on only positive pieces of the organization, but it is much more detailed. In fact even the positive model uses facts and statistics where AI is based on what the people are saying and their stories. In addition, it has two approaches the 4-D and 4-I models which are similar in method but differ in approach. (Mishra & Bhatnagar, 2012, p. 547) This theory could produce more teamwork and open communication to share thoughts and ideas, therefore giving everyone involved a chance to participate. Open Space TheoryOpen Space theory is another way to utilize OD in implementing change. The Open Space theory seeks to find others that have the same ideas and make agreements about the future. (Busche & Marshak, 2009, p.353). I have related Kotter and Rathgeber’s (2005) use of the parable about penguins in Our Iceberg is Melting to this theory (Kotter & Rathgeber, 2005). While the use of a fable was the means of making the point that in order to survive organizations needs to embrace change, Fred intentionally sought out others who he knew would share his same ideas once presented to them and help to make the implemented change. Out of all of the theories so far the open space theory is least familiar to me. While I have used personal stories from time to time to make a point, I have never used it as a technique. While I have not used it personally I have seen it used by other leaders in order to spark motivation and create excitement for a goal that needs to be reached or impending change. Technology of ParticipationLastly, The Technology of Participation of the Institute of Cultural Affairs in the U.S. has utilized a four-stage model, ORID, to help groups find common ground and make future success (Bushe and Marshak). Specifically the four stages are: Objective, Reflective, Interpretive, and Decisional. I have limited, if any, experience using this theory personally. It is important to note that there are several characteristics that not only make a great leader, but also are core competencies that successful OD practitioners understand. As an undergraduate student at Bowling Green State University I had the opportunity to take Leadership Fundamentals. The textbook was Kouzes and Posner’s The Leadership Challenge (1995). The top characteristics listed of admired leaders was ‘honest’, ‘forward-looking’, ‘inspiring’, and ‘competent’. All of these descriptions also characterize a successful OD practitioner. Interestingly, Wirtenberg, Abrams, and Ott’s article states, “OD practitioners themselves must walk the talk by modeling leadership courage, decision making, and problem solving” (Wirtenberg, Abrams, & Ott, 2003, p. 478).Conclusion What I have found in my personal experience of being a leader of a large group is that there is usually more than one way to meet or exceed objectives. It is much more difficult than simply following a series of steps. Though these are the theories that built the foundation of Organization Development the actual practice varies with each practitioner and organization. Simply speaking there could be more than one right way to approach the same problem or sustain and grow already positive results.In reflecting on the two types of Organization Development that are evolving I have loosely used the traditional theories and practices of Diagnostic OD much more than the newer theories and methods of Dialogic OD. My assumption is that this has much more to do with the level of professional management I am at in my career. As a store-level manager I have tools and reports to utilize to assess, diagnose and problem-solve at the micro-level. The strategies that I have personally used to implement change are varied and do not follow one specific approach. However, I have three tiers of the organization at most to implement change.While I may use the traditional forms of OD at this point in my career I have seen evidence of the newer forms of OD theory being practiced at higher levels of leadership, at the macro-level. These leaders are influencing across several tiers of the organization and take a motivational approach to make change happen or drive good results to great. These leaders reflect much more on the positive aspects of the business and how they will be utilized to continue to grow and see success as a company. In my experience, these theories can be used separately or simultaneously depending upon the scope needed. Out of all of these theories the one that I can best relate to is the Action Research Model partially due to the detailed nature of the plans. As a Target leader we are trained on how to effectively write and manage action plans for areas that are not meeting results.? It is clearly evident that organization development is widely used in a variety of ways. From hiring outside consultants, employing business partners within the organization to utilizing theories and approaches in one’s own leadership the necessity to be able to manage change is a key to being successful in any business or organization. Change and the effective use of people and systems organizations are critical to organization survival. Consultants must remember that there is no universal approach to OD. The approach used within an organization will depend on the factors within the situation and the consultant themselves. While a certain level of knowledge and expertise is needed of all approaches, it is equally important to be able to decipher which will work best in a given situation. This is in addition to considering the capabilities of the current leadership that will be effectively leading the organization. In essence, just as the world of organization development is changing and evolving it will be critical for all consultants (practicing or academic) to keep pace with the environment and political factors in order to stay effective.ReferencesBhathagar, J. & Pavitra, M. (2012). Appreciative Inquiry: Models and Applications. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(3), 543-558.Bushe, G.R. & Marshak, R.J. (2009). Revisioning organization development: Diagnostic and dialogic patterns of practice. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(3), 348-368.Kotter, J. & Rathgeber, H. (2005). Our Iceberg is Melting. New York: St. Martin’s PressKouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z. (1995). The Leadership Challenge. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.Wirtenber, J., Abrams L., & Ott, C. (2004). Assessing the Field of Organization Development. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(4), pp. 465-479.Worley, C.G. & Feyerherm, A.E. (2003). Reflection on the future of organization development. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(1), 97-115. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download