Organization Development (OD)

OD is a relatively new field -- less over 50 years old.

For many users and for some practitioners as well, its history is a blur in time, and its application a combination of science and mystery.

Let me try to summarize its origins and conceptual definition.

Its origins have been traced to 1957 and were codified in 1969 by the publication from Addison-Wesley Publishing Company of the OD Series, with books by Beckhard, Bennis, Schein, and later by Blake and Mouton, Lawrence and Lorch, and Walton. The series, since then, has expanded by several books broadening the meaning and practice of organization development.

I received my first set of the OD Series as a gift from one of my superiors in February 1970 following my first participation in an off-site team building session, while serving as an HR Manager for a large division of Control Data Corporation in Sunnyvale, California. My superior felt, and rightfully so I might add, that OD was the missing link to effective human resources management. Later on, I came to the same realization.

As I perused these seminal books, these three things jumped out: (1) OD is a normative-reeducative process, (2) its values emerged from the behavioral science field, and (3) its collaborative nature of consultation.

I concluded, that if I was interested in the field, I needed (1) to learn about organizational norms (culture) and adult learning principles, (2) to get grounded on behavioral science principles, and (3) to learn process consultation (group dynamics and intervention theory).

Later on, as I got more and more interested in the field, I discovered that to better understand OD, I needed also to understand the assumptions that OD makes about people as individuals, groups and leadership, people in organizational systems, values of the client organization, and the value and beliefs of the behavioral scientist-change agent.

Applied behavioral scientist-change agents tend to give high priority to the needs and aspirations of human beings. They also believe that work and life can become richer and more meaningful, and organized effort more effective and rewarding, if feelings and sentiments are allowed to legitimately become part of the culture of an organization. Change agents have a bias toward action, along with research, in an effort to bring about improvement. Lastly, behavioral science practitioners place a high value on democratization or "power equalization" in the workplace through participation and involvement. The latter does not mean that employees will elect their superiors through a voting process nor that employees need to agree with everything management decides.

These values have a humanistic, developmental and optimistic foundation that supports a number of practices designed to differentiate OD from classical management consulting. In the latter, the client is defined as management, and in the former, the organizational system is the client. This difference has subtle but profound consequences with respect to confidentiality, agency (loyatly or allegiance to), and ultimately trust and confidence in the change process.

To me, to be a qualified OD practitioner requires first a baseline knowledge of and training in human behavior, process consultation, group dynamics, human resources management, and general management. This knowledge needs to be combined with on-the-job internships. I call the latter the art and science part. Secondly, an essential element for success is the practitioner's interpersonal competence, ethical dealings and leadership ability. I call the latter the professional part.

OD is not a job title that we can willy-nilly give away or take on. It has to be earned through rigorous study and painstaking application under professional supervision. It is a most rewarding profession. When combined with classical human resources management, it becomes a powerful tool for change management and institutionalization. It can have a profound impact on organizational performance and individual job satisfaction.

I encourage OD consultants to solicit feedback from the client system, not just the top dog, regarding their effectiveness and development gaps. Continuous improvement depends on our openness to seek and act on the feedback we receive.

Enjoy the trip along the learning curve. It is a lot of fun!

Managing Our Strengths

I learned several years ago from Dr. Allan Kathcher, a well known psychologist and co-author of the LIFO Orientation process, that overdoing our personal strengths results in most of our weaknesses. His counsel was to stay on the productive side of our behaviors and avoid going to the deep end of excess. Example: being supportive is a strength; being too-giving is a weakness. As a student of his process, I came to appreciate his insights and used them as guides for my own development.

While attending the UCLA Executive Program in Management, years later, I had the opportunity to learn from another well known psychologist and author -- Dr. Ichak Adizes. His message was similar. He had identified 4 critical roles that management performs in an organization. These four roles, when done in excess or overdone, become arch-types (weaknesses). He called them mismanagement styles. Here are the four roles described by Adizes:

The producer role is key to the organization's success. Done to an excess though the producer can become a lone ranger pursuing his/her own agenda with disregard of the collective goal.

As an administrator, the role is concerned for details and organization -- essentials to productivity. Done in excess people become bureaucrats and defeat the very purpose they are trying to achieve -- efficiency and streamlining -- by creating obstacles and hurdles that do not advance the need for speed and agility.

Every organization needs an appropriate dose of entrepreneurial behavior. Entrepreneurs can create challenging environments, facilitate innovative thinking, and nurture risk taking. Done to an excess, entrepreneurs can become arsonists. They do not know when to stop. They also often surround themeselves with claques or sycophants.

The integrator role is essential to organizational growth. The bigger the organization gets, the more complex it becomes. To an excess, integrators become superfollowers and can be perceived as spies for senior management. Over time OD professionals whose primary responsibility is to faciliate integration and alignment can fall into this trap and become distrusted.

I have been told and I have come to accept the notion that we are defined by our strengths, not by our weaknesses. Knowing what they are helps us do more of what works for us and less of what does not. Overdoing what works for us is triggered by the stress that comes from opposition or perceived indifference by others. Extending our strengths and blending them are worthwhile developmental strategies.

Think about ways to stay effective and minimize ways that stray into undesirable territory. Remember that excess is often triggered by stress. Learn how to manage fear and perceived threats.

Enjoy the ride along the learning curve. It is a lot of fun and it keeps you young.

The Fallacy of Transformation

As a student of organizations, I have noticed the penchant for sexy terminology. Consultants are in particular experts at generating terms that connote better methods or unique know-how. Transformational change rather than incremental change is an example. Who in the world wants to be a change plumber? Fixing leaks here or there in the organization's plumbing. Transformation is more sexy since it denotes morphing into something better, more powerful, more vibrant.

Transformation is not a uni-directional term. You have three ways out of a transformational change: better, worse, or the same. Transformation that does not improve an organization positively is an illusion. Transformation that does not result in improvement at best is a wash, and at its worst is a rip-off.

Questions to ponder are: has the change effort resulted in increased margins, higher revenues, better employee engagement, more loyal customer base, more robust market share, etc.? If not, it is time to find out why.

Have you been sold snake-oil? In the wild west of yesteryear, it was the medicine salesmen sold from town to town to cure any and all human ills. Today we are awash with slick folks who pretend to have the magic bullet, the better idea, the smarter tools to overcome all organizational challenges. Buyers must beware!

When we confront the snake-oil salesman, we will hear interesting excuses. Not enough time has passed yet, let's be patient. We did not execute the change properly, the way we should have. Right now we are playing defense e.g., we are cutting the fat. The market has gone south. Etc.

How can you spot snake-oil peddlers?

They have the same medicine for everybody regardless of the unique organizational situation. They will tell you that it worked fantastically elsewhere (usually a name company with a great reputation like GE, IBM, Sony, etc.) The problem is that your company is not like any other in either size, scope, history, geography, culture or capability. It is one of a kind. Sure, something might have worked elsewhere but you are not elsewhere, you are somewhere? For example, the medicine you give a baby (start-up) is usually different than what you give an older person (declining or mature organization). Different in dose. Forbidden to one or the other.

Plumbing is not a sexy job but it is still a noble one. It does not make it more glamorous by calling it transformation. Sure, in some situations incremental change is not good enough. If we choose to make radical changes, then we must be sure that the methods fit the situation on the ground.

During my career, I have witnessed very few arch-type transformations: GE, Apple, IBM, to name a few. The landscape, however, is full of organizational carcasses that did not survive the transformational change. I will not give you a long list. I know you have your own.

Enjoy the trip along the learning curve!

The Problem with Management Fads

I was startled by a handout I received during a seminar that I attended last year. It was a graph plotting all the management fads of the past 60 years. They all promised to be the answer to the pressing problems of the day, but in hindsight none of them were. That does not mean that we should junk all of them.

In my view they all serve a purpose at one time or another, buyers beware! Students of the systems approach know that there is really no one best way to solve complex organizational problems, that it all depends on a number of factors. We also have been taught that no two methods are alike or yield the same benefits ... some are faster, others are longer lasting, etc.

In the mid 1980's I read the abstract of a doctoral dissertation -- "What's new in OD." I have forgot the author's name but not his findings. The Ph.D. student spent a good part of three years tracking and documenting the evolution of the organization development field, dating back to the pre WWII experiment at Western Electric. His conclusion was startling for me. He found nothing was really new except better packaging.

As I reflect on the last 25 years, I regrettably have come to the similar conclusion.

The Western Electric experiments opened our eyes. The increase in employee productivity was not as a result of better lighting (a recommendation by the consultants) but as a result of the attention employees where receiving. This breakthrough finding gave birth to what scientists refer to as the Hawthorne Effect (HE). The HE does not last, however. Like the rubber band, once you forget to pay attention to the employees, the rubber band will snap back to its earlier position (status quo).

Fast forward to the 21st century.

I have observed the Hawthorne Effect during the initial phases of change programs. You form a task force, cross-functional team, a "skunk" group, you name it, and unleash it on problem solving, and by golly, things begin to change. You think you are a genius, that you have arrived. Well, you had something, but not a lot to do with it, you simply unleashed the Hawthorne Effect. The rubber-band effect? Sustainability is the issue.

Many change efforts die or lose their impetus over time because the HE is exhausted. Change fatigue sets in. People get tired. Over the long haul, the overall impact is hard to discern. Skepticism sets in. It is time for renewal ... it is time to re-seed the situation.

It has been said that people are good at criticing the work of others but not their own. They think that everybody is screwing up but not themselves. Well, I am not one of those people. I have experienced many failures -- failures in the proper use of change methods and failures in the change goals. How about you?

More on Jerks in the Workplace

My blog on the subject touched a sensitive spot with those who perused it. Today as I was signing in for my email I noticed the results of a recent survey conducted by Ranstad USA. The survey tried to classify the type and degree of jerkness in the work place. Here are the highlights of the employees' pet peeves:

At the top of the list were the Psst-er (gossipers). Apparently nobody likes their rumor mongering and insiduous comments about co-workers' personal affairs.

Next, was the Broken Clock (poor time managers). They are always late to meetings. They miss deadlines and as a result often impact negatively the work of others and create resentment.

The Mold-Guy came next. He or she is like a mold, it grows all over and you cannot get rid of it. This type thrives in a messy workplace. The biggest offense is that this type tends to mess up the communal space. he or she often throws food in the waste basket where it stays for days.

The Wiffy-Wonder follows. You can smell this guy from the other side of the partition. His or her personal hygiene leaves a lot to be desired. In some cases, the odor is generated by the ethnic food they eat -- garlic, fish oil, and other pungent condiments. A shower and a frequent change of clothes could ameliorate the situation.

The Cracker is next. He or she is loud, likes to crack the knuckles, makes a racket when chewing gum, jingles the spoon in the coffee cup, etc. You know the kind! He or she is totally oblivious to the irritation they generate.

Last, but not least, comes the Tapper. Quiter than the cracker but not that much less of an irritant. Tappers are always tapping, on their computers, on the PDAs, and on their communication devices. They do this during meetings. They are seen as rude, distracting by others.

Where do you fit in?

I think that I might on occasion dable in Cracking, not so much my knuckles but the spoon in the tea cup, and when on I choose to chew gum.

The report highlights some positive aspects to all the peeves. They serve to unite the work group against the bothersome interloper. They bring the group together more or less. They also wake people up to the notion that it might be time to look for a better job in a better work setting. They might stimulate some hidden entrepreneurial instinct to start our own business so that we can have the luxury of picking our own co-workers.

Enjoy your trip along the learning curve! Things could get worse before they get better. Watch out for jerks. They are everywhere.