1
General Introduction to Organization
Development
This is a book about organization development
(OD)—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, including increased financial performance, customer
satisfaction, and organization member engagement. Organization development differs from
other planned change efforts, such as project
management or innovation, because the focus
is on building the organization’s ability to assess
its current functioning and to achieve its goals.
Moreover, OD is oriented to improving the total
system—the organization and its parts in the context of the larger environment that affects them.
This book reviews the broad background of
OD and examines assumptions, strategies and
models, intervention techniques, and other
aspects of OD. This chapter provides an introduction to OD, describing first the concept
of OD itself. Second, it explains why OD has
expanded rapidly in the past 50 years, both
in terms of people’s need to work with and
through others in organizations and in terms
of organizations’ need to adapt in a complex
and changing world. Third, it reviews briefly
the history of OD, and fourth, it describes the
evolution of OD into its current state. This introduction to OD is followed by an overview of the
rest of the book.
ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT DEFINED
Organization development is both a professional field of social action and an area of
scientific inquiry. The practice of OD covers a wide spectrum of activities, with seemingly endless variations upon them. Team building with top corporate management,
structural change in a municipality, and job enrichment in a manufacturing firm are all
examples of OD. Similarly, the study of OD addresses a broad range of topics, including
the effects of change, the methods of organizational change, and the factors influencing OD success.
A number of definitions of OD exist and are presented in Table 1.1. Each definition
has a slightly different emphasis. For example, Burke’s description focuses attention
on culture as the target of change; French’s definition is concerned with OD’s longterm interest and the use of consultants; and Beckhard’s and Beer’s definitions address
the process of OD. More recently, Burke and Bradford’s definition broadens the range
and interests of OD. Worley and Feyerherm suggested that for a process to be called
organization development, (1) it must focus on or result in the change of some aspect
of the organizational system; (2) there must be learning or the transfer of knowledge
or skill to the client system; and (3) there must be evidence of improvement in or an
intention to improve the effectiveness of the client system.1 The following definition
incorporates most of these views and is used in this book: Organization development is a
systemwide application and transfer of behavioral science knowledge to the planned development,
2
CHAPTER 1
General Introduction to Organization Development
[Table 1.1]
Definitions of Organization Development
• Organization development is a planned process of change in an organization’s
culture through the utilization of behavioral science technology, research, and
theory. (Warner Burke)2
• Organization development refers to a long-range effort to improve an organization’s
problem-solving capabilities and its ability to cope with changes in its external
environment with the help of external or internal behavioral-scientist consultants,
or change agents, as they are sometimes called. (Wendell French)3
• Organization 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 interventions in the organization’s “processes,” using
behavioral science knowledge. (Richard Beckhard)4
• Organization development is a systemwide process of data collection, diagnosis,
action planning, intervention, and evaluation aimed at (1) enhancing congruence
among organizational structure, process, strategy, people, and culture; (2) developing
new and creative organizational solutions; and (3) developing the organization’s selfrenewing capacity. It occurs through the collaboration of organizational members
working with a change agent using behavioral science theory, research, and
technology. (Michael Beer)5
• Based on (1) a set of values, largely humanistic; (2) application of the behavioral
sciences; and (3) open systems theory, organization development is a systemwide process of planned change aimed toward improving overall organization
effectiveness by way of enhanced congruence of such key organization dimensions
as external environment, mission, strategy, leadership, culture, structure, information
and reward systems, and work policies and procedures. (Warner Burke and David
Bradford)6
improvement, and reinforcement of the strategies, structures, and processes that lead to organization effectiveness. This definition emphasizes several features that differentiate OD from
other approaches to organizational change and improvement, such as management
consulting, innovation, project management, and operations management. The definition also helps to distinguish OD from two related subjects, change management and
organization change, that also are addressed in this book.
First, OD applies to changes in the strategy, structure, and/or processes of an entire
system, such as an organization, a single plant of a multiplant firm, a department
or work group, or individual role or job. A change program aimed at modifying an
organization’s strategy, for example, might focus on how the organization relates to a
wider environment and on how those relationships can be improved. It might include
changes both in the grouping of people to perform tasks (structure) and in methods
of communicating and solving problems (process) to support the changes in strategy.
Similarly, an OD program directed at helping a top management team become more
effective might focus on interactions and problem-solving processes within the group.
This focus might result in the improved ability of top management to solve company
problems in strategy and structure. This contrasts with approaches focusing on one or
only a few aspects of a system, such as technological innovation or operations management. In these approaches, attention is narrowed to improvement of particular products or processes, or to development of production or service delivery functions.
Second, OD is based on the application and transfer of behavioral science knowledge
and practice, including microconcepts, such as leadership, group dynamics, and work
design, and macroapproaches, such as strategy, organization design, and international
CHAPTER 1
General Introduction to Organization Development
relations. These subjects distinguish OD from such applications as management consulting, technological innovation, or operations management that emphasize the economic,
financial, and technical aspects of organizations. These approaches tend to neglect the
personal and social characteristics of a system. Moreover, OD is distinguished by its
intent to transfer behavioral science knowledge and skill so that the system is more
capable of carrying out planned change in the future.
Third, OD is concerned with managing planned change, but not in the formal sense
typically associated with management consulting or project management, which tends
to comprise programmatic and expert-driven approaches to change. Rather, OD is
more an adaptive process for planning and implementing change than a blueprint for
how things should be done. It involves planning to diagnose and solve organizational
problems, but such plans are flexible and often revised as new information is gathered
as the change program progresses. If, for example, there was concern about the performance of a set of international subsidiaries, a reorganization process might begin with
plans to assess the current relationships between the international divisions and the
corporate headquarters and to redesign them if necessary. These plans would be modified if the assessment discovered that most of the senior management teams were not
given adequate cross-cultural training prior to their international assignments.
Fourth, OD involves the design, implementation, and the subsequent reinforcement of change. It moves beyond the initial efforts to implement a change program
to a longer-term concern for appropriately institutionalizing new activities within the
organization. For example, implementing self-managed work teams might focus on
ways in which supervisors could give workers more control over work methods. After
workers had more control, attention would shift to ensuring that supervisors continued to provide that freedom. That assurance might include rewarding supervisors for
managing in a participative style. This attention to reinforcement is similar to training
and development approaches that address maintenance of new skills or behaviors,
but it differs from other change perspectives that do not address how a change can be
institutionalized.
Finally, OD is oriented to improving organizational effectiveness. Effectiveness is
best measured along three dimensions. First, OD affirms that an effective organization
is adaptable; it is able to solve its own problems and focus attention and resources on
achieving key goals. OD helps organization members gain the skills and knowledge
necessary to conduct these activities by involving them in the change process. Second,
an effective organization has high financial and technical performance, including
sales growth, acceptable profits, quality products and services, and high productivity. OD helps organizations achieve these ends by leveraging social science practices
to lower costs, improve products and services, and increase productivity. Finally, an
effective organization has satisfied and loyal customers or other external stakeholders
and an engaged, satisfied, and learning workforce. The organization’s performance
responds to the needs of external groups, such as stockholders, customers, suppliers, and government agencies, which provide the organization with resources and
legitimacy. Moreover, it is able to attract and motivate effective employees, who then
perform at higher levels. Other forms of organizational change clearly differ from OD
in their focus. Management consulting, for example, primarily addresses financial
performance, whereas operations management or industrial engineering focuses on
productivity.
Organization development can be distinguished from change management and
organizational change. OD and change management both address the effective implementation of planned change. They are both concerned with the sequence of activities,
processes, and leadership issues that produce organization improvements. They differ,
however, in their underlying value orientation. OD’s behavioral science foundation
supports values of human potential, participation, and development in addition to
3
4
CHAPTER 1
General Introduction to Organization Development
performance and competitive advantage. Change management focuses more narrowly
on values of cost, quality, and schedule.7 As a result, OD’s distinguishing feature is its
concern with the transfer of knowledge and skill so that the system is more able to
manage change in the future. Change management does not necessarily require the
transfer of these skills. In short, all OD involves change management, but change management may not involve OD.
Similarly, organizational change is a broader concept than OD. As discussed above,
organization development can be applied to managing organizational change. However,
it is primarily concerned with managing change in such a way that knowledge and skills
are transferred to build the organization’s capability to achieve goals and solve problems.
It is intended to change the organization in a particular direction, toward improved
problem solving, responsiveness, quality of work life, and effectiveness. Organizational
change, in contrast, is more broadly focused and can apply to any kind of change, including technical and managerial innovations, organization decline, or the evolution of a
system over time. These changes may or may not be directed at making the organization
more developed in the sense implied by OD.
The behavioral sciences have developed useful concepts and methods for helping
organizations to deal with changing environments, competitor initiatives, technological innovation, globalization, or restructuring. They help managers and administrators
to manage the change process. Many of these concepts and techniques are described
in this book, particularly in relation to managing change.
THE GROWTH AND RELEVANCE OF ORGANIZATION
DEVELOPMENT
In each of the previous editions of this book, we argued that organizations must
adapt to increasingly complex and uncertain technological, economic, political, and
cultural changes. We also argued that OD could help an organization to create effective responses to these changes and, in many cases, to proactively influence the
strategic direction of the firm. The rapidly changing conditions of the past few years
confirm our arguments and accentuate their relevance. According to several observers, organizations are in the midst of unprecedented uncertainty and chaos, and
nothing short of a management revolution will save them.8 Three major trends are
shaping change in organizations: globalization, information technology, and managerial innovation.9
First, globalization is changing the markets and environments in which organizations
operate as well as the way they function. New governments, new leadership, new markets, and new countries are emerging and creating a new global economy with both
opportunities and threats.10 The toppling of the Berlin Wall symbolized and energized
the reunification of Germany; the European Union created a cohesive economic block
that alters the face of global markets; entrepreneurs appeared in Russia, the Balkans,
and Siberia to transform the former Soviet Union; terrorism has reached into every
corner of economic and social life; and China is emerging as an open market and global
economic influence. The rapid spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)
and its economic impact clearly demonstrated the interconnectedness among the social
environment, organizations, and the global economy.
Second, information technology is redefining the traditional business model by
changing how work is performed, how knowledge is used, and how the cost of doing
business is calculated. The way an organization collects, stores, manipulates, uses,
and transmits information can lower costs or increase the value and quality of products and services. Information technology, for example, is at the heart of emerging
e-commerce strategies and organizations. Amazon.com, Yahoo!, and eBay are among
CHAPTER 1
General Introduction to Organization Development
the survivors of a busted dot-com bubble, Google has emerged as a major competitor
to Microsoft, and the amount of business being conducted on the Internet is projected to grow at double-digit rates. Moreover, the underlying rate of innovation is
not expected to decline. Electronic data interchange—a state-of-the-art technology
application a few years ago—is now considered routine business practice. The ability
to move information easily and inexpensively throughout and among organizations
has fueled the downsizing, delayering, and restructuring of firms. The Internet has
enabled a new form of work known as telecommuting; organization members from
Captial One and Cigna can work from their homes without ever going to the office.
Finally, information technology is changing how knowledge is used. Information that
is widely shared reduces the concentration of power at the top of the organization.
In choosing “You” as the 2006 Person of the Year, Time magazine noted that the year
was “a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It’s
about . . . Wikipedia . . . YouTube and . . . MySpace. It’s about the many wresting power
from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change
the world, but also change the way the world changes (emphasis added).”11 Organization
members now share the same key information that senior managers once used to
control decision making.
Third, managerial innovation has responded to the globalization and information technology trends and has accelerated their impact on organizations. New organizational forms,
such as networks, strategic alliances, and virtual corporations, provide organizations with
new ways of thinking about how to manufacture goods and deliver services. The strategic
alliance, for example, has emerged as one of the indispensable tools in strategy implementation. No single organization, not even IBM, Mitsubishi, or General Electric, can
control the environmental and market uncertainty it faces. Sun Microsystems’ network is
so complex that some products it sells are never touched by a Sun employee. In addition,
change innovations, such as downsizing or reengineering, have radically reduced the size
of organizations and increased their flexibility; new large-group interventions, such as the
search conference and open space, have increased the speed with which organizational
change can take place; and organization learning interventions have acknowledged and
leveraged knowledge as a critical organizational resource.12 Managers, OD practitioners,
and researchers argue that these forces not only are powerful in their own right but are
interrelated. Their interaction makes for a highly uncertain and chaotic environment for
all kinds of organizations, including manufacturing and service firms and those in the
public and private sectors. There is no question that these forces are profoundly affecting
organizations.
Fortunately, a growing number of organizations are undertaking the kinds of
organizational changes needed to survive and prosper in today’s environment. They
are making themselves more streamlined and nimble, more responsive to external
demands, and more ecologically sustainable. They are involving employees in key
decisions and paying for performance rather than for time. They are taking the initiative in innovating and managing change, rather than simply responding to what has
already happened.
Organization development plays a key role in helping organizations change themselves. It helps organizations assess themselves and their environments and revitalize
and rebuild their strategies, structures, and processes. OD helps organization members go beyond surface changes to transform the underlying assumptions and values
governing their behaviors. The different concepts and methods discussed in this book
increasingly are finding their way into government agencies, manufacturing firms, multinational corporations, service industries, educational institutions, and not-for-profit
organizations. Perhaps at no other time has OD been more responsive and practically
relevant to organizations’ needs to operate effectively in a highly complex and changing world.
5
6
CHAPTER 1
General Introduction to Organization Development
OD is obviously important to those who plan a professional career in the field, either
as an internal consultant employed by an organization or as an external consultant
practicing in many organizations. A career in OD can be highly rewarding, providing
challenging and interesting assignments working with managers and employees to
improve their organizations and their work lives. In today’s environment, the demand
for OD professionals is rising rapidly. For example, large professional services firms
must have effective “change management” practices to be competitive. Career opportunities in OD should continue to expand in the United States and abroad.
Organization development also is important to those who have no aspirations to
become professional practitioners. All managers and administrators are responsible for
supervising and developing subordinates and for improving their departments’ performance. Similarly, all staff specialists, such as financial analysts, engineers, information
technologists, or market researchers, are responsible for offering advice and counsel to
managers and for introducing new methods and practices. Finally, OD is important to
general managers and other senior executives because OD can help the whole organization be more flexible, adaptable, and effective.
Organization development can also help managers and staff personnel perform their
tasks more effectively. It can provide the skills and knowledge necessary for establishing effective interpersonal relationships. It can show personnel how to work effectively
with others in diagnosing complex problems and in devising appropriate solutions. It
can help others become committed to the solutions, thereby increasing chances for
their successful implementation. In short, OD is highly relevant to anyone having to
work with and through others in organizations.
A SHORT HISTORY OF ORGANIZATION
DEVELOPMENT
A brief history of OD will help to clarify the evolution of the term as well as some of the
problems and confusion that have surrounded it. As currently practiced, OD emerged
from five major backgrounds or stems, as shown in Figure 1.1. The first was the growth
of the National Training Laboratories (NTL) and the development of training groups,
otherwise known as sensitivity training or T-groups. The second stem of OD was the
classic work on action research conducted by social scientists interested in applying
research to managing change. An important feature of action research was a technique
known as survey feedback. Kurt Lewin, a prolific theorist, researcher, and practitioner
in group dynamics and social change, was instrumental in the development of T-groups,
survey feedback, and action research. His work led to the creation of OD and still serves
as a major source of its concepts and methods. The third stem reflects a normative view
of OD. Rensis Likert’s participative management framework and Blake and Mouton’s
Grid® OD suggest a “one best way” to design and operate organizations. The fourth
background is the approach focusing on productivity and the quality of work life. The
fifth stem of OD, and the most recent influence on current practice, involves strategic
change and organization transformation.
Laboratory Training Background
This stem of OD pioneered laboratory training, or the T-group—a small, unstructured group in which participants learn from their own interactions and evolving
group processes about such issues as interpersonal relations, personal growth, leadership, and group dynamics. Essentially, laboratory training began in the summer
of 1946, when Kurt Lewin and his staff at the Research Center for Group Dynamics
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) were asked by the Connecticut
Interracial Commission and the Committee on Community Interrelations of the
CHAPTER 1
7
General Introduction to Organization Development
[Figure 1.1]
The Five Stems of OD Practice
CURRENT OD PRACTICE
Laboratory Training
Action Research/Survey Feedback
Normative Approaches
Quality of Work Life
Strategic Change
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Today
American Jewish Congress for help in research on training community leaders. A
workshop was developed, and the community leaders were brought together to
learn about leadership and to discuss problems. At the end of each day, the researchers discussed privately what behaviors and group dynamics they had observed. The
community leaders asked permission to sit in on these feedback sessions. Reluctant
at first, the researchers finally agreed. Thus, the first T-group was formed in which
people reacted to data about their own behavior.13 The researchers drew two conclusions about this first T-group experiment: (1) Feedback about group interaction was
a rich learning experience, and (2) the process of “group building” had potential for
learning that could be transferred to “back-home” situations.14
As a result of this experience, the Office of Naval Research and the National Education
Association provided financial backing to form the National Training Laboratories, and
Gould Academy in Bethel, Maine, was selected as a site for further work (since then,
Bethel has played an important part in NTL). The first Basic Skill Groups were offered
in the summer of 1947. The program was so successful that the Carnegie Foundation
provided support for programs in 1948 and 1949. This led to a permanent program for
NTL within the National Education Association.
In the 1950s, three trends emerged: (1) the emergence of regional laboratories,
(2) the expansion of summer program sessions to year-round sessions, and (3) the
expansion of the T-group into business and industry, with NTL members becoming increasingly involved with industry programs. Notable among these industry
efforts was the pioneering work of Douglas McGregor at Union Carbide, of Herbert
Shepard and Robert Blake at Esso Standard Oil (now ExxonMobil), of McGregor and
Richard Beckhard at General Mills, and of Bob Tannenbaum at TRW Space Systems.15
8
CHAPTER 1
General Introduction to Organization Development
Applications of T-group methods at these companies spawned the term “organization
development” and, equally important, led corporate personnel and industrial relations
specialists to expand their roles to offer internal consulting services to managers.16
Over time, T-groups have declined as an OD intervention. They are closely associated with that side of OD’s reputation as a “touchy-feely” process. NTL, as well as
UCLA and Stanford, continues to offer T-groups to the public, a number of proprietary
programs continue to thrive, and Pepperdine University and American University continue to utilize T-groups as part of master’s level OD practitioner education. The practical aspects of T-group techniques for organizations gradually became known as team
building—a process for helping work groups become more effective in accomplishing
tasks and satisfying member needs. Team building is one of the most common and
institutionalized forms of OD today.
Action Research and Survey Feedback Background
Kurt Lewin also was involved in the second movement that led to OD’s emergence as a
practical field of social science. This second background refers to the processes of action
research and survey feedback. The action research contribution began in the 1940s with
studies conducted by social scientists John Collier, Kurt Lewin, and William Whyte.
They discovered that research needed to be closely linked to action if organization
members were to use it to manage change. A collaborative effort was initiated between
organization members and social scientists to collect research data about an organization’s functioning, to analyze it for causes of problems, and to devise and implement
solutions. After implementation, further data were collected to assess the results, and
the cycle of data collection and action often continued. The results of action research
were twofold: Members of organizations were able to use research on themselves to
guide action and change, and social scientists were able to study that process to derive
new knowledge that could be used elsewhere.
Among the pioneering action research studies were the work of Lewin and his
students at the Harwood Manufacturing Company17 and the classic research by Lester
Coch and John French on overcoming resistance to change.18 The latter study led to the
development of participative management as a means of getting employees involved in
planning and managing change. Other notable action research contributions included
Whyte and Edith Hamilton’s famous study of Chicago’s Tremont Hotel19 and Collier’s
efforts to apply action research techniques to improving race relations when he was
commissioner of Indian affairs from 1933 to 1945.20 These studies did much to establish
action research as integral to organization change. Today, it is the backbone of many
OD applications.
A key component of most action research studies was the systematic collection of
survey data that were fed back to the client organization. Following Lewin’s death in
1947, his Research Center for Group Dynamics at MIT moved to Michigan and joined
with the Survey Research Center as part of the Institute for Social Research. The
institute was headed by Rensis Likert, a pioneer in developing scientific approaches to
attitude surveys. His doctoral dissertation at Columbia University developed the widely
used 5-point “Likert Scale.”21
In an early study by the institute, Likert and Floyd Mann administered a
companywide survey of management and employee attitudes at Detroit Edison.22
The feedback process that evolved was an “interlocking chain of conferences.” The
major findings of the survey were first reported to the top management and then
transmitted throughout the organization. The feedback sessions were conducted in
task groups, with supervisors and their immediate subordinates discussing the data
together. Although there was little substantial research evidence, the researchers
intuitively felt that this was a powerful process for change.
CHAPTER 1
General Introduction to Organization Development
In 1950, eight accounting departments asked for a repeat of the survey, thus generating a new cycle of feedback meetings. In four departments, feedback approaches
were used, but the method varied; two departments received feedback only at the
departmental level; and because of changes in key personnel, nothing was done in the
remaining two departments.
A third follow-up study indicated that more significant and positive changes, such
as job satisfaction, had occurred in the departments receiving feedback than in the two
departments that did not participate. From those findings, Likert and Mann derived
several conclusions about the effects of survey feedback on organization change. This
led to extensive applications of survey-feedback methods in a variety of settings. The
common pattern of data collection, data feedback, action planning, implementation,
and follow-up data collection in both action research and survey feedback can be seen
in these examples.
Normative Background
The intellectual and practical advances from the laboratory training stem and the action
research/survey-feedback stem were followed closely by the belief that a human relations approach represented a “one best way” to manage organizations. This normative
belief was exemplified in research that associated Likert’s Participative Management
(System 4, as outlined below) style and Blake and Mouton’s Grid OD program with
organizational effectiveness.23
Likert’s Participative Management Program characterized organizations as having one
of four types of management systems:24
• Exploitive authoritative systems (System 1) exhibit an autocratic, top-down
approach to leadership. Employee motivation is based on punishment and occasional rewards. Communication is primarily downward, and there is little lateral
interaction or teamwork. Decision making and control reside primarily at the top of
the organization. System 1 results in mediocre performance.
• Benevolent authoritative systems (System 2) are similar to System 1, except
that management is more paternalistic. Employees are allowed a little more interaction, communication, and decision making but within boundaries defined by
management.
• Consultative systems (System 3) increase employee interaction, communication,
and decision making. Although employees are consulted about problems and decisions, management still makes the final decisions. Productivity is good, and employees are moderately satisfied with the organization.
• Participative group systems (System 4) are almost the opposite of System 1.
Designed around group methods of decision making and supervision, this system fosters high degrees of member involvement and participation. Work groups are highly
involved in setting goals, making decisions, improving methods, and appraising
results. Communication occurs both laterally and vertically, and decisions are linked
throughout the organization by overlapping group membership. System 4 achieves
high levels of productivity, quality, and member satisfaction.
Likert applied System 4 management to organizations using a survey-feedback process.
The intervention generally started with organization members completing the Profile of
Organizational Characteristics.25 The survey asked members for their opinions about both
the present and ideal conditions of six organizational features: leadership, motivation,
communication, decisions, goals, and control. In the second stage, the data were fed
back to different work groups within the organization. Group members examined the
discrepancy between their present situation and their ideal, generally using System 4
9
10
CHAPTER 1
General Introduction to Organization Development
as the ideal benchmark, and generated action plans to move the organization toward
System 4 conditions.
Blake and Mouton’s Grid Organization Development originated from research about
managerial and organizational effectiveness.26 Data gathered on organizational excellence from 198 organizations located in the United States, Japan, and Great Britain
found that the two foremost barriers to excellence were planning and communications.27 Each of these barriers was researched further to understand its roots, and the
research resulted in a normative model of leadership—the Managerial Grid.
According to the Managerial Grid, an individual’s style can be described according
to his or her concern for production and concern for people.28 A concern for production covers a range of behaviors, such as accomplishing productive tasks, developing
creative ideas, making quality policy decisions, establishing thorough and high-quality
staff services, or creating efficient workload measurements. Concern for production is
not limited to things but also may involve human accomplishment within the organization, regardless of the assigned tasks or activities. A concern for people encompasses
a variety of issues, including concern for the individual’s personal worth, good working
conditions, a degree of involvement or commitment to completing the job, security, a
fair salary structure and fringe benefits, and good social and other relationships. Each
dimension is measured on a 9-point scale and results in 81 possible leadership styles.
For example, 1,9 managers have a low concern for production and a high concern
for people: They view people’s feelings, attitudes, and needs as valuable in their own
right. This type of manager strives to provide subordinates with work conditions that
provide ease, security, and comfort. On the other hand, 9,1 managers have a high
concern for production but a low concern for people: They minimize the attitudes and
feelings of subordinates and give little attention to individual creativity, conflict, and
commitment. As a result, the focus is on the work organization.
Blake and Mouton proposed that the 9,9 managerial style is the most effective in
overcoming the communications barrier to corporate excellence. The basic assumptions
behind this managerial style differ qualitatively and quantitatively from those underlying the other managerial styles, which assume there is an inherent conflict between the
needs of the organization and the needs of people. By showing a high concern for both
people and production, managers allow employees to think and to influence the organization, thus promoting active support for organizational plans. Employee participation
means that better communication is critical; therefore, necessary information is shared
by all relevant parties. Moreover, better communication means self-direction and selfcontrol, rather than unquestioning, blind obedience. Organizational commitment arises
out of discussion, deliberation, and debate over major organizational issues.
One of the most structured interventions in OD, Blake and Mouton’s Grid
Organization Development has two key objectives: to improve planning by developing a strategy for organizational excellence based on clear logic, and to help managers
gain the necessary knowledge and skills to supervise effectively. It consists of six phases
designed to analyze an entire business and to overcome the planning and communications barriers to corporate excellence. The first phase is the Grid Seminar, a 1-week
program where participants analyze their personal style and learn methods of problem
solving. Phase two consists of team development and phase three involves intergroup
development. In phase four, an ideal model of organizational excellence is developed
and in phase five, the model is implemented. The final phase consists of an evaluation
of the organization.
Despite some research support, the normative approach to change has given way
to a contingency view that acknowledges the influence of the external environment,
technology, and other forces in determining the appropriate organization design
and management practices. Still, Likert’s participative management and Blake and
Mouton’s Grid OD frameworks are both used in organizations today.
CHAPTER 1
General Introduction to Organization Development
Productivity and Quality-of-Work-Life Background
The contribution of the productivity and quality-of-work-life (QWL) background to OD
can be described in two phases. The first phase is described by the original projects developed in Europe in the 1950s and their emergence in the United States during the 1960s.
Based on the research of Eric Trist and his colleagues at the Tavistock Institute of Human
Relations in London, early practitioners in Great Britain, Ireland, Norway, and Sweden
developed work designs aimed at better integrating technology and people.29 These
QWL programs generally involved joint participation by unions and management in the
design of work and resulted in work designs giving employees high levels of discretion,
task variety, and feedback about results. Perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic of
these QWL programs was the discovery of self-managing work groups as a form of work
design. These groups were composed of multiskilled workers who were given the necessary autonomy and information to design and manage their own task performances.
As these programs migrated to America, a variety of concepts and techniques were
adopted and the approach tended to be more mixed than in European practice. For
example, two definitions of QWL emerged during its initial development.30 QWL was
first defined in terms of people’s reaction to work, particularly individual outcomes
related to job satisfaction and mental health. Using this definition, QWL focused primarily on the personal consequences of the work experience and how to improve
work to satisfy personal needs.
A second definition of QWL defined it as an approach or method.31 People defined
QWL in terms of specific techniques and approaches used for improving work.32 It was
viewed as synonymous with methods such as job enrichment, self-managed teams,
and labor–management committees. This technique orientation derived mainly from
the growing publicity surrounding QWL projects, such as the General Motors–United
Auto Workers project at Tarrytown and the Gaines Pet Food plant project. These pioneering projects drew attention to specific approaches for improving work.
The excitement and popularity of this first phase of QWL in the United States lasted
until the mid-1970s, when other more pressing issues, such as inflation and energy
costs, diverted national attention. However, starting in 1979, a second phase of QWL
activity emerged. A major factor contributing to the resurgence of QWL was growing
international competition faced by the United States in markets at home and abroad. It
became increasingly clear that the relatively low cost and high quality of foreign-made
goods resulted partially from the management practices used abroad, especially in
Japan. Books extolling the virtues of Japanese management, such as Ouchi’s Theory Z,33
made best-seller lists.
As a result, QWL programs expanded beyond their initial focus on work design to
include other features of the workplace that can affect employee productivity and satisfaction, such as reward systems, work flows, management styles, and the physical work
environment. This expanded focus resulted in larger-scale and longer-term projects than
had the early job enrichment programs and shifted attention beyond the individual
worker to work groups and the larger work context. Equally important, it added the
critical dimension of organizational efficiency to what had been up to that time a primary
concern for the human dimension.
At one point, the productivity and QWL approach became so popular that it was
called an ideological movement. This was particularly evident in the spread of quality circles within many companies. Popularized in Japan, quality circles are groups of
employees trained in problem-solving methods that meet regularly to resolve workenvironment, productivity, and quality-control concerns and to develop more efficient
ways of working. At the same time, many of the QWL programs started in the early
1970s were achieving success. Highly visible corporations, such as General Motors, Ford,
and Honeywell, and unions, such as the United Automobile Workers, the Oil, Chemical,
and Atomic Workers, the Communications Workers of America, and the Steelworkers,
11
12
CHAPTER 1
General Introduction to Organization Development
were more willing to publicize their QWL efforts. In 1980, for example, more than
1,800 people attended an international QWL conference in Toronto, Canada. Unlike
previous conferences, which were dominated by academics, the presenters at Toronto
were mainly managers, workers, and unionists from private and public corporations.
Today, this second phase of QWL activity continues primarily under the banner of
“employee involvement” (EI) as well as total quality management and six-sigma programs, rather than of QWL. For many OD practitioners, the term EI signifies, more than
the name QWL, the growing emphasis on how employees can contribute more to running the organization so it can be more flexible, productive, and competitive. Recently,
the term “employee empowerment” has been used interchangeably with the term
EI, the former suggesting the power inherent in moving decision making downward
in the organization.34 Employee empowerment may be too restrictive, however. Because
it draws attention to the power aspects of these interventions, it may lead practitioners
to neglect other important elements needed for success, such as information, skills,
and rewards. Consequently, EI seems broader and less restrictive than does employee
empowerment as a banner for these approaches to organizational improvement.
Strategic Change Background
The strategic change background is a recent influence on OD’s evolution. As organizations and their technological, political, and social environments have become more
complex and more uncertain, the scale and intricacies of organizational change have
increased. This trend has produced the need for a strategic perspective from OD and
encouraged planned change processes at the organization level.35
Strategic change involves improving the alignment among an organization’s environment, strategy, and organization design.36 Strategic change interventions include
efforts to improve both the organization’s relationship to its environment and the fit
between its technical, political, and cultural systems.37 The need for strategic change
is usually triggered by some major disruption to the organization, such as the lifting
of regulatory requirements, a technological breakthrough, or a new chief executive
officer coming in from outside the organization.38
One of the first applications of strategic change was Richard Beckhard’s use of open
systems planning.39 He proposed that an organization’s environment and its strategy
could be described and analyzed. Based on the organization’s core mission, the differences between what the environment demanded and how the organization responded
could be reduced and performance improved. Since then, change agents have proposed
a variety of large-scale or strategic-change models;40 each of these models recognizes that
strategic change involves multiple levels of the organization and a change in its culture,
is often driven from the top by powerful executives, and has important effects on performance. More recently, strategic approaches to OD have been extended into mergers
and acquisitions, alliance formation, and network development.41
The strategic change background has significantly influenced OD practice. For example, implementing strategic change requires OD practitioners to be familiar with competitive strategy, finance, and marketing, as well as team building, action research, and
survey feedback. Together, these skills have improved OD’s relevance to organizations
and their managers.
EVOLUTION IN ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT
Current practice in organization development is strongly influenced by these five
backgrounds as well as by the trends shaping change in organizations. The laboratory
training, action research and survey feedback, normative, and QWL roots of OD are
evident in the strong value focus that underlies its practice. The more recent influence
CHAPTER 1
General Introduction to Organization Development
of the strategic change background has greatly improved the relevance and rigor of OD
practice. They have added financial and economic indicators of effectiveness to OD’s
traditional measures of work satisfaction and personal growth. All of the backgrounds
support the transfer of knowledge and skill to the client system and the building of
capacity to better manage change in the future.
Today, the field is being influenced by the globalization and information technology
trends described earlier. OD is being carried out in many more countries and in many
more organizations operating on a worldwide basis. This is generating a whole new
set of interventions as well as adaptations to traditional OD practice.42 In addition, OD
must adapt its methods to the technologies being used in organizations. As information
technology continues to influence organization environments, strategies, and structures, OD will need to manage change processes in cyberspace as well as face-to-face.
The diversity of this evolving discipline has led to tremendous growth in the number
of professional OD practitioners, in the kinds of organizations involved with OD, and
in the range of countries within which OD is practiced.
The expansion of the OD Network (http://www.odnetwork.org), which began in
1964, is one indication of this growth. It has grown from 200 members in 1970 to 2,800
in 1992 to 4,031 in 1999 and has remained stable with about 4,000 in 2007. At the same
time, Division 14 of the American Psychological Association, formerly known as the
Division of Industrial Psychology, has changed its title to the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology (http://www.siop.org). In 1968, the American Society for
Training & Development (http://www.astd.org) set up an OD division, which currently
operates as the OD/Leadership Community with more than 2,000 members. In 1971,
the Academy of Management established a Division of Organization Development and
Change (http://www.aom.pace.edu/odc), which currently has more than 2,600 members. Pepperdine University (http://bschool.pepperdine.edu/programs/msod), Bowling
Green State University (http://www.bgsu.edu), and Case Western Reserve University
(http://www.cwru.edu) offered the first master’s degree programs in OD in 1975, and
Case Western Reserve University began the first doctoral program in OD. Organization
development now is being taught at the graduate and undergraduate levels in a large
number of universities.43
In addition to the growth of professional societies and educational programs in OD, the
field continues to develop new theorists, researchers, and practitioners who are building
on the work of the early pioneers and extending it to contemporary issues and conditions.
The first generation of contributors included Chris Argyris, who developed a learning and
action-science approach to OD;44 Warren Bennis, who tied executive leadership to strategic change;45 Edie Seashore, who keeps interpersonal relationships and diversity in the
forefront of practice;46 Edgar Schein, who developed process approaches to OD, including
the key role of organizational culture in change management;47 Richard Beckhard, who
focused attention on the importance of managing transitions;48 and Robert Tannenbaum,
who sensitized OD to the personal dimension of participants’ lives.49
Among the second generation of contributors are Warner Burke, whose work has
done much to make OD a professional field;50 Larry Greiner, who has brought the
ideas of power and evolution into the mainstream of OD;51 Edward Lawler III, who
has extended OD to reward systems and employee involvement;52 Anthony Raia and
Newton Margulies, who together have kept our attention on the values underlying
OD and what those mean for contemporary practice;53 and Peter Vaill, Craig Lundberg,
Billie Alban, Barbara Bunker, and David Jamieson, who continue to develop OD as a
practical science.54
Included among the newest generation of OD contributors are Dave Brown, whose
work on action research and developmental organizations has extended OD into
community and societal change;55 Thomas Cummings, whose work on sociotechnical systems, self-designing organizations, and transorganizational development has
13
14
CHAPTER 1
General Introduction to Organization Development
led OD beyond the boundaries of single organizations to groups of organizations and
their environments;56 Max Elden, whose international work in industrial democracy
draws attention to the political aspects of OD;57 Richard Woodman, William Pasmore,
Rami Shani, and Jerry Porras, who have done much to put OD on a sound research
and conceptual base;58 and Peter Block, who has focused attention on consulting skills,
empowerment processes, and reclaiming our individuality.59 Others making important
contributions to the field include Ken Murrell, who has focused attention on the internationalization of OD;60 Sue Mohrman, who has forged a link between organization
design and OD;61 Chris Worley, who has pushed the integration of OD with strategy
and organization design;62 David Cooperrider and Jim Ludema, who have turned our
attention toward the positive aspects of organizations;63 and Bob Marshak, who alerts
us to the importance of symbolic and covert processes during change.64 These academic
contributors are joined by a large number of internal OD practitioners and external
consultants who lead organizational change.
Many different organizations have undertaken a wide variety of OD efforts. In
many cases, organizations have been at the forefront of innovating new change techniques and methods as well as new organizational forms. Larger corporations that
have engaged in organization development include General Electric, Boeing, Texas
Instruments, American Airlines, DuPont, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, General
Foods, Procter & Gamble, IBM, Raytheon, Wells Fargo Bank, the Hartford Financial
Services, and Limited Brands. Traditionally, much of the work was considered confidential and was not publicized. Today, however, organizations increasingly are going
public with their OD efforts, sharing the lessons with others.
OD work also is being done in schools, communities, and local, state, and federal governments. Several reviews of OD projects were directed primarily at OD in public administration.65 Extensive OD work was done in the armed services, including the army,
navy, air force, and coast guard, although OD activity and research activities have ebbed
and flowed with changes in the size and scope of the military. Public schools began using
both group training and survey feedback relatively early in the history of OD.66 Usually,
the projects took place in suburban middle-class schools, where stresses and strains of
an urban environment were not prominent and ethnic and socioeconomic differences
between consultants and clients were not high. In more recent years, OD methods have
been extended to urban schools and to colleges and universities.
Organization development is increasingly international. It has been applied in
nearly every country in the world. These efforts have involved such organizations as
Saab (Sweden), Imperial Chemical Industries (England), Shell Oil Company, Orrefors
(Sweden), Akzo-Nobel (The Netherlands), the Beijing Arbitration Commission and
Neusoft Corporation (China), Air New Zealand, and Vitro (Mexico).
Although it is evident that OD has expanded vastly in recent years, relatively few of
the total number of organizations in the United States are actively involved in formal
OD programs. However, many organizations are applying OD approaches and techniques without knowing that such a term exists.
OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK
This book presents the process and practice of organization development in a logical flow,
as shown in Figure 1.2. Part 1 provides an overview of OD that describes the process of
planned change and those who perform the work. It consists of two chapters. Chapter 2
discusses the nature of planned change and presents some models describing the change
process. Planned change is viewed as an ongoing cycle of four activities: entering and
contracting, diagnosing, planning and implementing, and evaluating and institutionalizing. Chapter 3 describes the OD practitioner and provides insight into the knowledge
and skills needed to practice OD and the kinds of career issues that can be expected.
CHAPTER 1
15
General Introduction to Organization Development
[Figure 1.2]
Overview of the Book
Part 1: Overview of Organization Development
The Nature of Planned Change
(Chapter 2)
The Organization Development Practitioner
(Chapter 3)
Part 2: The Process of Organization Development
Entering and
Contracting
(Chapter 4)
Diagnosing
Organizations
(Chapter 5)
Diagnosing
Groups and
Jobs
(Chapter 6)
Collecting and
Analyzing
Diagnostic
Information
(Chapter 7)
Feeding Back
Diagnostic
Information
(Chapter 8)
Designing
Interventions
(Chapter 9)
Leading and
Managing Change
(Chapter 10)
Evaluating and
Institutionalizing OD
Interventions
(Chapter 11)
Part 3:
Human Process
Interventions
Part 4:
Technostructural
Interventions
Interpersonal and
Group Process
Approaches
(Chapter 12)
Restructuring
Organizations
(Chapter 14)
Organization
Process Approaches
(Chapter 13)
Employee
Involvement
(Chapter 15)
Work Design
(Chapter 16)
Part 5:
Human Resource
Management
Interventions
Part 6:
Strategic Change
Interventions
Transformational
Change
(Chapter 20)
Performance
Management
(Chapter 17)
Continuous
Change
(Chapter 21)
Developing
Talent
(Chapter 18)
Managing Workforce
Diversity and
Wellness
(Chapter 19)
Transorganizational
Change
(Chapter 22)
Part 7: Special Applications of Organization Development
Organization Development
in Global Settings
(Chapter 23)
OD in Health Care,
School Systems, the Public Sector,
and Family-Owned Businesses
(Chapter 24)
Future Directions
in Organization
Development
(Chapter 25)
Part 2 is composed of eight chapters that describe the process of organization development. Chapter 4 characterizes the first activity in this process: entering an organizational system and contracting with it for organization development work. Chapters 5,
6, 7, and 8 present the steps associated with the next major activity of the OD process:
diagnosing. This involves helping the organization understand its current functioning
16
CHAPTER 1
General Introduction to Organization Development
and discover areas for improvement. Chapters 5 and 6 present an open-systems
model to guide diagnosis at three levels of analysis: the total organization, the group
or department, and the individual job or position. Chapters 7 and 8 review methods
for collecting, analyzing, and feeding back diagnostic data. Chapters 9 and 10 address
issues concerned with the third activity: designing OD interventions and implementing change. Chapter 9 presents an overview of the intervention design process. Major
kinds of interventions are identified, and the specific approaches that make up the next
four parts of the book are introduced. Chapter 10 discusses the process of leading and
managing change. It identifies key factors contributing to the successful implementation of change programs. Chapter 11 describes the final activity of the planned change
process: evaluating OD interventions and establishing them as a permanent part of
organizational functioning.
Parts 3 through 6 present the major interventions used in OD today. Part 3 (Chapters
12 and 13) is concerned with human process interventions aimed at the social processes occurring within organizations. These are the oldest and most traditional interventions in OD. Chapter 12 describes interpersonal and group process approaches,
such as process consultation, third-party interventions, and team building. Chapter 13
presents more systemwide process approaches, such as organizational confrontation
meetings, intergroup relations, and large-group interventions.
Part 4 (Chapters 14, 15, and 16) reviews technostructural interventions that are
aimed at organization structure and at better integrating people and technology.
Chapter 14 is about restructuring organizations; it describes the alternative methods
of organizing work activities as well as processes for downsizing and reengineering
the organization. Chapter 15 presents interventions for improving employee involvement. These change programs increase employee knowledge, power, information,
and rewards through parallel structures, total quality management, and high-involvement organizations. Chapter 16 describes change programs directed at work design,
both of individual jobs and of work groups, for greater employee satisfaction and
productivity.
Part 5 (Chapters 17, 18, and 19) presents human resource management interventions that are directed at integrating people into the organization. These interventions
are associated traditionally with the human resource function in the organization and
increasingly have become a part of OD activities. Chapter 17 concerns the process of
performance management. This is a cycle of activities that helps groups and individuals to set goals, appraise work, and reward performance. Chapter 18 discusses interventions that build human talent and capital in the organization, including coaching,
career planning and development, and management and leadership development.
Chapter 19 presents two interventions that address and leverage workforce diversity
and improve employee wellness.
Part 6 (Chapters 20, 21, and 22) concerns strategic interventions that focus on
organizing the firm’s resources to gain a competitive advantage in the environment.
These change programs generally are managed from the top of the organization and
take considerable time, effort, and resources. Chapter 20 presents three interventions
having to do with organization transformation, including integrated strategic change,
organization design, and culture change. Chapter 21 describes continuous change interventions, including self-design, learning and knowledge management, and creating
built to change organizations. Finally, Chapter 22 describes three transorganizational
interventions: merger and acquisition integration processes, alliance formation and
management, and network development and change.
Part 7 (Chapters 23, 24, and 25) is concerned with special topics in OD. Chapter 23
describes the practice of OD in international settings. OD in organizations operating
outside of the United States requires modification of the interventions to fit the country’s cultural context. Organization development in worldwide organizations is aimed
CHAPTER 1
General Introduction to Organization Development
at improving the internal alignment of strategy, structure, and process to achieve
global objectives. Furthermore, the practice of OD in global social change organizations
promotes sustainable development and improves human potential in emerging countries. Chapter 24 presents broad applications of OD in different kinds of organizations,
including educational, government, family-owned, and health care agencies. Finally,
Chapter 25 examines the future of organization development, including the trends
affecting the field and the prospects for its influence on organization effectiveness.
SUMMARY
This chapter introduced OD as a planned change discipline concerned with applying behavioral science knowledge and practices to help organizations achieve greater
effectiveness. Managers and staff specialists must work with and through people to
achieve organizational objectives, and OD can help them form effective relationships
with others. Organizations are faced with rapidly accelerating change, and OD can
help them cope with the consequences of change. The concept of OD has multiple
meanings. The definition provided here resolved some of the problems with earlier
definitions. The history of OD reveals its five roots: laboratory training, action research
and survey feedback, normative approaches, productivity and quality of work life, and
strategic change. The current practice of OD goes far beyond its humanistic origins by
incorporating concepts from organization strategy and design that complement the
early emphasis on social processes. The continued growth in the number and diversity
of OD approaches, practitioners, and involved organizations attests to the health of the
discipline and offers a favorable prospect for the future.
NOTES
1. C. Worley and A. Feyerherm, “Reflections on the
Future of OD,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 39
(2003): 97–115.
2. W. Burke, Organization Development: Principles and
Practices (Boston: Little, Brown, 1982).
3. W. French, “Organization Development: Objectives,
Assumptions, and Strategies,” California Management
Review 12, 2 (1969): 23–34.
4. R. Beckhard, Organization Development: Strategies
and Models (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969).
5. M. Beer, Organization Change and Development: A
Systems View (Santa Monica, Calif.: Goodyear Publishing,
1980).
6. W. Burke and D. Bradford, “The Crisis in OD,” in
Reinventing Organization Development, eds. D. Bradford
and W. Burke (San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons,
2005): 1–14.
7. N. Worren, K. Ruddle, and K. Moore, “From
Organization Development to Change Management:
The Emergence of a New Profession,” Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science 35 (1999): 273–86; J. Hayes, The
Theory and Practice of Change Management (New York:
Palgrave, 2002); R. Paton and J. McCalman, Change
Management (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications,
2000).
8. G. Hamel, The Future of Management (Boston: Harvard
Business School Press, 2007); W. Burke, Organization
Change (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2002);
D. Watts, Six Degrees (New York: W. W. Norton, 2003);
M. Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science (San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1999); S. Chowdhury, ed.,
Organization 21C (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Financial
Times Prentice Hall, 2002); B. Jones and M. Brazzel
(eds.), The NTL Handbook of Organization Development
and Change (San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, 2006).
9. T. Stewart, “Welcome to the Revolution,” Fortune
(December 13, 1993) 66–80; M. Hitt, R. Ireland,
R. Hoskisson, Strategic Management 7th ed. (Mason,
OH: Southwestern College Publishing, 2006).
10. T. Friedman, The World is Flat (New York: Farrar,
Straus, and Giroux, 2006); J. Perkins, Confessions of
an Economic Hit Man (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler,
2005); A. Chua, World on Fire (New York: Doubleday,
2002); International Forum on Globalization,
Alternatives to Economic Globalization (San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler, 2002).
11. Time Magazine, “Person of the Year,” Time
(December 25, 2006).
12. M. Anderson, ed., Fast Cycle Organization Development (Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing,
17
18
CHAPTER 1
General Introduction to Organization Development
2000); M. Hammer and J. Champy, Reengineering the
Corporation (New York: HarperCollins, 1993); P. Senge,
The Fifth Discipline (New York: Doubleday, 1990).
13. A. Kleiner, The Age of Heretics (New York:
Doubleday, 1996); A. Freedman, “The History of
Organization Development and the NTL Institute:
What We have Learned, Forgotten, and Rewritten,”
The Psychologist-Manager Journal 3 (1999): 125–41.
14. L. Bradford, “Biography of an Institution,” Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science 3 (1967): 127; A. Marrow,
“Events Leading to the Establishment of the National
Training Laboratories,” Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science 3 (1967): 145–50.
15. Kleiner, Age of Heretics; M. Mortara, “Organization
Development and Change at TRW Space Technology
Laboratories” (unpublished master’s thesis, Pepperdine
University, 2003).
16. W. French, “The Emergence and Early History of
Organization Development with Reference to
Influences upon and Interactions among Some of
the Key Actors,” in Contemporary Organization Development: Current Thinking and Applications, ed. D. Warrick
(Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1985): 12–27.
17. A. Marrow, D. Bowers, and S. Seashore, Management by Participation (New York: Harper & Row,
1967).
18. L. Coch and J. French, “Overcoming Resistance
to Change,” Human Relations 1 (1948): 512–32.
19. W. Whyte and E. Hamilton, Action Research for
Management (Homewood, Ill.: Irwin-Dorsey, 1964).
20. J. Collier, “United States Indian Administration
as a Laboratory of Ethnic Relations,” Social Research
12 (May 1945): 275–76.
21. French, “Emergence and Early History,” 19–20.
22. F. Mann, “Studying and Creating Change,” in
The Planning of Change: Readings in the Applied
Behavioral Sciences, eds. W. Bennis, K. Benne, and
R. Chin (New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston,
1962), 605–15.
23. R. Likert, The Human Organization (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1967); S. Seashore and D. Bowers,
“Durability of Organizational Change,” American
Psychologist 25 (1970): 227–33; D. Mosley, “System
Four Revisited: Some New Insights,” Organization
Development Journal 5 (Spring 1987): 19–24; R. Blake
and J. Mouton, The Managerial Grid (Houston: Gulf,
1964); R. Blake and J. Mouton, Corporate Excellence
Through Grid Organization Development: A Systems
Approach (Houston: Gulf, 1968); R. Blake and
J. Mouton, Building a Dynamic Corporation Through
Grid Organization Development (Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley, 1969).
24. Likert, Human Organization.
25. Ibid.
26. Blake and Mouton, The Managerial Grid; Blake
and Mouton, Corporate Excellence; Blake and Mouton,
Building a Dynamic Corporation; R. Blake and
A. McCanse, Leadership Dilemmas—Grid Solutions
(Houston: Gulf, 1991).
27. Blake and Mouton, Corporate Excellence.
28. Blake and Mouton, Managerial Grid.
29. A. Rice, Productivity and Social Organization: The
Ahmedabad Experiment (London: Tavistock Publications,
1958); E. Trist and K. Bamforth, “Some Social and
Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method
of Coal-Getting,” Human Relations 4 (January 1951):
1–38; P. Gyllenhamer, People at Work (Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley, 1977); E. Thorsrud, B. Sorensen, and
B. Gustavsen, “Sociotechnical Approach to Industrial
Democracy in Norway,” in Handbook of Work
Organization and Society, ed. R. Dubin (Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1976): 648–87; Work in America: Report of a
Special Task Force to the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1973); L. Davis and
A. Cherns, eds., The Quality of Working Life, 2 vols.
(New York: Free Press, 1975).
30. D. Nadler and E. Lawler III, “Quality of Work
Life: Perspectives and Directions” (working paper,
Center for Effective Organizations, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, 1982); L. Davis,
“Enhancing the Quality of Work Life: Developments
in the United States,” International Labour Review 116
(July–August 1977): 53–65; L. Davis, “Job Design
and Productivity: A New Approach,” Personnel 33
(1957): 418–30.
31. Ibid.
32. R. Ford, “Job Enrichment Lessons from AT&T,”
Harvard Business Review 51 (January–February 1973):
96–106; J. Taylor, J. Landy, M. Levine, and D. Kamath,
Quality of Working Life: An Annotated Bibliography,
1957–1972 (Center for Organizational Studies,
Graduate School of Management, University of
California at Los Angeles, 1972); J. Taylor, “Experiments in Work System Design: Economic and Human
Results,” Personnel Review 6 (1977): 28–37; J. Taylor,
“Job Satisfaction and Quality of Working Life: A
Reassessment,” Journal of Occupational Psychology 50
(December 1977): 243–52.
33. W. Ouchi, Theory Z (Reading, Mass.: AddisonWesley, 1981).
34. J. Vogt and K. Murrell, Empowerment in Organizations
(San Diego: University Associates, 1990).
35. M. Jelinek and J. Litterer, “Why OD Must Become
Strategic,” in Research in Organizational Change and
Development, vol. 2, eds. W. Pasmore and R. Woodman
(Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1988), 135–62;
P. Buller, “For Successful Strategic Change: Blend OD
Practices with Strategic Management,” Organizational
Dynamics (Winter 1988): 42–55; C. Worley, D. Hitchin,
CHAPTER 1
General Introduction to Organization Development
and W. Ross, Integrated Strategic Change (Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1996).
36. Worley, Hitchin, and Ross, Integrated Strategic
Change; N. Rajagopalan and G. Spreitzer, “Toward a
Theory of Strategic Change: A Multi-Lens Perspective
and Integrative Framework,” Academy of Management
Review 22 (1997): 48–79.
37. R. Beckhard and R. Harris, Organizational
Transitions: Managing Complex Change, 2d ed. (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1987); N. Tichy, Managing Strategic Change (New York: John Wiley & Sons,
1983); E. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985); C. Lundberg,
“Working with Culture,” Journal of Organization
Change Management 1 (1988): 38–47.
38. D. Miller and P. Freisen, “Momentum and
Revolution in Organization Adaptation,” Academy of
Management Journal 23 (1980): 591–614; M. Tushman
and E. Romanelli, “Organizational Evolution: A
Metamorphosis Model of Convergence and
Reorientation,” in Research in Organizational Behavior,
vol. 7, eds. L. Cummings and B. Staw (Greenwich,
Conn.: JAI Press, 1985), 171–222.
39. Beckhard and Harris, Organizational Transitions.
40. T. Covin and R. Kilmann, “Critical Issues in LargeScale Organization Change,” Journal of Organization
Change Management 1 (1988): 59–72; A. Mohrman,
S. Mohrman, G. Ledford Jr., T. Cummings, and
E. Lawler, eds., Large-Scale Organization Change (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989); W. Torbert, “Leading
Organizational Transformation,” in Research in
Organizational Change and Development, vol. 3, eds.
R. Woodman and W. Pasmore (Greenwich, Conn.:
JAI Press, 1989), 83–116; J. Bartunek and M. Louis,
“The Interplay of Organization Development and
Organization Transformation,” in Research in
Organizational Change and Development, vol. 2, eds.
W. Pasmore and R. Woodman (Greenwich, Conn.:
JAI Press, 1988), 97–134; A. Levy and U. Merry,
Organizational Transformation: Approaches, Strategies,
Theories (New York: Praeger, 1986).
41. M. Marks and P. Mirvis, Joining Forces (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998).
42. A. Jaeger, “Organization Development and National
Culture: Where’s the Fit?” Academy of Management
Review 11 (1986): 178; G. Hofstede, Culture’s
Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values (London: Sage, 1980); P. Sorensen Jr., T. Head,
N. Mathys, J. Preston, and D. Cooperrider, Global and
International Organization Development (Champaign, Ill.:
Stipes, 1995); A. Chin (with C. Chin), Internationalizing
OD: Cross-Cultural Experiences of NTL Members
(Alexandria, VA.: NTL Institute, 1997).
43. G. Varney and A. Darrow, “Market Position of
Master-Level Graduate Programs in OD,” OD
Practitioner 27 (1995): 39–43; OD Institute, International Registry of O.D. Professionals and O.D. Handbook
(Cleveland: OD Institute, 1995); G. Varney and
A. Darrow, “Name Recognition of Master’s Level
Graduate Programs in Organization Development
and Change,” OD Practitioner 30 (1998): 36–40.
44. C. Argyris and D. Schon, Organizational Learning
II (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1996); C. Argyris,
R. Putnam, and D. Smith, Action Science (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1985).
45. W. Bennis, Managing People Is Like Herding Cats:
Warren Bennis on Leadership (New York: Executive
Excellence, 1997); W. Bennis and B. Nanus, Leaders
(New York: Harper & Row, 1985).
46. B. Patwell and E. Seashore, Triple Impact Coaching
(Columbia, Maryland: Bingham House Books,
2006).
47. E. Schein, Process Consultation Revisited: Creating the
Helping Relationship (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley,
1999); E. Schein, Process Consultation: Its Role in
Organization Development (Reading, Mass.: AddisonWesley, 1969); E. Schein, Process Consultation Volume
II: Lessons for Managers and Consultants (Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley, 1987); E. Schein, Organizational
Culture and Leadership, 2d ed. (San Francisco: JosseyBass, 1997).
48. Beckhard and Harris, Organizational Transitions;
R. Beckhard and W. Pritchard, Changing the Essence
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992); R. Beckhard,
Agent of Change (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997).
49. R. Tannenbaum and R. Hanna, “Holding On,
Letting Go, and Moving On: Understanding a
Neglected Perspective on Change,” in Human Systems
Development, eds. R. Tannenbaum, N. Margulies, and
F. Massarik (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985),
95–121.
50. W. Burke, Organization Development: Principles and
Practices (Boston: Little, Brown, 1982); W. Burke,
Organization Development: A Normative View (Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1987); W. Burke, “Organization Development: Then, Now, and Tomorrow,”
OD Practitioner 27 (1995): 5–13.
51. L. Greiner, “Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow,” Harvard Business Review 50 (July–
August 1972): 37–46; L. Greiner and V. Schein,
Power and Organizational Development: Mobilizing Power
to Implement Change (Reading, Mass.: AddisonWesley, 1988).
52. E. Lawler III, Pay and Organization Development
(Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1981); E. Lawler
III, High-Involvement Management (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1986); E. Lawler III, From the Ground Up
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996); E. Lawler III,
Rewarding Excellence (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
2000).
19
20
CHAPTER 1
General Introduction to Organization Development
53. A. Raia and N. Margulies, “Organization
Development: Issues, Trends, and Prospects,” in
Human Systems Development, eds. R. Tannenbaum,
N. Margulies, and F. Massarik (San Francisco: JosseyBass, 1985), 246–72; N. Margulies and A. Raia,
“Some Reflections on the Values of Organizational
Development,” Academy of Management OD Newsletter
1 (Winter 1988): 9–11.
54. P. Vaill, “OD as a Scientific Revolution,” in
Contemporary Organization Development: Current Thinking
and Applications (Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1985),
28–41; C. Lundberg, “On Organization Development
Interventions: A General Systems-Cybernetic Perspective,” in Systems Theory for Organizational Development,
ed. T. Cummings (Chichester, England: John Wiley &
Sons, 1980), 247–71; P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, and
C. Lundberg, Reframing Organizational Culture (Newbury
Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1991); D. Jamieson and
J. O’Mara, Managing Work-force 2000 (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1991); D. Jamieson and C. Worley, “The
Practice of Organization Development,” in Handbook of
Organization Development. ed. T. Cummings (Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007); B. Bunker and
B. Alban, “Introduction to the Special Issue on Large
Group Interventions,” The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science 41 (2005): 9–15; B. Bunker, B. Alban, and
R. Lewicki, “Ideas in Currency and Practice: Has the
Well Gone Dry,” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
40 (2004): 403–23.
55. L. D. Brown and J. Covey, “Development Organizations and Organization Development: Toward an
Expanded Paradigm for Organization Development,”
in Research in Organizational Change and Development,
vol. 1, eds. R. Woodman and W. Pasmore (Greenwich,
Conn.: JAI Press, 1987), 59–87.
56. T. Cummings and S. Srivastva, Management of Work:
A Socio-Technical Systems Approach (San Diego: University
Associates, 1977); T. Cummings, “Transorganizational
Development,” in Research in Organizational Behavior,
vol. 6, eds. B. Staw and L. Cummings (Greenwich,
Conn.: JAI Press, 1984), 367–422; T. Cummings and
S. Mohrman, “Self-Designing Organizations: Towards
Implementing Quality-of-Work-Life Innovations,” in
Research in Organizational Change and Development, vol. 1,
eds. R. Woodman and W. Pasmore (Greenwich, Conn.:
JAI Press, 1987), 275–310.
57. M. Elden, “Sociotechnical Systems Ideas as
Public Policy in Norway: Empowering Participation
through Worker-Managed Change,” Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 22 (1986): 239–55.
58. R. Woodman and W. Pasmore, Research in
Organizational Change and Development, vols. 1–16
(Oxford: Elsevier, 1987–2007); W. Pasmore, C.
Haldeman, and A. Shani, “Sociotechnical Systems: A
North American Reflection on Empirical Studies in
North America,” Human Relations 32 (1982): 1179–
204; W. Pasmore and J. Sherwood, Sociotechnical
Systems: A Source Book (San Diego: University
Associates, 1978); J. Porras, Stream Analysis: A
Powerful Way to Diagnose and Manage Organizational
Change (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1987);
J. Porras, P. Robertson, and L. Goldman, “Organization
Development: Theory, Practice, and Research,” in
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
2d ed., ed. M. Dunnette (Chicago: Rand McNally,
1990); J. Collins and J. Porras, Built to Last: Successful
Habits of Visionary Companies (New York: Harper
Business, 1997); A. Shani, S. Mohrman, W. Pasmore,
B. Stymne, and N. Adler (eds.), Handbook of Collaborative Management Research (Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, 2007).
59. P. Block, Flawless Consulting (Austin, Tex.: Learning
Concepts, 1981); P. Block, The Empowered Manager:
Positive Political Skills at Work (San Francisco: JosseyBass, 1987); P. Block, Stewardship (San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler, 1994); P. Block, The Answer to How Is
Yes (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2002).
60. K. Murrell, “Organization Development Experiences and Lessons in the United Nations Development
Program,” Organization Development Journal 12 (1994):
1–16; J. Vogt and K. Murrell, Empowerment in
Organizations (San Diego: Pfeiffer, 1990); K. Murrell
and M. Meredith, Empowering Employees (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 2000); M. Miller, S. Fitzgerald,
K. Murrell, J. Preston, and R. Ambekar, “Appreciative
Inquiry in Building a Transcultural Strategic Alliance:
The Case of a Biotech Alliance Between a U.S.
Multinational and an Indian Family Business,” The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 41 (2005): 91–111.
61. S. Mohrman, S. Cohen, and A. Mohrman,
Designing Team-Based Organizations (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1995); S. Cohen and G. Ledford Jr.,
“The Effectiveness of Self-Managing Teams: A QuasiExperiment,” Human Relations 47 (1994): 13–43;
G. Ledford and E. Lawler, “Research on Employee
Participation: Beating a Dead Horse?” Academy of
Management Review 19 (1994): 633–36; G. Ledford,
E. Lawler, and S. Mohrman, “The Quality Circle and
Its Variations,” in Productivity in Organizations: New
Perspectives from Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
eds. J. Campbell, R. Campbell, and Associates (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988); Mohrman, Ledford,
Mohrman, et al., Large-Scale Organization Change.
62. Worley, Hitchin, and Ross, Integrated Strategic
Change; E. Lawler and C. Worley, Built to Change (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006).
63. D. Cooperrider, “Positive Image, Positive Action:
The Affirmative Basis for Organizing,” in Appreciative
Management and Leadership, eds. S. Srivastva,
D. Cooperrider, and Associates (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1990); D. Cooperrider and S. Srivastva,
“Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life,” in
Organizational Change and Development, vol. 1, eds.
R. Woodman and W. Pasmore (Greenwich, Conn.:
CHAPTER 1
General Introduction to Organization Development
JAI Press, 1987), 129–70; J. Ludema, T. Wilmot, and
S. Srivastva, “Organizational hope: Reaffirming the
constructive task of social and organizational inquiry,”
Human Relations 50 (1997): 1015–53; J. Ludema,
D. Whitney, B. Mohr, and T. Griffin, The Appreciative
Inquiry Summit: A Practitioner’s Guide for Leading LargeGroup Change (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, 2003).
64. R. Marshak, Covert Processes at Work: Managing the
Five Hidden Dimensions of Organizational Change (San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2006);
L. Heracleous and R. Marshak, “Conceptualizing
organizational discourse as situated symbolic action,”
Human Relations 57 (2004): 1285–313.
65. R. Golembiewski, C. Proehl, and D. Sink, “Success
of OD Applications in the Public Sector, Toting Up the
Score for a Decade, More or Less,” Public Administration
Review 41 (1981): 679–82; R. Golembiewski,
Humanizing Public Organizations (Mt. Airy, Md.:
Lomond, 1985); P. Robertson and S. Seneviratne,
“Outcomes of Planned Organization Change in the
Public Sector: A Meta-Analytic Comparison to
the Private,” Public Administration Review 55 (1995):
547–61.
66. R. Shmuck and M. Miles, Organizational
Development in Schools (Palo Alto, Calif.: National Press
Books, 1971); R. Havelock, The Change Agent’s Guide
to Innovation in Education (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Educational Technology, 1973); R. Schmuck and
P. Runkel, “Organization Development in Schools,”
Consultation 4 (Fall 1985): 236–57; S. Mohrman and
E. Lawler, “Motivation for School Reform” (working
paper, Center for Effective Organizations, University
of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1995).
21