WHAT MAKES OD, OD? *
Dr. David W. Jamieson
Organization development (OD) is more than 50 years old. In response to prevailing
organizational values-in-operation that were partially a function of the times, OD offered
a more holistic view of people and organizations, with an emphasis on humanistic and
democratic values, and the belief that this different perspective was not only better for
people, but also for organization performance. Prior to World War II, organizations
typically operated on principles of mechanistic and bureaucratic systems, including
authority-obedience, division of labor, hierarchical supervision, formalized procedures
and rules, and impersonality (and many still do!). But following the war, increasing
interest in social change, attitudes about democracy, and self-actualization, brought
forward distinctly different values that were a counter-force to extant organizational
perspectives. French and Bell’s (1999) history of OD stated, “We think most
organization development practitioners held these humanistic and democratic values
with their implications for different and ‘better’ ways to run organizations and deal with
people.” [italics added]
As a social and organization change movement, OD was closely associated with
practice, from its beginnings. For example, the action research methodology (as created
by Lewin (1948) was associated with real-world problems and the application of group
process knowledge to address contemporary issues. The earliest values, philosophy,
and methods of practice were influenced by findings from the behavioral sciences and
leading management researchers. For example, OD change methodologies were
clearly influenced by

early leadership work that brought legitimacy to participative and democratic
methods (Follett 1941, Lewin and Lippitt, 1938; Likert, 1961, Tannenbaum and
Schmidt, 1973)

early human relations work that highlighted the primacy of social factors
attitudes, and feelings in organization behavior, influencing productivity and
morale (Maya, 1945, Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939; Homans, 1950)

early work on group dynamics and laboratory training bringing attention to group
behavior, interpersonal relations, and self-awareness (Bradford, Gibb, and
Benne, 1964; Cartwright and Zander, 1954; Bennis and Shepard, 1956, Schein
and Bennis; 1965)

changing views of the person, motivation, and interpersonal communication
(Rogers, 1961; Maslow, 1954; Argyris, 1965; McGregor, 1960)

early work on environments, structures, and systems helping to bring design and
process into the picture (Trist and Bamforth, 1951; Burns and Stalker, 1961,
Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Katz and Kahn, 1966)
* Much of this paper is drawn from Jamieson and Worley, The Practice of OD in
Cummings, T. The Handbook of Organization Development, Sage (2006).
Page 1 of 7
JEANNE HARTLEY CONSULTING  WWW.JHARTLEYCONSULTING.COM
Over the years, OD has had many different definitions and conceptualizations (Jamieson
and Worley, 2006), yet most share the same commonalities and only seem to differ on
the scope of change targets and the ultimate intention of change.
For example most highlight:
 a planned process intended to bring about change
 through the use of various interventions
 using behavioral science knowledge (theory, research, technology)
 having an organization or system-wide focus
 typically involving a third-party change agent
And most assume a certain value base, often without specifying the values. Ironically,
most lists of OD values captured over the past 50 years have a high degree of
commonality (Jamieson and Gellermann, 2005).
The only differences occur in: a) the language used around the breadth of targets
(behavioral and social processes, group and intergroup, organization processes,
alignment among strategy, structure, culture, systems and people, etc) and b) the
change intention (improved organization performance, effectiveness, capacity,
learning/development or all of these).
The commonalities reflect the shared worldview of founders and early pioneers. The
differences reflect the evolution of the field. It has tended to broaden in scope, dealing
with the complexities of organizations and their environments, the wholeness of
organizations and the growth of systems understanding. This has created tensions
between strict adherence to early views and practical implications of contemporary
organization issues. The field started where the then current need was the greatest
(person, interpersonal, group) and has necessarily evolved, through experience and
research, to encapsulate a larger playing field that takes into account systems learning
and environmental complexity and speed. What’s important, however, is that OD still
has minimum distinguishing characteristics and intended ideals that set it apart from
other approaches to change.
What is OD?
This question has plagued the field for decades, In order to move on, we need to put
some questions behind us. Chris Worley and I attempted to do this in a recent chapter
(Jamieson and Worley, 2OD6). In one section we reviewed and analyzed many OD
definitions and ended up with: OD is a process of planned intervention(s) utilizing
behavioral science principles to change a system and improve its effectiveness,
conducted in accordance with values of humanism, participation, choice and
development so that the organization and its members learn and develop. Our
hope is that this definition capitalizes on the old commonalities, clarifies the value base
and ultimate outcomes and enlarges the scope of change interest
We also addressed the age-old question of whether OD was a “discipline”, “field” or
“profession” and concluded that: OD is a “field of practice” from the perspective of
education and a “community of practice” when describing the practitioners,
researchers, and professors who affiliate with OD.
Page 2 of 7
JEANNE HARTLEY CONSULTING  WWW.JHARTLEYCONSULTING.COM
There are a number of characteristics we can use to distinguish OD work from other
types of consultation and change work:






OD relies most heavily (but not exclusively) on behavioral science knowledge
and technology
OD incorporates a value-base of humanism, participation, choice and
development into its means (design, intervention, behaviors) and outcomes
(improvements, behaviors, way of operating)
OD includes a planned and designed process that is comprised of a series of
interventions that are client-centric, data-driven, cyclical and value-based
OD involves the active management of deviations from and changes to the
process path (dealing with inertia, resistance and support; emerging issues;
environmental shifts, etc)
OD uses the client-consultant relationship as a tool of change and learning and
therefore requires the use of “self’ as an instrument and the on-going
management of behaviors to include trust, openness, honesty, authenticity,
collaboration and inquiry
OD’s desired outcomes include improved organization performance (organization
improvement), improved organization capacity for future change (transfer of
knowledge) and individual development (skills, knowledge, potential)
ODs Distinguishing Characteristics
Behavior Science Knowledge and Technology: In designing OD processes and
interventions and in intervening for change, practitioners rely heavily on the knowledge
and methodologies of the behavioral sciences. We deal regularly with aspects of
individual motivation, personality, dimensions of interpersonal behavior, group dynamics,
social processes, cultural formation and function microeconomics and adult learning in
choosing what to do and designing how to do it.
Values-base: Humanism, Participation, Choice and Development: An OD process is
differentiated by the values determining the choices made arid built into methods,
activities, behaviors, desired outcomes, and relationships. The value sets that form the
core of OD practice are choice, participation, humanism, and development. In OD there
is a bias that will always show up in what’s done and how it’s done that will favor people
having choice; being able to participate in decisions that affect their life; norms of
interaction that promote authenticity, honesty, openness, respect, and dignity; and
opportunities for people to grow and develop their potential.
Process of Client-centric Interventions: An OD Process is planned and designed based
on a continuous flow of diagnostic and evaluative data about the client, the desired
future or problem being addressed, the execution and emerging/unanticipated issues.
Design work needs to always take into account:




client capacity (their ability to understand and take action on what’s happening in
the present state)
client readiness (their motivation to change)
type, level, and complexity of problem(s), opportunities, or the breadth and depth
of a desired future state or vision (including considerations such as size, scope,
levels, human system targets, and numbers of people)
system complexity (number of moving parts, interacting players relationships)
Page 3 of 7
JEANNE HARTLEY CONSULTING  WWW.JHARTLEYCONSULTING.COM
In this regard, OD is always a customized process to be able to effectively work with a
specific client and their characteristics and to focus on the client’s learning and
development.
Active Process Management: Managing the OD process is a major undertaking and area
of competence. As a series of interventions is designed, they form an intended path.
However, as a series of interventions is executed, an actual change path emerges that
rarely follows a straight line or stays on the intended path. Thus, an important part of
OD work is managing the process by:





monitoring and managing the process path (corralling deviations, making midcourse corrections, building in adaptations to unanticipated forces, and/or
changing the path completely, if the change purposes shift significantly)
ensuring execution (intention, quality, timing)
evaluating intended effects (impacts) and monitoring unintended consequences
incorporating emerging conditions/environmental influences/erratic client
behavior (“stuff” happens)
managing client/consultant behaviors and relationships (boundaries, power,
roles, qualities of interaction)
These management tasks are crucial to success because human systems are
continuously changing entities with both predictable and unpredictable actions. In
addition, each intervention produces system reactions that again change the landscape
one is working with. Therefore, while design is an important part of the front end of an
CD process, on-going designing and management in response to new data and
changing conditions will make or break an OD practitioner’s work.
Client-Consultant Relationship Management: There are certain core behaviors needed in
OD that differentiate it from other forms of consultation. This is true in both the intended
role of the consultant and the intended role of the client. The ideal client-consultant
relationship does not just happen naturally. It requires continual management,
reflection, and intervention to get or stay on course. In the ideal relationship, the client
and consultant operate in partnership (Old, 1995); each modeling the humanism,
participation, choice, and developmental orientations and each joining in the designing,
managing, and process decisions. However, most clients don’t start where they need to
end up and most OD consultants have difficulty with one or more aspects of their role!
As a result, the desired behaviors need to be thought out, discussed, and managed
along the way.
The use of “self” as an instrument in change (Jamieson, 2003) should be a critical
aspect of any helping role, but is usually only considered a key competency in OD work.
Who you are, your strengths and blind-sides, your character and style, how you “filter”
and execute are all relevant to what you will see and be able to do. As an instrument,
you are another force intervening into a human psycho-social system and will create
actions and reactions (intended and unintended) that will effect movement of the system.
The core behaviors the consultant needs to master in an OD process include: influence,
model, and educate; action flexibility; social sensitivity; collaborate/partner; authentic,
Page 4 of 7
JEANNE HARTLEY CONSULTING  WWW.JHARTLEYCONSULTING.COM
open, trustworthy; systemic and strategic thinking; design and execute processes and
interventions; inquire/diagnose; facilitate (structure, frame, question, support, confront).
The core behaviors the client needs in an OD process include: lead and make decisions;
be committed (engaged/active) and own the change work (act responsibly); be open to
learning; authentic, open, trustworthy; collaborate/partner; systemic and strategic
thinking.
Multiple Desired Outcomes: An OD effort can also be distinguished by always including
at least two classes of intended outcomes along with any other project-specific
outcomes. Outcomes occur primarily towards the end of the OD process path, after the
interaction of the learning, initial changes and support/inertia/resistance are encountered
and worked through. The first important class of outcome is individual development.
OD methods, interactions, interventions, and processes are intended to help individuals
grow and reach their potential. Part of the learning that is occurring involves improving
people’s capacity to lead and manage change in the future and their personal
development of potential to do what they can do best. These outcomes usually show up
in knowledge, skills, behavior, and mindsets.
The second important class of outcome is organization improvement. OD efforts
specifically target three types of improvement: performance, capacity, and culture.
While “performance” and “improvement” are often in the eye of the beholder and can be
viewed through a wide variety of measures, OD efforts always expect to help the
organization get better at what they exist to do. Performance involves a variety of
mission-related results and can be viewed through various metrics that could include
revenues, profit, customer service, production, clients served, environmental or social
impact, market share, firm valuation, costs, cycle time, and quality. Often, other internal
factors become metrics used as precursors or intermediate indicators of performance
and include employee satisfaction, quality of work life, alignment, and various
operational measures. Part of client-consultant contracting should include clarification of
what specific performance improvement outcomes are being sought.
OD efforts also differ from many other forms of consultation and change in that the
clients’ learning, or the capacity to manage change in the future, is an important part of
the work. Increasing their collective capability to successfully lead, manage, design,
operate, and change their own organization has always been central to the planning,
orientation, and methodology of OD consultation. This outcome differs from the
individual development outcome in that it is focused on a critical mass of people in the
organization now working together differently in their efforts at managing change. This is
sometimes described as “transfer of knowledge” or “working yourself out of a job”.
Finally, OD operates according to a specific set of values, and these values guide
process design, methods, and behavior as well as intended ways of life in the
organization. Therefore, each engagement (and the contracting with clients) attempts to
create workplaces where choice, participation, humanism, and development are
characteristic of the culture. When early pioneers talked about OD as “culture change”
(eg, Beckhard, Bennis), their vision was one where all organizations would internalize
basic OD values into their way of operating (culture). Culture was an appropriate target
for OD since it is a reflection of the values operating to guide and shape the behavior of
organization members.
Page 5 of 7
JEANNE HARTLEY CONSULTING  WWW.JHARTLEYCONSULTING.COM
How is OD Different?
OD differs from change management, management consulting, operations research,
reengineering, quality circles, industrial engineering and other approaches to
consultation, change and organization improvement:






First, the inclusion of increased capacity and individual development in the
desired outcomes sets OD apart
Second, the value-.base of humanism, participation, choice and development are
unique to OD
Third, the application of knowledge and methods from behavioral sciences to
organization systems produces a different set of interventions and targets for
change
Fourth, the use of the client-consultant relationship as a tool for change puts
more emphasis on its management than in other approaches
Fifth, the combined use of on-going data, client characteristics and capabilities,
specific values and a cyclical orientation in design and execution is inherent to
OD
Sixth, the active management and re-design of processes around an intended
path always creates customized processes and allows little room for any
prepackaged approaches
There is much to be done in improving both research and practice in OD. The field has
grown and developed in many ways, yet OD can never be fixed in one place since
organizations and their environments will keep changing. However, OD does have an
essence and that’s what we can continue to strengthen, for it’s needed even more to
deal with today’s issues and create sustainable change.
References
Argyris, C. (1965). Explorations in interpersonal competence. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science 1(1); 58-83.
Bennis, W. and Shepard, H. (1956). A theory of group development. Human Relations
9:415-457.
Bradford, L., J. Gibb and K. Benne (Eds.). (1964). T-group theory and laboratory
method: Innovation in re-education. New York: Wiley.
Burns, T. and G. Stalker. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
Cartwright, D. and A. Zander. (1954). Group Dynamics. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson.
Follet, M. (1941). In Metcalf H.S. and Urwick, L. (eds.) Dynamic administration: The
collected papers of Mary Parker Follett. New York: Harper and Row.
French, W. and C. Bell (1999). Organization Development: Behavioral Science
Interventions for Organizational Improvement (6th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
Page 6 of 7
JEANNE HARTLEY CONSULTING  WWW.JHARTLEYCONSULTING.COM
Homans, G. (1950). The Human Group. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Jamieson D. (2003). The Heart and Mind of the Practitioner. Organization Development
Practitioner, Vol 35, No. 4.
Jamieson, D. and W. Gellerman. (2005). Values, Ethics and OD Practice. In Brazzel and
Jones, The NTL Handbook of Organization Development and Change. San Francisco,
CA: Pfieffer/Jossey-Bass.
Jamieson, D. and C. Worley. (2006). The Practice of OD. In Cummings, T. The
Handbook of Organization Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Katz, D. and R. Kahn, (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
Lawrence, P. and J. Lorsch. (1967). Organization and Environment. Cambridge: Harvard
Business School Press.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving Social Conflicts. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
Lewin, K. and R. Lippitt. (1938). An experimental approach to the study of autocracy and
democracy: A preliminary note. Sociometry, 1, 292-300.
Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper.
Mayo, E. (1945). The social problems of an industrial civilization. Cambndge, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.
Old, D. (1995). “Consulting for Real Transformation, Sustainability, and Organic Form”.
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 8, No, 3, pp 6-17.
Roethlisberger, F. and W. Dickson. (1939). Management and the Worker. New York:
Wiley.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Schein, E. and W. Bennis (1965). Personal and organizational change through group
methods: The laboratory approach. New York: Wiley.
Tannenbaurn, R. and W. Schmidt. (1973). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard
Business Review, 51 (May-June): 162-180.
Trist, E. and E. Bamforth. (1951). Social and psychological consequences of the
longwall method of coal getting. Human Relations, 4 (February): 3-28.
Page 7 of 7
JEANNE HARTLEY CONSULTING  WWW.JHARTLEYCONSULTING.COM