CHAPTER 3: ORGANISATION DEVELOPMENT (OD)
3.1. Introduction
The previous chapter served to illustrate that the changing world of work poses a number of
challenges to contemporary organisations, some of which hold potentially severe ramifications
for employees. As was shown in Chapter 1, Cascio (1995) views these circumstances as creating
various opportunities for industrial and organisational psychologists to “contribute to the
betterment of human welfare” (p. 928). This assumption lends support to the positioning of this
study – which is aimed at making a contribution to employees’ welfare by addressing their
experience of meaning in life during organisational change – within the field of industrial
psychology (see Section 2.2). One field of such opportunity specified by Cascio (1995) then lies
within the discipline of organisation development (OD). Subsequently, the primary objective of
this chapter is to explore the OD discipline, thereby illustrating how this field may fulfil Cascio’s
expectation regarding “the betterment of human welfare” (p. 928).
Given the primary objective stated above, it was noted in Chapter 1 that the aim of this study is
to develop a novel OD intervention, based on logotherapeutic principles (see Chapters 4 and 5),
which contributes to the facilitation of organisational change 1 by addressing the individual’s
experience of meaning in life. Subsequently, this chapter in no way constitutes an attempt at
providing a comprehensive overview of OD.
Rather, the discussions will be limited to
addressing four secondary objectives. 1) The origins of OD are to be traced by means of an
exploration of its historical foundations. 2) OD is to be conceptualised. In particular, its
definition, core values, and relationship with planned change are to be investigated. 3) The
scope and focus of OD is to be addressed. 4) Four specific OD interventions are to be discussed.
These approaches are singled out for two reasons in particular: firstly, each focuses on the
human-social subsystem (see Figure 3.1 below), and secondly, each shares a number of
characteristics with the proposed logotherapy-based intervention (see Chapters 5 and 6). Despite
these commonalities, however, limitations to each of these four approaches are also highlighted,
1
The envisaged role of the logotherapy-based intervention in facilitating organisational change is discussed in Section 5.6.
94
thereby continuing to build a case for the need for a logotherapy-based OD intervention in
contemporary organisations.
3.2. Historical foundations of OD
The initial stages of OD lay in the 1930s (Worren, Ruddle & Moore, 1999), a time characterised
by “organizational humanism” (Robbins, 1990, p. 39). According to Mirvis, it was during this
time “that leading thinkers recognised the limits of Taylor’s… principles of scientific
management and sought to promote human relations in industry” (Mirvis, 1990, p. 16). This
field gained a major boost in 1945, when Kurt Lewin founded the Research Centre for Group
Dynamics (RCGD) at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology (MIT). By 1946, interventions
that came to be known as ‘t-groups’ (‘t’ denoting ‘training’; see ‘Sensitivity Training’, Section
3.5.1) were carried out by a number of researchers at MIT (Cummings & Worley, 2001; French
& Bell, 1994; 1999).
Despite these early beginnings, Buchanan and Huczynski (2004) pointed out that the term OD
was only coined in the late 1960s when Richard Beckhard attempted to name a consulting
programme that aimed to improve individual as well as organizational effectiveness. However,
Beckhard (1997) himself maintained that the term was first used in 1959, when “two
organizational interventions by consultants, coincidentally and simultaneously, were named
‘organization development’ efforts”. These consultants were Herbert Shepard and Robert Blake,
who implemented the Managerial Grid at the Esso Refinery in New Jersey, and Douglas
McGregor and Richard Beckhard, who conducted a culture change intervention at General Mills
in Dewey Balch (Beckhard, 1997, p. xi).
French and Bell (1994, 1999) identified four dominant OD stems in its preliminary development
phases, namely the Laboratory Training Stem, the Survey Research and Feedback Stem, the
Action Research Stem, and the Socio-Technical and Socio-Clinical Stem. The first was initiated
by the work of Kurt Lewin, particularly in the field of group dynamics, and further developed by
esteemed theorists such as Chris Argyris, Douglas McGregor, Herbert Shepard, Robert Blake,
Jane Mouton, and Richard Beckhard. The Survey Research and Feedback Stem evolved around
95
the techniques developed by Rensis Likert and other staff members at the University of
Michigan’s Survey Research Centre. Thirdly, the Action Research Stem, although intertwined
with the other stems due to their utilising the technique of action research, developed from the
1940s through the work of researchers such as William F. Whyte, Edith L. Hamilton, John
Collier and Kurt Lewin.
Finally, the Socio-Technical and Socio-Clinical Stem developed
primarily from work done at the Tavistock Institute in London by researchers such as Eric Trist
and W.R. Bion (French & Bell, 1994; 1999).
Mirvis (1988, 1990) provided a comprehensive overview of the development of OD throughout
the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. This author held that OD developed from a philosophy in the 1960s into
a focus on technology and structure in the 1970s. By the 1980s, OD had developed into an
approach that focuses on strategy and human achievement. This latter period then coincides with
the end of the certainty of the Thatcher/Reagan era in the Western world, and the emergence of
the uncertainty that is the new, changing world of work (Handy, 1996). It is then also during this
time that organisational changes started to escalate to dramatic proportions, which to some extent
explains OD’s focus on both strategy and the importance of human achievement during this era.
Given the purpose of this chapter, a more comprehensive discussion of the development of the
OD discipline is not warranted. Subsequently, Mirvis’s (1988, 1990) synopsis is summarised in
Table 3.1 below.
Table 3.1.
Developments in OD: 1960 to 1980 (Adapted from Mirvis, 1990, p. 48)
Dimension
1960s
1970s
1980s
Source of development
Personal growth
Organisational design
Organisational culture
Target of change
Person and group
Hierarchy and
Vision, values and
technology
beliefs
t-group
Power and systems lab
Theatre of inquiry
Interpersonal
Structural barriers
Competing forces
Authenticity and
Empowerment and
Self and systems
openness
engagement
responsibility
Exemplary form of
laboratory education
Resistance to change
incompetence
Desired consequences
96
Dimension
Exemplary form of
1960s
1970s
1980s
Group problem-solving
Socio-technical systems
Whole system in a room
redesign
field intervention
Bureaucracy/
Technocracy/
Marketplace/ self-
Authoritarian
Intergroup conflict
interest vs. system needs
Participation and
Political power and
Alignment and
cooperation
community
attunement
Dominant values
Humanism
Pluralism
Spirituality
Primary emphasis of
Method to solve
Methods to redistribute
Methods to generate
action research
problems
power
knowledge
Resistance to change
management
Desired consequences
Whereas Mirvis’s exposition of the development of OD ends with the 1980s, Sanzgiri and
Gottlieb (1992) identified a number of major trends that faced OD in the 1990s and continues to
challenge OD into the 21st century. These include changes in the workforce, such as employees’
increasing expectations for more meaningful work (see Chapter 5) and changes in demographic
composition; organisational structures that are more adaptive to international strategic issues and
market fluctuations (including the continuing trend of downsizing and M&As; see Section 2.4);
increasing international competition (see Section 2.3), and the need for transformational leaders 2 .
Burke (1997), in turn, addressed eight challenges that he called “the new agenda for organization
development” (p. 7). These challenges include ensuring effective and humane reengineering
(Section 2.4.3) and downsizing (Section 2.4.1); promoting community in organisations (which
may not only be a major source of social support, but may also contribute to the values that
precede the experience of meaning – see Sections 2.5 and 4.4.2 respectively); assisting
individuals in understanding the new employer-employee social contract (Section 2.5.6);
fostering career development aimed at individual employability; promoting trust through
openness, coaching and feedback; and addressing culture clashes (see Section 2.4.4) in
organisations through an emphasis on the interrelationships of cultures.
2
A defining characteristic of transformational leaders involves changing organisations through inspiring followers; gaining their
commitment, and changing their attitudes, beliefs, goals, and perspectives (Bass & Avolio, 1995; 1996; Dulewicz & Higgs; 2005;
Higgs, 2005), thereby providing meaning to followers (Boerner, Eisenbeiss & Griesser, 2007; Markow & Klenke, 2005). As will
become apparent from Chapters 4 and 5, one’s experience of meaning is intricately related to these elements of successful
organisational change. This then provides further support for the importance of meaning in facilitating organisational change,
which, in turn, supports the case for a logotherapy-based OD intervention (see also the discussion on leadership in Section
9.4.1.1).
97
Thus, the origins of OD lay in attempts to better understand group dynamics and to make the
workplace more humanistic, particularly in response to the often cold and sterile management
theories of the 1950s (Muchinsky, 2000). OD therefore clearly constituted a radical deviation
from traditional management approaches like Taylor’s scientific management and Weber’s
bureaucracy, which were dominant at the time. These approaches often focus on organisational
goals to such an extent that the needs and dynamics of the people in the organisation are
neglected (Heil et al., 2000). According to Green (2007) and Kersten (2001), contemporary
organisational theory represents organisations as rationally ordered and emotion-free (see
Section 2.5). This rationality and order are maintained by means of a preoccupation with rules,
mechanisms of control, and a compulsion to work, resulting in the suppression of emotions and
tensions 3 .
This postulation is not surprising if one considers the legacy of the Weberian
bureaucracy in many contemporary organisations (for example, a focus on rationality and
impersonal relations; Robbins, 1990). Carr (2001) expressed this notion as follows:
In our everyday experience in work organisations we have become all too familiar with the
idea that “rationality” – along with its close cousin, “efficiency” – is the sensible “good
guy” that is to be used as the touchstone by managers. In the shadows it seems there
“lurks” a perceived alternative or dichotomous “bad guy” called “emotion” or
“emotionality”. Emotion and emotionality come to be portrayed as having to be avoided
and rationality is to assume an uncontestable and privileged status.
Of course the
quintessential organisation, designed to install rationality and eliminate emotionality, is our
most pervasive organisational form – bureaucracy (p. 421)
However, OD’s deviation from Weberian and other models was not restricted to the focus on
people. Rather, it constituted a radical shift in management thinking, as is indicated in Table 3.2
below. Mirvis (1988, p. 24) stated that particularly three “intellectual developments mark[ed]
OD’s paradigm as a revolution in thinking”, namely the development of general systems theory
(see Section 2.3 and Figure 3.1), the development of “dynamic models of the change process”,
and “the development of a model for laboratory training and organizational consultation”. These
three aspects together then “proved to be a revolutionary amalgam” (p. 24).
3
Such suppression has been widely researched, particularly in the Psychodynamic School of Thought, as a possible cause of a
multitude of pathologies in both individuals (Barlow & Durand, 1999) and organisations (Kets de Vries & Miller, 1984).
98
Table 3.2.
Weberian vs. OD assumptions (adapted from Huse, 1980, p. 417)
Weberian assumptions
1. The
hierarchical
arrangement
OD assumptions
of
offices 1. Hierarchical
arrangement
may
inhibit
facilitates communication/cooperation between
communication/cooperation because of the
organisational levels.
inherent inequality between organisational
It generally assumes
organising according to function is ‘best’.
levels. Organisation according to function is
not always best; other forms, like matrix or
collateral, may be superior.
2. The most competent people rise to the top of 2. Emphasises the authority of knowledge and
the organisation. Thus, centralised forms of
competence, as well as the importance of
organisation are best because most competent
locating decision making as close to the source
people are involved.
of information as possible.
3. Formalising of acts and decisions in writing 3. Focus is on relevant results, not paperwork.
protects the organisation from information
Therefore, reduce paperwork criteria as far as
loss/distortion and helps ensure stability.
possible.
4. Implicitly
accepts
a
policy/administration 4. Effectiveness is partially the result of paying
dichotomy – impersonal, impartial treatment of
attention to emotions, which are legitimised
client fosters fairness and efficiency.
and accepted as an integral part of life. Seeks
to integrate individual and organisational goals.
Emphasises personal development; man is not
an objective, emotionless machine.
5. Establishes
rules,
procedures,
regulations, 5. Manage according to relevant objectives and
policies, etc., encourages a rational approach to
not ‘past practices’ or traditions.
task accomplishment.
6. The
uniform
application
of
rules
and 6. Goals are specifically tailored to individual
classifying personnel according to the function
employee’s circumstances, and may change
performed, leads to greatest efficiency.
even within the same classification category.
7. Authority:obedience-based relationships
7. Authority is accepted as important, but
confidence and trust are emphasised.
8. Emphasis is on individual skills, abilities and 8. Emphasises importance of individual, but also
accomplishments.
focuses on relationships between/within group.
99
Over the past 50 years, OD has progressed from programmes aimed specifically at individual
behavioural change, to strategic system-wide interventions that encompass both individual and
organisational effectiveness (Farias & Johnson, 2000).
Thus, put into change terms,
contemporary OD facilitates both first- and second-order change (see Section 2.4). In this
regard, Chapman (2002) indicated that whereas OD was traditionally aimed at successfully
achieving incremental change, it is increasingly concerned with facilitating organisational
transformation 4 . Chapman further went on to provide an overview of the core differences
between first- and second-order change from an OD perspective.
These differences are
summarised in Table 3.3 below.
Table 3.3.
Core differences between first- and second-order change from an OD perspective (adapted from
Chapman, 2002, p. 17)
Central OD issues
Core elements of first-order change
Core elements of second-order change
Nature and scope •
Organisations are discrete focal •
Organisations
of
units
overlapping systems
organisations
and the purpose of •
Change
change
performance
improves
organisational •
and
Change
are
improves
organisational
individual
individual
development
multiple
internal
performance
development,
and
and
interlinks purposes with business
partners and society
Change
•
management
strategy
•
•
Primary change levers are people, •
Primary change levers are attitudes,
processes or structures
beliefs and values
Secondary
change
levers
are •
Secondary
change
levers
attitudes, beliefs and values
processes, structures and systems
Participation and collaboration are •
Involvement
enablers of change
informed
by
of
stakeholders
the
notion
are
is
of
“organisational citizenship”
Change agent
•
CEOs are drivers of change
roles
•
Those
affected
by
•
change
CEOs provide visionary leadership
and enable change
4
In Section 2.4, it was pointed out that in this study, no evaluative stance is taken with regard to the relative value of either
approach to organisational change. However, it was also pointed out that the nature of second-order change implies that it is
substantially more demanding, and has a greater probability of failure.
100
Central OD issues
Core elements of first-order change
participate in the change process
•
Core elements of second-order change
•
External consultants facilitate the
change agents
•
change process
All members of the system can be
External consultants partner the
change process
Regarding the above perspectives, a growing debate exists within the change management
literature regarding the difference between OD and organisational transformation (see Section
2.4), so much so that some leading authors have incorporated the concept of transformation into
their traditional OD titles (see, for example, French, Bell & Zawacki, 1994b; Cummings &
Worley, 2001). Others, such as Bartunek and Reis Louis (1988), have gone so far as to identify
the differences and similarities between these two perspectives. What is more, debates also
continue in the literature regarding the exact nature, definition and scope of OD. Nevertheless,
most authors agree that its primary focus remains on the human component of the organisation,
particularly in the context of organisational change (e.g. Beckhard, 1969; 1994; 1997; Burke,
1997; Cummings & Worley, 2001; French & Bell, 1994; 1999; Grieves, 2000; Huse, 1980;
Mirvis, 1988; 1990; Porras & Robertson, 1992; Sanzgiri & Gottlieb, 1992). Entering into these
debates is beyond the scope of this study. Subsequently, for the purposes of this study, OD is
assumed to encompass the characteristics as pointed out above.
Mullins (1999) emphasised the human focus of OD by stating that an “organisation is made up of
people. When we talk about organisation development it is important to remember that, in
practice, we are referring to the development and performance of those individuals and groups of
people who comprise the organisation” (p. 708; emphasis removed). Given the essential role of
people in successful organisational change, and the potentially devastating effects that such
change holds for individuals (see Chapter 2), it is apparent that such human-centred interventions
may be critical to ensure the competitive advantage of organisations. Farias and Johnson (2000)
confirmed this importance by stating that:
101
The evidence is quite clear, whether it be from reengineering, downsizing, or highperformance work systems, that change without a people focus does not have great a chance
for success … OD … [would not] exist if people-related issues did not surface in the context
of change.
And addressing people-related issues without humanistic values would be
nothing short of manipulation (p. 378).
Although OD was initiated more than half a century ago, its popularity seems not to have waned
like that of many other approaches. For example, popular academic texts in this field are
continuously updated and newer editions published (e.g. Cummings & Worley, 2001; French &
Bell, 1999). OD also progressed as a social movement, as “marked by the codification of OD
knowledge in journals in texts, the developments of training programs for students and
practitioners, and the establishment of professional associations and forums” (Mirvis, 1988, p.
21).
Furthermore, its philosophical foundations are also becoming increasingly popular in
contemporary organisational change literature and practice.
For example, Mirvis (1990)
contended that “wellness and spirit”, as “touchy, feely” as they are, are again “central aspirations
for individuals and a focal point of intervention in organizations” (p. 3). This is also reflected in
the emergence of a focus on meaning in work and the workplace, as discussed in Chapter 5.
Related to the above, a study conducted by Hurley, Church, Burke and Van Eynde (1997) found
that humanistic values are still seen as the core of OD. These authors postulated that this
humanistic orientation may be summarised as being aimed at “improving organizational life for
all members” (p. 80). Hurley et al. also found that OD still places a strong emphasis on the
effectiveness of organisations through “adding business value” and “improving organisational
efficiency and bottom line-results” (p. 80), as is apparent from the ranking of the top five values
which were driving OD at that stage. These values are, in rank order, 1) Increasing effectiveness
and efficiency; 2) Creating openness and communication; 3) Empowering employees to act; 4)
Enhancing productivity, and 5) Promoting organisational participation. This reflects the tension
that continues to exist in OD between the promotion of humanistic values and focusing on
“bottom-line productivity” (Hurley et al., 1997, p. 86). Sanzgiri and Gottlieb (1992) maintained
that despite these factors and tensions, the OD practitioner’s role “remains with the process and
human aspects of the work environment”, as it is this focus that helps OD “define itself as a field
with a unique and meaningful contribution” (p. 67).
102
For the purposes of this study, these arguments are essential. Not only is the proposed OD
intervention aimed at benefiting both employees and organisations by addressing the ‘softer’
aspects of organisational change (see Section 2.5), but it is also intended to make a ‘unique and
meaningful contribution’ to both the field of OD and industrial psychology by putting in place
the first OD intervention based on logotherapeutic theory and practice (see Sections 1.4, 1.7 and
1.8). Whereas these contentions are further explored in the subsequent chapters, the role of the
OD practitioner and OD’s humanistic values are addressed in Section 3.3 below.
3.3. Conceptualising OD
In the literature, OD is conceptualised in myriad ways. According to Newstrom and Davis
(1997, p. 416), OD refers to “the systematic application of behavioral science knowledge at
various levels… to bring about planned change”. Beckhard (1994) defined OD as “an effort (1)
planned, (2) organizationwide, 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” (p. 21; emphasis in original). Cummings and Worley
(2001, p. 1) saw OD as “a system wide application of behavioral science knowledge to the
planned development, improvement, and reinforcement of the strategies, structures, and
processes that lead to organizational effectiveness”. Finally, French and Bell (1999) contended
that OD is
a long-term effort, led and supported by top management, to improve an organization’s
visioning, empowerment, learning and problem-solving processes, through an ongoing,
collaborative management of organization culture – with special emphasis on the culture of
intact work teams and other team configurations – using the consultant facilitator role and
the theory and technology of applied behavioral science, including action research (pp. 2526).
A number of central themes may be derived from the above explications. Firstly, OD is based on
behavioural scientific knowledge 5 . Orpen (1981, p. 120) contended that the behavioural sciences
5
Other authors (Massarik & Pei-Carpenter, 2002; Spector, 2000) pointed out that much OD knowledge and application is based
on disciplines such as anthropology and economics.
103
refer to subjects (e.g. industrial psychology, psychology, and sociology) concerned with “the
scientific study of [human] behaviour in all its aspects”. Consistent with the assumption that
“change in the behavior of individual organizational members [is] a necessary prerequisite for
meaningful and lasting organizational change” (Porras & Robertson, 1992, p. 72), then, OD
emphasises an understanding of applied behavioural science for the understanding and
implementing of successful organisational change (Sanzgiri & Gottlieb, 1992). Secondly, OD is
aimed at implementing planned change. In Chapter 2 it was indicated that this study focuses on
planned changes. Subsequently, the notion of planned change enjoys a separate discussion in
Section 3.4.
A third theme evident in the above definitions is that OD is implemented in various
organisational subsystems. OD is based on a systems orientation (see Section 2.3), particularly
as it is “concerned with the interactions of various parts of the organization as they affect one
another” (Newstrom & Davis, 1997, p. 416), and ultimately focuses on “total systems change”
(Huse, 1980, p. 3). The subsystems affected by OD are further discussed in Section 2.4.
Fourthly, OD is aimed at reaching organisational goals and improving organisational
effectiveness 6 . This is consistent with the notion that the achievement of organisational success
is becoming increasingly dependent upon effective organisational change. Finally, OD fulfils its
goals by taking a more humanistic approach to managing people and change. Hosking and Bass
(2001) stated in this regard that “OD has been heavily influenced by humanistic psychology…
there’s been lots of attention to people’s values, their feelings and emotions and their perceptions
of themselves and others” (p. 349).
As was noted above (see Section 3.2), it is primarily this humanistic basis that differentiates OD
from other perspectives on change. For example, McLachlin (2000) maintained that the main
difference between OD and other forms of management consulting is that OD has a stronger
focus on humanistic concerns. Thus, whereas other approaches emphasise effectiveness and
efficiency, OD accentuates such human-centred elements as “respect for individual potential and
growth, an emphasis on decentralising and democratizing organisations, the promotion of a
6
Massarik and Pei-Carpenter (2002), as well as Mastenbroek (1993) emphasised that despite OD’s focus being on aspects such
as personal development and improving social relationships, it has a definite concern for addressing stakeholder satisfaction,
increasing productivity, and achieving financial goals.
104
systemic view of organisations and related change efforts, and a strong focus on group process
and dynamics” (Church, Burke & Van Eynde, in McLachlin, 2000, p. 243). This is further
supported by De Greene’s (1982, p. 54) postulation that
the biggest impact of OD, however, may not be on objective organizational outputs like
productivity and profits in specific companies, but rather on maintaining, perhaps even
increasing, the collective momentum towards more humanistic organizations.
“OD’s core beliefs and values can be found in McGregor’s (1960) Theory Y assumptions
(discussed below) about human nature and in Maslow’s (1954) conception of self-actualization.
These humanistic perspectives stressed people’s potential to learn and grow in their work and to
contribute and express themselves more fully in humanly designed organizations” (Mirvis, 1988,
p. 5). Whereas McGregor played a leading role in the establishment of OD as a discipline (see
Section 3.2), Maslow is commonly regarded as the father of humanistic psychology (see Section
4.4.1.2 for a discussion of his most famous work – the hierarchy of needs) (Hergenhahn, 1997).
Both Maslow and McGregor believed that one is inherently motivated to fulfil one’s needs, and
that the alignment of one’s needs with organisational goals would contribute to organisational
performance (Heil et al., 2000; McGregor, 1960; Maslow, 1954; 1998). Ignoring individual
needs may therefore inhibit organisational effectiveness.
Similar to McGregor and Maslow, Carl Rogers, whose client- (or person-) centred therapy
defined the open and facilitative role played by OD practitioners (Mirvis, 1988), believed that the
individual has inherent resources for “self-understanding, for altering his or her self-concept,
attitudes and self-directed behavior”, but only if a “climate of facilitative psychological attitudes
can be provided” (Rogers, 1987, p. 1). Likewise, a fundamental proposition in OD is that
“individuals have needs for personal growth and development”, and that these needs “are most
likely to be satisfied in an supportive and challenging environment” (Huse, 1980, p. 29). The
utilisation of this inherent human potential, then, requires that organisational conditions be
arranged in such a way that people can achieve their best by directing their efforts toward
organisational objectives (McGregor, 1960; 2000b).
105
As is apparent from the previous paragraph, McGregor’s (1960) Theory Y also had a significant
impact on OD’s value base. Briefly, McGregor (1960; 2000b) contended that managers’ views
of human nature are based on one of two groupings of assumptions, namely Theory X and
Theory Y. These assumptions, as summarised in Table 3.4 below, determine the nature of
managerial behaviour towards subordinates. McGregor argued that organisational success can
be promoted if managers change their assumptions, as Theory Y managers will contribute to
both employees reaching self-actualisation and organisations reaching their objectives.
Table 3.4.
Theory X vs. Theory Y (Adapted from McGregor, 2000b, pp. 132 & 140)
Theory X
•
Theory Y
The average individual is by nature indolent •
People are not by nature passive or resistant to
and works as little as possible. He/she lacks
organisational needs – they have become so as
ambition, dislikes responsibility, and prefers to
a result of their experience in organisations
•
be led
•
•
•
•
The motivation, the potential for development,
The average individual is inherently self-
the capacity for assuming responsibility, the
centred and indifferent to organisational needs
readiness
This employee is gullible, not very bright, the
organisational goals are all present in people. It
ready dupe of the charlatan and the demagogue
is the responsibility of management to make it
Management
possible for people to recognise and develop
is
responsible
for
directing
to
direct
behaviour
towards
people’s efforts, motivating them, controlling
these human characteristics for themselves
their actions, and modifying their behaviour to •
The essential task of management is to arrange
fit the needs of the organisation
organisational conditions and methods of
Without this active intervention (persuasion,
operation so that people can achieve their own
reward, punishment, control) by management,
best by directing their own efforts toward
people will be passive, even resistant, to
organisational objectives
organisational needs
Inherent in Theory Y is thus the assumption that people have the capacity to develop their
potential, but that it is the responsibility of the organisation to provide the context in which this
may happen. Accordingly, the fundamental propositions of humanistic psychology infer that the
individual has the capacity for development, given the right circumstances. To further illustrate
106
these contentions, Table 3.5 below provides a synopsis of some of the fundamental propositions
of humanistic psychology.
Table 3.6 offers an overview of the values and assumptions
underlying OD. A comparison of these two tables, clearly shows the strong humanistic influence
on the development of OD.
Table 3.5.
The basic tenets of humanistic psychology (compiled from Greening, 1998; Hergenhahn, 1997).
•
•
•
•
The ultimate concern is with valuing the dignity •
People exist in both a uniquely human context
and worth of humans and an interest in
and a cosmic ecology
developing the potential inherent in every •
Attempts should be made to unmask that which
person
enrich the experiences of the individual
Human beings supersede the sum of their parts •
Addressing human problems should be the
and cannot be reduced to components
focus of research
Human behaviour is intentional, primarily •
More is learnt from the study of individuals
guided by subjective reality, and strives for
than from similarities between groups of
goals, meaning, value and creativity
individuals
Human beings are conscious (aware of being •
Psychology should be aimed at completely
aware).
describing the meaning of being a human being
Such consciousness includes an
awareness of oneself in the context of other •
The individual has choices, and with that,
people
responsibilities
107
Table 3.6.
Assumptions and values underlying OD (adapted from Hellriegel & Slocum, 1989, p. 800; Huse, 1980,
pp. 29-30; Newstrom & Davis, 1997, p. 417)
Assumptions
Values
Individuals:
Individuals:
•
People want to grow and mature
•
•
Employees have much to offer (e.g. creativity
human tendency to grow, enabling employees
and energy) that is not being used at work
to contribute more to the organisation
•
OD aims to overcome obstacles to the natural
Most employees desire the opportunity to
•
OD stresses open communication
contribute (they desire, seek and appreciate
•
Treating employees with genuine dignity and
empowerment)
respect is emphasised
Groups:
Groups:
•
•
•
Groups and teams are critical to organisational
success and individual need satisfaction
group diminishes individual willingness to
Groups have powerful influences on individual
solve problems constructively
•
behaviour
•
Hiding feelings or not being accepted by the
Acceptance, collaboration and involvement lead
to expressions of feelings and perceptions
The complex roles to be played in groups
require skill development
Organisation:
Organisation:
•
•
Excessive controls, policies and rules are
detrimental
•
effectiveness
•
Conflict can be functional if properly
channelled
•
Change should start at the top and gradually be
introduced through the rest of the organisation
•
Individual and organisational goals can be
compatible
•
The way groups are linked, influences their
The group links the top and bottom of the
organisation
In most organisations, the level of interpersonal
support, trust and cooperation is lower than
desirable and necessary
108
Other humanistic values underlying OD, include human development and growth, fairness,
openness, choice, freedom, dignity, potential, autonomy, human worth, equality and equity,
respect, empowerment, democracy, trust, honesty, teamwork, collaboration, informed decision
making, community, diversity and meaningful participation (Burke, 1997; Hurley et al., 1997;
Wooten & White, 1999; Xenikou & Simosi, 2006). Olson and Eoyang (2001) contended that
whatever the intervention and however it is executed, these humanistic values are prioritised and
the personal growth of the individual employee is emphasised. Schein (1994) expressed the
importance of humanistic psychology and its value for the success of the organisation in the
following:
[G]iven [rapid change] that requires a great adaptive capacity on the part of organizations,
how can internal environments be created such that members of organizations will be
enabled to grow in their own unique capacities? The underlying assumption is that unless
such personal growth takes place, the organization will not be prepared to cope effectively
with an unpredictable changing external environment (p. 7).
From the above arguments, it may be inferred that by adhering to humanistic principles, OD may
contribute to the personal growth that Schein denoted as potentially crucial for successful
organisational change. In so doing, OD thus addresses organisational effectiveness in ways that
are acceptable to employees (Greenberg & Baron, 1993). The role of OD in organisational
change is further discussed in the subsequent section.
3.4. Scope and focus of OD
Research has shown that a systemic or holistic perspective is of critical importance in effectively
managing change. According to Hall, Rosenthal and Wade (in Cao et al., 2003), taking a
reductionist view of organisational change, where initiatives are implemented without
considering their impact on all systems (or the interaction between these systems), often leads to
improvements in the change focus areas, but a decline in the organisation’s overall functioning.
French and Bell (1990) presented an open systems-oriented model that demonstrates the different
subsystems of the organisation that may be influenced by OD. An adapted version of this model
is presented in Figure 3.1 below.
109
External interface subsystem
Task
subsystem
Inputs
Technological
subsystem
Goal
subsystem
Structural
subsystem
Outcomes
Human-social
subsystem
Feedback
Figure 3.1.
Major organisational subsystems (adapted from French & Bell, 1990, p. 54)
In this figure, the interdependency within the organisation, as proposed by the systems
perspective (see Section 2.3), is indicated by the overlaps between the subsystems. Furthermore,
and also consistent with the systems perspective, the ‘external interface subsystem’ indicates that
the organisation is in continuous interaction with its external environment (see Section 2.3.1).
The location of the goal subsystem in the centre of the figure indicates that all the other
subsystems are strategically directed, and that organisational changes in the other subsystems are
often of a strategic nature, so as to promote organisational goals.
Additional clarification regarding this model is provided by Table 3.7 below, which gives an
overview of the major aspects associated with each of these subsystems. These organisational
subsystems are of particular significance, as they not only encapsulate the levels of
organisational change identified earlier (see Section 2.2), but the large-scale organisational
changes discussed in Section 2.4 also take place within them. The latter contention is addressed
in Section 3.5 below.
110
Table 3.7.
Aspects included in organisational subsystems (adapted from French & Bell, 1990, pp. 54-56)
Subsystem
Aspects Included
External
•
Data sensing and collecting (e.g. market or public reaction surveys)
interface
•
Resource procurement (e.g. recruitment and selection, purchasing)
•
Output placement or exchanges of outputs for resources
•
Environmental influencing (e.g. advertising, public relations)
•
Responses to external demands (e.g. governmental regulations)
•
Skills and abilities of organisational members
•
Leadership philosophy and style
•
Formal subsystems (personnel subsystems)
Human-social
•
Staffing, rewards, appraisal, bargaining, justice
Informal subsystem (non-programmed activities and interactions)
-
Resistant and competitive behaviours and coalitions
-
Norms and values, sentiments (feelings) and status
Task
•
Subdivision of total work to be accomplished into tasks and subtasks
Technological
•
Artefacts and knowledge to produce end product:
Structural
Goal
-
Tools, machines, procedures, methods, technical knowledge
-
Financial and information technology systems
•
Organisational subdivision
•
Rules and authority
•
Communication (including feedback)
•
Work flow
•
Planning, coordination, control
•
Decision-making
•
Super-ordinate goals (as usually expressed in organisational mission or charter)
•
Sub-unit goals
•
Programme goals
In Section 2.2, it was shown that – consistent with open systems theory – employee behaviours
might be affected by changes in any of the other subsystems. What is more, these behaviours
were indicated as being crucially important for organisational effectiveness and the success of
111
change efforts. Thus, it is clear that the human-social subsystem is of great importance to
organisational success. Accordingly, French and Bell (1990, p. 54) indicated that “the humansocial subsystem is the initial change target” (p. 54) of OD interventions. Similarly, Stephens
and Cobb (1999) emphasised that “OD works through the human/social subsystem to accomplish
organizational change” (p. 24), whereas Mullins (1999) described OD as change interventions
aimed at the “social processes of an organisation” (p. 708). This reflects what Porras and
Robertson (1992) deemed OD’s two primary purposes: “the improvement in the organization’s
ability to perform [and] improvement of the organization’s members – that is, their psychological
well-being, their level of self-actualization or realization, and their capabilities” (p. 723). Thus,
the “basic purpose of OD is not only to help organizations become more adept at self-renewal
and survival, but also to ensure that the human values of organizational members are furthered”
(Huse, 1980, p. 17). These statements then not only indicate that OD may play a vital role in
ensuring organisational adaptation, but also reiterate one of the primary objectives of OD –
facilitating planned change.
Organisational survival may be highly unlikely for static and reactive organisations in a changing
society (Szilagyi & Wallace, 1983). Consequently, numerous models have been developed to
facilitate planned change. However, Schein (1994, p. 238) argued that there “is little question
that the intellectual father of contemporary theories of… planned change is Kurt Lewin”.
Similarly, Burnes (2004) argued that the planned change approach originated with Lewin.
Lewin, who is commonly regarded as the father of the field of group dynamics (see Section 3.2
for insight into his role in establishing OD), is not only credited with relating organisational
change to scientific research (Heller, 1998), but also with providing OD with “its first model of
action research in his conception of change” (Mirvis, 1988, p. 6).
Despite accumulated
criticism 7 since its introduction, Lewin’s (1951) change model is regarded as classic
(McGuinness & Morgan, 2005; Roberto & Levesque, 2005), which is apparent from its frequent
discussion in the change management, organisation development, organisational behaviour, and
7
For example, whereas some authors view Lewin’s model as being too mechanistic and having an overly-simplistic view of
organisations, others contend that it is “wildly inappropriate” (Kanter, Stein & Jick, 1992, p. 10) in the contemporary era of
radical organisational change – particularly as the speed of change and the magnitude of uncertainty preclude the completion of
the refreezing stage (e.g. Gratton, 2000; Landrum, Howell & Paris, 2000; Mack, Nelson & Campbell-Quick, in Vakola &
Nikolaou, 2005; Peters & Waterman, 1982).
112
organisational learning literature (see, for example, Burnes, 1996, 2004; Coghlan, 1998;
Counsell et al., 2005; Cummings & Worley, 2001; De Greene, 1982; French & Bell, 1999;
Heller, 1998; Hellriegel et al., 1998; Hendry, 1996; Hunsaker & Cook, 1986; Marks, 1997;
McShane & Von Glinow, 2000; Mullins, 1999; Robbins et al., 2003; Tsoukas, 2005). Schein
(1992, 1994, 1996) elaborated upon Lewin’s model by describing the psychological processes
necessary in each stage to bring about successful change. The subsequent paragraphs, then,
present a synthesis of Lewin’s model and Schein’s contributions.
Lewin (1951) proceeded from the assumption that behaviour at any particular moment in time is
the result of two conflicting forces, namely driving forces and restraining forces, which
constitute opposite sides on what Lewin termed the Force Field Analysis Model. Whereas
driving forces direct behaviour away from the status quo, restraining forces restrict such
movement. When these two forces are equal, the status quo is maintained at a state of “quasistationary equilibrium” (Lewin, 1999, p. 279). Change, then, results from an alteration in these
forces. In particular, movement from the equilibrium can be brought about by means of one of
three courses of action. Firstly, the driving forces can be increased. Secondly, the restraining
forces can be decreased. Finally, a combination of these can be applied. This movement is
illustrated in Figure 3.2 below.
113
Restraining
forces
Desired
conditions
Restraining
forces
Driving
forces
Driving
forces
Restraining
forces
Current
conditions
Driving
forces
Before change
Figure 3.2.
After change
Lewin’s Force-Field Analysis (adapted from McShane &
Von Glinow, 2000, p. 471)
Lewin (1951) proposed three steps in the change process, namely unfreezing, moving, and
refreezing (see Figure 3.3 below). During unfreezing, motivation to change is created and the
forces that maintain current behaviour are reduced.
Present conceptions and practices are
rejected in favour of new ones that need to be learned through a deliberate “emotional stir up” in
order to “break open the shell of complacency and self righteousness” in organisations (Lewin,
1951, p. 229). This is consistent with Kotter’s (1995, 1996) change framework, which postulates
the creation of a sense of urgency and a need for change as essential to achieve successful
change. According to Armenakis and Harris (2002), unfreezing is concerned with employees
becoming prepared for the change and “ideally [becoming] its supporters” (p. 169), thus
corresponding to readiness for change (Section 2.7). Similarly, Rashid et al. (2004) contended
that the effectiveness of organisational change is dependent upon the challenging and
clarification of employees’ beliefs, assumptions and attitudes, whereas Bartunek and Reis Louis
(1988) proposed that a fundamental tenet of OD is that “there must be some unfreezing event
that initiates change” (p. 127).
114
Current
state
Unfreeze
Figure 3.3.
Intervention(s)
Movement
Desired
future
state
Refreeze
Lewin’s Change Model (adapted from Marshak, 1997, p. 61)
Schein (1994, 1996) contended that the creation of a motivation to change during this unfreezing
phase is dependent upon three processes or mechanisms. Firstly, there must be a sufficient
amount of disconfirming data that will indicate that organisational goals are not being met. Such
data will create discomfort and disequilibrium in the organisation. Secondly, these data will
create a state of anxiety or guilt, as important objectives are not being met. Finally, a state of
psychological safety must be created to prevent such anxiety or guilt from resulting in a loss of
identity or integrity, as this may cause individuals to deny the disconfirming data. Such denial
resembles resistance to change, as it may result in no changes taking place. In this regard,
Morgan (1997) stated that “[p]eople are reluctant to relax their hold on existing realities unless
they feel that they have [a safe environment to which they can] turn. That’s why so many
organizational change programs are so threatening” (p. 14).
Upon completion of unfreezing, the second stage, moving, is implemented. During this phase,
interventions aimed at bringing about changes in behaviours, attitudes and values are to be
implemented, as unfreezing results in individuals being open to “new sources of information and
new concepts or new ways of looking at old information” (Schein, 1994, p. 245). Schein (1996)
called such change ‘cognitive redefinition’, and held that it is a crucial mechanism that must
precede behaviour changes if such changes are to be sustained. He also held that the information
that makes cognitive redefinition possible is obtained from two sources, namely identification
and environmental scanning. Identification involves one learning the new state of things from
somebody with which one can identify, like a mentor, role model or friend. Environmental
scanning, in turn, encompasses one searching for information that can help address particular
issues in the environment.
115
In Section 3.5 below, a number of interventions aimed at bringing about movement are
discussed.
The decision regarding which interventions are to be utilised to bring about
movement, then, may be influenced by the type of management system dominant in the
organisation. Classic research conducted by Likert (1967) identified four such management
systems.
The Exploitative Authoritative System, known as System 1, is characterised by
centralised decision making, autocratic leadership, the use of punishment and rewards to
motivate employees, and downward communication. The Benevolent Authoritative System, or
System 2, allows somewhat more communication, interaction, and decision making, but within
the boundaries set by a paternalistic management style. In System 3, the Consultative System,
management still make the final decisions, but employees are consulted with in this regard.
Finally, the Participative Group System (System 4) to a large extent constitutes the opposite of
System 1, and is characterised by involvement and participation by employees as regards goal
setting, decision making, improvements and the evaluation of outcomes (see Section 2.6.1). This
system also promotes more open communication, both laterally and vertically.
From Likert’s (1967) propositions, the deduction may be made that these systems lie on a
dimension of performance and employee satisfaction 8 , where System 1 constitutes the lower end,
and System 4 the higher. As was pointed out in Section 2.6.1, the level of employee satisfaction
with the way changes are implemented may exert a significant influence on the level of
resistance to or acceptance of changes, which indicates the importance of understanding these
different systems.
Robbins (1990) cited research that to some extent provides support for Likert’s theory.
According to these findings, change implementation is most often executed by means of four
tactics. When the ‘Edict’ tactic is used, management simply announce their decision to change
and proceed without any employee participation. This technique has been shown to be the least
successful of the four discussed here, which supports Likert’s proposal that System 1, the
Exploitative Authoritative System, is the most ineffective in attaining performance and employee
satisfaction. The second technique, ‘Intervention’, involves ‘selling’ the rationale for change to
8
The level of employee satisfaction with how change is implemented may exert an influence on the degree to which they resist or
support changes (see Section 2.6.1).
116
those affected, but the method decided upon by those in control is still implemented. The third
tactic, ‘Persuasion’, involves the use of persuasive techniques to sell ideas regarding change
implementation, but the decision in this regard is essentially abdicated to either external experts
or interested affected individuals. Finally, Robbins (1990) reported that the most successful
technique encompasses communicating the need to change to those individuals who will be
affected, after which the implementation decision is delegated to these individuals. This tactic is
known as ‘Participation’, and clearly demonstrates some of the characteristics of Likert’s System
4 discussed above 9 .
During the final phase of Lewin’s (1951) model, refreezing, the organisation is stabilised at a
new equilibrium state. A balance is achieved between the driving and restraining forces in order
to reinforce the new, post-change situation. Refreezing is a critical stage, as it prevents the
changed behaviours and attitudes from reverting back to what they were before initiating
unfreezing. Schein (1994, 1996) contended that two mechanisms are crucial to ensure such
refreezing, namely personal and relational refreezing.
For change to be successful, the individual must have the opportunity to ascertain the degree to
which the new behaviours or attitudes are congruent with his or her personality, to the extent
where they can be integrated comfortably.
This, then, is known as personal refreezing.
Relational refreezing, in turn, encompasses ascertaining the extent to which one’s “significant
others will accept and confirm the new attitudes and behavior patterns” (Schein, 1994, p. 246;
emphasis in original). Schein held that if the latter does not occur, the change programme should
be aimed at groups who are capable of strengthening the desired behaviour patterns or attitudes
in one another. Through these two forms of refreezing one then gains confirmation of the
information attained during the moving phase; confirmation that is critical in preventing one
from reverting back to the previous state.
Regarding the scope and focus of OD, the explicit assumption was made that although OD may
influence all organisational subsystems, its primary aim is to bring about change in the humansocial subsystem. It was subsequently shown that human change can be brought about in three
9
These discussions clearly reflect the arguments posed with regard to empowerment in Section 2.6.1.
117
phases – unfreeze, move, and refreeze – each involving certain psychological mechanisms to
ensure its success. Bovey and Hede (2001) pointed out the crucial importance of such individual
change by stating:
Because organisations consist ultimately of people, organisational change essentially
involves personal change. Change requires the participation of people who must first
change themselves for organisational change to succeed (p. 535).
It was argued that change interventions are to be implemented in the moving phase, as
unfreezing results in individuals being more susceptible to new ways of doing things.
Consequently, a number of OD interventions that may be applied, are discussed.
3.5. OD interventions
Argyris (1994, p. 135) stated that to “intervene is to enter into an ongoing system of relationship,
to come between or among persons, groups, or objects for the purpose of helping them”. OD
interventions may then be aimed at establishing a ‘helping’ relationship in five target areas in
particular: the individual, dyads/triads, teams and groups, intergroup relations, and the total
organisation (French & Bell, 1999). Thus, OD “can be applied to any or all levels of the
organization” (De Greene, 1982, p. 53).
Grieves (2000, p. 345) provided a number of conditions under which OD interventions are
typically required in the organisation. These are the need to change a managerial strategy; to
make the organisational climate consistent with both individual needs and the changing needs of
the environment; to change cultural norms; to change structures and roles; to improve intergroup
collaboration; to open up the communications system; for better planning; for coping with
problems of mergers; for change in workforce motivation, and for adapting to the new
environment. To these conditions, this study adds that OD interventions are also required when
the meaning found by individuals in the organisation is under threat (see Chapters 1 and 5).
Ackerman (1997), distinguished between a number of OD interventions that may be applied in a
variety of change contexts. These are summarised in Table 3.8 below.
118
Table 3.8.
Different types of change and levels of the organisation to which OD may be applied (adapted from
Ackerman, 1997, p. 55)
Purpose
Application
Sample Technologies
Develop-
Improve, do better, logical Individuals, groups, or whole Team
ment
adjustments
operations,
to
normal organisations
attention
Problem
solving; Conflict resolution;
to
Survey-Feedback; Training;
human needs
Transition
building;
Job Enrichment
Achieve/implement a known Individuals, groups, or whole Impact analysis; Transition
desired future state that is organisations
structures
different than the existing
running parallel to on-going
state; balance human and
operation; Design by level;
organisational needs during
Transition
change
Re-establishment of “order”
resources,
manager/plans;
Transfor-
Facilitate/allow
mation
emergence of a new state of individuals, groups and total context
for
being through the death of system
Alignment
of
the old; focus on potential
energy flow; Using myth and
and
individuals
ritual; Building critical mass;
transform as well as total
Creating collective intention;
system
Changing belief systems
spirit;
the Whole
and
organisations: Visioning
and
creating
change;
forms
for
Despite Ackerman’s classification, however, the assumption inherent in OD is that an
intervention at any level will improve organisational effectiveness. In this regard, both the
principle of diffusion (Katz & Kahn, 1978) and the theory of syndrome dynamics (Maslow,
1998) assume that an improvement in the smallest part of the system will result in improvements
throughout the larger system. To illustrate, Maslow (1998) contended that “… the better the
workers… the better the enterprise… the better the world” (p. 137).
In Figure 3.1, an illustration of the major organisational subsystems was provided. Within each
of these subsystems, then, certain OD interventions may occur. Table 3.9 below summarises a
number of these approaches. As was noted in Section 3.1, the aim of this study is not to provide
a comprehensive overview of these approaches, but rather to focus on the human-social
119
subsystem. In particular, the attitudes inherent in resistance to change – as well as its polar
opposite readiness for change (see Sections 2.6 and 2.7) – is to be addressed by means of an
intervention based on logotherapeutic principles (see Chapters 4 and 5).
Table 3.9.
Examples of OD interventions occurring in the major organisational subsystems
Subsystem
Human-Social Subsystem
External Interface Subsystem
Task Subsystem
Technological Subsystem
Goal Subsystem
Structural Subsystem
Change focus
Techniques
ƒ
Personal change
ƒ
Attitude modification
ƒ
Group dynamics
ƒ
Change management:
o
Culture
o
Climate
ƒ
Re-strategising
ƒ
Strategic planning
ƒ
Re-positioning
ƒ
External risk analysis
ƒ
PEST analysis
ƒ
SWOT analysis
ƒ
Process-based work
ƒ
BPR
ƒ
Work teams
ƒ
Job redesign
ƒ
Worker-machine interface
ƒ
Ergonomics
ƒ
Systems speed
ƒ
BPR
ƒ
Systems accuracy
ƒ
Mechanisation of processes
ƒ
User-friendliness
ƒ
Information technology
ƒ
Enterprise resource planning
ƒ
Organisational efficiency
ƒ
M&As
ƒ
Organisational effectiveness
ƒ
Strategic re-alignment
ƒ
Competitive advantage
ƒ
Flow of communication
ƒ
Restructuring
ƒ
Flow of work
ƒ
Downsizing
ƒ
Flow of authority
ƒ
De-layering
ƒ
Decision making
ƒ
Empowerment
As can be deduced from the above table, a number of OD interventions may exert an influence
over multiple subsystems in the organisation – be it directly or indirectly.
This is again
consistent with the open systems approach (see Section 2.2). Furthermore, it was shown in
120
Section 2.2 that changes at any level of the organisation affect its people – that is, the humansocial subsystem. The importance of interventions aimed at this subsystem addressing as many
aspects as possible to facilitate effective organisational change is therefore apparent. This
provides further support to the objective of this study – establishing an intervention that
addresses the human need for meaning and purpose in life.
Table 3.9 above further also illustrates that the interventions aimed at the external interface
subsystem encompass, for example. re-strategising and re-positioning.
The technological
subsystem, in turn, is often subjected to BPR (see Section 2.4.3) – a change strategy driven by
information technology. BPR is also associated with job redesign (Hellriegel et al., 1998), which
implies changes in the task system. Changes in the latter subsystem are also characterised by
interventions such as task redesign, as is evident in Cascio’s (1995) contention that a shift is
taking place from a “task-based [to] a process-based organization of work” (p. 932). Whereas
changes in the structural subsystem often involve organisational restructuring (Section 2.4.2), the
role of strategic concerns in contemporary M&A activities (Marks, 1997) places M&As in the
goal subsystem (together with interventions such as strategic re-alignment).
Finally,
interventions utilised in the human-social subsystem are mostly aimed at personal change (see
Table 3.8 above).
As noted, the aim of this study precludes a comprehensive discussion of all the interventions
cited above (texts such as Cummings & Worley, 2001, and French & Bell, 1999, can be
consulted for such discussions). However, due a number of its underlying principles, four
existing OD interventions – all of which are aimed at the human-social subsystem – are relevant
to the construction of the proposed intervention (this assumption is further explored in Chapter
5).
These OD interventions – sensitivity training, gestalt OD, process consultation and
appreciative inquiry – are discussed in the following paragraphs. Whereas the relevance of each
of these four approaches to the proposed intervention is explored in Chapter 5, the subsequent
discussions include deductions with regard to the limitations of each, from a logotherapeutic
perspective (see Chapter 4). The aim of these deductions, then, is to further illustrate the
potential importance and relevance of the logotherapy-based intervention in contemporary
organisations.
121
3.5.1. Sensitivity training
Also known as encounter groups, t-groups or laboratory groups, sensitivity training constitutes
an OD intervention typically aimed at the individual level (French & Bell, 1999). This was one
of the first types of OD interventions to be applied in the organisation, particularly by Lewin and
others in the 1940s (De Greene, 1982, see Section 3.2). The underlying assumption of sensitivity
training is that employee ineffectiveness is the result of emotional problems.
Hence, this
intervention is focused on emotional (rather than conceptual) training (Gibson et al., 1988). This
focus was clearly illustrated by Shimmin and Van Strien’s (1998, p. 86) postulation that:
“T-groups” and sensitivity training sought to bring about changes in organizations by
changing individuals who, through exploring the interpersonal processes occurring in the
unstructured group setting, were enabled to develop more open and trusting behaviours.
Whereas Argyris (1964) discussed sensitivity training by identifying a number of things that it is
not, Luthans (1977) identified five objectives of this OD intervention. Both these perspectives
are summarised in Table 3.10 below. Robbins et al. (2003) emphasised that sensitivity training
is process rather than content focused – individuals learn through observation and participation,
rather than instruction. In particular, the aim is to increase participants’ sensitivity to “feelings in
themselves and others” by letting them discuss their feelings in an environment where feedback
can be obtained from other participants (Appell, 1984, p. 198). Robbins (1993, p. 686) held that
this process is “loosely directed by the behavioral scientist”, who creates the opportunity for
members to “express their ideas, beliefs, and attitudes”. This is believed to give participants an
increased “awareness of their own behavior and how others perceive them, greater sensitivity to
the behavior of others, and increased understanding of group processes”.
122
Table 3.10.
What sensitivity training is and what it is not (adapted from Argyris, 1964, pp. 68-70; Luthans, 1977,
pp. 535-536).
Sensitivity training is not…
•
•
Sensitivity training is…
A set of manipulative processes by which •
Aimed at making participants increasingly
individuals are brainwashed into believing or
aware of, and sensitive to, their own and
feeling what others want them to
others’ emotional reactions and expressions
An educational process guided by an individual •
Aimed at augmenting participants’ ability to
who is secretly in control
focus attention to their own and others’ feelings
to perceive and learn from the consequences of
their actions
•
Aimed at suppressing conflict or getting all •
Aimed at stimulating the clarification and
participants to like one another
development of personal values and goals
consistent with a democratic and scientific
approach to social and personal decisions and
actions
•
Aimed at teaching participants to be callous, •
Aimed at developing concepts and theoretical
disrespectful of society, or disliking of people
insights that will be instrumental in linking
who live less open lives
personal goals, values, intentions to action, and
the requirements of the situation.
•
Psychoanalysis, intensive group therapy, or •
Aimed at fostering behavioural effectiveness in
education for authoritarian leadership.
transactions with the environment.
Sensitivity training has been labelled a controversial intervention by a number of theorists. De
Greene (1982) contended that sensitivity training has been criticised in terms of its “inherent
deficiencies” and its failure to produce “long-term positive effects” (p. 52). Regarding the
former, Gibson et al. (1988) argued that as the trainer encourages participants to explore different
behaviours, the individuals are exposed to the risk of a breakdown in psychological coping
responses. Similarly, Appell (1984) stated that whereas some employees may find sharing their
emotions traumatising, others may deem this training inappropriate for the work setting.
Furthermore, De Greene (1982) postulated that by assuming that aspects such as attitudes and
traits can be changed in the relatively short time-span of an intervention, sensitivity training is
contradictory to personality theories.
These theories generally indicate that personality
123
characteristics are not only relatively stable, but they are also mostly formed in the early years of
one’s life. Greenberg and Baron (1993) presented a defence for sensitivity training (as regards
its lack of positive evidence) by contending that the nature of what is addressed makes the
assessment of results particularly difficult. Nevertheless, these authors also pointed out that as a
result of these and other criticisms, sensitivity training is no longer used by itself for OD
purposes. Rather, it is applied as a section of or in addition to other interventions.
One may also level critique against sensitivity training from a logotherapeutic (see Chapter 4)
perspective. Firstly, although it stimulates the clarification and development of personal values
and goals, and aims to contribute to the linking of personal goals, values, intentions to action,
and the requirements of the situation (see Table 3.10 above), all of which may contribute to the
individual’s experience of meaning, the primary focus of sensitivity training is on the emotions
of participants. As will be seen in Section 4.4.1.2, Frankl (1988) postulated that the direct
pursuit of subjective conditions (such as emotions) results in a phenomenon known as
‘hyperintention’, which ultimately makes the state unattainable. In other words, the strong focus
sensitivity training exerts on the emotions of participants, may actually result in the
intervention’s failure to successfully address these affective states.
However, should this
intervention make the meaning that participants experience its primary focus, emotional
awareness will ensue (see Figure 4.2).
Secondly, sensitivity training tends to focus on participants’ negative (emotional) experiences.
Logotherapy, in turn, pursues the experiences which individuals find meaningful and as
contributing to their sense of purpose. According to the appreciative inquiry literature (see
Section 3.5.4 below), such a positive focus is more inspirational to employees, thereby
contributing to the growth of the system. By contrast, a focus on pathology, like that of
sensitivity training, may result in employees being unable to move past the undesirable present
state and embrace the post-change situation 10 .
10
This proposition reflects Lewin’s change model, as discussed in Section 3.4.
124
3.5.2. Gestalt OD
Gestalt OD, as based on Gestalt therapy, is generally aimed at the individual, dyad/triad, or
team/group level (French & Bell, 1999). The central premise in Gestalt therapy is that people
function as an integrated whole, and that behaviour should be understood from this perspective.
Gestalt therapists are thus opposed to breaking up human processes into elements (Louw, 1987;
Louw & Edwards, 1993; Perls, Hefferline & Goodman, 1973), as such fragmentation leads to
people losing touch with their inner or total selves (French & Bell, 1999; Kilcourse, 1994), often
resulting in dysfunctional psychological consequences such as depression and anxiety (Westen,
1996).
Gestalt therapy, then, attempts to bring about “awareness, integration, maturation,
authenticity, self-regulation, and behavioral change” (Harman, in French & Bell, 1999, p. 165).
French and Bell (1999) contended that the main aim of Gestalt OD is to “make the individual
stronger, more authentic, and more in touch with the individual’s own feelings” (p. 165). This
requires that individuals be able to express their emotions completely – something that takes
place in structured exercises. In this sense, Gestalt OD resembles sensitivity training. However,
due to the complexity of this approach, French and Bell (1999) warn that only practitioners who
have received training in Gestalt OD should attempt to implement it as an intervention.
As will be shown in Chapter 5, Gestalt OD shares a number of characteristics with logotherapy,
particularly as both these approaches draw on theory from the Phenomenological School of
Thought. Nevertheless, this approach to OD may still have deficiencies upon evaluation from a
logotherapeutic perspective. In particular, as is the case with sensitivity training, Gestalt OD
may be criticised for its propensity to result in hyperintention (see Section 4.4.1.2). By focusing
almost exclusively on the strength, authenticity and emotional awareness of the individual, this
approach to OD may produce a situation where these states are unattainable. If, on the other
hand, this intervention were to pursue the meaning individuals find in the changing organisation,
these subjective states may ensue. What is more, such an approach may then also result in the
individual functioning as an integrated – rather than a fragmented 11 – human being, as is the
11
The application of Gestalt therapy in the workplace reflects the assumption that work can result in individual alienation. This
argument is explored in Section 5.2.4.
125
ultimate goal of Gestalt OD.
This again indicates the potential value of integrating
logotherapeutic principles into organisational change initiatives.
3.5.3. Process consultation
Process consultation is generally attributed to Edgar Schein (Koch, 1999).
This approach
involves an external consultant providing the organisation with insight into the processes in the
organisation that need improvement (Robbins et al., 2003) – processes that include aspects such
as “communication, interpersonal relations, decision making, and task performance” (Cummings
& Worley, 2001, p. 219). Process consultation is similar to sensitivity training in that it assumes
that dealing with interpersonal problems and emphasising involvement will ultimately increase
the effectiveness of the organisation (Robbins et al., 2003). As an OD intervention, process
consultation is typically aimed at the dyad/triad, teams/groups, intergroup relations, or total
organisation level (French & Bell, 1999).
Schein (1995) argued that process consultation starts with the needs of the client, but the
consultant does not solve the client’s problems. Rather, clients are actively involved in the
process of both diagnosing the problem and formulating an intervention that will be suitable for
their particular situations (Schein, 1993). The process consultant therefore serves as a ‘helper’ or
facilitator assisting clients in solving their own problems. This relationship or intervention is
terminated as soon as the client has developed the capability to deal with similar problems in the
future (Gibson et al., 1988). Finally, as regards process consultation, Cummings and Worley
(2001, p. 219) contended:
Is more a philosophy than a set of techniques aimed at performing this helping relationship.
The philosophy ensures that those who are receiving the help own their problems, gain the
skills and expertise to diagnose them, and solve them themselves. Thus, it is an approach to
helping people and groups help themselves.
From a logotherapeutic perspective (see Chapter 4), it may be deduced that one of process
consultation’s strongest points involves its reliance on individual inputs with regard to what is to
be addressed or improved in the organisation, rather than prescribing a solution. Nevertheless, as
126
was pointed out above, these focus areas most often include communication, interpersonal
relations, decision making, and task performance – aspects which may not necessarily be related
to the individual’s experience of meaning in the organisation.
What is more, process
consultation addresses processes fundamental to many areas of human performance within the
organisation, but may fail to consider the uniquely human experience of these processes, as well
as the impact they may have on the individual’s sense of purpose in the work context.
3.5.4. Appreciative inquiry
Appreciative inquiry (AI) is a form of action research based on the social constructionist
paradigm (Karp, 2004; Watkins & Mohr, 2001) and is heavily influenced by the field of positive
psychology (Crous, 2007; see Section 1.4) that is aimed at the team/group or the total
organisation (French & Bell, 1999). AI focuses on achieving action through transformative
dialogue, which is ignited by the ‘unconditional positive question’ (Ludema, Cooperrider &
Barrett, 2001, p. 191). Thus, it is suggested that effective organisational change begins with
conversations about “the positives” (Keers, 2007, p. 10) – or what the organisation does right
(Berrisford, 2005; Cummings & Worley, 2001). Underlying this approach is the belief that a
dominant focus on problems has brought about the failure of action research in advancing largescale organisational change (Cooperrider & Srivasta, 1987). In this regard, Ludema et al. (2001,
p. 189) argued that if “we devote our attention to what is wrong with organizations… we lose the
ability to see and understand what gives life to organizations and to discover ways to sustain and
enhance that life-giving potential”.
In essence, then, AI approaches the organisation as a “miracle to be embraced” rather than a
problem to be solved (French & Bell, 1999, p. 139). It “replaces our focus on problems with an
appreciation of what is and what might be, followed by agreement on what should be and what
will be” (Cooperrider & Srivasta, 1994, p. 207; emphasis in original). The importance of such an
appreciation and the unconditional positive question is expressed in the belief that human system
growth and the construction of reality are directed by the questions most often asked in the
organisation (Ludema et al., 2001). Positive questions result in positive expectations, and people
tend to act in ways that will realise their expectations (Cummings & Worley, 2001). Karp (2004)
and Ludema et al. (2001) suggested that such positive behaviours may be found by utilising the
127
4-D model of appreciative inquiry. This suggests that after a positive topic has been chosen, a
process of Discovery, Dreaming, Designing, and Destiny is followed. The final outcomes of this
process, then, include “a positive revolution of change” (Ludema et al., 2001, p. 198).
Although AI, like logotherapy, focuses on the value of positive experiences for the individual, it
may nevertheless be subjected to criticism from a logotherapeutic perspective. For example, it
may be argued that AI’s focus on an appreciation of ‘what is and what might be’ lends itself to
embracing that which individuals find meaningful in the organisation. Nevertheless, a deeper
investigation into the mechanics of the AI process (see, for example, Watkins & Mohr, 2001)
reveals that the ultimate areas on which it is focused are determined by the majority. In other
words, the individual’s wishes with regard to what needs to be addressed may be abandoned in
favour of the group’s decision. Thus, although AI starts off considering all individual inputs, the
ultimate decision (on areas to be changed) is based on a utilitarian framework. This may result
in individual dissatisfaction 12 and failure to find meaning in the change process. This criticism
reinforces the importance of incorporating into the changing organisation an intervention that
addresses the unique individual need for meaning and purpose.
3.6. Conclusion
French et al. (1994, p. vii) argued that OD “offers a prescription for improving the goodness of
fit between an individual and the organization 13 and between the organization and its
environment”. This statement is of potentially critical importance, for two reasons in particular.
Firstly, OD was indicated as being primarily aimed at the human-social subsystem.
The
significance of this lay in the critical role of people in successful change efforts (see Chapter 2),
as well as in the increasing realisation that the organisation’s true competitive advantage resides
in its people (see discussion in Chapter 1). In addition, French and Bell (1990) argued that
although OD interventions are primarily aimed at people, their influence is not restricted to this
realm. Rather, as was shown in Section 3.5, such interventions also impact directly or indirectly
12
This assumption reflects the commonly held belief that employees’ participation in the formulation of change strategies will
increase their satisfaction with and commitment to change initiatives and thus reduce their resistance to change (see Section
2.6.1).
13
Improving the person–organisation fit is also regarded as essential for job satisfaction (Pool & Pool, 2007; see Section 5.2.3.2).
128
on the other organisational subsystems (see Figure 3.1), thereby contributing to increasing
organisational effectiveness. Hence, OD efforts may be described to some extent as a “gestalt
kind of consulting” (French & Bell, 1990, p. 57). The second implication of the statement by
French et al. (1994) pertains directly to earlier arguments (see Chapter 2) that adapting to the
environment is essential for establishing an organisational competitive advantage. To illustrate
this point, Gibson et al. (1988) argued that systems theory emphasises organisational adaptation
to the external environment as a criterion for organisational effectiveness. It is thus apparent that
by contributing to the ‘goodness of fit’ organisations achieve with their employees and
environments, OD may make a significant contribution to the effectiveness of organisations, and
thus to their own survival.
The primary objective of Chapter 3 was to provide an overview of OD, thereby firstly illustrating
how this discipline can make a contribution to “the betterment of human welfare” (Cascio, 1995,
p. 928), and secondly providing additional grounding to the aim of this study – the development
of a logotherapy-based OD intervention (see Chapters 4, 5 and 6) that facilitates change by
addressing the individual’s experience of meaning amidst organisational transitions. To this end,
four secondary objectives were addressed. Firstly, an overview of the historical foundations of
OD was provided. Secondly, OD was conceptualised as an approach to implementing and
facilitating planned change that is based on behavioural scientific knowledge and humanistic
psychology, and implemented in various organisational subsystems to ultimately reach
organisational goals. Thirdly, the scope and focus of OD were addressed, where it was showed
that OD is fundamentally aimed at the human-social subsystem. Furthermore, Kurt Lewin’s
Force Field Analysis Model and three-step change process were also discussed. Finally, in order
to lay the foundations for discussions regarding the new OD intervention to be developed in this
study (see Chapters 5 and 6), four established OD interventions which focus on facilitating
organisational change by addressing the human-social subsystem, were addressed.
These
interventions, namely sensitivity training, Gestalt OD, process consultation and appreciative
inquiry, were further criticised from a logotherapeutic perspective, so as to continue building the
case for a new OD intervention – one that is firmly grounded in logotherapy and pursues the
facilitation of individual meaning amidst organisational transition, in order to ultimately address
individual resistance to change.
129
Regarding the theoretical foundations underlying this new intervention, OD and logotherapy, a
number of consistent elements may be apparent in these two bodies of knowledge. For example,
Frankl (1978, p. 72), the father of logotherapy, contended that:
What at present seems to be needed in psychology more than anything else is for
psychotherapy to enter the human dimension, the dimension of the human phenomena.
It may be argued that this proposed humanising of psychology greatly resembles attempts made
in the field of OD to add a human dimension to the managing of people, particularly amidst
change in organisations. The subsequent chapter, then, constitutes a discussion of the work done
by Frankl and others in the field of logotherapy. As was indicated in Chapter 1, the rationale for
the inclusion of this discussion in this study is that the proposed new OD intervention will be
based on the principles prescribed by this movement (a more comprehensive discussion of this
rationale is provided in Chapters 5 and 6). This may then contribute to a better understanding of
the applicability of logotherapy in the organisational change context, particularly as an OD
intervention.
130