Organisation Development and Change

There are several definition of Organisation Development (OD), but one could be:

” Organisation development is a planned process of change in an organisation`s culture through the utilization of behaviour science technologies, research and theory” (French and Bell Jr., 1999, p. 25).

Several authors agree upon the fact that OD applies behavioural science to achieve planned change, that the target of change is the total organisation or system and that the goals are increased organisational effectiveness and individual development (French and Bell Jr., 1999). Organisation culture and processes are high-priority targets in most OD programs and several authors emphasize achieving congruence among the components of the organisation such as strategy, structure, culture and processes. Porras and Robertson suggest that OD is a

”package” of theories, values, strategies and techniques, and this package gives OD its distinct character compared to other improvement strategies. Bennis calls OD both a response to change and an educational strategy intended to change beliefs, attitudes, values and organisation structure – all of these directed toward making the organisation better able to respond to changing environmental demands (Ibid.).

Beer`s definition mentions ”developing the organisation`s self-renewing capacity” – a central goal in al OD programs – but all the authors agree with the desirability of creating self-renewing ”learning organisations”. All together the different definitions of OD convey a sense of what organisation development is and do, and they describe in broad outline the nature and methods of OD. It is interesting to mention that there is no set definition of OD and no agreement on the boundaries of the field, that is, what practices should be included and excluded, but these are not serious constrains given that the field is still evolving, and that practitioners share a central core of understanding (Ibid.).

Wendell L. French and Cecil H. Bell Jr. have made their own definition of OD, which includes characteristics that they think are important for the present and future of the field;

Organisation an development is a long-term effort, led by top management, to improve an organisation`s visioning, empowerment, learning, and problem-solving processes, through an ongoing, collaborative management of organisation culture – with special emphasis on the culture of intact

work teams and other team configuration – using the consultant-facilitator role and the theory and technology of applied behavioural science, including action research

(French and Bell Jr., 1999, p.26).

By long-term the authors mean that organisational change and development takes time – several years in most cases. There are no ”quick-fix” when it comes to lasting organisational improvement, rather the opposite where one describes ”improvement” as a never-ending journey of continuous change (French and Bell Jr., 1999).

The phrase led and supported by top management indicates an imperative: Most OD programs that fail do so because top management were ambivalent, lost its commitment, or became distracted with other duties. To avoid this, top management must lead and actively encourage the change effort. Organisational change is hard, serious business; it includes pain and setbacks as well as successes, and the top management must initiate the ”improvement”

journey and be committed to seeing it through (Ibid.).

Visioning processes are these processes through which organisation members develop a viable, coherent and shared picture of the nature of the products and services the organisation offers, the ways those goods will be produced and delivered to the customers, and what the organisation and its members can expect from each other. Visioning can be defined as creating a picture of the desired future that includes salient features of the human side of the organisation and then working together to make that picture a reality (Ibid.).

Empowerment processes in this definition is meant as those leadership behaviours and human resource practices that enable the organisation members to develop and use their talents as fully as possible toward individual growth and organisational success. By empowerment, they mean involving large numbers of people in building the vision of tomorrow, developing the strategy for getting there, and making it happen – it is crucial that the empowerment must be built into the very fabric of the organisation, this means its strategy, structure, processes and culture (Ibid.).

The newt aspect of the definition is learning processes, which are those interacting, listening and self-examining processes that facilitate individual, team and organisational learning. Peter Senge describes learning organisations as:

”..organisations where people continually expand their capacity to create the result they truly desire,

where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together”

(French and Bell Jr., 1999, p.26).

As Argyris advises, people and organisations must avoid the trap of ”defensive routines”, those habitual reactions that prevent embarrassment and threat, but also prevent learning.

By problem-solving processes they mean the ways organisations members diagnose situations, solve problems, make decisions, and take actions on problems, opportunities, and challenges in the organisation`s environment and its internal functioning. Further they believe that solutions to problems are enhanced by tapping deeply into the creativity, commitment, vitality and common purposes of all members of the organisation, in contrast to having only a select few involved. To create the best climate for effective problem solving by all the organisation`s members they suggests a compelling, widely shared vision of a desired future and empowerment means involving people in problems and decisions letting them be responsible for results (French and Bell Jr., 1999).

By ongoing collaborative management of the organisation`s culture they mean, first, that one of the most important things to manage in organisations is the culture: the prevailing pattern of values, attitudes, beliefs, assumptions, expectations, activities, interactions, norms, sentiments and artefacts. Secondly, managing the culture should be a collaborative business with widespread participation in creating and managing a culture that satisfies the want and the needs of the individuals at the same time that it fosters the organisation`s purposes.

Collaborative management of the culture means that everyone, just not a small group, has a stake in making the organisation work. In the same way that visioning, empowerment, learning and problem-solving processes are opportunities for collaboration, so is managing the culture. Including culture prominently in the definition, affirms our belief that culture is the bedrock of behaviour in organisation and the reciprocal influence among culture, strategy, structure and processes makes each important, and each influences the other. However, culture is of primary importance and Edgar Schein defines culture as follows:

”Culture now be defined as (a) a pattern of basic assumptions, (b) invented, discovered, or developed by a given group, (c) as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaption and internal integration, (d) that has worked well enough to be considered valid, and therefore (e) is to be taught to

new members as the (f) correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems”

(French and Bell Jr., 1999, p.27).

In short, culture consist of basic assumptions, values and norms of behaviour that are viewed as the correct way to perceive, think and feel – that is why culture change is necessary for true organisational improvement (Ibid.).

The definition place further consideration to organisational processes, how things get done, where they highlight the importance of visioning, empowerment, learning and problem-solving processes. Processes are relatively easy to change, so they are the place OD often begin – getting people to change the way they do things, but change becomes permanent when the culture changes and people accept the new ways as the ”right” ways. So when the culture promotes collaboration, empowerment and continuous learning the organisation is bound to succeed (Ibid.).

Intact work teams and other configurations recognize that teams are central to accomplish work in organisations – teams are the basic building blocks of an organisation, and when teams function well, individuals and the total organisation function well. To ensure effectiveness team culture can be collaboratively managed and the most prevalent form of teams in organisations is intact work teams consisting of superior and subordinates with a specific job to perform. Team building and role and goal clarification interventions are standard activities in OD programs directed toward intact work team. However, in many organisations today the intact work teams operate without a boss in the traditional sense – the teams manage themselves. These self-managed teams assume complete responsibility for planning and execution of work assignments and the different members are trained in competencies such as planning, maintaining quality control, and using management information. One can see that over time, self-directed teams control performance appraisals, hiring, firing and training, and the results are highly gratifying both for the team members and for the organisation (Ibid.).

One can see an increase in use of ad hoc teams that perform a specific task and disband when the task is completed, and the method for getting this complex task done is to assemble a cross-functional team comprised of members from all the functional specialities required to get the job done, such as design, engineering, manufacturing and procurement. The old method for solving these particular tasks has been to have functional specialists work on the

problem sequentially – when one function is finished with its part of the project they pass it on to the next functional unit. This method resulted in loss of energy, wasted time, much rework and considerable antagonism among the separate functional specialists. Tom Peters uses the terms multifunctional projectization and horizontal systems to describe these teams and their work and further he predicts that temporary, multifunctional, constantly shifting teams will be the dominant configuration for getting work done. His thesis Liberation Management describes that contemporary bureaucratic structures with their functional specialities and rigid hierarchies are all wrong for the demands of today`s fast-paced marketplace. The phrase using the consultant –facilitator role implies that leaders can benefit from seeking professional assistance in planning and implementing OD initiatives. The services of a third-party consultant-facilitator are desirable in early stages of the OD and its role is powerful; that person is typically seen as bringing objectivity, neutrality and expertise to the situation. Also the third party is not captive to the culture of the unit undertaking the program and this need for objectivity does not mean that the third party cannot be a member of the organisation, rather it means that he or she should not be a member of the particular unit initiating the OD effort (Ibid.).

By the theory and technology of applied behavioural sciences they mean insights from the sciences dedicated to understanding people in organisation, how they function and how they can function better. OD applies knowledge and theory and therefore in addition to behavioural sciences, such as psychology, social psychology, sociology, applied disciplines such as adult education, psychotherapy, social work, economics and political science make contributions to the practice of OD.

The last comment is about action research, whereas the participative model of collaborative and iterative diagnosis and taking action in which the leader, organisation members and OD practitioner work together to define and resolve problems and opportunities.

This extensive applicability of this model in OD could contribute to another definition, such as: ”organisation improvement through participant action research” (French & Bell Jr., 1999, p.29).

All of the above mentioned characteristics of organisation development depart substantially from traditional consultation models; this can be illustrated below where Schein identifies three basic models of consultations:

1. ”Purchase of expertise model” – in this model a leader or a unit identifies a need for information or expertise the organisation cannot supply, and hires a consultant to (a) survey customers or employees about some matter, (b) find out how other organisations organize certain units, or (c) search out information such as the marketing strategy of a competitor, and then the consultant makes recommendations.

2. ”Doctor-patient model” – in this model a leader or a group detects symptoms of ill in a unit, or in the organisation, and employs a consultant to diagnose what is causing the problem or problems. The consultant, like a physician, then prescribes a course of action to remedy the ailment.

3. ”Process consultant model” – in this model the consultant work with the leader and group to diagnose strengths and weaknesses, and to develop action plans. The consultant assists the client organisation to become more effective in diagnosing and solving problems.

The first two of these models depict traditional management consulting and the third model is more typical of OD consulting, whereas the clients receive help in the way they think and how they are solving problems. The consultant suggests general processes and procedures and helps the clients generate valid data and learn from them – in short, the OD consultant is an expert on process – how to structure effective problem solving and decision making (French

& Bell Jr., 1999).

In this section i have tried to define the term organisation development and change. There exists several definitions, but the one explained here is from the authors W.L. French and C.

H. Bell Jr., where they have sought to find a well suited definition that could be used for today`s and future organisations, seeking to understand the process of change and organisation development. They involve terms like visioning, empowerment, learning and problem-solving processes, which are all processes that needs to be seen in a long-term aspect and also led by the top management. They emphasize for the importance of managing the culture, and that this should be a collaborative business with widespread participation, that satisfies both the needs of the individuals as well as the purpose and goals of the entire organisation. They recognize that the work teams are the building blocks of an organisation, and when these function well, so does the entire organisation. To achieve this one may use team building, but also role and goal clarification for each individual or team, even though in some organisations today there exists self-managed teams, which also could function well.

Theory and technology of applied behavioural sciences, together with action research helps us

to understand the people in the organisation, how they function and also how they can function better, and how they can work together to define and resolve, both problems and opportunities. At the end of the section, some models for managing change are displayed, where Schein seeks to give us an understanding on the differences between the traditional approach to organisation development and change, and the OD approach to this, whereas we can see that in the traditional approach the consultant or the ” outsider” only makes recommendations, while in the OD approach he or she works together with the a group to solve problems and be more effective (Ibid.). Further this can be compared to the AI model and Kotter’s eight step model, whereas one may say that some of the terms in the OD definition could be linked to Kotter’s model, while other aspects are more similar to the AI model. The long-term aspect, even the time aspect in general, is absent in both Kotter’s model and the AI model, while the aspect where the change should be led by the top management is more similar to Kotter’s model. This could also be the case with aspect like visioning and, to some degree, the learning an problem-solving processes, whereas Kotter’s model focus on finding problems and obstacles in the past, so that one may avoid these in the future, and also that the top management or a group of the top management together with the a change agent should lead the change process. Also the vision aspect is to be recognized in Kotter’s model, but maybe even more in the second model of functionalism, the ideology - visionary approach / model. However, there is some features that are more similar to the AI model, such as where they emphasize for that the work teams and the employees are the building blocks for the organisation, they want to let everybody participate in the change, and they focus on understanding how the people behave – this could be a key component to implement the change, both in the AI model and within OD, because one understand people’s emotions and may use them in a way that could make them understand the change better, with no or less resistance. Compared to the traditional models described above, one may think that the OD approach is more similar to Kotter’s eight step model, however, when one look at an overall view of the definition of OD, done by French and Bell Jr., one might get the impression of that this is more similar to the AI model, whereas human aspect, team involvement and cultural aspect are taken more into consideration.