Contemporary Organizational Development (OD) - Research Paper Example

Contemporary Organizational Development (OD) introduction Organizational development (OD) is the process of improving businesses by using a systematic analytical approach that applies the resulting determinations to planning and implementation of constructive change within the organization (Levinger, McLeod, & Krall, n.d). The intention of an OD intervention is to improve the organization’s performance and ability to consistently meet their collective goals by improving the level of well-being and satisfaction within their employees (Justo, 2009; Levinger, McLeod, & Krall, n.d). Since the modern business model has grown and become a dynamic entity, the tools used to construct and implement OD have also become dynamic in their variety and methods of effecting change within the corporate structure. This research paper will examine the OD tool of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) by presenting a broad overview of the methodology, an in-depth perspective of the use of this tool, as it relates to Organization Development and Change, and an example of its application within a specific organizational context. Through analysis of current available literature, this paper will demonstrate ways to integrate contemporary OD practices and interventions like AI within organizational settings and how these methodologies and tools can be utilized to support and facilitate a planned change effort. overview According the Encarta English Dictionary, the modern definition of ‘appreciation’ means recognition and liking of something's qualities (2011). When applied to the business model, appreciation means to look for the positive aspects of an organization in order to use these aspect(s) as the initial foundation to base the growth of the organization (Serrat, 2008). The concept of AI is a relatively new OD tool whose creation is credited to David Cooperrider, first implemented within the United States in the mid-1980s and is now a device used worldwide to effect positive change within businesses (Serrat, 2008). As societies and businesses have grown and become more diverse, so has OD and the instruments used to facilitate it, like AI, requiring OD interventions to maintain a respectful approach, engender the trust and support of the entire staff through shared power and open confrontation of issues, and the active participation of all staff members from the upper echelons of corporate management to the most rudimentary employee (Justo, 2009). Functioning on the assumption that every organization has some procedural aspects that work well, AI attempts to facilitate positive changes in the problematic areas by building on the these attributes and encouraging cohesion within the socio-technical schemes to create new relationships among employees as they work collectively for organizational revitalization (Justo, 2009; Serrat, 2008). The broadest process of implementing AI within a system involves the methodical discovery of the best attributes of the business at its most vital, effective points using attributes of its environmental, economic, societal, political, and technological terms (Serrat, 2008). This is achieved by the OD administrator “asking questions that strengthen a system’s capacity to apprehend, anticipate, and heighten positive potential” based on two main assumptions (Serrat, 2008, p.1). The foundational hypotheses of the procedure are that: a. Organizational change will move in whatever direction that the focus of the questions asked drives them b. positive changes are produced when businesses focus on recalling and exploring situations when they were at their peak performance levels instead of concentrating on perceived problems and how to solve them (Serrat, 2008). Focusing on the aspects of the business that have achieved the company’s goals enables the creation of a common vision that is obtainable to everyone since it has already been achieved and facilitates the creation of a workable mode of action that can make this vision a reality (Serrat, 2008). Through this process, staff members are able to forge new relationships with each other that facilitate an atmosphere of knowledge sharing and productivity. in-depth The successful achievement of OD is a cyclic process (see Figure 1) in which the progression follows four main steps (Levinger, McLeod, & Krall, n.d). Figure 1: Basic Progression Model of Organizational Development (Levinger, McLeod, & Krall, n.d) The four phases of OD are: 1. Assessment: in this phase, the OD administrator will discover the root causes of the basic problems that are negatively affecting the performance of an organization without focusing on the symptoms (Levinger, McLeod, & Krall, n.d). After this step, the OD facilitator will provide feedback to key members of the organization regarding their findings to help highlight relevant patterns of behavior (Levinger, McLeod, & Krall, n.d). 2. Intervention design and selection: this is a two-step procedure that requires the OD administrator to: a. Use the relevant information and feedback collected during the assessment phase is used to decide on an appropriate interventions strategy to affect the desired changes within the company. These may target capacity areas, processes, learning needs, organizational culture issues, and behaviors (Levinger, McLeod, & Krall, n.d). b. Work in partnership with the company’s decision makers and other relevant personnel to devise an all-inclusive and thorough plan of action to implement, supervise and evaluate the best OD interventions (Levinger, McLeod, & Krall, n.d). Designing an action plan is the final step within this second phase and is an official method for deciding how and when the OD interventions will be put into practice (Levinger, McLeod, & Krall, n.d). this includes clarifying the roles and responsibilities of all relevant participants, establishing a feasible timeline for the intervention as well as the necessary monitoring, determining what resources will be needed and establishing the logistical details of the intervention (Levinger, McLeod, & Krall, n.d). Additional feedback is provided to the appropriate staff members at the conclusion of this phase. 3. Implementation: this is the phase in which the OD administrator implements the strategy determined through the preceding two phases. Feedback is also provided at the conclusion of this stage. 4. Evaluation: this is the final segment of the process. The OD administrator will assess the efficacy of the plan implemented by determining what collective goals have been achieved and what goals have yet to be met (Levinger, McLeod, & Krall, n.d). As is noted at the conclusion of each step, feedback is continually provided to key individuals within the organization so a constant communicative atmosphere is maintained to ensure the production of optimal results in order to accomplish systematic and effective change. It should also be noted that the completion of the last phase of the cycle may not necessarily mean that the OD process is complete. If all of the goals established during the preliminary stages of the OD process have not been met, the OD administrator will have to repeat the process, adjusting any aspects of the strategy necessary according to the needs of the company. As a tool of OD, the AI process is “highly effective for capturing the positive features of an organization or social system and energizing the members to strive for higher levels of performance” (Acosta & Douthwaite, 2008). The method used to enact this process of change is very similar to the OD procedure described above and is also a cyclic process (see Figure 2), involving several different phases with the company’s positive elements at the core of the process. Figure 2: The Cycle of AI (Acosta & Douthwaite, 2008) The five main steps of the AI process include: 1. Definition: during this initial step, the AI facilitator will determine the focus and scope of the inquiry by asking relevant questions like ‘What is the focus?’ and determining whom is to be interviewed (Acosta & Douthwaite, 2008). 2. Discovery: this aspect of the process entails eliciting stories of the company when it was at its optimal level of performance, usually conducted through in which the facilitator will make inquiries like “Tell me a story, if you will, of a time when this team/organization/community has been at its best – when people were proud to be a part of it. What happened? What made it possible for this highpoint to occur? What would the system look like if that example of excellence was the norm?” (Acosta & Douthwaite, 2008). 3. Dream: through this portion of the process, a graphic visualization of the desired future of the company is constructed within a group setting organized with the assistance of the AI facilitator and the group is encouraged to envisage the organization at the performance level identified in the discovery phase as though this were the standard rather than the exception (Acosta & Douthwaite, 2008). 4. Design: during this aspect of the process, a bridge between the present condition of the company and the desired future of the company is constructed through the conceptualization of a plan designed in collusion with the company’s employees. Teams are constructed and, using the resources established during the second phase, they are empowered to create the organization proposed during the group conference (Acosta & Douthwaite, 2008). 5. Destiny: during this final phase within the process, the plans designed by the teams are implemented. Within this segment, improvisation and experimentation is encouraged as the most effective means of accomplishing the established goals are determined using the creativity of the team members (Acosta & Douthwaite, 2008). This phase may also entail additional small-scale inquiries into detailed aspects of the company’s history (Acosta & Douthwaite, 2008). It should be noted that, like with traditional OD methods, feedback is provided to the relevant staff members at the conclusion of each stage within the AI process to facilitate open communication and ensure the process is kept on track and goals are continually met. In addition, like with traditional OD processes, methods are augmented as necessary to ensure all the company’s goals are achieved and teams are created to follow up on the design elements and to continue the appreciative process (Acosta & Douthwaite, 2008). application An example of the successful application of AI is detailed by Bushe (2010) in which eight Canadian urban school districts were engaged in an AI facilitation experiment designed with the focused query of: “What do we know about learning?” The inquiry was conducted over a period of one year and the data collected resulted in four of the sites experiencing dramatic changes, two sites undergoing diminutive changes, and two sites demonstrating little or no change (Bushe, 2010). Moreover, Bushe reported that: “The study highlights that many of the normal organization development processes required for successful change are required for appreciative inquiry as well. AI does not magically overcome poor leadership, communication failures, and unresolved conflicts. To be transformational, the AI process required passionate, committed leadership from people with credibility. A lack of appropriate or committed sponsorship was related to a lack of change.” (2010). The application of the AI methodology was concurrent with the traditional methods of OD reformation and the study used a large scale intervention method to affect the changes outlined (Justo, 2009). Bushe (2010)noted that the sites that experienced drastic levels of transformation cited notable “problems’ at the onset of the research and those that experienced little to no changes expressed overall satisfaction with their current state, which was determined to be the probable cause for the differentiations in the levels of transformation despite identical procedural methods and availability of resources. The determinations of this examination suggests that AI is transformational when it is designed to deal with problems that are of import to organizational members not through “problem-solving”, but through he production of applicable behavioral changes (Bushe, 2010). Additional notations to Bushe’s (2010) evaluation of AI implementation revealed that the level of change did appear relative to how productive the questions asked were, how well the discovery stage was supervised, and the attributes of design proposals submitted. Other aspects aside from the design of the AI construct were also relevant to the results obtained, like the relationships between the teachers and principals, the quality of the leadership, and the relevance of the plans constructed to the concerns expressed by the staff members (Bushe, 2010). conclusion This research paper has examined the OD tool of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) through the presentation of an analysis of its purpose and application within the modern business model and detailed the relevant use of this tool within a real-life scenario. An analysis of current available literature has demonstrated how AI can work in diverse forums, especially where conflict or lack of productivity are issues. However, in order for this OD tool to be the most effective, strong, competent leadership is mandatory as well as the support of all personnel involved in the proposed reformation. Inclusion of the team members is essential to the efficacy of the AI process in order to keep them interested in the process and to ensure the achievement of the established goals of the company. References Acosta, A. & Douthwaite, B. (2008, December 9). Chapter 19: Appreciative inquiry- Appreciative inquiry: An approach for learning and change based on our own best practices. ILAC Institutional Learning and Change. Retrieved from http://www.cgiar-ilac.org/content/chapter-19-appreciative-inquiry Bushe, G.R. (2010). A comparative case study of appreciative inquiries in one organization: Implications for practice. Review of Research and Social Intervention, 29, pp.7-24, 131. Justo, A. (2009, April 14). Organizational development (OD) interventions: Managing systematic change in organizations. Retrieved from http://armandojusto.blogspot.com/2009/04/organizational-development-od.html Levinger, B., McLeod, J. & Krall, D. (n.d.). OD Funneling Tool: Organizational development in the field. Massachusetts: Education Development Center, Inc. Serrat, O. (2008, December). Appreciative inquiry. Asian Development Bank: Knowledge Solutions Read More