Assessing the Field of Organization Development by Wirtenberg - Article Example

Critical Written Review of an Article The article chosen for review is Assessing the Field of Organization Development written by Wirtenberg, Abrams,and Ott (2004). This article is a description of qualitative survey research regarding the field of Organization Development (OD). In sum, the research was founded upon awareness of problems in the field. People are finding it difficult to obtain work in the field because the business environment is in an endurance mode with streamlined priorities. The research team decided to use Organization Development constructs and procedures to approach these problems. The research is subsumed under a much larger project planned by the following organizations: "Organization Development Institute (ODI), Organization Development Network (ODN), and International Organization Development Association (IODA) called the Global Committee on the Future of Organization Development" (Wirtenberg, Abrams, and Ott, 2004, p. 466). This committee is composed of a wide ranging population of leaders in business, corporations, non-profits, academia, and government. The overarching goal of this project is to identify strategies that will promote the efficiency and professionalism of the field of organizational development. The themes and positions taken in this article can be summarized by the results of the returned surveys and interviews. These results gave a thorough overview of the strengths and weaknesses inherent in the field. These variables will be thoroughly discussed throughout the remainder of the paper. Basically, Wirtenberg et al (2004, p. 465) found that the weaknesses are that the field of OD: '(a) lacks a clear, distinct definition; (b) needs greater quality control/effectiveness and business acumen among OD Practitioners; and (c) lacks clarity around its return on investment and perceived value of the work performed'. They also found strengths. OD's systems orientation is a strength. OD as a field stresses change management, teamwork, and leadership development. The research results also included 'the values OD brings to its practice' (Wirtenberg et al, 2004, p. 465) as a strength. It is the opinion of this student that this is both a strength and a weakness. Confusion around these values is part of the dilemma inherent in OD's lack of definition as a profession. Further discussion on this idea will follow within the discussion of each individual strength and weakness. This is a landmark work in that most available writing on the field of OD does not mention these issues in any organized or thorough fashion. Their use of open ended surveys and follow up individual interviews seems quite appropriate for this initial stage of the large project. Their decision to send surveys to all members of every organization connected to OD lead to solid information. This information is forming the foundation of future work in the field. Because the aim is practical, the researchers are calling this an initiative. This is both positive and negative. On the one hand, the initiative is practical and utilizes the strengths of the OD professionals to eventually design strategies that can improve the circumstances. On the other, the field needs solid academic research to assist in solving the problems essentially related to clarity of definition discussed in the results of the work. More on this topic is included later in this paper. Material thoroughly discussing these issues can only be obtained from professional organizations whose focus is to support the work of OD practitioners. These organizations are the same organizations participating in this initiative listed above. These organizations have created a strong web presence with a lot of valuable information. For the most part, they have integrated the findings of this work and are cooperating fully with the opportunity phase of change management. Many people believe that the qualities found within the OD professionals themselves are a strength. Specifically, OD professionals have a strong set of usable ethics and values. In support of this idea, Downing (2005, p. 185) mentions the 'self-efficacy, values, personal theory, and relationships of the entrepreneur'. The strength of values and ethics are intertwined with major weaknesses. There are serious differences of opinion as to which values are important and which changes need to be made. The conflict between business values and humanistic values is an important one in the field. On the one hand, to find and keep work, an OD practitioner needs to support the goals of the hiring organizations. For example, Rainey (2003) writes that the OD 'common values are personal growth, satisfying experiences within the organization, recognition of feelings, research before action, and a democratization of power' (Internet). Many people agree with these values. At the same time, others, such as Hinings and Greenwood (2004) disagree rather strongly with this focus. Instead they would prefer organizational theory to continue to focus upon organizational dynamics and 'issues of power and privilege' (Internet). Taking the middle ground, Bartunek (2002) mentions that organizational development professionals should be 'in, but not of these settings' (Internet) and so be able to both study and impact them. It is hard to know which position is the right one for the field. This may be a never ending conflict between academia and practicalities. Academia may be essentially free to study any aspect of a subject while practitioners are required to accommodate the people who hire them. The profession is skilled at change management. This is mentioned by Mea, Robinson, and Handlon (2002) and Lawler and Mohrman (2000), but very rarely discussed in peer reviewed journals in conjunction to organizational development. For example, Miles and Covin (2002) mention corporations that wish a continual return on their investment and thus continually create new ventures. These types of corporations need to focus quite a bit of attention to organizational development. Change management may be one area that the humanistic values and practical strategies can come together. The types of activities needed for business to constantly create new ventures are those that could be considered humanistic. Honig (2001) concludes that OD practitioners need to research and study the high points within this entrepreneur growth process. Discovering what can be done to promote and encourage this process is another area of contribution for OD. These environments within corporations are called knowledge and learning environments. Thus, it follows that Fishman and O'Connor- Divelbiss (2000, p. 368) believe that the place of OD in developing new learning environments is important: 'Building new, complex organizational alliances requires knowledge and skills in areas such as team-building, communications, management, leadership, politics, development of policies and procedures, and finance'. An important strength of OD found in this research is the ability to use systems thinking. A number of articles read routinely used systems analysis in their descriptions of the work of OD practitioners (Dudley, Larkin, and Raymer, 2001; Maton, Kenneth I. 2000; Honig, Benson. 2001). Another set of strengths involves the ability to develop both teamwork and leadership. These strengths are frequently mentioned in relationship to HR professionals; but they are not often thought of as being connected to OD. The opinion of this writer is that the conflict between values needs to be directly addressed throughout the field before any real progress will be made. Otherwise, people will always be working from different perspectives. Then the findings of strengths need to be individually replicated in academic research; and published in varied academic journals. For a clearly altered public picture, inclusive of business administrators and academia, the message has to be delivered in formal channels over a period of time. The lack of general awareness of what the profession of organizational development actually does is seen as a major weakness. This returns to the discussion of values above. Clegg (2002), Hinings and Greenwood (2004) and Bartunek (2002) all discuss this issue in one form or another. OD lacks a sense of its history as an academic field as well as current grounding in academic theory. They see the lack of identity in the field resulting from several causes. There is the shift of focus from sociological and psychological concerns to those of business. Then there is the lack of consistent identity that comes from a field that has compiled techniques from many fields. Rainey (2003, p. 374) writes 'No organizing theory links the aspects of OD or systematically guides its practice'. Further, Lau and Ngo state that 'the definitive classification of OD techniques has yet to be resolved'. Siggelkow (2002) makes an excellent point when he writes that there is a lack of language to discuss OD and how an organization performs. Assessing the Field of Organization Development identified weaknesses in the practitioners themselves. Surveys and interviews revealed that most people need to upgrade their understanding of business and how business functions. Mea, Robinson, Handlon (2002) emphasize the insight that OD professionals are less aware of business constructs than they need to be. OD practitioners who lack such knowledge and skills cannot translate what they do for their employer into business language and constructs. As stated by Schrodt (2002), successful organizations must have a culture that management feels it can control. OD must recognize this and assist in the development of such a management friendly culture. Additionally, an OD practitioner must be able to comprehend what the customer actually wants and needs. OD strategies need to be directly related to the business goals and plans of the client. There needs to be a manner of speaking about the people aspect of OD that clearly illustrates the business value. Moreover, OD practitioners need to develop a better understanding of their own value and be able to explain this. If the practitioners themselves think they do not know business, then everyone else will believe that. Eventually, as is the case today, people get the impression that OD is a 'soft' science. Instead, OD professionals need to believe in themselves and communicate this. One particular issue is international: Certification. There are no clear standards, certifications and qualifications for an OD practitioner. Without credentialing of professionals, anyone, regardless of skill or training, can call themselves an OD Practitioner. Some people believe that services offered need to be of higher quality. As there are in every crisis, there are opportunities. A committee entitled the Global Committee on the Future of Organization Development will use the information derived from the research to arrive at productive solutions to the problems discovered. In conclusion, this was a review of qualitative research conducted by Wirtenberg, Abrams, and Ott (2004) and reported in Assessing the Field of Organization Development. This work found strengths and weaknesses in the field. The weaknesses centre on the lack of a clear identity and set of values within the field. Many people believe that OD needs better quality control procedures and an interest in the business value of services. It is thought that the ability to look at an organization from a systems perspective and see where changes need to be made is a solid strength. Knowledge of such processes as teamwork and leadership development adds to the strength of OD practitioners. While the research found that most in the OD field see the values of an OD practitioner as a strength, others often find this a detriment. There is a lack of consensus upon which type of values, business or humanistic, are primary. This paper discussed this difference of opinion. Bibliography Bartunek, J. M.2002. The proper place of organizational scholarship: A comment on Hinings and Greenwood. (ASQ Forum).Administrative Science Quarterly,47 (3), Available fromExpanded Academic ASAP, http://www.galegroup.com/world, [cited30 Apr. 2007] Clegg, S. R. 2002. Lives in the balance: A comment on Hinings and Greenwood's Disconnects and Consequences in Organization Theory" (ASQ Forum).Administrative Science Quarterly 47 (3), Available from: http://www.gale.com/world/. [cited 29 April 2007]. Downing, S., 2005. The social construction of entrepreneurship: Narrative and dramatic processes in the coproduction of organizations and identities. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. 29 (2), Available from: http://www.galegroup.com/world [cited 28 April 2007]. Dudley, L. and Raymer, M., 2001. Inside organizational change: Puzzling across permeable boundaries. Public Administration Review, 61 (5), 620, Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/world, [cited 30 April 2007]. Fishman, B. J. and O'Connor-Divelbiss, S. F., 2000. Organizational development knowledge and expertise required: Constructing a framework for learning in the work/site alliance. In Proceedings of ICLS 2000: The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, June 14th-17th, 2000. Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p. 368. Available from: http://www.questia.com. [cited 28 April 2007]. Hinings, C.R.and Greenwood, R.,2002. Disconnects and consequences in organization theory (ASQ Forum).Administrative Science Quarterly [online],47 (3), Available from: http://www.gale.com/world/. [cited 29 April 2007]. Honig, B., 2001. Learning strategies and resources for entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 26 (1), Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/world, [cited 30 April 2007]. Lau, C and Ngo. H., 2001. Organization development and firm performance: A comparison of multinational and local firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (1), Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/world, [cited 30 April 2007]. Lawler, E., and Mohrman, S. F., 2000. Beyond the vision: What makes HR effective Human Resource Planning, 23 (4), Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/world, [cited 30 April 2007]. Maton, K. I., 2000. Making a difference: The social ecology of social transformation, American Journal of Community Psychology, 28 (1), Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/world, [cited 30 April 2007]. Mea, W. J., Robinson, T. J. and Handlon, J. W., 2002. The balanced scorecard: New strategy applications in business-to-business commerce. In R. R. Sims, ed. Changing the Way We Manage Change. Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 2002, pp. 201-215. Miles, M. P. and Covin, J. G., 2002. Exploring the practice of corporate venturing: Some common forms and their organizational implications. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 26 (3), Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/world, [cited 30 April 2007]. Rainey, Hal G. 2003. Understanding and Managing Public Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schrodt, Paul. 2002. The relationship between organizational identification and organizational culture: Employee perceptions of culture and identification in a retail sales organization. Communication Studies, 53 (2), Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/world, [cited 28 April 2007]. Siggelkow, N. 2002. Evolution toward fit. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48 (1), Available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/world, [cited 28 April 2007]. Read More