Organization Development - Coursework Example

Organization Development Organization Development Defining OD: The oxford dictionary defines the term “development” as a specified state of growth or advancement. When talking about Organizations, the development process can only be defined with regards to the original definition of the entity itself. Organizations are consciously constructed social entities which comprise of people, processes and functions all working towards the same unified goal. The developmental process, then, has to be such which encompasses not only each individual unit of the organization but the achievement of the end goal itself. One further concept which can be also linked to the topic at hand is that of Organization behavior. Referring to the overall impact that individuals, groups and structures have on the behavior of the organizations, Organization behavior is what will eventually determine the direction that any organization takes in terms of ‘development’. There are various schools of thought that revolve around the terminology of OD, but a single comprehensive definition by for Organization Development can only be achieved if we incorporate the behavior, people and processes of an organization through one expression. OD can be defined as “The manner in which a company would grow over a certain period of time, as influenced by the individual and group culture within the body of the organization, and the interactions between different members. This growth pattern has to be adopted at all levels and it shows the extent to which an Organization can readily adapt to change and simultaneously, gain maximum advantage to meet its objectives”. Through this definition we can understand the end objective of OD as well as the tools and resources which will impact the process. More analysis of the expression tell the reader what will be the benefits for an organization which can make the most effective use of OD in a the most efficient manner. Companies with a robust OD framework in place will be better equipped to manage change and turn external opportunities into advantages for growth. Discussion of the Definition: The definitions and the field of OD have been discussed by experts with the help of suitable techniques and theories from applied behavioral sciences and related field. However, the definitions given initially have evolved and changed with the times to meet the requirements of changing nature of organizations. Once considered to be static, structured entities, organizations are now seen as being dynamic, flexible and able to rapidly adapt to changing environments. The explanations given for OD reflect this trend (McNamara). This is further complicated by the fact that many different researchers have their own interpretation of the concept in light of the particular field of study they most associate it with. Interestingly, in a study of 27 definitions of organization development published since 1969, it was discovered that that there are as many as 60 different variables listed in those definitions. (Egan, 2002). To begin the comparison, the following definition given by Beckhard in 1969 has long been held as the standard in the field of organization studies: “Organization Development is an effort planned, organization-wide, and managed from the top, to increase organization effectiveness and health through planned interventions in the organizations processes, using behavioral-science knowledge.“ While there are still supporters for this definition, the critiques against it have raised with time. The critical element missing from this understanding of OD is the involvement of the individual members of the organization and the culture that they bring with them. Without their constant input and support for the process, it cannot be the dynamic, proactive strategy that is required for the organizations today. While the effort has to be organization-wide, it cannot only be managed from the top where the information available may not be complete, accurate or timely. The initiative has to include the lower tiers as well. Also indicative of the outdated nature of this definition is complete organization trend which is moving towards flat top organizations, allowing for more decision making authority at all levels. Finally, the process has to be holistic and continuous in nature now to keep up with the turbulent times; planned interventions will not be effective. In comparing this definition with the one we have derived, many differences can be seen but these are necessary as it reflects the nature of the organization as they exist today. The one similarity is in the fact that OD cannot be practiced in isolation; it has to be accepted and implemented throughout the organization. Beckhard’s definition was indirectly derived from the work of psychologist Kurt Lewin who is considered as the father of the concept of Organization development. He brought significant concepts such as group dynamics and action research into the management view and these are still in practice to some extent. Another author, Warren Bennis gave a definition for OD in the same vein, but it introduced some concepts which are still relevant to our core understandings of the term. “Organization development is a response to change, a complex educational strategy intended to change beliefs, attitudes, values, and structures of organizations so that they can better adapt to new technologies, markets, and challenges, and the dizzying rate of change itself” (Bennis, 1969). McLean in his book Organization Development Principles, Processes, Performance makes the argument that while Bennis states OD as a reactive process to change instead of proactive, he also introduces the concept of ‘Organizational Culture’ into the definition making it a more suitable stance with respect to modern organizations Concepts of beliefs, attitudes and values present in this second definition, merge nicely together in the phrase ‘individual and group culture’ which has been used in our definition. This definition is also centered around the idea of ‘change’ which again, is the center point of the given definition as well. The ideas are well matched. From amongst the modern world definitions, the one which offers most comprehensive support for the idea about individual contribution about organization development, similar to as presented in this paper is as follows: “Organization Development is the attempt to influence the members of an organization to expand their candidness with each other about their views of the organization and their experience in it, and to take greater responsibility for their own actions as organization members. The assumption behind OD is that when people pursue both of these objectives simultaneously, they are likely to discover new ways of working together that they experience as more effective for achieving their own and their shared (organization) goals. When this does not happen, such activity helps them to understand why and to make meaningful choices about what to do in light of this understanding.” (Nielson, 1984) This definition puts the focus not the methods to achieve the development (such as applied behavioral science) but on the people and groups who will actually implement and construct the organization development process through interaction and collaboration. This suggests that OD can only be possible when the people can see significant personal benefits in it for them. Through open communication and expression all the individuals (from top to bottom) can agree upon the best possible way to move the organization forward and achieve their shared and personal goals. It wouldn’t matter whether they apply the social sciences, behavioral sciences, a structured or unstructured, continuous or step-by-step plan as long as they all can agree on the end results. Any method could be selected if it is in line with the organization culture and is accepted by the majority. However, a definition provided by McLagan in 1989 is the one which greatly coincides with the definition given in this paper: “Organization development focuses on assuring healthy inter- and intra-unit relationships and helping groups initiate and manage change. Organization development’s primary emphasis is on relationships and processes between and among individuals and groups. Its primary intervention is influence on the relationship of individuals and groups to affect an impact on the organization as a system.” This definition talks about the focus on handling change and the importance of the organization culture in development of the process. By managing the collaborations between the individuals, the organization is impacted as a whole. While this definition doesn’t include the concept of growth rather the continuation of the organization as a current in face of turbulent conditions, it can be inferred that ‘growth’ would be included in the normal functions of the entity. Finally, one another concept can also be discussed with regards to this term. While not explicitly stated in any popular definition, this idea is prevalent in management circles. Professionals suggest that Organization development for an organization is similar to a physician for the human body. Just as a human body cannot continue to function without proper treatment when under duress, similarly an organization needs OD as a defense against the effects of unpredictable change. The problem with this idea is that physicians are needed only when something goes wrong, the process of OD however is a proactive one and should be utilized throughout the life of the organization. Strategic OD doesn’t only solve problems; it can make the organization more effective, efficient and improve overall productivity. Applying the Definition to real life: One of the tasks that OD can be used for is to assist in generating systems for initiating feedback on individual performance and, at times, performing studies to give individuals feedback and coaching to help them in their individual development in line with established organizational goals. As the Human asset of the organization is developed, so will its complete performance. As change management is an important application of OD, the feedback for the individuals will ideally include parameters for judging their flexibility, adaptability etc. Similarly a major source for improvement could be interactions and learning from co workers and upper management. All this will be done keeping in mind the traits which are desirable in the organizational culture and will help individuals work together more effectively. Different levels of the organization can easily be involved together through this approach. “The manner in which a company would grow over a certain period of time, as influenced by the individual and group culture within the body of the organization, and the interactions between different members. This growth pattern has to be adopted at all levels and it shows the extent to which an Organization can readily adapt to change and simultaneously, gain maximum advantage to meet its objectives”. The paper authored by Large (1998) discusses the theory and practice of search conferences with reference of a case study of a merger. Search conferences are events held for duration of 2 to 2.5 days consisting of groups of 20-25 people responsible for planning and development. These people can talk, collaborate and introduce ideas for any major objective; such as a merger. They provide the opportunity for participative strategic planning, as managers can get input from all the stakeholders at different levels, in a very conducive and comfortable environment. “They enable the maximum use of human resources, commitment, learning and flexibility so that innovation is unlocked” Matching up the case described in the paper with our definition of OD we can see the emphasis is on all the Right points. Growth is the main objective (achieved through the merger) but the focus on making the process successful is through the people involved. Open communication and interaction would result in a harmonious culture where ideas can be generated, and these will be acceptable to all. The communication helps all the members (and those who would be affected by their decisions) to accept the changes which come with a merger and allow them to work together towards achieving organizational goals. Finally, the involvement of all levels of management gives a better picture of the perceptions which exist in the individual workers. This is a successful strategy towards implementing OD. A changing environment leads to many different explanations of the term ‘Organizational Development’, but for the sake of this paper it is assumed that the definition given is a suitable one which can be applied to the modern organization with satisfactory results. There is support for the variable used in previous researches done and it is probable that more evidence can be uncovered. References Martin Large, (1998) "Using the search conference for planning a merger participatively", Career Development International, Vol. 3 Iss: 2, pp.62 – 66 Egan, T. M. (2002). Organization development: An examination of definitions and dependent variables. Organization Development Journal, 20(2), 59–71. Beckhard, R. (1969). Organization development: Strategies and models. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley McLean, Gary. N. (2005). Organization Development Principles, Processes, Performance. Published by Berrett-Koehler Publishers. McNamara, C. Some "Definitions" of Organization Development (OD). Adapted from the Field Guide to Consulting and Organizational Development. Retrieved from: http://managementhelp.org/organizationdevelopment/od-defined.htm Neilsen, Eric. H. (1984) “Becoming an OD Practitioner”, Englewood Cliffs, CA: Prentice-Hall pp. 2-3.  Read More