One result of the current economic environment is that organization development consultants (internal and external) are using the disequilibrium in organizations as a stimulus to help change organizational cultures.  Much of this is positive, as in making lemonade out of lemons, but some consultants are using metaphysical labels such as organizational transformation or organizational transmutation that devalue their efforts and turn off line managers.  

 I’m leery about fuzzy labels with no behavioral or operational anchors.  About 30 years ago there was a buzz in OD circles concerning organizational “transformation.”  This involved morphing from one state to another with some degree of facilitation by OD professionals.  It kind of fizzled for lack of clarity and any real pre and post behavioral anchors or measurement criteria. 

 Transmutation sounds like another one of those terms.  In some ways it sounds a bit like the old concept of re-engineering.  The big difference is that re-engineering had a basis in hard data and involved changing measurable sub-processes and, unfortunately, triggering people reductions.  

 I think terms like transmutation and transformation can lead to misunderstanding and, at times, devaluing OD and we need to be careful about using them.  Clear behavioral and operational criteria for even such common OD terms as “culture change” are really important.  Management in today’s economic environment tend to scoff at fuzzy terms and, intriguing though they may be, we need the discipline to apply behavioral measurement criteria to what we do and need to language our profession in terms that line managers can understand.

I was recently asked where “change managment” should report in an organization.  Here is what I had to say.
 
In my experience – and I think backed by most reputable research – cultural change does not work unless it is “owned” by the top executive.  Having staff groups HR or the top strategic planning group functionally responsible for change management without the top person embracing and facilitating the change just won’t work.  In this regard, it really does not matter where a staff group reports.  I have also found that tactical projects such as those managed by a project management office become an exercise  in bureaucracy unless the responsible line executive owns the project.
 
It gets really seductive for staff groups like HR, planning, or project management to be given responsibility for change.  They become seduced by pseudo-power end up acting like line as opposed to staff functions and become rules administrators not problem solvers and often get gridlocked by conflict. They need to not see themselves as responsible for change, but as facilitators, advisors, and helpers.  One thing I’ve learned is that help is defined by the person getting the help, not the one giving it. 
 
That’s why I think change management is a process, not a function.  The best people who help facilitate change management are those who can stimulate a sense of urgency, formulate a guiding coalition, and find a way to have top management own the change (see John Kotter’s 8 step change model – I’ve attached a useful link)   http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_82.htm  
 
Change management and project management techniques are tactical, not strategic, and too many practitioners become trapped in a self-referencing loop.  That’s why many staff groups become irrelevant to the real direction of an organization and why, I think, OD skills help a lot. 
 

I have a background in organization development and, when helping organizations respond to the negative effect of downsizing, I use an OD approach.  Recently, a person posted a question on a Linked In site asking advice as to whether to spend the time and money to pursue an masters degree in OD and wondering how that would help with job prospects and compensation.  I believe that OD is a unique field and too many people get into it for the wrong reasons so I’m posting my response to that Linked In question.

 OD is, in its essence, a value based field based on participation, openness, trust, and a humanistic perspective.  Applying this value orientation to today’s business world requires grounding in both process skills and faith that teamwork, participation, and diversity will result in long-term sustainable business outcomes.

 There is a basic difference between an MBA degree and masters in OD.  Unfortunately, some universities have tried to meld the two and it has resulted in watering down both degrees. 

 I would advise that you go into an OD masters program only if you want to hitch your wagon to the faith based perspective in the value of an OD orientation.  If not, get an MBA.  For sure, I would not go to the expense and trouble of pursuing masters in OD in order to enhance your employment prospects.  You will do better in that regard with an MBA or masters in instructional technology. 

 I’m not trying to be pessimistic – just realistic.  I have an MSOD from Pepperdine and a doctorate in OB and OD from George Washington and have taught graduate programs in both OD and at the MBA level.

 I have also made a living as an OD practitioner for many, many years and love the field.  If you truly want to facilitate long term change and are willing to pay the price in terms of personal growth and resisting the demand from clients for short term results and quick fixes at the price of long term sustainability, then by all means go into OD.  I’m just cautioning you that to spend the money and the time to get an OD degree with the purpose of making more money or getting better job offers will not only disappoint you but also will make you angry.  Not that you can’t make a very good living as an OD practitioner.  There are many that have.  There, however, are some who have not.  There are a lot more who call themselves OD consultants but are really doing other types of consulting.

 Again, OD is a wonderful field, albeit one that is taking some hits in today’s task oriented, short term, economy where managers are biased against “touchy-feely” OD stuff.  However, “touchy-feely” is the currency of the OD realm and if you want to learn how to apply it to organizations by all means go for it.