Organization Development is an umbrella term for the processes I use to help organizations recover from the ill effects of downsizing.  I recently responded to a question on the IO psychology site on LinkedIn.  The question was “What is OD anyway?”  It asked how it differed from OE and OI.  Here is the answer I posted.

 Like all labels, Organization Development, Organizational Transformation, Organizational Effectiveness, Organizational Improvement, and Organizational Behavior, are subject to a number of interpretations and perceptions.  There are some basic differences.  Organizational Behavior is an academic discipline and usually a course taught in MBA programs.  OI and OE usually have a measurement and objective productivity improvement orientation.  OT (organizational transformation) was somewhat of a flash in the pan in the late 70’s and early 80’s.

 Organization Development – it is “organization” not “organizational” development, reached its peak popularity in the sixties and seventies.   It involves using an “intervention” to change an organizational system.  One common definition is “planned change.”   The classic reference is a 1970 a book by Chris Argyris called “Intervention Theory and Method: A Behavioral Science View” Argyris also laid the foundation for most of the concepts of what is now called organizational learning as more popularly articulated by Peter Senge.

OD in its pure form is based on a set of core values.  Words like collaborative, non-hierarchical, open, democratic, and humanistic, have been used to describe these values.  Interventions usually take the form of team-building, survey-feedback, processes, appreciative inquiry, and many other techniques.  Where OD differs from OI and OE is in its humanistic and value base.   In the early years a core technique was sensitivity training.

 As in all disciplines, there are various schools of OD.  Some remain grounded in the 60’s mantra of love, trust, openness, and collaboration.  There is a school of large systems intervention which involves getting many people and many perspectives aligned into a total systems change effort.  Recently, there is a cult of measurement that really blends into some of the OE and OI stuff. 

 There are Masters and Doctoral programs in OD and, they too, vary in their focus.  There are more than a few clinical psychologists in the field and there is some debate as to where OD (systems approach) and psychology (individual approach) compliment or cancel each other out.  Recently, many OD consultants have moved into executive coaching, both because they can make money doing it, and because it often compliments system-wide approaches.

 A large number of past OD consultants operated outside formal organizations, usually as individual practitioners or as a part of small groups.  There are now many internal OD consultants, but there is debate as to whether an internal can be as effective as an external and how someone can change a system of which they are a part.  The best practice seems to be a blend of internal and external practitioners

 Although OD has been criticized as “soft” and  too “touchy-feely,” most people who have experienced the work of a quality practitioner see their intervention as an extremely powerful and meaningful part of their lives.  OD, done well, is very powerful.  When working with organizations to help layoff survivors return to productive and meaningful work, I use OD techniques.  

 Many practitioners don’t use the term OD when they contract with clients.  This is because the term carries too much baggage from cynical managers and from non-professional practitioners.  I have both a Master’s and a doctorate in the field and very seldom use the term in my work.

The BP oil leak mess provides a relevant metaphor for leading organizations through troubled times.  The message is simple: blaming is not leadership – it is an escape from true leadership.

The US government, in response to political pressure, is blaming BP and spending more time grandstanding than trying to help get to the root of the problem.  BP is blaming its vendors and other oil companies are now blaming BP.  The state government is blaming the federal government and local municipalities are blaming the state.  Democrats are blaming Republicans and vice versa. 

In the meantime, the oil continues to gush and gush and too few people are focused on the root cause – first finding a way to stop the bleeding, and then to solve the underlying systems issue of minimizing the dangers of deep sea drilling.

True leadership involves ignoring the escape into blaming and having the courage to help people focus on the basic root cause. 

In an era of layoffs, cutbacks, and economic downturn, blaming corporate “greed,” lack of government regulation, or the concept of free-market capitalism does not deal with the basic, root cause issue.  That issue is the need to embrace the fact that we live in an interdependent global economic environment and that the paradigm in regard to long term, stable, employment security has irrevocably changed.

The lesson that came out of the total quality movement is operant: blame the system, not the individual.  True leaders do that.

I write in Healing the Wounds about the value of making the psychological employment contract more explicit.  The reason I think this is a good idea is that it reduces the ambiguity and erases the, often not valid, assumptions about job security. 

 This concept of “putting it in writing” is counter cultural to many organizations.  I think this is in order to give the organization flexibility and not tie them down.  Sometimes I hear organizational spokespersons saying something like, “We’ve worked for years on a handshake.  Why reduce it to writing?  Don’t you trust us?”   The unfortunate answer is no!  Even with the best intentions, organizations can’t really predict the future and employment continuality.

 My recent experience on a cruise ship reinforced my belief in the clarity and value of contractual relationships.  Everyone in a cruise ship – including the captain – has a clear contract that spells out all aspects of their employment relationship.  This explicit contracting does not hinder their focus on customer service.  In fact, the clarity frees them to focus on their jobs, not their security.

 Business organizations can formulate renewable contracts with the agreement of the employee and the organization.  This would actually be much better than the current performance appraisal process since it would be much clearer and more focused on the specifics of the work.

It has been a couple of weeks between blogs.  The reason is that I took a 12 day cruise through Italy, a couple of Greek Islands, Egypt, and Israel.  The cultures were amazingly diverse and, from a leadership perspective, very interesting.  What I found even more interesting was the culture of the cruise ship itself.

 Like most cruise ships the staff is made up of many different nationalities, often clustered around types of jobs.  Despite their diversity, they manage to focus on the customer (guest as they call them), and provide seamless service.  How do they pull it off?  How do they overcome their differences both in culture and in job status, avoid conflict, and work in harmony – at least from the guest’s perspective? 

 They are all – literally – in the same boat and I think we can learn a great deal about how to lead diversity and create a customer focused culture from cruise ships.  I will write more in future postings on these subjects.