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.
