1.  Too many people confuse management training (or to use a popular word in some organizations (teaching), with leadership development.   There is a difference between management and leadership and a big difference between training/teaching and development.  Training/teaching has its roots in a doctor patient model where skills and expertise flows from the expert to the student.  True leadership development is client centered and the helper/coach/developer stimulates insight, self-awareness, and different perspectives.  The client, however, is responsible for her/his own learning and, to use a Center for Creative Leadership term, “meaning making.”  The classic concept of Chris Argyris involves the generation of valid data, the concept of free choice, and the option of internal commitment.  In the more plain words of Pat Williams who started the Pepperdine MSOD program, help is defined by the helper, not the helpee. 

 2.  Too many people are enamored by one technique.  It may be a coaching methodology, an assessment instrument, or a leadership model or definition.  Another Pat Williams saying was “meet the client where they are, not where you want them to be.”  The Center for Creative Leadership has a model involving individual assessment and feedback, but leaves the decision to change or develop to the client.

 3.  Too many managers approach the leadership development challenge with “war stories” and attempt to generalize the leadership development process from a narrow base of management experience from one organization within one context.  Too many academics attempt to facilitate leadership development from a non experiential research base, heavy on theory, but light on practice.

There are a lot of tools, certification credentials, and technical approaches out there.  Some are good, some are suspect, and some are shams. 

 As consultants we do need to keep our tool chest up to date and sometimes we need to convince our clients we are legitimate by presenting credentials. However, we need to be careful that we are not a solution looking for a problem.  By that I mean that we all have a favorite model, instrument, tool, intervention strategy, credential, or degree pedigree. Degrees and credentials are useful for getting in the door and as a general guideline to our intervention strategy, but we need to make certain that our background and tools fit the problem we are working with. 

 I was among the first Pepperdine MSOD students and the person who started that program, Pat Williams, kept pounding the mantra “diagnose before you intervene,” into our heads.  Instruments such as the MBTI and processes such as 360 feedback can be helpful tools, but they are certainly not the only ones and we need to take the time and gain the perspective and skills to have a wide range of tools to apply to our client’s issues.  Another, saying I picked up that fits what I am trying to say – this one I picked up doing my doctoral work at George Washington – is “That if the only tool you have is a hammer, the whole world is a nail!”  I’m not trying to disparage a favorite instrument or consulting approach, but we need begin with the end we are attempting to accomplish, then find a process to get there and there are many, many processes.

I recently became aware of a new label – “organizational transmutation” – used in the context of organization development.   

 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.

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 confusing and pretentious 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.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about what OD (organization development) actually involves and  how it can help today’s organizations.

There is a classic article by Wisebord in the 1977 OD Practitioner  He goes through a torturous review of the many conflicting definitions of the time and finally concludes that “OD begins to make sense to me only when viewed as a secular religion.  Its main underpinning is a moral philosophy – a value system.” 

 I think he was right.  OD differentiates itself from its cousins, HR, talent management, individual development, coaching, etc. – etc. – etc. based on values such as participation, voice, choice, democracy, non-hierarchal orientation, and human potential.  Not that the cousins don’t have some of these values, but they use them as means to other ends whereas OD has the values themselves as ends.  

 OD has strong, direct roots to the early days of NTL, Tavistock, and the Research Center for Group Dynamics which started as part of NTL and later moved to the University of Michigan.  Small group dynamics, T-group self-awareness, and normative/re-educative change were central to the three pioneers of NTL – Lee Bradford, Ron Lippitt, and Ken Benne.  The actual term, “OD” was coined either by Kurt Lewin or Ron’s brother Gordon Lippitt.  

 I think, we need to separate the tools from the values to understand OD.  T-groups, team building, appreciative inquiry, large system change interventions, are all useful OD tools as long as they are applied using the core values as the common denominator.  Conversely, they are not OD tools if they are used for coercion, manipulation, or to inflate the ego or the pocketbook of the consultant.  There is a very useful and somewhat hard to read book by William Barrett, called The Illusion of Technique that makes this point. 

 There is a reason OD flourished in the 60’s and the 70’s and why it is struggling a bit today.  It was a tool to promote social change into what were seen as coercive, power driven, bureaucracies.  It was seen by many of the practitioners of the time as a way to open systems and give voice and choice to the have-nots.  The culture has changed and OD change agents today do not live in the same environment of social ferment.

 The question of where internal OD practitioners should report is more a function of finding a fit where they can pursue their “marginality,” than any specific reporting relationship.  Marginality, as I use it here, means that to be effective the OD practitioner should have the freedom to act and be able to see the system through a different set of lenses than those who are central to the system.  I have seen OD practitioners who report to CEO’s and those who report to HR departments both be very effective and free and also have their marginality and influence corrupted by controlling bosses and their own seduction by power and status.  It’s hard to be an effective internal OD person at the best of times.

.

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 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.