Organization Development as a Body of Work, That Is Informed by Science and Art

Organization Development as a body of work, that is informed by Science and Art

Change, whether planned or unplanned, is often associated with people’s understanding of OD. Change, both positive and negative, imposes itself on us from many sources, most of which are beyond our control.

The very first definition of OD as defined by Richard Beckhard in 1969 is: an effort (1) planned, (2) organization-wide and (3) managed from the top, to (4) increase organization effectiveness and health through (5) planned interventions in the organization’s process, using behavioural-science knowledge.

This definition does not take into account the rapid pace and complexity of world around to strategize planned change at every level.

However if we look at the current definition as proposed by Cummings and Worley in 2005, “ Organization Development is a system wide application and transfer of behavioural science knowledge to the planned development, improvement and reinforcement of strategies, structures, and processes that lead to organization effectiveness.

If studied in depth, it is safe to summarize that Organization Development is a process or activity, based on the behavioural sciences, that, either initially or over the long-term, has the potential to develop enhanced knowledge, expertise, productivity, satisfaction, income and interpersonal relationships in an organizational settings, whether for personal or team gain, or for the benefit of an organization, community, nation, region or, ultimately, the whole of humanity.

As Behavioural Sciences are an integral part of OD, if we explore these sciences further, they include psychology, sociology, economics, and anthropology, among other. Primarily, Behavioural Sciences draw from Psychology, social neuroscience and cognitive science. Behavioural Science uses research and scientific method to determine and understand behaviour in the workplace.

An example of that OD has drawn from science can be perfectly explained by the Hawthorne Studies conducted by Elton Mayo and Fritz Roethlisberger in 1920 with the workers at the Western Electric Company. The Hawthorne studies were a part of a refocus on managerial strategy incorporating the socio-psychological aspects of human behaviour in organizations.

The studies suggested that employees have social and psychological needs – along with the economic and financial needs – which must be met in order to be motivated to complete their assigned tasks. The human relations movement is concerned with morale, leadership, and factors that aid in the cooperation of workers. This theory of management was a by product of the issues that arose from the classical, scientific perspectives on management and has been largely adopted in the practice of OD.

Within the scope of business management environment, the application of behavioural science can be seen primarily in information processing, relationships and motivation. Relational sciences deal with relationships, interaction, communication networks, associations, and relational strategies or dynamics between organisms or cognitive entities in a social system. The emphasis on using quantitative data and qualitative research methods to determine how people process information and understand social relationships is important to helping managers better understand the proven methods for increasing employee motivation and employee productivity. The behavioural-science approach and the myriad of fields it encompasses is the most commonly used in OD.

Organization Development is thus considered a field of applied behavioural science that focuses on understanding and managing organizational change as well as a field of scientific study and inquiry. It

uses components of behavioural sciences and studies in the fields of sociology, psychology, and theories of motivation, learning, and personality to implement effective organizational change and aid in development of employees.

Almost from its inception, OD is label as too touchy-feely. This reflects its strong humanistic and developmental orientations, as well as the psychological and social-psychological knowledge methodology bases. Balancing humanistic values with more technological or business-oriented goals, such as economic efficiency, can be difficult. Holding humanistic values and assumptions while addressing challenges from ‘pessimistic’ economic assumptions about human nature and motivation can also be difficult without coming across as too strident or doctrinaire.

If the balance struck appears too rooted in human development or humanistic values, perhaps as opposed to economic values and objectives, the OD or the OD consultant can be labelled too emotional. On the other hand, if the core values of OD are ignored or subjugated to a great degree, the practitioner is likely to be accused of not practicing OD. This is made especially difficult by the absence of clear criteria about what is too much or too little.

These challenges become an opportunity for the OD professional to periodically reassess, rebalance and rededicate themselves and the interventions. When working with an organization to help bring about a desired change, the OD practitioner is not the person in charge. Instead the OD practitioner is a third-party change agent aiding the management and/or persons in charge as well as the system itself to bring about the desired changes. An OD practitioner, whether internal or external to the system, must understand the issues, politics, psychological processes, and other dynamics associated with being a third-party change agent or consultant working the clients in complex social systems. Not all ideas are endorsed or embraced in organization development. It is those ideas and practices that are consistent with or congruent with the underlying values and philosophy of the organization that become part of the theories and practices associated with the proper roles and responsibilities of the OD consultant. For example, a third-party role wherein an expert tells people what they should do is an accepted if not essential part of a great deal of management and other types of consulting but is rejected in OD as a general mode of practice.

As the above dilemmas high-light the skill of self alignment, for an OD practitioner to become a successful change agent, it becomes necessary to adopt OD as an Art approach to bring about sustainable change. It is the best way of ensuring that the interventions implemented add measurable value to the business and well as sustain positive change within the organization system.

In particular, there is a greater need to balance the self, team and organization through ‘art’ dimension of interventions in order to reduce risks related to neglect of the people-related