There are lots of definitions of organization development (OD) but let me begin by saying it is not the same as managing change!  Look at the words themselves . . . development of the organization implies organic, holistic, engaging and full of potential. While the other is more systematic and linear and implies that change can be organized, planned, directed and controlled. *

For the past 12 years I have taught Organization Development courses on and off and all I ask of my students are two things; first, to remember that

OD ? Managing Change

and second, the following definition based on the work of Richard Beckhard ** as follows.

Organization Development:

1. is a planned change effort.
2. involves the total system.
3. is managed from the top.
4. is designed to increase organization effectiveness and health.
5. achieves its goals through planned interventions using behavioural science knowledge.

Planned

This is less about action planning and more about action research as defined by Kurt Lewin (often considered the father of organization development). See model to the right. While many believe that the old model of Unfreezing / Changing / Refreezing is no longer a relevant model, Wendell L French and Cecil Bell  whose text book is usually the definitive text for teaching organization development (, define OD at one point as “organization improvement through action research”. Planning means diagnosis and there are various tools that OD consultant use:

• action research methodology
• gap analysis (e.g. SWOT)
• force field analysis
• various data collection techniques from interviews to surveys
• feedback

System

A system is a set of interacting or interdependent entities forming an integrated whole. In OD the total system is considered even if the intervention is for a part of the organization, because any action has an impact on the whole.

Managed at the top

Perhaps you might think that this should simply be updated to read “Led from the top”.  I disagree.   The biggest complaint and excuse that I have heard over the years is that change is impossible without a champion from the top.  People still feel that they need to be led.  In today’s environment, I would probably change this to “inspired” from the top. The process is both top down and bottom up and it is an unbelievable challenge if engagement is only at one level of the organization.  Hence the choices of interventions is so critical and can not be either mechanical or canned.

Health and Behavioural Science

Simply stated this is the belief and principle that when people are open and feel safe, share a common vision, are engaged and supportive, are contributing to their fullest potential, then the organization can be effective and fully achieve its goals.  For a system to be healthy it needs to be:

• trusting
• collaborative
• future oriented
• process savvy
• embracing ambiguity
• considerate of the environment
• socially responsible
  

What do you mean by “interventions”?

That’s a little more complicated. Before we even get to the actual intervention, we have to consider the various data gathering and diagnostic tools mentioned above. But let’s say we done the proper analysis. Then a whole number of OD interventions are available, often in combination with others. Some of them are:

• individual coaching
• process consultation
• team building
• survey and feedback
• training
• whole systems change (e.g. World Cafes, Future Search, Real Time Strategic Change, Open Space, Appreciative Inquiry)
• work redesign / re-engineering

Reference:

* R. Alex Mackenzie. “The Management Process in 3-D” Harvard Business Review, Nov./Dec. 1969, pp. 80-87.

** Richard Beckhard (1969). Organization development: strategies and models. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. pp. 114.

Wendell L French; Cecil Bell. Organization development: behavioral science interventions for organization improvement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Popularity: 64% [?]