|
|
|
|
|
|
Lesson#10
|
The Organization Development Practitioner
|
|
|
|
The Organization Development Practitioner:
A closer look at OD practitioners can provide a more personal
perspective on the field and can help us
understand the essential character of OD as a helping
profession, involving personal relationships between
practitioners and organization members.
Much of the literature about OD practitioners views them as
internal or external consultants providing
professional services—diagnosing problems, developing solutions,
and helping to implement them.
More
recent perspectives expand the practice scope to include
professionals in related disciplines, such as
industrial psychology and organization theory, as well as line
managers who have learned how to carry out
OD to change and develop their departments.
A great deal of opinion and some research studies have focused
on the necessary skills and knowledge of
an effective OD practitioner. Studies of the profession provide
a comprehensive list of basic skills and
knowledge that all effective OD practitioners must possess.
Most of the relevant literature focuses on people specializing
in OD as a profession and addresses their
roles and careers. The OD role can be described in relation to
the position of practitioners: internal to the
organization, external to it, or in a team comprising both
internal and external consultants. The OD role
also can be examined in terms of its marginality in
organizations, of the emotional demands made on the
practitioner, and of where it fits along a continuum from
client-centered to consultant-centered
functioning. Finally, organization development is an emerging
profession providing alternative
opportunities for gaining competence and developing a career.
The stressful nature of helping professions,
however, suggests that OD practitioners must cope with the
possibility of professional burnout.
As in other helping professions, such as medicine and law,
values and ethics play an important role in
guiding OD practice and in minimizing the chances that clients
will be neglected or abused.
Who is the Organization Development Practitioner?
The term organization development practitioner refers to at
least three sets of people. The most obvious
group of OD practitioners are those people specializing in OD as
a profession. They may be internal or
external consultants who offer professional services to
organization clients, including top managers,
functional department heads, and staff groups. OD professionals
traditionally have shared a common set of
humanistic values promoting open communications, employee
involvement, and personal growth and
development. They tend to have common training, skills, and
experience in the social processes of
organizations (for example, group dynamics, decision making, and
communications). In recent years, OD
professionals have expanded those traditional values and skill
sets to include more concern for
organizational effectiveness, competitiveness, and bottom-line
results, and greater attention to the technical,
structural, and strategic parts of organizations. That
expansion, mainly in response to the highly
competitive demands facing modern organizations, has resulted in
a more diverse set of OD professionals
geared to helping organizations cope with those pressures.
Second:
the term OD
practitioner applies to people specializing in fields related to OD, such as
reward
systems, organization design, total quality, information
technology, and business strategy. These contentoriented
fields increasingly are becoming integrated with OD's process
orientation, particularly as OD
projects have become more comprehensive, involving multiple
features and varying parts of organizations.
For example is the result of marrying OD with business strategy.
A growing number of professionals in
these related fields are gaining experience and competence in
OD, mainly through working with OD
professionals on large-scale projects and through attending OD
training sessions. For example, most of the
large accounting firms have diversified into management
consulting and change management. In most
cases, professionals in these related fields do not subscribe
fully to traditional OD values, nor do they have
extensive OD training and experience. Rather, they have formal
training and experience in their respective
specialties, such as industrial relations, management
consulting, information systems, health care, and work
design. They are OD practitioners in the sense that they apply
their special competence within an OD-like
process, typically by engaging OD professionals and managers to
design and implement change programs.
They also practice OD when they apply their OD competence to
their own specialties, thus spreading an
OD perspective into such areas as compensation practices, work
design, labor relations, and planning and
strategy.
Third:
the term OD
practitioner applies to the increasing number of managers and administrators who
have gained competence in OD and who apply it to their own work
areas. Studies and recent articles argue
that OD applied by managers rather than OD professionals is
growing rapidly. They suggest that the faster
pace of change affecting organizations today is highlighting the
centrality of the manager in managing
change. Consequently, OD must become a general management skill.
Along those lines, Kanter studied a
growing number of firms, such as General Electric,
Hewlett-Packard, and 3M, where managers and
employees have become "change masters. They have gained the
expertise to introduce change and innovation
into the organization.
Managers tend to gain competence in OD through interacting with
OD professionals in actual change
programs. This on-the-job training frequently is supplemented
with more formal OD training, such as the
variety of workshops offered by the National Training
Laboratories, the Center for Creative Leadership,
the Gestalt Institute, UCLA's Extension Service, University
Associates, and others. Line managers
increasingly are attending such external programs. Moreover, a
growing number of organizations, including
Texas Instruments, Motorola, and General Electric, have
instituted in-house training programs for
managers to learn how to develop and change their work units. As
managers gain OD competence, they
become its most basic practitioners.
In practice, the distinctions among the three sets of OD
practitioners are blurring. A growing number of
managers have transferred, either temporarily or permanently,
into the OD profession. For example,
companies such as Procter & Gamble have trained and rotated
managers into full-time OD roles so that
they can gain skills and experience needed for higher-level
management positions. Also, it is increasingly
common to find managers using their experience in OD to become
external consultants. More OD
practitioners are gaining professional competence in related
specialties, such as business process
reengineering, reward systems, and organization design.
Conversely, many specialists in those related areas
are achieving professional competence in OD. Cross-training and
integration are producing a more
comprehensive and complex kind of OD practitioner, one with a
greater diversity of values, skills, and
experience than a traditional practitioner.
External and Internal Practitioners:
In every large-scale planned change program, some person or
group is usually designated to lead the
change; sometimes it is the OD practitioner. The practitioner
then, is the change leader, the person leading
or guiding the process of change in an organization. Internal
practitioners are already members of the
organization. They may be either managers practicing OD with
their work groups or OD specialists that
may be from the human resources or organization development
department. External practitioners are
brought in from outside the organization as OD specialists and
are often referred to as consultants. Both
the use of external and internal practitioners have advantages
and disadvantages.
The OD practitioners who are specialists, whether from within or
outside of the organization are
professionals who have specialized and trained in OD and related
areas, such as the social sciences,
interpersonal communications, decision making, and organization
behavior. These specialists, often
referred to as OD consultants, have a more formal and involved
process when they enter the client system
than managers who are doing OD with their work group. Although
much of the chapter is directed at OD
practitioners who are specialists, the concepts also apply to OD
practitioners who are managers and team
leaders implementing OD.
The External Practitioner:
The external
practitioner is someone not previously
associated with the client system. Coming from the
outside, the external practitioner sees things from a different
viewpoint and from a position of objectivity.
Because external practitioners are invited into the
organization, they have increased leverage (the degree of
influence and status within the client system) and greater
freedom of operation than internal practitioners.
Research evidence suggests that top managers view external
practitioners as having a more positive role in
large-scale change programs than internal practitioners.
Since external practitioners are not a part of the organization,
they are less in awe of the power wielded by
various organization members. Unlike internal practitioners,
they do not depend upon the organization for
raises, approval, or promotions. Because they usually have a
very broad career base and other clients to fall
back on, they tend to have a more independent attitude about
risk-taking and confrontations with the client
system. At McKinsey & Co., a leading management consulting firm,
consultants are direct, outspoken, and
challenge the client's opinions. Once "The Firm" (as McKinsey is
called) is hired, a four- to six-person
"engagement team" is assembled, with an experienced consultant
to coordinate the effort. Bear in mind,
though, that McKinsey’s
management consulting work is not necessarily organization development.
The disadvantages of external practitioners result from the same
factors as the advantage. Outsiders are
generally unfamiliar with the organization system and may not
have sufficient knowledge of its technology,
such as aerospace or chemistry. They are unfamiliar with the
culture, communication networks, and formal
or informal power systems. In some situations, practitioners may
have difficulty gathering pertinent
information simply because they are outsiders. Our Changing
World illustrates problems that outside
management consulting firms face in Germany.
The Internal Practitioner:
The
internal
practitioner
is already a member of
the organization: a top executive, an organization
member who initiates change in his or her work group, or a
member of the human resources or
organization development department. Many large organizations
have established offices with the specific
responsibility of helping the organization implement change
programs. In the past few years, a growing
number of major organizations (including Disney, IBM, General
Electric, General Motors, Honeywell,
Union Carbide, and the US. Army and Navy) have created internal
OD practitioner groups. These internal
practitioners often operate out of the human resources area and
may report directly to the president of the
organization.
Internal practitioners have certain advantages inherent in their
relationship with the organization. They are
familiar with the organization's culture and norms and probably
accept and behave in accordance with the
norms. This means that they need not waste time becoming
familiar with the system and winning
acceptance. Internal practitioners know the power structure,
which are the strategic people, and how to
apply leverage. They are already known to the employees, and
have a personal interest in seeing the
organization succeed. Unfortunately, it is by no means easy for
internal practitioners to acquire all the skills
they will need. The proof is in the problems encountered by new,
not quite ready internal practitioners or
managers who take on projects before they are fully comfortable
with their practitioner roles in the
organization, and before they understand and have developed
critical skills.
The position of an internal practitioner also has disadvantages.
One of these may be a lack of the
specialized skills needed for organization development. The lack
of OD skills has become a less significant
factor now that more universities have OD classes and programs
and their graduates have entered the
workforce. Another disadvantage relates to lack of objectivity.
Internal practitioners may be more likely to
accept the organizational system as a given and accommodate
their change tactics to the needs of
management. Being known to the workforce has advantages, but it
can also work against the internal
practitioner. Other employees may not understand the
practitioner's role and will certainly be influenced by
his or her previous work and relationships in the organization,
particularly if the work and relationships
have in anyway been questionable. Finally, the internal
practitioner may not have the necessary power and
authority; internal practitioners are sometimes in a remote
staff position and report to a mid-level manager.
The OD practitioner must break through the barriers of
bureaucracy and organizational politics to develop
innovation, creativity, teamwork, and trust within the
organization.
The External-Internal Practitioner Team:
The implementation of a large-scale change program is almost
impossible without the involvement of all
levels and elements of the organization. One approach to
creating a climate of change uses a team formed
of an external practitioner working directly with an internal
practitioner to initiate and facilitate change
programs (known as the
external-internal practitioner team
).This
is probably the most effective
approach. OD researcher John Lewis, for example, found that
successful external OD practitioners assisted
in the development of their internal counterparts. The partners
bring complementary resources to the team;
each has advantages and strengths that offset the disadvantages
and weaknesses of the other. The external
practitioner brings expertise, objectivity, and new insights to
organization problems. The internal
practitioner, on the other hand, brings detailed knowledge of
organization issues and norms, a long-rime
acquaintance with members, and an awareness of system strengths
and weaknesses. For change programs
in large organizations, the team will likely consist of more
than two practitioners.
The collaborative relationship between internal and external
practitioners provides an integration of
abilities, skills, and resources. The relationship serves as a
model for the rest of the organization—a model
that members can observe and see in operation, one that embodies
such qualities as trust, respect, honesty,
confrontation, and collaboration. The team approach makes it
possible to divide the change program’s
workload and share in the diagnosis, planning, and strategy. The
external-internal practitioner team less
likely to accept watered-down or compromised change programs
because each team member provides
support to the other. As an example, during the U.S. Navy’s
Command Development (OD) Program, the
internal change agents recommended that training seminars be
conducted away from the Navy
environment (i.e., at a resort) and the participants dress in
civilian clothing to lessen authority it issues.
Higher authority, however, ordered the seminars to he held on
naval bases and in uniform—ground rules
that the internal practitioners reluctantly accepted. In this
situation an external practitioner with greater
leverage might have provided enough support and influence to
gain approval to the desired program.
Another reason for using an external-internal practitioner team
is to achieve greater continuity over the
entire OD program. Because external practitioners are involved
in other outside activities, they generally are
available to the organization only a few days a month, with two-
or three-week intervals between visits. The
internal practitioner, on the other hand, provides a continuing
point of contact for organization members
whenever problems or questions arise. Because many OD programs
are long-term efforts, often lasting
three to five Years, the external-internal combination may
provide the stimulation and motivation needed
to keep the change program moving during periods of resistance.
The team effort is probably the most
effective approach because it combines the advantages of both
external and internal practitioners while
minimizing the disadvantages.
Practitioner Style Model:
There is often a gap between the practitioner’s and the client’s
understandings about OD and change. The
practitioner needs to assess the degree of this gap, because a
relationship is possible only if the practitioner
can be flexible enough to understand where the client is and
help the client to learn about the OD change
process. In this sense, the practitioner must have clarity about
the purpose of OD in the organization. The
practitioner brings certain knowledge, skills, values, and
experience to the situation. In turn, the client
system has its own values and a set of expectations for the
practitioner. The target organization within the
client system has its own subculture and level of readiness for
change.
The practitioner’s task and the scope, difficulty, and
complexity of the changes to be implemented affect
the relationship as well. Finally, the target organization’s
readiness, for change, level of resistance, and
culture also influence the practitioner’s style and the change
approaches that may be successful in a given
situation. The OD practitioner needs to involve organization
members at all levels and convince them to
“buy in” on the change program—in effect, to get involved in
soling the problems.
Developing a Trust Relationship:
The development of openness and trust between practitioner and
client is an essential aspect of the OD
program. It is important because trust is necessary for
cooperation and communication. When there is no
trust, people will tend to be dishonest, evasive, and not
authentic with one another, and communication is
often inaccurate, distorted, or incomplete. There are several
basic responses that the practitioner may use in
the communication process aimed at developing a trust
relationship:
•
Questions
—“How do you see the organization?”
•
Applied
expertise (advising)
—“One possible
intervention is team building.”
•
Reflection
– “It sounds like you would like to see a
participative form of leadership.”
•
Interpretation
—“From your description, inter-team
conflict could be the problem.”
•
Self-disclosure
—“I’ve felt discouraged myself when my
ideas were rejected.”
•
Silence
—Say nothing, let the client sort out his
or her thoughts.
Figure: 09 Practitioner Style Model
How these basic responses are used is important in developing
the practitioner-client relationship, in
general the more balanced the practitioner’s use of these
responses and the more open the range of
responses, the higher level of trust. For example, some
practitioners rely almost exclusively on questions
without sharing their own ideas and feelings. This tends to
create a one-way flow of information. Other
practitioners rely heavily on advising responses, which may tend
to develop a dependency relationship. It is
important for the practitioner to be aware of the range of
responses and to use those that will build an
open and trusting relationship.
During the first several contacts with the client system, the
following types of questions may be reflected
upon:
• What is the attitude of
the client system toward OD? Is there a real underlying desire for change?
Or is the attitude superficial?
• What is the gut-level
meaning of the client’s problem? How realistic is the client’s appraisal of its
own problems?
• What are the
possibilities that an OD program will alleviate the problem? Can OD solve the
problem or are other change programs more appropriate?
• What is the
practitioner’s potential impact on the system? Based on feedback from the
client, how
probable is it that the practitioner can bring about significant
change?
Once these questions are answered, the practitioner can decide
whether to continue the change efforts or
to discontinue and terminate the relationship. Most OD
practitioners recommend an open discussion with
the client on these issues at an early stage.
|
|
|
|
|