|
|
|
|
|
|
Lesson#4
|
The Evolution of OD
|
|
|
|
The Evolution of OD
A brief history of OD will help to clarify the evolution of the
term as well as some of the problems and
confusion that have surrounded it. As currently practiced, OD
emerged from five major stems, as shown
below. The first was the growth of the National Training
Laboratories (NTL) and the development of
training groups, otherwise known as sensitivity training or
T-groups, The second stem of OD was the
classic work on action research conducted by social scientists
interested in applying research to managing
change. An important feature of action research was a technique
known as survey feedback. Kurt Lewin, a
prolific theorist, researcher, and practitioner in group
dynamics and social change, was instrumental in the
development of T-groups, survey feedback, and action research.
His work led to the creation of OD and
still serves as a major source of its concepts and methods. The
third stem represents the application of
participative management to organization structure and design.
The fourth stem is the approach focusing
on productivity and the quality of work life. The fifth stem of
OD, and the most recent influence on
current practice, involves strategic change and organization
transformation.
Laboratory
Training (The T-Group):
This stem of OD pioneered laboratory training, or the T-group –
a small, unstructured group in which
participants learn from their own interactions and evolving
dynamics about such issues as interpersonal
relations, personal growth, leadership, and group dynamics.
Essentially, laboratory training began in 1946,
when Kurt Lewin, (1898 – 1947, a prolific theorist, researcher,
and practitioner in interpersonal, group,
intergroup, and community relationships) widely recognized as
the founding father of OD, although he
died before the concept became current in the mid-1950s, and his
staff at the Research Centre for Group
Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) were
asked by the Connecticut Interracial
Commission for help on research in training community leaders. A
workshop was developed, and the
community leaders were brought together to learn about
leadership and to discuss problems. At the end of
each day, the researchers discussed privately what behaviors and
group dynamics they had observed. The
community leaders asked permission to sit in on these feedback
sessions. Reluctant at first, the researchers
finally agreed. Thus, the first T-group was formed in which
people reacted to data about their own
behavior. The researchers drew two conclusions about the first
T-group experiment:
Feedback about group interaction was a rich learning experience,
and
The process of “group building” had potential for learning that
could be transferred to “back-home”
situations.
As a result of this experience, the Office of Naval Research and
the National Education Association
provided financial backing to form the National Training
Laboratories (NTL), and Gould Academy in
Bethel, Maine, was selected as a site for further work (since
the, Bethel has played an important part in
NTL). The first Basic Skill Training Groups (later called
T-groups) were offered in 1947. The program was
so successful that out of Bethel experiences and NTL grew a
significant number of laboratory training
centers sponsored by universities.
In the 1950s, three trends emerged:
The emergence of regional laboratories,
The expansion of year-round sessions of T-groups, and
The expansion of the T-group into business and industry, with
NTL members becoming increasingly
involved with industry programs.
Over the next decade, as trainers began to work with social
systems of more permanency and complexity
then T-groups, they began to experience considerable frustration
in the transfer of laboratory behavioral
skills and insights of individuals into the solution of problems
in organizations. Personal skills learned in
the T-group settings were very difficult to transfer to complex
organizations. However, the training of
“teams” from the same organization had emerged early at Bethel
and undoubtedly was a link to the total
organizational focus of Douglas McGregor, Herbert Shepard, and
Robert Blake, and subsequently the
focus of Richard Beckhard, Chris Argyris, Jack Gibb, Warren
Bennis, and others. All had been T-group
trainers in NTL programs.
Applying T-group techniques to organizations gradually became
known as team building – a process for
helping work groups become more effective in accomplishing tasks
and satisfying member needs.
2.
Action
Research/Survey Feedback:
Kurt Lewin also was involved in the second movement that led to
OD’s emergence as a practical field of
social science. This second stem refers to the processes of
action research and survey feedback. The action
research contribution began in the 1940s with studies conducted
by social scientists John Collier, Kurt
Lewin, and William Whyte. They discovered that research needed
to be closely linked to action if
organization members were to use it to manage change. A
collaborative effort was initiated between
organization members and social scientists to collect research
data about an organization’s functioning, to
analyze it for causes of problems, and to devise and implement
solutions. After implementation, further
data were collected to assess the results, and the cycle of data
collection and action often continued. The
results of action research were twofold: members of
organizations were able to use research on themselves
to guide action and change, and social scientists were able to
study that process to derive new knowledge
that could be used elsewhere.
Among the pioneering action research studies was the work of
Lewin at a Manufacturing Co. (Harwood
Manufacturing Company) and the classic research by Lester Coch
and John French on overcoming
resistance to change. The latter study led to the development of
participative management as a means of
getting employees involved in planning and managing change.
Other notable action research contributions
included Whyte and Edith Hamilton’s famous study of Chicago’s
Tremont Hotel and Collier’s efforts
to
apply action research techniques to improving race relations
when he was commissioner of Indian affairs
from 1933 to 1945. These studies did much to establish action
research as integral to organization change.
Today, it is the backbone of most OD applications.
A key component of most action research studies was the
systematic collection of survey data that was fed
back to the client organization. Following Lewin’s death in
1947, his Research Center for Group Dynamics
at MIT moved to Michigan and joined with the Survey Research
Center as part of the Institute doe Social
Research. The Institute was headed by Renis Likert, a pioneer in
developing scientific approaches to
attitude surveys. Likert’s doctoral dissertation at Columbia
University, “A Technique for the Measurement
of Attitudes,” was the classic study in which he developed the
widely used, five-point “Likert Scale.”
In an early study by the institute, Likert and Floyd Mann
administered a companywide survey of
management and employee attitudes at Detroit Edison. Over a
two-year period beginning in 1948, three
sets of data were developed: (1) the viewpoints of eight
thousand non-supervisory employees about their
supervisors, promotion opportunities, and work satisfaction with
fellow employees; (2) similar reactions
from first- and second-line supervisors; and (3) information
from higher levels of management.
The feedback process that evolved was an “interlocking chain of
conferences.” The major findings of the
survey were first reported to the top management and then
transmitted throughout the organization. The
feedback sessions were conducted in task groups, with
supervisors and their immediate subordinates
discussing the data together. Although there was little
substantial research evidence, the researchers
intuitively felt that this was a powerful process for change.
In 1950, eight accounting departments asked for a repeat of the
survey, thus generating a new cycle of
feedback meetings. In four departments, feedback approaches were
used, but the method varied, with two
of the remaining departments receiving feedback only at the
departmental level. Because of changes in key
personnel, nothing was done in two departments.
A third follow-up study indicated that more significant and
positive changes, such as job satisfaction, had
occurred in the departments receiving feedback than in the two
departments that did not practice. From
those findings, Likert and Mann derived several conclusions
about the effects of survey feedback on
organization change. This led to extensive applications of
survey-feedback methods in a variety of settings.
The common pattern of data collection, data feedback, action
planning, implementation, and follow-up
data collection in both action research and survey feedback can
be seen in these examples.
Part of the emergence of survey research and feedback was based
on the refinements made by SRC (Survey
Research Center of Michigan) staff members in survey
methodology. Another part was the evolution of
feedback methodology.
Likert Scale:
Likert scale
is often
used in questionnaires, and is the most widely used scale in survey research.
When
responding to a Likert questionnaire item, respondents specify
their level of agreement to a statement.
A typical test item in a Likert scale is a statement. The
respondent is asked to indicate his or her degree of
agreement with the statement or any kind of subjective or
objective evaluation of the statement.
Traditionally a five-point scale is used, however many advocate
using a seven or nine point scale.
Ice cream is good for breakfast:
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Neither agree nor
disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree
Scoring and analysis:
After the questionnaire is completed, each item may be analyzed
separately or item responses may be
summed to create a score for a group of items.
Results of Action Research/Survey Feedback:
Likert, along with some of his colleagues, while doing a
company-wide study of employee perceptions,
behavior, reactions and attitudes found that:
When the survey data were reported to a manager (or supervisor)
and he or she failed to discus the results
with subordinates and failed to plan with them what the managers
and others should do to bring
improvement, little change occurred.
On the other hand, when the manager discussed the results with
subordinates and planned with them what
to do to bring improvement, substantial favorable changes
occurred.
Another aspect of the study was the process of feeding back data
from an attitude survey to the
participating departments had more positive change in business
organizations than that coming from
traditional training courses.
The effectiveness of this method is that it deals with the
system of human relationships as a whole
(supervisors and subordinates can change together) and it deals
with each manager, supervisor, and
employee in the context of his job, his own position, and his
own work relationship.
|
|
|
|
|