ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT
Organization development (OD) is a
deliberately planned, organization-wide effort to increase an organization's
effectiveness or efficiency. OD theorists and practitioners define it in
various ways. Its multiplicity of definition reflects the complexity of the
discipline and is responsible for its lack of understanding. For example,
Vasudevan has referred to OD being about promoting organizational readiness to
meet change[citation needed], and it has been said
that OD is a systemic learning and development strategy intended to change the
basics of beliefs, attitudes and relevance of values, and structure of the
current organization to better absorb disruptive technologies, shrinking or exploding
market opportunities and ensuing challenges and chaos. It is worth
understanding what OD is not. It not training, personal development, team
development, HRD (human resource development), L&D (learning and
development) or a part of HR although it is often mistakenly understood as some
or all of these. OD interventions are about change so involve people - but OD
also develops processes, systems and structures. The primary purpose of OD is
to develop the organization, not to train or develop the staff.
Organization development is an ongoing,
systematic process of implementing effective organizational change. OD is known
as both a field of science focused on understanding and managing organizational
change and as a field of scientific study and inquiry. It is interdisciplinary
in nature and draws on sociology, psychology, and theories of motivation,
learning, and personality. Although behavioral science has provided the basic
foundation for the study and practice of OD, new and emerging fields of study
have made their presence felt. Experts in systems thinking and organizational
learning, structure of intuition in decision making, and coaching (to name a
few) whose perspective is not steeped in just the behavioral sciences, but a
much more multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approach, have emerged as
OD catalysts or tools.
Organization development is a growing field that
is responsive to many new approaches.
History
Kurt Lewin (1898–1947) is
widely recognized as the founding father of OD, although he died before the
concept became current in the mid-1950s.[1] From Lewin came
the ideas of group dynamics and action research which underpin the
basic OD process as well as providing its collaborative consultant/client
ethos. Institutionally, Lewin founded the "Research Center for Group
Dynamics" (RCGD) atMIT, which moved to
Michigan after his death. RCGD colleagues were among those who founded
the National Training Laboratories(NTL), from which
the T-groups and group-based OD
emerged.
Kurt Lewin played a key role
in the evolution of organization development as it is known today. As early
as World
War II,
Lewin experimented with a collaborative change process (involving himself as
consultant and a client group) based on a three-step process of planning,
taking action, and measuring results. This was the forerunner of action
research, an important element of OD, which will be discussed later. Lewin then
participated in the beginnings of laboratory training, or T-groups, and, after his death
in 1947, his close associates helped to develop survey-research methods at
the University of Michigan. These procedures became important parts of OD
as developments in this field continued at the National Training Laboratories and in growing
numbers of universities and private consulting firms across the country. Two of
the leading universities offering doctoral level [2] degrees in OD are
Benedictine University and the Fielding Graduate University.
Douglas McGregor and Richard Beckhard while
"consulting together at General Mills in the 1950s, the two coined the
term organization development (OD) to describe an innovative
bottoms-up change effort that fit no traditional consulting categories"
(Weisbord, 1987, p. 112).[3]
The failure of off-site laboratory training to
live up to its early promise was one of the important forces stimulating the
development of OD. Laboratory training is learning from a person's "here
and now" experience as a member of an ongoing training group. Such groups
usually meet without a specific agenda. Their purpose is for the members to
learn about themselves from their spontaneous "here and now"
responses to an ambiguous hypothetical situation. Problems of leadership, structure,
status, communication, and self-serving
behavior typically arise in such a group. The members have an opportunity to
learn something about themselves and to practice such skills as listening,
observing others, and functioning as effective group members.[4]
As formerly practiced (and occasionally still
practiced for special purposes), laboratory training was conducted in
"stranger groups," or groups composed of individuals from different
organizations, situations, and backgrounds. A major difficulty developed,
however, in transferring knowledge gained from these "stranger labs"
to the actual situation "back home". This required a transfer between
two different cultures, the relatively safe and protected environment of the
T-group (or training group) and the give-and-take of the organizational
environment with its traditional values. This led the early pioneers in this
type of learning to begin to apply it to "family groups" — that is,
groups located within an organization. From this shift in the locale of the training
site and the realization that culture was an important factor in influencing
group members (along with some other developments in the behavioral sciences)
emerged the concept of organization development.[4]
Organization development.
Underlying Organization Development are humanistic values. Margulies
and Raia (1972) articulated the humanistic values of OD as follows:
1. Providing opportunities
for people to function as human beings rather than as resources in the
productive process.
2. Providing opportunities
for each organization member, as well as for the organization itself, to
develop to his full potential.
3. Seeking to increase the
effectiveness of the organization in terms of all of its goals.
4. Attempting to create an
environment in which it is possible to find exciting and challenging work.
5. Providing opportunities
for people in organizations to influence the way in which they relate to work,
the organization, and the environment.
6. Treating each human
being as a person with a complex set of needs, all of which are important in
his work and in his life.[5]
==== Objective of OD ====:
According to somil aseeja, the objective of ob is:
According to somil aseeja, the objective of ob is:
1. To increase the level of
inter-personal trust among employees.
2. To increase employee's
level of satisfaction and commitment.
3. To confront the problem
instead of neglecting them.
4. To effectively manage
conflict.
5. To increase cooperation
among the employees.
6. To increase the
organization problem solving.
A change agent in the sense used here is not a
technical expert skilled in such functional areas as accounting, production, or
finance. The change agent is a behavioral scientist who knows how to get people
in an organization involved in solving their own problems. A change agent's main
strength is a comprehensive knowledge of human behavior, supported by a number
of intervention techniques (to be discussed later). The change agent can be
either external or internal to the organization. An internal change agent is
usually a staff person who has expertise in the behavioral sciences and in the
intervention technology of OD. Beckhard reports several cases in which line
people have been trained in OD and have returned to their organizations to
engage in successful change assignments.[6] In the natural
evolution of change mechanisms in organizations, this would seem to approach
the ideal arrangement. Qualified change agents can be found on some university
faculties, or they may be private consultants associated with such
organizations as the National Training Laboratories Institute for Applied
Behavioral Science (Washington, D.C.) University Associates
(San Diego, California), the Human Systems
Intervention graduate program in the Department of Applied Human Sciences
(Concordia University, Montreal, Canada), Navitus (Pvt) Ltd (Pakistan),
MaxFoster Global and similar organizations.
The change agent may be a staff or line member
of the organization who is schooled in OD theory and technique. In such a case,
the "contractual relationship" is an in-house agreement that should
probably be explicit with respect to all of the conditions involved except the
fee.
The initiative for OD programs often comes from
an organization that has a problem or anticipates facing a problem. This means
that top management or someone authorized by top management is aware that a
problem exists and has decided to seek help in solving it. There is a direct
analogy here to the practice of psychotherapy: The client or patient must actively seek
help in finding a solution to his problems. This indicates a willingness on the
part of the client organization to accept help and assures the organization
that management is actively concerned.[7]
One of the outstanding characteristics of OD
that distinguishes it from most other improvement programs is that it is based
on a "helping relationship." Some believe that the change agent is
not a physician to the organization's ills; that s/he does not examine the
"patient," make a diagnosis, and write a prescription. Nor does she try to teach
organizational members a new inventory of knowledge which they then transfer to
the job situation. Using theory and methods drawn from such behavioral sciences asindustrial/organizational psychology, industrial sociology, communication, cultural anthropology, administrative theory, organizational behavior, economics, and political science, the change agent's main
function is to help the organization define and solve its own problems. The
basic method used is known as action research. This approach, which is
described in detail later, consists of a preliminary diagnosis, collecting
data, feedback of the data to the client, data exploration by the client group,
action planning based on the data, and taking action.[8]
OD deals with a total system — the organization
as a whole, including its relevant environment — or with a subsystem or systems
— departments or work groups — in the context of the total system. Parts of
systems, for example, individuals, cliques, structures, norms, values, and
products are not considered in isolation; the principle of interdependency,
that is, that change in one part of a system affects the other parts, is fully
recognized. Thus, OD interventions focus on the total culture and cultural
processes of organizations. The focus is also on groups, since the relevant
behavior of individuals in organizations and groups is generally a product of
group influences rather than personality.[7]
The objective of OD is to improve the
organization's capacity to handle its internal and external functioning and
relationships. This would include such things as improved interpersonal and
group processes, more effective communication, enhanced ability to cope with
organizational problems of all kinds, more effective decision processes, more
appropriate leadership style, improved skill in dealing with destructive
conflict, and higher levels of trust and cooperation among organizational
members. These objectives stem from a value system based on an optimistic view
of the nature of man — that man in a supportive environment is capable of
achieving higher levels of development and accomplishment. Essential to
organization development and effectiveness is the scientific method — inquiry,
a rigorous search for causes, experimental testing of hypotheses, and review of
results.
The ultimate aim of OD practitioners is to
"work themselves out of a job" by leaving the client organization
with a set of tools, behaviors, attitudes, and an action plan with which to
monitor its own state of health and to take corrective steps toward its own
renewal and development. This is consistent with the systems concept of
feedback as a regulatory and corrective mechanism.[7]
Understanding organizations
Weisbord presents a six-box model for
understanding organization:
1. Purposes: The
organization members are clear about the organization's mission and purpose and
goal agreements, whether people support the organization' purpose.
2. Structure: How is the
organization's work divided up? The question is whether there is an adequate
fit between the purpose and the internal structure.
3. Relationship: Between
individuals, between units or departments that perform different tasks, and
between the people and requirements of their jobs.
4. Rewards: The consultant
should diagnose the similarities between what the organization formally
rewarded or punished members for.
5. Leadership: Is to watch
for blips among the other boxes and maintain balance among them.
6. Helpful mechanism: Is a
helpful organization that must attend to in order to survive which as planning,
control, budgeting, and other information systems that help organization member
accomplish.[9]
In recent years, serious questioning has emerged
about the relevance of OD to managing change in modern organizations. The need
for "reinventing" the field has become a topic that even some of its
"founding fathers" are discussing critically.[10]
With this call for reinvention and change,
scholars have begun to examine organization development from an emotion-based
standpoint. For example, deKlerk (2007) [11] writes about how emotional
trauma can negatively affect performance. Due to downsizing, outsourcing,
mergers, restructuring, continual changes, invasions of privacy, harassment,
and abuses of power, many employees experience the emotions of aggression,
anxiety, apprehension, cynicism, and fear, which can lead to performance
decreases. deKlerk (2007) suggests that in order to heal the trauma and
increase performance, O.D. practitioners must acknowledge the existence of the
trauma, provide a safe place for employees to discuss their feelings, symbolize
the trauma and put it into perspective, and then allow for and deal with the
emotional responses. One method of achieving this is by having employees draw
pictures of what they feel about the situation, and then having them explain
their drawings with each other. Drawing pictures is beneficial because it
allows employees to express emotions they normally would not be able to put
into words. Also, drawings often prompt active participation in the activity,
as everyone is required to draw a picture and then discuss its meaning.
The use of new technologies combined with
globalization has also shifted the field of organization development. Roland
Sullivan (2005) defined Organization Development with participants at the 1st
Organization Development Conference for Asia in Dubai-2005 as
"Organization Development is a transformative leap to a desired vision
where strategies and systems align, in the light of local culture with an
innovative and authentic leadership style using the support of high tech tools.
Wendell L French and Cecil Bell defined
organization development (OD) at one point as "organization improvement
through action research".[8] If one idea can be
said to summarize OD's underlying philosophy, it would be action research as it
was conceptualized byKurt
Lewin and
later elaborated and expanded on by other behavioral scientists. Concerned with
social change and, more particularly, with effective, permanent social change,
Lewin believed that the motivation to change was strongly related to action: If
people are active in decisions affecting them, they are more likely to adopt
new ways. "Rational social management", he said, "proceeds in a
spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and
fact-finding about the result of action".[12]
Figure 1: Systems Model of
Action-Research Process
"Unfreezing": Faced with a dilemma or
disconfirmation, the individual or group becomes aware of a need to change.
"Changing": The situation is diagnosed
and new models of behavior are explored and tested.
"Refreezing": Application of new
behavior is evaluated, and if reinforcing, adopted.
Figure 1 summarizes the steps and processes
involved in planned change through action research. Action research is depicted
as a cyclical process of change. The cycle begins with a series of planning
actions initiated by the client and the change agent working together. The
principal elements of this stage include a preliminary diagnosis, data
gathering, feedback of results, and joint action planning. In the language of
systems theory, this is the input phase, in which the client system becomes
aware of problems as yet unidentified, realizes it may need outside help to
effect changes, and shares with the consultant the process of problem
diagnosis.
The second stage of action research is the
action, or transformation, phase. This stage includes actions relating to
learning processes (perhaps in the form of role analysis) and to planning and
executing behavioral changes in the client organization. As shown in Figure 1,
feedback at this stage would move via Feedback Loop A and would have the effect
of altering previous planning to bring the learning activities of the client
system into better alignment with change objectives. Included in this stage is
action-planning activity carried out jointly by the consultant and members of
the client system. Following the workshop or learning sessions, these action
steps are carried out on the job as part of the transformation stage.[4]
The third stage of action research is the
output, or results, phase. This stage includes actual changes in behavior (if
any) resulting from corrective action steps taken following the second stage.
Data are again gathered from the client system so that progress can be
determined and necessary adjustments in learning activities can be made. Minor
adjustments of this nature can be made in learning activities via Feedback Loop
B (see Figure 1). Major adjustments and reevaluations would return
the OD project to the first, or planning, stage for basic changes in the
program. The action-research model shown in Figure 1 closely
follows Lewin's repetitive cycle of planning, action, and measuring results. It
also illustrates other aspects of Lewin's general model of change. As indicated
in the diagram, the planning stage is a period of unfreezing, or problem
awareness.[12] The action stage
is a period of changing, that is, trying out new forms of behavior in an effort
to understand and cope with the system's problems. (There is inevitable overlap
between the stages, since the boundaries are not clear-cut and cannot be in a
continuous process). The results stage is a period of refreezing, in which new
behaviors are tried out on the job and, if successful and reinforcing, become a
part of the system's repertoire of problem-solving behavior.
Action research is problem centered, client
centered, and action oriented. It involves the client system in a diagnostic,
active-learning, problem-finding, and problem-solving process. Data are not simply
returned in the form of a written report but instead are fed back in open joint
sessions, and the client and the change agent collaborate in identifying and
ranking specific problems, in devising methods for finding their real causes,
and in developing plans for coping with them realistically and practically.
Scientific method in the form of data gathering, forming hypotheses, testing
hypotheses, and measuring results, although not pursued as rigorously as in the
laboratory, is nevertheless an integral part of the process. Action research
also sets in motion a long-range, cyclical, self-correcting mechanism for
maintaining and enhancing the effectiveness of the client's system by leaving
the system with practical and useful tools for self-analysis and self-renewal.[4]
Important figures :
OD interventions
"Interventions" are principal learning
processes in the "action" stage (see Figure 1) of organization development.
Interventions are structured activities used individually or in combination by
the members of a client system to improve their social or task performance. They may be introduced
by a change agent as part of an improvement program, or they may be used by the
client following a program to check on the state of the organization's health,
or to effect necessary changes in its own behavior. "Structured
activities" mean such diverse procedures as experiential exercises,
questionnaires, attitude surveys, interviews, relevant group discussions, and
even lunchtime meetings between the change agent and a member of the
client organization. Every action that
influences an organization's improvement program in a change agent-client
system relationship can be said to be an intervention.[13]
There are many possible intervention strategies
from which to choose. Several assumptions about the nature and functioning oforganizations are made in the
choice of a particular strategy. Beckhard lists six such
assumptions:
1. The basic building
blocks of an organization are groups (teams). Therefore, the basic units of change are
groups, not individuals.
2. An always relevant
change goal is the reduction of inappropriate competition between parts of
the organization and the development of a more collaborative condition.
3. Decision making in a
healthy organization is located where the information sources are, rather than
in a particular role or level ofhierarchy.
4. Organizations, subunits
of organizations, and individuals continuously manage their affairs against
goals. Controls are interim measurements, not the basis of managerial strategy.
5. One goal of a healthy
organization is to develop generally open communication, mutual trust,
and confidence between and across
levels.
6. People support what they
help create. People affected by a change must be allowed active participation
and a sense of ownership in the planning and conduct of the change.[6]
Interventions range from those designed to
improve the effectiveness of individuals
through those designed to deal with teams and groups, intergroup relations, and
the total organization. There are interventions that focus on task issues (what
people do), and those that focus on process issues (how people go about doing
it). Finally, interventions may be roughly classified according to which change
mechanism they tend to emphasize: for example, feedback, awareness of changing
cultural norms, interaction and communication,conflict, and education through either new
knowledge or skill practice.[14]
One of the most difficult tasks confronting the
change agent is to help create in the client system a safe
climate for learning and change. In a favorable climate, human learning builds
on itself and continues indefinitely during man's lifetime. Out of new behavior, new dilemmas and
problems emerge as the spiral continues upward to new levels. In an unfavorable
climate, in contrast, learning is far less certain, and in an atmosphere of
psychological threat, it often stops altogether. Unfreezing old ways can be
inhibited in organizationsbecause the climate
makes employees feel that it is inappropriate to reveal true feelings, even though such
revelations could be constructive. In an inhibited atmosphere, therefore,
necessary feedback is not available. Also, trying out new ways may be viewed as
risky because it violates established norms. Such an organization may also be
constrained because of the law of systems: If one part changes, other parts
will become involved. Hence, it is easier to maintain the status quo. Hierarchical
authority, specialization, span of control, and other characteristics of
formal systems also discourage experimentation.[13]
The change agent must address himself to all of
these hazards and obstacles. Some of the things which will help him are:
2. Genuine support from
management
3. Setting a personal
example: listening, supporting behavior
4. A sound background in
the behavioral sciences
5. A working knowledge of
systems theory
6. A belief in man as a
rational, self-educating being fully capable of learning better ways to do
things.[13]
A few examples of interventions include team
building, coaching, Large Group Interventions, mentoring, performance
appraisal, downsizing, TQM, and leadership development.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar