Program Review For the Master of Science in Organization Development Central Washington University

 MSOD Program Review 10/17/06 Survey of Alumni of MSOD 10/30/06  Central Washington University 2006-2007 Catalog  AOM-ODC Division Report on "Entry Level ODC Competencies" 2000  Org

Program Review

For the

Master of Science in Organization Development

Central Washington University

Prepared by:

Glenn H Varney Ph.D.

12/20/06

 MSOD Program Review (10/17/06)

 Survey of Alumni of MSOD (10/30/06)

 Central Washington University 2006-2007 Catalog

 AOM-ODC Division Report on "Entry Level ODC Competencies" (2000)

 Organization Development and Change, Graduate Degree Programs, University of Pennsylvania

 Telephone Interview Data

Faculty (Graduate Standards) - Adjunct

Faculty Professional Organization Affiliation

Student Course Evaluation - FT Tenure

Student Course Evaluation - Adjunct

Learning Intergration and Evaluation

Learning Model for Students MSOD Benchmarking Marketing MSOD Supportive Environment - College

Supportive Environment - Department

Supportive Environment - Alumni

Vision for the Future Quality of Admitted Students

The results of the review suggest that the MSOD is reasonably healthy The major problem

seems to be finding a home for the program and a person who will champion it in the future (see

pp 9 for recommendations)

Evaluation Scores

NO DATANon Weighted Average = 2.19

Organization Development and Change Background

The term Organization Development (OD) was coined in the early 1960s In the late 1970s, the Academy of Management OD Division (founded in 1972) changed its name to Organization Development & Change (ODC) to reflect what the field had become – “a profession focused on helping organizations improve their effectiveness and competitive position through the

application of behavioral science, research, and inquiry.”

ODC was founded by a distinguished group of applied academics/scholars (i.e Argyris, Likert, Shepard, French, Huse, Bennis Etc.) The founders were theory builders and applied researchers

ODC graduate master level degrees were established in the early 70s at several universities (CaseWestern Reserve University, Bowling Green State University, American University, Pepperdine,and Benedictine) Today, there are 31 master programs plus six (6) doctorate programs

(Pepperdine, Benedictine, Saybrook, University of California, St Thomas and Case Western Reserve University.)

School of Professional Studies,

Organizational Studies, and

There are three professional organizations serving ODC:

1) Academy of Management ODC Division (Academic Focus)

2) OD Network (Practitioner Focus)

3) OD Institute (Practitioner Focus)

There are three journals supporting the field of ODC:

1) Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (Research)

2) OD Practitioner (Practitioner)

3) OD Journal (Practitioner)

ODC is going through a transition from a soft/practitioner based field to a Data Based Change Management academic discipline The Academy of Management ODC Division is leading the change through its conferences, research, and “Building ODC as a Academic Discipline”

initiatives

ODC programs are likewise adjusting their program design and delivery to fit the data based change models of the future

Analysis

MSOD PROGRAM GOALS

1) MSOD Learning Outcomes and

The field of Organization Development and Change (ODC) is currently transitioning from a soft/practitionersorientation to a Data Based/Change Management

“academic discipline”

The following stated “learning outcomes” for the Central Washington University MSOD are clearly in line with the emerging ODC as an “academic

discipline”

Students will be able to…

 Analyze workplace behavior at the individual, group, and organizational levels

 Diagnose needs and problems that lead to proactive interventions (Change programs)

 Conduct successful interventions that achievedesired outcomes

 Evaluate actual outcomes against the desired outcomes

PROGRAM STRUCTURE/DESIGN

There appears to be no obvious plan or model (road

map) that shows students how and when they will

acquire the knowledge and skills which will certify that

they are graduate level qualified in the four “learning outcomes”:

1 Analyze workplace behavior

2 Diagnose needs and problems that lead to changeinterventions

3 Conduct and Design interventions

4 Evaluate outcomes from interventions

NO faculty are currently members of any of the recognized ODC professional organizations (AOM-ODC, ODN, or ODI)

In general, the MSOD delivers much of the body of knowledge defined by the Academy of Management

ODC Division study of Entry Level ODC Competencies (graduate level)

Areas that do not appear to be included are:

Foundation (preparation for CORE ODC knowledge &

skills)1) Organization behavior2) Comparative cultural perspectives3) Basic statistics

4) Basic business (Finance, Management, Supply Chain, Etc.) [See Appendix A]

4) Evaluating and securing change

There is course content that appears to be overemphasized or not directly related to the MSOD

“learning outcomes”:

Questionable Course Content

1) Consulting in organizations (OD 562)

2) Process control methods (OD 575) – (An intervention)

3) OD 590 (Spring 2005) “Supervised field experience” focuses on interpersonal skills not application of theories and concepts as stated in the catalog

4) OD 590 Supervised field experience titled

“whole group project” focuses on team building and facilitation not application of theories and concepts (questionable if this is a graduate credit course)

5) OD 598 Special topics focus on “how to” skills

in feedback, conflict resolution, observation, cooperation, and team leadership This type of course is not generally regarded as a graduate credit course offering

2) The survey of alumni does not provide much useful information on how well qualified graduates are to manage change Recall self assessment against behaviorally undefined topicstends to lack validity Also confounding the survey results for learning outcomes assessment

is the N=96 which includes subjects prior to 2000

3) Student learning assessment process at the courselevel (grading) seems to be sound and rigorous except for the following courses:

a OD 590 (Both courses)

b OD 570

c OD 5624) Faculty

1) The graduate level qualifications for tenured faculty are high, although their vitas do not reflect their active involvement in the field of Organization Development and Change through their professional affiliations and publications (Academy of Management ODC Division, JABS, AOM publications, etc.)

2) The adjunct faculty (N=3), by most graduate school standards are underqualified to teach graduate level offerings They also appear to be consultants with mostly “soft/practitioner orientations.”

5) Applicant Pool and Entrance of

Students into the program The self study described the potential student pool as a mixture of experienced HR and OD practitioners/

individuals seeking “a graduate degree”, “want to be” beginners in the field, etc A mixed bag of students, at best, and a difficult group to teach Organization Development and Change

The lack of clear focus on what types of students the MSOD is designed for is and will continue to cause problems in conducting the program

Although there is a clear description of the admission process, there is NO documentation of the qualifications

of the students entering the MSOD

6) Supportive Environment 1) Clearly there is currently NO home for the

MSOD The psychology department unanimously wants the programmed transferred

or discontinued Without a champion for the program, it will deteriorate further resulting in itsdiscontinuation There are individuals within theuniversity who expressed the desire to see the program continue outside of the psychology department

2) Alumni as identified in the survey, have positive and hopeful feelings about the future of the MSOD

7) Vision for the MSOD There is NO clear picture from the faculty,

administration, or alumni of a “vision” for the future of the MSOD The field is in a state of significant

transition with all indications that ODC will emerge in the next few years as an academically data based changemanagement discipline [See Appendix B]

What’s Working/What’s NOT Working

POSITIVE

1) The MSOD has been staffed with competent tenured faculty

2) The program stated “learning outcomes” are “on the mark” for teaching and learning ODC

3) The common body of knowledge is largely covered in the program

4) Alumni, in general, are supportive and satisfied with the direction of the program

5) Several CWU individuals are interested in the continuation of the program

4) There appears to be NO “champion” for the program

5) Apparently there is a small group of dissatisfied MSOD alumni groups (7 or 8 people)

Recommendations *

1) DO NOT discontinue the MSOD program

2) Remove the program from the psychology department and attach to one of the following

in order from most to least favorable:

I College of Science (ODC is merging as a science)

II College of Business Administration (Application of ODC requires a business/

management basics)III Interdisciplinary (Continuing Education, Professional and Organization

Studies because the MSOD is an applied behavioral interdisciplinary program)

IV Education (Education, training, technology)

3) Find a “champion” - an academic knowledgeable in ODC and a person who will

spearhead the programs during a rebuilding period

4) Organize a study and design group to reconstruct the MSOD This group should be interdisciplinary including Alumni and Psychology Faculty They should be challenged with building a new and viable MSOD program Part of their task would focus on:

I Market – who are your potential students?

II Redesign the program to fit the current learning outcomes

 Analyze workplace behavior at the individual, group, and organizational levels

 Diagnose needs and problems that lead to proactive interventions (Change programs)

 Conduct successful interventions that achieve desired outcomes

 Evaluate actual outcomes against the desired outcomes

III Recruit graduate level faculty (Interdisciplinary to CWU and Ph.D qualified

adjuncts)

IV Design a delivery system to include E-learning, collaborative arrangements

with organizations for application and change research, more favorable location, enhanced fee structure, etc

Successful change is based on:

1) Following the discipline of change management (scientific method)

2) Continuous involvement of stakeholders (generation of ideas, ownership, and

commitment)

* Specific recommendations are available upon request

Appendix A

Dear Colleague,

Our OD work has a strong humanitarian focus If you’re like me, you may feel some aversion tothe “hard” bottom-line focus of many organizations In many years as an internal and external organization development consultant, I’ve learned that my clients don’t want me to sound

“touchy-feely” They expect me to be a business partner As one boss once said to me, “We expect you to learn our language and processes We don’t want to learn what all your words and language really mean.”

Over the years, I’ve learned how to relate OD work to my clients’ bottom line while retaining mycore values and skill sets Now I and a group of seasoned colleagues offering you the benefit of hundreds of years of collective experience in connecting OD work to the strategy and mission of the organizations we serve The OD Network Business Acumen certificate program consists of seven web-based courses, offered in nine modules, that will give you the ability to talk to clients

in language that resonates for the executives and organizations you serve, thus enhancing your creditability in the world of business When you master these Business Acumen concepts, you’ll

be more effective in helping your clients, because they will see you as a true partner in their success

Robin Reid

OD Network Business Acumen Course Developer

Principal, Robin Reid and Associates

Source: ODN Newsletter, 11/06

Bowling Green State University (04/05)

For the past several years, professionals, practitioners, and academics have been abuzz with concerns about the life expectancy of Organization Development Typically, these concerns involve issues like:

 What is OD?

 Where is OD going and will it be here in the future in a different form?

 Is OD just a “fad” on its way out?

 What qualifications does one need to have to do OD work?

 Why isn’t there more new research involving change?

 Why have authors stopped using OD in book titles and are now use “change” instead?

Articles and, indeed entire, issues of some practitioner publications have been devoted to this WHO ARE WE IDENTITY CRISIS…

These concerns have been expressed by many loyal and devoted professionals in the field, especially by academics who have a strong commitment to the foundations upon, which OD has thrived and grown These foundations are deeply rooted in academy, where the founders of OD worked and lived (Shephard, Bennis, Benne, Argyris, Schein, Blake, Mouton, French, Maslow, McGregor, Likert, Herzberg, Zand, etc.)

Indeed, the authors of the now famous Addison Wesley “six pack” (1969) grew up in the

academic world (Bennis, Lawrence & Lorsch, Schein, Blake & Mouton, Walton, and Galbraith) All of the “foundation literature” listed in the 2003 edition of the Bibliography of Organization Development and Change (p 9-15) was authored by academics (Argyris, Benne, Bennis,

Bradford, Boss, Lippitt, Schein, Chin, Dyer, Galbraith, Herzberg, Katz, Kahn, Lewin, Likert, Lippitt, Watson, Westley, McGregor, Maslow, Roethlisberger, Vaill, Tannenbaum, Weschler, Massarik, Westgaard, and etc.)

Furthermore, Richard Beckard, a highly regarded OD practitioner, “is also considered a founder

of Organization Development and was a professor of organization behavior and management at Sloan School of Management at MIT.” (1992, Jossey Bass)

Because of the strong ties to the academic history and a concern about the health and future of

OD, a group of AOM-ODC members (30-35) have for the past 7 year been studying the

professional challenges facing the field As an outcome of this lengthy process, a “Summit” meeting was held on April 18, 2005 hosted by Bowling Green State University The purpose of this “summit” was to identify “The Challenges Facing OD&C as an Academic Discipline.” In addition, short and long-term actions were considered designed to meet the challenges Those in attendance (see appendix I) represented a talented and scholarly group of academics who

examined the field from the following perspectives:

The purpose, then, of this article, is to share the results of the “Summit” with all who have an interest in Organization Development’s future

Challenge One: Increase the volume and rigor of OD research

ACTIONS

 Build on the position of applied research

 Study the approach taken by other AOM divisions

 Increase research on what does not work

 Understand and reapply the long held traditions of going from practice to theory and back to practice

 Introduce specially designed research courses in organizational change and include how to write articles and scientific papers

 “Learn how to teach what we have learned in our research”

 Develop new 21st century models to replace our existing models

 Improve the quality of articles being published in the OD journals – especially promote JABS as the leading OD journal

Challenge Two: Repair the damage resulting from the fragmentation of the

field, which has resulted in conflict between practitioners and academics, as well as, between OD and other professional disciplines

ACTIONS

 Define more clearly what OD is and especially the interdisciplinary character of the field

 Build interdisciplinary alliances

 Identify and publish the contributions from other professional disciplines to the field of OD

 Conduct interdisciplinary research and studies