Practicing Organization Development (A guide for Consultants) - Part 14 pptx

Early Adopters Organizations had come out of World War II with a need to increase production and improve human relationships within work groups.. As the United States found itself in a f

Open System Planning

Another process that developed as the impact of the larger environment became

of greater concern was a process called Open System Planning, a methodology for recognizing and addressing external forces that impacted the organization,

be they government agencies, customers, suppliers, or clients The methodol-ogy recognized the need to adapt to emerging trends, but also the possibility of

influencing some of the trends, to change or modify potential negative impact.

It is not coincidental that much of this has emerged as the external environ-ment has become more competitive and more demanding After the end of World War II there was such a dearth of consumer goods that companies focused on simply meeting the demand It was a while before there was aware-ness of Japanese and German autos—as well as other imports—that were flood-ing the market With the growth of the global economy, the need to be continually scanning the environment for important trends, at the same time working effectively with the demands of external as well as internal stakehold-ers, placed enormous pressures on both profit and non-profit sectors Large Group Intervention, the methodology of getting the whole system in the room around an issue that is important to the key stakeholder, has been an effective way of working with the whole relevant system (See Chapter Seventeen for more on Large Group Interventions.)

OD started with small groups and action research as a means for creating organi-zational change This was followed by an emphasis on changing the individual and leadership Finally, there was recognition that change had to do with taking the whole system into account both internally and externally This is how the field presents itself today.

Early Adopters Organizations had come out of World War II with a need to increase production and improve human relationships within work groups It was important to train leaders how to work with groups and how to work with their employees and peers It was natural that organizations and institutions would become inter-ested in this kind of small-group training, asking, “How could we make a group

of people working together on a task more effective?” In the early days of the National Training Laboratories, organizations began to send people to Bethel, Maine, to learn about groups If you look at the bottom of the chart you will see some of the early adopters Esso, now Exxon, was one of the companies to send people, with Herb Shepard being one of the pioneers There was General Mills, led by Douglas McGregor, and TRW Systems with Stan Herman Industrial train-ers and human resource/ptrain-ersonnel people often represented these companies

Another institution that embraced the newly emerging field, sending selected clergy and lay leaders to NTL laboratories, was the Episcopal Church Their enthusiasm spun off several organizations dedicated to spreading OD and the applied behavioral sciences into religious settings Early NTL-trained Episcopal movers and shakers were Dick Byrd, David Jones, Bill Yon, and Mary Beth Peters, who came together with Lutherans Otto Kroeger, Roy Oswald, and John Scherer, Catholics Father Gerard Egan and Roland Sullivan, Methodists Ken Mitchell, Bob Crosby, and Jay Olsen, and Presbyterians Newt Fink, Del Poling, and Arnie Nakajima to launch The Association for Religion and Applied Behav-ioral Science (ARABS) in 1969 ARABS morphed into the Association for Cre-ative Change (ACC), which had over 1,500 members in the late 1970s

As you move across the chart, you will note that team- and group-oriented interventions were being used for a number of OD applications As the civil rights movement took off, groups were being used to sensitize people (more like sensitivity training) to deal with issues related to race and gender As the United States found itself in a far more competitive market after World War II, groups were used to emulate some of the methods being used in Scandinavia and Japan, such as Quality of Work Life and Total Quality Management Procter and Gamble, in several of its plants, began experiments in self-managed teams Team building continues today as one of the most-used OD interventions (See Chap-ter Sixteen on team building.)

The increase in global teams has presented the field with some interesting challenges, such as meshing cultural differences and working with people spread across great geographical distances The Internet has given birth to “vir-tual teams” as a way of managing globally dispersed people who have a com-mon task or project

Most major organizations have used organization development, sometimes calling it, as does the military, “organization effectiveness.” Some of the early adopters have been mentioned: Esso and TRW systems, The U.S Army, U.S Navy, the Chaplain’s Corps, and the Episcopal Church being among the first Two of the people on the bottom line of the chart—Shel Davis from TRW Sys-tems and Cy Levi from General Mills—took the risk to bring the newly emerging

OD methodology into their organizations rather than simply sending people to workshops There were several external consultants who are well known in the field, Dick Beckhard (who taught at MIT) and Herb Shepard (affiliated with Case Western Reserve), mentioned previously They were involved over many years in consulting with some of these same early adopting organizations, as well as in training the first and second generation of OD consultants

One other important person to mention here is Ronald Lippitt, who spent his time focusing primarily on the non-profit sector After the downturn of the auto industry in Michigan, Lippitt used Large Group Interventions to work with cit-izen groups to change entire communities in Michigan In one city he involved

three thousand people in re-creating their community He also built into his work a process of focusing on a “desired future,” rather then spending time solving tactical problems Once you knew where you were and where you wanted to be, you could strategize how to close the gap One important and less-well-known piece of his research showed what happened to a group’s energy when they focused on problems (it tended to sag) and when they focused on what was working that could be improved (it grew) Appreciative inquiry is based in part on this premise Lippitt also was one of the first to

pos-tulate the phases in the consulting process, something every OD consultant today

knows like a favorite bedtime story See Chapter Five on competencies to view Ron and Gordon Lippitt’s integration with Lewin’s famous change model Lewin believed that a successful change effort includes three aspects; unfreezing, if necessary the current state; moving to higher, more positive level; and freezing the system one is changing at the new state

A WORKING DEFINITION OF OD

“Please, give me a nice clean definition of OD!” We have heard this asked so many times Every practitioner has his or her own definition Here are several:

• “Organization development is a long-term effort led and supported by top management, to improve an organization’s visioning, empower-ment, learning, and problem-solving processes, through an ongoing, col-laborative management of organizational culture—with special

emphasis on the consultant-facilitator role and the theory and technol-ogy of applied behavioral science, including participant action research” (French & Bell, 1999)

• “OD is an organization-wide effort, managed from the top, to increase

an organization’s effectiveness and health through planned interven-tions in the organization’s processes, using behavioral science knowl-edge” (adapted slightly from Beckard, 1969)

• Here is ours: “OD is the application of behavioral science action research and systems theory to human systems, to increase the internal and external effectiveness of the organization, especially in managing change, using participative processes that involve all those affected.”

We are standing on the shoulders of giants It is now up to us, their descen-dants, to do what they did so many years ago: discover new principles and

methods of assisting leaders and their organizations to be as effective as they can be

End Notes

1 Many colleagues contributed to this chapter, among them Warner Burke, John Adams, Saul Eisen, Edie Seashore, Denny Gallagher, Marvin Weisbord, and others.

We have drawn heavily from Weisbord’s wonderfully rich, easy-to-read, and

well-documented description of the origins of our field in Productive Workplaces (1987).

2 Hundreds of people have contributed to this field Regrettably, space does not permit all the contributors to be mentioned We have had to make choices and apologize to those who do not find their names listed.

3 See Alfred Marrow’s very thorough and very readable biography of Lewin, The

Practical Theorist (1969).

4 Personal conversation between John Scherer and Ron Lippitt—who was in the room as one of Lewin’s research assistants at this birth of the T-group.

5 See Bradford et al (1964) for a more thorough description.

6 As Weisbord points out, Roger Harrison’s “role negotiation” was a major pro-grammatic step in reducing the threat of team building John and Joyce Weir got rid of interpersonal feedback entirely in their self-differentiation labs The inven-tion of “percept language” made it possible for people to provide feedback to themselves while using others as projection screens.

7 We would like to settle two unsettling questions that have been dogging our field for years: Who named OD? and What does “OD” actually stand for? Who named

OD, Herb Shepard or Dick Beckhard? The friendly debate has “raged” for years,

but we are hereby putting it to rest In 1974 Larry Porter, long-time editor of The

OD Practitioner, sat down and conducted an interview with both of them, during

which he raised the question (Porter, 1974) As Larry reported it in a tongue-in-cheek footnote, “They created this response ‘for the record’—prompted by Herb’s elfin sense of humor: ‘Both Herb Shepard and Dick Beckhard are OD consultants

of the external persuasion After some discussion among the three of us as to who did what, we agreed that I (Larry) would identify them as follows in the arti-cle: Dick Beckhard, while consulting at General Electric in 1957, invented the term organization development Herb Shepard, while consulting at Esso in 1957, invented the term organization development.’—Ed.”

The proper full name for OD—at least in so far as the original co-namers

intended—is “Organization Development” and not “Organizational

Develop-ment.” The incorrect linguistic version probably came out of the early emphasis

on personal development described above There That should do it.

8 Marvin Weisbord is one of the most prolific writers and innovators in the field of

OD His books, especially Productive Workplaces (1987) and Discovering Common

Ground (1992), are now classics, and he is the co-creator of the Future Search

process (2000).

9 This time-line, developed by Billie Alban, is being published here for the first time.

10 There had been other experiments, such as at ESSO Texas, which involved putting almost everybody through stranger T-groups It was an abject failure Nothing changed The key, it turned out, was shifting to T-groups where the entire team participated together.

Beckhard, R (1969) Organization development: Strategies and models Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Bennis, W (1966) Changing organizations: Essays on the development of human

orga-nizations New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bion, W (1940) The war of nerves In Miller & Crichton-Miller (Eds.), The neuroses in

war London: Macmillan.

Bradford, L., Gibb, J.R., & Benne, K.D (Eds.) (1964) T-group theory and laboratory

method New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bunker, B., & Alban, B (1997) Large group interventions: Engaging the whole system

for rapid change San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cooperrider, D., Barrett, F.J., & Srivastva, S (1995) Social construction and apprecia-tive inquiry: A journey in organizational theory In D Hosking, P Dachler, & K.

Gergen (Eds.), Management and organization: Relational alternatives to

individual-ism Aldershot, UK: Avebury Press.

Cooperrider, D.L., & Srivastva, S (1990) Appreciative inquiry in organizational life In

R Woodman & W Pasmore (Eds.), Appreciative management and leadership: The

power of positive thought and action in organizations (pp 129–169) San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

French, W.L., & Bell, C.H (1999) Organization development: Behavioral science

interven-tions for organization improvement (6th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B (1959) The motivation to work (2nd ed.).

New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Johnson, B (1996) Polarity management: Identifying and managing unsolvable

prob-lems Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L (1966) The social psychology of organizations New York: John

Wiley & Sons.

Lawrence, P., & Lorsch, J (1969) Developing organizations: Diagnosis and action.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Marrow, A (1969) The practical theorist: The life and work of Kurt Lewin Annapolis,

MD: BDR Learning Press.

Maslow, A (1965) Eupsychian management: A journal Homewood, IL: Richard D Irwin McGregor, D (1960) The human side of enterprise New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sashkin, M (1980, June) Interview with Eric Trist, British interdisciplinarian Group &

Organization Studies, pp 144–166.

Srivastva, S., & Cooperrider, D.L (1986) The emergence of the egalitarian

organiza-tion Human Relations, 39(8), 683–724.

Taylor, F (1915) The principles of scientific management New York: Norton.

Weisbord, M (1987) Productive workplaces San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Weisbord, M (1992) Discovering common ground San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Weisbord, M., & Janoff, S (2000) Future search San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

CHAPTER FOUR

Using the HRD Audit to Build Convergence Between Human Resource Management and

Organization Development

T.V Rao and William J Rothwell

According to thought leaders in the human resource management (HRM)

and the organization development (OD) fields (see Costello, Limbrick,

Towle, & Warner, 2002), HRM and OD are—or at least should be— converging (Sicard, Sicard Associates, Frank, & Insights, 2002) Convergence means

that the two fields are coming together HR practitioners are increasingly expected

to act like OD practitioners by effecting culture change and unleashing worker cre-ativity (McBain, 2001), and, conversely, OD practitioners must increasingly become knowledgeable about HR if they are to be most successful in helping their clients

In making this point about the convergence of the fields, Sammut (2001, p 9) writes:

“Human resources (HR) and organization development (OD) share similar roots

in the human aspect of organizations In the past, distinct differences between

HR and OD served to clearly differentiate the two disciplines However, as each discipline has evolved, the differences between them have diminished Cur-rently, the fields of HR and OD are blurred, with no evident dividing line draw-ing distinction between these two disciplines.”

In this chapter we address the following important questions:

• What are personnel management and human resource management?

• What do practitioners in the HR field traditionally do, and how are their roles changing?

106

• What is organization development?

• What do practitioners in the OD field traditionally do, and how are their roles changing?

• Why are the two fields converging, and what are the implications of that convergence?

• How could HR and OD practitioners work together to realize the bene-fits of synergy by using an HRD audit?

WHAT ARE PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AND HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT?

Personnel management means the traditional administrative functions of

keep-ing personnel records and managkeep-ing an employer’s payroll It is tactical in focus

It is also compliance-oriented, focused on ensuring employer compliance with governmental laws, rules, and regulations and employee compliance with an employer’s policies and work rules

Human resource management (HRM) is more strategic in its orientation than

personnel management It includes personnel management but goes beyond it

to ensure that the organization’s people are recruited, selected, managed, and developed in line with the organization’s strategic objectives Human resource management includes such people-oriented functions as:

• Human resource planning;

• Employee recruitment;

• Employee selection;

• Employee orientation;

• Work analysis;

• Competency assessment;

• Training;

• Career management;

• Performance management;

• Compensation management;

• Benefits management;

• Health and safety;

• Employee communications; and

• Labor relations

The traditional foundation of all HR is usually work analysis and its product, the job description and job specification However, many leading organizations are moving away from that foundation, basing HR instead on competencies so

as to reap the possible differences in productivity between exemplary and aver-age performers in every job level and category (Dubois & Rothwell, 2004)

In the HR field, it is common to distinguish between human resource man-agement (HRM), which is broadest in its orientation and addresses all issues about people, and human resource development (HRD), which focuses on increasing individual and group productivity through learning (Brown, 2003) HRM emphasizes the utilization of existing people in their current jobs HRD emphasizes the preparation of people for new roles, new jobs, their development

in the current roles and for unleashing the creative potential of human beings

WHAT DO PRACTITIONERS IN THE HR FIELD TRADITIONALLY

DO, AND HOW ARE THEIR ROLES CHANGING?

HR roles have been changing for some time Historically, of course, HR practi-tioners have been expected to fill different roles in their organizations Often, those roles have changed as management philosophies changed and have also,

on occasion, conflicted (Rothwell, Prescott, & Taylor, 1998) However, numer-ous, recent competency studies have demonstrated the requirements for suc-cess in the HR field (for instance, see “Five key competencies,” 2003; “More on what CEOs want from HR,” 2003; Orr, 2001; Wright, 2001)

Today’s HR professionals often have been depicted as dramatically different from the past For example, they are expected to focus on and guarantee deliv-erables from deployment of HR practices that create value for their organiza-tion; develop organizational architectures and use them to translate strategy into action; perform organizational diagnosis by applying their organizational archi-tectures to set organizational priorities; reengineer HR work through the use of technology, process reengineering teams, and quality improvements; be the employees’ voice in management discussions, ensuring that employees feel that their issues have been heard; and be catalysts, facilitators, and designers of both cultural change and capacity for change, establishing a vision for the HR func-tion that excites clients and engages HR professionals (Ulrich, 1997)

The six challenges for HR professionals outlined by Ulrich (1997) and his list

of competencies indicate the closeness of HRM and OD The six challenges are listed and described below

HR Theory HR professionals must master the theory behind HR work

Theo-ries of learning, motivation, and organizational change should lay the foundation

HR Tools Improvements must continue in HR core technologies such as

exec-utive development, recruiting and staffing, training and education, rewards and recognition, performance management, employee relations, labor relations, and diversity Five HR tools will become critical for the future: (1) global HR (focus-ing on the ramifications for HR of global business strategy); (2) leadership depth (defining and creating leaders for the future); (3) knowledge transfer (creating systems that will transfer knowledge throughout the organization to reduce cycle time and increase innovations and quality decisions); (4) cultural change; and (5) customer-focused HR

HR Capabilities The new HR capabilities should include, in addition to the

traditional ones, the following:

• Speed: Doing HR work quickly without sacrificing quality;

• Implementation: Turning ideas into actions;

• Innovation: Thinking creatively about problems; and

• Integration: Linking customer goals, strategic plans, and employee needs.

HR Value Proposition The HR investments in the future must focus on value

creation and developing a value equation for HR services and products HR practices affect employees in terms of their morale, commitment, competence, and retention; customers in terms of their retention, satisfaction, and commit-ment; and investors in terms of profitability, cost, growth, cash flow, and margin

HR Governance HR professionals must improve how work is coordinated.

HR Careers HR professionals may work in one of four locations: site (plant);

business unit (product line or country); corporate HR; or outside the HR func-tion He or she may be a specialist or a generalist, and he or she may be a con-tributor (working alone), integrator (coordinating the work of others), or a strategist (directing policies and procedures)

Key HR competencies include the following:

• Knowledge of business (financial capability, strategic capability, techno-logical capability);

• Knowledge of HR practices (staffing, development, appraisal, rewards, organizational planning, communication, and so forth);

• Management of change (creating meaning, problem solving, innovation and transformation, relationship influence, and role influence);

• Business mastery (knowing the business, financial, strategic, technologi-cal, and organizational capabilities of the organization);

• Human resource mastery;

• Change and change process mastery; and

• Personal credibility (accuracy in all HR work; consistency or being pre-dictable; meeting commitments or doing what is promised on time and within budget; being personally comfortable with colleagues, subordi-nates, and supervisors; confronting appropriately; integrity; thinking outside the box; confidentiality; and listening to and focusing on the executive problems)

Personnel management, the predecessor of HR management, was born with the advent of government laws, rules, and regulations that affect organizations

In the United States, that began during World War I when employers were first required by government to track payrolls and keep personnel records In Europe,

it started even earlier (Bouchez, 1992) At the time, the dominant management philosophy was Scientific Management, based on the work of Frederick Taylor Taylor advocated establishing clear distinctions between managers and work-ers and rewarding people in line with their contributions These early views of management led personnel managers of that time to focus attention on estab-lishing job descriptions and devising rational pay systems

For the most part, it is fair to say that, in the earliest role of personnel man-agement, practitioners were expected to function as clerks who would track pay-roll, track benefits, and build record-keeping systems to track employers’ actions with workers That led to the role of paper shuffling administrator, a part still played by HR practitioners in many organizations to this day It also related to the HR practitioner’s role as compliance officer, one who ensures that the orga-nization’s managers and employees function in ways that are legal A compli-ance officer acts to make sure that the organization abides by the law

Following the Hawthorne studies, personnel managers found themselves fac-ing a new view: their role should be to maintain, or improve, good morale in their organizations That was an important impact of the so-called human relations view

of management, which followed Scientific Management One key lesson of the Hawthorne studies was that people perform better when someone pays attention

to them While subsequent critics have questioned the value of the Hawthorne studies because the research designs may have been flawed, their impact seems clear Personnel managers became the social directors of their organizations They were expected to lead efforts to get people to work together more effectively by paying attention to them as people and the social side of the business

The impact of that role today on HR is still apparent HR is often tasked to lead company picnics and other social events, track employee morale through attitude surveys, address issues centering on employee wellness, manage