Practicing Organization Development (A guide for Consultants) - Part 53 pot

A recent article on the future of the field of OD Worley & Feyerherm, 2003 suggests that, in contrast to a certain clarity around values that characterized the early days of OD, we are c

Maas, P (1994) China white Rockland, MA: Wheeler.

McLean, G.N., & DeVogel, S.H (2002) Organization development ethics: Reconciling

tensions in OD values In J Waclawski & A.H Church (Eds.), Organization develop-ment: A data-driven approach to organizational change (pp 302–320) San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

McLean, G.N., Karimov, M., & Asankanov, A (2002) The role of human resource development in improving K-12 educational leadership in Kyrgyzstan In U.

Pareek, A.M Osman-Gani, S Ramnaravan, & T.V Rao (Eds.), Human resource development in Asia: Trends and challenges (pp 207–214) New Delhi: Oxford &

IBH Publishing Co.

McLean, G.N., & McLean, L (2001) If we can’t define HRD in one country, how can

we define it in an international context? Human Resource Development International, 4(3), 313–326.

Mitchell, E (1996) The way of the explorer: An Apollo astronaut’s journey through the material and mystical worlds New York: Putnam.

Moon, Y.L., & McLean, G.N (2003) The nature of corruption hidden in culture: The

case of Korea In J.B Kidd & F.J Richter (Eds.), Fighting corruption in Asia: Causes, effects and remedies (pp 297–315) Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.

Murrell, K.L (2002) The new century for global organization development:

Respond-ing to the challenges of the day OD Practitioner, 34(1).

Owen, H (1997) Open space technology: A user’s guide (2nd ed.) San Francisco:

Berrett-Koehler.

Owen, H (2004) The practice of peace (2nd ed.) Circle Pines, MN: Human Systems

Dynamics Institute.

Rhinesmith, S.H (1996) A manager’s guide to globalization Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.

Rothwell, W.J., Sullivan, R., & McLean, G.N (Eds.) (1995) Practicing OD San

Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Schein, E (1998) La cultura empresarial y el Liderazgo Barcelona, Espana: Plaza y

Jarnes.

Senge, P (1995) La quinta disciplina en la práctica (The fifth discipline) Barcelona,

España: Granica.

Senge, P (1994) The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learn-ing organization New York: Doubleday.

Senge, P (2003) Creating desired futures in a global economy Reflections, 5(1), 1.

Sorenson, P., Head, T, Yaeger, T., & Cooperrider, D (2001) Global and international organization development (3rd ed.) Champaign, IL: Stipes.

Tannenbaum, R (1978) Keynote speech Portland, OR: OD Network Conference.

Tolbert, A.S., McLean, G.N., & Myers, R.C (2002) Creating the global learning

organi-zation (GLO) The International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 463–472.

Trompenaars, F (1993) Riding the waves of culture London The Economist Press.

GLOBAL ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT 491

UN Global Compact (2003) Website: www:UNglobalcompact.org.

Watkins, J.M., & Cooperrider, D (1996, Winter) Organizational inquiry model for

global social change organizations (pp 97–112) Organization Development Journal, 4(14).

Weick, K.E., & Sutcliffe, K 1995) Managing the unexpected Ann Arbor, MI University

of Michigan Press.

Weisbord, M., & Janoff, S (2000) Future search: An action guide to finding common ground in organizations and communities (2nd ed.) San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Wheatley, M (1999) Leadership and the new science (rev ed.) San Francisco:

Berrett-Koehler.

Wiggleworth, D (1995) International OD In W.J Rothwell, R Sullivan, & G.N.

McLean, G.N., Practicing OD San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Wilbur, K (2000) A brief history of everything (rev ed.) Boston, MA: Shambala WindEagle & RainbowHawk (2003) Heart seeds: A message from the ancestors Edina,

MN: EHAMA Press, Beaver’s Pond Press.

492 PRACTICING ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT, 2ND EDITION

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

Values, Ethics, and Practice in the Field

of Organization Development

Terri Egan and William Gellermann

The past two decades have seen a number of formal and informal dialogues,

discussions, and debates about the nature of organization development (OD) and the values, ethics, and practices on which it is based A recent article on the future of the field of OD (Worley & Feyerherm, 2003) suggests that,

in contrast to a certain clarity around values that characterized the early days

of OD, we are currently experiencing a period of confusion and ambiguity— leaving practitioners in the position of having to rely on their individual ethical frameworks rather than on an agreed-on set of ethical standards

THE MEANING OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT

Before examining questions related to establishing values and standards of eth-ical practice, it will help to reflect on the history of OD to give perspective for thinking about what we mean by OD To do that, we begin by retelling a slightly modified version of a story told by Bob Tannenbaum several years ago in intro-ducing a plenary address to an annual OD Network conference

“A woman went into an ice cream store and said to the clerk, ‘May I have a quart of chocolate ice cream?’ The clerk replied, ‘I’m sorry, lady We don’t have any chocolate ice cream.’ She paused and then said, ‘Well How about a pint of chocolate ice cream? Can I have that?’ And he replied, ‘I’m sorry, lady We just

493

don’t have any chocolate ice cream!’ Again, after another pause, she asked,

‘Well How about a chocolate ice cream cone? Can I have that?’

“The clerk thought a moment and then, with a bit of impatience in his voice, said: ‘Lady How do you spell the van in vanilla?’ And she said, ‘V A N.’ Then

he asked, ‘And how about the straw in strawberry?’ And she said, in a hesitant tone of voice, ‘S T R A W.’ Then he asked, ‘And how about the stink in choco-late?’ And she replied adamantly, ‘There’s no Stink in chocolate!’ And he responded, ‘Lady! That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you!!!’”

After the laughter subsided, Bob then said, “There is something I have been

trying to tell our profession—and I’m going to try one more time OD is not

about our kit of tools OD is about the way we lead our lives!!!”

In our view that is an extraordinarily important way of thinking about the nature of OD, since, on reflection, it contrasts with many of the prevailing views

of what “organization development” means For us the words, “the way we live our lives” focus on the way people within organizations live their lives—and it also extends to the way “we” (human beings throughout the world) live our lives The first way of thinking is consistent with the focus on developing orga-nizations and the second way is consistent with the emerging, expanded view of our “field of practice,” namely the field of “Human Systems Development.”1

One way of thinking about its meaning is based on the concept of

“align-ment,” namely “energy moving in the same direction.” For an organization, that

means that all of the organization’s members are motivated to serve a shared purpose and vision or, at least, purposes and visions that are complementary

In other words, their motivations are moving them in the same direction For example, the Johnson & Johnson Credo illustrates one way an organization can contribute to creating the conditions under which people are all motivated to move in the same direction That credo begins, “We believe our first responsi-bility is to the doctors, nurses, and patients, mothers and fathers, and all others who use our products and services.” In contrast, Coca-Cola’s mission (purpose) begins “We exist to create value for our share owners on a long-term basis.” In our view, the J & J mission is more likely to evoke motivation throughout the organization that is aligned in a common direction than the Coca-Cola mission

We do not mean that Coca-Cola’s mission of “long-term shareholder value” is not important, but only that it is less likely to energize motivation in a shared direction than J & J’s mission, which makes service to customers primary

THE MEANING OF HUMAN SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

Although the mental leap from organization development (OD) to human sys-tems development (HSD) can seem large, the conceptual leap is relatively clear Namely, when OD is conceived of as the process of facilitating alignment among

494 PRACTICING ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT, 2ND EDITION

all organization members, then HSD involves the process of facilitating align-ment among all system members For example, alignalign-ment of all members of the global community is conceivable The means of achieving global alignment may

be beyond our present ability, but activities of the United Nations can conceiv-ably be steps in that direction Among other things, movement toward creation

of a Global People’s Assembly (composed of representatives of “the people”)

as part of The United Nations as a complement to the General Assembly (composed of representatives of governments) would be an example of HSD

In view of the fundamental similarity of OD and HSD, we find it clarifying to conceive of them separately and simultaneously (as OD/HSD) And in view of

our earlier discussion, we view the practice of OD/HSD more as facilitating the

process of OD/HSD than as the development process itself In other words,

according to this view, OD/HSD practitioners do not “do” OD/HSD; rather, they

facilitate it.

OD/HSD FACILITATION: A PROFESSION

OR A FIELD OF PRACTICE?

Over the years of OD/HSD practice, conflict has emerged over the issue of whether or not “we” are a profession Some have resisted our becoming a pro-fession on such grounds as concern about standardization, barriers to entry, and

a shift to valuing the interests of the profession above those of our clients (which has emerged in the history of many other professions, such as law and medicine) On the other hand, some have urged our becoming a profession on such grounds as improving the quality of our practice by establishing proce-dures for certifying qualification, standards of competence and a code of ethics, and procedures for enforcing both competence and ethical practice

We prefer a third alternative based on a view suggested by Dick Beckhard, one of the founders of OD practice In Dick’s opinion, we are a “field of prac-tice” and not a profession (personal communication) With that view, it is pos-sible for us to collaborate in developing standards of competence as well as values and ethics and to support one another in establishing practice consistent with those standards (See Chapter Five for the field’s effort to develop the

stan-dards of competence.) But we are more oriented to supporting one another in practicing in accord with such standards than to enforcing compliance with such

standards

Also, although we may choose not to view ourselves as a “profession,” we can view ourselves as “professionals,” by which we mean simply that our prac-tice in the field of OD/HSD is a way of earning our living and not something we

do “just for the fun of it.” As professionals, we also acknowledge our responsi-bility to the field of practice, but without subordinating ourselves to a profession

VALUES, ETHICS, AND PRACTICE IN THE FIELD OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT 495

VALUES, ETHICS, AND OD/HSD’S FIELD OF PRACTICE

Although “values” and “ethics” are widely used terms, their meanings are not widely shared, although people tend to assume shared meanings For our pur-poses here, “values” are “standards of importance” and “ethics” are “standards

of good/bad or right/wrong behavior based on values.” For example, respect, integrity, authenticity, honesty, truth, profit, shareholder value, and stakeholder value are values These values can be expressed through such ethics as “Respect yourself and others,” “Act with integrity and authenticity,” “Be honest,” “Be true to yourself,” “Seek to maximize profit and shareholder value,” and “Seek

to maximize stakeholder values.”

As noted earlier, OD practitioners are currently experiencing a period of con-fusion and ambiguity about their shared values Concurrent with escalating uncertainty about OD values, we have entered a period marked by a growing crisis in public confidence directed at one of our largest domains of practice— publicly held corporations As a series of ethical scandals has unfolded, a par-allel concern has emerged about the role of practitioners in supporting, or at a minimum overlooking, ethical misdeeds The role of the professional organiza-tions as mediators between the interests of the public at large and the interests

of practitioners again becomes important

While the debate in various professional organizations continues about the extent to which the field is or should be based on an established code of ethics, the day-to-day challenges of developing an ethical practice as an OD practitioner offer a rich opportunity for self-discovery and development In fact, the current tension and ambiguity at the level of practice in the field as a whole demands a more rigorous examination of our individual values and ethics and how they relate to our practice In the absence of such personal clarity, we run the risk of drifting toward a form of rationalized choice based on unexamined self-interest The purpose of this chapter is to help you review current thinking on values and ethics in the field of OD We will do this by (1) providing frameworks to help you understand your place as a practitioner in the context of values and ethics relevant to the practice of OD; (2) summarizing some common dilemmas encountered by OD practitioners; (3) suggesting ways of strengthening your own development as an ethical practitioner in such situations; and (4) summarizing resources that can aid in the above

As OD practitioners we are rarely presented with clear-cut value conflicts Our dilemmas are created through the conflict between competing rights, obligations, and interests Donaldson and Dunfee propose that, “Managers are situated in a web of (sometimes) conflicting loyalties and duties .” (1995,

p 87) One can argue that OD practitioners, particularly internals, are similarly embedded in a web of potentially conflicting relationships Similar to our need

496 PRACTICING ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT, 2ND EDITION

to deal with the uncertainty and ambiguity that characterize organizational life,

as ethical practitioners we must be comfortable spending time in the uncom-fortable tension created by these webs of competing values The resolution of this tension can only occur after careful thought based on clarity about our own values and ethics and the boundaries of our field of practice

OD: IN SEARCH OF CLEAR BOUNDARIES

Although we think our concepts of “values,” “ethics,” “OD/HSD field of prac-tice,” and “role of OD practitioners within that field” are relatively clear, we also think it is important to recognize the diversity of practitioners’ views generally Although we consider OD and HSD inseparable, we will focus on OD in our review of other discussions, since the expanded view of HSD has not been generally adopted

Tension over seemingly incompatible values in the field of OD is highlighted

in a study by Worley and Feyerherm (2003), who interviewed twenty-one pio-neering OD thought leaders regarding the past, present, and future of the field of

OD In their discussion of the field’s boundaries, the authors identify two camps: the traditionalists and the pragmatists Traditionalists support the field’s tradi-tional humanistic values, while pragmatists are concerned with integrating the strong process competencies that defined the early stages of OD with more sys-tematic approaches to strategy and organizational design While traditionalists worry that the pragmatic approach may sell out to power and influence in large corporations, pragmatists are concerned about the relevance of the human process approach

Worley and Feyerherm propose a boundary for OD that they claim reconciles the two camps by transcending debate and offering the possibility of a

“both/and” rather than an “either/or” view of the field They define OD as

“intended change in the system, intended increases in the capacity of the sys-tem to manage change in the future, and intended improvements in syssys-tems effectiveness” (2003, p 110–111) While this definition provides a meta-criterion for sorting what is included and excluded in the practice of OD, it does little to resolve the debate and confusion over values and standards In fact, the authors

go on to identify a lack of clarity around ethics and values as a threat to the development of the field

So we are left with the question, “To what extent are the largely humanistic tra-ditional values that characterized the early stages of the field’s development still important for today’s OD practitioners?” In practice, the evolution of a profession

or field of practice and ethical practice within that field are largely social constructs (Cottone, 2001)—and this reality is reflected in several ongoing initiatives designed

VALUES, ETHICS, AND PRACTICE IN THE FIELD OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT 497

to codify, clarify, and provide practitioners with standards for ethical practice in the field of OD

DISCUSSIONS ABOUT VALUES AND ETHICS IN THE FIELD OF OD

At least three ongoing processes—sponsored by the Organization Development Network, the OD Institute, and the Clearinghouse for Information About Ethics and Values in Organization and Human Systems Development—have offered prac-titioners the opportunity to shape the discussion on values and ethics in the field

of OD The outcomes and processes of these initiatives have generated a remark-ably similar set of values and ethics The presenting problem seems to be less lack

of clarity and more a result of the fundamental struggle to optimize across an incredibly broad range of stakeholders and interests For example, the most recent version of “A Statement of Values and Ethics by Professionals in Organization and Human Systems Development” (Gellermann, Frankel, & Ladenson, 1990) says:

“Our purpose is to promote a widely shared learning and discovery process dedicated to a vision of people living meaningful, productive, good lives in ways that simultaneously serve them, their organizations, their societies, and the world.” (p 372)

This definition presents endless opportunities for ethical dilemmas and values conflicts The resolution of these differences, we believe, is not in abandoning the fundamental values of the field, but rather in recognizing that ambiguity is part of the process—and the struggle for personal clarity is a worthy and nec-essary struggle

At first blush, it may appear impossible to reconcile humanistic values with economic profit However, several conditions—a renewed interest in the topic

of corporate social responsibility, the development of economic models that include a triple bottom line, and the radically optimistic notion that business is potentially an agent of constructive world change—suggest that they are not

fundamentally incompatible Also, Collins and Porras (1994) report in Built to

Last a study from which they conclude it is a myth that companies exist solely

for profit-making “the most successful companies exist first and foremost to make profits.” They found that the “best” companies (identified in a survey of CEOs) are guided by a cluster of values and a sense of purpose beyond just making money And, paradoxically, those companies were significantly more profitable than a more purely profit-driven set of comparison companies More recently, the Business as an Agent of World Benefit project sponsored by the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University has

498 PRACTICING ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT, 2ND EDITION

documented thousands of cases where individuals and organizations have made

a positive difference (Neville & Cooperrider, 2002)

OD Network Conversations

Answering the call for a more explicit statement of professional standards, the Board of Trustees of the Organization Development Network, one of the largest organizations of professionals in the field, initiated a series of discussions among practitioners on the topic of values and ethics in the field Over a dozen focus groups with nearly one hundred people were convened at different geographic locations to discuss various scenarios as they related to OD In an interim report, Griffin and Minors (2002) summarize some of the key findings These statements offer the reader a recent snapshot of what is on the minds of fellow practitioners

• Clear contracting is an essential part of high-quality OD, with shared responsibility for communicating expectations and values.

• Good OD focuses on the big picture, is strategic, long-term, and fosters taking a systems approach We look for patterns and balance We avoid

“toolbox” approaches.

• There is no agreed-on way of evaluating a practitioner’s competency We value competence enough that many of us seek a certification process.

• Commitment to organization results is an important element in our credibility.

• Speaking the language of our customers enhances our credibility with decision makers.

• Self-awareness and self-development are long-held values for OD practi-tioners, including the ability to maintain objectivity and the willingness to continually grow.

• OD practitioners deal with complexity, diversity, integrating values into their work, and being authentic.

• We value valid data as a foundation for action and data-based diagnosis.

• Holding self apart, maintaining objectivity, understanding own biases and not letting them interfere, looking at assumptions, and pursuing self-development are key for OD practitioners.

• The client/consultant partnership requires strong relationships OD

practi-tioners work with clients, not through or around them.

• Good OD practice requires good diagnostic skills, examining assumptions, looking beyond presenting problems.

VALUES, ETHICS, AND PRACTICE IN THE FIELD OF ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT 499

• Ambiguity, paradox, and managing dilemmas are key elements in OD practice today.

• Our values (as well as our culture and perspective on complexity) inform the processes and interventions we choose, which affect the results we get.

• One of our roles is to help clients explore their values as well as the gaps between values and practice.

• We value involvement; we strive to assist stakeholders in developing a feeling of ownership of their organizations’ problems and solutions.

• It’s important that we are able to be present and authentic in our dealings with clients.

• The issue of client readiness is important to us We should not raise issues based solely on our own values, but balance those with the client’s ability

to address the issues.

• We value diversity within the systems with which we operate We seek to ensure that minority opinions are heard and to enable discussion of diversity issues.

• We value the integration of organizational, group, and individual needs, rather than working to adjust the individual to the organization or vice versa.

A Code of Ethics for the Field

The OD Institute has developed an “International Organization Development Code

of Ethics,” which offers a somewhat more concise statement of values and ethics for OD professionals This statement has gone through twenty-two revisions and was developed through a process similar to the participative process used to develop “A Statement of Values and Ethics by Professional in Organization and Human Systems Development” (described in the following section) The Code reads:

“As an OD professional, I acknowledge the fundamental importance of the following values both for myself and my profession:

1 Quality of life—people being satisfied with their whole life experience; health, human potential, empowerment, growth and excellence—people being healthy, aware of the fullness of their potential, recognizing their power to bring that potential into being, growing into it, living it, and, generally, doing the best they can with it, individually and collectively;

2 Freedom and responsibility—people being free and responsible in choosing how they will live their lives;

500 PRACTICING ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT, 2ND EDITION