(Abstract of Workshop on "The Profession of Consultant in Organizational Development" developed by The Organization Development Instritute International, Latin America by Eric Gaynor Butterfield; Buenos Aires, Argentina - 2003)
- See www.theodinstitute.org
When we carry out a consulting intervention at The Organization Development Institute International, Latin America, we usually work as a team made up of our own team of external consultants and co-participate with a Client Project Leader who is in charge of change agents / facilitators. / internal consultants.
What usually happens within one institution - and we feel that we are not strangers to this "law" - is that it is quite common for professionals who are already trained and who have greater and better potential in terms of their possibilities of developing in another consulting institution or company or who are also eventually willing to practice the profession on their own, are those who added more value to our Institution.
Something similar happens to the vast majority of organizations where the propensity to retain their staff is strongly linked to their skills; The most competent are more likely to focus on finding new opportunities while those with lower skills - but not always with lower wages and salaries - explore ways to continue supporting themselves within their own company.
What I always share with directors and managers and I must confess that I am not always fortunate and convincing enough when I manifest it and share it with them in meetings, is that “within” the role of the director and manager must incorporate that of “training, train and educate ”new people and professionals.
Of course, the process of recruiting and selecting new personnel is important, but it is also important to train, train and educate new ones so that their identification and integration with the organization is aimed at successfully complementing individual needs with organizational needs.
However, it is not too complicated to train, train and educate people within organizations with products and services that in the worst case may have a not too long life cycle, but given the complexity and diversity and different degrees of turbulence and Uncertainty that appears in the Clients who receive consulting services The task of training, educating and training consultants is not a gift.
Until the early 1970s of the last century, hierarchical pyramidal organization prevailed within Latin American cultures and countries, where the authoritarian leadership system and a top-down management philosophy was the prevailing one, and said model allowed the orientation of "Change" of the consultant was feasible to be carried out under a very simple consulting model that was operationalized under a very simple practice: the development of a "new organization chart" that was usually complemented by a "new" Manual of Functions, Duties and Responsibilities that It could eventually be supplemented by some flow charts of how the "new" procedures were to be carried out.
The competitive situations that companies began to experience in Latin America during the 1980s made it essential to take into account the contributions of many notable experts such as Tom Burns (“Industry in a new age”; New society - 1963), James D Thompson ("Organizations in action"; McGraw-Hill - 1967), Paul R. Lawrence & Jay Lorsch (Organizations & Environment "; Harvard - 1967), Charles Perrow (" Organizational Analysis: A sociological view "; Brooks / Cole - 1970) and the competencies of consultants who were used to developing their services under the development of formal changes such as those described in the previous paragraph (new organization chart, new Manual of Duties, Functions and Responsibilities,and new flow charts of a few processes) were no longer sufficient to sustain and develop these companies.
Of course, the powerful financial globalization imposed through the financial institutions that began to prevail over the concept of companies, made it necessary and essential to develop skills unmatched in the history of organizations. Companies could now be conceptualized under the theory of Michael T. Hannan & John H. Freeman (“Organizational Ecology”; Harvard University Press - 1988) that associate them with the rabbit species: many of them are born but also very many die.
What are the practical implications of this new reality that has no antecedents in the history of organizations? Many, not only for the managers and executives of companies but also for the consultants who must "get on a totally unusual rate of change, growth and development" until then. Therefore, the consultant's work involves developing in Clients - through different processes, technologies, competences and methodologies - new mechanisms that allow mutating both individuals, groups and the organization as a whole, in a new species stronger than the "original rabbit".
But in order for consultants to make these improvements and mutations in the organizational members and in the client-companies, it was necessary that they first start working on themselves.
In a simple scheme such as that of the consultant who was accustomed to intervening to produce improvements in a hierarchical pyramid organization, which among its basic assumptions we can include that of "assuming that others have to do what we graph and tell them", it is not It is possible that the latter introduces said changes to the Client if “previously” he has not worked on himself. It is impossible that a partially weakened "consultant rabbit" can advantageously transform a weak rabbit into a powerful one.
What is left in no doubt is that the skills that consultants would now require would no longer be based solely on their traditional professional training which had been crowned with a Diploma from an excellent University. The advisor had to incorporate within himself - and before he wanted to try it in the Client - a new training program, training and education where skills, abilities and knowledge should be strengthened with competencies. But these new programs were not available in the best Universities nor in the best Centers of Higher Studies. And in many of them they are not yet today.
It is fascinating that with such a comprehensive body of knowledge in Organizational Development, Behavior, and Organizational Change, even consultants are groping when we engage in consulting interventions in companies and organizations. And that most of the consultants are not familiar with those notable experts who have contributed their experiences, conceptual frameworks and have even contrasted their models with their experiences putting those to the test.
In a previous article on www.gestiopolis.com we asked ourselves:
1. Why is it that we did not achieve the expected results as a consequence of an intervention of change and organizational development?
2. Why is it that many of the consulting interventions - such as “re-engineering” - have not been successful, and when they eventually had some significant degree of success, they have not always been sustained in the future? weather?
Eric Gaynor (“Organization Development Institute” - World Congress in Dublin, 1999 and Mexico, 1998), suggests that the contributions of academics, researchers and consultants have not always managed to be integrated with each other, and especially with regard to integrating effectively the best organizational arrangement with the way to modify it in search of greater and better efficiency and effectiveness.
Let us explore below the contributions of specialists in Organizational Behavior.
- Organizational behavior
Having carried out a review of authors and notable experts in Organizational Behavior we have found a list of more than 60 notable works by different experts where they share their particular perspectives. Each of these experts has dedicated most of their years and also of their energies in the search for the best organizational arrangement and a very important number of them have found empirical evidence to support their conclusions.
Eric Gaynor Butterfield: "Organizational Development Days", Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2001) includes the following:
Alfred D. Chandler: "Strategy and structure", MIT Press, 1962.
Alfred P. Sloan: "My years with GN", Sidgwick & Jackson, 1965.
Alvin W. Gouldner: "Patterns of industrial bureaucracy", Routledge & Kegan, 1955.
Amitai Etzioni: "Modern Organizations", Prentice Hall, 1964.
Arnold S. Tannenbaum: "Control in organizations", Mc Graw-Hill, 1968.
BF Skinner: "The behavior of organisms"; Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1938.
C. Northcote Parkinson: “Big business”, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1977.
Carl Frost & R. Ruh, J. Wakely: “The Scanlon plan for OD”; MSU, 2001
Charles E. Lindblom: “The policy-making process”, Prentice May 1968.
Charles Perrow: “Organizational Analysis: a sociological view”, Brooks / Cole, 1970
Chester I. Barnard: "The functions of the executive", Harvard University Press, 1938.
Chris Argyris: "Personality and Organization" - Harper & Row, 1957; & Schon, D.: "Organizational Learning: A theory of action perspective", Addison-Wesley, 1978.
D. Katz & R. Kahn: "The social psychology of organizations", NY, John Wiley, 1978.
DA Mc Clelland: “Toward a theory of motive acquisition”, American Psychologist, 1965.
Daniel Goleman: “The emotional intelligence”, Bantam Books, 1995.
David Silverman: “The theory of organizations”, Heinemann, 1970.
Derek Pugh and DJ Hickson: “Organizational structure in its context: The Aston program ”, Gower Publishing, 1976.
Douglas McGregor:“ Leadership and motivation ”, MIT press, 1966.
E. Fritz Schumacher: "Small is beautiful: a study of economics as if people mattered", Blond & Briggs, 1973.
E. Wight Bakke: "Bonds of Organization", Archon Books, 1966.
Edgar H. Schein: "Organizational psychology ", Prentice-Hall, 1980.
Edward E. Lawler III:" Pay and organization development ", Addison-Wesley, 1981.
Elliot Jaques:" A general theory of bureaucracy ", Heinemann, 1976.
Elton Mayo:" The social problems of an industrial civilization ", Routledge & Kegan, 1949.
Eric Trist & others:" Organizational choice ", Tavistock, 1963.
Fred E. Fiedler:" A theory of leadership effectiveness ", McGraw Hill, 1967.
Frederick Herzberg:" Managerial choice: to be efficient and to be human ”, Dow Jones - Irwin, 1976.
Frederick W. Taylor: “Scientific Management”, Harper & Row, 1947.
Geert Hofstede: “Cultures and organizations: software of the mind” Mc Graw-Hill, 1991.
Geoffrey Vickers: “Value systems and social process”, Tavistock publications, 1968.
Harry Braverman: "Labor and monopoly capitalism", Monthly review press, 1974.
Henri Fayol: "General and industrial management", Pitman, 1949.
Henry Mintzberg: "Structures in fives: designing effective organizations", Prentice-Hall, 1983.
Herbert A. Simon: "The new science of management decision", Harper & Row, 1960.
James Burnham: "The managerial Revolution", Penguin, 1962.
James D. Thompson: "Organizations in Action" Mc Graw- Hill, 1967.
James G. March: "Decisions & organizations", Blackwell, 1988.
Jeffrey Pfeffer & Gerald, R. Salancik: "The external control of organizations: a resource dependency perspective", Harper & Row, 1978.
Joan Woodward: "Industrial organization: theory and practice ”, Oxford University Press, 1965.
John Kenneth Galbraith:“ The new industrial state ”, Penguin, 1969.
Karl E. Weick:“ The social psychology of organizing ”. Addison-Wesley: 1969.
Kenneth E. Boulding: "The organizational revolution", Harper, 1953.
L. Festinger: "" A theory of cognitive dissonance "; Row-Peterson, 1957.
Lawrence P. & Hull; A.: "The Peter principle", William Morrow, 1969.
Lyndall Urwick & Edward Brech: "The making of scientific management", Pitman, 1950.
Mary Parker Follett: "Creative experience", Longmans, 1924.
Max Weber: The theory of social and economic organization ", Free Press, 1947
Michael T. Hannan & John H. Freeman:" Organizational Ecology "Harvard University Press, 1988.
Michel Crozier: “The bureaucratic phenomenon”, Tavistock publications, 1964.
Oliver E. Williamson: “Economic organization”, Wheatsheaf books, 1986.
Paul R. Lawrence & Jay W. Lorsch: “Organizations & Environment”, Harvard, 1967.
Peter F Drucker: "The practice of management", Harper & Row, 1954.
Philip Selznick: "TVA and the grass roots"; Berkeley, 1949.
Raymond E. Miles & Charles C. Snow: "Organizational strategy, structure and process", Mc Graw-Hill, 1978.
Rensis Likert: "New patterns of management", Mc Graw-Hill, 1961.
Robert Michels: "Political parties", Dover, 1959.
Robert R. Blake & Jane S. Mouton: "The managerial grid III", Gulf Publishing, 1985.
Rosabeth Moss Kanter: "The Change Masters: Corporate entrepeneurs at work", Allen and Unwin, 1984.
Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman: "In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America 's best-run companies, " Harper & Row, 1982.
Tom Burns: "Industry in a new age", New society, 1963.
Victor H. Vroom: "Organization Theory", Penguin Books, 1990.
Victor Thompson: "Modern Organization". New York: Knopf, 1967
Wilfred Brown: "Exploration in management", Heinemann educational books, 1960.
William H. Whyte: "The organization man" Penguin, 1960.
William Ouchi: "Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge", Addison-Wesley, 1981.
The list includes notable academics, researchers, consultants, managers, and practitioners interested in organizational performance. They refer to a selection of independent and intervening variables that have a decisive impact on corporate results, and in most cases they also show empirical evidence of this, either through field work, various investigations, practical evidence, or a case study. study.
The seasoned reader must recognize that regardless of a “different” selection of variables, the authors can differentiate each other by the different unit of analysis they focus on, be it the individual, the group, the organization or the context. What we can be sure of is that in this list there is no place for beginners or laymen.
Definitely, if each of the notable people had been in a situation of introducing organizational improvements, they would surely choose different aspects in what should focus and direction. These distinctive "What" are the ones that really show differences between them.
But what “what” the organizational arrangement consultant should do is something totally different from “how” it should achieve it. And it is now that we begin to explore those authors who have been particularly interested in the “How”, that is, in the processes of change and transformation that are implicit in Organizational Development.
The reader may find it somewhat unusual to speak of an intervention when referring to OD and consulting services. However, the word intervention comes from anglicism "intervention" that is usually adopted in the medical profession for surgical activities. To some extent then, the consulting intervention may be associated with a certain organizational surgery where it is necessary to remove some ills to enhance the organization.
The best known sequence of steps is the one that comes from the work of W. Burke (“Organization Development: Principles and Practices” - New York: Little, Brown & Co, 1982) and is applied in OD within the framework of Action Research. The consulting process includes 8 main steps and they are:
Entry
The need for change within an organization becomes evident, as differences appear between the expected results and those actually achieved, and also as a consequence of observing problems. Some person or a group of people spend time analyzing the problem and even look for others to do it, and also take into account the complexity and opportunity to facilitate change within the company.
Start-Up or “Start / Power”
The figure of a consultant or change agent appears, whose main mission is to clarify the issues related to the problem. The change agent also channels many of his energies towards obtaining support and commitment from others in the change effort to be made.
Appreciation and Feedback
This is the stage where the consultant or change agent collects information regarding the problem and provides feedback to the company's senior management.
Action plan
The change agent works together with the top management of the organization in the development of an action plan that aims to correct the deviation between the expected results and those actually achieved.
Intervention
During this stage the action plan is implemented. The implementation of the change process begins.
Evaluation
The change agent's job during this phase is to assist senior management in evaluating the progress made during the progress of efforts towards organizational change.
Adoption
At this stage, organizational participants take the new procedures and practices as their own, and the scope of the change is extended by extending it to the entire organization.
Separation
During this stage the consultant or change agent prepares to abandon the change effort. This is one of the most critical stages of the entire process since the change agent must ensure that the improvements introduced must be perpetuated without his presence. Of course this is possible when the knowledge and skills of the change agent have been transferred to the organization.
It can be very useful to relate the different stages or phases of the Consulting Intervention with the Competencies of the change agent - consultant. To facilitate this work, the excellent work carried out by The Organization Development Institute on this matter is transcribed below, literally and in English.
“The Organization Development Institute (“ The Essential Competencies for Practicing OD Effectively (20th version - 2001) ”
Marketing
Be aware of systems wanting to change
Be known to those needing you
Match skills with potential Client profile
Convey qualifications in a credible manner
Quickly grasp the nature of the system
Determine appropriate decision makers
Coiling
Build trusting relationships
Deal effectively with resistance
Help the Client trust the process
Help the Client manage emotionally charged feelings
Collaboratively design the change process
Mini-Assessment
Further clarify real issues
Be aware of how one´s biases influence interaction
Link change effort into ongoing organizational processes
Identify informal power
Data Gathering
Determine the type of data needed
Clarify boundaries for confidentiality
Select a process that will facilitate openness
Diagnosis
Watch for deeper issues as data is gathered
Suspend judgment while gathering data
Recognize what is relevant
Know how data from different parts of the system impact each other
Stay focused on the purpose of the consultancy
Feedback
Prepare leadership for the truth
Involve participants so they being to own the process
Create a non-threatening atmosphere
Planning
Distill recommendations from the data
Consider creative alternatives
Participation
Obtain commitment from leadership
Co-create an implementation plan that is rooted in the data
Co-create implementation plan that is clear
Co-create implementation plan that is results-oriented
Co-create implementation plan that is measurable
Intervention
Reduce dependency upon consultant
Instill responsibility for follow through
Intervene at the right debt
Re-design intervention or mindfully respond to new dynamics
Re-plan as unexpected circumstances arise
Evaluation
Initiate ongoing feedback in Client-consultant relationship
Choose appropriate evaluation methods, that is, interviews, instruments, financial sheets
Determine level of evaluation such as reaction, learning, behavioral change, organizational impact, societal impact
Ensure evaluation is reliable
Ensure evaluation method is practical
Follow Up
Establish method to monitor change after the intervention
Use information to reinforce positive change
Use information to take next steps
Link evaluation with expected outcomes
Adoption
Transfer change skills to internal consultant so learning is continuous
Link change process to daily life of system
Pay attention to movement back to old behaviors
Move more away from project-driven change to strategy-driven change
Be sure customers and stakeholders are satisfied with intervention´s results
Separation
Recognized when separation is desirable
Leave the Client satisfied
Self-awareness
Be aware of how ones “whole person” impacts one´s practice
Clarify personal values
Clarify personal boundaries
Manage personal biases
Manage personal defensiveness
Recognize when personal feelings have been aroused
Remain physically healthy while under stress
Resolve ethical issues with integrity
Avoid getting personal needs met at the expense of the Client (ie, financial, emotional, sexual, etc.)
Work within the limits of your capabilities
Perform effectively in an atmosphere of ambiguity
Perform effectively in the midst of chaos
Interpersonal
Develop mutually trusting relationships with others
Solicit feedback from others about your impact on them
Collaborate on internal / external OD professionals
Balance the needs of multiple relationships
Listen to others
Pay attention to the spontaneous and informal
Consistently maintain confidentiality
Interpersonally relate to others
Other
Handle diversity and diverse situations skillfully
Communicate directions clearly to large groups
Facilitate small group interventions (up to 70)
Be aware of the influences of cultural dynamics on interactions with others
Therefore until now we have become familiar with different Organizational Theories within what is known as Organizational Behavior. But companies must not only behave but they must also guide these behaviors towards effectiveness and efficiency that allows them to consolidate their position in the context and in front of their real and potential contenders.
Now the consultant needs to know - in addition to the different phases of consulting and different types of organizational arrangements - about how to get the organization moving.
One can have a train with many wagons (quiet behaviors) and needs a locomotive that gives movement to all the wagons. That is what is known under the name of Organizational Development, and, as in the case of Organizational Behavior, here we also find works and contributions with which every consultant must become familiar, know, learn, and then put them into practice in a proper way. effective and efficient. Some of these remarkable works are included below.
- Organizational development
In his book "Practicing Organization Development - A guide for consultants" (edited by William J. Rothwell, Roland Sullivan & Gary N. McLean, Pfeiffer, 1995) a series of definitions of Organizational Development are included, making specific mention of the statements of:
- Beckhard, 1969 ("Organization Development: Strategies And Models"; Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley); Bennis, 1969; ("Organization Development: its nature, origin and prospects"; Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley); Burke, 1982; ("Organization Development: Principles and Practices"; New York: Little, Brown & Co.); McLagan, 1989; ("Models for HRD practice"; Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development); French & Bell, 1990; ("Organizational Development: Behavioral science interventions for organization improvement"; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
In an attempt to summarize these definitions and link them together through a common thread, William J. Rothwell, Roland Sullivan & Gary N. McLean, Pfeiffer (in the 1995 edition cited) point out four main aspects:
1. Organizational development has a long-term perspective, which implies that it does not represent a strategy of making “quick fix” arrangements, something that has already been noted by Kilmann, 1984 (“Beyond the quick fix: Managing five tracks to organizational success "; San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass) and Naisbitt, 1982 (" Megatrends: Have new directions transforming our lives "; New York: Warner Books).
2. Despite the fact that a process of organizational change and development can be carried out at any level as suggested by Beer, 1980 (“Organization change and Development: A systems view”; Santa Monica, Ca: Goodyear) the three authors highlight the need to receive support and sponsorship from the top of the organization.
3. The educational and learning process is central to the process of organizational change and development. The learning and application of new ideas, beliefs, behaviors and attitudes on the part of the different organizational members is required.
4. Unlike other consulting approaches, Organizational Development especially takes into account the participation of the organization's own staff in the different stages of diagnosis, search for solutions and selection, identification of objectives to change, implementation of planned change, and evaluation of results.
In this way William J. Rothwell, Roland Sullivan & Gary N. McLean (1995) help us identify a common thread through different definitions, appreciations and approaches to organizational development.
Dr. Donald Cole (“Organizational Development Congress”, Buenos Aires, Argentina - 1997) points out that the profession of organizational development emerges as a consequence of the greater organizational complexity that is required to face changes in context, and that it takes the form of "matrix organization". Robert Blake & Jane Mouton, 1985 (The managerial grid III ”, Gulf Publishing) coined the term matrix organization before the end of the 1960s. Thereafter - Dr. Donald Cole, 1997 - organizations that adopt a matrix arrangement imply that each person responds to more than one, a task that has not been present in traditional organizational forms.
We can point out that Organizational Development arises in the early sixties when there is no longer any doubt that the classical school of thought, human relations, human resources and bureaucracy, have manifested their diminishing returns, to say the least. Wendell, F. and Bell, C. - 1995 (already mentioned) emphasize four different applications related to the behavioral sciences, and how they have impacted organizational development, being them:
- Laboratory training, survey research & feedback, action research, and the Tavistock socio-technical school.
Organizational development (OD) arises in the early sixties of the last century as a consequence mainly of the diminishing returns of the four management philosophies to which we have mentioned (classical school of thought, that of human relations, that of human resources and bureaucratic).
It is also remarkable how the emergence of Organizational Development coincides with what we have called “decline in the importance of the Profession”. Indeed, professions in the 1960s began to decline in importance (in the United States of America).
Various field and research works are beginning to show evidence where "the profession" helps to move up the organizational pyramid to managerial positions, but they have difficulties to consolidate at the top of the company. New skills emerge - intra and interpersonal - that are usually not learned, and generally are not taught either, in the best study centers and universities on the planet.
The climax of the “scope of the professional role” and how your professional career may be “interrupted” within companies is highlighted by Dr. Donald Cole, 1981 (“Professional Suicide”; New York, Mc Graw Hill) which has been edited in Spanish and is co-authored by Eric Gaynor, 2002 (“Suicidio Profesional”, Buenos Aires, Editor: The OD
Institute International). In the USA, they quickly identified that “professional” knowledge, although necessary, was not sufficient for an organization to be competitive and to sustain such competitiveness over time.
This is particularly true for the Administration and Engineering professions, among others; Henceforth, professionals should also focus their efforts, resources and energies on learning to know themselves and others a little more. Something that "traditional" professions have not been used to.
Organizational Development is then directly related to organizational participants, and "How" they can change their beliefs, values, behaviors and attitudes. Something common to all of them - unlike many of the notable experts mentioned under "Organizational Behavior" in the section above, is the focus on changes and processes above "What" is what brings us closer to greater and better organizational performance.
We have to quote some of the experts in Organizational Development:
Argyris, Chris, 1962: "Interpersonal competence and organizational effectiveness". Belmont, CA: Dorsey Press.
Argyris, Chris, (1970): "Intervention theory and method: a behavioral science view". Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Beckhard, R., 1969: “Organization development: Strategies and models”. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Beckhard, R. & Harris, R. (1987): "Organizational transitions". Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Beer, M. (1980): “Organization change and Development: A Systems view”. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
Bennis, W. (1969): “Organization development: Its nature, origin and prospects”. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bittel, LR (1972): "The nine master keys of management". NY, McGraw-Hill
Bradford, L., Gibb, J., & Benne, K. (1964): "T-group theory and laboratory method: Innovation in re-education". NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Burke, W. (1982): "Organization Development: principles and practices", NY: Little, Brown & Co.
Dyer, W. (1977): "Team Building: Issues and alternatives". Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gibb, Jack (1991: “Trust: a new vision of human relationships for business, education, family and personal living.” North Hollywood, CA: Newcastle Publishing.
Ginzberg, E. (1958): “Human Resources: the wealth of a nation. "NY: Simon & Schuster.
Golembiewsky, Robert (1990):" Ironies in Organizational Development. "New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Golembiewsky, Robert (1990): "Renewing organizations: the laboratory approach to planned change". Itasca, IL.: FE Peacock.
Greiner, Larry & Schein, V. (1988): "Power & Organization Development". Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hackman, J. (as editor) - 1990: “Groups that work and those that do not”: creating conditions for effective teamwork ”. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Herzberg, Frederick & others (1959): "The motivation to work". NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Huse, EF (1980): “Organization development and change”. St. Paul, MN: WEst G
Jamieson, D. (1991). "You are the instrument" in the OD Practitioner.
Jaspers, K. (1957): "Kant". NY: Harcourt Brace.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1959): "Techniques for evaluating training programs" in Journal of the American Society of Training Directors - number 13.
Levinson, H. (1962): "A psychologist looks at executive development" in Harvard Business Review, number 40.
Lewin, Kurt (1951): "Field theory in social science". NY: Harper & Row
Lippitt, E. and others (1958): "The dynamics of planned change". San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace.
Lippitt, GL & Lippitt, R. (1978): “The consulting process in action”. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Co.
Maslow, Abraham (1954): "Motivation and Personality". NY: Harper & Row.
McClelland, D. (1976): "Power is the motivator" in Harvard Business Review, number 54.
McGregor, Douglas (1960): "The human side of enterprise". NY: Mc Graw-Hill
Nadler, D. (1977): “Feedback and organization development: using data based methods”. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Rogers, Carl (1942): "Counseling and Psychoteraphy". Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Schein, Edgar (1985): "Organizational culture and leadership". San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, Edgar (1969): "Process Consultation: its role in organization development". Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Senge, Peter (1990): "The fifth discipline". New York: Doubleday.
Shaw, M. (1981): "Group Dynamics: the psychology of small group behavior". NY: McGraw-Hill.
Vroom, Victor (1964): "Work and Motivation". NY: John Wiley & Sons.
The vast majority of the newly appointed people differ from the vast majority of those who were cited in the section on organizational behavior due to the fact that they focus on the process of "How" performance improvement can be achieved within the organizational world. That is, instead of defining "Which" is the most successful company and describing "What" is what they do, specifying their profile to some extent - as is the case with the authors, managers, consultants, academics and expert researchers included in the section on organizational behavior - we find that experts in organizational development privilege the "How", that is, the process by which performance improvement can be achieved.
The reader must be dimensioning the magnitude of complexity that anyone who tries to “Change” or modify a current organizational structure faces, something that Macchiavello warned the Prince many centuries ago. Integrate thoughts on organizational behavior (more than 60 notable experts) with those of more than 30 proven experts in organizational change. It does not turn out to be a simple task.
In an effort to effectively integrate the contributions of Organizational Behavior experts with those of Organizational Development the authors R. Schmuk & M. Miles, 1971 (“Improving schools through OD: An overview”; Palo Alto, CA: National Press Books), created a model based on three main dimensions, being they:
- The diagnosed problems, the types or modes of intervention; yThe privileged unit of analysis.
The scheme of these last two authors takes into account some seven main aspects in terms of the unit of analysis: organization as a whole, intergroup relations, groups or teams, meetings of two or three, roles and a particular person.
On the other hand, in relation to the diagnosed problems, the following components are mentioned: Objectives, communication, culture, leadership, problem solving, decision making, conflict, definition of roles. And regarding the types and modes of intervention, the following stand out: training, data feedback, process consulting, coaching, problem solving, information feedback, confrontation and planning, among others. Rothwell, Sulllivan & McLean (1995) mention an important number of types of intervention with their respective description that those familiar with it will surely benefit from.
In this work we have tried to share with the reader the dilemmas that every person interested in making an organizational change - such as company advisers and consultants - must live within a company in its attempt to improve organizational performance.
Many times consultants are pushed into a position that results from a limited focus… which naturally leads to limited results. Treating a complex situation in a complex way allows represents a very good starting point for any intervention.
For more than three decades The Organization Development Institute has been working on the development of the “Required Competences on the part of a Consultant” for the exercise of the profession of Organizational Development. Those interested readers interested in these contributions can contact Eric Gaynor Butterfield, via email: [email protected].
As we have stated on numerous occasions: "Clients should not pay a higher price for the benefits they receive than the professional fees they pay to consultants in advisory services" (Organizational Development Conference, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 2003).
We hope that the consultants dedicate their efforts and energies towards being able to integrate effectively what they should do with how to do it and also know how to discriminate with respect to what they should do in each of the different stages of consulting. The challenge is open and we hope that the consultants will exercise their profession accepting the challenge and without prejudice to the Clients.
Thank you very much for sharing, dear reader.
