Origins of od in us and india

  • 713 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
713
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. The Origins of OD in the US and India Introduction
  • 2. History of ODThe history of organization development can be traced back to four separate butrelated behavioral-science applications: Laboratory training, Tavistock method,Socio-technical Systems, and Survey research and feedback.1. The laboratory-training sessions were carried out in the 1940s under the leadership of Kurt Lewin. The concept of T-groups was birthed in 1946. During this time period, small group trainings were initially called ―sensitivity training sessions,‖ since they were designed to sensitize participants to the forces of group dynamics (like decision making and conflict resolution).2. A second major precursor to OD was Wilfred Bion‘s Tavistock method. While Lewin was working in America, Wilfred Bion was working with traumatized and shell-shocked soldiers from the battlefield. He presented the notion that when the leader fails to take responsibility for the group‘s output, participants will predictably react to the authority figure with one of three behavioral options – fight, flight, or pairing. When the leader takes responsibility, the participants are more likely to respond with a fourth option that Bion called work.3. The third influence on OD was the emergence of socio-technical systems. The approach pioneered by Trist and his colleagues is based on the premise that an organization is simultaneously a social and a technical system. Prior to his contribution, Organization Development paid more emphasis on the social subsystem (i.e. people who interact) and not on the technological subsystems (those systems that produce something tangible).4. Finally, the fourth major contribution was survey research. Much of this work was conducted in the Institute of Social Research at the University of Michigan under Rensis Likert. He demonstrated how information can be collected from members of an organization and used as the basis for participative problem solving and action planning. 2
  • 3. Timeline of Key OD Thinkers FIRST WAVE SECOND WAVE 1940 - 1959 1960 - 1979 1980 -1999 2000 - Current Kurt Lewin Eric Trist David Harrison Cooperrider Owen Appreciative Open Laboratory Socio-Technical Inquiry Space Training Systems Rensis Likert Edgar Schein Marvin Weisbord Survey Group The Tavistock Future Feedback Process Method Search Consultation Wilfred Bion 3
  • 4. Application 1: Laboratory / Sensitivity Training
  • 5. Overview - Laboratory / Sensitivity Training The scientific study of the processes that influence individuals in group situations Based on Kurt Lewin‘s belief that increased awareness of self and others could be accomplished through facilitated group dialogue in Training Groups (or T-Groups) that advocate open-minded appreciation and inclusion of differences The initial aim to study the dynamics of groups has undergone a number of transformations and broadenings over its 70+year history. Current common scientific goal: to explain particular aspects of the complex dynamic interdependence between the psychological life of an individual and the social system in which that person exists. Methodology of group learning by experience rather than lecture 5
  • 6. History of Laboratory / Sensitivity Training (ST) 1947 1979 Research Center Indian Society for 1996 1945 for Group Individual and Social Sumedhas – The Academy ofResearch Center Dynamics (RCGD) Development (ISISD) was Human Context was founded byfor Group relocated to 1957 founded by Pulin Garg and a group of people who wereDynamics Michigan in 1948 Rolf Lynton others at ISABS who concerned with the dynamic(RCGD) with Dorwin conducted the first believed that Sensitivity interplay of multiple contexts inestablished by Cartwright as the T-group in India training in its western form which the individual is located.Kurt Lewin at the first director applied directly to India The pull in this approach is moreMassachusetts would reduce its efficacy. towards the freedom of actionInstitute of A new form of ST formed and movement rather than onTechnology in India which integrated redoing and understanding the Indian mythology and past. philosophy with the 1949 Western ST philosophies. http://www. sumedhas.org 1946 The United States Office of Naval RCGD joined with the Research and the National Survey Research Center Education Association (NEA) to establish the Institute 1996 funded a planning group named for Social Research at After almost two decades of the National Training Laboratory Michigan. intense involvement with ISISD, for Group Development (which some members felt the need for a was later changed to NTL http://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu creative departure, a need to Institute for Applied Behavioral 1971 synthesize the learnings from Science) with the vision of Kurt Indian Society for ISISD with others concern they Lewin. Applied Behavioral held in Education and in Science (ISABS) was Organization Development. A http://www.ntl.org formed new institution called Aastha was formed to bring ST to educators through a holistic www.isabs.org educational paradigm. http://www.aasthafoundation.org Parikh I. J., Jeyavelu, S. (2002). New trends in sensitivity training in organizations. Vikalpa, The Journal of Decision Makers, Vol. 7. No. 4. 6
  • 7. Different Forms of Laboratory/Sensitivity Training Laboratory Training Different Forms Unstructured Sensitivity Training Labs  Personal growth labs  Explorations in roles and identity  Interpersonal labs Semi-structured labs  Interface labs  Leadership labs  Self-renewal labs  Visioning  Co-creating labs Structured workshops  Managerial and leadership roles  Team building  Building a cross-functional team  Integrating Emotional Intelligence across multiple roles & system  Managing cross-cultural diversity  Interpersonal and group dynamics  Dynamic equilibrium between personal and professional livesParikh I. J., Jeyavelu, S. (2002). New trends in sensitivity training in organizations. Vikalpa, The Journal of Decision Makers, Vol. 7. No. 4. 7
  • 8. Comparative Analysis – The Concept Even though the Indian perspective was based on the NTL philosophy, the evolution of a unique Indian perspective started as early as the seventies. Western Perspective Indian Perspective (Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Effectiveness) (Role and Identity Approach) • Conceptual understanding and Experiential learning  Experiential learning, Self-reflectivity, and Awareness • Emphasis on gaining skills and competencies  Emphasis on unfolding of inherent potential Focus on: Focus on:  Individual growth and development  Individual growth and development  Team working and role taking  Role creation and enactment  Leadership  Collective leadership  Work climate / culture  Co-creation of Organizational reality  Resistance to change and Mindset change  Self and Professional renewal – individual, teams, and organizations  Balancing individual and organizational goals  Aligning simultaneous and multiple individual and organization goals • Interventions to solve problems  Interventions to change the working paradigm/perspective • To achieve organizational objectives  To Co-create organizational reality and futureParikh I. J., Jeyavelu, S. (2002). New trends in sensitivity training in organizations. Vikalpa, The Journal of Decision Makers, Vol. 7. No. 4. 8
  • 9. Comparative Analysis – The Process Western Perspective Indian Perspective (Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Effectiveness) (Role and Identity Approach)Focus on: Focus on:  Individual  Individual and Collectivity  Psychological Processes  Cognitive and Emotive Processes  Individual and Interpersonal processes  Role and Identity  Individual as a Psychological and Social Being  Individual as a Member of Collectivity, Co-creator of Identify and Role taker  Repeating patterns in Relationships  Repeating patterns in roles  Understanding of the Impact of Past on  Cognition of the Given and the Co-created Identity, repeating patters and Action choices• Socio-cultural context is considered to be of lower  Socio-cultural context as shaper of meaning given to: importance to intra-personal and interpersonal  Roles and Relationships processes  Self, Identity, and Growth  Meaning of Existence  Purpose of Life  Individual  CollectivitiesOrientation is to achieve: Orientation is to achieve:  Immediate action choices  Increased self-reflectivity  Change  Acceptance of Emotive and Cognitive Simultaneity  Acceptance of self‘s role in Co-creating identity and roles• Objective is Awareness of Self, Repeating Intra and  Objective is Well-being and Acceptance of Humanness Interpersonal patterns, and change for increased of Self, Others, and the System Effectiveness 9
  • 10. Nature and Processes / Underlying Assumptions Personal Growth Labs Process Statements Explanation Invitation versus Compulsion to explore  The role of the facilitator is to open the space and invite the participants without any compulsion  The only pressure is internal and the individual is either ready or not ready The Lab space in time and movement  The lab space is a shared space amongst the participants and the versus Concept of ownership facilitator in order to being the self for sharing and reflection  The space has no ownership but only to the coordinates of time and structure linked to the external interface of the system, institution where the lab is held, and an invitation Role of the participants and the role of  The lab space is a sacred and shared space. Each individual offers what the facilitator he/she wishes to offer  The facilitator reflects like a mirror what he/she sees, hears, touches, and feels. Je/she goes behind the events, encounters, and experiences, and articulates the processes of the identity and the being of the person  The participants are not clear about the lab space and their roles in the lab Directionality versus Specificity  The facilitator does not provide specific solutions to specific problems of the participants. Instead, he/she states the direction from which the participant can make his/her choices. Unfolding the Person versus  The lab space is an invitation to review and reflect upon life and to walk the Boundaries of Growth path of self-discovery  It is up to the individual to define the boundaries of exploration by overcoming the fears and anxieties associated with unfoldingParikh I. J., Jeyavelu, S. (2002). New trends in sensitivity training in organizations. Vikalpa, The Journal of Decision Makers, Vol. 7. No. 4. 10
  • 11. Application 2: Tavistock /Group Relations Conference
  • 12. Overview – The Tavistock Method• Based on Wilfred Bion‘s series of small study groups at Londons Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in the late 1940s and A. Kenneth Rice‘s work (chairman of Tavistocks Centre for the Applied Social Research) that individuals cannot be understood, or changed, outside the context of the groups in which they live.• Essential to the Tavistock approach is the belief that when an aggregate becomes a group, the group behaves as a system—an entity or organism that is in some respects greater than the sum of its parts—and that the primary task of the group is survival.• Although this primary task is frequently disguised or masked, survival as a group becomes the primary preoccupation and latent motivating force for all group members. This emphasis on survival provides the framework for the exploration of group behavior and all the overt and covert manifestations of the primary task.Group Relations Conferences (GRC‘s, also known as Working Conferences) are temporary educationalinstitutions for learning from ‗here and now‘ experience. By ‗here and now‘, one means working withexperiences that are readily available to all the participants (both members and staff) within the conference.To that end they provide opportunities for the participants to explore their experience in the GRC as it takesplace in different events – experiences that are both conscious and unconscious. A GRC usually runs for 5 to14 days and several events are built into it. 12
  • 13. The Role of the Consultant• The task of the consultant in a group relations conference is to fulfill a carefully defined role function. The consultant consults only to the group, not to individual members of the group, and only within the time boundaries prescribed. Frequently, the consultants role is a subject of much consternation among members.• The consultant behaves as he does in the interest of assisting members to pursue the task of the event in which they are involved. His objective is to facilitate the groups task to the exclusion of all other concerns.• The consultant does not engage in social amenities, advice-giving, parental nurturance, or direction.• The consultant performs his task by providing interventions for the groups consideration. In a theoretical sense, the consultant "takes" the group by attending to its basic assumption functioning and then reports his observations back to the group.• As Rice (1965) describes it, the consultants job is "to confront the group, without affronting its members; to draw attention to group behavior and not to individual behavior, to point out how the group uses individuals to express its own emotions, how it exploits some members so that others can absolve themselves from the responsibility for such expression" (p. 102). 13
  • 14. History of Group Relations 1965 The ideas of the A. K. Rice Institute originated 2000 when Margaret Rioch Human and Institutional collaborated with Development Forum (HIDF) Kenneth Rice to formed to enhance human and organize the first group institutional capacities in relations conference development organizations and 2011 held in North America. individuals through a process of 4th Group Relations Conference continuous learning, democratic held in India functioning and contributing to change in power relations 1969 The A. K. Rice Institute was founded http://www.hidforum.org/ by Margaret Rioch to create a U.S. organization to manage and promote group relations conferences using the methodology developed by A. Kenneth Rice in his work at the U.K.-based Tavistock Institute. http://akriceinstitute.org 14
  • 15. Section 3: Socio-Technical Systems (STS)
  • 16. Overview • Originally developed at the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London, this approach to designing work has spread to most industrialized nations in a relatively short period of time. In the USA, STS theory has become the major underpinning of efforts involving work design. Cincinnati Milacron, Amoco, USAA, Stanley Works, General Electric, and Caterpillar are among many organizations using STS theory to design work. • Socio-technical system design is based on the premise that an organization or a work unit is a combination of social and technical parts and that it is open to its environment. Because the social and technical elements must work together to accomplish tasks, work systems produce both physical products and social/psychological outcomes. • The key issue is to design work so that the two parts yield positive outcomes; this is called joint optimization. This method contrasts with traditional methods that first design the technical component and then fit people to it. The traditional methods often lead to mediocre performance at high social costs. In addition to joint optimization, STS design is also concerned with the work system and its environment. This involves boundary management, which is a process of protecting the work system from external disruptions and facilitating the exchange of necessary resources and information. • Over 30 years ago, the early contributions to socio-technical theory by Emery and Trist included approaches to design jobs and work systems. More recently, there seems to be frequent reference to STS, given the inevitable infiltration of technology into organizations in all industries.Appelbaum S. H. (1997). Socio-technical systems theory: an intervention strategy for organizational development. Management Decision. 35/6. 16
  • 17. Application 4: Survey Research and Feedback
  • 18. Overview – Survey Research and FeedbackRensis Likert developed a widely used approach to action research using a scale of responses,allowing people to indicate how strongly they held a particular position on some item oforganizational concern.Survey feedback, although used by industrial psychologists, has been part of the OD field andwidely used, not only with teams but also in assessing entire organizations. There are surveysthat look at employee morale, perceptions of leadership, clarity about mission and strategy, andso on.A number of different types of surveys are used to gather data feedback, both from themanagers and from their subordinates and peers, often including something on their managerialstyle. This feedback was then used to provide training and development in the necessary skills.Data feedback surveys like LIFO, DISC, and MBTI are used for self-assessment. Otherfeedback surveys such as 360-degree feedback are developed to provide data from multiplesources on how their behavior was perceived. 18
  • 19. History of Surveys 1946Survey Research Centerwas founded by Rensis 1949 1970sLikert The Institute of Social Research Survey feedback enters (ISR) was created as an umbrella Corporate India organization for both centers. The ISR has contributed powerfully to the body of knowledge about human http://www.empiindia.com Current behavior and social interaction Survey feedback extensively used in various capacities: 1948 • As a sensing instrument Research Center for Group Dynamics • For organizational (RCGD) was founded improvements • For strategic shifts in structure, styles & personnel policiees • For team building • For initiating cultural changes • For developing motivating climate Rao, T V;Vijayalakshmi, M. (2000). Organization development in India. Organization Development Journal. 19