Why is OD Important?Organizations are increasingly challenged by change. The world is moving faster and faster.Competitive pressures are becoming more and more demanding. Rapid technological changeand the globalizing economy both confuse us and open new doors. In the midst of this,employees seek more satisfaction and meaning from their work lives, and more balance intheir lives as a whole.Whether the organizations are private, public or non-profit, they must adapt to this new worldif they are to survive and thrive. They need to become more nimble, more customer-driven,more innovative, more effective. They need to attract and retain competent and committedemployees. This will require more flexible organizational structures, new types of leadership,and new ways of managing. OD can help organizations navigate this difficult terrain.What is OD?Let’s start with a definition:"Organization Development is a system-wide application of behavioral science knowledge tothe planned development and reinforcement of organizational strategies, structures, andprocesses for improving an organization’s effectiveness." (Cummings T.G. and Worley C, th1997. Organization Development and Change, 6 ed., p 2. South-Western CollegePublishing)This definition has several key elements. The overall goal of OD is to improve an organization’s effectiveness. It involves the application ofbehavioral science knowledge, in a planned and systemwide manner, and it addresses an organization’s strategies, structures and/or processes.Another good definition of OD comes from Organizational Behavior (Robbins, S.P., 1998.Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall.)"A collection of planned change interventions, built on humanistic-democratic values, thatseeks to improve organizational effectiveness and employee well-being."OD is sometimes thought of as the "soft side" of change as opposed to the hard side oftechnology or business systems. It is concerned with how people react to change, and howtheir needs have to be considered if change efforts are to be effective. One of the commonissues is to understand and work with the resistance to change that usually occurs inorganizations undergoing change. "Change management" is a term that is sometimes usedinterchangeably with OD.Although OD is considered a distinct field or profession by many, there is not unanimity as toexactly what specific methods or practices comprise the field. And, like most professions, ODis evolving. The field now known as OD began in the 1940s and 1950s with "T-group" orsensitivity training, moved into such practices as survey research and feedback, and actionresearch, and in the 1980’s and 1990’s into quality of work life issues and more strategic and
large-scale change efforts. Return to topWhat Are the Values of OD?Values often tell us a lot about someone or something. In the case of OD, there are certainvalues usually associated with the profession. Since the beginning, OD values have generallybeen described as humanistic and democratic. They have to do with how people treat eachother, and how decisions are made. A key concern is how satisfied employees are in theworkplace. Employee participation and collaboration are key concepts associated with OD.More recently OD has also become concerned with productivity and organizationaleffectiveness. There is more of an explicit focus on business issues and bottom-line results.(This shift has been reinforced by several recent research findings that employee satisfactionhas a clear impact on customer satisfaction and therefore on revenue and profits.) Return to topWhat Do OD Practitioners Do?OD practitioners are frequently called upon to address a variety of organizational issues orproblems. These might include how to: create an organizational vision and mission set goals and make decisions lead attract and retain good employees improve employee morale reduce turnover and absenteeism improve productivity resolve conflict divide labor design work coordinate departments and share information determine core competencies develop or change core values more effectively develop and implement change strategies change the organizational culture relate to the external environment anticipate and prepare for the futureIn order to address these types of issues, the practitioner might employ a variety ofinterventions or methods. According to Cummings and Worley, there are four basic categoriesof OD interventions: 1. Human Process (e.g., sensitivity training, team building and conflict resolution) 2. Technostructural (e.g., quality circles or total quality management, and work process design) 3. Human Resource Management (e.g., job design, performance appraisal, reward systems and multicultural training)
4. Strategic (e.g., strategic planning/management, future search conferences and corporate culture change)Of course, these are not distinct or exclusive methods and they are often used in conjunctionwith each other.Following is a representative list of specific services or techniques that might be offered orused by OD practitioners: Appreciative inquiry Career management or counseling Change management Coaching Collaborative solutions Conflict resolution Creative problem solving Future search conferences Goal setting Group (or meeting) facilitation High involvement work teams Human resource management Interpersonal communication Large-scale system change Large-group interventions Leadership development Managing workforce diversity Organizational restructuring Socio-technical systems design Strategic planning Team building Total quality management Vision and mission development Work process improvement
Organization developmentFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (March 2012)Organization development (OD) is a deliberately planned effort to increase an organizationsrelevance and viability. Vasudevan has referred to OD as, future readiness to meet change, thus asystemic learning and development strategy intended to change the basics of beliefs, attitudes andrelevance of values, and structure of the current organization to better absorb disruptivetechnologies, shrinking or exploding market opportunities and ensuing challenges and chaos. ODis the framework for a change process designed to lead to desirable positive impact to allstakeholders and the environment. OD can design interventions with application of severalmultidisciplinary methods and research besides traditional OD approaches. Contents [hide]1 Overview o 1.1 History o 1.2 Core Values o 1.3 Change agent o 1.4 Sponsoring organization o 1.5 Applied behavioral science o 1.6 Systems context2 Improved organizational performance o 2.1 Organizational self-renewal3 Understanding organizations o 3.1 Modern development4 Action research5 Important figures6 OD interventions7 See also8 Further reading9 ReferencesOverviewThe purpose of OD is to address perennial evolving needs of successful organizations - aconcerted collaboration of internal and external experts in the field to discover the process anorganization can use to become more stakeholder effective.
OD is a lifelong, built-in mechanism to improve immunity of organizations health to renew itselfinclusive principles, often with the assistance of a change agent or catalyst and the use of enablingappropriate theories and techniques from applied behavioral sciences, anthropology, sociology,and phenomenology. Although behavioral science has provided the basic foundation for the studyand practice of OD, new and emerging fields of study have made their presence felt. Experts insystems thinking and organizational learning, mind maps, body mind synchronicity, structure ofintuition in decision making, and coaching (to name a few) whose perspective is not steeped in justthe behavioral sciences, but a much more multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approach haveemerged as OD catalysts. These emergent expert perspectives see the organization as the holisticinterplay of a number of systems that impact the process and outputs of the entire organization.More importantly, the term change agent or catalyst is synonymous with the notion of a leader whois engaged in leadership - a transformative or effectiveness process - as opposed to management,a more incremental or efficiency based change methodology.Organization development is an ongoing, systematic process of implementing effectiveorganizational change. Organization development is known as both a field of applied behavioralscience focused on understanding and managing organizational change and as a field of scientificstudy and inquiry. It is interdisciplinary in nature and draws on sociology, psychology, and theoriesof motivation, learning, and personality. Organization development is a growing field that isresponsive to many new approaches including Positive Adult Development.HistoryKurt Lewin (1898–1947) is widely recognized as the founding father of OD, although he diedbefore the concept became current in the mid-1950s. From Lewin came the ideas of groupdynamicsand action research which underpin the basic OD process as well as providing itscollaborative consultant/client ethos. Institutionally, Lewin founded the "Research Center for GroupDynamics" (RCGD) at MIT, which moved to Michigan after his death. RCGD colleagues wereamong those who founded the National Training Laboratories (NTL), from which the T-groups andgroup-based OD emerged.Kurt Lewin played a key role in the evolution of organization development as it is known today. Asearly as World War II, Lewin experimented with a collaborative change process (involving himselfas consultant and a client group) based on a three-step process of planning, taking action, andmeasuring results. This was the forerunner of action research, an important element of OD, whichwill be discussed later. Lewin then participated in the beginnings of laboratory training, or T-groups, and, after his death in 1947, his close associates helped to develop survey-researchmethods at the University of Michigan. These procedures became important parts of OD asdevelopments in this field continued at the National Training Laboratories and in growing numbersof universities and private consulting firms across the country. Two of the leading universitiesoffering doctoral level  degrees in OD are Benedictine University and the Fielding GraduateUniversity.Douglas McGregor and Richard Beckhard while "consulting together at General Mills in the 1950s,the two coined the term organizational development (OD) to describe an innovative bottoms-upchange effort that fit no traditional consulting categories" (Weisbord, 1987, p. 112).
The failure of off-site laboratory training to live up to its early promise was one of the importantforces stimulating the development of OD. Laboratory training is learning from a persons "hereand now" experience as a member of an ongoing training group. Such groups usually meet withouta specific agenda. Their purpose is for the members to learn about themselves from theirspontaneous "here and now" responses to an ambiguous hypothetical situation. Problemsof leadership, structure, status, communication, and self-serving behavior typically arise in such agroup. The members have an opportunity to learn something about themselves and to practicesuch skills as listening, observing others, and functioning as effective group members. As formerly practiced (and occasionally still practiced for special purposes), laboratory training wasconducted in "stranger groups," or groups composed of individuals from different organizations,situations, and backgrounds. A major difficulty developed, however, in transferring knowledgegained from these "stranger labs" to the actual situation "back home". This required a transferbetween two different cultures, the relatively safe and protected environment of the T-group (ortraining group) and the give-and-take of the organizational environment with its traditional values.This led the early pioneers in this type of learning to begin to apply it to "family groups" — that is,groups located within an organization. From this shift in the locale of the training site and therealization that culture was an important factor in influencing group members (along with someother developments in the behavioral sciences) emerged the concept of organizationdevelopment.Core ValuesUnderlying Organizational Development are humanistic values. Margulies and Raia (1972)articulated the humanistic values of OD as follows: 1. Providing opportunities for people to function as human beings rather than as resources in the productive process. 2. Providing opportunities for each organization member, as well as for the organization itself, to develop to his full potential. 3. Seeking to increase the effectiveness of the organization in terms of all of its goals. 4. Attempting to create an environment in which it is possible to find exciting and challenging work. 5. Providing opportunities for people in organizations to influence the way in which they relate to work, the organization, and the environment. 6. Treating each human being as a person with a complex set of needs, all of which are important in his work and in his life.Change agentA change agent in the sense used here is not a technical expert skilled in such functional areas asaccounting, production, or finance. The change agent is a behavioral scientist who knows how toget people in an organization involved in solving their own problems. A change agents mainstrength is a comprehensive knowledge of human behavior, supported by a number of interventiontechniques (to be discussed later). The change agent can be either external or internal to theorganization. An internal change agent is usually a staff person who has expertise in the
behavioral sciences and in the intervention technology of OD. Beckhard reports several cases inwhich line people have been trained in OD and have returned to their organizations to engage insuccessful change assignments. In the natural evolution of change mechanisms in organizations,this would seem to approach the ideal arrangement. Qualified change agents can be found onsome university faculties, or they may be private consultants associated with such organizationsas the National Training Laboratories Institute for Applied Behavioral Science (Washington, D.C.)University Associates (San Diego, California), the Human Systems Intervention graduate programin the Department of Applied Human Sciences (Concordia University, Montreal, Canada), Navitus(Pvt) Ltd (Pakistan), and similar organizations.The change agent may be a staff or line member of the organization who is schooled in OD theoryand technique. In such a case, the "contractual relationship" is an in-house agreement that shouldprobably be explicit with respect to all of the conditions involved except the fee.Sponsoring organizationThe initiative for OD programs comes from an organization that has a problem. This means thattop management or someone authorized by top management is aware that a problem exists andhas decided to seek help in solving it. There is a direct analogy here to the practice ofpsychotherapy: The client or patient must actively seek help in finding a solution to his problems.This indicates a willingness on the part of the client organization to accept help and assures theorganization that management is actively concerned.Applied behavioral scienceOne of the outstanding characteristics of OD that distinguishes it from most other improvementprograms is that it is based on a "helping relationship." Some believe that the change agent is nota physician to the organizations ills; that s/he does not examine the "patient," make a diagnosis,and write a prescription. Nor does she try to teach organizational members a new inventory ofknowledge which they then transfer to the job situation. Using theory and methods drawn fromsuch behavioral sciences as industrial/organizational psychology, industrialsociology,communication, cultural anthropology, administrative theory, organizationalbehavior, economics, and political science, the change agents main function is to help theorganization define and solve its own problems. The basic method used is known as actionresearch. This approach, which is described in detail later, consists of a preliminary diagnosis,collecting data, feedback of the data to the client, data exploration by the client group, actionplanning based on the data, and taking action.Systems contextOD deals with a total system — the organization as a whole, including its relevant environment —or with a subsystem or systems — departments or work groups — in the context of the totalsystem. Parts of systems, for example, individuals, cliques, structures, norms, values, andproducts are not considered in isolation; the principle of interdependency, that is, that change inone part of a system affects the other parts, is fully recognized. Thus, OD interventions focus onthe total culture and cultural processes of organizations. The focus is also on groups, since the
relevant behavior of individuals in organizations and groups is generally a product of groupinfluences rather than personality.Improved organizational performanceThe objective of OD is to improve the organizations capacity to handle its internal and externalfunctioning and relationships. This would include such things as improved interpersonal and groupprocesses, more effective communication, enhanced ability to cope with organizational problemsof all kinds, more effective decision processes, more appropriate leadership style, improved skill indealing with destructive conflict, and higher levels of trust and cooperation among organizationalmembers. These objectives stem from a value system based on an optimistic view of the nature ofman — that man in a supportive environment is capable of achieving higher levels of developmentand accomplishment. Essential to organization development and effectiveness is the scientificmethod — inquiry, a rigorous search for causes, experimental testing of hypotheses, and review ofresults.Organizational self-renewalThe ultimate aim of OD practitioners is to "work themselves out of a job" by leaving the clientorganization with a set of tools, behaviors, attitudes, and an action plan with which to monitor itsown state of health and to take corrective steps toward its own renewal and development. This isconsistent with the systems concept of feedback as a regulatory and corrective mechanism.Understanding organizationsWeisbord presents a six-box model for understanding organization: 1. Purposes: The organization members are clear about the organization’s mission and purpose and goal agreements, whether people support the organization’ purpose. 2. Structure: How is the organization’s work divided up? The question is whether there is an adequate fit between the purpose and the internal structure. 3. Relationship: Between individuals, between units or departments that perform different tasks, and between the people and requirements of their jobs. 4. Rewards: The consultant should diagnose the similarities between what the organization formally rewarded or punished members for. 5. Leadership: Is to watch for blips among the other boxes and maintain balance among them. 6. Helpful mechanism: Is a helpful organization that must attend to in order to survive which as planning, control, budgeting, and other information systems that help organization member accomplish.Modern developmentIn recent years, serious questioning has emerged about the relevance of OD to managing changein modern organizations. The need for "reinventing" the field has become a topic that even someof its "founding fathers" are discussing critically.
With this call for reinvention and change, scholars have begun to examine organizationaldevelopment from an emotion-based standpoint. For example, deKlerk (2007)  writes about howemotional trauma can negatively affect performance. Due to downsizing, outsourcing, mergers,restructuring, continual changes, invasions of privacy, harassment, and abuses of power, manyemployees experience the emotions of aggression, anxiety, apprehension, cynicism, and fear,which can lead to performance decreases. deKlerk (2007) suggests that in order to heal thetrauma and increase performance, O.D. practitioners must acknowledge the existence of thetrauma, provide a safe place for employees to discuss their feelings, symbolize the trauma and putit into perspective, and then allow for and deal with the emotional responses. One method ofachieving this is by having employees draw pictures of what they feel about the situation, and thenhaving them explain their drawings with each other. Drawing pictures is beneficial because itallows employees to express emotions they normally would not be able to put into words. Also,drawings often prompt active participation in the activity, as everyone is required to draw a pictureand then discuss its meaning.The use of new technologies combined with globalization has also shifted the field of organizationdevelopment. Roland Sullivan (2005) defined Organization Development with participants at the1st Organization Development Conference for Asia in Dubai-2005 as "Organization Developmentis a transformative leap to a desired vision where strategies and systems align, in the light of localculture with an innovative and authentic leadership style using the support of high tech tools.Action researchWendell L French and Cecil Bell defined organization development (OD) at one point as"organization improvement through action research". If one idea can be said to summarize ODsunderlying philosophy, it would be action research as it was conceptualized by Kurt Lewin andlater elaborated and expanded on by other behavioral scientists. Concerned with social changeand, more particularly, with effective, permanent social change, Lewin believed that the motivationto change was strongly related to action: If people are active in decisions affecting them, they aremore likely to adopt new ways. "Rational social management", he said, "proceeds in a spiral ofsteps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result ofaction".
Figure 1: Systems Model of Action-Research ProcessLewins description of the process of change involves three steps:"Unfreezing": Faced with a dilemma or disconfirmation, the individual or group becomes aware of aneed to change."Changing": The situation is diagnosed and new models of behavior are explored and tested."Refreezing": Application of new behavior is evaluated, and if reinforcing, adopted.Figure 1 summarizes the steps and processes involved in planned change through actionresearch. Action research is depicted as a cyclical process of change. The cycle begins with aseries of planning actions initiated by the client and the change agent working together. Theprincipal elements of this stage include a preliminary diagnosis, data gathering, feedback ofresults, and joint action planning. In the language of systems theory, this is the input phase, inwhich the client system becomes aware of problems as yet unidentified, realizes it may needoutside help to effect changes, and shares with the consultant the process of problem diagnosis.The second stage of action research is the action, or transformation, phase. This stage includesactions relating to learning processes (perhaps in the form of role analysis) and to planning andexecuting behavioral changes in the client organization. As shown in Figure 1, feedback at thisstage would move via Feedback Loop A and would have the effect of altering previous planning tobring the learning activities of the client system into better alignment with change objectives.Included in this stage is action-planning activity carried out jointly by the consultant and membersof the client system. Following the workshop or learning sessions, these action steps are carriedout on the job as part of the transformation stage.The third stage of action research is the output, or results, phase. This stage includes actualchanges in behavior (if any) resulting from corrective action steps taken following the secondstage. Data are again gathered from the client system so that progress can be determined andnecessary adjustments in learning activities can be made. Minor adjustments of this nature can bemade in learning activities via Feedback Loop B (see Figure 1). Major adjustments andreevaluations would return the OD project to the first, or planning, stage for basic changes in theprogram. The action-research model shown in Figure 1 closely follows Lewins repetitive cycle ofplanning, action, and measuring results. It also illustrates other aspects of Lewins general modelof change. As indicated in the diagram, the planning stage is a period of unfreezing, or problemawareness. The action stage is a period of changing, that is, trying out new forms of behavior inan effort to understand and cope with the systems problems. (There is inevitable overlap betweenthe stages, since the boundaries are not clear-cut and cannot be in a continuous process). Theresults stage is a period of refreezing, in which new behaviors are tried out on the job and, ifsuccessful and reinforcing, become a part of the systems repertoire of problem-solving behavior.Action research is problem centered, client centered, and action oriented. It involves the clientsystem in a diagnostic, active-learning, problem-finding, and problem-solving process. Data arenot simply returned in the form of a written report but instead are fed back in open joint sessions,and the client and the change agent collaborate in identifying and ranking specific problems, in
devising methods for finding their real causes, and in developing plans for coping with themrealistically and practically. Scientific method in the form of data gathering, forming hypotheses,testing hypotheses, and measuring results, although not pursued as rigorously as in the laboratory,is nevertheless an integral part of the process. Action research also sets in motion a long-range,cyclical, self-correcting mechanism for maintaining and enhancing the effectiveness of the clientssystem by leaving the system with practical and useful tools for self-analysis and self-renewal.Important figures Chris Argyris Richard Beckhard Robert R. Blake Louis L. Carter David Cooperrider W. Edwards Deming Fred Emery Charles Handy Elliott Jaques Kurt Lewin Rensis Likert Jane Mouton Derek S. Pugh Edgar Schein Donald Schon Peter Senge Herbert Shepard Eric Trist Margaret J. Wheatley [Pulin Garg] Ichak AdizesOD interventions"Interventions" are principal learning processes in the "action" stage (see Figure 1)of organization development. Interventions are structured activities used individually or incombination by the members of a client system to improve their social or task performance. Theymay be introduced by a change agent as part of an improvement program, or they may be used bythe client following a program to check on the state of the organizations health, or to effectnecessary changes in its own behavior. "Structured activities" mean such diverse procedures asexperiential exercises, questionnaires, attitude surveys, interviews, relevant group discussions,and even lunchtime meetings between the change agent and a member of the client organization.Every action that influences an organizations improvement program in a change agent-clientsystem relationship can be said to be an intervention.
There are many possible intervention strategies from which to choose. Several assumptions aboutthe nature and functioning of organizations are made in the choice of a particularstrategy.Beckhard lists six such assumptions: 1. The basic building blocks of an organization are groups (teams). Therefore, the basic units of change are groups, not individuals. 2. An always relevant change goal is the reduction of inappropriate competition between parts of the organization and the development of a more collaborative condition. 3. Decision making in a healthy organization is located where the information sources are, rather than in a particular role or level of hierarchy. 4. Organizations, subunits of organizations, and individuals continuously manage their affairs against goals. Controls are interim measurements, not the basis of managerial strategy. 5. One goal of a healthy organization is to develop generally open communication, mutual trust, and confidence between and across levels. 6. People support what they help create. People affected by a change must be allowed active participation and a sense of ownership in the planning and conduct of the change.Interventions range from those designed to improve the effectiveness of individuals through thosedesigned to deal with teams and groups, intergroup relations, and the total organization. There areinterventions that focus on task issues (what people do), and those that focus on process issues(how people go about doing it). Finally, interventions may be roughly classified according to whichchange mechanism they tend to emphasize: for example, feedback, awareness of changingcultural norms, interaction and communication, conflict, and education through either newknowledge or skill practice.One of the most difficult tasks confronting the change agent is to help create in the client system asafe climate for learning and change. In a favorable climate, human learning builds on itself andcontinues indefinitely during mans lifetime. Out of new behavior, new dilemmas and problemsemerge as the spiral continues upward to new levels. In an unfavorable climate, in contrast,learning is far less certain, and in an atmosphere of psychological threat, it often stops altogether.Unfreezing old ways can be inhibited in organizations because the climate makes employees feelthat it is inappropriate to reveal true feelings, even though such revelations could be constructive.In an inhibited atmosphere, therefore, necessary feedback is not available. Also, trying out newways may be viewed as risky because it violates established norms. Such an organization mayalso be constrained because of the law of systems: If one part changes, other parts will becomeinvolved. Hence, it is easier to maintain the status quo. Hierarchical authority, specialization, spanof control, and other characteristics of formal systems also discourage experimentation. The change agent must address himself to all of these hazards and obstacles. Some of the thingswhich will help him are: 1. A real need in the client system to change 2. Genuine support from management
3. Setting a personal example: listening, supporting behavior 4. A sound background in the behavioral sciences 5. A working knowledge of systems theory 6. A belief in man as a rational, self-educating being fully capable of learning better ways to do things.A few examples of interventions include team building, coaching, Large Group Interventions,mentoring, performance appraisal, downsizing, TQM, and leadership development.Kurt Lewin – Lessons from the OD Master Kurt Lewin was born in what is now Poland onSeptember 9, 1890. He and his family moved to Berlin when he was fifteen. Lewinobtained his doctorate degree in Psychology from the University of Berlin in 1916and later become a professor. He left Germany in 1930 as Jews were being ousted,first taking a six month assignment at Stanford University followed by a two-yearassignment at Cornell School of Home Economics, and eventually settling at theUniversity of Iowa.Early in his career Lewin took on the study of Taylor and Scientific Management.He agreed with many of Taylor’s principles but objected the notion that work hadno meaning for workers other than money. Lewin believed that work broughtmeaning to one’s life. In fact, he felt that work could be a path for self-realization.Group dynamics and Lewin are intricately connected in the evolution of OD. Heunderstood that we become interdependent as we join a group either by naturalassociation, choice or directive. Lewin’s contributions in group dynamics startedthe famed T-Group sessions. From this experience we learned about the power ofgroup interaction and feedback. Lewin borrowed the term feedback fromelectrical engineering and applied it to describe the adjustment of a process byinformed data about its results. Feedback was meant to unfreeze the person’sformer belief systems.Lewin believed that the work of the organizational consultant should not to bestatic and that analysis should not be performed from the periphery but rather bybeing a clinician performing an intervention. He sustained that “you cannotunderstand a system until you try to change it.”
Several years would elapse before Emery would introduce the concept of OpenSystems and more years would pass before Senge and others would introduceSystems Thinking into the OD field. However, Lewin had already theorized thenotion that human behavior is the systemic function of the person in theenvironment. His equation B = f (p,e) communicates that new behavior (B) is theresult of change as actions are performed by the person (p) in a given environment(e) that is not static.Lewin’s Force Field Analysis is a model that has evolved into a very usefultechnique that can be effectively applied when change agents need to understandthe forces that are driving and restraining a given change. Lewin understood thatany actions toward change would be met by opposing reactions. The model heproposed had a graphical representation called the Force Field Analysis diagram.The diagram contained the definition of the problem and the representation of thedriving and restraining forces.As indicated, Lewin’s model on Change Process deals with the same behavior,person and environment variables. However it proposes a set of actions to be takento enable change. The first action is unfreezing, which is meant to create amotivation and readiness for change. In the behavior model, unfreezing dealsprimarily with the person (p). The second is changing through cognitiverestructuring. This is the actual change to the environment (e). In this step, thesubjects (p) are made aware of the changes to the environment (e) and newrelationships with this environment are formed through training, mentoring, rolechanges, new information, etc. The final action is refreezing, which is theintegration of the new behaviors resulting from the change. In this model we cansee how new behaviors can be formed as a result of the changes in both the personand the environment. Action Research is a core model inthe OD arsenal. Lewin only wrote 20 pages on Action Research which gave way tovolumes of reviews and books on the subject. He did not intend for his ActionResearch to be a consulting recipe. Lewin developed the model to illustrate howan external person to the organization should proceed in order to have the greatesteffect in solving a problem or effecting change. He believed, as previously stated,that one cannot understand a system until a change is attempted. Action Researchis exactly that, taking action as research is conducted.Lewin made defining contributions in a number of areas that impacted theevolution of OD. He was a humanist, starting with his reformation ideas inGermany to his thoughts that people could find self-realization in jobs. Hiscontributions range from group dynamics to action research. He was instrumentalin deepening the understanding of social behavior through group controlledexperimentation. Lewin’s legacy excites dialogue, practice and new learning todayas much as it did over 60 years ago. He was a master theorist. His best knownquotation is “there is nothing so practical as a good theory.”-- Jorge Taborga
Robert Tannenbaum Professor of Anderson School of Management, Emeritus Los Angeles 1915–2003Bob Tannenbaum, whose humanist vision profoundly affected the field oforganizational development for more than 50 years, died March 15, 2003 –but you don’t have to believe that if you don’t want to. If you choose not to,you’ll have plenty of company. Why erase from your mind the presence of aman who constantly affirms you! Bob gave so much to so many and alwaysfrom the heart. Others also wrote theories extolling the importance ofrecognizing feelings, valuing human spirit, and raising consciousness torealize one’s inner potential. But unique was Tannenbaum whose ideas weremade more profound by his personal being. People who came in contact withhim instantly recognized histeachings whether or not they read what he wroteor focused on his words. And his presence had a ripple effect well beyondthose who experienced him first hand.Eventually becoming a psychologist without portfolio, Bob began hisuniversity work with an A.A. degree from Santa Ana Junior College (1935). Hethen moved on to the University of Chicago where he received an A.B. degreein business administration (1937) and a M.B.A. in accounting (1938).Concurrently, he took his first teaching job as instructor in accounting atOklahoma A & M College (1937-39). He returned to Chicago in 1939 to beginPh.D. studies in industrial relations. In 1942 he enlisted in the Navy serving asan officer in the Pacific teaching radar. In 1946 Bob returned to Chicago tofinish his doctorate (1948). Upon completion he was recruited by Neil Jacoby,a former University of Chicago professor who was dean of UCLA’s College ofBusiness Administration, later called the Graduate School of Management,now The Anderson School, where he built, taught and served with distinctionuntil 1977 when he took early retirement.Bob’s first UCLA position was acting assistant professor and assistant researcheconomist while his last, self-named, was professor of human systemsdevelopment. Bootstrapping from deep-seated beliefs about the importance ofpersonal consciousness and the capacities of people to grow themselvespsychologically, with derivative payouts in interpersonal sensitivity,Tannenbaum’s work was a forerunner contributor to considerations of humancapital as a corporate asset. From the 1950s through the 1970s, he wasinstrumental in establishing UCLA’s Graduate School of Management as a keycenter of thought and practice in the fields of organization development andleadership training. During this period he helped found the Western TrainingLab, which promulgated a derivative of T-groups that became known asSensitivity Training, and played an important role in the evolution of the NTLInstitute of Applied Behavioral Science, which spearheaded the drive to utilizegroup dynamics as an important pedagogy for promoting increased awarenessof self and impact on others as essential to team play in the corporateenvironment.Bob Tannenbaum’s intellectual work described organizational systems not asmachines with interchangeable human parts, but as living communities thatcan be designed to enable people to grow and learn while achieving businessgoals. His writings, as well as his teaching and consulting, reflected the valuehe placed on people, and his belief that, to a great extent, leadership
effectiveness derives from awareness of one’s own basic assumptions abouthuman nature and the testing out and revision of those assumptions.No matter how you cut it, Bob’s seminal contributions always began with theones he made interpersonally, with students, colleagues, and clients, and hiseveryday interactions with almost everyone he encountered. However, theyalso include his written words. His 1961 book, with Irving Weschler and FredMassarik, Leadership and Organization, was significant in making theacademic and practical argument for the use of group dynamics in developingleaders and teaching them how to operate effectively. His articles (withWarren Schmidt) “How to Choose a Leadership Pattern” (1958) and“Management of Differences” (1960) both set Harvard BusinessReview records for reprint requests and were reprinted in publicationsworldwide.Bob’s charismatic impact created a demand that produced a second, post-UCLA, career – consulting and counseling executives and change agents onthe use of self in facilitating organizational effectiveness. He was an activecontributor to Pepperdine University’s Master’s Program in OrganizationalDevelopment; he led workshops for the NTL Institute, counseled with topexecutives and their spouses at his home office in Carmel, and continuedprofessional writing. Among his jewels is an oral autobiography produced byDavid Russell (1987) as part of the Oral History Program for the HumanisticPsychology Archive at the University of California, Santa Barbara and anedited book of readings (with Newton Margulies and Fred Massarik) writtenby people associated with the Behavioral Science, then Human Systems, nowHuman Resources and Organizational Behavior group he founded at UCLA,titled Human Systems Development.During his life Bob received many honors that he valued greatly but aboutwhich he seldom talked. They include an honorary doctorate from theSaybrook Institute, Fellow of the NTL Institute, Diplomate from the AmericanBoard of Professional Psychology, Distinguished Member of the OD Networkand first recipient of the American Society for Training and Development’s(ASTD) Lifetime Achievement Award where his arm-chair talks were spirituallegend.Born in Cripple Creek, Colorado to Henry and Nettie (Porges) Tannenbaum,Professor Tannenbaum and his sister (the late Emma Elconin) were raised inSouthern California. He is survived by Edith (Lazaroff) Tannenbaum, hisloving wife of 58 years; two daughters, Judith Tannenbaum and DeborahIngebretsen; son-in-law Jim Ingebretsen; three grandchildren, Sara Press,Emma and Gus Ingebretsen; and grandson-in-law, Andrew Harkness. Inaddition, he is honored and loved by countless friends, colleagues andstudents.Samuel Culbert