Organizational development (OD) aims to improve an organization's effectiveness and the well-being of its employees. It involves systematically applying behavioral science knowledge to help organizations better adapt to challenges through planned interventions. Key elements of OD include assessing strategies, structures, and processes to help organizations function more effectively. The overall goal is to establish self-renewing organizations that can continuously monitor and improve themselves.

1. 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 change
and 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 in
their lives as a whole.
Whether the organizations are private, public or non-profit, they must adapt to this new world
if 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 committed
employees. 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 to
the planned development and reinforcement of organizational strategies, structures, and
processes for improving an organization’s effectiveness." (Cummings T.G. and Worley C,
th
1997. Organization Development and Change, 6 ed., p 2. South-Western College
Publishing)
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, that
seeks 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 of
technology or business systems. It is concerned with how people react to change, and how
their needs have to be considered if change efforts are to be effective. One of the common
issues is to understand and work with the resistance to change that usually occurs in
organizations undergoing change. "Change management" is a term that is sometimes used
interchangeably with OD.
Although OD is considered a distinct field or profession by many, there is not unanimity as to
exactly what specific methods or practices comprise the field. And, like most professions, OD
is evolving. The field now known as OD began in the 1940s and 1950s with "T-group" or
sensitivity training, moved into such practices as survey research and feedback, and action
research, and in the 1980’s and 1990’s into quality of work life issues and more strategic and

2. large-scale change efforts.
Return to top
What Are the Values of OD?
Values often tell us a lot about someone or something. In the case of OD, there are certain
values usually associated with the profession. Since the beginning, OD values have generally
been described as humanistic and democratic. They have to do with how people treat each
other, and how decisions are made. A key concern is how satisfied employees are in the
workplace. Employee participation and collaboration are key concepts associated with OD.
More recently OD has also become concerned with productivity and organizational
effectiveness. 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 satisfaction
has a clear impact on customer satisfaction and therefore on revenue and profits.)
Return to top
What Do OD Practitioners Do?
OD practitioners are frequently called upon to address a variety of organizational issues or
problems. 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 future
In order to address these types of issues, the practitioner might employ a variety of
interventions or methods. According to Cummings and Worley, there are four basic categories
of 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)

3. 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 conjunction
with each other.
Following is a representative list of specific services or techniques that might be offered or
used 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

4. Organization development
From 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 organization's
relevance and viability. Vasudevan has referred to OD as, future readiness to meet change, thus a
systemic learning and development strategy intended to change the basics of beliefs, attitudes and
relevance of values, and structure of the current organization to better absorb disruptive
technologies, shrinking or exploding market opportunities and ensuing challenges and chaos. OD
is the framework for a change process designed to lead to desirable positive impact to all
stakeholders and the environment. OD can design interventions with application of several
multidisciplinary 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 context
2 Improved organizational performance
o 2.1 Organizational self-renewal
3 Understanding organizations
o 3.1 Modern development
4 Action research
5 Important figures
6 OD interventions
7 See also
8 Further reading
9 References
[edit]Overview
The purpose of OD is to address perennial evolving needs of successful organizations - a
concerted collaboration of internal and external experts in the field to discover the process an
organization can use to become more stakeholder effective.

5. OD is a lifelong, built-in mechanism to improve immunity of organization's health to renew itself
inclusive principles, often with the assistance of a change agent or catalyst and the use of enabling
appropriate theories and techniques from applied behavioral sciences, anthropology, sociology,
and phenomenology. Although behavioral science has provided the basic foundation for the study
and practice of OD, new and emerging fields of study have made their presence felt. Experts in
systems thinking and organizational learning, mind maps, body mind synchronicity, structure of
intuition in decision making, and coaching (to name a few) whose perspective is not steeped in just
the behavioral sciences, but a much more multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approach have
emerged as OD catalysts. These emergent expert perspectives see the organization as the holistic
interplay 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 who
is 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 effective
organizational change. Organization development is known as both a field of applied behavioral
science focused on understanding and managing organizational change and as a field of scientific
study and inquiry. It is interdisciplinary in nature and draws on sociology, psychology, and theories
of motivation, learning, and personality. Organization development is a growing field that is
responsive to many new approaches including Positive Adult Development.
[edit]History
Kurt Lewin (1898–1947) is widely recognized as the founding father of OD, although he died
before the concept became current in the mid-1950s.[1] From Lewin came the ideas of group
dynamicsand action research which underpin the basic OD process as well as providing its
collaborative consultant/client ethos. Institutionally, Lewin founded the "Research Center for Group
Dynamics" (RCGD) at MIT, which moved to Michigan after his death. RCGD colleagues were
among those who founded the National Training Laboratories (NTL), from which the T-groups and
group-based OD emerged.
Kurt Lewin played a key role in the evolution of organization development as it is known today. As
early as World War II, Lewin experimented with a collaborative change process (involving himself
as consultant and a client group) based on a three-step process of planning, taking action, and
measuring results. This was the forerunner of action research, an important element of OD, which
will 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-research
methods at the University of Michigan. These procedures became important parts of OD as
developments in this field continued at the National Training Laboratories and in growing numbers
of universities and private consulting firms across the country. Two of the leading universities
offering doctoral level [2] degrees in OD are Benedictine University and the Fielding Graduate
University.
Douglas McGregor and Richard Beckhard while "consulting together at General Mills in the 1950's,
the two coined the term organizational development (OD) to describe an innovative bottoms-up
change effort that fit no traditional consulting categories" (Weisbord, 1987, p. 112).[3]

6. The failure of off-site laboratory training to live up to its early promise was one of the important
forces stimulating the development of OD. Laboratory training is learning from a person's "here
and now" experience as a member of an ongoing training group. Such groups usually meet without
a specific agenda. Their purpose is for the members to learn about themselves from their
spontaneous "here and now" responses to an ambiguous hypothetical situation. Problems
of leadership, structure, status, communication, and self-serving behavior typically arise in such a
group. The members have an opportunity to learn something about themselves and to practice
such skills as listening, observing others, and functioning as effective group members. [4]
As formerly practiced (and occasionally still practiced for special purposes), laboratory training was
conducted in "stranger groups," or groups composed of individuals from different organizations,
situations, and backgrounds. A major difficulty developed, however, in transferring knowledge
gained from these "stranger labs" to the actual situation "back home". This required a transfer
between two different cultures, the relatively safe and protected environment of the T-group (or
training 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 the
realization that culture was an important factor in influencing group members (along with some
other developments in the behavioral sciences) emerged the concept of organization
development.[4]
[edit]Core Values
Underlying 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.[5]
[edit]Change agent
A change agent in the sense used here is not a technical expert skilled in such functional areas as
accounting, production, or finance. The change agent is a behavioral scientist who knows how to
get people in an organization involved in solving their own problems. A change agent's main
strength is a comprehensive knowledge of human behavior, supported by a number of intervention
techniques (to be discussed later). The change agent can be either external or internal to the
organization. An internal change agent is usually a staff person who has expertise in the

7. behavioral sciences and in the intervention technology of OD. Beckhard reports several cases in
which line people have been trained in OD and have returned to their organizations to engage in
successful change assignments.[6] In the natural evolution of change mechanisms in organizations,
this would seem to approach the ideal arrangement. Qualified change agents can be found on
some university faculties, or they may be private consultants associated with such organizations
as the National Training Laboratories Institute for Applied Behavioral Science (Washington, D.C.)
University Associates (San Diego, California), the Human Systems Intervention graduate program
in 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 theory
and technique. In such a case, the "contractual relationship" is an in-house agreement that should
probably be explicit with respect to all of the conditions involved except the fee.
[edit]Sponsoring organization
The initiative for OD programs comes from an organization that has a problem. This means that
top management or someone authorized by top management is aware that a problem exists and
has decided to seek help in solving it. There is a direct analogy here to the practice of
psychotherapy: 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 the
organization that management is actively concerned.[7]
[edit]Applied behavioral science
One of the outstanding characteristics of OD that distinguishes it from most other improvement
programs is that it is based on a "helping relationship." Some believe that the change agent is not
a physician to the organization's 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 of
knowledge which they then transfer to the job situation. Using theory and methods drawn from
such behavioral sciences as industrial/organizational psychology, industrial
sociology,communication, cultural anthropology, administrative theory, organizational
behavior, economics, and political science, the change agent's main function is to help the
organization define and solve its own problems. The basic method used is known as action
research. 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, action
planning based on the data, and taking action.[8]
[edit]Systems context
OD 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 total
system. Parts of systems, for example, individuals, cliques, structures, norms, values, and
products are not considered in isolation; the principle of interdependency, that is, that change in
one part of a system affects the other parts, is fully recognized. Thus, OD interventions focus on
the total culture and cultural processes of organizations. The focus is also on groups, since the

8. relevant behavior of individuals in organizations and groups is generally a product of group
influences rather than personality.[7]
[edit]Improved organizational performance
The objective of OD is to improve the organization's capacity to handle its internal and external
functioning and relationships. This would include such things as improved interpersonal and group
processes, more effective communication, enhanced ability to cope with organizational problems
of all kinds, more effective decision processes, more appropriate leadership style, improved skill in
dealing with destructive conflict, and higher levels of trust and cooperation among organizational
members. These objectives stem from a value system based on an optimistic view of the nature of
man — that man in a supportive environment is capable of achieving higher levels of development
and accomplishment. Essential to organization development and effectiveness is the scientific
method — inquiry, a rigorous search for causes, experimental testing of hypotheses, and review of
results.
[edit]Organizational self-renewal
The ultimate aim of OD practitioners is to "work themselves out of a job" by leaving the client
organization with a set of tools, behaviors, attitudes, and an action plan with which to monitor its
own state of health and to take corrective steps toward its own renewal and development. This is
consistent with the systems concept of feedback as a regulatory and corrective mechanism.[7]
[edit]Understanding organizations
Weisbord 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.[9]
[edit]Modern development
In recent years, serious questioning has emerged about the relevance of OD to managing change
in modern organizations. The need for "reinventing" the field has become a topic that even some
of its "founding fathers" are discussing critically.[10]

9. With this call for reinvention and change, scholars have begun to examine organizational
development from an emotion-based standpoint. For example, deKlerk (2007) [11] writes about how
emotional trauma can negatively affect performance. Due to downsizing, outsourcing, mergers,
restructuring, continual changes, invasions of privacy, harassment, and abuses of power, many
employees experience the emotions of aggression, anxiety, apprehension, cynicism, and fear,
which can lead to performance decreases. deKlerk (2007) suggests that in order to heal the
trauma and increase performance, O.D. practitioners must acknowledge the existence of the
trauma, provide a safe place for employees to discuss their feelings, symbolize the trauma and put
it into perspective, and then allow for and deal with the emotional responses. One method of
achieving this is by having employees draw pictures of what they feel about the situation, and then
having them explain their drawings with each other. Drawing pictures is beneficial because it
allows 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 picture
and then discuss its meaning.
The use of new technologies combined with globalization has also shifted the field of organization
development. Roland Sullivan (2005) defined Organization Development with participants at the
1st Organization Development Conference for Asia in Dubai-2005 as "Organization Development
is a transformative leap to a desired vision where strategies and systems align, in the light of local
culture with an innovative and authentic leadership style using the support of high tech tools.
[edit]Action research
Wendell L French and Cecil Bell defined organization development (OD) at one point as
"organization improvement through action research".[8] If one idea can be said to summarize OD's
underlying philosophy, it would be action research as it was conceptualized by Kurt Lewin and
later elaborated and expanded on by other behavioral scientists. Concerned with social change
and, more particularly, with effective, permanent social change, Lewin believed that the motivation
to change was strongly related to action: If people are active in decisions affecting them, they are
more likely to adopt new ways. "Rational social management", he said, "proceeds in a spiral of
steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of
action".[12]

10. Figure 1: Systems Model of Action-Research Process
Lewin's description of the process of change involves three steps:[12]
"Unfreezing": Faced with a dilemma or disconfirmation, the individual or group becomes aware of a
need 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 action
research. Action research is depicted as a cyclical process of change. The cycle begins with a
series of planning actions initiated by the client and the change agent working together. The
principal elements of this stage include a preliminary diagnosis, data gathering, feedback of
results, and joint action planning. In the language of systems theory, this is the input phase, in
which the client system becomes aware of problems as yet unidentified, realizes it may need
outside 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 includes
actions relating to learning processes (perhaps in the form of role analysis) and to planning and
executing behavioral changes in the client organization. As shown in Figure 1, feedback at this
stage would move via Feedback Loop A and would have the effect of altering previous planning to
bring 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 members
of the client system. Following the workshop or learning sessions, these action steps are carried
out on the job as part of the transformation stage.[4]
The third stage of action research is the output, or results, phase. This stage includes actual
changes in behavior (if any) resulting from corrective action steps taken following the second
stage. Data are again gathered from the client system so that progress can be determined and
necessary adjustments in learning activities can be made. Minor adjustments of this nature can be
made in learning activities via Feedback Loop B (see Figure 1). Major adjustments and
reevaluations would return the OD project to the first, or planning, stage for basic changes in the
program. The action-research model shown in Figure 1 closely follows Lewin's repetitive cycle of
planning, action, and measuring results. It also illustrates other aspects of Lewin's general model
of change. As indicated in the diagram, the planning stage is a period of unfreezing, or problem
awareness.[12] The action stage is a period of changing, that is, trying out new forms of behavior in
an effort to understand and cope with the system's problems. (There is inevitable overlap between
the stages, since the boundaries are not clear-cut and cannot be in a continuous process). The
results stage is a period of refreezing, in which new behaviors are tried out on the job and, if
successful and reinforcing, become a part of the system's repertoire of problem-solving behavior.
Action research is problem centered, client centered, and action oriented. It involves the client
system in a diagnostic, active-learning, problem-finding, and problem-solving process. Data are
not 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

11. devising methods for finding their real causes, and in developing plans for coping with them
realistically 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 client's
system by leaving the system with practical and useful tools for self-analysis and self-renewal.[4]
[edit]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 Adizes
[edit]OD interventions
"Interventions" are principal learning processes in the "action" stage (see Figure 1)
of organization development. Interventions are structured activities used individually or in
combination by the members of a client system to improve their social or task performance. They
may be introduced by a change agent as part of an improvement program, or they may be used by
the client following a program to check on the state of the organization's health, or to effect
necessary changes in its own behavior. "Structured activities" mean such diverse procedures as
experiential 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 organization's improvement program in a change agent-client
system relationship can be said to be an intervention.[13]

12. There are many possible intervention strategies from which to choose. Several assumptions about
the nature and functioning of organizations are made in the choice of a particular
strategy.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.[6]
Interventions range from those designed to improve the effectiveness of individuals through those
designed to deal with teams and groups, intergroup relations, and the total organization. There are
interventions 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 which
change mechanism they tend to emphasize: for example, feedback, awareness of changing
cultural norms, interaction and communication, conflict, and education through either new
knowledge or skill practice.[14]
One of the most difficult tasks confronting the change agent is to help create in the client system a
safe climate for learning and change. In a favorable climate, human learning builds on itself and
continues indefinitely during man's lifetime. Out of new behavior, new dilemmas and problems
emerge 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 feel
that 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 new
ways may be viewed as risky because it violates established norms. Such an organization may
also be constrained because of the law of systems: If one part changes, other parts will become
involved. Hence, it is easier to maintain the status quo. Hierarchical authority, specialization, span
of control, and other characteristics of formal systems also discourage experimentation. [13]
The change agent must address himself to all of these hazards and obstacles. Some of the things
which will help him are:
1. A real need in the client system to change
2. Genuine support from management

13. 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.[13]
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 on
September 9, 1890. He and his family moved to Berlin when he was fifteen. Lewin
obtained his doctorate degree in Psychology from the University of Berlin in 1916
and 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-year
assignment at Cornell School of Home Economics, and eventually settling at the
University 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 had
no meaning for workers other than money. Lewin believed that work brought
meaning 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. He
understood that we become interdependent as we join a group either by natural
association, choice or directive. Lewin’s contributions in group dynamics started
the famed T-Group sessions. From this experience we learned about the power of
group interaction and feedback. Lewin borrowed the term feedback from
electrical engineering and applied it to describe the adjustment of a process by
informed data about its results. Feedback was meant to unfreeze the person’s
former belief systems.
Lewin believed that the work of the organizational consultant should not to be
static and that analysis should not be performed from the periphery but rather by
being a clinician performing an intervention. He sustained that “you cannot
understand a system until you try to change it.”

14. Several years would elapse before Emery would introduce the concept of Open
Systems and more years would pass before Senge and others would introduce
Systems Thinking into the OD field. However, Lewin had already theorized the
notion that human behavior is the systemic function of the person in the
environment. His equation B = f (p,e) communicates that new behavior (B) is the
result 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 useful
technique that can be effectively applied when change agents need to understand
the forces that are driving and restraining a given change. Lewin understood that
any actions toward change would be met by opposing reactions. The model he
proposed had a graphical representation called the Force Field Analysis diagram.
The diagram contained the definition of the problem and the representation of the
driving 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 taken
to enable change. The first action is unfreezing, which is meant to create a
motivation and readiness for change. In the behavior model, unfreezing deals
primarily with the person (p). The second is changing through cognitive
restructuring. This is the actual change to the environment (e). In this step, the
subjects (p) are made aware of the changes to the environment (e) and new
relationships with this environment are formed through training, mentoring, role
changes, new information, etc. The final action is refreezing, which is the
integration of the new behaviors resulting from the change. In this model we can
see how new behaviors can be formed as a result of the changes in both the person
and the environment.
Action Research is a core model in
the OD arsenal. Lewin only wrote 20 pages on Action Research which gave way to
volumes of reviews and books on the subject. He did not intend for his Action
Research to be a consulting recipe. Lewin developed the model to illustrate how
an external person to the organization should proceed in order to have the greatest
effect in solving a problem or effecting change. He believed, as previously stated,
that one cannot understand a system until a change is attempted. Action Research
is exactly that, taking action as research is conducted.
Lewin made defining contributions in a number of areas that impacted the
evolution of OD. He was a humanist, starting with his reformation ideas in
Germany to his thoughts that people could find self-realization in jobs. His
contributions range from group dynamics to action research. He was instrumental
in deepening the understanding of social behavior through group controlled
experimentation. Lewin’s legacy excites dialogue, practice and new learning today
as much as it did over 60 years ago. He was a master theorist. His best known
quotation is “there is nothing so practical as a good theory.”
-- Jorge Taborga

15. Robert Tannenbaum
Professor of Anderson School of Management, Emeritus
Los Angeles
1915–2003
Bob Tannenbaum, whose humanist vision profoundly affected the field of
organizational 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 a
man who constantly affirms you! Bob gave so much to so many and always
from the heart. Others also wrote theories extolling the importance of
recognizing feelings, valuing human spirit, and raising consciousness to
realize one’s inner potential. But unique was Tannenbaum whose ideas were
made more profound by his personal being. People who came in contact with
him instantly recognized histeachings whether or not they read what he wrote
or focused on his words. And his presence had a ripple effect well beyond
those who experienced him first hand.
Eventually becoming a psychologist without portfolio, Bob began his
university work with an A.A. degree from Santa Ana Junior College (1935). He
then moved on to the University of Chicago where he received an A.B. degree
in business administration (1937) and a M.B.A. in accounting (1938).
Concurrently, he took his first teaching job as instructor in accounting at
Oklahoma A & M College (1937-39). He returned to Chicago in 1939 to begin
Ph.D. studies in industrial relations. In 1942 he enlisted in the Navy serving as
an officer in the Pacific teaching radar. In 1946 Bob returned to Chicago to
finish his doctorate (1948). Upon completion he was recruited by Neil Jacoby,
a former University of Chicago professor who was dean of UCLA’s College of
Business Administration, later called the Graduate School of Management,
now The Anderson School, where he built, taught and served with distinction
until 1977 when he took early retirement.
Bob’s first UCLA position was acting assistant professor and assistant research
economist while his last, self-named, was professor of human systems
development. Bootstrapping from deep-seated beliefs about the importance of
personal consciousness and the capacities of people to grow themselves
psychologically, with derivative payouts in interpersonal sensitivity,
Tannenbaum’s work was a forerunner contributor to considerations of human
capital as a corporate asset. From the 1950s through the 1970s, he was
instrumental in establishing UCLA’s Graduate School of Management as a key
center of thought and practice in the fields of organization development and
leadership training. During this period he helped found the Western Training
Lab, which promulgated a derivative of T-groups that became known as
Sensitivity Training, and played an important role in the evolution of the NTL
Institute of Applied Behavioral Science, which spearheaded the drive to utilize
group dynamics as an important pedagogy for promoting increased awareness
of self and impact on others as essential to team play in the corporate
environment.
Bob Tannenbaum’s intellectual work described organizational systems not as
machines with interchangeable human parts, but as living communities that
can be designed to enable people to grow and learn while achieving business
goals. His writings, as well as his teaching and consulting, reflected the value
he placed on people, and his belief that, to a great extent, leadership

16. effectiveness derives from awareness of one’s own basic assumptions about
human nature and the testing out and revision of those assumptions.
No matter how you cut it, Bob’s seminal contributions always began with the
ones he made interpersonally, with students, colleagues, and clients, and his
everyday interactions with almost everyone he encountered. However, they
also include his written words. His 1961 book, with Irving Weschler and Fred
Massarik, Leadership and Organization, was significant in making the
academic and practical argument for the use of group dynamics in developing
leaders and teaching them how to operate effectively. His articles (with
Warren Schmidt) “How to Choose a Leadership Pattern” (1958) and
“Management of Differences” (1960) both set Harvard Business
Review records for reprint requests and were reprinted in publications
worldwide.
Bob’s charismatic impact created a demand that produced a second, post-
UCLA, career – consulting and counseling executives and change agents on
the use of self in facilitating organizational effectiveness. He was an active
contributor to Pepperdine University’s Master’s Program in Organizational
Development; he led workshops for the NTL Institute, counseled with top
executives and their spouses at his home office in Carmel, and continued
professional writing. Among his jewels is an oral autobiography produced by
David Russell (1987) as part of the Oral History Program for the Humanistic
Psychology Archive at the University of California, Santa Barbara and an
edited book of readings (with Newton Margulies and Fred Massarik) written
by people associated with the Behavioral Science, then Human Systems, now
Human 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 about
which he seldom talked. They include an honorary doctorate from the
Saybrook Institute, Fellow of the NTL Institute, Diplomate from the American
Board of Professional Psychology, Distinguished Member of the OD Network
and first recipient of the American Society for Training and Development’s
(ASTD) Lifetime Achievement Award where his arm-chair talks were spiritual
legend.
Born in Cripple Creek, Colorado to Henry and Nettie (Porges) Tannenbaum,
Professor Tannenbaum and his sister (the late Emma Elconin) were raised in
Southern California. He is survived by Edith (Lazaroff) Tannenbaum, his
loving wife of 58 years; two daughters, Judith Tannenbaum and Deborah
Ingebretsen; son-in-law Jim Ingebretsen; three grandchildren, Sara Press,
Emma and Gus Ingebretsen; and grandson-in-law, Andrew Harkness. In
addition, he is honored and loved by countless friends, colleagues and
students.
Samuel Culbert