The Problems with the Culture Surrounding College Admissions and Schools

At the end of each semester, my friends and I would anxiously wait for our transcripts. Since grades usually came out during the 6th period (P.E. for many of us), we would lie around the plastic…

Smartphone

独家优惠奖金 100% 高达 1 BTC + 180 免费旋转




Three Cool Things about Organization Development

Three Cool and Three Not So Cool Things about Organization Development — Intro to OD 101: Part II

Picking up where I left off in Organization Development: Intro to OD 101 , I am offering my point of view in Part II on a few areas of OD. First I will outline three areas of OD that I think are very important. They happen to originate with Kurt Lewin by the way… There are other areas of OD that I think are cool but these rise to the top for me. Although this post is geared toward current OD practitioners, it is my hope it may also be informative for those in other disciplines as well.

Next I jump into three areas of OD that to me are not so cool. Call them pet peeves, or call them major concerns but I view them as trouble for an awesome field. In part three of the series I will propose a couple of ways to move forward. In the meantime, feel free to let me know the areas of OD you love, and the areas you might find a little cringe worthy! Please do comment here on medium, hit me up on twitter (or LinkedIn), or send me an email.

Courtesy of Dr David Jamieson

2. Action Research

While discussing Lewin, I have always been fascinated by “action research”. What is Action Research?

In a way, my own area of professional expertise in organizational surveys is like action research. At one point in time I considered using action research in my master’s thesis project. I think that action research is misunderstood, mis-applied or just not used enough in today’s business world. Used in conjunction with group dynamics and force field analysis it could indeed be a powerful but not overly complicated method to move an organization toward it’s goals. I have used all three of these, but never truly together in an integrated fashion.

3. Group Dynamics

I am looking forward to learning more about group dynamics and applying them in a systematic fashion. One article that really reinforces this is “Organizational Psychology Then and Now: Some Observations” by Dr. Edgar Schein. I liked this 2015 Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior article so much I have read it twice and written a short blog post (2017) summarizing key points from it. As a person who was reading Yalom in the 1980s during their clinical career and receiving extensive training in running groups this article resonated with me. If you run two groups a day for several years, you see a lot of group dynamics!

Schein (2015) makes a very compelling case for a refocusing on group dynamics in research and practice. He addresses how a lack of a systemic view will hurt the field and how going forward — group dynamics are needed more in the current century than in the last century:

“We, as a culture, are hooked on individual accountability. Many of my clients have told me about how their companies are now espousing teamwork, but I have yet to find one that pays groups or that lets groups decide whom to promote.”

(3 Questions, Concerns, and Areas For Improvement?)

With that said, I must admit I have concerns about the field….

T-Groups: RECENT RIGOROUS PEER-REVIEWED OUTCOMES RESEARCH?

I believe the question becomes, not so much are T-Groups effective, but effective at what? Interpersonal communication? Self-awareness? If T-groups are effective for personal growth, then is there a direct line to improving business outcomes? Or are T-groups more effective at developing relationships with team members. I have many more questions than answers about T-groups. Have there been Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) with T-Groups? Likely not but maybe some quasi experimental designs. Hopefully at least longitudinal studies…. How was effectiveness evaluated historically? What kind of evaluation is done currently? There are some who report T-groups evolved into the team-building aspect within OD or at least heavily influenced current team building practices. This too is a two sided coin.

2. Theory vs Research

Articles on OD models, theories, and conceptualizations are great. I thoroughly enjoy reading a good piece on theories. We certainly need people who can be innovative and put together new more helpful ways to look at organizational issues. However, just because an article cites a few a books or peer reviewed pieces does not mean it is new original research. It seems there is some confusion in the field as I will hear OD practitioners talk about new research when what they are citing is a new “thought piece” in the OD Practitioner or similar publication. As I said, these pieces are also valuable but they are not new research. As scholar-practitioners (or practitioner-scholars?) we need to be helping others in the field to differentiate these two different types of publications.

Some OD publications seem to focus on theory. However, the people I talk to seem to seldom attempt to keep up with relevant research. Either they read some in college and have not attempted to keep up, or their exposure is very low so they may practice outdated techniques that have been debunked or just been replaced with more modern and effective methods. The Myers-Briggs comes to mind. I have found no rigorous evidence that the MBTI has substantial organizational outcomes. Maybe it can help build rapport and a couple of other minor benefits that could be achieved without an assessment. Yet OD practitioners continue to use it with abandon often making claims well beyond its means.

There is a gap between research, practice, and theory in many fields. OD is not alone in this issue. It is just so visible when it is a practice in the workplace. Yes, sometimes practitioners are ahead of researchers. And sometimes researchers are sitting on decades of good research that practitioners are unaware of. Hopefully this gap will become less with better collaboration and partnerships. However the rewards system(s) need to promote this instead of hinder. A blog for another day possibly. . . .

3. Models Models Models

So there we have it, a few of the things I love about OD and a few that are my pet peeves. There are many other assets to OD (OD values, systems thinking, organization design, building high performing teams, polarity thinking, etc) as well as other areas for improvement. This would be a very long blog if I tried to cover everything! Stay tuned for part three coming out in late September!

In the meantime, please use the comments section to add your thoughts. Thank you!

Add a comment

Related posts:

Meituan CEO says China has a lot to be learned about entrepreneurship and innovation

On the afternoon of September 4th. at the BRICS Summit, Wang Xing, the Meituan CEO, thinks China’s development and management in the field of Internet, especially the Internet+, has more referential…

How to get the most out of your social media virtual assistant

A social media virtual assistant can help you engage your audience, track the progress of your ads or campaigns, & build social presence. Long after you’ve logged off. How? With the right tools.

We Are Legend

You know how you set out with all these huge goals and aspirations, then one day you just feel like you’re spinning your wheels. Taking one step forward to end up three steps back. So like any normal…