journal article
LitStream Collection
Home
Greiner, Larry E.; Cummings, Thomas G.
doi: 10.1177/0021886304270284pmid: N/A
The authors examine the evolution of organization development (OD) from its exciting startup to its confusing current state, ending with their concern for OD’s future viability. There have been many ups and downs to the OD field, including its faddish rise in the 1960s, its downturn while under attack in the 1970s, and its subsequent morphing into many forms during the 1980s and 1990s. The current diffuse nature ofODsuggests that it is hardly recognizable in most organizations, portending its possible demise as a historical artifact. However, the authors believe that ODstill has a role to play if it can revitalize itself by taking on a strategic role in organizations to focus its core values on solving problems it has largely avoided or ignored in the past.
Bunker, Barbara Benedict; Alban, Billie T.; Lewicki, Roy J.
doi: 10.1177/0021886304270372pmid: N/A
The separation between theory and practice in organization development (OD) has widened over the years. This causes the field of OD to be susceptible to fads rather than having productive conversations with researchers about newideas that can be translated into new methods. This article identifies the following six areas of research with potential to create new practices in OD: virtual teams, conflict resolution, work group effectiveness, social network analysis, trust, and intractable conflict. Each area is described and its ease of application to practice assessed. Then, the process by which new methods have been adopted in the field over the past 15 years is reviewed. The article concludes with a discussion of the need to overcome the gap between the two separate worlds of research and practice in the interest of stimulating innovation.
doi: 10.1177/0021886304270248pmid: N/A
Currently, organization development (OD) seems to be languishing. Hardly any new technology has emerged in recent years. It is also puzzling that large consulting firms are doing well but OD as a field is not. One reason may be that OD is less connected with its roots, especially those grounded in academia, namely, theory and research where new ideas often emerge. Another reason may be structural. Most internal OD practitioners today are buried within the human resource (HR) function. Five structural models are considered: traditional (OD within HR), independent (a freestanding unit), decentralized (part of a business or regional unit), integrated (every HR person an OD practitioner and vice versa), and strategy (OD being an integral part of the strategic planning function). Advantages and disadvantages of each of these models are explored. Finally, a position is taken that OD could serve the organization most effectively by being integrated with strategy.
Fagenson-Eland, Ellen; Ensher, Ellen A.; Burke, W. Warner
doi: 10.1177/0021886304270822pmid: N/A
The present study compares differences in organization development (OD) interventions using Hofstede’s (1980) four dimensions of culture as a framework for studying seven countries’ practices. The seven countries examined were Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In general, Hofstede’s theoretical approach proved to be a useful framework for comparing OD practices as the majority of the authors’ hypotheses were, at a minimum, partially supported. However, when those hypotheses were not supported, some interesting patterns emerged that provide intriguing directions for future research.
Wirtenberg, Jeana; Abrams, Lilian; Ott, Carolyn
doi: 10.1177/0021886304270246pmid: N/A
This article describes Phase I of a larger organization development (OD) initiative. Asurvey was sent to more than 6,000 members of the Organization Development Network, Organization Development Institute, and International Organization Development Association to assess present weaknesses and potential strengths of the field. Respondents to this survey indicated that the field of OD (a) lacks a clear, distinct definition; (b) needs greater quality control/effectiveness and business acumen among OD practitioners; and (c) lacks clarity around its return on investment and perceived value of the work performed. At the same time, OD has significant strengths that can be leveraged. These include a systemic orientation in organizations, an ability to assist in change management, teamwork and leadership development, and the values OD brings to its practice. Building on these results, a literature review, and interviews with business leaders, six key integrated themes that have implications for the OD profession are described.
Showing 1 to 8 of 8 Articles