jourrnaln fuatf heuogiourfzdlln giva...journal of the organization development network spring year...

Journal of the Organization Development Network

Spring Year 20

12 Vol. 44 N

o. 2

Spring Year 2012 Volume 44 No. 2


Challenges and Practical Suggestions

1. FromtheEditor

5. TowardaRelevantandInfluentialODChristopherG.Worley

7. ACollaborativeCulture:CollaborationIsNotSomethingOrganizationsDo,ButaWayofBeingMarisaSanchez

13. CognitiveAgility:AdaptingtoReal-timeDecisionMakingatWorkDarrenGoodandBaubackYeganeh

18. CrossingtheGreat(Management)Divide:TheBusinessCaseforInboardingLarryKroh

23. Employees’ReactionstoOrganizationalChangeCynthiaWittig

29. StemCellsasMetaphor:ImplicationsforOrganizationsandOrganizationDevelopmentStevenW.Page

37. OrganizationDevelopmentPractitioners’InteractiveDramainFormingaSenseofProfessionalIdentityDonnaM.Wocher

42. FromtheODPArchive:TheSelfasanInstrument:ACornerstonefortheFutureofODMee-YanCheung-Judge

48. CaseHistory:ResolvingConflictattheWalbergBankGroupHomerH.Johnson


Published quarterlyCopyright 2012Organization Development Network, Inc.ISSN #0256112312

Editor-In-ChiefJohn D. Vogelsang

ProofreadersLoni DavisJillian J. Gonzales

Editorial Review BoardJohn Adams, PhDEmeritus Professor, Saybrook University Organizational Systems PhD ProgramSan Francisco, CA

Phillip T. Anderson, PhDDirector, Change Management/ Business Transformation, ManpowerGroup, Milwaukee, WI

Marilyn E. Blair, PhDPrincipal, TeamWork Consulting, Denver, CO

Michael Brazzel, PhDExternal Consultant, Columbia, MD

Gordon Brooks, MSODDeputy Director, MSOD ProgramPepperdine University, Los Angeles, CA

Gervase Bushe, PhDBeedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Steven H. Cady, PhDGraduate Faculty Member, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio

Allan H. Church, PhDPepsiCo, Inc., Pound Ridge, NY

David Coghlan, PhDSchool of Business Studies, University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

John P. Conbere, EdDProfessor and Director of the Doctoral Program, Organization Learning and Development, University of St. Thomas, Minneapolis, MN

Anne Gardon, MSWPrincipal, Strategies for Change, Poughkeepsie, NY

Tim Goodly, PhDSenior VP HR, CNN Worldwide, Marietta, GA

Claire Halverson, PhDChair and Professor in the Social Justice in Intercultural Relations Degree at the SIT Graduate Institute, Brattleboro, VT

George W. Hay, PhDAdjunct Faculty, Benedictine UniversityOrganization Development and Change Consultant Oak Brook, IL

Alla Heorhiadi, PhD & EdDInternational ProgramsOrganization Learning & Development Dept.University of St. Thomas, Minneapolis, MN

David W. Jamieson, PhDAssociate Professor and Department Chair, Organization Learning and Development, University of St. Thomas, Minneapolis, MN

Homer H. Johnson, PhDProfessor, School of Business AdministrationLoyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL

Judith Katz, EdDKaleel Jamison Consulting Group, Troy, NY

Anne Litwin, PhDAnne Litwin & Associates, Jamaica Plain, MA

Maurice L. Monette, EdDThe Vallarta Institute, Oakland, CA and Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

Cathy Royal, PhD Senior Consultant, Royal Consulting Group, LLC Riverdale, MD

Charles Seashore, PhDChair, Human and Organization Development PhD Program, Fielding Graduate Institute, Santa Barbara, CA

Peter Sorensen, Jr., PhDDirector, PhD Program Benedictine University, Lisle, IL

Nancy L. Southern, EdDChair, PhD Organizational Systems ProgramSaybrook Graduate School, San Francisco, CA

Ross Tartell, PhDIndependent Consultant, New York, NY

Maya Townsend, MSODLead Consultant, Partnering Resources,Cambridge, MA

Peter B. Vaill, DBAProfessor of Management,Antioch University, Yellow Springs, OH

Lynne E. Valek, PhDAdjunct Faculty, Alliant International UniversityFresno, CA

Judy Vogel, MLAVogel/Glaser & Associates, Inc., Columbia, MD

Don D. Warrick, DBAProfessor, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO

Therese Yaeger, PhD PhD and MSMOB-OD Programs Benedictine University, Lisle, IL

Design Whitehouse & Company New York, NY

ProductionDC Typography, Inc. San Francisco, CA

OD Practitioner

Organization Development NetworkBoard of TrusteesDarya Funches, EdDChair

L. Mee-Yan Cheung-Judge, PhD

Michael Horne, PhD

Walter McCollum, PhD

Matt Minahan, EdD

Marisa Sanchez, PhD

Charles D. Shaw, PhD

Carol Parker Walsh, JD, PhD

Brian K. Wilson

Executive DirectorTom Nicholson

Operations ManagerMaggie Shields

For information regarding advertising opportunities in the OD Practitioner, please e-mail Andrew Werfelmann at [email protected]

Organization Development Network401 North Michigan Avenue Suite 2100Chicago, IL 60611T: 312.321.5136F: 312.673.6836www.odnetwork.org

OD Practitioner is now available to academic and corporate libraries by special subscription. We invite you to include this publication in your library resources.

Library Subscriptions USA Canada* All Other*University Non-profit $150 $160 $180CorporateFor-profit $200 $225 $255ODP Library Subscriptions using SecureCredit Card Processing.

* All prices in US funds.

Membership in the OD Network

• Individual Membership: $200

• Persons over 65: $100

• Full-time students in a degree program (employed half-time or less): $100

Please direct all inquiries to:[email protected]

mailto:AWerfelmann%40smithbucklin.com?subject=

http://www.odnetwork.org

mailto:ODNetwork%40ODNetwork.org?subject=

Welcome to the spring 2012 issue of the

ODP. In this issue you will find both chal-

lenges and practical suggestions. Are we

paying enough attention to what capa-

bilities an organization needs to become

more agile or more responsible? How can

we approach collaboration as more than

a technique and a series of steps? How

can we operate effectively in our current

information rich work environments?

How can we prepare internal candidates to

succeed at new director roles? How can we

be more attentive to the shifting human

dynamics throughout a change initiative?

How can we work with organizational

structures that are impeding change? How

do we form our professional identity as

OD practitioners? How can we continue

to develop our self as an instrument of

change? And how can we mediate organi-

zational conflicts?

Summarizing his talk at the 2011

OD Conference, Christopher Worley

challenges OD practitioners to pay more

attention to the strategy and organiza-

tion design issues that will truly unleash

human potential in an age that is crying

out for this work. Instead of continu-

ing to perfect things that already work

well enough, he recommends marrying

intimate knowledge of process with the

powerful concepts of strategy and organi-

zation design, in order to release a relevant

force for positive economic, social, and

ecological change.

Marisa Sanchez reminds us that

collaboration is not simply a series of

prescriptive steps to follow when one

organization wants to partner with

another; instead, collaboration is a way of

being. Collaboration is a behavioral result

of having a collaborative culture, one that

embraces particular values, principles,

and behaviors that together, not only

promote collaboration, but support an

expectation of collaboration.

How do we operate effectively in

the dynamic, information-rich environ-

ments of most organizations? According

to Darren Good and Bauback Yeganeh,

we can do this with “cognitive agility.”

This is the capacity to operate flexibly

with openness and focused attention, to

seek out new and important information

and to focus on the depth of informa-

tion that is critical to successful task

accomplishment.

According to Larry Kroh many orga-

nizations provide “onboarding” processes

for external hires for director positions.

However, there is a need for “inboarding”--

guidance, coaching, and training (if neces-

sary) for all newly-promoted directors. This

process can help with gaps in job under-

standing, knowledge, and skills and the

oftentimes abrupt change in expectations

that occur for a new director.

Cynthia Wittig describes the factors

that continually affect employee’s fluctuat-

ing reactions to change over the span of

an initiative. As change agents progress

through the process of a change initia-

tive, it is important that they continually

assess the employees’ reactions to change,

diagnose the causes for their reactions

(both negative and positive causes),

address the employees’ concerns, and

repeat the process. Continually monitoring

employees’ reactions is especially impor-

tant because evidence exists that change

initiatives fail due to the lack of attention

to human factors.

Steven Page explores how a stem cell

metaphor can inform our understand-

ing of the link between organizational

structure and the value an organization

creates. The metaphor can also suggest

courses of action when a structure is

solidly in place and values and assump-

tions have become subterranean or are

stubbornly clung to, sabotaging options

for substantial change.

How do organization development

practitioners form a sense of professional

identity and what are the dilemmas and

challenges they must manage to do so?

Donna Wocher presents the results of her

study of sixteen OD practitioners. She

found OD practitioners using a variety

of tools with clients in negotiating and

simultaneously laying claim to the role of

OD practitioner.

In an article from 2001, Mee Yan

Cheung-Judge discusses the importance

for OD consultants of establishing effec-

tive relationships with clients and the use

of self as an instrument in the work. In her

2012 postscript to the article, she asserts,

“Maybe it is a bit exaggerated, but the

future of OD is critically dependent on all

of us using ourselves effectively to bring

successful and sustainable change within

a humanistic framework to the world

of work.”

Finally, Homer Johnson presents a

case about resolving conflicts between two

bank managers. The three respondents

to the case are: Tammy Seibert, Orga-

nizational Effectiveness Consultant at

Allstate Insurance; Annie Viets, Professor

of Management at Prince Mohammad

Bin Fahd University in Al Khobar, Saudi

Arabia; and Ruth Urban, an indepen-

dent consultant and principal of The

Urban Group.

I look forward to receiving articles

about applied research, theory and

evidence based practice, innovative

approaches, and case studies. Email your

proposals and articles to me at jvogelsang@

earthlink.net.

John Vogelsang

From the Editor

Former Editors

Larry Porter 1973–1981Raymond Weil 1982–1984Don & Dixie Van Eynde 1985–1988David Noer 1989–1992Celeste Coruzzi 1993–1995David Nicoll 1996–2000Marilyn E. Blair 2000–2008

1FromtheEditor

mailto:[email protected]



ODPRACTITIONER Vol.44No.2 20122

Upcoming Special Issue of the OD Practitioner

Summer 2012

OD’s Role in Improving Mergers and AcquisitionsSpecial Issue Editors: Jim Sanders and David Jamieson

The success rate for mergers and acquisitions (M&A) continues to be a problem despite increased activity and awareness of the importance of human, organizational, and culture aspects of M&A in improving financial, organization, and individual outcomes. Organization development provides a broad range of methods, practices, and approaches that are relevant to M&A and organization restructur-ing. However, the utilization of OD approaches and the understanding of effective practices are inconsistent.

This special issue is designed to respond to that gap with two intended outcomes:1. Improve the practice of OD

approaches in M&A by documenting specific methods and practices that have high impact.

2. Increase the utilization of OD approaches by documenting the value, roles, activities, and outcomes of OD approaches.

Potential topics include, but are not limited to the following areas:» Organizing the effort: How are OD

approaches deployed in the M&A effort? Who provides the OD per-spective? When are OD perspectives included in the M&A process? How is the OD perspective included across the functional areas involved in the M&A activity?

» Strategy phase: What is OD’s role in strategy and initial acquisition identi-fication? How does the organization develop a strategy that provides a com-plete view of strategic fit? What are the characteristics of fit? How do you determine fit? What specific methods and practices improve elements within the strategy phase? How do you pre-pare the organization? What is the role of leader coaching, supervisor train-ing, and organizational readiness?

» Targeting and initial communica-tions phase: How is initial interest established? What is the method to establish the benefit of a relation-ship? How do you decide who to involve? How do you manage the restrictions of public company dis-closure while communicating with multiple levels of the organization?

» Due diligence phase: What are OD approaches to due diligence? How do you assess culture, talent, and organization design fit? How do you work with the restrictions in access to data involved with competitive auctions and legal constraints on engagement pre-closing?

» Closing and announcement: How do you communicate the M&A decision to stakeholders?

» Integration: How is the transition team organized? What is the method of team member selection, composi-tion, leadership, and operation? What interventions work best in building transition team effectiveness? How do you ensure access to the value offering which motivates the relation-ship? How do you make organization design decisions, talent retention or exit decisions, and determine new roles? How do you create long term

motivation, alignment, and focus and reduce unwanted turnover?

» Culture: How do you manage differ-ences in organization culture, national culture, language, and organizational histories?

» Organization learning and improve-ment: How do you create organiza-tion readiness for M&A, learning and improvement from M&A activities, organizational competence in per-forming M&A? What roles, skills, or practices improve effectiveness for serial acquirers?

Articles due April 23.

Proposals and articles should be sent to the two special issue editors and the ODP editor ([email protected]). Submissions should follow the OD Practitioner manuscript submission guidelines (details at www.odnetwork.org). The special issue editors will screen the articles and provide feedback. Final articles will be reviewed by two mem-bers of the editorial board. Case studies, OD intervention descriptions, new conceptual thinking, and interviews are encouraged.

About the Special Issue Editors

Jim Sanders isClinicalProfessorofEntrepreneurshipattheR.H.SmithSchoolofBusinessattheUniversityofMaryland.RecentlyhewasDirectorofStrategyandM&AforHarrisCorporationandHoneywellInternational.HeiscurrentlyBoardMemberandleaderfortheBestPracticesinM&AProgramfortheAssociationforCorporateGrowth.Hehasworkedonmorethan40acquisitionsinstrategy,dealmaker,andintegrationroles.EarlierhewasanODconsultant.Hecanbereachedatjsanders@rhsmith.umd.edu.

David W. Jamieson, PhD,isDepartmentChair,OrganizationLearningandDevelopmentatUniversityofSt.Thomas,PracticumDirectorfortheMSODProgramatAmericanUniversity,andpreviouslyAdjunctProfessorMSODProgramatPepperdineUniversity.Hehasnearly40yearsofexperienceconsultingtoorganizationsonleadership,change,strategy,design,[email protected].

mailto:jvogelsang%40earthlink.net?subject=


www.odnetwork.org

mailto:jsanders%40rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=

mailto:jsanders%40rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=


3UpcomingSpecialIssuesoftheODPractitioner


Fall 2012

Innovative and Emerging OD Practices in the UKSpecial Issue Editor: Mee-Yan Cheung-Judge

After the early pioneer work of the Tavistock Institute in the UK during the 1940s, the field of OD seemed to disappear from the UK scene. Very few academic institutions taught OD as a discipline, only a few small and invis-ible OD networks existed, mainly run by private consultancy firms; and there has been almost a minimalist effort to publish their work. Simultaneously, the development of the OD field has been associated primarily with the work of American academics and practitio-ners. Until recently, UK and European practitioners have often looked to the USA for further OD development and read primarily the publications of US colleagues.

The scene has changed in the UK. Those faithful OD practitioners who had been operating in an “underground” fashion began to lead the expansion of the field; more academic institutions started to give attention to the training and development of practitioners; more publications appeared in the OD field authored by UK practitioners; and thousands of jobs were created in the corporate world, the public sector, and third sector organizations. The time has come for a dedicated ODP issue to help document the innovative and emerging work of UK practitioners.

Key questions we hope to pursue in this special issue:» What context gives rise to the

re-emergence of the OD field in the UK? And what factors have made the field emerge with a new form of rigor in the UK in the past 5 years?

» Under what conditions do the UK OD practitioners do their work? And what kind of adaptation do they need to make in their methodologies in order to be accepted by their clients in a different cultural setting?

» What specific contributions and what specific innovations have they made to the field that can help inform OD practices in the international community?

» What new knowledge and understand-ing of OD can the UK practitioners offer to their colleagues and what core OD values and principles continue to be held dearly by the UK practitioners that are reflected in their practice?

The format There will be four categories of articles: » Innovative and adaptive use of OD

methods to achieve results: Headline case studies that share the innova-tive and adaptive practice of a specific methodology or a creative use of mixed methodologies to achieve results. Each case study’s length: 700 words.

» Evaluation of the impact of OD work on client systems: Joint client and practitioner accounts of what has been achieved through OD intervention, focusing on the evaluation of the work of OD practitioners through the voices of the clients. Each account’s length: 700 words.

» Contributions that UK practitioners have made to the field of OD: UK prac-titioners reflecting on how their work

has contributed to the development of the field in the past decades. Each reflection’s length: 600 words

» More substantial change projects: Articles that demonstrate innovative and adaptive use of OD methods in change situations while holding on to core OD values and principles, as well as taking the field forward. Work that has created value for the client system based upon practi-tioners’ and clients’ views about what the field of OD can continue to contribute to fostering effective organizations. Each article’s length: 3,500–4,000 words.

Articles due July 31.

Proposals and articles should be sent to: Mee Yan Cheung-Judge ([email protected]) and John Vogelsang ([email protected]). Submissions to the special issue should follow the OD Practitioner manuscript submission guidelines (details at www.odnetwork.org). The special issue editor and the ODP editor will screen the articles and provide feedback. Final articles will be reviewed by two members of the ODP editorial board.

About the Special Issue Editor

Mee-Yan Cheung-Judge, PhD, heldvariousacademicappointmentsinUSAfor8yearsbeforebecomingapractitionerintheUKin1983.SheisthecreatoranddrivingforcebehindQuality&Equality,aUKbasedinternationalODconsultingfirm.HerstrongareasofexpertiseareOrganizationDevelopment,BigSystemchange,andEqualityandDiversity.SheisacampaignerforODeducationintheUK,instrumentalinsettingupvariousODprograms/tracksbothinacademicinstitutionsaswellasinprofessionalassociations.BecauseofhertirelesscampaigningworktoupgradeODeducationintheUKshewasvotedoneofthe25mostinfluentialthinkersinHRbytheUKpublica-tionHR Magazinein2008.SheisalsoDeanoftheNTLODcertificateprogramintheUK,trusteeontheODNBoard,andauthorofOrganization Development: A Practitio-ner’s Guide for OD and HR. [email protected].

mailto:LMYCJ%40quality-equality.com?subject=



www.odnetwork.org




Winter 2013

Advances in Dialogic ODSpecial Issue Editors: Gervase R. Bushe and Robert J. Marshak

Over the past five years we have writ-ten a number of articles identifying a bifurcation in Organization Develop-ment (OD) practice that is not well recognized in OD books and articles but is alive and well in OD practice.1 Simply put, we think an increasing number of successful OD practitioners are doing OD in a way that deviates from some basic tenets of the field, most notably, that a “diagnosis” should precede any intervention.

By “diagnosis” we mean the act of analyzing a system to find the causes (“facts”) of a problematic situation. This analysis usually involves consultant driven interviews, surveys, observations, and document review, followed by the consultants presenting their results and recommendations to an organi-zational leadership group in order to develop plans to rectify the problematic situation.

We have titled the alternative approach, “dialogic.” Dialogic does not seek the facts, analysis of the facts, solving a predefined problem per se, nor use of an actual or implied diagnostic model. The metaphor or image of an organization is more that of an ongoing “conversation” and reality does not exist independent of the stories people are contributing and co-creating. Differ-ences are more than different points of view or misperceptions to be corrected by the facts. Differences are alternative

1. Bushe, G.R., & Marshak, R.J. (2008). The post modern turn in OD: From diagnosis to meaning making. OD Practitioner, 40(4), 10-12. Bushe, G.R., & Marshak, R.J. (2009). Revisioning organization development: Diag-nostic and dialogic premises and patterns of practice. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(3), 348-368.

realities that mix to generate new pos-sibilities influenced by power and power dynamics. Dialogic OD practitioners do not view words as just a way to convey meaning, but as the creators of mean-ing. They do not inquire to assess a system against prescriptive models of health, justice, or effectiveness. Instead they view inquiry as a process that creates social reality. We believe many of these OD practices have been influ-enced by post modern philosophies, social construction, discursive studies, and complex adaptive systems theory.

Familiar examples of Dialogic OD methods are Appreciative Inquiry, Open Space, Conferencing, and World Café. They are familiar because people have written about them. We think there are many more both large and small system innovations out there, especially in the last decade, that have not been written about. The purpose of this call for papers is to invite people to write about these or the above Dialogic methods.

For this special issue of the OD Practitioner we seek papers that advance our understanding of planned change processes that do not rely on data collec-tion and feedback. We are particularly

interested in papers that describe innovative, successful change practices, and we are interested in understanding the theoretical models underlying these newer practices. These change practices may include creative combinations of more familiar OD methods. We also invite articles that describe practical theories that can be used by OD practi-tioners to reflect on their practice and generate new ideas and approaches in OD practice.

Submission Deadline is October 1, 2012.

Articles should be sent to the two special issue editors, Gervase Bushe ([email protected]) and Robert J. Marshak ([email protected]), and the ODP editor ([email protected]). Sub-missions should follow the OD Practitio-ner manuscript submission guidelines (details at www.odnetwork.org). The spe-cial issue editors will screen the articles and provide feedback. Final articles will be reviewed by two members of the ODP editorial board.

About the Special Issue Editors

Gervase R. Bushe, PhD,isProfessorofLeadershipandOrganizationDevelopmentattheBeedieSchoolofBusiness,SimonFraserUniversity,inVancouver.Histhirtyyearconsultingpracticespansredesigninglargeorganizations,facilitatingorganiza-tionallearning,executiveteambuilding,architectingculturalchangeprocesses,anddesigningdevelopmentalleadershiptraining.Thecommonthemeiscreatingmorecollaborativeworksystems.Hecanbereachedthroughbushe@sfu.ca.

Robert J. Marshak, PhD,isSeniorScholarinResidencefortheMSODProgramatAmericanUniversity,Washington,DC,andmaintainsaglobalconsultingpractice.Hiscurrentinterestsincludediscourse-basedchangeprocessesanddialogicOD.MarshakisarecipientoftheOrganizationDevelopmentNetwork’[email protected].








“Weneedtostoplookingdownintotheorganizationandtryingtochangepeople’sbehaviors,andstartlookingattheorganizationdesignthatguidespeople’sbehaviors.Weneedtostopcolludingwithmanagersthatachangeinculturecanoccurwithoutchangeinstrategy,structures,processes,andperformancemanagementsystems.”

Toward a Relevant and Influential OD

ByChristopherG.Worley In my keynote address to the OD Network conference in October, 2011, I tried to nudge (some would say “prod”) the field to look differently at its future. Several of the ideas were welcomed with open arms while others were considered heresy. I appreciate the opportunity to explore a couple of those ideas here.

As a bit of history, I am often asked about the future of OD in my role as co-author (with Tom Cummings) of the pri-mary OD textbook in the field. Years ago, I thought it was an interesting question. It was almost always asked in the context of “is OD dead?” and I did not think it was. So I wrote about it from time to time (Cummings & Worley, 2009; Worley & McCloskey, 2006; Feyerherm & Worley, 2008). Today, and in the spirit of social constructionism, I think the question is a red herring. If we continue to perseverate over “what’s the future of the field?” and “is OD dead?” we divert energy away from becoming a powerful force for responsible progress in the world.

The core of my way of talking about the field of OD is to note when we were powerful and influential and when we were not. In my recent book with Ed Lawler, Management Reset (Lawler & Worley, 2011), we suggested that management thinking had entered a very new era. For all intents and purposes, OD did not even exist during the first management reset. This era was characterized by mass production technol-ogy, bureaucratic forms of organization, and a view that people were just cogs in a wheel. But along came Doug MacGregor and a host of others like him. As chronicled

in Age of Heretics (Kleiner, 1996), these radicals suggested that the traditional command and control model was “leaving money on the table.” By assuming people were cogs in a wheel, they missed out on an important source of productivity and profit. OD mattered during the second reset as the “high involvement organiza-tion” emerged. Characterized by self-managed teams, much flatter structures, decentralized decision making, and other forms of empowerment, high involvement organizations were much more profit-able. They still are today, and it begs the question, “Why aren’t there more high involvement firms?” If OD was so suc-cessful in helping organization build high commitment-high performance organiza-tions (Beer, 2009), then why are not more of these around?

The answer is very insightful along two dimensions. First, there is a natural resistance to relinquishing power. The command and control organization central-izes power, and as Charles Perrow (1979) said years ago (and I am paraphrasing here), “those who ignore how well bureau-cracy embeds power in the hands of a few at the top of the organization do so at their own peril.” Second, both the command and control organization and the high-involvement organization view stability as the source of effectiveness. Despite the rhetoric around the change-ability of the high-involvement organization, they are just as committed to stability as the com-mand and control firm. Together, power and stability are a very difficult combina-tion to challenge.

5TowardaRelevantandInfluentialOD

But Lawler and I argued that there was a “new normal” emerging. In addi-tion to globalization, workforce changes, and technological changes that are driving the need for “agile” organizations, there are also forces of social responsibility and ecological health driving the need for responsible organizations. The new normal is characterized by lots and lots of change and increased accountability for “sustain-able effectiveness.” That is, we not only will expect organizations to be effective over long periods of time (which will require agility) but to be effective along a “triple bottom line” metric of performance. Not just economic, but social and ecological.

I argued, in the 2011 keynote address, that OD had perfected “organizationAL development” but needed to spend more time perfecting “organization develop-ment.” As a field, we know how to manage change, build teams, feedback survey data, assess culture, address diversity issues, create visions, appreciate our strengths, and bring large-groups together for deci-sion making. And my criticism of the field was that we keep trying to perfect things that already work well enough. How many versions of large-group interventions do we need?

What we do not know how to do is understand an organization’s strategy and organization design and be able to say what capabilities an organization needs to become more agile or more responsible. How does any particular organization need to change in order to develop? It is much more about organization evolution and strategic change than micro-interventions.

We need to stop looking down into the organization and trying to change people’s behaviors, and start looking at the organiza-tion design that guides people’s behaviors. We need to stop colluding with managers that a change in culture can occur without change in strategy, structures, processes, and performance management systems.

We learned a long time ago – at least I hope we learned this – that putting people in T-groups was a great method of personal growth and awareness, but when we put them back into a system that produced dysfunctional behaviors or feelings of unworthiness those behaviors and feelings

returned. Are we still making that mistake today? Or are we paying attention to the strategy and organization design issues that will truly unleash human potential in an age that is crying out for this work?

If not us, then who? (The alterna-tive answers to that question make me shudder…)

By marrying our intimate knowledge of process with the powerful concepts of strategy and organization design, a relevant and influence force for positive economic, social, and ecological change can be unleashed.

References

Beer, M. (2009). High commitment-high performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cummings, T., & Worley, C. (2009). Orga-nization development and change (9th ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage Publishing.

Feyerherm, A., & Worley, C. (2008). Forward to the past: Reclaiming OD’s influence in the world. OD Practitioner, 40(4), 2-8.

Kleiner, A. (1996). The age of heretics. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Lawler, E., & Worley, C. (2011). Management Reset. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Perrow, C. (1979). Complex organiza-tions (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Worley, C., & McCloskey, A. (2006). A pos-itive vision of OD’s future. In B. Jones, & M. Brazzel (Eds.), The NTL handbook of organization development and change (pp. 501-504). San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer.

Christopher Worley, PhD,isaSeniorResearchScientistwiththeCenterforEffectiveOrganizations,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia,andaProfessorofManagementintheMasterofScienceinOrgani-zationDevelopmentprogramatPepperdineUniversity.Worleyconsultswithorganizationsinthehealthcare,hightechnology,andnaturalresourceindustriesonstrategyandorganizationdesign.Heistheco-authorofOrganiza-tion Development and Change,thelargestsellingtextbookinthefieldoforganizationdevelop-ment.Histwomostrecentbooks,Built to ChangeandManagement Reset,wereco-authoredwithEdLawler.Worley’spresentationstotheAcademyofManagement,theODNetwork,andTheConferenceBoardhavefocusedonbothschol-arlytopicsaswellaspracticalapplications.Hecanbereachedatcworley@marshall.usc.edu.



ByMarisaSanchez In our complex environment, we find increasing instances and opportunities for both inter- and intra-organizational collaboration. With advances in technology, the world is becoming smaller and we are experiencing in very tangible ways that we are interconnected economically, socially, and politically. To solve complex problems as well as to harness greater opportunity, we must break out of our isolation and join with one another. The increasing number of large-scale partnerships across entire sectors of government, industry, and non-profit, both domestically and internation-ally, is a testament to this movement. To be successful in this environment, organiza-tions must learn how to collaborate well with others.

As an organization development and change management consultant who frequently works with federal government agencies, I often facilitate change proj-ects that result from mandates levied on agencies by oversight organizations such as the Government Accountability Office, Office of Management and Budget, and offices of inspectors general. These change recommendations often demonstrate real insight into the underlying problems an agency may be experiencing. However, my own preferences for participation and engagement cause me to believe that these recommendations would be even more powerful and relevant—not to mention more often implemented—if the agencies themselves were able to collaborate with the oversight organizations to examine the issues and formulate solutions. It was with this idea in mind that I began to research

how organizations collaborate when one organization has power over another. Spe-cifically, what factors enable collaboration within a hierarchical organization system? How are problems framed and who frames them—and to whom? How are solutions developed and who participates? What does collaboration feel like when one organiza-tion has legitimate power over another?

This article is a précis of my research and consequent dissertation on interorga-nizational collaboration and power. The results of the research indicated that col-laboration is not simply a series of prescrip-tive steps to follow when one organization wants to partner with another; instead, col-laboration is a way of being. Collaboration is a behavioral result of having a collabora-tive culture, one that embraces particular values, principles, and behaviors that together, not only promote collaboration, but support an expectation of collaboration.

Research Background

Although I searched for successfully col-laborating government agencies within a hierarchical system to include in my research, I was met mostly with responses such as “that kind of collaboration would be really valuable, but I’ve never seen it here.” In two instances where I did find success stories, the organizations’ legal advisors did not allow external research. Given my research time constraints, I welcomed an offer by a nonprofit organiza-tion to study collaboration of its parent and subsidiary organizations.

The North American Family Institute

A Collaborative CultureCollaboration Is Not Something Organizations Do, But a Way of Being

“The results of the research indicated that collaboration is not simply a series of prescriptive steps to follow when one organization wants to partner with another; instead, collaboration is a way of being.”

7A Collaborative Culture: Collaboration Is Not Something Organizations Do, But a Way of Being

(NAFI) is a human services organization that partners with state agencies and other nonprofit organizations to provide alterna-tive services to youth and young adults demonstrating emotional and behavioral problems. NAFI’s mission is to “create community environments based upon principles of dignity and respect that help children, adults, and families to grow and change in order to better their lives and the world around them” (www.nafi.com). NAFI accomplishes this mission by viewing behavioral issues as systemic problems that require systemic solutions. Programs are designed around the creation of cohesive communities with shared goals.

Four subsidiary organizations and a parent organization comprise NAFI. Each of the four subsidiaries is incorporated in a separate state in New England and each of the subsidiaries and the parent organi-zation have their own boards of directors, although the nomination of each board is under the control of the parent organiza-tion. The Executive Director position of each of the subsidiaries is an employee of the parent, thus creating a linking orga-nization structure between parent and subsidiary (Figure 1).

The research focused on identifying potential factors that enabled collaboration between the parent and subsidiary corpora-tions to solve two specific issues: (1) spend-ing and budget reduction, and (2) change in health insurance plan. Below are brief descriptions of each initiative.

Spending Reduction Initiative. NAFI’s spending reduction initiative began in earnest at the end of 2008 with organiza-tion-wide discussion and 2-year implemen-tation of spending reduction across the corporations and parent to respond to state decreases in requests for services as a way to reduce state budgets. States were not only decreasing dollars spent on services but increasing qualification levels for indi-viduals to be eligible for service. I inter-viewed those individuals at NAFI primarily involved in discussions about spending, such as executive directors; assistant executive directors; directors of operations, programs, and finance; chief financial officer; and president. Although not all

subsidiaries were suffering from financial losses, the parent and all subsidiaries collaborated with one another to reduce their own spending in the best interest of the entire organization. The spending reduction initiative was then followed by a planned budget reduction for the following fiscal year.

Health Insurance Initiative. In the past decade, as health insurance costs have risen, NAFI had elected to absorb the majority of those costs and pass only very incremental cost increases on to its employees. The generous Cadillac health plan was viewed as a substantial benefit to employees and aligned with values of covering costs for preventive and well-ness services. With the national economic recession and recent NAFI budget reduc-tion in 2009, NAFI found it difficult to continue to shoulder the health insurance cost burden. The health insurance initiative began in earnest in September 2009 with presentations by NAFI’s insurance broker and meetings with the executive team, resulting in agreement that costs could not be absorbed and further examination of alternatives was needed. In January 2010, a committee was formed to research NAFI-specific data on rising health insurance premiums and opportunities for cost sav-ings. For my research purposes, I primarily interviewed individuals who participated

on this committee as well as executive directors and assistant executive directors of each corporation about their perceptions of this initiative as a collaboration across parent and subsidiaries.

Before moving into the research results, I provide background on the terms collabora-tion and interorganization. The literature differentiates between collaboration, cooperation, coordination, partnership, net-working, mergers, acquisitions, and other interorganizational relationship types, where collaboration takes on a high degree of mutuality, joint creation, risk, and trust. Specific studies have been conducted by Wood and Gray (1991) and Thomson (2001) to research definitions of collabora-tion found in the literature. Wood and Gray reviewed nine articles across six theoretical perspectives and identified common ele-ments of various definitions of collabora-tion: autonomous stakeholders; interactive process related to a change-oriented rela-tionship; shared rules, norms, and struc-tures; preference for action or decision; and domain (or problem) orientation. Thomson conducted an extensive literature review and field survey to empirically derive a definition of collaboration. In her work, she identified five key dimensions of the defini-tion: governance, administration, capacity, mutuality, and trust. Definitions in the literature did not differentiate between

Figure1: NAFIOrganizationStructure


http://www.nafi.com

individual, group, or organizational col-laboration and seemed to account for all three, either generally or specifically.

Terminology such as interorganiza-tional and multi-organizational is used in many ways throughout the literature. Eden and Huxham (2001) state that “the extent to which any group may be considered multi-organizational is a matter of degree rather than clear definition. … The defini-tion of ‘organization’ within the context of a multi-organizational setting is always likely to be open to many interpretations.” Thus, although my research is set within one larger organization, the collaboration I studied was of the interorganizational parent-subsidiary relationship.

A Collaborative Culture

The research identified key factors that promoted interorganizational collabora-tion at NAFI in the two specific initiatives of study: organizational values, leader-directed engagement, a sense of family, and employee longevity. Each of these factors is summarized below, but it is important to understand these factors as part of an integrated whole that describes a complex organizational culture. This culture incorporates a common language and expected ways of working with one another; these expectations of behavior are reinforced through the leadership of the organization.

Values of the Normative Community Approach. At the heart of NAFI’s work is its normative community approach, an experiential treatment philosophy that guides the way frontline employees work with their clients (youth and young adults with behavioral issues) and their clients’ families and communities. The intent of this approach is to bring individuals together in community, have members develop norms of living that support the community’s mission, and support one another in living according to those norms. Individuals have responsibility to the community in achieving its mission, and the community has responsibility to sup-port the individual in achieving his or her goals. The founder of NAFI developed the

normative community approach as a family therapist prior to founding the organiza-tion. This approach evolved to include theories about community development, individual development, group process, and change management. Core values embedded in the normative community approach are as follows: » People can change » People can grow » People always have more to learn » People have inherent skills and talents » People have inherent dignity and worth » People need to belong to communities » People are influenced by their

communities » People need positive communities to

thrive and grow » The way to influence people is by

engaging and involving them » People have the right to their own

opinions » People deserve respect » Diversity is a source of strength

NAFI social workers bring their clients together with one another as well as with their own network—families, teachers, other important members in the clients’ lives—to create communities. These com-munities adopt the values of the normative community approach and practice respect, equality, direct and intentional commu-nication and feedback, and transparency. Communities are empowered to create their own mission, vision, shared goals, policies, procedures, and expectations, and hold each other accountable to these agreements. Group work conducted within

interactive community meetings encour-age the community to talk about, review, and revise norms to ensure consistency with the community’s vision and mission and to help each other learn to respect and abide by the norms. This group process, along with individual competency building, teaches community members to educate and advocate for themselves, exercise greater control over their lives, increase personal resiliency and overall wellness, and adopt positive attitudes and belief systems for the good of the community. Membership in the community comes alongside responsibilities to oneself and to the community, and is positively reinforced by fulfilling individuals’ needs to belong.

NAFI operates using a concept of parallel process, borrowed from psycho-therapy, which is the recognition that behavior demonstrated in one relationship plays out in another relationship. With this recognition, the internal management of the NAFI organization is aligned with

the values and principles of the normative community approach used with NAFI’s clients. Employees are made responsible for the good of the organization and the organization must be respectful of individ-ual needs and diversity. Likewise, from an interorganizational perspective, subsidiary corporations must act with the good of the entire organization in mind; however, the parent also empowers subsidiary corpora-tions to make decisions in their own best interest and the parent supports activities to increase success of each subsidiary. Evidence of this global collaborative culture

This group process, along with individual competency building, teaches community members to educate and advocate for themselves, exercise greater control over their lives, increase personal resiliency and overall wellness, and adopt positive attitudes and belief systems for the good of the community. Membership in the community comes alongside responsibilities to oneself and to the community, and is positively reinforced by fulfilling individuals’ needs to belong.


was observed at all levels of the organi-zation: between parent and subsidiary, among subsidiaries, within subsidiaries.

Research participants frequently responded that the parallel process of the normative community approach was the key factor in promoting collaboration across parent and subsidiary. The values within the normative community approach most cited as contributors to NAFI’s collab-orative culture by the research participants were the following: » Belief in involvement. Involving those

affected by a decision or change not only yields smarter solutions but also reinforces the value of the individual. This belief underlies the expectation that the parent organization will involve the subsidiary corporations in planning, problem-solving, and decision-making.

» Local control or autonomy. This organization saw a close relationship between collaboration and autonomy: to collaborate, one must have owner-ship over one’s contributions toward a shared goal and be able to demonstrate one’s unique capabilities in support of that shared goal.

» Organization-as-community. The nor-mative community approach NAFI uses with its clients is based in part on the importance people place on belonging, so this sense of being part of the larger community is intentionally created and sustained. Using the parallel process, each subsidiary sees itself as part of the larger NAFI organization. This sense of organization-as-community engenders desire for shared success and unity.

» Enjoyment and pride in helping. Many research participants expressed a genu-ine sense of pride and joy about oppor-tunities for one part of the organization to help another part of the organization. They recognize when they have been helped in the past and feel proud to be able to return the favor.

Leader-Directed Engagement. A second key factor this research identified in promoting interorganizational collabora-tion was the prominence of leader-directed engagement, in which leaders set up conditions for collaboration by engaging

the organizations in joint problem-solving, ensuring involvement by individuals from the parent and subsidiary organizations. For example, the president of NAFI named a cross-organizational committee to focus on the health insurance plan initiative; this ensured representation from various organizations, management levels, and job types. In another example, the president compelled all organizations, parent and subsidiary, to participate in the spending reduction initiative, even those subsidiar-ies that were not experiencing immediate budget constraints. Again, this leader-

directed engagement reinforced the culture of NAFI as a community that pulls together and collaborates with one another for the greater good.

Sense of Family. The interviews that I con-ducted revealed a strong theme of family amongst the NAFI employees. There was a sense that organizations help each other because that is what one would do in a family—care for one another, support one another, encourage one another. The sentiments expressed in the interviews indicated high levels of trust, protection, wanting the best for one another, and a deep bond or connection in service of the organization’s mission.

Although many participants cited the focus on family as a factor in promoting collaboration, it also could be suggested that collaboration reinforces the sense of family. Having shared goals, being involved in the process, having open lines of com-munication and sincerely soliciting feed-back are all parts of collaboration that help to strengthen relationships and, perhaps, strengthen this sense of family.

Longevity. A surprising data point cropped up during my interviews with NAFI employees across the parent and subsidiary organizations—employees stay with this organization for a very long time. Many have been part of the organization for decades—I spoke to very few people who had been in the organization fewer than 10 years. The president founded the organiza-tion almost forty years ago and still serves as an active leader.

What are the implications of this employment longevity? First, it reinforces the organization’s culture. As new

employees join the organization, they are formally and informally inculcated into the culture of values and principles of the nor-mative community approach and the inter-nal parallel process. In fact, several leaders named themselves and others as “culture bearers” and viewed that as a very impor-tant role in the organization. Second, such longevity allows individuals to remember when one part of the organization helped another part in the past. They are not only eager to return the favor, but know that it was only through such collaboration toward a shared goal that parts of the organization survived difficult times. The organizational memory reinforces the importance of collaboration for the good of the overall organization. This organiza-tional memory is so entrenched that even newer employees refer to this history as a way to communicate the need for collabora-tion. Finally, as long-time employees have held different positions in both the parent and subsidiary corporations, they have come to know each other in many different roles—sometimes reporting to each other, sometimes working within the parent

Although many participants cited the focus on family as a factor in promoting collaboration, it also could be suggested that collaboration reinforces the sense of family. Having shared goals, being involved in the process, having open lines of communication and sincerely soliciting feedback are all parts of collaboration that help to strengthen relationships and, perhaps, strengthen this sense of family.


organization, sometimes in a subsidiary. Employees have built trust based on a long time of appreciating each other’s strengths and shoring up each other’s weaknesses.

Although the research suggested that longevity promotes collaboration, it could also be suggested that the collaborative environment at NAFI has supported the long tenure of its employees. If this orga-nization is unique in the way it operates, applying democratic and developmental norms, the individuals who appreciate and thrive in this environment will feel lucky to have found this organization and stay. In fact, one participant reported that it is not unusual for younger employees who leave NAFI to return after recognizing how unique the culture is that this organization embraces.

In summary, this research illustrated that at NAFI, collaboration is not simply bolted onto existing operations when the need arises, but is a strong force through-out the organization’s culture. Several themes tie these results together:1. The values and principles of this

organization’s culture promote col-laboration not only in times of crisis or opportunity but every day.

2. The collaborative culture, employment longevity, and sense of family reinforce one another.

3. Leaders use authority to promote collaboration.

4. Collaboration requires autonomy.

Challenges of Collaboration

A secondary result of this research was the acknowledgement that collaboration comes with some negative consequence. First, it takes longer to collaborate than to follow a mandate, so enough time must be allo-cated to allow for the sharing of ideas and consensus decision-making. Collaborative efforts require disciplined approach to con-tinually check in with one another about everyone’s understandings of decisions made and potential unintended variations in interpretations, so a second challenge cited was opportunities for miscommuni-cation. Another challenge named by several leaders was engaging while retaining authority and responsibility. At the end of the day, leaders are accountable for the performance of the organization, and they cannot give that up when they move from a directive to a collaborative style. Leaders must genuinely open up conversation and empower people to collaborate with one another while retaining the direction and shaping the conversational agenda. Finally, participants cited the effort involved in negotiating the interests of various stake-holders in collaboration. Inevitably, difficult issues must be addressed at a personal level, including turf issues, different priorities, and resistance to change. Even the different ways in which people prefer to reconcile differences bring a host of challenges. Continually going back to the shared goal can help the negotiation, but it is a constant process.

It became apparent to me that these

challenges are an inherent part of col-laboration. They should not be perceived as negative consequences that must be minimized or eliminated for more suc-cessful collaboration but recognized as ever-present elements of collaboration and, perhaps, part of the collaborative culture itself. Borrowing from Carl Jung’s concept of shadow, I metaphorically relate the chal-lenges of collaboration as the shadow side of collaboration, challenges that individu-als experience as difficult and undesirable yet must be integrated with the conscious factors that promote collaboration (see Figure 2).

Although this Jungian metaphor is far from a perfect fit, it facilitates understand-ing of how to not only accept but embrace these challenges. For example, the time to collaborate will most likely take longer than the time for one individual in power to impose a decision. Healthy collabora-tion allows for this time, acknowledging it as a necessary component of collaboration rather than attempting to minimize it. Organizations should incorporate this time into their planning and even leverage posi-tive aspects about the time involved in col-laboration to yield other benefits, such as building relationships or allowing ideas to emerge. Each of these challenges similarly cannot be denied but must be recognized and even embraced as part of the collabora-tive culture.

Implications and Future Research

The purpose of this research was not to determine whether or not organization change is more successful in a collabora-tive environment but to investigate the factors that promote collaboration. The literature on collaboration is heavy with processes to facilitate collaboration, or lists of characteristics that authors suggest must be present for collaboration. Much of this literature suggests invoking these processes or developing these characteris-tics when the need for collaboration arises. My research with the NAFI organization revealed a culture of collaboration that is a constant way of being, not one that is turned on and off. According to Mankin and Cohen (2004), the best collaborations

Figure2: RelatingFactorsandChallengesofCollaboration

Effort to NegotiateInterests

Time

Engagement While Retaining Authority and Responsibility

Opportunity forMiscommunication


occur when organizations work on being good collaborators themselves.

NAFI’s culture, steeped in values of involvement, autonomy, helping, and being part of a community, was cited as a key factor in promoting interorganizational collaboration within the organization’s parent-subsidiary structure. However, this research was limited in its small sample size. More research on interorganizational collaboration across various organiza-tions and organization types is needed to learn more about factors that promote collaboration within hierarchical configura-tions. I list several possibilities for future research below: » Increase the sample size and use a

methodology that identifies factors that promote collaboration across a number of cases that report successful collaboration across legitimate power configurations.

» Examine cases from other industries, as the results of this research seemed inextricably tied to the values and principles of the work of the organiza-tion, particularly of social work and psychotherapy.

» Use an ethnographic approach to observe the organizations at various times throughout one or more initia-tives, allowing the researcher to docu-ment activities and behaviors rather than, or in addition to, collecting indi-vidual perspectives about past activity.

» Focus on how collaborative cultures develop or evolve over time. For exam-ple, a case study of the NAFI culture, collecting data about important events and leaders in its history, might reveal more about the evolution and sustain-ment of this collaborative culture.

In conclusion, I turn back to my original research interest and my work in the fed-eral government space. As I reported my

findings to colleagues, many suggested that results such as sense of family, organiza-tion-as-community, and engagement do not translate well to the bureaucracy of government. Although I recognize some parts of government must operate from a culture of enforcement or audit, that type of culture does not need to be predominant across most agencies. As with most orga-nization leaders today, government leaders focus much of their time on transforming process and practice and working across organization lines to achieve extraordinary missions. Many government employees have very long careers with one or more agencies and often do experience a sense of family within their own divisions.

Although this study is limited in its ability to be generalized to other organiza-tions, the results have left me with hope that a widespread culture of collaboration can apply to government organizations and that government leaders—particularly career employees—could leverage their own leadership authority to build and develop collaborative cultures. Such orga-nizations would view collaboration not as something an organization does when needs or opportunities arise but as a way of being.

Representative References

Eden, C., & Huxham, C. (2001). The negotiation of purpose in multi-organizational collaborative groups. Journal of Management Studies, 38(3), 19.

Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding com-mon ground for multiparty problems (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Linden, R. M. (2002). Working across boundaries: Making collaboration work in government and nonprofit organiza-tions (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lukes, S. (2004). Power: A radical view

(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mankin, D. A., & Cohen, S. G. (2004). Business without boundaries: An action framework for collaborating across time, distance, organization, and culture (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mattessich, P. W., Murray-Close, M., & Monsey, B. R. (2001). Collabora-tion: What makes it work (2nd ed.). Saint Paul, MN.: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

Thomson, A. M. (2001). Collaboration: Meaning and measurement (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://worldcat.org/oclc/48999272

Wood, D. J., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collabora-tion. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 24.

Marisa Sanchez, PhD, isaninde-pendentconsultantandbringsover20yearsofexperienceinstrategicmanagementandorgani-zationdevelopmentconsultingtoboththepublicandprivatesectorsinWashington,DC.SherecentlypublishedherdissertationoncollaborationandpowerentitledInterorganizational Collaboration within a Hierarchical Configuration of Parent and Subsidiary Corpo-rations,uponwhichthisarticleisbased.Shecanbereachedatmarisa@marisa-sanchez.com.


http://worldcat.org/oclc/48999272

http://worldcat.org/oclc/48999272


“Traditionaldecisionmakinginvolvesasingledecision;DDMs(DynamicDecisionMaking)involvecontinualdecisionseachwithtask-relatedtradeoffs.InthissenseDDMisacompletelydistincttypeofdecision-makingwhereeverysmallchoiceisconsideredadecision.”

Cognitive AgilityAdapting to Real-time Decision Making at Work

ByDarrenGoodandBaubackYeganeh

Change and complexity continue to increase within organizational contexts. Scholars and practitioners have increased support of leader development initiatives to meet these environmental demands. They have strongly advocated terms such as adaptability, flexibility, and resilience as skills and abilities required for success in the modern business world. While many leadership training and development practices aim to build aspects of adapt-ability, most focus on competency develop-ment and neglect how to manage the mind within dynamic conditions (Kimball & Holyoak, 2000). Learning to adapt within the dynamic current of a real-time task is important, as outside influences continue to transform seemingly static situations into complex environments. This article seeks to address such conditions by focus-ing on real-time adaptation within dynamic decision-making tasks. We suggest cognitive agility—the individual capacity to mindfully practice openness and focus, as a skill to meet these demands.

Real-Time Adaptation

Adaptability is a skill of adjusting pro-ductively to change in the environment. In most cases scholars and practitioners examine adaptability by observing per-formance adjustments across tasks, over stretched periods of time. For instance, they often discuss adaptive performance in relation to a new role at work, the integra-tion of a new technology, or changing busi-ness priorities (Pulakos, Arad, Plamondon, & Donovan, 2000). Yet with unprecedented

increases in change and information, even predictable tasks now change in real time.

Take Jacob for instance, a media direc-tor at a web-based advertising solutions company. He runs a weekly team meeting with his six account managers. In the meeting, each of these account managers are connected to external sources of information by wireless handheld devices, thus increasing the number of inputs and potential uncertainties. The account man-agers serve as representatives to an array of client systems, each under massive pres-sures in dynamic and uncertain markets. As a result, the complexity and constant access to real-time information impacts the course of the meeting. Jacob must make sense of all this while filtering it through the strategic lens of the organization. This requires him to explore new opportunities and drive existing strengths en route to improved customer service. So while it is true that Jacob must adapt to the turbulent environment of the new media market-place, he must also adapt to the ongoing dynamism that exists in the meeting. He has to use available information while maintaining a coherent process. How does he do this? How does he become better at managing within such a context? This is just one of many daily scenarios that leaders at all levels confront. It presents a need to focus on real-time adaptation in a dynamic context.

Dynamic Decision Making

Dynamic decision making (DDM) is a type of decision making that happens in

13CognitiveAgility:AdaptingtoReal-timeDecisionMakingatWork

environments of increased uncertainty and information load. DDM is characterized by tasks that contain real-time continual change, ambiguity, interdependency, and time constraints, all resulting in a series of ongoing decisions (Brehmer, 1992) (see Table 1). When operating in such an environment, the information that impacts managerial decision-making tends to be more opaque due to hidden and contradic-tory information. In the example above, Jacob does not necessarily see all the infor-mation that is impacting the positions and concerns of his account managers.

Traditional decision making involves a single decision; DDMs involve continual decisions each with task-related tradeoffs. In this sense DDM is a completely distinct type of decision-making where every small choice is considered a decision.

While it is true that Jacob has decided the agenda for the meeting, he is also mak-ing a series of decisions that dictate the unfolding events of the meeting. This is based in part on where he places his atten-tion, the questions he asks, and the incom-ing information he attends to or avoids. For instance, while Jacob is asking for updates from each of his account managers, he notices that one of his account managers, Natalie, is fidgeting in her seat. He scans the room and decides Natalie’s behavior is distinct enough to inquire about. She is slightly uncomfortable but willing to share some important information that changes the perspective of the other account man-agers’ reports. Jacob could easily miss or

ignore this data, which would also create a different course direction within the meeting. Every attention point shifts the environment.

In the past, scholars studied DDM contexts by examining fighter pilots, surgeons, firefighters and the like. However today’s organi-zational landscape has become so complex that information and dynamism continue to creep into various task demands, making DDM a recurring reality of managerial life. While the intensity and/or danger levels in a typical organization obviously differ from these other professions, the basic character-istics are becoming more and more similar. Therefore understanding work contexts through a DDM lens is useful in order to help develop adaptable leaders.

DDM-related tasks present individu-als with a series of continuous decisions. Due to the ongoing dynamism, each decision, however small, presents various task-related tradeoffs (Tverskey, Sattath, & Slovic, 1988). From a cognitive perspec-tive, when the mind pays attention to one aspect of the environment it is inherently giving up an alternative line of focus (End-sely, 1995). As a result, cognitive capacity becomes more limited in the face of grow-ing complexity (Van de Ven & Poole, 1988). Additionally each action taken, no matter how small, alters the task environment. As Jacob asks one manager for an update, the information provided will impact his perception and behavior. Yet, given the rates of change and incoming data, the context is constantly shifting, regardless of what managers do. Subsequently, this becomes a classic learning paradox with no perfect choice. DDMs pressure managers to continually choose to let go or hold on – to be open or focused. Unfortunately these choices tend to happen automatically, at times sacrificing performance.

Enter Cognitive Agility

Cognitive agility is a tool that helps lead-ers perform well in a DDM context. It represents an individual’s capacity to

flexibly operate with openness and focused attention.

A dynamic, information-rich environ-ment requires being able and willing to seek out new information. Yet continually paying attention to new information will eventually lead to distraction. Focused attention, on the other hand, is also vital, since depth of information can be critical to successful task accomplishment. Yet too much focus will lead to missing important information in a changing context. Gather-ing new information (i.e., openness) and sticking to a coherent cognitive thread (i.e., focus) are both essential for success in such an environment. Therefore, an indi-vidual must be able to flexibly use open-ness and focus according to the shifting needs of the environment. In fact research at Case Western Reserve University helps support this claim (Good, 2009). In a popular DDM simulation, individuals with higher levels of demonstrated cognitive agility performed significantly better than peers with lower levels of agility.1

There are three variables that form cognitive agility (see Figure 1). Each is nec-essary in order to carry out the smooth and frequent transition between looking for new information and staying focused. We categorize the first two variables, focused attention and openness, in terms of percep-tual and conceptual attention (see Table 2). Perceptual attention is the degree to which people consider a wide range of stimuli in the environment (Posner, 1987), while conceptual attention is the extent to which people approach a wide range of concepts (Martindale, 1995).

1. Cognitive agility using a composite score of tests for openness, focus, and flexibility demonstrated 11% unique variance in performance in a DDM beyond general intelligence

Table1:Traditionalvs.DynamicDecisionMaking

traditional dynamic

SingleDecision OngoingDecisions

Independent Interdependent

Static Dynamic

No-timepressure Real-time

Transparent Opaque

Linear Non-Linear

Simple Complex

Figure1:CognitiveAgility


1. Focused Attention is the capacity to oppose incoming distraction. Focus is associated with narrow perceptual attention (e.g., focusing the 5 senses on a particular thing) and narrow concep-tual attention (e.g., focusing on specific streams of information). For example, Jacob may keep his meeting on track by redirecting (focusing) the team’s atten-tion to the agenda.

2. Openness refers to noticing and search-ing for new information in the envi-ronment. It is associated with a wide breadth of perceptual attention and the willingness to follow new threads of data (conceptual attention). It brings together and synthesizes terms such as mindfulness, curiosity, creativity, and novelty seeking. For instance, while running the meeting, Jacob exercises openness to scan the room for various sources of information, which can be used to support the flow of the meeting.

3. Cognitive Flexibility describes the capacity to switch mental activity in favor of what is more appropriate. In DDM environments it is very easy to get stuck in the use of a single strategy. Most people tend to repeat what they are used to in the face of difficulty. This can be a particular challenge for experts, as they tend to become entrenched in how they approach familiar parts of a task (Dane, 2010). Flexibility is a necessary skill in order to quickly and effectively shuttle between being open and focused.

In the sections to follow, we suggest a road map for nurturing cognitive agility in a DDM. We stress bringing awareness to recurring DDM contexts at work, exploring the individual routines within them, and practicing intentional behaviors.

Improving Cognitive Agility

Step 1. Determine the DDM environment that you want to become more effective in

The first step is to identify a DDM context that is recurring at work (see Figure 2). It is useful to brainstorm major work initia-tives/key projects that you are currently involved in and that will continue for the next few months. For each initiative/proj-ect, write down the major tasks associated with them. For instance, a major piece of consulting work may include research, interviews, focus groups, and an action plan. Of the tasks you list, which meet the general criteria of being high in dyna-mism/change and information? Which one(s) require a constant series of small decisions?

Next, select one recurring scenario within the project that you consider partic-ularly complex and challenging. This is not a scenario that involves switching between

tasks (e.g., emails vs. phone calls). Rather it is a scenario that implicitly requires adapting to a series of real-time changes and making constant small decisions (e.g., how I hold my attention in meetings, in performance reviews, or interactions with clients etc…).

Step 2. Current challenges to focus, open-ness, and flexibility within the particular DDM environment

Focused Attention ChallengesIdentify people, ideas, outside informa-tion, and the like, that tend to distract you from the original intent of the task. What often causes you to lose the consistent cognitive thread of what you are intend-ing to do? These issues may pull you away from completing something or take you off track. Distractions may come from within you (ideas, emotions), or from the external environment such as other people, processes, information, and technology. Now which of these elements coalesce to become the most overwhelming?

Openness ChallengesFor openness, think of moments in which tunnel vision takes over. These are times when you engage a hyper-vigilant, fixed focus, decreasing your ability to adapt to a

Table2:Conceptualvs.PerceptualAttentionOpennessandFocus

Modality

ConceptualAttention

PerceptualAttention

Openness

Diverserangeofconcepts

Widerangeofstimuli

Focus

Narrowrangeofconcepts

Narrowrangeofstimuli

Figure2:ImprovingCognitiveAgility

Step 2

ChallengesofFocus

ChallengesofOpenness

ChallengesofFlexibility

Step 3

FutureUseofFocus

FutureUseofOpenness

FromExperttoFlexible

Step 1

IdentifyDDM

Step 4

PracticeAgility


DDM. What information do you too often neglect and how?

Flexibility ChallengesRegarding flexibility, try to think of ways in which you are an expert in this scenario. Often times when you are steeped in exper-tise, your routines are particularly hard to change. In what ways are you an expert in this situation? Expertise may not only come from legitimate position, it also grows from experience with a topic/context. In what ways are you a “mindless expert” - meaning you can operate without thinking about it?

Step 3. Future use of focus, openness and flexibility within the particular DDM environment

It may help to think of this in terms of c onceptual and perceptual attention (see Tables 3 and 4).

Focused AttentionMoving forward, how would you like to focus your attention in this DDM? What information is most conceptually important based on what you already know? When considering the most overwhelming dis-tractions, how will you intentionally shift your perceptual attention to something you desire to focus on (e.g., narrowing the scope of your visual and auditory attention to ignore new changes in the room)?

OpennessIn the future, how would you like to seek out new information? What are the poten-tial sources of new conceptual information (e.g., ideas, concepts, variables) in this situation? What/who else may provide data, ideas, and/or new perspectives? Ask yourself how taking on the perspective of someone else may change the way the task is approached (e.g., how would someone in marketing look at this task and think about it?). In terms of perceptual attention, try widening the scope of your visual and auditory attention to notice new changes in the room.

FlexibilityMoving forward, how will you compensate for your expertise, by softening the reins

on rigid processes? How can you focus on the process of what is going on (e.g., how people are interacting, who behaves in which ways, how events are dealt with), and shift away from the content (e.g., the task subject)? How does letting go of your expertise provide more choices for a wider range of behaviors, some of which will improve your ability to adapt to DDM environments?

Step 4. Practice Cognitive Agility

Because cognitive agility is about flexible shuttling between openness and focus, awareness is key. Therefore, it is most helpful to start with a mindfulness practice of anchoring in the moment through calm intentional breathing and engaging the five senses in order to disrupt an automatic routine (Yeganeh & Kolb, 2009). Next, practice both perceptual and conceptual shifting between openness and focus based on your analysis of specific behaviors that will best help you meet DDM demands.

Ask yourself and others if new informa-tion that you find is helpful or distracting. When distracting, remind yourself and others of your intent and narrow the focus.

Keep in mind that the more specific you can be in your behavioral goals within DDM environments, the more likely you are to practice them successfully. You will undoubtedly discover that adapting in the moment requires breaking from your plan at times. Such times are perfect opportuni-ties to practice flexibility.

Conclusion

Cognitive Agility is intentional shuttling between openness and focus in order to adapt to DDM environments. Realizing that this concept is abstract, it will clearly take some practice to reap the full ben-efits. DDM environments are sprouting up throughout organizations everywhere. Addressing them with an approach of cognitive agility puts the power back into the hands of people as active participants

Table3:BehaviorstoPracticeConceptualOpennessandFocus

ConceptualAttention

open

Approachingnewideas

Creatingnewassociations

Wideinquiry

Whatisnew/different

Resistingintention

focus

Avoidingnewideas

Supportingcurrentassociations

Narrowadvocacy

Whatissame/certain

Revisitingintention

Behaviors

Table4:BehaviorstoPracticePerceptualOpennessandFocus

PerceptualAttention

open

Raiseeyebrows

Zoomout

Visualscanning

Listeningtoall

Listeningfornovelty

focus

Furrowbrow

Zoomin

Visualnarrowing

Listeningtooneperson

Listeningforfamiliar

Behaviors


rather than passive recipients of dynamic contexts. When work environments become complex and dynamic, people often feel limited in their decision-making options. However, upon revealing the vast number of choices in how attention can be directed, one cannot help but feel more empowered.

References

Dane, E. (2010). Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise and flexibility: Cognitive entrenchment perspective. Academy of Management Review, 35, 579-603.

Endsley, M. R. (1995). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic sys-tems. Human Factors, 37, 65- 84.

Good, D.J. (2009). Cognitive agility: A real-time adaptive capacity. Academy of

Management Annual Meeting. Chicago, Illinois

Kimball, D. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (2000). Transfer and expertise. In E. Tulving & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), The Oxford hand-book of memory (pp. 109-122). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Martindale, C. (1995). Creativity and connectionism. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 249-268). Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Posner, M. I. (1987). Selective attention and cognitive control. Trends in Neuro science, 10, 13–17.

Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adapt-ability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 612-624.

Tversky, A., Sattath, S., & Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 95, 371–384.

Van de Ven, A., & Poole. M. S. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562-578.

Yeganeh, B. & Kolb, D. (2009). Mindful-ness & experiential learning. OD Practi-tioner, 41(3), 13 - 18.

Darren Good, PhD, isanassistantprofessorofappliedbehavioralscienceintheGraziadioSchoolofBusinessandManagementatPepperdineUniversity.Hisresearchfocusesonleadershipandmanagerialcognitionwithaparticularfocusonreal-timeadaptabilityandflexibility.Healsoservesasaleadershipdevelop-mentconsultantandadvisortoorganizations.HereceivedhisPhDinorganizationalbehaviorfromtheWeatherheadSchoolofMan-agement,CaseWesternReserveUniversity.Hecanbereachedatdarren.good@pepperdine.edu.

Bauback Yeganeh, PhD,isprincipalofEveridian,anorg-effectivenessconsultingfirmspecializinginleadershipandstrategy.HeteachesinDukeCEexecutiveprograms,andleadsthemindfulnessexecutiveprogramatCaseWesternReserveUniversity’sWeatherheadSchoolofManage-ment.Hisresearchfocusesonleadershipandorganizationaleffectivenesswithaparticularfocusonapplyingcognitive/behavioralstrategies.HeholdsaPhDinorganizationalbehaviorfromtheWeatherheadSchoolofManagement,[email protected].

In the future, how would you like to seek out new information? What are the potential sources of new conceptual information (e.g., ideas, concepts, variables) in this situation? What/who else may provide data, ideas, and/or new perspectives? Ask yourself how taking on the perspective of someone else may change the way the task is approached (e.g., how would someone in marketing look at this task and think about it?). In terms of perceptual attention, try widening the scope of your visual and auditory attention to notice new changes in the room.




ByLarryKroh

“Bythetimesomeonereachesthedirectorlevel,theyhavehadexperiencemanagingteams;however,myobservationisthatfewhavereceivedadequatetraininginleadinganddevelopinghighperformingteams.Theseareteachableskills,andshouldbepartofthedevelopmentplanforeverydirector-to-be.”

Crossing the Great (Management) DivideThe Business Case for Inboarding

“Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It’s the transition that’s troublesome.”

— Isaac Asimov

Could Asimov have been referring to the sometimes troublesome transition from manager to director? From my vantage point as an executive coach, this may be the most problematic in the climb up the corporate ladder. What should be an uneventful passage, can for some, be a difficult journey as they cross over the threshold into senior management.

This article examines the manager-director transition, identifies the challenges that typically first appear at the director level, and the leadership skills required to successfully meet them. It also examines the assumptions made by many organiza-tions that frequently lead to transitional “bumps” for new directors, and how these can be avoided through Inboarding.

Why is the Manager-Director Transition so Problematic?

Companies assume too much. The word “assume” has been called the most danger-ous word in the management lexicon, and appears to be especially true in the manager-director transition. Many compa-nies assume the director’s role as merely an extension of previous managerial roles (e.g., more of the same, with an increase in salary, perks, and a larger office). The tran-sition is largely treated as a non-event; with an unstated assumption that new directors should be able to figure out the differences for themselves, and implicitly assume that

technical expertise and previous manage-rial experience will be enough.

This laissez-faire approach may have been more successful before the era of the “right-sized,” re-structured, down-sized matrix organization; however, in today’s speeded-up business environ-ment, directors often are under pressure to perform immediately with aggressive goals and deadlines, and supported by “leaner, meaner, doing more with less” organizations.

If fortunate, new directors have man-agers who provide the appropriate direction and coaching, addressing skill or perfor-mance gaps before they become problems. If the company has a “sink or swim” culture, new directors are left to their own devices.

This laissez-faire approach is even more problematic when new directors are hired from outside the company. The lead-ership challenges for the outside hires are further compounded by: » Not understanding the cultural and

political environment » Not having established key internal

networks » Not having a manager willing/able to

provide necessary coaching

The results speak for themselves. “Turn-over of externally-hired executives, director level and above, is estimated to exceed 50% within the first 18 months” (Ciampa & Watkins, 2005).

As a result of these grim turnover statistics and the substantial bottom line impact resulting from executive turnover,

18 ODPRACTITIONER Vol.44No.2 2012

many companies have turned to Onboard-ing. The Onboarding process is designed to help the outside executive hire adapt and align with the new company, quickly estab-lish networks, and avoid cultural and politi-cal landmines. Unfortunately Onboading does little to help those promoted from within—the proverbial “shoemaker’s children.”

The Business Case for Inboarding

Inboarding is a process that addresses the “shoemakers children” syndrome, ensur-ing that appropriate guidance, coaching, and training (if necessary) is provided to all newly-promoted directors. The process recognizes that gaps in job understand-ing, knowledge, and skills will likely occur, in varying degrees, for everyone segueing into the director’s chair. The process also recognizes the oftentimes abrupt change in expectations that occur for the new director.

Most moves up the career ladder are incremental. For example, an entry level professional assignment in a functional area, e.g., sales, is normally followed by increasingly more responsible assign-ments, such as a larger sales territory, big-ger customers, etc.

Similarly, the first management-level assignment generally builds on previously demonstrated technical competence and experience, adding supervisory and budget-ary responsibilities. The focus is generally short-term, tactical, and directed to the planning and implementation of product, service, and customer-related goals estab-lished by higher management. Incremental additions of management responsibility follow, adding to the scope of the position (e.g., managing a sales territory or region), accompanied by still larger budgets, and employees supervised.

There is nothing incremental about the promotion to director. Seemingly overnight the job expectations, scope of responsibilities, magnitude of operations, and complexity of decision-making can escalate rapidly, including:1. Shifting from the passenger to the

driver’s seat, assuming responsibility for leading, driving, and “owning” the function

2. Planning the future strategic direc-tion for the unit (aligned with cor-porate vision and goals), in addition to planning and directing day-to-day operations

3. Securing necessary resources and orga-nizational support to implement the plan

4. Stepping-up to directing a larger and expanded scope of operations, which frequently entails directing multiple functions, managing managers, manag-ing multiple locations, or managing globally

As a director, left-brain technical skills and knowledge become relatively less impor-tant. Right-brain leadership competencies take on a disproportionately greater impor-tance, and are essential to successfully meeting the challenges encountered at the director level.

What are the Leadership Challenges of the Director?

1. Developing a vision and mission: Creat-ing and “selling” a vision or mission represents a substantial shift from implementing someone else’s vision. As a strategic visionary, the director must help the company anticipate future needs, while simultaneously continuing to provide for current customers, products, or services. In some situations, the director will be asked to establish a new operation or function for the company, while in others; the director will be modifying an existing operation. In either situ-ation, relatively few have gained the requisite experience in previous man-agement assignments.

Key questions: Has the new direc-tor had previous strategic planning training or experience? Is the director a strong communicator? Can the director develop and communicate a compelling vision identifying beneficial changes for all stakeholders?

2. Building Support for the Mission with Stakeholders: Developing the vision and mission is not enough. The

director will need to build support among a number of key stakeholders within the company whose understand-ing, involvement, commitment, and support will be required to fund and implement the plan. In addition to the senior management team, stake-holders might include directors of key functional organizations, internal customers, direct reports, and outside consultants and vendors. Gaining stakeholder support will require the director to review the proposed mission with these stakeholders, solicit their input, address their concerns, and be open to their suggestions. Reaching out and involving these groups helps the director establish key networks, develop trust, build credibility, and collaborative relationships.

Key questions: Has the director demonstrated the ability to reach out and involve others in previous assign-ments? Does the director solicit input and ideas from others, listen to others’ opinions, encourage debate, and welcome new ideas and approaches? Does the director have well-established networks in the company?

3. Driving Mission-Related Changes through the Organization: As the mis-sion owner, the director must be pre-pared to be the primary advocate and spokesperson, leading, modeling, and driving called for changes. Frequently, these changes will impact the entire company, and require others to accept and adopt new policies, procedures, or processes. Training, encouraging, and reinforcing these changes with others throughout the organization will be required. Understanding the dynamics of change management, coupled with sensitivity to the cultural and political dynamics of the company is crucial.

Key questions: Has the director demonstrated the ability to take risks, cut through red tape, remove barriers to change, and model expected changes? Has the director had prior experience in leading a change project? What was the scope of the project?

19CrossingtheGreat(Management)Divide:TheBusinessCaseforInboarding

4. Collaborating with Others: Collabora-tion with stakeholders is the corner-stone for building organizational trust and credibility. Trust-building behaviors include: listening, involving others in decisions that affect them, soliciting their input, encouraging debate and open discussion, sharing information and resources, and encouraging win-win solutions with others.

Learning to trust others by sharing power and control through delega-tion is for many, a risky and difficult hurdle. At the director level, delegating

becomes particularly critical when the new director is assigned responsibility for overseeing a function(s) outside of the established comfort zone provided by prior experience, education, or skills. In this situation, the director must seek out and weigh the input from those with the expertise or skills (e.g., direct reports, colleagues, consultants, ven-dors) and delegate accordingly.

Key questions: Has the director demonstrated trust-building behaviors in previous assignments, treating oth-ers as colleagues not competitors? Does the director have a reputation for being a micro-manager? Does the director provide frequent communications and solicit the input from others.

5. Developing a High-Performance Team Capable of Implementing the Mission: By the time someone reaches the director level, they have had experience managing teams; however, my observa-tion is that few have received adequate training in leading and developing high performing teams. These are teachable

skills, and should be part of the devel-opment plan for every director-to-be.

The need to master these skills accelerates at the director level, particularly if the director assumes cross-functional, multi-location, and/ or multi-national responsi-bilities. This transition can happen quickly. One executive I coached went from being a manager, manag-ing 10 employees in one location, to a director, leading 7 managers and 125 employees spread over locations around the world.

Key questions: Has the director been trained to lead and build teams? Has the director previously- managed managers, managed employees in multiple locations, or managed multi-cultural operations? Has the direc-tor demonstrated the ability to coach and provide feedback to others in a timely manner?

What Leadership Competencies are Critical in Addressing these Challenges?

Success in meeting the challenges previ-ously described hinge on command of “right brain” leadership competencies. Technical competency may help get you to the director’s chair, but leadership skills will be the key to the challenges of senior management.

In Table 1 (page 21), the five chal-lenges are matched against leadership competencies representative of those often included on client 360 feedback surveys. Note that several key verbs drive these behaviors, including listening, involving, sharing, coaching, supporting, delegating,

encouraging, recognizing, and collaborat-ing. In my opinion, listening is the most important to master, as it is the skill all the others depend on.

The majority of these competencies cut across each of the five challenges. Directors scoring highly in these compe-tencies on 360 feedback surveys are better prepared to deal with the five leadership challenges described. These competencies can (and should) be taught at an earlier career stage for those being developed for executive positions.

What Organizational Barriers Get in the Way?

Ideally, the director’s manager helps the new director to clarify expectations, establish realistic goals and priorities, and provides timely training, coaching, and feedback.

In spite of good intentions, this often does not happen: 1. Companies have not always recognized

the need for a company-wide initiative to develop newly promoted directors or executives. They fail to:

a. Provide the director’s manager with the knowledge and skills required to effectively guide and coach the new director

b. Establish the manager’s mentoring and coaching role as a priority, and recognize this role through the executive incentive or bonus plan

c. Provide training for directors in a timely manner

2. Today’s business environment contrib-utes to the difficulty of scheduling qual-ity time between the new director and manager. Over-crowded meeting sched-ules, power meals, extensive travel, and frequent interruptions from electronic communications (e.g., text messages, cell phones, etc.), all take away from the quality and time available for these interactions.

Director-manager interactions are further complicated by geography when offices are located in different buildings, cities, or counties, and further compounded by differences in time zones, cultures, and language.

The need to master these skills accelerates at the director level, particularly if the director assumes cross-functional, multi-location, and/ or multi-national responsibilities. This transition can happen quickly. One executive I coached went from being a manager, managing 10 employees in one location, to a director, leading 7 managers and 125 employees spread over locations around the world.


Table1:LeadershipBehaviorandLeadershipChallenges

L E A D E R S H I P C H A L L E N G E S

Creates Builds Drives Shares BuildsL E A D E R S H I P B E H A V I O R S * Vision Support Change Power Teams

CREATES VISION

Communicatesacompellingvisionofthefuture X X X X X

Identifiesclearandbeneficialchangesforall X X X X X

Buildscommitmenttoalargercause X X X X X

Developsasharedvisionbasedoncommonvalues X X X X X

Helpsothersdevelopconfidencetosupport/mobilize X X X X X

Ensuresacceptancetoover-ridinggoalsandpurpose X X X X X

BUILDS SUPPORT

Solicitsinputandideasfromothers X X X X X

Opentonewideas/innovativeapproaches X X X X X

Genuinelylistenstoopinionsandideasofothers X X X X X

Capacitytorecognizeandunderstandotherperspectives X X X X X

Encouragesdebateandopendiscussion X X X X X

Createsenvironmentencouraginginnovation/newideas X X X X X

DRIVES CHANGE

Resultsorientedwithahighdrivetomeetgoalsandstandards X X X X X

Willingto“rocktheboat”whenchangeisneeded X X X X X

Cutsthroughredtapeandbureaucracy X X X X X

Removesbarrierstochange X X X X X

Modelsthechangeexpectedforothers X X X X X

Demonstratesflexibility X X X X X

Respondspositivelytochangesandambiguity X X X X X

SHARES POWER

Providestimelycommunicationsandupdates X X X X X

Collaboratesbysharingplans,information,andresources X X X X X

Encourageswin-winsolutions X X X X X

Developsandmaintainsextensiveinformalnetworks X X X X X

Delegateswhenappropriate X 0 X X X

Involvingothersindecisionprocessaffectingtheirwork X X X X X

Asksothersfortheiropinionandinput X X X X X

DEVELOPS PEOPLE AND TEAMS

Establishesclearvisionandmission X X X X X

Ensuresrolesandresponsibilitiesareclearlydefined X X X X X

Establishesclearperformanceexpectations X X X X X

Addressesindividual/teamperformance/behavioralissues 0 X X X X

Providestimelytraining,coaching,andfeedback 0 X X X X

Helpscolleagues/teamdealwithconflict 0 X X X X

*Representative360SurveyLeadershipBehaviors

21CrossingtheGreat(Management)Divide:TheBusinessCaseforInboarding

3. The matrix structure of the modern corporation often results in directors reporting to two different managers, frequently in different locations, and attempting to negotiate and balance conflicting priorities and goals.

4. “Leaner, meaner, doing more with less” organizations place increased pressure on directors to hit the ground running, operate with fewer resources, and take on more aggressive goals and deadlines.

While these modern-day organizational realities are not likely to disappear, com-panies can recognize and support this transition by agreeing to place a priority on getting it right.

How can Inboarding Support the New Director?

Inboarding offers a practical alternative for any size organization wanting to support the manager-director transition. Notably: » It does not require large budgets or

support staff to implement. » It does require the senior executive

team to be involved and committed to the process.

» It does require the director’s manager to have primary responsibility for guid-ing the transition and development of the new director. (Additional support can be provided with the use of either internal or external coaches.)

The following steps are suggested to estab-lish Inboarding:1. Establish a company-wide program pro-

viding transitional support for all newly promoted/hired director and executive level positions, offering:

4 On boarding services to all those hired from outside the organiza-tion, director level and above; and

4 Inboarding support to those pro-moted from within to director-level positions.

2. Create executive team ownership for developing newly-promoted directors:

4 Reflect this mentoring role and responsibility in executive job descriptions.

4 Provide recognition for this role within the executive bonus and incentive plan.

4 Offer executives relevant informa-tion or training (e.g., coaching, mentoring, etc.).

3. Create a structured process that ensures all new directors receive the same guid-ance, coaching, and support.

4 Update Director-level job descrip-tions to fully clarify all expectations.

4 Create a development plan for each new director, identifying goals and objectives, and review-ing progress quarterly during the first year.

▪ During the first three months schedule manager-director meet-ings frequently, using Skype or similar technologies to offset travel or logistical issues.

▪ Identify leadership compe-tency or skill gaps, and address through coaching and/or train-ing. The most common gaps are:

• Team leadership and team building; and

• Leadership competencies (described earlier).

▪ Ensure that introductions and networking opportunities are provided to other members of the senior management team.

▪ After six months, provide each director with a 360 feedback survey, identify performance gaps, and create a development plan, with the help of a qualified internal or external coach.

In summary, manager-director transitional problems can be largely avoided through an Inboarding process that eliminates transitional assumptions, and pro-actively ensures that everyone crossing into senior management receives timely guidance, coaching, and training.

Reference

Ciampa, D., & Watkins, M. (2005). Right from the start: Taking charge in a new leadership role. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Larry KrohisanOD&HumanResourcesconsultantwith30yearsexperienceinHumanResourcemanagementandcon-sulting,specializinginexecutivecoaching,organizationaldevel-opment,changemanagement,teambuilding,onboarding,inboarding,post-mergerintegra-tion,andleadershiptraining.HehasheldseniorHumanResourcegeneralistroleswithAmericanExpressandTheCoca-ColaCom-pany,anddirectedglobaltraininganddevelopmentforTheCoca-ColaCompany.HereceivedhisBFTfromThunderbirdSchoolofGlobalManagementinGlendale,Arizona,andB.A.fromMichiganStateUniversity,EastLansingMichigan.HeisPresidentofLarryKroh&Associates,andcanbecontactedatlkroh@leadershipexcellence today.com.




ByCynthiaWittig

“Employees’reactionstochangeareinfluencedbyanumberoffactors.Itisreasonabletoexpectemployeestoreactsincetheprocessofchangeinvolvesgoingfromtheknowntotheunknown,andwhenemployeesreact,itisimportanttodistinguishbetweenthesymptomsoftheirreactionsandthecausesbehindthem.”

Employees’ Reactions to Organizational Change

Literature indicates that a high proportion of change initiatives are unsuccessful (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Researchers generally agree that employee resistance is one of the leading causes for the failure of change ini-tiatives (Bovey & Hede, 2001b; Waldersee & Griffiths, 1996). Such findings indicate that change agents focusing on employee reactions—including resistance and accep-tance—during organizational change is of utmost importance to the success of the initiative. In response, this paper provides a model that illustrates the process of how employees’ reactions to change are formed.

Employees’ Reactions to Organizational Change

Employees’ reactions to change are influ-enced by a number of factors. It is reason-able to expect employees to react since the process of change involves going from the known to the unknown, and when employ-ees react, it is important to distinguish between the symptoms of their reactions and the causes behind them (Bovey & Hede, 2001b). Following is an analysis of three factors that research strongly identi-fies as influencing employees’ reactions to change: employees’ emotions and cogni-tions, communication, and employees’ participation in decision making. Evidence suggests that these factors explain much of employees’ reactions, arguably more than other factors present during organizational change. Although these factors are closely related and can even be considered inter-woven in many ways, each factor contrib-utes individual and important information.

Employees’ Emotions and Cognitions

Many change efforts fail since change agents underestimate the importance of the individual, cognitive-affective nature of change (Ertuk, 2008), and emotions and cognition are closely intertwined (Pessoa, 2008). The following separate yet interrelated aspects of emotions and cognitions impact employees’ reactions to organizational change: emotional intelligence, irrational thoughts, defense mechanisms, and employee attitudes.

Emotional intelligence. Emotional intel-ligence (EI) is “the capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselves and in our rela-tionships” (Vakola, Tsaousis, & Nikolaou, 2004). The role of EI in employees’ reac-tions to change is important because indi-viduals with high levels of EI experience more career success, feel less job insecu-rity, are more effective in team leadership and performance, are more adaptable to stressful events, and exhibit better coping strategies than those with low EI levels (Vakola, Tsaousis, & Nikolaou, 2004).

Irrational thoughts. Research indicates that irrational ideas are significantly and positively correlated with employees’ resis-tance to change. Individuals tend to have automatic thoughts that incorporate what has been described as faulty, irrational, or “crooked thinking” (Bovey & Hede, 2001a). During change, employees create their own interpretations of what is going to happen,

23Employees’ReactionstoOrganizationalChange

how others perceive them, and what others are thinking or intending (Bovey & Hede, 2001a).

Defense mechanisms. Defense mecha-nisms arise involuntarily in response to perceptions of danger and are adopted to alleviate anxiety (Bovey & Hede, 2001b). According to Bovey and Hede (2001b), employees who are unconsciously inclined to use maladaptive defenses are more likely to resist change. Employees with a tendency to unconsciously adopt adaptive defenses are less likely to resist change.

Employee attitudes. Vakola, Tsaousis, and Nikolaou (2004) identified multiple stud-ies in which employees’ positive attitudes toward change were vital in achieving suc-cessful organizational change initiatives. Several factors impact employees’ attitudes toward change, specifically gender, tenure, educational attainment, and social systems (Vakola, Tsaousis, & Nikolaou, 2004; Oreg, 2006). Stanley, Meyer, and Topolnytsky (2005) identified that a relationship exists between employees’ cynical attitudes and resistance.

Communication

The vital importance of communica-tion during the change process has been empirically demonstrated and generally agreed upon among theorists (Lewis, 2006). Since the success of organizational change initiatives lies in the reaction of employees, it is crucial to communicate to employees information about the change to positively influence their reactions. Poorly managed change communication can result in resistance and exaggerating negative aspects of the change. Effective communication reduces employees’ uncer-tainty, and a negative correlation exists between uncertainty and employees’ will-ingness to accept change (Elving, 2005). The amount and quality of information that is communicated to employees can influence how employees react (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Such evidence acknowledges that communi cation is a key factor, and its importance cannot be understated in impacting employees’ reactions.

Processes of Communication. There are several communication processes that impact employees’ reactions, including frequency, mode, content, and flow of communication. Gray and Laidlaw (2002) argued that the more embedded these pro-cesses are within management, the more effective the outcomes are because they enhance the quality of working relation-ships, harmony, and trust.

Social accounting. Social accounting influences the quality of the communica-tion and, therefore, impacts employees’ reactions. According to Lines (2005), social accounting is defined as the process used for explaining the reasons for the decision to those affected by the decision. Successful social accounting leads to a positive influ-ence on the likelihood of implementation success (Lines, 2005).

Leader-member exchange. An aspect of communication that impacts employees’ resistance is the leader-member exchange (LMX) relationship, or the quality of relationships between employees and their supervisors. Employees with high quality LMX accept change more readily than employees with lower quality LMX, argu-ably due to increased access to information, assistance, and involvement in decision making (Farr-Wharton & Brunetto, 2007).

Employee Participation in Decision Making

One specific method of communication that strongly impacts employees’ reac-tions is employee participation in decision making (PDM). PDM is a process in which influence or decision making is shared between superiors and their subordinates (Bordia, Hobman, Jones, Gallois, & Callan, 2004). The structural characteristics of PDM initiatives impact the degree to which the initiative affects employees’ reactions (Dachler & Wilpert, 1978).

Positive effects. Key attributes of PDM, such as open communication, expressing new ideas, shared vision, common direc-tion, mutual respect, and trust, are also suggested as the key elements in manag-ing change (Erturk, 2008). Participation

is positively associated with employees’ perceptions of fairness, which is vital for acceptance of change and commitment to organizational goals (Bordia, Hobman, Jones, Gallois, & Callan, 2004).

Type of change decision. The type of change decision presented in PDM initia-tives impacts the resulting influence on employees’ reactions to the change initiative. The positive effects of PDM on employees seem to be greater when tactical decisions (the “what” and “how” to change) rather than strategic decisions (the “if” of the change) must be made (Sagie & Koslowsky, 1994).

Spectrum of Employees’ Reactions to Organizational Change

The above literature review strongly sup-ports that a number of factors impact employees’ reactions to change. Through-out the remainder of this paper, a model of the process of how employees’ reactions to change are formed is proposed, supported by three propositions. The author also demonstrates application of this model in practice to increase employees’ acceptance of change.

Several theories support that distinct phases are encountered throughout the process of initiating change (Lewin, 1951). However, based on both the author’s experience with change initiatives in the travel industry and scientific literature, the argument that change does not occur in distinct phases is provided. Rather, change occurs as a flow of processes and endeav-ors that is not static. This perspective does not undermine the importance of Lewin’s theory of “freezing” and “unfreezing” each stage, but suggests that these states are not identifiably distinct. Therefore, consider-ing a model of change that represents a non-static, dynamic flow of processes is imperative.

Employees’ Reactions to Change: Acceptance and Resistance

Many researchers have reported findings in terms that suggest employee acceptance and resistance are concrete milestones that


can be attained, and that once attained, remain attained. Phrases such as “elimi-nate employee resistance” (Jones & Smith, 2001) and “gain employee acceptance” (Sigler, 1999) may indicate that organi-zations can reach these milestones in change initiatives in the same manner; for example, that the organization may achieve the goals of completing the initiative in the number of days allotted (the project is either completed in less or more than the days allotted). However, this is not the case in the author’s experience. Rather, the line in employees’ reactions to organizational change between resistance and acceptance is often blurred.

To enable change agents to identify employees’ acceptance and resistance, it is important to operationalize definitions of reactions to change. Resistance is a multidimensional attitude toward change, comprising affective (feelings toward the change), cognitive (evaluations of worth and benefit of the change), and behav-ioral (intention to act against the change) components (Oreg, 2006). Each of these dimensions can be characterized as rang-ing from “acceptance” to “resistance.” When these three dimensions are con-sidered in the aggregate, the result is the employees’ overall acceptance or resistance to change.

The author experienced change initia-tives in two unrelated organizations that through juxtaposition illustrate the com-plexity of employees’ reactions. In Organi-zation A, employees were mildly accepting of the organizational change and passively gave into the changes. In Organization B, employees were strongly accepting of the change and actively demonstrated their support by embracing the changes and initiating actions aligned with the initiative. One could argue that both Organization A and Organization B achieved employee acceptance of the change. However, with

such different levels of acceptance in Orga-nization A (mild acceptance) and Organi-zation B (strong acceptance), stating that each organization achieved the same level of employee acceptance is hardly plausible. Herein lays the framework of the Spectrum of Employees’ Reactions to Organizational Change (SEROC), as illustrated in Figure 1.

The fundamental concept of the SEROC is that different degrees and inten-sities of employee reactions to change exist. Employees’ reactions, as defined by the employees’ level of resistance and accep-tance, are polar opposites on a spectrum, and neutral or indifferent reactions that are mild in strength are found in the middle of the spectrum. Employees are always located on the spectrum, and their loca-tion is determined by the strength of their reaction.

The scale of the spectrum is con-sidered both ordinal and cardinal. An employee who is twice as accepting of (or resistant to) the change is on the spectrum twice as far from neutral. Since there is no “zero” of reactions to change, neutral or indifferent is considered “zero,” or equilib-rium. When analyzing employees’ loca-tion on the spectrum, one must consider that reactions to change are relative, and, therefore, one must recall the operational definitions of reactions to change.

P1: One cannot achieve minimal resistance or attain maximum acceptance as concrete milestones. Rather, employees’ reactions to organizational change, as defined by the employees’ level of resistance and accep-tance, are represented by polar opposites on a spectrum, and neutral reactions that are mild in strength are represented in the middle of the spectrum.

Traversing the spectrum

As employees’ levels of acceptance and resistance fluctuate during the change initiative, the employees’ location on the spectrum moves from one end to the other. Factors and events that impact employees’ reactions affect employees’ locations on the spectrum and are repre-sented on the SEROC by vectors exhibit-ing the same properties as vectors found in mathematical contexts, as illustrated in Figure 2 (next page). Vectors originate at the neutral point, and vectors vary in direction (pointing toward the acceptance or resistance end of the spectrum) and magnitude (large magnitudes indicate very influential factors and small magnitudes indicate mildly influential factors) depend-ing on the factors of change they represent. The employees’ position on the spectrum is determined by the overall sum of the vectors.

Although factors (represented by vectors on the spectrum) actively change employees’ levels of resistance and acceptance, change agents’ passiveness also impacts employees’ reactions. In the author’s experience, when change agents fail to introduce new factors to elicit employee acceptance of change, the intensity of the employees’ acceptance of change dwindles and they begin to resist the change. To illustrate this phenomenon on the SEROC, without the introduction of vectors to continually move employees toward the acceptance polar end of the spectrum, employees return to the neutral position on the spectrum as time passes. As employees continually regress toward neutral, it becomes increasingly easier for them to become located on the resistance section of the spectrum.

Figure1:SpectrumofEmployees’ReactionstoOrganizationalChange

Resistance

Strong reaction

Neutral

Mild reaction

Acceptance

Strong reaction


P2: Factors and events that impact employees’ resistance to change are represented on the spectrum as vectors of varying magnitudes and directions. The effect of all factors (represented by the sum of all vectors) is the employees’ level of acceptance or resis-tance to change. To illustrate the application of SEROC,

return to the author’s experience of Organi-zation A, in which employees were mildly accepting of a change initiative to restruc-ture organizational roles. Examination of the employees’ initial reactions indicated most employees resisted the change. They feared for their job security and lacked trust in management. A small group of employ-ees, however, accepted this change because they saw opportunity for promotion. Despite their acceptance of the change, the

employees were partially hesitant to accept the change and mildly resisted because they perceived that their jobs may be eliminated. Overall, the employees on the organizational level reacted to the change with somewhat strong resistance, as shown in Figure 3.

Later in the course of the change, change agents created a PDM initiative in which employees’ concerns were addressed and the employees felt they had contrib-uted to the outcome of the initiative. On the SEROC, the PDM initiative is repre-sented by a vector that moves the organi-zation toward the acceptance end of the spectrum. Because the PDM accounted for a great deal of acceptance in the employ-ees, the vector is of a large magnitude (see Figure 4, next page).

Subsequently in the course of the initiative, the change agents failed to provide employees with sufficient com-munication regarding a new policy, despite otherwise effective communication. There-fore, the employees’ acceptance of the change started to diminish and employees returned toward the resistance end of the spectrum. Because this factor only slightly increased employees’ resistance, ineffec-tive communication processes are repre-sented by a vector with a small magnitude positioned toward the resistance end of the spectrum.

After the two aforementioned factors occurred and impacted employees’ reac-tions, the employees still mildly accepted the change. This mild acceptance of the change is represented by the sum of the

Figure2:Vectorsrepresentfactorsthatinfluenceemployees’reactionstochange

Resistance

Vector representing a factor that increases

employees’ resistance to change.

Vector representing a factor that strongly increases

employees’ resistance to change.

Neutral Acceptance

Resistance

Strong reaction

Neutral

Mild reaction

Acceptance

Strong reaction

Key

Individual employees

Organization (Aggregate of Individual Employees)

Figure3:Anillustrationofanorganization’sreactiontochange(mildlyresistantreaction)


two vectors, which both originated at neu-tral on the spectrum, as shown in Figure 4. As the process described above continued and factors were continually introduced to employees, their reactions to change fluctuated and the employees’ location on the spectrum traversed the length of the spectrum.

Mutually Exclusive

Examining the relationship between resis-tance to and acceptance of change is impor-tant to fully understand the SEROC. The former example illustrates that employees can react with both resistance and accep-tance (Harding, 2005). This concept is logical because situations rarely exist with purely positive outcomes or purely nega-tive outcomes. Rather, almost all situa-tions present both positive and negative outcomes. Therefore, it is expected that even employees who are very accepting of change exhibit resistance as a result of identifying negative aspects of the change. Consequently, the argument can be made that acceptance and resistance are not mutually exclusive and employees exhibit both of these reactions. When respond-ing to the question, “did the employees accept or reject the change initiative?”, change agents should usually state that the employees partially accepted and partially rejected the change initiative.

P3: Employees react to organizational change with both micro-levels of resistance and acceptance. Employees’ overall reaction is dependent on which reaction (resistance or acceptance) is stronger.

Application

Change initiatives are dynamic, and factors continually arise that affect employee’s reactions. As a result, employees’ reactions are consistently fluctuating and never stagnant. Employees’ reactions to organi-zational change must be considered “in the moment” rather than over the span of the entire initiative (Lewin, 1951). As change agents progress through the process of the change initiative, it is important that they continually assess the employees’ reac-tions to change, diagnose the causes for their reactions (both negative and positive causes), address the employees’ concerns, and repeat the process.

When applied to the SEROC model, the latter process translates to identifying where the employees are located on the spectrum, diagnosing the reasons that determine their location on the spectrum, addressing the employees’ concerns to ini-tiate a factor (represented by a vector) that moves the employees toward the accep-tance end of the spectrum, and repeating the sequence. Continually monitoring employees’ reactions is especially impor-tant because evidence exists that change initiatives fail due to the lack of attention to human factors in the long run (Eilam & Shamir, 2005).

Limitations

Despite the model of SEROC being based in scientific literature, the model does possess certain limitations. First, one could argue that this two dimension model over-simplifies the highly complex nature

of employees’ reactions because in reality there can be n-dimensions. Factors that impact employees’ reactions do not have additive properties like one-dimensional vectors in the SEROC, but rather, the factors interact in a multiplicative, multi-dimensional manner that makes employ-ees’ reactions complex. Second, although this model is based in empirical evidence, being tested in authentic settings during organizational change initiatives would validate the model. Despite these limita-tions, the SEROC model does present a unique lens through which to view employ-ees’ reactions to change that should not be disregarded.

Conclusions

Organizational change is necessary for businesses to remain competitive in today’s market. To successfully implement change initiatives, change agents must understand that the role of employees is highly impor-tant, and employees’ reactions to change are influenced by a number of factors, including employees’ emotions and cogni-tions, communication, and participation in decision making. Change agents can apply the Spectrum of Employees’ Reactions to Organizational Change as a unique model that illustrates how employees react to change. This model is based in the concept that the degree of employees’ acceptance of or resistance is an important factor that change agents should examine. Overall, this paper provides OD practitioners important information about employees’ reactions to change, and organizations will benefit from further research in this field.

Resistance

Vector representing a factor that mildly increases employees’

resistance to change (ineffective communications).

Overall mildly accepting reaction

Vector representing a factor that strongly increases employees’

acceptance to change (a successful PDM initiative).

Neutral Acceptance

Figure4:Anillustrationofanorganization’semployees’reactionstochange(mildlyaccepting),basedontwofactorsthatarepresentinthechange


References

Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, 782, 133-141.

Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. (2004). Uncertainty during organizational change: Types, consequences, and management strate-gies. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(4), 507-32.

Bovey, W., & Hede, A. (2001a). Resistance to organizational change: The role of cognitive and affective processes. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(8), 372-382.

Bovey, W., & Hede, A. (2001b). Resistance to organizational change: The role of cognitive and affective processes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(7), 534-548.

Dachler, H., & Wilpert, B. (1978). Con-ceptual dimensions and boundaries of participation in organizations: A critical evaluation. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 23, 1-39.

Eilam, G., & Shamir, B. (2005). Organiza-tional change and self-concept threats: A theoretical perspective and a case study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(4), 399-421.

Elving, W. J. (2005). The role of communi-cation in organizational change. Corpo-rate Communications, 10(2), 129-138.

Erturk, A. (2008). A trust-based approach to promote employees’ openness to organizational change in Turkey. Inter-national Journal of Manpower, 29(5), 462-483.

Farr-Wharton, R., & Brunetto, Y. (2007). Organizational relationship quality and service employee acceptance of change in SMEs: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Management & Organization, 13(2), 114-125.

Gray, J., & Laidlaw H. (2002). Part-time employment and communication satisfaction in an Australian retail organization. Employee Relations, 24(2), 211-228.

Harding, N. (2005). The inception of the national health service: A daily manage-rial accomplishment. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 19(3), 261-72.

Jones, D. R., & Smith, M. J. (2001). Implementation of new technology. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2(10711813), 1254-1254.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social sci-ence. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Lewis, L. (2006). Employee perspectives on implementation communication as predictors of perceptions of success and resistance. Western Journal of Communi-cation, 70(1), 23-46.

Lines, R. (2005). How social accounts and participation during change affect orga-nizational learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(3), 157-177.

Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organiza-tional Psychology, 15(1), 73-101.

Pessoa, L. (2008). On the relationship between emotion and cognition. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience, 9, 148-158.

Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. (1994). Orga-nizational attitudes and behaviors as a function of participation in strategic and tactical change decisions: An appli-cation of path–goal theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(1), 37-47.

Sigler, J. (1999). Systems thinking: Orga-nizational and social systems. Futurics, 23(1), 39-66.

Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee cynicism and resistance to organizational change.

Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(4), 429-459.

Vakola, M., Tsaousis, I., & Nikolaou, I. (2004). The role of emotional intel-ligence and personality variables on attitudes toward organizational change. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(2), 88-110.

Waldersee, R., & Griffiths, A. (1996). The changing face of organizational change. Working Papers of Centre of Corporate Change, Australian Graduate School of Management, 065.

Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132-142.

Cynthia Wittig,MontclairStateUniversityMBAGraduateStudentconcentratinginMIS,specializesinthetravelindustry,whereherdiversebusinessexperiencesandeducationbackgroundcontributetoheruniqueperspectiveonODapplications.Herbusinessexperi-enceshavereinforcedthatchangeisavitalpartoforganizationalgrowth,andtherefore,sheinves-tigatedemployeereactionstoorganizationalchangeanddevisedarelevantdynamicmodel.Shecanbereachedatwittigcynthia@gmail.com.




“Itisnotthecomponentsofasystemthatgeneratethepropertiesandbehaviorofasystem,buttherelationsamongthecomponentsthatdo.Itistheswirlingmassofrelationshipswithinandamongtheelementsthatmatter.”

Stem Cells as MetaphorImplications for Organizations and Organization Development

ByStevenW.Page Stem cells are a useful metaphor for organizations. The metaphor evokes a conception of organizations as a pattern of relationships established to create value. The pattern of relationships that is established, in turn, determines the forms of value that are created. This model addresses gaps in our understanding of organizations and OD. It provides a ratio-nale for how value is created collectively. It also integrates critical human, social, and cultural factors involved in value creation.

In what follows, I first present a model of organizations. Then I develop the stem cell metaphor, translating the properties that stem cells possess to the context of organizations. The article concludes with the implications for OD and a look at the strengths of the metaphor.

A Model of Organizations

Mary Jo Hatch (1997) has provided a use-ful model of organizations (see Figure 1).

Figure1:StructureofanOrganization

Themodelcharacterizesorganizationstructureasadynamicpatternofholisticrelations.

AdaptedandmodifiedfromM.J.Hatch(1997p.15)

29StemCellsasMetaphor:ImplicationsforOrganizationsandOrganizationDevelopment

Hatch distinguishes five broadly conceived structural elements that together form the overall structure of an organization: physi-cal structure, technology, social structure, culture, and the organizational environ-ment. This overall structure, comprising both tangible and intangible elements, forms a complete organizational system.

Table 1 illustrates how this general-ized model applies to two specific but very different types of organizations: a local small town church and a large publicly held multinational corporation in the financial services sector.

This conception of an organization reinforces important notions about value creation that have been largely neglected in management and organization research. One such notion is value creation as a com-plex collective enterprise (Bridoux, Coeur-deroy, & Durand, 2011). This model also explicitly recognizes the critical human, social, and cultural factors in value creation that have been neglected at the firm level of analysis (Kianfar, Milana, & Smith, 2010).

The structural elements that comprise an organization are mutually influential and ultimately inseparable. They are in constant interaction. It is the elements plus the interactions that constitute an organization. A fundamental insight from systems theory undergirds this model. It is not the components of a system that generate the properties and behavior of a system, but the relations among the components that do. It is the swirling mass of relationships within and among the elements that matter. An organization

reduced to simply these elements, and absent the mutually influential relation-ships among them, is something consider-ably less than an organization.

This understanding of organizations is still not commonly reflected in the litera-ture. Clegg and Hardy (1996) note a clear division in the field of organization studies reflected among all the contributions to The Handbook of Organization Studies. They observed that contributions fell into either structuralist or culturalist camps, with each failing to account for the other. Other scholars have noted the same division (Lane, 2001). The structuralists stress orga-nization structure yet downplay the agency of people. The culturalists emphasize people and their cultures and the centrality of actors and action to organizational life. Both perspectives are accommodated by Hatch’s model and the stem cell metaphor, which integrate actors and action with organization structure.

The environment is considered an integral component of an organization’s structure in this model. It surrounds and encompasses the other components. It is therefore not limited to an organization’s “internal environment.” An organization is dynamically related to a broader environ-ment. The broader environment of course includes the competitive environment populated by other organizations in which an organization participates, but also the local environment in which the organiza-tion operates, and the natural environ-ment accessed by and affected by the organization.

Stakeholders are part of organiza-tion structure. It should be noted that in Figure 1 Society appears as a component of the environment. Society is subsumed as an element of the environment in Hatch’s model. I have singled it out and added it to the model to highlight its increased prominence in our thinking about organizations. To be relevant today, any model of an organization should encompass all of an organization’s stake-holders (Sachs, Groth, & Schmitt, 2010; Schneider, 2002). Society is increasingly considered a stakeholder, and the envi-ronment, if not actually a stakeholder, is also being increasingly accounted for in the stakeholder approach (Henriques & Sadorsky, 1999; Phillips & Reichart, 2000; Polonsky, 1999). The most commonly agreed upon definition of stakeholders suits the model of organizations consid-ered here: stakeholders as the groups and individuals who can affect or be affected by the organization (Freeman, Harrison, Wicks, Parmar, & de Colle, 2010).

By considering the various elements that comprise an organization and stress-ing their mutually influential and inter-dependent patterns of relations, we sense what the structure of an organization really is. It is not composed of discreet parts and solid boundaries. Rather, an organization’s structure is a dynamic pattern of holistic rela-tionships. This is a view of organizations as organizing. An organization’s structure is a plurality of elements that occur together as depicted in Figure 1. None of the ele-ments is ever absolutely stable. It is the

Table1:StructuralElementsofTwoDifferentOrganizations

Structural Element Small Town Church Multinational Corporation

PhysicalStructure Stand-alonechurch Geographicallydispersedofficebuildings

(Core)Technology Spiritualguidance,religiousinstructionandservices,charitableefforts

Financialservices

SocialStructure Hierarchical,authoritarian,specializedchurchpersonnelplusunspecializedcongregation

Matrix,decentralized,networked,encompassingthousandsofemployeesandtensofthousandsofshareholders

OrganizationalCulture Basedonsharedreligiousbeliefsandpractices;dedicationtospiritualwell-beingofparishioners

Basedonsharedidentificationaspartofaparticularbusinessorganization,commonpracticesandpolicies;dedicatedtoincreasingprofitabilityandshareprice

OrganizationalEnvironment Localsmalltown Global


pattern of co-occurrence of the elements and the shifting interrelationships among them—all of them—as they co-adapt, which defines the overall structure of an organization.

A Description of Stem Cells

In January 2008, stem cells made newspa-per, TV, radio and internet news all over the world with headlines such as “Researchers Grow a Beating Heart” (Greenfieldboyce, 2008) and “‘Spare part heart’ beats in lab” (BBC News, January 13, 2008). Sensation-ally overstated as this sounds, I myself visited the lab of Doris Taylor, PhD, the Director of the Center for Cardiovascular Repair at the University of Minnesota, who along with her colleague Harald Ott, MD, led the research effort resulting in the headlines. At Dr. Taylor’s lab I witnessed one of the most incredible sights of my life. Suspended in a tall narrow cylindrical glass container was a beautiful pink living, beat-ing rodent heart. It was from Dr. Taylor that I learned most of what I present here about stem cells. Table 2 (next page) lists the properties of stem cells and implications for organizations and OD. The properties are discussed in more detail in the follow-ing section.

One property in particular marks stem cells as remarkably different from all other cell types. Stem cells are not special-ized. Each of the more than 200 other cell types found in the adult human body are specialized, playing a specific role in form-ing muscle tissue or a particular organ, a neuron, skin, bone, etc. Stem cells are highly plastic. They are able to differentiate, or turn into, these other specialized cell types. This is what is meant when stem cells are referred to as potent (all terms in italics appear in Table 2). Stem cells begin as potential, not yet serving a specialized function as do all the other types of cells surrounding them. Stem cells can remain in a quiescent, meaning non-dividing, unspecialized state for many years. When stimulated, or induced, they can proliferate, increasing their number by creating other stem cells. Or they can be induced to spe-cialize into cells needed for maintenance or repair.

The functioning rodent heart I saw started out as a heart that had been thor-oughly drained of all specialized cells. This left only a white gelatinous heart shaped structure that was quite dead. By introduc-ing the stem cells to the heart structure, the cells were induced to do what comes naturally to them. They set upon a course of becoming increasingly specialized (the process of differentiation), resulting even-tually in a reconstituted and beating heart.

Scientists are now able to induce something akin to the reverse of the process of increasing specialization. Specialized adult cells can actually be “reprogrammed” genetically to assume a pre-specialized stem cell-like state. This new type of stem cell is referred to as induced pluripotent stem cells.

Stem cells serve to repair and regener-ate. “Aging,” Dr. Taylor said, “is a failure of stem cells.” Stem cells help to keep our organs and tissues healthy by repairing damage, even regenerating new tissue and organs. With these properties, the ability to induce already specialized cells to become unspecialized holds immense promise. If I have a critical problem with my own heart, for instance, then it may be possible to reprogram adult cells from my heart to de-differentiate into stem cell-like cells. These cells from my own heart should be able to then get to work specializing to repair dam-age and regenerating tissue without any threat of rejection.

All of these special properties of stem cells have important implications for orga-nizations and the practice of OD, covered in the next section. But first, there is even more to appreciate about stem cells. Not only are stem cells an unspecialized pool of potential able to become other types of cells, but they are capable of dividing and renewing themselves for far longer periods of time than specialized cells. Stem cells have a remarkable capacity to self-renew and increase their number. They get used, but they do not get used up. When a stem cell divides, it either divides into a couple of new stem cells, or, when a specialized cell type is needed, it divides into one stem cell and another cell. This other cell, as Dr. Tay-lor put it, “commits,” meaning it starts off down the path of specialization. Through

this process, we get specialized cells on an as-needed basis, and stores of stem cells are replenished and remain available for future needs.

Stem Cells in an Organization

What is the equivalent of stem cells for an organization? What in any organization serves as a pool of readily available poten-tial that can be stimulated to specialize in order to maintain, repair, regenerate and even reanimate an organization?

Commitment and structure. To describe how stem cells go from being potential to something specialized, Dr. Tay-lor explained how stem cells are induced to “commit.” The specializing, repairing, and regenerating come later; commit-ment comes first. Commitment requires something specific and concrete to commit to. In the case of the reanimated rodent heart, stem cells committed to the heart structure that had been drained of cells. What they specialized into was entirely dictated by the heart structure. What is akin to stem cells for an organization is, like stem cells, something that is unspeci-fied and unspecialized, mere potential until it is committed to a particular structure—a particular organization structure. The orga-nization structure determines the course of commitment.

Stem cells at work in organizations: potential value becomes created value. All organizations are constituted and sustained in order to create value. This is true however value is construed in any particular instance. Without the intent to create something of value, an organiza-tion has no purpose to exist. And without actually creating sufficient value—value greater than the opportunity cost of all the tangible and intangible resources used—an organization will cease to exist (Khurana & Nohria, 2008). An organization may get off the ground through sheer moxie and ample funding, but it will inevitably fail unless it actually turns intent to create value into real created value.

Value as used here assumes two distinct states. First, it is an intention; it is potential. As potential value, value is in a pre-formed state. Potential value is the


Table2:UniquePropertiesofStemCellsandImplicationsforOrganizationsandOD

Unique Properties of Stem Cells

Implications/Relevance

For Stem Cells For Organizations For OD

Unspecialized Stemcellsarepotential;not(yet)havingturnedintoaspecializedcelltype.

Valueexistsinpotentialformbeforeitspecializestobecomeparticularformsofcreatedvalue.

Eachstructuralelementoftheorganizationaccessespotentialvalue.Andeachstructuralelementplaysafundamentalroleindeterminingthecreatedformsofvalue.

Lookbeyondcurrentformsofcreatedvalueandcurrentstructuretoconsidervalueandstructureafresh.Thingscanalwaysbedifferentthanastheyarecurrently.

Potentialvaluecanbetappedandvaluecreationchanneledalongadifferentpathbychangestothestructureoftheorganization.However,unquestionedorunquestionablevaluesandassumptions-hiddenorexplicit-canseverelylimitoptionsforrealchange.

Whatarethesevaluesandassumptions?Dotheyneedtobemadeexplicit?Cantheybe“reprogrammed”ormodifiedtoserveneededchange?

Potent:abletoturnintoothercelltypes

Thespecializedformtheyeventuallytakeisnotpredetermined.Theycanbecomewhatevertypeofcellisrequired.

Valuecreationcanbeotherthanitcurrentlyis.

Thepossibleformspotentialvaluemaytakearenotpredetermined.Thestructureoftheorganizationisthedeterminingfactor.

Organizationalstructureisalsonotpredetermined.

Takeanhonestlookatthevaluecreatedandthestructureoftheorganization.Theyaretightlycoupled.

Howistheparticularstructureoftheorganizationdeterminingthekindofvaluecreated?

Ismoreorlessofacertainkindofcreatedvaluewhatisrequired?Completelynewkindsofvalue?Whatstructuralchangeswouldthisrequire?

Abletodifferentiate:abletospecialize

Astemcellundergoesamulti-stageprocesstoturnintoaparticularspecializedcelltype

Organizationalstructuredeterminesthepathpotentialvaluetakestobecomeparticularformsofcreatedvalue.Valueonlytakesontheformthatthestructureallows.

Whenitisdecidedthatchangetotheorganizationalstructureisrequired,theinterrelationshipsamongstructuralelementsmustbeconsidered.Itmustnotbeforgottenthatchangetoanystructuralelementaffectsthewholesystem’spatternofrelationships.Bewareunintendedconsequencesofstructuralchangestooneelementaffectingvaluecreatedbyotherelements.

Abletocommit Whencalledtoaction,theysetoffonaparticulardevelopmentaltrajectory,eventuallybecomingaspecializedcelltype.

Organizationalstructureisdeterminedbymakingcommittedchoices-deliberateandconscious,orotherwise.Theorganizationalstructure,inturn,iswhatpotentialvaluecommitsto.

Determinethevariouskindsofvaluecreatedbytheorganization.Howarevarioustypesofvaluerankedintermsofmoreandlessvaluedforms?Whobenefitsfromthecreatedvalue?Whichstakeholdersdonot?

Canbeinducedtospecialize

Incomingsignalsstimulatethemtostarttospecialize,andsignalscontinuetoprodthemtokeeptheprocessofspecializationgoing.

Signalssentbyanddeterminedbytheorganizationalstructurecausepotentialvaluetospecializeintoparticularforms.

Whataretheactioninducingsignalssentbytheorganizationalstructure?Whatdifferentsignalsneedtobesentifmoreorlessofcertainkindsofvalueordifferentkindsofvalueneedtobecreated?

continued next page


Table2 continued

Unique Properties of Stem Cells

Implications/Relevance

For Stem Cells For Organizations For OD

Proliferate Theyincreasetheirnumberbydividingintomorestemcellsthatremainunspecialized.Stresscaninhibittheprocess,andsomecomfortingandawarenessincreasingpracticescanstimulateit.

Forwhateverneed,potentialvaluecanremaineveravailable-potentialbegetsmorepotential.

Potentialvaluewillreplicateandremainavailableunlessstresscrossesacriticalthresholdandconstrainsorkillsreplication.

Iscreationofthekindofvaluedesiredbytheorganizationbeinginhibitedbytheactiveandcollaborativeconstructionofvaluekillingpractices,attitudes,andbeliefs?

Hastheamountofstressduetouncertainty,conflict,ortheinabilitytoadapttochangingcircumstances-insideandoutsidetheorganization-crossedacriticalthresholdtobecomedamaging?

Abletobederivedfromadultcells-tobecomeinducedpluripotentstemcells

Non-stemcellscanbeinducedtomimictheuniquepropertiesofstemcells.Theycanthenservetoheal,cure,andregeneratetissuesandorgansjustlikestemcells.

Bysuspendingexistingassumptions,andtiestoparticularpolicies,practices,andotherstructuralelements,newformsofvaluecreationcanbeconsideredandmadepossible.

Transformationalchangeisalwaysapossibility.

Howcanleadershipbeassistedtoassumeafreshperspective?Assesthedegreetowhichexperiencecanbesetasidebyleadershipandothersintheorganizationtoconsiderandeffectfundamentalchange.

Istheorganizationreadyandwillingtomakeanhonestanalysisandconsideralternativesanddeepstructuralchangeifrequired?

Abletoself-renewindefinitely

Theyremainperpetuallyfreshandavailablebydividingintogeneticallyidenticalcopieswhentheyareneeded.

Oncevaluespecializesintoparticularforms,itisnolongerplasticandavailableaspotential,butapoolofpotentialvalueisstillreadilyavailable.

Iftheorganizationisunabletosetasidecommitmentstocurrentformsofcreatedvalueandcurrentstructuralconstraints,itcutsoffanysignalsthatleadpotentialvaluetotakeonanyotherformsthanitalreadydoes.Thepoolofpotentialvaluewillberefreshed,butifchangeisneeded,potentialvaluewillstillcommittotheoutmodedstructure.Thepoolofpotentialvaluecouldbeavailabletotakeonwholeotherformsofcreatedvalueifallowed.

Abletorepairandhealandstaveoffdebilitatingeffectsofaging

Stemcellskeepsupplyingfreshhealthycellstomaintainthebodyinahealthystateortorepairdamagetorestorethebodytoahealthystate.

Capabilitiescanbebuiltintotheorganizationalarchitecturetohelptheorganizationremainresilient,nimble,andadaptable.

Doestheorganizationhavemechanismsinplacetofacilitatecriticalself-analysis?Doestheorganizationscantheinternalandexternalenvironmenttospotopportunityandtrouble?Arestrategiesadaptabletochangingcircumstances?

Doestheorganizationencourageandpracticerealparticipation,transparency,innovation?Iscriticalinformationreadilyavailabletopeoplethroughouttheorganization?Allhelpanorganizationtomaintainviability,repairandrenew.

Abletoregeneratetissue

Theyspecializetorepopulatedamagedtissuewithhealthycells,andeventoregenerateentireorgans.

Deepstructuralchangeistheroutetotransformationalchange.Thevaluethatiscreatedchangeswhenthestructurechanges,notvice-versa.

Dramaticchange,evenwholesystemchange,isalwayspossible,butitrequiresstrongleadership.Alignmentthroughouttheorganizationfortransformationalchangeisgreatlyfacilitatedwheneveryoneunderstandshowvalueiscreatedandcirculated.Everyonecontributestothecreationandcirculationofvalue.

RunningFoot 33

equivalent of stem cells in an organization. There is also created value: actualized value that started as potential value. In terms of the stem cell metaphor, created value is differentiated value. For potential value to become created value, it undergoes a pro-cess akin to specialization by stem cells.

Created value is specialized value derived from potential value. Just as the introduction of stem cells to the rodent’s heart structure led the stem cells to special-ize in quite specific ways, the structure of an organization causes unspecialized potential value to differentiate into special-ized value. Signals sent by the organiza-tion’s dynamic pattern of holistic relations induce potential value to specialize into specific forms of created value. Once induced, the organization’s dynamic pat-tern of holistic relations channels the path of value creation. Ideally, organization structure leads potential value to differenti-ate into forms the organization needs to survive and thrive.

The particular forms of value created by an organization are those allowed by the structure of the organization. Value creation is not necessarily about wealth creation, although that is certainly possible. Value can be defined in innumerable terms referring to both tangible and intangible benefits. It can be measured in concrete terms such as profit, revenue generation, zero defects, return on investment, cure of illness, or authoring legislation that gets passed. Value can also be described in less concrete terms that refer to things that are not as easy to quantify, but every bit as real, such as satisfaction, public order, growth and learning, happiness, feeling valued, a sense of accomplishment, or justice. In all cases, whatever the intended value may be, the intent to create value meets an organization structure. Potential value is channeled by the structure into the particular forms of created value allowed by the structure.

The Effect of Structure on Value

To quickly illustrate the fundamental effect of structure on value creation, consider the different structures of the local small town church and large publicly held

multinational corporation presented in Table 1. The environmental, cultural, tech-nological, social, and physical elements all come together in each case as completely different dynamic patterns of relation-ships. The structures of both organizations come into contact with potential value, our metaphorical stem cells, and leads potential value to specialize into quite dif-ferent forms of created value. The actual value created is vastly different in each case because the structures are so vastly different.

To provide but one example of the spe-cialized value the different structures lead to, consider profit. The church is dedicated to the spiritual well-being of parishioners and mainly engaged in the provision of spiritual guidance, religious instruction and services, and various charitable efforts that serve the local community. The struc-ture of the multinational financial services firm, however, as it was designed to do, induces value to specialize into dollars pay-able as dividends to holders of its publicly traded shares and generous salaries and bonuses paid to the CEO and other top leaders. The church could no more choose to hand out dividend checks to sharehold-ers than the multinational could decide to please its stakeholders by simply sending them home feeling spiritually uplifted. Value takes on different form in each as structure allows for each.

Organization Change and Transformation: Implications for OD

The stem cell metaphor leads us to con-sider why and how value creation could be other than it is for any organization. In our bodies, a reserve of unspecialized stem cells is always present. If we bear in mind there is an ever present reserve of potential (not yet created) value available to an orga-nization, and that the structure of the orga-nization determines how value specializes, we quickly realize that we have choices. We can choose to keep the current structure essentially intact, or channel value creation along a different path, resulting in different forms of value being created.

We can change the structure of the organization and thereby change the

specialized forms that value will take. If this is our intention, it is important to pursue change at the level of deep structure that forces the overall pattern of holistic relationships to change. The actions we take to effect major change may prove fruit-less, however, if unquestioned or unques-tionable values and assumptions limit our options. Actions then may actually conspire to keep the current structure essentially intact. This would amount to rearranging the furniture but sticking to the same floor plan. It is still the same structure; it just looks substantially different on the surface.

Consider the case of the multinational corporation, where a decision has been made to shift from a short-term focus on maximizing shareholder returns to a long-term focus on sustainability through the delivery of customer-focused value. This is a substantial shift in strategy that requires deep and profound changes to structure, particularly the cultural component. Simply announcing the shift, no matter by whom, how loud, and how often, will be ineffec-tive unless accompanied by direct action to change the overall pattern of relationships that are determining the course that value creation takes. Transforming culture entails changes to incentives, policies and proce-dures, evaluations, the kinds of informa-tion that get stored and tracked, and the information technology used and how it is used. Stories also have to change along with organizational language, and the physical environment altered to reflect and facilitate changes.

As an alternative to reconfiguring stakeholder relationships, a firm may choose to retain its current definition of stakeholders while substantially changing core technological, cultural, physical, and other social elements. This would cause the value that accrues to stakeholders to take different forms. In either case, chang-ing stakeholder relationships or keeping the same stakeholders but making other structural changes, the stem cell metaphor encourages us to plan for deep structural change, tap potential value, and commit.

The stem cell metaphor leads us to consider the strong force that links structure and value creation—the kind of value created, and for whose benefit value


is created. But what course of action does the metaphor suggest when a structure is solidly in place and values and assump-tions have long gone subterranean or are stubbornly clung to, sabotaging options for substantial change?

Dr. Taylor suggested that one of the possibilities for generating a healthy human heart is to start with a pig heart, which is about the same size as a human heart, and repopulate it with human stem cells. Because specialized cells always steadily replace the structure, we would eventually end up with a fully human heart.

In organization transformation, we need to completely redefine the kind of value cre-ated, and totally reorient the organization to do so.

We need to reprogram a mature (already fully specialized) state to return to a pre-specialized state. This is the equiva-lent of inducing pluripotent stem cells. To achieve a pre-specialized stem cell-like state, deep ties to the current structure and current forms of specialized value must be bracketed, or suspended, as far as possible. Only then can we reconsider value from its potential state. The metaphor can play an important role in making structure and created value explicit so they may be considered afresh.

This may result in a decision to “reboot” (or boot) a leader, a core process or technology, a common perspective, or a cultural value or assumption that no longer serves. Perhaps one of the structural ele-ments can be pressed into more valuable service. This is helpful, for example, when an organization realizes that in headlong

pursuit of technological efficiency, it has lost its focus on maximizing value for customers. In this case, a deliberate effort can be made to reprogram the organiza-tional culture, highlighting customers as the primary stakeholders and focusing attention on the organization’s renewed commitment to creating and delivering customer value.

Dr. Taylor says, “Aging is a failure of stem cells.” This simple statement says powerful things about the way stem cells work, and by implication, important things for organizations to consider. Stem cells

are incorporated right into the architecture of our bodies. They can remain quiescent for long periods of time, until they are needed to assist with building, maintain-ing, or repairing. They are also capable of proliferating and renewing themselves over extremely long periods of time. These unique properties of stem cells ensure that their valuable capabilities remain available wherever and whenever. Is it possible to build readily available capabilities into the structure of an organization that allow it to continue to thrive through maintenance, repair, and renewal as the natural course—rather than through drastic episodic reactions to crises? Such properties in an organization make it resilient, nimble, and adaptable over the long-term—conferring unique competitive advantages.

Helping organizations to achieve such a state is clearly a valuable service that organization development practitioners can strive to provide. Organizations can develop capacities for ongoing self- analy-sis (Abbott, 1990; Barrett, 2006; Porter,

1980), the ability to spot trouble and take corrective action (Landrum & Gardner, 2005; Teece, 2007), and develop responsive adaptable strategies (Bate, 1996; Hamel & Prahalad, 1994; Kaplan & Norton, 2008). Structural elements can be changed to stimulate greater levels of participation and innovation (Dutta & Lawson, 2009; Michelle & Christina, 2008; Van de Ven & Poole, 1990), and to increase transparency and information flow (Kontoghiorghes, Awbre, & Feurig, 2005; Miniace & Falter, 1996). Such capacities, if made a part of the organizational architecture, help an organization to remain viable and prosper through self-reflection and analysis, repair and renewal.

Strengths of the Stem Cell Metaphor

The stem cell metaphor, particularly when combined with Hatch’s model of organiza-tions, focuses our gaze on areas neglected in research and literature that merit further exploration. These are the collective cre-ation of value; the inseparability of critical human, social, and cultural factors from value creation; and how structure, culture, and the agency of people integrate to create value in an organization. It is a new meta-phor for new times, which accommodates a complex dynamic view of organizations. It highlights the fundamental role that structure plays in value creation, turning potential value into actual value.

An organization is a dynamic pattern of holistic relationships established to cre-ate value. Hatch’s model helps us to under-stand that a specific pattern emerges as a function of the interplay of the structural elements of the organization. The impor-tant developmental action is in this pattern of holistic relationships. The dynamic pattern of relationships along with the structural elements from which it emerges defines an organization’s structure. The stem cell metaphor helps us to understand why and how structure determines the par-ticular forms of value created and to whom value flows.

An organizational identity based on the creation and circulation of value pro-vides a common language that fosters an integrated organizational identity. The stem

The stem cell metaphor, particularly when combined with Hatch’s model of organizations, focuses our gaze on areas neglected in research and literature that merit further exploration. These are the collective creation of value; the inseparability of critical human, social, and cultural factors from value creation; and how structure, culture, and the agency of people integrate to create value in an organization. It is a new metaphor for new times, which accommodates a complex dynamic view of organizations.


cell metaphor prompts a common under-standing of what unites us as a coherent complex organization, across diverse individuals, teams, departments, dispersed geographic locations, other organizations in the environment, and society. At the deepest level that unites us in an organiza-tion, we do not make widgets, or deliver a particular service, or provide or enhance an experience. We create and particularize value, and spread it around.

The stem cell metaphor makes a particularly optimistic case for the ability of organizations to meet the challenges of staying adaptable and thriving. There are always options and there are always choices that can be made when things are not working out as planned and maintain-ing the status quo will no longer suffice. The stem cell metaphor provokes us to consider changing organization structure if we desire to create different kinds of value than we are currently accomplishing.

References

Abbott, A. (1990). A primer on sequence methods. Organization Science, 1(4), 375-392.

Barrett, R. (2006). Building a values-driven organization: A whole system approach to cultural transformation. Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Bate, S. P. (1996). Towards a strategic framework for changing corporate cul-ture. Strategic Change, 5(1), 27-42.

Bridoux, F., Coeurderoy, R., & Durand, R. (2011). Heterogenous motives and the collective creation of value. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 711-730.

Dutta, S. K., & Lawson, R. A. (2009). Aligning performance evaluation and reward systems with corporate sustain-ability goals. Cost Management, 23(6), 15-23.

Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Greenfieldboyce, N. (Producer). (2008). Researchers grow a beating heart. All Things Considered. [Radio inter-view] Retrieved from http://www.

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18023493

Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization theory: modern, symbolic, and postmodern per-spectives. New York, NY: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1999). The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial percep-tions of stakeholder performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 87-99.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2008). The execution premium: Linking strategy to operations for competitive advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Khurana, R., & Nohria, N. (2008). It’s time to make management a true profession. Harvard Business Review, 86(10), 70-77.

Kianfar, M., Milana, C., & Smith, H. L. (2010). Assessing the real value of the firm: an overview. Strategic Change, 19(3-4), 97-102. doi: 10.1002/jsc.861

Kontoghiorghes, C., Awbre, S. M., & Feurig, P. L. (2005). Examining the relationship between learning organiza-tion characteristics and change adapta-tion, innovation, and organizational performance. Human Resource Develop-ment Quarterly, 16(2), 185-212.

Landrum, N. E., & Gardner, C. L. (2005). Using integral theory to effect strate-gic change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(3), 247-258. doi: 10.1108/09534810510599407

Lane, D. C. (2001). Rerum cognoscere causas: Part II—Opportunities gener-ated by the agency/structure debate and suggestions for clarifying the social theoretic position of system dynamics. System Dynamics Review, 17(4), 293-309. doi: 10.1002/sdr.221

Michelle, B., & Christina, C. (2008). Organizational change cynicism: The role of employee involvement. Human Resource Management, 47(4), 667-686.

Miniace, J. N., & Falter, E. (1996). Com-munication: A key factor in strategy implementation. Strategy & Leadership, 24(1), 26-30. doi: 10.1108/eb054540

Phillips, R. A., & Reichart, J. (2000). The environment as stakeholder? A fair-ness-based approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(2), 185-197.

Polonsky, M. J. (1999). The incorporation of an interactive external environment: an extended model of marketing rela-tionships. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 7(1), 41-55.

Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy: tech-niques for analyzing industries and com-petition: with a new introduction/Michael E. Porter. New York, NY: Free Press.

Sachs, S., Groth, H., & Schmitt, R. (2010). The stakeholder view approach: an untapped opportunity to manage corpo-rate performance and wealth. Strategic Change, 19(3-4), 147-162. doi: 10.1002/jsc.865

Schneider, M. (2002). A stakeholder model of organizational leadership. Organiza-tion Science, 13(2), 209-220.

Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and micro-foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1319-1350. doi: 10.1002/smj.640

Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1990). Methods for studying innovation development in the Minnesota Innova-tion Research Program. Organization Science, 1(3), 313-335.

Steven Pagehasbeeninvolvedininternationalconsulting,train-ing,andmanagementforover20years.HehasamastersdegreeinOrganizationandManagementDevelopment,andhascompletedworkforamastersdegreeinHumanDevelopment.Heiscur-rentlyinthedissertationphaseofaPhDinHumanandOrganiza-tionSystemsatFieldingGraduateUniversity.Hecanbereachedatstevepage48@gmail.com.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18023493



10.1002/jsc

10.1002/sdr

10.1108/eb

10.1002/jsc

10.1002/jsc

10.1002/smj

10.1002/smj


“Ilearnedovertimethat,unlikethemorecommonorganizationpractice-basedprofessions(suchaslawyers,doctors,nurses,andteachers)withwhommyclientswerefamiliar,theprofessionalidentityofanorganizationdevelopmentpractitionerwasvagueandamorphous.”

Organization Development Practitioners’ Interactive Drama in Forming a Sense of Professional Identity

In 1996, when I was hired by a govern-ment agency as an organization develop-ment (OD) specialist, I became acutely aware that the hiring executives and managers did not really understand what I did professionally. I spent time educating them about the history of OD, the methods used to effect change, and their role in working with me to effect and manage the multiple changes they planned to imple-ment. At times I was confident of who I was as an OD practitioner, such as when I successfully delivered a piece of work in conjunction with the Executive Team or with employees. At other junctures, I was perplexed by requests for services that appeared to be more about training and skill development. I wondered what these ill-fitted requests meant in terms of my own professional identity. If I engaged in these types of activities, how would others come to view my professional identity? How would I come to see it, feel about it?

This recollection from my own entry into this field of work and subsequent early years of working as an OD profes-sional illustrates how unprepared I was to face and answer organizational mem-bers’ queries: “What do you do?” “What’s that?” “How is that different from train-ing?” I found that I had to articulate and demonstrate my professional identity over and over again with clients. This was not something I expected, nor was I prepared by my academic program to anticipate. I formed a sense of professional identity as

an OD practitioner by trial and error as I worked with internal clients and through my work with external consultants, as well as by periodically attending and presenting at OD conferences.

I learned over time that, unlike the more common organization practice-based professions (such as lawyers, doctors, nurses, and teachers) with whom my cli-ents were familiar, the professional identity of an organization development practi-tioner was vague and amorphous. This ambiguous role haunted me as I found myself pursued by an internal voice that kept asking me, “What is an OD practitio-ner? Are you? How do you know?”

I was curious whether this lack of clarity about the role of the organization development practitioner was experienced by others in the field, and if so, how they handled the problem of perceiving them-selves as OD practitioners. As I attended organization development conferences at the local and national level, I encountered attendees and participants with previous work histories before they came to the field of organization development. I wondered how this influenced their entry into the field and subsequent role identity.

Additionally, numerous articles pub-lished in the field during the last ten years hinted at, lamented, and expounded on the demise of organization development as a field (Greiner & Cummings, 2004; Harvey, 2005; Hornstein, 2001; Worley & Feyer-herm, 2003). Well-known practitioners and

ByDonnaM.Wocher

37OrganizationDevelopmentPractitioners’InteractiveDramainFormingaSenseofProfessionalIdentity

scholars in the field debated whether orga-nization development was alive or dead and in need of branding to distinguish it from related practices, such as organizational effectiveness, talent management, and coaching.

All of these ideas converged into my own inquiry about how a person forms a sense of professional identity when those in the counter role, one’s clients, do not know what it is you do. I wondered what this experience must be like for profession-als entering the field as practitioners for the first time, and finally, how the ambiguity of the field itself may have left these novice practitioners unanchored and adrift.

Significance of the Study and Research Question

The field of OD requires no license to practice. In fact, the field is replete with practitioners who do not have a degree in a related field (Church, Waclawski, & Seigel, 1999). Anyone can claim to practice orga-nization development without any specific academic degree (Church, Waclawski, & Seigel, 1999; Weidner, 2004). There is no commonly held definition of OD within the field (Beckhard, 1969; Bennis, 1969). There are a growing number of new niches in the field of OD, such as coaching and appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider, 1986; Klein, 2007). In addition to the niches, OD practitioners are faced with compet-ing overlapping professional identities with management consultants, planners, quality improvement analysts, and change management specialists, to name but a few (Bradford & Burke, 2005; Nees & Greiner, 1985).

Before the current study, the only research on how OD practitioners form a sense of professional identity were Michas (2006) and Gottlieb (1997). Michas’ (2006) dissertation used a heuristic approach, which focused on his journey from student to intern practitioner. Many of the ambigu-ous experiences of professional identity I encountered are echoed in his written account. Gottlieb’s dissertation (1997) examined the role-conception of senior OD consultants in the field. I was surprised how little research had been conducted

on how OD practitioners form a sense of professional identity, given that as of 2008, 39 academic schools provide specialized degrees in organization development, orga-nizational psychology, and related degrees (Graduate Level Organization Development Programs in United States of America, 2008). The benefits of such studies could be wide-ranging.

This study was conducted to answer the following research question: How do organization development practitioners form a sense of professional identity and what are the dilemmas and challenges they must manage to do so?

Methodology

This was a qualitative study, informed by phenomenology (Moustakas, 1994), of sixteen organization development (OD) practitioners, with a minimum of 3 years’ practice, as they navigated their entry into the OD field beginning in the year 2000. Participants were recruited from the ODN National Conference, OD alumni groups, regional practitioner meetings, OD faculty, and self nominations as well as market-ing on list serves and the ODN electronic newsletter. The participants ranged from 29 to 55 years of age. The average age of the participants was 42. Of the 16 partici-pants, 11 were women and 5 were men. The reported race and ethnicity of participants was predominately Caucasian (12), followed by African American (2), Hispanic (1), and Multi-Ethnic (1). Nine of the partici-pants were internal practitioners, with the remaining 7 self-identified as external consultants.

Data collection consisted of a one- to two-hour open-ended interview in person or by telephone, a picture of the symbolic object representing their identity, and an attitudinal survey to measure salience or importance of identity called the Twenty Statement Test (Kuhn & McPartland, 1954). Building upon information shared in an icebreaker exercise discussing the symbolic object, a series of open-ended questions was asked concerning how they came to choose organization development as a field, significant events that stood out as shaping who they are as practitioners, and inquiries

about other significant events, people, and activities that contributed to their sense of professional identity as an organization development practitioner.1

Results/Findings

Forming a sense of identity as an OD practitioner is an interactive process and becomes vivid and visible when viewed through the dramaturgical lens of Burke (1989, 1969). Kenneth Burke’s five drama-turgical elements provided the theoretical background in understanding this identity-making process. The first element is the stage or environment in which the “act” takes place. In this study the location of the act is within profit and nonprofit organiza-tions. The second element is the purpose of the act. Participants in this study were act-ing to help an organization solve a problem or meet a known or latent need. The third element involves the roles performed. The performance roles included OD practitio-ners, clients, senior OD partners, peers, supervisors, and mentors. The fourth ele-ment is the type of act being performed. In this study the type of act involved interven-ing as an OD practitioner as opposed to intervening as an Employee Relations or Training Specialist. The fifth and final ele-ment is the manner in which communica-tion or meaning-making occurs within the act. OD practitioners in the study used a variety of meaning-making tools to develop and create meaning for themselves and for clients.

Using Burke’s dramaturgical lens, sig-nificant challenges and dilemmas in form-ing a sense of professional identity as an OD practitioner emerged. Left unresolved, these issues threatened and weakened the participants’ commitment to the perfor-mance of the OD role and resulted in feel-ings of disorientation and anxiety. Varieties of strategies were employed to minimize those threats and in so doing strengthened practitioners’ commitment to the identity.

For example, a variety of meaning-making tools, tangible and intangible, were reported by participants to mitigate client

1. The data analysis methods are available from the author at [email protected]



perceptions of inexperience and lack of credibility. Tangible apparatus included the use of packaging programs, self-assess-ments, surveys, flowcharts, data sum-maries, and 360 degree feedback reports. Additionally, there was the use of educative materials to create an understanding of OD and distinguish it from overlapping roles and fields such as employee rela-tions, training, and so on. Intangible tools, rhetorical in nature, included a variety of elevator speeches, provocative one-liners, and stories of previous clients helped and advised. Intertwined with these meaning-making tools were the expressive tactics each participant used, such as gestures they “gave off” to clients, a commanding presence, assertive tones, and confident directives (Goffman, 1975).

The respondents were explicitly aware of “faking it” or engaging in surface acting (Hochschild, 1983), because they reported internal feelings of anxiety and fear. Along with surface acting, participants also engaged in deep acting, although this was revealed when participants talked about more recent-to-date work with clients after more time in the field. Blended with these instrumental and expressive meaning-mak-ing tools were genres or character types one might find in acting (theater). I created the genres or character types based on the transcripts of the participants in the study and the kinds of meaning-making tactics they used (see Table 1).

At times, the combination of resources and tactics did not work because the partic-ipants in the study, upon entering the field

soon after graduate studies, did not antici-pate that clients would lack a shorthand understanding of the role, or typification of an OD practitioner. They expected clients, the significant others on the organizational stage, to have foreknowledge of what OD is. As a result, a sense of disorientation and anxiety were experienced by participants when their attempts to perform the role with the client failed or floundered. Upon finding an absence of an understanding of their role, they experienced anxiety and a sense of disorientation (especially if they did not have other key relationships to help them understand the mechanics of what was happening). They were at a loss for how to negotiate the meaning of their role with the client.

Enacting the OD role using

Table1:CharacterTypesandMeaning-MakingTacticsofODPractitioners

Character Types Meaning-Making Tactics

Self-AwarenessAlly

Creating Client Self-Awareness

• Usingplayfulsignalsandjokeswithclientstoconnectanddefusetension• Providingfeedbackusingselfawarenesstools(Enneagram;Myers-Briggs,or360degreeinstruments)• Creatingreadinesswithclienttoaddressproblematicinterpersonalbehavior

HealerShaman

Healing Something that is Broken

• Listeningtotheclientwithintentionofunderstandingandframingtheproblem• Makinganempathicconnectionandbuildingarelationshipofinfluencewiththeclient• Promotingthereleaseofstrongemotionandconflictedfeelingsintheclienttopromotehealing

Metrics Maverick

Measurement

• Developingandpresentingspreadsheets• Illustratingreturn-on-investment(ROI)andindustrydata• Raisingquestionsaboutwhatisnotobvioustotheclientandusingdatatomakeitvisible• Helpingtheclientdefineproblemswithquantitativedataanddevelopoutcomemeasures

Systems Designer

Making Systems Visible and More Effective

• Createparticipatorydecision-makingprocesswithmembersofthesystem• Designingprocessesthathelpclientdiscoverdifferentviewpoints,communicationpatterns,group

dynamics• Helpingtheclientdistinguishandimplementdifferentwaysoforganizingsub-systemsandaddressing

breakdownsinhowpeopleworktogetherandwhattheydo(e.g.,divisionsandteams)

Analyst Oracle Uncovering the Core Issue

• Askingengagingquestionsandprobing• Diagnosingthecoreissue(s)• Maintainingboundarybetweenselfandclient• Helpingtheclientcomeupwithhis/herownsolutiontosystemicproblem(s)

Truth Sayer-Sage

Discussing the Undiscussable

• Describingwhatindividualsandgroupsareafraidtosayoracknowledge• Namingpotentiallyharmfulorganizationaldecisionsand/orinterpersonalbehaviors• Creatingorganizationalconditionssootherscantelltheirtruth• Helpingtheclientacknowledgetheimpactofdecisionsand/orinterpersonalbehavioronothers


meaning-making resources took place through trial and error. For practitioners in OD group practices, the learning took place by shadowing senior partners, engaging in dress rehearsals, incrementally performing pieces of the role, and through back-stage analysis of client-consultant performances. Finally, learning how to exhibit and per-form the act of being an OD practitioner involved verification or feedback, most notably from clients; however, senior part-ners were also salient providers of feedback to participants, since they were at times present during client episodes.

Conversely, participants in the study reported challenges to commitment such as when they were faced with a client or other organizational member’s demands to articulate the purpose of their contribution as OD consultants. An inability to articulate the type of act engaged in, either verbally or with tangible tools, and how it was dif-ferent from other helping organizational roles in addressing problems and needs, weakened the participant’s commitment to perform the OD practitioner role.

Another way to view the findings of the study beyond the dramaturgical lens was to frame identity formation along a continuum of disorientation and orienta-tion. Practitioners all reported an underly-ing sense of disorientation upon entering the field post graduate studies. They reported selling OD, getting clients, feign-ing confidence, dealing with clients ques-tioning their capacity due to youth, inability to distinguish what they did from other HR functions, and an inability to define OD to others and to themselves. Later in the interviews, participants described a differ-ent reality; that of sharing wisdom, using language that reflected the client’s world, confidence and a sense of integration and the disappearance of emotions such as anxiety, fear, and doubt. This bifurcation in experiences led me to reframe the data into an identity formation continuum (see Table 2).

Many of the themes found in this study map to other studies conducted on OD practitioners (Gottlieb, 1997; Michas 2006), management consultants (Ibarra, 1999), and psychotherapists (Skovholt & Rønnestad 1992a; 1992b). A sense of

disorientation, overlapping roles with other disciplines, influence by effective and ineffective models of practice, the use of scripted definitions, searching for a niche compatible with practitioners’ values and beliefs, and receiving verification on role performance from key relationships were all noted in the literature.

Unique findings of this study include (a) the OD identity formation continuum, (b) the identification and use of a variety of meaning-making tools by OD practitioners with clients in negotiating and simultane-ously laying claim to the role of OD prac-titioner, and (c) verification feedback from clients strengthened commitment to and the importance of the OD practitioner role, while lack of confirmation from clients weakened identity formation of the OD practitioner role.

Conclusion

This study provides a beginning place, a foundation to expand research on the expe-rience of becoming an OD practitioner. In doing so, it could provide the groundwork to help practitioners move more smoothly and easily from an experience of disorienta-tion/fragmentation to orientation/integra-tion, while perhaps also helping them find ways to define more clearly for themselves

and others what it is they do. This study is suggestive of the need for practitioners to have some form of “clinical supervision” or access to senior guides and mentors as they move into the field to assist them with threats to their identity and ethical dilemmas.

Future research can identify the critical junctures and catalysts that propel practi-tioners to move from a disoriented to an oriented phase in their identity develop-ment, thus providing practitioners and mentors with knowledge to move them more rapidly and smoothly through these phases. A subsequent study that examines how OD practitioners form a sense of professional identity across various practice years would be valuable to map practitioner identity over the life/career span. Finally, an investigation of clients to discover how OD practitioners are perceived and/or cho-sen would broaden understanding of the client-practitioner relationship and the fac-tors driving client selection of consultants.

References

Beckhard, R. (1969). Organization develop-ment: Strategies and models. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bennis, W. G. (1969). Organization

Table2:OrganizationDevelopmentPractitionerIdentityFormationContinuum

Disorientation to Orientation Continuum

Disoriented

• acquiringclients

• sellingODusingacademiclanguage

• oscillatinginternalfeelingsofanxietyandfearwithcourageandexcitementwhenworkingwithclients

• feigningconfidencewithclients

• encounteringthreatstoidentity

• dependingonreceivingconfirmationfromclients,supervisors,andcolleagues

• searchingforfitbetweenpersonality,values,andwork

Oriented

• accumulatingknowledgeandwisdomandsharingitwithclients

• sellingservices

• internalizedfeelingsofcalmnessandexhilarationinworkingwithclientsandhandlingwhatevercomesup

• projectinggenuineconfidencewithclients

• engagingstrategiestominimizeoreliminatethreats

• trustingownjudgmentandprovidingownconfirmation

• findingnichebetweenpersonality,values,andwork


development: Its nature, origins, and pros-pects. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bradford, D. L., & Burke, W. W. (Eds.). (2005). Reinventing organization devel-opment: New approaches to change in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Sage Publications.

Burke, K. (1989). On symbols and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. London, UK: Prentice-Hall.

Church, A. H., Waclawski, J., & Seigel, W (1999). Will the real OD practitioner please stand up? A call for change in the field. Organization Development Journal, 17 (2), 49-59.

Cooperrider, D. L. (1986). Appreciative inquiry: Toward a methodology for under-standing and enhancing organizational innovation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.

Goffman, E. (1975). Presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Gottlieb, J. (1997). Understanding the role concept of organization development practitioners (Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation). The California School of Pro-fessional Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.

Greiner, L. E., & Cummings, T. G. (2004). Wanted: OD more alive than dead. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40 (4), 374-391.

Graduate level organization development programs in United States of America. (2008). Paper presented for the 2008 meeting, Organization Learning & Development Department, University of St. Thomas.

Harvey, J. B. (2005). The future of OD: Why don’t you take the tubes out of grandma? In D. L. Bradford, & W. W. Burke (Eds.), Reinventing organiza-tion development: New approaches to change in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Hornstein, H. (2001). Organizational development and change management: Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37 (2), 223-226.

Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 44 (4), 764-791.

Klein, D. C. (2007). A transformational agenda for OD practitioners: From a psychology of projection to a psychol-ogy of appreciation. OD Practitioner, 30 (1), 47-51.

Kuhn, M., & McPartland, T. S. (1954). An empirical investigation of self-attitudes. American Sociological Review, 19 (1), 68-76.

Michas, A. (2006). Locating professional identity: An illustration and heuristic investigation of organization development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Alliant International University, San Diego, CA.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Nees, D. B., & Greiner, L. E. (1985). Seeing behind the look-alike management consultants. Organizational Dynamics, 13 (3), 69-79.

Skovholt, T. M., & Rønnestad, M. H. (1992a). The evolving professional self: Stages and themes in therapist and coun-selor development. New York, NY: Wiley.

Skovholt, T. M., & Rønnestad, M. H. (1992b). Themes in therapist and coun-selor development. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 505-515.

Weidner, C. K. (2004). A brand in dire straits: Organization development at sixty. Organization Development Journal, 22 (2), 37-47

Worley, C. G., & Feyerherm, A. E. (2003). Reflections on the future of organiza-tion development. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39 (1), 97-115.

Donna Wocher, PhD, istheCreativeDirectorandfounderofIdentityFuturesConsultinglocatedinPaloAlto,Californiaspecializinginthedevelop-mentofemergingleaders,ODConsultants,andLearningandDevelopmentSpecialists.SheistheauthoroftheWocher Sig-nature Style Assessment.Asaconsultant,changeagent,andmanager,Wocherhasadvisedorganizationonstrategicplanning,leadershipandteamdevelopment,changemanagementandperfor-manceanalysisforoverfifteenyears.SheholdsadoctoraldegreefromFieldingGraduateUniversityandaMSinOrganizationDevelop-mentfromAmericanUniversity.Shecanbereachedatdonna@identityfutures.com.




“Ifweaspiretoboththelabelsandtherolesofhelper,counsellor,adviser,andsupporter,usingourselvesaskeyinstruments,wemustundertakeaprocessoflife-longdiscoveryandofowningandrefiningourinstrumentality.”

ByMee-YanCheung-Judge

First published in OD Practitioner, 33(3), 2001

Introduction (2012)Is self a “structure” or is self a “process?” How would the answers to these two ques-tion fit into our phenomenological sense of an enduring “I” – something that my Gestalt colleagues still debate about? I love the Gestalt work but am not academic enough to join that debate. Instead I would like to dangerously post a participant’s view to say that there are aspects of self that are quite hardwired in us (self structure). Yes, they can be modified and reshaped, but the active self needs to be provoked to a point where the self is willing to do some work to lessen the hardwiredness. However, I also believe that self is a process. In Gestalt (Perls, Hefferline, & Goodman 1951) self can be defined as “the system of contact at any moment...there is no self independent of the situation – it is ‘given’ in contact.” The self emerges from the changing ground and it “does not exist prior to, or apart from, relationships with the envi-ronment” (Chidiac & Denham-Vaughan, 2009). This concept is made even clearer by the Gestalt therapeutic community in which they asserted that the purpose of the self is to organize the emerging and chang-ing experiences to make it meaningful, as the sense of self emerges from our interac-tion with others and the environment. As a fluid and dynamic process, the self is capable to change and adjust according to the situation within which it finds itself as well as respond to the changing needs and goals of the environment (Philippson, 2001; Chidiac & Denham-Vaughan, 2009).

What does this have to do with the content of this article? Ten years on, the

crucial question I (and I hope other col-leagues will join me) need to ask is have we modified and reshaped our sense of self as we have worked with many different client groups and colleagues? Or have we held on to the hardwired self and insisted that is our true self, and used every opportunity to justify our approach to work? Do we allow the diverse contacts we have had with diverse groups of clients and colleagues to help us realize: “Gosh these colleagues, cli-ents and/or the client systems are so chal-lenging, what type of mobilization of self needs to happen once I am made aware of what is happening? By the way, what is my emerging self from such contact tell me about me?” It is hard to talk about the continuously effective use of self if we do not allow the changing ground or the relational contact to make us more curious about the bit of the self that is unknown to us. Without doing that, it will be difficult for us to stay curious, non-judgmental, and available to help others to discover the unknown aspect to them. If self is shaped as we make relational contact, then how we work with what comes from these contacts is crucial as we continue to strive to use ourselves in the moment to formulate our work with groups or organizations, and to help our clients. I share Chidiac and Denham-Vaughan’s view that the sense of self as a fluid process is a way of formulat-ing our use of self as instrument when undertaking organizational work. Is our sense of self more structured or more fluid? And how may that affect our use of self as instrument in our consultancy work in the next 10 years?

The Self as an InstrumentA Cornerstone for the Future of OD

From the ODP Archive


The Self as Instrument (2001)

Warner Burke (1994) asserted that, “OD as a field has a bright future… The point is that OD, or whatever it may be labeled in the distant future, is here to stay.”

Such a positive assertion of OD requires its torchbearers – we, OD practi-tioners – to affirm our passion for OD, our commitment to developing our consulting repertoire, and our desire to continually develop our competencies. I believe among the many competencies required of us, the use of self as an instrument is at the heart of our uniqueness and effectiveness.

This paper aims to demonstrate the importance for OD consultants of estab-lishing effective relationships with clients and the use of self as an instrument, or instrumentality, in the work. The article builds upon the definitions of instrumen-tality developed by Warner Burke and Edwin Nevis in exploring key practices in owning and refining the use of self in our work.

The premise underlying my approach is that OD consulting necessitates a high degree of self-knowledge and personal development that must engage OD practi-tioners throughout their professional lives.

Diverse Roles of OD Consultants

Although there are widely ranging def-initions of OD, there is a surprisingly high level of agreement among practitioner-theorists that the purpose of OD activities is to enhance organizational effectiveness. Consider the following characterizations of OD. » Planned interventions to increase

organization effectiveness and health (Beckhard, 1969).

» A process directed at organization improvement (Margulies, 1998).

» Building and maintaining the health of the organization as a total system (Schein, 1988).

» Organization revitalization achieved through synthesizing individual, group and organizational goals so as to pro-vide effective service to the client and community while furthering quality of

Table1:RolesofODConsultants

Authors Roles of OD Consultants

Burke(1982) Onewhoprovideshelp,counsel,advice,andsupport.

Schroeder(1974) Onewhoservesasasoundingboard,anadviser,aconfidantfortheconsultantwhoisworkingdirectlywiththeclient(shadowconsultantwithotherconsultantsasclients).

LippittandLippitt(1975)

OutlineeightrolesalongacontinuumwithDirectiveandNon-Directiveateitherendofthecontinuum.Theeightrolesareadvocate,technicalspecialist,traineroreducator,collaboratorinproblemsolving,alternativeidentifier,factfinder,processspecialist,andreflector.Theserolesarenotmutuallyexclusive.TheODConsultantmayplaydifferentrolessimultaneouslydependingontasks/assignments.

Schein(1988) Keyroledefinedasprocessconsultation,i.e.,asetofactivitiesthathelptheclienttoperceive,understandandactuponprocesseventsintheclient’senvironmentinordertoimprovethesituationidentifiedbytheclient.

Tichy(1974) Outlinesfourchangeagentkeyroles:• OP(OutsidePressure)–advocatingcertainchanges,

planningstrategiesforadvocacy.• AFT(AnalysisfortheTop)–conductingastudyforaclient

organizationandprovidingareportfortopmanagement.• PCT(PeopleChangeTechnology)–providingaservicefor

individualswithintheorganization.• OD(OrganizationDevelopment)–servingasexternal

consultanttodevelopsystems.

Beer(1980) Liststwoconsultantroles:(1)asGeneralistwithanorganizationaladministrativeperspectiveand(2)asaSpecialistintheprocessoforganizationaldiagnosisandintervention.

Ferguson(1968) Lists18rolesofODConsultantsrangingfromcapturingdatatopromotingaproperpsychologicalclimatetoassistinginthemanagementofconflict,toservingasplumberorobstetricianandin-between,etc.

Nevis(1987) Outlinesfivebasicroles/activitiesofaGestalt-orientedconsultant:1. Toattendtotheclientsystem,observe,andselectively

shareobservationsofwhatyousee,hear,etc.2. Toattendtoyourownexperience(feelings,sensations,

thoughts)andselectivelysharethese,establishingyourpresenceindoingso.

3. Tofocusonenergyintheclientsystemandtheemergenceoforlackofissues(commonfigures)forwhichthereisenergy;toacttosupportmobilizationofenergy(joining)sothatsomethinghappens.

4. Tofacilitateclear,meaningful,heightenedcontactsbetweenmembersoftheclientsystem(includingcontactwithyou).

5. Tohelpthegroupachieveheightenedawarenessofitsprocessincompletingunitsofwork,andtolearnhowtocompleteunitsofworksoastoachieveclosurearoundproblemareasandunfinishedbusiness.

43TheSelfasanInstrument:ACornerstonefortheFutureofOD

product and work life (Lippitt & Lippitt, 1975).

Within this context, the primary role of OD consultants is to establish helping relationships with and among individu-als and groups within organizations. The form these relationships take depends on the nature of the task at hand and may incorporate technical advice in business processes, specialist services relating to organizational design and functioning, process consultation or variations thereof. Lippitt and Lippitt (1975) described these roles on a continuum defined by the degree of directiveness assumed by the OD con-sultant. An overview of how authors in the field describe the diverse consultant roles appears in Table 1 (previous page).

This review of the literature illustrates the degree to which the effectiveness of the consultant necessarily depends upon the quality of his or her relationships with cli-ents. McLagan (1989) stated this succinctly:

Organization development’s pri-mary emphasis is on relationships and processes between and among individuals and groups. Its primary intervention is influence on the rela-tionship of individuals and groups to reflect the impact on the organization as a system. (p. 7)

Having established the centrality of rela-tionship building to the work of OD con-sultants, the next question is, “what are the key competencies and attributes essential for effectiveness?”

Self as an Instrument

Table 2 (next page) summarizes competen-cies required for effective OD consultation, as gleaned from a review of the literature.

Burke’s concept of instrumentality (1982) went beyond a collection of inter-personal skills, attributes, and technical knowledge to encompass the use of self as an instrument in conducting interventions. This notion of instrumentality is akin to the emphasis of heightened self-awareness in a gestalt approach to organization con-sulting. Nevis (1998) defined the qualities

of “presence” as the effective integration of knowledge and behavior:

Presence is the living embodiment of knowledge: the theories and practices believed to be essential to bring about change in people are manifested, symbolized, or implied in the pres-ence of the consultant. (p. 69)

The concepts of instrumentality in effec-tive OD practice and presence in gestalt practice see the use of self as our prime asset in achieving the helping relationship. It is not an option but the cornerstone of our work. The OD consultant’s ability to fill a wide range of roles depends upon this use of self.

So how do we develop our instrumentality?

The answer lies in two concepts: own-ing and refining our instrumentality. Each of these ideas and their related practices are based upon a requisite perception of our self as a key asset requiring both proper management and investment. Owning our instrumentality relates to the develop-ment of our self-knowledge and expertise as consultants in the field. Refining our instrumentality implies regular mainte-nance work on self.

In practice, owning the self means devoting time and energy to learning about who we are, and how issues of family history, gender, race, and sexuality affect self- perception. It means also identifying and exploring the values by which we live our lives, as well as developing our intel-lectual, emotional, physical, and spiritual capacities. Owning instrumentality can also be understood in terms of Cooperrider’s (2000) concept of identifying the “positive core” within and using it to achieve one’s dreams. “Putting first things first” (Covey, 1995) in order to achieve balance between work and life can also be considered part of owning one’s instrumentality.

In practice refining our instrumental-ity means dedicating time to the on-going maintenance of both self-knowledge and technical expertise. We could employ a shadow consultant, a mentor or even a therapeutic relationship to continually heighten our self-awareness. For others, it

may mean using self-knowledge to build a package of self-care in order to ensure that instrumentality is sustainable and lasting.

The following is a partial list of activities relating to owning, refining and integrat-ing our self-knowledge. They are offered here—in four categories—as a springboard for readers in considering your own self-work in four categories.

1. Develop Life Long Learning Habits » Continually develop and enhance

competencies in order to move flexibly among the various roles required of the OD consultant.

» Develop relationships with peers and professionals with whom to check perspectives, talk through challenges and strategies, and align values and practices.

» Actively seek feedback from clients and colleagues.

» Build a knowledge base in the field even when this seems neither urgent nor critical.

» Take responsible risks that stretch your professional comfort zone and proficiency.

2. Work Through Issues of Power » Acknowledge personal issues around

power and control and attune yourself to recognize their emotional triggers.

» Develop strategies to manage your own and others’ power dynamics.

» Develop effective habits for establishing and maintaining appropriate boundar-ies with colleagues and clients.

» Clarify personal values and what is important in life. Practice “putting first things first.”

3. Build Emotional and Intuitive Self-Awareness

» Integrate your personal and family history and turn it into a source of strength.

» Get to know your fears, blind spots and comfort zones. Use your emotional comfort (or discomfort) as data in mak-ing choices about the work you do and how you intervene in client systems.

» Develop habits for managing anxiety


Table2:ODConsultantCompetencies

Authors Roles of OD Consultants

Burke(1982) 1. Theabilitytotolerateambiguity2. Theabilitytoinfluence3. Theabilitytoconfrontdifficultissues4. Theabilitytosupportandnurtureothers5. Theabilitytolistenwellandempathize6. Theabilitytorecognizeone’sownfeelingsandintuitionsquickly7. Theabilitytoconceptualize8. Theabilitytodiscoverandmobilizehumanenergy9. Theabilitytoteachorcreatelearningopportunities10. Theabilitytomaintainasenseofhumor11. Asenseofmission

Argyris(1962) 1. Selfconfident2. Interpersonallyconfident

Beer(1980) 1. Becredible2. Beneutral3. Abilitytostaymarginal

SullivanandSullivan(1995)McLeanandSullivan(1990)

McLeanandSullivaninvolvedover2000ODpractitionersindefiningessentialcompetencesofinternalandexternalconsultants.Theylistedtherequired187competencesundertencategoriesofODactivities:

1. MarketingPhase(3competences)2. InitialContactivityPhase(20competences)3. StartupPhase(10competences)4. AssessmentandFeedbackPhase(45competences)5. ActionPlanningPhase(16competences)6. InterventionPhase(12competences)7. EvaluationPhase8. AdoptionPhase(13competences)9. SeparationPhase(13competences)10. Generalcompetences(40competences)

Nevis(1987) OutlinedtheskillsrequiredtobeeffectiveinusingagestaltapproachbasedontheCycleofExperienceasanorientationforbothclientandself.Skillsorganizedintermsofconsultant’smajortasks:

1. Abilitytostayinthepresentandfocusontheongoingprocess,withfaithinnaturaldevelopmentalsequence.

2. Considerablesensitivitytosensory,physicalfunctioningofselfandothers.3. Frequenttuningintoyouremotions.4. Abilitytoseparatedatafrominterpretationandtoemphasizenon-judgmentalobservations.5. Awarenessofyourintentions,ofwhatyouwanttodoorsay,togetherwiththeabilitytobeclearin

lettingothersknowwhatyouwantofandfromthem.6. Abilitytoseewheretheclientisatanytime,andtorespectthatinworkingwiththesystem.7. Abilitytofaceandacceptemotionalsituationswithaminimumofpersonaldefensiveness.8. Abilitytomakegoodcontactwithothers.9. Abilitytopresentselfasahighlyattractiveyetnon-charismaticpresence.10. Capacitytobebothtoughandsupportiveduringthesameworksession.11. Abilitytohelptheclientsystemdrawmeaningorunderstandingfromitsexperiencewiththe

consultant.12. AppreciationofthesignificantcontextualissuesinvolvedinSystemIntervention.13. Awarenessoftheaesthetic,transcendent,andcreativeaspectsofworkingasaconsultant.


about the accuracy of your perceptions and efficacy of interventions.

» Acknowledge the potential power of intuition in managing decisions and risks, even in the face of clear opposition.

» Face your lack of effectiveness with certain projects and clients. Have the courage to stop working for clients who offer good money but at a personal price.

4. Commit to Self-Care » Organize your calendar to include time

for reflection and integration, and a recharging of your intellectual and emotional energy.

» Book regular time off to cater to body, mind, and soul.

» Have an effective self-care package, knowing that – like a machine- we can-not keep delivering a long-haul service without maintenance work.

» Use meditation or other practices to develop and maintain inner awareness and knowledge.

Over the past ten years, as I have super-vised and mentored OD consultants and witnessed the working of instrumentality, I have concluded that they fall into three groups: 1. Consultants whose effectiveness is

inconsistent. 2. Effective consultants who experience

burn out because their high perfor-mance is costly and unsustainable.

3. Effective consultants who are in opti-mal condition most of the time.

The first group of OD consultants often convey a highly professional image. They are even likely to invest money and time updating their technical expertise. They can be quite effective in some projects. However, they are much less effective when projects require the use of self as an inter-vention beyond their technical expertise. Many have not accepted that an effective OD consultant must understand and deal not only with technology, but also with human processes such as trust, depen-dency, and ethics.

The second group of consultants, like

the third, is committed to their mission as OD professionals, highly skilled in many types of OD intervention, and well respected by clients and colleagues. But they differ significantly in three ways: 1. The amount of time and energy they

spend working on knowing themselves better.

2. Their commitment to take time to pur-sue a robust self-care package.

3. The personal cost they incur because of their high performance.

The second group often performs very well for a time, and then suddenly seems to suffer from serious burn out. The symp-toms can range from mild depression, loss of temper with clients and staff, lack of motivation, and continuous fatigue to physical illness, loss of focus, and serious depression.

While I emphasize the differences between the three groups, in reality, most consultants slide up and down this continuum, depending on what else is happening in our lives, and how much emotional energy we have to deal with those issues that are critical to well-being and instrumentality. However, if we fail to engage in self-work activities, it is certain that high performance will entail a high personal cost, both to our clients and ourselves. Through time, this will eat into our sense of well being. Many of us have become aware of the personal cost, and have learned never again to be put in that situation unwittingly.

Conclusion

Like Burke, I believe that none of us can ever achieve perfect instrumentality, and that it is very difficult to be an effective OD consultant. We can begin the journey towards perfect instrumentality; we can never complete it. But if we aspire to both the labels and the roles of helper, counselor, adviser, and supporter, using ourselves as key instruments, we must undertake a process of lifelong discovery and of owning and refining our instrumentality.

Finally, what would happen if we collectively (without a formal licensing procedure) agreed to create a bright future

and make a major impact in the field of OD by the effective use of self? How would things change? I believe that organizations all over the world would be well disposed to a group of effective helpers who would become likely partners with them in the pursuit of optimal health for their organiza-tions. Through time, we would pass on the baton to managers (our clients) and coach them to play a key role in transforming the way their organizations are run. Ultimately, a healthy organization can develop itself with its managers as the primary practi-tioners. In this way, more managers will come to understand the necessary balance between freedom and constraint, democ-racy and authority, profit and ethics in organization life and health.

Postscript (2012)

Ten years on, have the concepts discussed in this article gone out of fashion, or do they remain relevant?

There has been a lot of debate about the conditions that will lead to sustain-able changes. The traditional consultancy establishment provides very much needed services on back room work—focusing mainly on using benchmarking data to help organizations carry out continuous process reengineering work while applying rigorously the slim processes approach to ensure organizations will achieve a sustain-able cost base to face fierce competition. Our back room colleagues occasionally allow OD consultants to work alongside them, but frequently they only involve us after the back room process has been completed in order to do the damage limi-tation, people engagement work. Is there any wonder why the track record on change is rated so poorly by all parties?

This raises three questions for me. First, what do OD practitioners (external and internal especially) need to do to gain enough relational traction with those senior decision makers so that they will trust us enough to think more thoughtfully about doing the back room and front room work simultaneously? Second, how do we continuously establish our unique reputa-tion in achieving change sustainability via people engagement work, so that those


whom we serve will not go ahead with any change work without first saying “I must talk to our OD or HR person?” Third, how do we showcase and not apologize for our expertise in human dynamics, group dynamics, and system dynamics as part of business critical approaches in change?

I believe the answers to these three questions all point to our effective use of self, especially in the area of how we func-tion and behave in the relational arena, in our use of our voice; in our courage to speak the unspeakable truth within a trustworthy and compassionate frame; in using our moment by moment sensation to meet people where they are: and to cre-ate the impact that helps people make the “right enough” decisions to drive economic efficiency within the “people matter” framework. The key challenge is how we continue to do deeper inner work so that our groundedness and our continuous fluid but evolving integrated self manages to help us to have congruence between our outside behavior and inner self. Finally, are we able to give a sense of inspiring and establishing presence when we work with people – so that by working with us people get a glimpse of “ah, that is what this change is about – because I am experienc-ing the end game that we are meant to be heading towards (the embodiment of the end game).” So is the use of self still critical in our field of work? I guess by now you would have made your own mind up about this – and my final question to all of us is – what are we going to do more to move closer to that end of the effective use of self continuum? Maybe it is a bit exaggerated, but the future of OD is critically dependent on all of us using ourselves effectively to bring successful and sustainable change within a humanistic framework to the world of work.

References

Argyris, C. (1962). Interpersonal competence and organizational effectiveness. Belmont, CA: Dorsey Press.

Beckhard, R. (1969). Organization develop-ment: Strategies and models. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Beer, M. (1980). Organization change and development: A systems view. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.

Burke, W. (1982). Organization development: Principles and practices. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Burke, W. (1994). Organization devel-opment: A process of learning and changing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Chidiac, M.A., & Denham-Vaughan, S. (2009). An organizational self: Apply-ing the concept of self to groups and organizations. British Gestalt Journal, 18(1).

Cooperrider, D. (2000). Positive image, positive action: The affirmative basis of organizing. In D. Cooperrider, P. Sorensen, D. Whitney, & T. Yaeger (Eds.), Appreciative Inquiry (pp. 29-53). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing.

Covey, S. (1995). First things first. New York, NY: Fireside.

Egan, G. (1988a). Change agent skills A: Assessing and designing excellence. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.

Ferguson, C. K. (1968). Concerning the nature of human systems and the consultant’s role. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 4, 186-93.

Lippitt, R., & Lippitt, G. (1975). Consulting process in action. Training and Develop-ment Journal. 29(5), 48-54; 29(6), 38-44.

McLagan, P. (1989). Models for HRD prac-tice. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.

McLean, G. & Sullivan, R. (1990). OD skills: An ongoing competency list. OD Practitioner, 22(2), 11-12.

Margulies, N. (1978). Perspectives on the marginality of the consultant’s role. In W. W. Burke (Ed.), The cutting edge: Cur-rent theory and practice in organization development (pp. 60-69). La Jolla, CA: University Associates

Nevis, E. (1998) Organizational consulting: A Gestalt approach (2nd ed.). Cam-bridge, UK: GIC Press.

Perls, F., Hefferline, R., & Goodman, P. (1951). Gestalt therapy: Excitement and growth in human personality. New York, NY: Julian Press.

Philippson, P. (2001). Self in relation. High-land, NY: Gestalt Journal Press.

Schein, E. H. (1980). Organizational psy-chology (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

——— (1988). Process consultation: Volume I (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

——— (1969). Process consultation. Read-ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Schroeder, M. (1974). The shadow consul-tant. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 10, 579-94.

Sullivan, R., & Sullivan, K. (1995). Essential competencies for internal and external OD consultants. In W. Rothwell, R. Sullivan, & G. McLean (Eds.), Practic-ing organization development: A guide for consultants (pp. 535 – 549). San Fran-scisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tichy, N. M. (1974). Agents of planned social change: Congruence of values, cognitions, and actions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 164-82

Mee-Yan Cheung-Judge, PhD,isthecreatoranddrivingforcebehindQuality&Equality,aUKbasedconsultingfirm.HerareasofexpertiseareOrganizationDevelopment,BigSystemchange,andEqualityandDiversity.Sheworkswithclientsfromallsec-tors,includingmultinationalbluechipcompanies,highereducation,governmentagencies,publicsec-tororganizations,andcharities.SheistheauthorofanumberofODarticles,frequentlyteachesattheNationalSchoolofGovern-mentandothermajorcorporatetopmanagementprograms,andisaVisitingFellowofRoffeyParkInstitute.InJune2008shewasvotedoneofthe25mostinflu-entialthinkersinHRbytheUKpublicationHRMagazine.ShecanbereachedatLMYCJ@aol.com.



“Well, this is going to be a really different assignment,” murmured Don Hon as he left the senior vice president’s office at the Walberg Bank Group.

Don had been an outside OD con-sultant to the bank for about six years, first starting with a project on succession planning, but more recently had spent a lot of time on change management projects. The bank had acquired several small banks, most of them “take-overs” ordered by the FDIC. So, he had plenty of work integrating the acquisitions into the Walberg system. Jean Lovato was the senior vice president at the bank in charge of making sure that the acquisitions ran smoothly. A very bright and talented leader, she was highly respected in the banking community, and Don found her a pleasure to work with. So, when Jean called him in for a meeting he assumed that Walberg had been ordered by the Feds to take over another bank group. But that proved not to be the case.

After they exchanged personal greet-ings, Jean said, “I have a new assignment for you. I want you to help resolve an interpersonal conflict between two of the managers in our operating units.” She went on to explain that both of the manag-ers were very talented and were on the fast track to move up in the bank. However, for reasons she did not quite understand, they were not able to work together. More-over, their issues were spilling over to the relationships between members of each of their units.

She said she had talked to both of the managers individually and together about

ending the conflict, however, she perceived little change. “I made it very clear to them that the conflict was not helping their careers at the bank, and that they needed to resolve it very quickly,” she added. She went on to note that she had told them that the bank was considering them for higher levels of leadership in the bank; however, before that could happen they would need to get beyond this problem.

She said she had recommended that the two of them go off-site for a day, with a professional, to resolve their differences, so they could get on with their careers. Both apparently had agreed to such a meeting.

“And I am the professional who will go off-site with them?” Don asked.

“Yes, I thought you could do it,” Jean continued, “You have a good reputation in the bank. Also you are an outsider. I don’t think it would be good to have one of the bank’s people involved. I checked with Human Resources and they thought you were a good choice to handle this problem.”

“I will leave it up to you as to how to proceed,” she added. “And I am counting on you to get this resolved quickly. Actually, I think it will be a good learning experience for the two of them.” And with that the meeting ended, and Jean was out the door to another meeting.

As Don left the building and walked to his car he found his mind racing. He did know the two managers that were involved in the conflict, but only casually. Both had impressed him as being very competent, highly energetic, and “hard chargers.” They were part of a group of young managers

“TammystartsoutbyaskingwhetherDonshouldacceptthisassignment.Doeshehavetheskillstoeffectivelyhandleasomewhattrickyinterventionthatseemstobedifferentthanthathetypicallydoesforthebank?IwasremindedofthefewtimesIstrayedbeyondmyskilllevel,usuallywithpoorresults,simplybecauseofpressurefromtheclient.”

Case History

Resolving Conflict at the Walberg Bank Group

ByHomerH.Johnson


that the bank had identified as “future lead-ers,” which meant that they were expected to move up the ranks quickly. Beyond that, he did not know much about them or what the problem was between them.

While Jean had said that she would leave it up to him as to how to proceed, at this point, he was not really sure how to proceed. He remembered taking a conflict workshop at NTL, and attending a session on conflict at the National ODN Confer-ence, but they both were probably 15 years ago. He was also somewhat puzzled as to why Jean had suggested a one day, off-site session with the two managers and him. He regretted not asking her why she thought that was the best approach; however, she seemed in a hurry to move on to another meeting. While that seemed like a reasonable approach, he wondered what she had in mind.

What would be your advice to Don? How would you proceed? Is the one day off-site session a good idea? Or would you suggest another approach—what approach? If a one day session, what would be the agenda for the day? Should Don meet with the managers prior to the off-site session? Should he meet with anyone else?

In general, what would be your suggestions for OD consultants who are engaged to help resolve interpersonal conflicts?

We asked three expert OD consul-tants to assist us with the case and to give us their analysis as to how Don might solve his dilemma. Tammy Seibert has extensive OD experience and is now an Organizational Effectiveness Consultant at Allstate Insurance. Annie Viets has worked extensively in mediation and conflict management, and is an Associate Profes-sor of Management at Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University in Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia. Ruth Urban is an independent con-sultant and principal of The Urban Group, with extensive experience in conflict man-agement and facilitation.

Tammy Seibert

This is a complex situation that requires more background information and clarity around client identification and

contracting. The other layer of complex-ity is the client has been impressed with Don’s work in OD but may not be clear that there are sub-specialties in OD. I would recommend that Don meets with Jean to understand her needs as a client, and to make sure Jean understands his areas of expertise.

From a reset of the expectations of OD service offerings: I would provide an overview of the OD offerings and areas of expertise. (As the case presents, it appears that Don does not have a background in interpersonal conflict resolution.) I will make the assumption that Jean views Don as a credible business partner since she came to him for this work. So if I were Don I would offer her a process on how to contract and work with a consultant who has expertise in conflict resolution. As an outside consultant, Don would be offering her a way to think about her needs while providing a resource that has expertise in conflict resolution. This should maintain his credibility as a consultant and continue to establish himself as a business partner who knows his limitations but is creative in continuing to support his client.

If Jean agrees to take Don’s approach in having him help her think about the “right” choice for an OD consultant, I would recommend that he helps her become clear on her needs and the con-tracting process.

From a client needs perspective, questions I would have Jean respond to are: How did the conflict start? How long has the conflict been occurring? What is each manager’s role in the conflict? What specific behaviors are being observed that are taking away from their effectiveness as leaders? What behaviors are being demon-strated in each of their teams that indicate the conflict is being carried out into other parts of the organization? What and how has performance been impacted? How is the “system” supporting the fact that the conflict has not been resolved? If the system is part of the problem, what work needs to be accomplished at a system and possibly team level?

From a contracting process, questions I would have Jean respond to are: Who are the “clients” in this situation? Is it only the

two managers? Or is it the managers and their bosses? How open are you to look at a coaching process versus a one day off-site? How open are you to a blended approach of one day off-site and coaching? If you go the coaching route, would you use the same coach for each client or the same coaching? How would you contract determining the success of the coaching? Would you track behavior change and lever-age 360 degree feedback tools, or would you leverage your observations? If you go the one day off-site route, what type of conflict resolution process/model would be used? Will there be any pre-meetings/work prior to off-site and any follow-up work/meetings? Post the one day off-site, what is the behavior change you will need to see to demonstrate success?

For consultants who engage in conflict resolution between leaders, I recommend contracting with each person and their bosses whereby the process and success is clearly defined, how it will be measured, and reported on. In this case “success” could be defined as behavior change and measured through a 360 degree feedback process. As a consultant I would also seek to understand how deep the conflict has fil-tered into the organization and be prepared to recommend additional OD intervention work at a team and/or systems level.

Annie Viets

This case study presents a situation that is all too common in organizations: two individuals simply cannot get beyond their personal differences to work productively together. Left unaddressed, these types of conflicts, as evidenced in the case, often spiral to impact others in the individuals’ environment and, potentially, entire work teams or departments.

Jean’s decision to proactively deal with the dispute is therefore sound. Her choice of Don as the agent of conciliation also has its merits. He is known and trusted in the bank and both of the disputing parties have accepted his assistance. He is an outsider who (presumably) has no history with either party so he can be more objective than someone from within the organiza-tion. Going off-site to a neutral location

49CaseHistory:ResolvingConflictattheWalbergBankGroup

also has its benefits, although it is highly unlikely an initial mediation session would consume an entire day and it may also be unrealistic to expect a dispute that has per-sisted despite possible career consequences can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties in one meeting.

Don’s impartiality in this intervention is critical. The fact he has been appointed by senior management and is being compensated by the bank could introduce bias. He must, therefore, take measures to ensure he does not push for a hasty resolution or one that is not the disputants’ own. His first step must be to explain and establish the necessary conditions for a successful mediation with Jean. She needs to understand that to ensure the commit-ment of the parties to the process, it must be confidential and the parties must be confident Don will not report to her on what occurs in the session(s). Jean must also understand the best resolution may not be achievable in one session and may require additional meetings.

Don should then meet with each party separately to explain the concept and process of mediation and obtain the perspectives of each party in the conflict. The purpose of this step is to enable Don to begin to identify the issues so he can tentatively frame the parties’ positions into interests that can be mediated.

As an OD consultant, Don will already have many of the skills of an effective mediator. His knowledge of facilitation techniques and the ability to actively listen will be foundational to his ability to assist these parties to resolve their differences and move on. Before commencing this intervention, however, he should study the structure and sequence of a good media-tion in Jennifer Beer and Eileen Stief’s The Mediator’s Handbook (2011).

Don’s role as a mediator is to facilitate a constructive and focused conversation between the two that enables them to understand each other’s perspectives and create their own basis for a continuing a positive professional relationship. Because they must continue to work together, the goal of the mediation must go beyond simple dispute resolution to focus on how the parties will work together in the future.

For this to occur, Don must remember the solution is entirely theirs and, as much as he might like to steer them toward a solu-tion he believes is right, he must remain an impartial guide who allows them to create their own path for moving forward.

Jean’s prediction that the process “will be a good learning experience for the two of them,” can be realized if Don perceives the conflict as one ancient Chinese sage described it: “opportunity riding on a dangerous wind” and provides a safe and objective environment in which fruitful problem solving can occur. Transforma-tional mediation can, indeed, provide the opportunity for mutual learning and respect and an enhanced working rela-tionship neither party might ever have envisioned.

Ruth Urban

I would advise Don to circle back with Jean to clarify what portion, if any, of what she told him could be disclosed to the two managers. Namely, can he share that their interpersonal conflict will be career limit-ing if not resolved? This will be helpful to know because part of Don’s role in the conflict resolution process is serving as an agent of reality. He also needs to clarify that his work with the managers will be confidential and let her know he will not be releasing any information to her without their permission.

Don needs to meet with both manag-ers together and share with them what he was asked to do, his planned approach, and the confidentiality of the process. For example, he plans to meet with them individually to best understand the conflict from their perspectives and then will meet with them together off-site for a full day. He needs to share some of the processes he will be using during the off-site meet-ing, answer any questions and concerns they might have about this approach, and mutually decide on a date for the full day. He needs to tell them that he will be looking for mutual issues and themes in their individual confidential interviews. This initial meeting helps to establish the transparency of the process, Don’s neutral-ity, sets the stage to empower the managers

to resolve the conflict, and get their buy-in for the process.

Don then needs to craft a series of questions to ask in the individual inter-views. Two hours should be allotted for each interview. The more entrenched the individual the longer the interview might go because this is an opportunity for venting and some transformation. The interviews are usually structured with some ice-breaking questions to help develop rapport and then questions that help flesh-out the story-behind-the-story that is the interest basis for the conflict. This is often uncovered when the focus is on discussing feelings. Don might use some visioning questions to see what the managers’ view is of an ideal relationship and what they see as standing in the way of achieving a better relationship. This is where Don’s role as the agent of reality might be helpful and where he can ask the managers some hard questions and give each an opportunity to save face. Don can also explore at the con-clusion of the interview what the individual is willing to do to resolve the conflict.

Don should conclude the interview by giving each manager some homework to complete before the off-site meeting, namely a “needs and offers” negotiation process in the form of a worksheet for them to bring to the off-site for reference. This consists of the following questions: What each manager thinks the other manager wants from them, what they want from the other manager, and what they are willing to give the other manager.

Don’s agenda for the full day off-site should consist of the following: » The managers establishing some

ground rules for their discussion » Don sharing the themes/issues that

came from the interviews » The managers prioritizing the themes/

issues as a starting point for their discussion

» An open discussion of the top two or three themes/issues

» Don putting on a flip chart any resolu-tions they reach regarding the themes/issues

» Don facilitating the Needs and Offers discussion between the managers, using the format of the worksheet he


gave them. He needs to scribe their responses as this will become part of a written agreement they reach

» A focus on personality type as often conflicts are fanned by lack of under-standing of one’s own personality type and others. (I use a quick and very accu-rate self-contained instrument called The PEOPLE Process)

» Summarizing any agreements reached and establish next steps

» Determining if the managers want to meet again with Don to check on their progress

» Clarification of what information, if any, can be released to Jean and what the managers agree they want to tell Jean about the process when she asks

» An evaluation of the process, either in writing or by discussion so Don has some feedback on what the managers found helpful or not and what can be improved

Homer Comments:

Let me first thank Larry Anders for telling me about this case. A former colleague and mentor of mine, Larry has a well deserved reputation as one of the best OD practitio-ners in the business.

Don would do well by listening to the advice of the expert panel before he starts his venture. For example, Tammy starts out by asking whether Don should accept this assignment. Does he have the skills to effectively handle a somewhat tricky intervention that seems to be different than that he typically does for the bank? I was reminded of the few times I strayed beyond my skill level, usually with poor results, simply because of pressure from the client. If Don realistically does not think he has the skill set to be effective here he should be honest with Jean, and find her someone who has competencies in interpersonal conflict.

If Don accepts the assignment, our

expert panel is unanimous in suggesting that he ask Jean for clarification regard-ing her expectations as well as what she knows about the conflict. Each of the panel has questions of Jean. I was impressed with Annie’s and Ruth’s suggestion that Jean be briefed as to the rules of a success-ful intervention such as confidentiality, consent, etc. And all of our experts suggest a meeting (or two?) with the manag-ers prior to going off-site. They have to understand (and agree to) the process. And Don additionally needs to get their take on their differences.

I will not repeat the panel’s details of the intervention, except to note that our panel offers some great advice that OD practitioners would be well advised to review. Annie provides a broad overview, as well a valuable reference source which will help where there may be questions. Ruth

is more detailed and offers some specific suggestions for an initial meeting with the two managers, as well as an agenda for the day-long retreat. I found it interesting that she suggests using the “Needs and Offers” exercise, which tends to be easy to use and very effective.

Finally, each of our panel members advocates a follow-up. Was the interven-tion effective? Are the managers working together much better? What else has to be done so that they continue to do so?

Beautiful job panel! Great advice! Thank you Tammy, Annie, and Ruth!

Reference

Beer, J., & Stief, E. (2011). The mediator’s handbook. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Tammy Seibert, MBA, MSOD, PCC,isanOrganizationalEffectivenesscon-sultantatAllstateInsurance.Previously,Tammyhaspartneredwithbusinessleadersintheareasofcoaching,leadershipdevelopment,teameffectiveness,changemanagement,talentstrategy,mergersandacquisitions,andrestruc-turingandintegration.HerexperiencecoversFortune500companies,mid-sizeorganizationsandnonprofitswithinternationalexperienceintheUKandkeyassignmentsforCanada,Germany,Australia,Mexico,Caribbean,[email protected].

Annie Viets, EdD,isanAssociateProfessorofManagementatPrinceMoham-madBinFahdUniversityinAlKhobar,SaudiArabia.SheisalsoanODconsultant,amediatorandaformerpresidentoftheVermontMediatorsAssociation.Shecanbereachedatmviets@pmu.edu.sa.

Ruth Urban, MS, PrincipalinTheUrbanGroup,bringsmorethan25yearsofconflictresolutionexperiencetoherindependentconsulting,facilitationandorganizationaldevelopmentpractice.SheisaCertifiedProfessionalFacilitatorbytheInternationalAssociationofFacilitators.Ruthcanbereachedat [email protected].

Homer H. Johnson, PhD,isaprofessorofmanagementintheSchoolofBusinessAdministrationatLoyolaUniversityChicagoandtheco-editor(withThereseYeagerandPeterSorenson)oftheCaseHistoryfeature.Heistheauthor(withLindaStroh)ofthebestsellingThe Basic Essentials of Effective [email protected].

51CaseHistory:ResolvingConflictattheWalbergBankGroup






OD Network Products and Services

Publications

» OD Practitioner, the flagship publica-tion of the OD Network, is a peer-reviewed quarterly journal.

» OD Seasonings is an online jour-nal highlighting the experience of seasoned practitioners.

» Practicing OD, our online ezine, provides practice-related concepts, processes, and tools in short articles by and for busy practitioners.

All three publications and their submis-sion guidelines are available online at http://www.odnetwork.org.

Member Benefits

Low annual dues provide members with a host of benefits:

» Free subscriptions to all three of our publications.

» Free access to online job ads in the OD Network Job Exchange.

» Discounts on conference registration, OD Network products (including back issues of this journal), Job Exchange postings, professional liability insur-ance, books from John Wiley & Sons, and more.

» OD Network Member Roster, an essential networking tool, in print and in a searchable online database.

» Online Toolkits on action research, consulting skills, and HR for OD—foundational theory and useful tools to enhance your practice.

Professional Development

OD Network professional development events offer cutting-edge theory and practice. Learn more at http://www.odnetwork.org.

» OD Network Conferences, held annu-ally, provide unsurpassed profes-sional development and networking opportunities.

» Regular webinars include events in the Theory and Practice Series, Confer-ence Series, and OD Network Live Briefs.

Online Resources

In addition to the online resources for members only, the OD Network website offers valuable tools that are open to the public:

» Education directory of OD-related degree and certificate programs.

» Catalog of OD professional develop-ment and networking events.

» Bookstore of titles recommended by OD Network members.

» Links to some of the best OD resources available.

» E-mail discussion lists that allow OD practitioners worldwide to share ideas.

» Lists, with contact information, of regional and international OD networks.

» Case studies illustrating the value of OD to potential client organizations.




Results though Relationships

Success, instead of giving freedom of choice, becomes a way

of life. There's no country I've been to where people, when

you come into a room and sit down with them, so often ask

you, "What do you do?" And, being American, many's the

time I've almost asked that question, then realized it's good

for my soul not to know. For a while! Just to let the evening

wear on and see what I think of this person without knowing

what he does and how successful he is, or what a failure.

We're ranking everybody every minute of the day.

ARTHUR MILLER, Paris Review, Summer 1966.

www.sheppardmoscow.com

Chicago Dublin Edinburgh London Singapore

SM OD Practitioner Ad Template (Mono)_SM OD Practitioner Ad Template (Mono) 08/02/2012 10:36 Page 1

http://www.sheppardmoscow.com

The Human Interaction Laboratory combines core organization development theory with

NTL’s widely respected T-Group method to help participants increase their knowledge and

understanding of a wide-range of human interactions. The Human Interaction Laboratory gives OD

practitioners in-depth, experiential learning in:

• Group processes and dynamics • Effective communication and feedback

• Diversity and inclusion • Self-awareness and self-management

With a rich, 65-year tradition in organization development, NTL’s programs remain the most popular, the most replicated, and simply

the most effective programs for changing human attitudes and behaviors. Experience the transformational learning of NTL’s Human

Interaction Lab for yourself, and recommend it to your clients.

* Two people from the same organization cannot attend the Human Interaction Laboratory in the same location on the same date. The free registration can be

reserved for another Human Interaction Laboratory offered during calendar year 2012.

Contact Us:1901 South Bell Street, Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22202

703-548-8840 | [email protected] | www.ntl.org

Connect to us @NTL Institute on

Experience the

Human Interaction Laboratory!

In celebration of our 65th anniversary,

the first 65 people who register for

any 2012 Human Interaction

Laboratory will receive a free Human

Interaction Laboratory registration for

a friend or colleague.

Offer ends May 31, 2012.*

www.ntl.org

401MichiganAvenueSuite2100Chicago,IL60611

GR WING

www.odnetwork.org

jourrnaln fuatf heuogiourfzdlln giva...journal of the organization development network spring year...

Documents