As a field of applied behavioral science, organizational change and development has characteristics of both science and art. I will explore four areas where the science of organizational change and the art of changing organizations are often in tension creating paradoxes that must be resolved or at least “held,” misunderstandings, occasional dysfunction, and insight and value. I will argue that the coexistence of science and art can be found specifically in theory creation and utilization, the evaluation of organizational change, the act of organizational diagnosis, and the study of organizational creativity. The advancement of theory, research, and practice in organization development depends, to a very real extent, on the ability to appreciate and to balance science and art in each of these domains.
AmabileT. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In StawB. M.CummingsL. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123-167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
2.
ArmenakisA. A. (1988). A review of research on the change typology. In PasmoreW. A.WoodmanR. W. (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 2, pp. 163-194). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
3.
BarendsE.JanssenB.ten HaveW.ten HaveS. (2014a). Difficult but doable: Increasing the internal validity of organizational change management studies. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50, 50-54.
4.
BarendsE.JanssenB.ten HaveW.ten HaveS. (2014b). Effects of change interventions: What kind of evidence do we really have?Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50, 5-27.
5.
BartunekJ. M.WoodmanR. W. (2012). The spirits of organization development, or why OD lives despite its pronounced death. In CameronK.SpreitzerG. (Eds.), Handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 727-736). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
6.
BartunekJ. M.WoodmanR. W. (in press). Beyond Lewin: Towards a temporal approximation of organization development and change. In MorgersonF. P.AguinisH.AshfordS. J. (Eds.), Annual review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior (Vol. 2). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
7.
BassB. M. (1983). Issues involved in relations between methodological rigor and reported outcomes in evaluation of organization development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 197-199.
8.
BeerM. (2014). Comments on “Effects of change interventions: What kind of evidence do we really have?”Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50, 28-33.
9.
BullockS. J.SvyantekD. J. (1983). Positive-findings bias in positive-findings bias research. Academy of Management Proceedings, 16, 221-224.
10.
BusheG. R.MarshakR. J. (2009). Revisioning organization development: Diagnostic and dialogic premises and patterns of practice. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45, 348-368.
11.
BusheG. R.MarshakR. J. (2014). The dialogic mindset in organization development. In ShaniA. B.NoumairD. A. (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 22, pp. 55-97). Bingley, England: Emerald.
12.
ChinR.BenneK. D. (1976). General strategies for effecting changes in human systems. In BennisW. G.BenneK. D.ChinR.CoreyK. E. (Eds.), The planning of change (3rd ed., pp. 22-45). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
13.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1990). The domain of creativity. In RuncoM. A.AlbertR. S. (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 190-212). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
CummingsT. G.WorleyC. G. (2015). Organization development and change (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
15.
FriedlanderF.BrownL. D. (1974). Organization development. Annual Review of Psychology, 25, 313-341.
16.
FrithC. D.FrithU. (2012). Mechanisms of social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 287-313.
17.
GolembiewskiR. T.BillingsleyK.YeagerS. (1976). Measuring change and persistence in human affairs: Types of change generated by OD designs. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12, 133-157.
18.
GrantA. M.WallT. D. (2009). The neglected science and art of quasi-experimentation: Why-to, when-to, and how-to advice for organizational researchers. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 653-686.
19.
HawkingS. (1994). My position. In Black holes and baby universes (pp. 41-47). New York, NY: Bantam.
20.
HawkingS.MlodinowL. (2010). What is reality? In The grand design (pp. 39-59). New York, NY: Bantam.
21.
HeracleousL. (Ed.). (2011). Bridging the scholar-practitioner divide [Special issue]. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47, 5-134.
22.
HolyoakK. J.ChengP. W. (2011). Causal learning and inference as a rational process: The new synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 135-163.
23.
IsraelB. A.SchurmanS. J.HugentoblerM. K. (1992). Conducting action research: Relationships between organization members and researchers. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28, 74-101.
24.
KilbourneL. M.WoodmanR. W. (1999). Barriers to organizational creativity. In PurserR.MontuoriA. (Eds.), Social creativity in organizations (pp. 125-150). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
25.
LewinK. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.
26.
MilgramR. M. (1990). Creativity: An idea whose time has come and gone? In RuncoM. A.AlbertR. S. (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 215-233). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27.
OregS.MichelA.ByR. (Eds.). (2013). The psychology of organizational change: Viewing change from the employee’s perspective. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
28.
PideritS. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25, 783-794.
29.
PorrasJ. I.RobertsonP. J. (1987). Organization development theory: A typology and evaluation. In WoodmanR. W.PasmoreW. A. (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 1, pp. 1-57). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
30.
RynesS. L.BartunekJ. M.DaftR. L. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation, and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 340-355.
31.
SchwarzG. M.StensakerI. G. (2014). Progress in evidence: You can’t always get what you want. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50, 34-39.
32.
SeoM.PutnamL. L.BartunekJ. M. (2004). Dualities and tensions of planned organizational change. In PooleM. S.Van de VenA. H. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change and innovation (pp. 73-107). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
33.
StebbinsM. W.SnowC. C. (1982). Processes and payoffs of programmatic action research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 69-86.
34.
TerborgJ. A.HowardG. S.MaxwellS. E. (1980). Evaluating planned organizational change: A method for assessing alpha, beta, and gamma change. Academy of Management Review, 5, 109-121.
35.
TerpstraD. E. (1981). Relationships between methodological rigor and reported outcomes in organization development evaluation research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 541-543.
36.
WoodmanR. W. (1989). Evaluation research on organizational change: Arguments for a “combined paradigm” approach. In WoodmanR. W.PasmoreW. A. (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 3, pp. 161-180). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
37.
WoodmanR. W. (2008). Creativity and organizational change: Linking ideas and extending theory. In ZhouJ.ShalleyC. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 283-300). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
WoodmanR. W. (2014). The role of internal validity in evaluation research on organizational change interventions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50, 40-49.
39.
WoodmanR. W.BartunekJ. M. (2013). Commentary: Change processes and action implications. In OregS.MichelA.ByR. (Eds.), The psychology of organizational change: Viewing change from the employee’s perspective (pp. 301-323). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
40.
WoodmanR. W.SawyerJ. E.GriffinR. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293-321.
41.
WoodmanR. W.WayneS. J. (1985). An investigation of positive-findings bias in evaluation of organization development interventions. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 889-913.
42.
ZmudR. W.ArmenakisA. A. (1978). Understanding the measurement of change. Academy of Management Review, 3, 661-669.
