The methodological war between industrial-organizational (I/O) "hardheads" and organizational development (OD) "softheads " has persisted throughout the 20th century and shows no signs of abatement. This article proposes grounds for a truce in this war by (a) explaining the fundamental trade-offs between "hard-headed" and "soft-headed" research; and (b) showing how an empirical test for bias that has been used by hardheads to criticize the "quality" of OD research is itself flawed. Bias studies test the hypothesis of "positive findings" bias, which predicts that OD studies with "low quality" should have largerstudy outcomes than studies with "high quality. " Methods used by hardheads to test for bias, however, actually operate against finding support for the positive findings hypothesis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Armstrong, J. S.
(1982). The value of formal planning for strategic decisions: Review of empirical research. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 197-211.
2.
Barrick, M. R.
, & Alexander, R. A. (1987). A review of quality circle efficacy and the existence of positive-findings bias. Personnel Psychology, 40, 579-592.
3.
Bass, B. M.
(1983). Issues involved in relations between methodological rigor and reported outcomes in evaluations of organizational development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(1), 197-199.
4.
Berlinger, L. R.
, Glick, W. H., & Rodgers, R. (1988). Job enrichment and performance improvement. In J. P. Campbell & R. J. Campbell (Eds.), Productivity in organizations (pp. 219-254). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5.
Blumberg, M.
, & Pringle, C. D. (1983). How control groups can cause loss of control in action research: The case of Rushton Coal Mine. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19, 409-425.
6.
Bullock, R. J.
(1986). A meta-analysis method for OD case studies. Group & Organization Studies, 11, 33-48.
7.
Bullock, R. J.
, & Svyantek, D. J. (1985). Analyzing meta-analysis: Potential problems, an unsuccessful replication, and evaluation criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 108-115.
8.
Bullock, R. J.
, & Svyantek, D. J. (1987). The impossibility of using random strategies to study the organization development process. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23, 255-262.
9.
Bullock, R. J.
, & Tubbs, M. E. (1987). The case meta-analysis method for OD. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
10.
French, W. L.
, & Bell, C. H. (1978). Organization development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11.
Golembiewski, R. T.
, & Sun, B. (1989). Positive-findings bias in quality of work life research: Public-private comparisons. Public Productivity and Management Review, 13, 145-154.
12.
Golembiewski, R. T.
, & Sun, B. (1990). Positive findings bias in QWL studies: Rigor and outcomes in a large sample. Journal of Management, 16(3), 665-674.
13.
Greenley, G. E.
(1986). Does strategic planning improve company performance? Long Range Planning, 19, 101-109.
14.
Guzzo, R. A.
, Jette, R. D., & Katzell, R. A. (1985). The effects of psychologically based intervention programs on worker productivity: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38, 275-291.
15.
Harrison, R.
(1971). Research on human relations training: Design and interpretation. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7, 71-85.
16.
Hunter, J. E.
, & Rodgers, R. (1995). Flawed theories about study flaws. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (pp. 297-335). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
17.
Hunter, J. E.
, & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18.
Miller, C. C.
, & Cardinal, L. B. (1994). Strategic planning and firm performance: A synthesis of more than two decades of research. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1649-1665.
19.
Miller, K. I.
, & Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 727-753.
20.
Morrison, P.
(1978). Evaluation in OD: A review and an assessment. Group and Organization Studies, 3, 42-70.
21.
Neuman, G. A.
, Edwards, J. E., & Raju, N. S. (1989). Organizational development interventions: A meta-analysis of their effects on satisfaction and other attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 42, 461-489.
22.
Porras, JI.
, & Berg, P. O. (1978). Evaluation methodology in organization development: An analysis and critique. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 14, 151-173.
23.
Porras, J. I.
, & Robertson, P. J. (1992). Organizational development: Theory, practice and research. In M. D. Dunette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 740-822). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
24.
Reichardt, C. S.
, & Collob, H. F. (1989). Ruling out threats to validity. Evaluation Review, 13, 3-17.
25.
Roberts, D. R.
, & Robertson, P. J. (1992). Positive findings bias, and measuring methodological rigor, in evaluations of organization development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(6), 918-925.
26.
Robertson, P. J.
, Roberts, D. R., & Porras, J. I. (1993). Dynamics of planned organizational change: Assessing empirical support for a theoretical model. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 619-634.
27.
Rodgers, R.
, & Hunter, J. E. (1991). Impact of management by objectives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology [Monograph], 76, 322-336.
28.
Rodgers, R.
, & Hunter, J. E. (1994). The discard of study evidence by literature reviewers. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30, 329-345.
29.
Sashkin, M.
, & Burke, W. W. (1987). Organization development in the 1980s. Journal of Management, 13, 393-417.
30.
Sedlmeier, P.
, & Gigerenzer, G. (1989). Do studies of statistical power have an effect on the power of studies? Psychological Bulletin, 105(2), 309-316.
31.
Svyantek, D. J.
, O'Connell, M. S., & Baumgardner, T. L. (1992). Applications of Bayesian methods to OD evaluation and decision making. Human Relations, 45, 621-636.
32.
Terpstra, D. E.
(1981). Relations between methodological rigor and reported outcomes in organization development evaluation research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 541-543.
33.
Thorngate, W.
(1976). "In general" vs. "it depends": Some comments on the Gergen-Schlenker debate. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 404-410.
34.
Vicars, W. M.
, & Hartke, D. D. (1984). Evaluating OD evaluations: A status report. Group & Organization Studies, 9(2), 177-188.
35.
Weick, K. E.
(1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
36.
Whyte, W. F.
(1984). Learning from the field: A guide from experience. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
37.
Woodman, R. W.
, & Wayne, S. J. (1985). An investigation of positive-findings bias in evaluation of organization development interventions. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 889-913.
38.
Yin, R. K.
, & Heald, K. A. (1975). Using the case survey method to analyze policy studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 371-381.
