Abstract
An argument is made that the discipline of organization development needs to be scrutinized from a critical perspective. Thus, a series of value-laden objections to mainstream consulting practices and organizational theory are raised: consultants function as the servants of those in power, technical assistance often breeds further dependence on outside expertise, neutrality serves as a cloak for subtle partisanship, and the field suffers from an overemphasis on emotionality rather than structure and macrorelationships. Underlying this critique is a plea for the legitimacy of advocacy intervention and a recognition of the political and economic context within which the practationer operates.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
