Organization Development Objectives,Assumptions and Strategies

Beckhard Richard Burke W. Warner Steele Fred I. , “the Program for Specialists in Organization Training and Development,” mimeographed, NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, Dec. 1967, p. ii; and Jones John Paul , “What's Wrong With Work?” in What's Wrong With Work? (New York: National Association of Manufacturers, 1967), p. 8. For a history of NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, with which Douglas McGregor was long associated in addition to his professional appointment at M.I.T. and which has been a major factor in the history of organization development, see Bradford Leland P. , “Biography of an Institution,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, III:2 (1967), 127–143. While we will use the word “program” from time to time, ideally organization development is a “process,” not just another new program of temporary quality.

Kolb Harry D. , Introduction to An Action Research Program for Organization Improvement (Ann Arbor: Foundation for Research in Human Behavior, 1960), p. i.

Cattell defines synergy as “the sum total of the energy which a group can command.” Katz Daniel Kahn Robert L. , The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966), p. 33.

For a similar statement of objectives, see “What is OD?” NTL Institute: News and Reports from NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, II (June 1968), 1–2. Whether OD programs increase the overall level of authority in contrast to redistributing authority is a debatable point. My hypothesis is that both a redistribution and an overall increase occur.

Woodward Joan , Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice (London: Oxford University Press, 1965).

See Myers M. Scott , “Every Employee a Manager,” California Management Review, X (Spring 1968), 9–20.

See McGregor Douglas , The Human Side of Enterprise (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1960), pp. 47–48.

In addition to influence from the writings of McGregor, Likert, Argyris, and others, this discussion has been influenced by “Some Assumptions About Change in Organizations,” in notebook “Program for Specialists in Organization Training and Development,” NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, 1967; and by staff members who participated in that program.

For a discussion of the “linking pin” concept, see Likert Rensis , New Patterns of Management (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961).

Warren G. Bennis sees three major approaches to planned organizational change, with the behavioral scientists associated with each all having “a deep concern with applying social science knowledge to create more viable social systems; a commitment to action, as well as to research … and a belief that improved interpersonal and group relationships will ultimately lead to better organizational performance.” Bennis , “A New Role for the Behavioral Sciences: Effecting Organizational Change,” Administrative Science Quarterly, VIII (Sept. 1963), 157–158; and Shepard Herbert A. , “An Action Research Model,” in An Action Research Program for Organization Improvement, pp. 31–35.

Bennis , “A New Role for the Behavioral Sciences,” 158.

For a discussion of some of the problems and dilemmas in behavioral science research, see Argyris Chris , “Creating Effective Relationships in Organizations,” in Adams Richard N. Preiss Jack J. , eds., Human Organization Research (Homewood, Ill.: The Dorsey Press, 1960), pp. 109–123; and Benedict Barbara A. , “The Clinical Experimental Approach to Assessing Organizational Change Efforts,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, (Nov. 1967), 347–380.

For further discussion of action research, see Schein Edgar H. Bennis Warren G. , Personal and Organizational Change Through Group Methods (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1966), pp. 272–274.

Whyte William Foote Hamilton Edith Lentz , Action Research for Management (Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, 1964), p. 2.

Jeremiah J. O'Connell appropriately challenges the notion that there is “one best way” of organizational change and stresses that the consultant should choose his role and intervention strategies on the basis of “the conditions existing when he enters the client system” (Managing Organizational Innovation [Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, 1968], pp. 10–11).

For further discussion of organization diagnosis, see Beckhard Richard , “An Organization Improvement Program in a Decentralised Organization,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, II (Jan–March 1966), 3–4, “OD as a Process,” in What's Wrong with Work?, pp. 12–13.

For example, see Mann Floyd C. , “Studying and Creating Change,” in Costello Timothy W. Zalkind Sheldon S. , eds., Psychology in Administration—A Research Orientation (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1963), pp. 321–324. See also Miller Delbert C. , “Using Behavioral Science to Solve Organization Problems,” Personnel Administration, XXXI (Jan.–Feb. 1968), 21–29.

For a description of feedback procedures used by the Survey Research Center, Univ. of Michigan, see Mann Likert , “The Need for Research on the Communication of Research Results,” in Human Organization Research, pp. 57–66.

This phrase probably came from a management workshop sponsored by NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science.

For a description of what goes on in team-building sessions, see Beckhard , “An Organizational Improvement Program,” 9–13; and Margulies Newton Raia Anthony P. , “People in Organizations—A Case for Team Training,” Training and Development Journal, XXII (August 1968), 2–11. For a description of problem-solving sessions involving the total management group (about 70) of a company, see Beckhard , “The Confrontation Meeting,” Harvard Business Review, XLV (March–April 1967), 149–155.

For a description of actual organization development programs, see Buchanan Paul C. , “Innovative Organizations—A Study in Organization Development,” in Applying Behavioral Science Research in Industry (New York: Industrial Relations Counselors, 1964), pp. 87–107; Davis Sheldon A. , “An Organic Problem-Solving Method of Organizational Change,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, III:1 (1967), 3–21; Sofer Cyril , The Organization from Within (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961); Marrow Alfred J. Bowers David G. Seashore Stanley E. , Management by Participation (New York: Harper and Row, 1967); Blake Robert R. Mouton Jane S. Barnes Louis B. Greiner Larry E. , “Breakthrough in Organization Development,” Harvard Business Review, XLII (Nov.–Dec. 1964), 133–155; Bartlett Alton C. , “Changing Behavior as a Means to Increased Efficiency,” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, III:3 (1967), 381–403; Greiner Larry E. , “Antecedents of Planned Organization Change,” ibid., III:1 (1967), 51–85; and Blake Robert R. Mouton Jane , Corporate Excellence Through Grid Organization Development (Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing Company, 1968).

Bradford From , “Biography of an Institution.” See also Benne Kenneth D. , “History of the T Group in the Laboratory Setting,” in Bradford Gibb Jack R. Benne , eds., T/Group Theory and Laboratory Method (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964), pp. 80–135.

Schein Bennis , p. 37.

For further discussion of group composition in laboratory training, see Schein Bennis , pp. 63–69. NTL-LABS now include the Center for Organization Studies, the Center for the Development of Educational Leadership, the Center for Community Affairs, and the Center for International Training to serve a wide range of client populations and groups.

Argyris Chris , “T-Groups for Organizational Effectiveness,” Harvard Business Review, XLII (March-April 1964), 60–74.

Based on discussions with NTL staff members. One estimate is that the incidence of “serious stress and mental disturbance” during laboratory training is less than one percent of participants and in almost all cases occurs in persons with a history of prior disturbance (Charles Seashore, “What is Sensitivity Training,” NTL Institute News and Reports, II [April 1968], 2).

Ibid., 1.

For a description of what goes on in T-groups, see Schein Bennis , pp. 10–27; Bradford Gibb Benne , pp. 55–67; Whitaker Dorothy S. , “A Case Study of a T-Group,” in Whitaker Galvin , ed., T-Group Training: Group Dynamics in Management Education, A.T.M. Occasional Papers, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), pp. 14–22; Weschler Irving R. Reisel Jerome , Inside a Sensitivity Training Group (Berkeley: University of California, Institute of Industrial Relations, 1959); and Glueck William F. , “Reflections on a T-Group Experience,” Personnel Journal, XLVII (July 1968), 501–504. For use of cases or exercises based on research results (“instrumented training”) see Blake Robert R. Mouton Jane S. , “The Instrumented Training Laboratory,” in Weschler Irving R. Schein Edgar H. , eds., Five Issues in Training (Washington: National Training Laboratories, 1962), pp. 61–76; and Burke W. Warner Hornstein Harvey A. , “Conceptual vs. Experimental Management Training,” Training and Development Journal, XXI (Dec. 1967), 12–17.

House Robert J. , “T-Group Education and Leadership Effectiveness: A Review of the Empiric Literature and a Critical Evaluation,” Personnel Psychology, XX (Spring 1967), 1–32. See also Stock Dorothy , “A Survey of Research on T-Groups,” in Bradford, Gibb, and Benne, pp. 395–441.

House , ibid., pp. 18–19.

Campbell John P. Dunnette Marvin D. , “Effectiveness of T-Group Experiences in Managerial Training and development,” Psychological Bulletin, LXX (August 1968), 73–104.

Ibid., 100.

Ibid., 101. See also the essays by Dunnette and Campbell and Chris Argyris in Industrial Relations, VIII (Oct. 1968), 1–45.

On this point, see Greiner Larry E. , “Patterns of Organization Change,” Harvard Business Review, XLV (May-June 1967), 119–130.

See Davis Sheldon A. , “An Organic Problem-Solving Method.”

See Likert Rensis , The Human Organization: Its Management and Value (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967).