This is truly an excellent discussion that I am finding very enlightening, for both what it says and what it doesn't say, and perhaps the latter is more important.
As a full-time consultant and a part-time PhD student investigating change management in the Australian NFP sector using true Grounded Theory as the methodology, and currently in my final stages, having written a number papers associated with my PhD, 2 of which have been published and 2 about to be published, I think this discussion potentially reinforces the widening gap between academe and practice (A theme which I have noticed appear often in the Academy editorials). This was further highlighted in a detailed review undertaken by the Australian Federal Government back in 2012/2013 (I believe) in conjunction with the major domestic universities and the Australian Industry Group, that responded to the question of why Business Schools were possibly becoming less relevant? The findings of that report were an interesting read.
One of my recent papers that is about to be published questions the extent to which change management research and outcomes actually moved away from Lewin with anything really new, as distinct to some rebadging and fine-tuning, rather than breakthrough changes. This becomes even more obvious when one considers that Lewin's change 'model' was not the flat linear analysis that many suggest, given his acute focus on Action Research. When considering what AR is, the question of how it can be described as flat or linear has always been of interest to me. However in 95% of texts written for MBA student consumption, Lewin is discarded as being redundant, which I find somewhat surprising.
As an Action Learning practitioner utilising an approach to AL that most closely mirrors Revans' original concepts, to solving organisational challenges whilst actively developing the skill sets and leadership potential of staff, I believe from a field work perspective, a wide-range of OD related processes are well and truly alive and, based on my activities here in Australia and the activities of my professional associates in the UK, feel that the reinvigoration that this discussion has highlighted, possibly recognises the gap that I spoke of earlier.
I hope this brief entry into this discussion is of some use, and I look forward to reading of its ongoing development.
Best Regards
David Rosenbaum
PhD Scholar (ACU), MBA (UNE), Grad Cert Mgmt (UNE), Dip Bus Stud (Monash), GAICD, Cert IV (Training & Assessment), FCPA, FAIM, ALFA, MRMIA, ALARA
Principal
OPTIMUM NFP
Senior Consultant
Head of Relationship Management & Programme Delivery for Australia
ACTION LEARNING INTERNATIONAL INC.
It's not just you, David!
I have witnessed the same trend, and I am curious as to how this year's AOM sessions will address this trend. It is interesting to me how quickly (or NOT) academics respond to something that reoccurs in practice. In a more sterile/generic preparation of PhDs in recent years, how do we, indeed, provide talent not only for the industry pipeline but also for the research that needs to continually feed and be fed by the profession...
Are there any PhD programs that are truly tackling the "meat" of OD as currently practiced or conceived in practitioner conferences?
Are we doing a disservice to the profession by teaching our students to be pragmatic and go for the Organizational Behavior, Strategy, or another mainstream concentration?
If OD is back from the dead, who amongst the living are going to champion its cause?
Puzzled in Los Angeles,
Andre
On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 12:25 AM, David Grant
<david.grant@griffith.edu.au> wrote:
Is it just me or has there been a proliferation in the number of positions advertised over the last year or so with the term "Organization Development" in the title – especially by major firms? It wasn't so long ago that such jobs were rarely, if ever, seen, suggesting OD was perceived as either irrelevant or outdated in contemporary organizations. It appeared that many of the well known OD diagnostic tools and interventions had been discarded or had been appropriated under the more generic term of "organisational change" and were being practiced by line managers; both of these scenarios making the need for in-house OD specialists redundant and minimalising the work opportunities for external OD consultants.
The increase in the number of OD jobs advertised is a phenomenon apparent in the US, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. There also appears to have been an increasing interest in the area from professional bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development in the UK, while several new OD-related communities of practice such as Do OD (for UK health professionals) appear to have sprung up.
What's going on? Is OD back from the dead? It's not clear. Is what is being expected of those in these new roles something that adheres to the traditional humanistic values of OD or is the resurgence simply linked to something like say, the war for talent, or a basic need for organisations to find new ways for HR functions to improve the bottom line? My sneaking suspicion is, to borrow a famous phrase, that "it's OD Jim, but not as we know it". And if what is now required is a form of genuine OD one has to wonder whether there is a sufficient pipeline of adequately trained talent available to practice it.
I'm interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this. There will be a couple of sessions on the ODC program at this year's AoM meeting about the current state of, and future directions for, OD. The kind of issues I'm raising here will feed into these.