<Previous Lesson

Organization Development

Next Lesson>

Lesson#4

The Evolution of OD

The Evolution of OD

A brief history of OD will help to clarify the evolution of the term as well as some of the problems and confusion that have surrounded it. As currently practiced, OD emerged from five major stems, as shown below. The first was the growth of the National Training Laboratories (NTL) and the development of training groups, otherwise known as sensitivity training or T-groups, The second stem of OD was the classic work on action research conducted by social scientists interested in applying research to managing change. An important feature of action research was a technique known as survey feedback. Kurt Lewin, a prolific theorist, researcher, and practitioner in group dynamics and social change, was instrumental in the development of T-groups, survey feedback, and action research. His work led to the creation of OD and still serves as a major source of its concepts and methods. The third stem represents the application of participative management to organization structure and design. The fourth stem is the approach focusing on productivity and the quality of work life. The fifth stem of OD, and the most recent influence on current practice, involves strategic change and organization transformation.
Laboratory Training (The T-Group):


This stem of OD pioneered laboratory training, or the T-group – a small, unstructured group in which participants learn from their own interactions and evolving dynamics about such issues as interpersonal relations, personal growth, leadership, and group dynamics. Essentially, laboratory training began in 1946, when Kurt Lewin, (1898 – 1947, a prolific theorist, researcher, and practitioner in interpersonal, group, intergroup, and community relationships) widely recognized as the founding father of OD, although he died before the concept became current in the mid-1950s, and his staff at the Research Centre for Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) were asked by the Connecticut Interracial Commission for help on research in training community leaders. A workshop was developed, and the community leaders were brought together to learn about leadership and to discuss problems. At the end of each day, the researchers discussed privately what behaviors and group dynamics they had observed. The community leaders asked permission to sit in on these feedback sessions. Reluctant at first, the researchers finally agreed. Thus, the first T-group was formed in which people reacted to data about their own behavior. The researchers drew two conclusions about the first T-group experiment: Feedback about group interaction was a rich learning experience, and The process of “group building” had potential for learning that could be transferred to “back-home” situations.



As a result of this experience, the Office of Naval Research and the National Education Association provided financial backing to form the National Training Laboratories (NTL), and Gould Academy in Bethel, Maine, was selected as a site for further work (since the, Bethel has played an important part in NTL). The first Basic Skill Training Groups (later called T-groups) were offered in 1947. The program was so successful that out of Bethel experiences and NTL grew a significant number of laboratory training centers sponsored by universities. In the 1950s, three trends emerged: The emergence of regional laboratories, The expansion of year-round sessions of T-groups, and The expansion of the T-group into business and industry, with NTL members becoming increasingly involved with industry programs. Over the next decade, as trainers began to work with social systems of more permanency and complexity then T-groups, they began to experience considerable frustration in the transfer of laboratory behavioral skills and insights of individuals into the solution of problems in organizations. Personal skills learned in the T-group settings were very difficult to transfer to complex organizations. However, the training of “teams” from the same organization had emerged early at Bethel and undoubtedly was a link to the total organizational focus of Douglas McGregor, Herbert Shepard, and Robert Blake, and subsequently the focus of Richard Beckhard, Chris Argyris, Jack Gibb, Warren Bennis, and others. All had been T-group trainers in NTL programs. Applying T-group techniques to organizations gradually became known as team building – a process for helping work groups become more effective in accomplishing tasks and satisfying member needs. 2.

Action Research/Survey Feedback:


Kurt Lewin also was involved in the second movement that led to OD’s emergence as a practical field of social science. This second stem refers to the processes of action research and survey feedback. The action research contribution began in the 1940s with studies conducted by social scientists John Collier, Kurt Lewin, and William Whyte. They discovered that research needed to be closely linked to action if organization members were to use it to manage change. A collaborative effort was initiated between organization members and social scientists to collect research data about an organization’s functioning, to analyze it for causes of problems, and to devise and implement solutions. After implementation, further data were collected to assess the results, and the cycle of data collection and action often continued. The results of action research were twofold: members of organizations were able to use research on themselves to guide action and change, and social scientists were able to study that process to derive new knowledge that could be used elsewhere. Among the pioneering action research studies was the work of Lewin at a Manufacturing Co. (Harwood Manufacturing Company) and the classic research by Lester Coch and John French on overcoming resistance to change. The latter study led to the development of participative management as a means of getting employees involved in planning and managing change. Other notable action research contributions included Whyte and Edith Hamilton’s famous study of Chicago’s Tremont Hotel and Collier’s efforts to apply action research techniques to improving race relations when he was commissioner of Indian affairs from 1933 to 1945. These studies did much to establish action research as integral to organization change. Today, it is the backbone of most OD applications. A key component of most action research studies was the systematic collection of survey data that was fed back to the client organization. Following Lewin’s death in 1947, his Research Center for Group Dynamics at MIT moved to Michigan and joined with the Survey Research Center as part of the Institute doe Social Research. The Institute was headed by Renis Likert, a pioneer in developing scientific approaches to attitude surveys. Likert’s doctoral dissertation at Columbia University, “A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes,” was the classic study in which he developed the widely used, five-point “Likert Scale.” In an early study by the institute, Likert and Floyd Mann administered a companywide survey of management and employee attitudes at Detroit Edison. Over a two-year period beginning in 1948, three sets of data were developed: (1) the viewpoints of eight thousand non-supervisory employees about their supervisors, promotion opportunities, and work satisfaction with fellow employees; (2) similar reactions from first- and second-line supervisors; and (3) information from higher levels of management. The feedback process that evolved was an “interlocking chain of conferences.” The major findings of the survey were first reported to the top management and then transmitted throughout the organization. The feedback sessions were conducted in task groups, with supervisors and their immediate subordinates discussing the data together. Although there was little substantial research evidence, the researchers intuitively felt that this was a powerful process for change. In 1950, eight accounting departments asked for a repeat of the survey, thus generating a new cycle of feedback meetings. In four departments, feedback approaches were used, but the method varied, with two



of the remaining departments receiving feedback only at the departmental level. Because of changes in key personnel, nothing was done in two departments. A third follow-up study indicated that more significant and positive changes, such as job satisfaction, had occurred in the departments receiving feedback than in the two departments that did not practice. From those findings, Likert and Mann derived several conclusions about the effects of survey feedback on organization change. This led to extensive applications of survey-feedback methods in a variety of settings. The common pattern of data collection, data feedback, action planning, implementation, and follow-up data collection in both action research and survey feedback can be seen in these examples. Part of the emergence of survey research and feedback was based on the refinements made by SRC (Survey Research Center of Michigan) staff members in survey methodology. Another part was the evolution of feedback methodology.
Likert Scale: Likert scale


is often used in questionnaires, and is the most widely used scale in survey research. When responding to a Likert questionnaire item, respondents specify their level of agreement to a statement. A typical test item in a Likert scale is a statement. The respondent is asked to indicate his or her degree of agreement with the statement or any kind of subjective or objective evaluation of the statement. Traditionally a five-point scale is used, however many advocate using a seven or nine point scale.

Ice cream is good for breakfast:


o Strongly disagree o Disagree o Neither agree nor disagree o Agree o Strongly agree

Scoring and analysis:


After the questionnaire is completed, each item may be analyzed separately or item responses may be summed to create a score for a group of items.

Results of Action Research/Survey Feedback:


Likert, along with some of his colleagues, while doing a company-wide study of employee perceptions, behavior, reactions and attitudes found that: When the survey data were reported to a manager (or supervisor) and he or she failed to discus the results with subordinates and failed to plan with them what the managers and others should do to bring improvement, little change occurred. On the other hand, when the manager discussed the results with subordinates and planned with them what to do to bring improvement, substantial favorable changes occurred. Another aspect of the study was the process of feeding back data from an attitude survey to the participating departments had more positive change in business organizations than that coming from traditional training courses. The effectiveness of this method is that it deals with the system of human relationships as a whole (supervisors and subordinates can change together) and it deals with each manager, supervisor, and employee in the context of his job, his own position, and his own work relationship.

<Previous Lesson

Organization Development

Next Lesson>

Home

Lesson Plan

Topics

Go to Top

Copyright © 2008-2013 zainbooks All Rights Reserved
Next Lesson
Previous Lesson
Lesson Plan
Topics
Home
Go to Top