Organization Development. Donald L. Anderson

understand one another’s behavior. The OD practitioner can explain why he or she believes in a certain course of action by articulating the values underlying this choice, and the manager or client can do the same. We can learn from one another’s perspectives and discover underlying similarities and differences (as well as avoid repeating the same conflicts over and over). A client who decides not to implement a mentoring program may still believe in the value of individual growth and shared learning, but may believe that the time is not right for this particular program. The consultant can then work with the client to develop another program that meets the client’s needs and also maintains the same objectives and underlying values.

      5. They can help us evaluate how we did. Values can be a starting point for evaluation of an engagement (as we will discover in Chapter 14) or a point for personal reflection and self-evaluation as a consultant. Whether we acted in accordance with our values and helped to further those values is an important point of learning and evaluation after any engagement.

      Core Values of Organization Development

      Several humanistic assumptions underlie the core values of the field. By humanistic we mean that individuals deserve respect, are trustworthy, and want to achieve personal growth and satisfaction (Wooten & White, 1999). Humanistic values also include a belief in the equity and equality of people, democratic principles, and a belief in human dignity and worth. “Broadly defined, this humanistic orientation can be summed up as ‘improving organizational life for all members’” (Church et al., 1992, p. 11). Adapting from predecessors Likert, MacGregor, and Blake and Mouton, Tannenbaum and Davis (1969) articulated the transition in values taking hold in organizations at the time. Table 3.1 summarizes the alternative values espoused by OD practitioners.

      Expanding on the definitions listed on the right side of Table 3.1, Margulies and Raia (1972) were among early proponents of OD’s humanistic values, which they described as follows:

      1 Providing opportunities for people to function as human beings rather than as resources in the productive process.

      2 Providing opportunities for each organization member, as well as for the organization itself, to develop to his [or her] full potential.

      3 Seeking to increase the effectiveness of the organization in terms of all of its goals.

      4 Attempting to create an environment in which it is possible to find exciting and challenging work.

      5 Providing opportunities for people in organizations to influence the way in which they relate to work, the organization, and the environment.

      6 Treating each human being as a person with a complex set of needs, all of which are important in his [or her] work and in his [or her] life. (p. 3)

       Table 3.1

      Source: Tannenbaum, R., & Davis, S. A. (1969). Values, man, and organizations. Industrial Management Review, 10(2), 67–86.

      © 1969 from MIT Sloan Management Review/Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

      Many who read this list of humanistic values for the first time have an initial feeling that they are worthy values to hold, but they see them as too idealistic to implement in practice, specifically in a competitive organizational environment in which business results are necessary. The OD practitioner sees the possibilities for an improved organizational life in which personal and organizational goals are not at odds. This means, perhaps most fundamentally to OD’s values, that personal effectiveness, challenge, learning, fulfillment, and satisfaction can be gained at the same time that the organization’s effectiveness and objectives are also realized. We will return to this point later in the chapter.

      In the next sections we will examine several of OD’s current values in more detail, summarized in Table 3.2.

      Participation, Involvement, and Empowerment

      Participation is perhaps the most foundational of OD’s democratic values. Recall the discussion of Likert’s participative management strategy described in Chapter 2. Participative management, and OD activities that support it, offer the ability for employees to contribute to the decision-making process and to have more control and autonomy over their work (Skelley, 1989). This value means that organizational members should be involved and included in decisions and organizational changes that impact them, because “people support what they help create” (Beckhard, 1969, p. 27; Wooten & White, 1999, p. 11). Schein (1990a) writes that the essence of OD is “that change in human systems will not come about without the active involvement of the members of the system who will undergo the change” (p. 16). Change, in this respect, is not imposed on a group or demanded of an individual. Instead, the practitioner’s charge is to help the organization develop and manage the change that it seeks to create, giving the opportunity for participation and thereby transitioning ownership to organization members. Creating occasions for participation in decision making means giving employees a choice to contribute (for example, to offer an opinion or to express a perspective) but stops short of mandating it. Providing opportunities for involvement and participation does not necessarily mean that all organizational members will be enthusiastic about the outcome, but it does mean that they will have had an opportunity to express an opinion and potentially to shape it. In this respect, participation is a very important aspect of organizational members’ being able to express themselves and achieve personal fulfillment through membership.

Table 3.2

      Participation is not, however, a silver bullet to eliminate all organizational problems. As Pasmore and Fagans (1992) argue, “One cannot conclude based on any reasonable review of the literature . . . that simply involving people in decision making will produce positive benefits to either those involved or the organization as a whole” (p. 378). Instead, more complex factors are at play. Organizational members may not be prepared or trained to participate. For example, inviting employees to solve complex problems may not be effective if they do not have the skills to do so. Moreover, participation can be a risky prospect in many organizations, where members can feel suspicious of being asked to step outside of long-held hierarchical patterns. This is true particularly since organizations have not created the conditions in which members can participate competently, as Argyris (1957) noted a half-century ago. Characteristics of organizational structure (e.g., a tall organization), relationships (e.g., expectations of who may participate given what status), and societal expectations (e.g., values of not being confrontational or oppositional) all inhibit an individual’s choice to participate (Neumann, 1989). Finally, increasing participation can actually be detrimental to members if it is not authentic. Organizational leaders must not choose to involve employees solely for symbolic reasons. Instead, they must develop an environment in which authentic participation is possible and organizational members can have a legitimate impact.

      The Importance of Groups and Teams

      Beckhard (1969) writes that “the basic building blocks of an organization are groups (teams)” (p. 26). They are central categories in the organizational system and, as a result, the major target for many interventions. Organizational members almost always belong to at least one, if not several, interdependent teams, organized by function (e.g., marketing, human resources) or level (e.g., vice presidents, second-shift managers), for example. French (1969) writes that organization members generally want to participate in at least one group of this type (the immediate department being the most common), to both contribute and to be accepted, and that group effectiveness is at least in some way dependent on the group’s taking some of the major task and maintenance responsibilities of the leader. These groups both reflect and affect the larger organization’s functioning, since the successful functioning of finance, marketing, or sales affects other departments that depend