Organization development

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This article is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup.
Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (August 2009)

Organization development (OD) is a concept, organization-wide effort to increase an

organization's effectiveness and viability. Warren Bennis has referred to OD as a response to
change, a complex educational strategy intended to change the beliefs, attitudes, values, and
structure of organization so that they can better adapt to new technologies, marketing and
challenges, and the dizzying rate of change itself. OD is neither "anything done to better an
organization" nor is it "the training function of the organization"; it is a particular kind of change
process designed to bring about a particular kind of end result. OD can involve interventions in
the organization's "processes," using behavioural science knowledge[1] as well as organizational
reflection, system improvement, planning, and self-analysis.
Kurt Lewin (1898–1947) is widely recognized as the founding father of OD, although he died
before the concept became current in the mid-1950s. From Lewin came the ideas of group
dynamics and action research which underpin the basic OD process as well as providing its
collaborative consultant/client ethos. Institutionally, Lewin founded the "Research Center for
Group Dynamics" (RCGD) at MIT, which moved to Michigan after his death. RCGD colleagues
were among those who founded the National Training Laboratories (NTL), from which the T-
group and group-based OD emerged. In the UK, the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations was
important in developing systems theories. The joint TIHR journal Human Relations was an early
journal in the field. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences is now the leading journal in the
field.

Contents
[hide]
• 1 Overview
○ 1.1 Contractual relationship
○ 1.2 Change agent
○ 1.3 Sponsoring organization
○ 1.4 Applied behavioral science
○ 1.5 Systems context
○ 1.6 Improved organizational performance
○ 1.7 Organizational self-renewal
○ 1.8 Early development
• 2 Understanding organizations
 ○ 2.1 Modern development
• 3 Action research
• 4 Important figures
• 5 OD interventions
• 6 See also
• 7 Further reading
• 8 References

[edit] Overview

Training meeting about sustainable design. The photo shows a training meeting with factory
workers in a stainless steel ecodesign company from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. These types of
meeting are important in order make people work together in one shared goal.
At the core of OD is the program of organization, defined as two or more people working
together toward one or more shared goal(s). Development in this context is the notion that an
organization may become more effective over time at achieving its goals.
OD is a long range effort to improve organization's problem solving and renewal processes,
particularly through more effective and collaborative management of organizational culture,
often with the assistance of a change agent or catalyst and the use of the theory and technology
of applied behavioral science. Although behavioral science has provided the basic foundation for
the study and practice of organizational development, new and emerging fields of study have
made their presence known. Experts in systems thinking, leadership studies, organizational
leadership, and organizational learning (to name a few) whose perspective is not steeped in just
the behavioral sciences, but a much more multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approach have
emerged as OD catalysts. These emergent expert perspectives see the organization as the holistic
interplay of a number of systems that impact the process and outputs of the entire organization.
More importantly, the term change agent or catalyst is synonymous with the notion of a leader
who is engaged in doing leadership, a transformative or effectiveness process as opposed to
management, a more incremental or efficiency based change methodology.
Organization development is a "contractual relationship between a change agent and a
sponsoring organization entered into for the purpose of using applied behavioral science and or
other organizational change perspectives in a systems context to improve organizational
performance and the capacity of the organization to improve itself".[citation needed]
Organization development is an ongoing, systematic process to implement effective change in an
organization. Organization development is known as both a field of applied behavioral science
focused on understanding and managing organizational change and as a field of scientific study
and inquiry. It is interdisciplinary in nature and draws on sociology, psychology, and theories of
motivation, learning, and personality. Organization development is a growing field that is
responsive to many new approaches including Positive Adult Development.
[edit] Contractual relationship
Although neither the sponsoring organization nor the change agent can be sure at the outset of
the exact nature of the problem or problems to be dealt with or how long the change agents' help
will be needed, it is essential that some tentative agreement on these matters be reached. The
sponsoring organization needs to know generally what the change agent's preliminary plan is,
what its own commitments are in relation to personal commitments and responsibility for the
program, and what the change agent's fee will be. The change agent must assure himself that the
organization's, and particularly the top executives', commitment to change is strong enough to
support the kind of self-analysis and personal involvement requisite to success of the program.
Recognizing the uncertainties lying ahead on both sides, a termination agreement permitting
either side to withdraw at any time is usually included.[2]
[edit] Change agent
A change agent in the sense used here is not a technical expert skilled in such functional areas as
accounting, production, or finance. He is a behavioral scientist who knows how to get people in
an organization involved in solving their own problems. His main strength is a comprehensive
knowledge of human behavior, supported by a number of intervention techniques (to be
discussed later). The change agent can be either external or internal to the organization. An
internal change agent is usually a staff person who has expertise in the behavioral sciences and in
the intervention technology of OD. Beckhard reports several cases in which line people have
been trained in OD and have returned to their organizations to engage in successful change
assignments.[3] In the natural evolution of change mechanisms in organizations, this would seem
to approach the ideal arrangement. Qualified change agents can be found on some university
faculties, or they may be private consultants associated with such organizations as the National
Training Laboratories Institute for Applied Behavioral Science (Washington, D.C.) University
Associates (San Diego, California), the Human Systems Intervention graduate program in the
Department of Applied Human Sciences (Concordia University, Montreal, Canada), Navitus
(Pvt) Ltd (Pakistan), and similar organizations.
The change agent may be a staff or line member of the organization who is schooled in OD
theory and technique. In such a case, the "contractual relationship" is an in-house agreement that
should probably be explicit with respect to all of the conditions involved except the fee.
[edit] Sponsoring organization
The initiative for OD programs comes from an organization that has a problem. This means that
top management or someone authorized by top management is aware that a problem exists and
has decided to seek help in solving it. There is a direct analogy here to the practice of
psychotherapy: The client or patient must actively seek help in finding a solution to his
problems. This indicates a willingness on the part of the client organization to accept help and
assures the organization that management is actively concerned.[2]
[edit] Applied behavioral science
One of the outstanding characteristics of OD that distinguishes it from most other improvement
programs is that it is based on a "helping relationship." Some believe that the change agent is not
a physician to the organization's ills; that s/he does not examine the "patient," make a diagnosis,
and write a prescription. Nor does s/he try to teach organizational members a new inventory of
knowledge which they then transfer to the job situation. Using theory and methods drawn from
such behavioral sciences as (industrial/organizational psychology, industrial sociology,
communication, cultural anthropology, administrative theory, organizational behavior,
economics, and political science, the change agent's main function is to help the organization
define and solve its own problems. The basic method used is known as action research. This
approach, which is described in detail later, consists of a preliminary diagnosis, collecting data,
feedback of the data to the client, data exploration by the client group, action planning based on
the data, and taking action.[4]
[edit] Systems context
OD deals with a total system — the organization as a whole, including its relevant environment
— or with a subsystem or systems — departments or work groups — in the context of the total
system. Parts of systems, for example, individuals, cliques, structures, norms, values, and
products are not considered in isolation; the principle of interdependency, that is, that change in
one part of a system affects the other parts, is fully recognized. Thus, OD interventions focus on
the total culture and cultural processes of organizations. The focus is also on groups, since the
relevant behavior of individuals in organizations and groups is generally a product of group
influences rather than personality.[2]
[edit] Improved organizational performance
The objective of OD is to improve the organization's capacity to handle its internal and external
functioning and relationships. This would include such things as improved interpersonal and
group processes, more effective communication, enhanced ability to cope with organizational
problems of all kinds, more effective decision processes, more appropriate leadership style,
improved skill in dealing with destructive conflict, and higher levels of trust and cooperation
among organizational members. These objectives stem from a value system based on an
optimistic view of the nature of man — that man in a supportive environment is capable of
achieving higher levels of development and accomplishment. Essential to organization
development and effectiveness is the scientific method — inquiry, a rigorous search for causes,
experimental testing of hypotheses, and review of results.
[edit] Organizational self-renewal
The ultimate aim of OD practitioners is to "work themselves out of a job" by leaving the client
organization with a set of tools, behaviors, attitudes, and an action plan with which to monitor its
own state of health and to take corrective steps toward its own renewal and development. This is
consistent with the systems concept of feedback as a regulatory and corrective mechanism.[2]
[edit] Early development
Kurt Lewin played a key role in the evolution of organization development as it is known today.
As early as World War II, Lewin experimented with a collaborative change process (involving
himself as consultant and a client group) based on a three-step process of planning, taking action,
and measuring results. This was the forerunner of action research, an important element of OD,
which will be discussed later. Lewin then participated in the beginnings of laboratory training, or
T-groups, and, after his death in 1947, his close associates helped to develop survey-research
methods at the University of Michigan. These procedures became important parts of OD as
developments in this field continued at the National Training Laboratories and in growing
numbers of universities and private consulting firms across the country.
Douglas McGregor and Richard Beckhard while "consulting together at General Mills in the
1950's, the two coined the term organizational development (OD) to describe an innovative
bottoms-up change effort that fit no traditional consulting categories" (Weisbord, 1987, p. 112).[5]
The failure of off-site laboratory training to live up to its early promise was one of the important
forces stimulating the development of OD. Laboratory training is learning from a person's "here
and now" experience as a member of an ongoing training group. Such groups usually meet
without a specific agenda. Their purpose is for the members to learn about themselves from their
spontaneous "here and now" responses to an ambiguous hypothetical situation. Problems of
leadership, structure, status, communication, and self-serving behavior typically arise in such a
group. The members have an opportunity to learn something about themselves and to practice
such skills as listening, observing others, and functioning as effective group members.[6]
As formerly practiced (and occasionally still practiced for special purposes), laboratory training
was conducted in "stranger groups," or groups composed of individuals from different
organizations, situations, and backgrounds. A major difficulty developed, however, in
transferring knowledge gained from these "stranger labs" to the actual situation "back home".
This required a transfer between two different cultures, the relatively safe and protected
environment of the T-group (or training group) and the give-and-take of the organizational
environment with its traditional values. This led the early pioneers in this type of learning to
begin to apply it to "family groups" — that is, groups located within an organization. From this
shift in the locale of the training site and the realization that culture was an important factor in
influencing group members (along with some other developments in the behavioral sciences)
emerged the concept of organization development.[6]
Case history The Cambridge Clinic found itself having difficulty with its internal working
relationships. The medical director, concerned with the effect these problems could have on
patient care, contacted an organizational consultant at a local university and asked him for help.
A preliminary discussion among the director, the clinic administrator, and the consultant seemed
to point to problems in leadership, conflict resolution, and decision processes. The consultant
suggested that data be gathered so that a working diagnosis could be made. The clinic officials
agreed, and tentative working arrangements were concluded.
The consultant held a series of interviews involving all members of the clinic staff, the medical
director, and the administrator. Then the consultant "thematized", or summarized, the interview
data to identify specific problem areas. At the beginning of a workshop about a week later, the
consultant fed back to the clinic staff the data he had collected.
The staff arranged the problems in the following priorities
Role conflicts between certain members of the medical staff were creating tensions that
interfered with the necessity for cooperation in handling patients. The leadership style of the
medical director resulted in his putting off decisions on important operating matters. This led to
confusion and sometimes to inaction on the part of the medical and administrative staffs.
Communication between the administrative, medical, and outreach (social worker) staffs on
mutual problems tended to be avoided. Open conflicts over policies and procedures were thus
held in check, but suppressed feelings clearly had a negative influence on interpersonal and
intergroup behavior.
Through the use of role analysis and other techniques suggested by the consultant, the clinic staff
and the medical director were able to explore the role conflict and leadership problems and to
devise effective ways of coping with them. Exercises designed to improve communication skills
and a workshop session on dealing with conflict led to progress in developing more openness
and trust throughout the clinic. An important result of this first workshop was the creation of an
action plan that set forth specific steps to be applied to clinic problems by clinic personnel during
the ensuing period. The consultant agreed to monitor these efforts and to assist in any way he
could. Additional discussions and team development sessions were held with the director and the
medical and administrative staffs.
A second workshop attended by the entire clinic staff took place about two months after the first.
At the second workshop, the clinic staff continued to work together on the problems of dealing
with conflict and interpersonal communication. During the last half-day of the meeting, the staff
developed a revised action plan covering improvement activities to be undertaken in the
following weeks and months to improve the working relationships of the clinic.
A notable additional benefit of this OD program was that the clinic staff learned new ways of
monitoring the clinic's performance as an organization and of coping with some of its other
problems. Six months later, when the consultant did a follow-up check on the organization, the
staff confirmed that interpersonal problems were now under better control and that some of the
techniques learned at the two workshops associated with the OD programs were still being used.
Organizational Development is a system-wide application and transfer of behavioral science
knowledge to the planned development, improvement, and reinforcement of the strategies,
structure, and process that lead to organization effectiveness. (Abdul Basit - NUST - SEECS)
organization development is a really creating good things in the enviorment.
[edit] Understanding organizations
Weisbord presents a six-step model for understanding organization:
1. Purposes: The organization member are clear about the organization’s mission and
purpose and goal agreements, whether people support the organization’ purpose.
2. Structure: How do we divide up the work? The question is whether there is an adequate
fit between the purpose and the internal structure.
3. Relationship: Between individual, between units or department that perform different
tasks, and between the people and requirements of their job.
4. Rewards: The consultant should diagnose the similarities between what the organization
formally reward or punished for doing.
5. Leadership: Is to watch for blips among the other boxes and maintain balance among
them
6. Helpful mechanism: Is a helpful organization that must attend to in order to survive
which as planning, control, budgeting, and other information systems that help
organization member accomplish.[7]
[edit] Modern development
In recent years, serious questioning has emerged about the relevance of OD to managing change
in modern organizations. The need for "reinventing" the field has become a topic that even some
of its "founding fathers" are discussing critically.[8]
With this call for reinvention and change, scholars have begun to examine organizational
development from an emotion-based standpoint. For example, deKlerk (2007) [9] writes about
how emotional trauma can negatively affect performance. Due to downsizing, outsourcing,
mergers, restructuring, continual changes, invasions of privacy, harassment, and abuses of
power, many employees experience the emotions of aggression, anxiety, apprehension, cynicism,
and fear, which can lead to performance decreases. deKlerk (2007) suggests that in order to heal
the trauma and increase performance, O.D. practitioners must acknowledge the existence of the
trauma, provide a safe place for employees to discuss their feelings, symbolize the trauma and
put it into perspective, and then allow for and deal with the emotional responses. One method of
achieving this is by having employees draw pictures of what they feel about the situation, and
then having them explain their drawings with each other. Drawing pictures is beneficial because
it allows employees to express emotions they normally would not be able to put into words.
Also, drawings often prompt active participation in the activity, as everyone is required to draw a
picture and then discuss its meaning.
The use of new technologies combined with globalization has also shifted the field of
organization development. Roland Sullivan (2005) defined Organization Development with
participants at the 1st Organization Development Conference for Asia in Dubai-2005 as
"Organization Development is a transformative leap to a desired vision where strategies and
systems align, in the light of local culture with an innovative and authentic leadership style using
the support of high tech tools."od is the thing helping in building good culture iin the
orgaanisati.-Rahul
[edit] Action research
Wendell L French and Cecil Bell define organization development (OD) at one point as
"organization improvement through action research".[4] If one idea can be said to summarize
OD's underlying philosophy, it would be action research as it was conceptualized by Kurt Lewin
and later elaborated and expanded on by other behavioral scientists. Concerned with social
change and, more particularly, with effective, permanent social change, Lewin believed that the
motivation to change was strongly related to action: If people are active in decisions affecting
them, they are more likely to adopt new ways. "Rational social management", he said, "proceeds
in a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding
about the result of action".[10]
Figure 1: Systems Model of Action-Research Process
Lewin's description of the process of change involves three steps:[10]
"Unfreezing": Faced with a dilemma or disconfirmation, the individual or group becomes aware
of a need to change.
"Changing": The situation is diagnosed and new models of behavior are explored and tested.
"Refreezing": Application of new behavior is evaluated, and if reinforcing, adopted.
Figure 1 summarizes the steps and processes involved in planned change through action
research. Action research is depicted as a cyclical process of change. The cycle begins with a
series of planning actions initiated by the client and the change agent working together. The
principal elements of this stage include a preliminary diagnosis, data gathering, feedback of
results, and joint action planning. In the language of systems theory, this is the input phase, in
which the client system becomes aware of problems as yet unidentified, realizes it may need
outside help to effect changes, and shares with the consultant the process of problem diagnosis.
The second stage of action research is the action, or transformation, phase. This stage includes
actions relating to learning processes (perhaps in the form of role analysis) and to planning and
executing behavioral changes in the client organization. As shown in Figure 1, feedback at this
stage would move via Feedback Loop A and would have the effect of altering previous planning
to bring the learning activities of the client system into better alignment with change objectives.
Included in this stage is action-planning activity carried out jointly by the consultant and
members of the client system. Following the workshop or learning sessions, these action steps
are carried out on the job as part of the transformation stage.[6]
The third stage of action research is the output, or results, phase. This stage includes actual
changes in behavior (if any) resulting from corrective action steps taken following the second
stage. Data are again gathered from the client system so that progress can be determined and
necessary adjustments in learning activities can be made. Minor adjustments of this nature can be
made in learning activities via Feedback Loop B (see Figure 1). Major adjustments and
reevaluations would return the OD project to the first, or planning, stage for basic changes in the
program. The action-research model shown in Figure 1 closely follows Lewin's repetitive cycle
of planning, action, and measuring results. It also illustrates other aspects of Lewin's general
model of change. As indicated in the diagram, the planning stage is a period of unfreezing, or
problem awareness.[10] The action stage is a period of changing, that is, trying out new forms of
behavior in an effort to understand and cope with the system's problems. (There is inevitable
overlap between the stages, since the boundaries are not clear-cut and cannot be in a continuous
process). The results stage is a period of refreezing, in which new behaviors are tried out on the
job and, if successful and reinforcing, become a part of the system's repertoire of problem-
solving behavior.
Action research is problem centered, client centered, and action oriented. It involves the client
system in a diagnostic, active-learning, problem-finding, and problem-solving process. Data are
not simply returned in the form of a written report but instead are fed back in open joint sessions,
and the client and the change agent collaborate in identifying and ranking specific problems, in
devising methods for finding their real causes, and in developing plans for coping with them
realistically and practically. Scientific method in the form of data gathering, forming hypotheses,
testing hypotheses, and measuring results, although not pursued as rigorously as in the
laboratory, is nevertheless an integral part of the process. Action research also sets in motion a
long-range, cyclical, self-correcting mechanism for maintaining and enhancing the effectiveness
of the client's system by leaving the system with practical and useful tools for self-analysis and
self-renewal.[6] Organization Development helps in development of the total organization .
Organization Development is really a inter-disiplinaryin nature.OD has a great development and
has a bright future ahead . OD is growing at the highest rate and will become one of the essential
to be practiced in all the organization as the integral part of the Human Resource
Team.Organization Development will help in development at all the three levels at the
individual, group, organization and the country. OD will be very important at all the level and
should even be practiced at the lower level too. Ricky
[edit] Important figures
• Chris Argyris
• Richard Beckhard
• Robert R. Blake
• Roland Sullivan
• Louis L. Carter
• David Cooperrider
• W. Edwards Deming
• Fred Emery
• Charles Handy
• Elliott Jaques
• Kurt Lewin
• Rensis Likert
• Jane Mouton
• Derek S. Pugh
• Edgar Schein
• Donald Schon
• Peter Senge
 • Eric Trist
• Margaret J. Wheatley
[edit] OD interventions
"Interventions" are principal learning processes in the "action" stage (see Figure 1) of
organization development. Interventions are structured activities used individually or in
combination by the members of a client system to improve their social or task performance. They
may be introduced by a change agent as part of an improvement program, or they may be used
by the client following a program to check on the state of the organization's health, or to effect
necessary changes in its own behavior. "Structured activities" mean such diverse procedures as
experiential exercises, questionnaires, attitude surveys, interviews, relevant group discussions,
and even lunchtime meetings between the change agent and a member of the client organization.
Every action that influences an organization's improvement program in a change agent-client
system relationship can be said to be an intervention.[11]
There are many possible intervention strategies from which to choose. Several assumptions
about the nature and functioning of organizations are made in the choice of a particular strategy.
Beckhard lists six such assumptions:
1. The basic building blocks of an organization are groups (teams). Therefore, the basic
units of change are groups, not individuals.
2. An always relevant change goal is the reduction of inappropriate competition between
parts of the organization and the development of a more collaborative condition.
3. Decision making in a healthy organization is located where the information sources are,
rather than in a particular role or level of hierarchy.
4. Organizations, subunits of organizations, and individuals continuously manage their
affairs against goals. Controls are interim measurements, not the basis of managerial
strategy.
5. One goal of a healthy organization is to develop generally open communication, mutual
trust, and confidence between and across levels.
6. People support what they help create. People affected by a change must be allowed active
participation and a sense of ownership in the planning and conduct of the change.[3]
Interventions range from those designed to improve the effectiveness of individuals through
those designed to deal with teams and groups, intergroup relations, and the total organization.
There are interventions that focus on task issues (what people do), and those that focus on
process issues (how people go about doing it). Finally, interventions may be roughly classified
according to which change mechanism they tend to emphasize: for example, feedback,
awareness of changing cultural norms, interaction and communication, conflict, and education
through either new knowledge or skill practice.[12]
One of the most difficult tasks confronting the change agent is to help create in the client system
a safe climate for learning and change. In a favorable climate, human learning builds on itself
and continues indefinitely during man's lifetime. Out of new behavior, new dilemmas and
problems emerge as the spiral continues upward to new levels. In an unfavorable climate, in
contrast, learning is far less certain, and in an atmosphere of psychological threat, it often stops
altogether. Unfreezing old ways can be inhibited in organizations because the climate makes
employees feel that it is inappropriate to reveal true feelings, even though such revelations could
be constructive. In an inhibited atmosphere, therefore, necessary feedback is not available. Also,
trying out new ways may be viewed as risky because it violates established norms. Such an
organization may also be constrained because of the law of systems: If one part changes, other
parts will become involved. Hence, it is easier to maintain the status quo. Hierarchical authority,
specialization, span of control, and other characteristics of formal systems also discourage
experimentation.[11]
The change agent must address himself to all of these hazards and obstacles. Some of the things
which will help him are:
1. A real need in the client system to change
2. Genuine support from management
3. Setting a personal example: listening, supporting behavior
4. A sound background in the behavioral sciences
5. A working knowledge of systems theory
6. A belief in man as a rational, self-educating being fully capable of learning better ways to
do things.[11]
A few examples of interventions include team building, coaching, Large Group Interventions,
mentoring, performance appraisal, downsizing, TQM, and leadership development.
[edit] See also
OD Topics
• Action research
• Ambidextrous organization
• Appreciative inquiry
• Chaos theory in organizational development
• Collaboration
• Collaborative method
• Corporate Education
• Decision Engineering
• Designing OD education
• Employee research
• Employeeship
• Executive development
• Executive education
• Future Search
• Group dynamics
• Group development
• Groupthink
• Knowledge Management
 • Leadership development
• Managing change
• Organizational communication
• Organizational climate
• Organizational culture
• Organizational diagnostics
• Organizational engineering
• Organizational learning
• Organizational performance
• Performance improvement
• Positive Adult Development
• Process improvement
• Social network
• Sociomapping
• Strategic planning
• Succession planning
• Systems intelligence
• Systems theory
• Systems thinking
• Team building
• T-groups
• Value network
• Workplace democracy
• Workplace spirituality
• Workforce planning
Milestones
• Appreciative inquiry
• Hawthorne effect
• Human Relations Movement
OD in context
• Change management
• Coaching
• Facilitation
• Human resources
• Industrial and organizational psychology
 • Training and development
[edit] Further reading
• Argyris, C.; Schon, D. (1978), Organizational Learning: A theory of action perspective,
Reading MA: Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0201001748,
http://www.amazon.com/Organizational-Learning-Addison-Wesley-Organization-
Development/dp/0201001748
• Carter, Louis L. (2004), Best Practices in Leadership Development and Organization
Change, Jossey Bass, ISBN 0787976253, http://www.amazon.com/Practices-Leadership-
Development-Organization-Change/dp/0787976253/ref=sr_1_1?
s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291315169&sr=1-1
• Nonaka, I.; Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company, New York: New
York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195092694, http://books.google.com/books?
id=B-qxrPaU1-MC
• Sullivan, Roland (2010), Practicing Organization Development: A Guide for Leading
Change, Jossey Bass, ISBN 0470405449, http://www.amazon.com/Practicing-
Organization-Development--D-Organizational/dp/0470405449/ref=sr_1_1?
ie=UTF8&qid=1291315240&sr=8-1
• Western, S. (2010), What do we mean by Organizational Development, Krakow:
Krakow: Advisio Press, http://www.advisio.biz/en/wiedza/what-do-we-mean-by-
organizational-development,26.html
• Rother, Mike (2009), Toyota Kata, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0071635238,
http://books.google.com/books?id=_1lhPgAACAAJ&dq=toyota+kata
• Senge, Peter M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday/Currency, ISBN 0385260946,
http://books.google.com/books?id=bVZqAAAAMAAJ see also: The Fifth Discipline
• Cummings, Thomas G.; Worley, Christopher G., Organization Development & Change,
Thomson South-Western, ISBN 8131502872, http://www.amazon.com/Organization-
Development-Change-Thomas-Cummings/dp/0324260601
[edit] References
1. ^ Smith, A. (1998), Training and Development in Australia. 2nd ed. 261. Sydney: Butterworths.
2. ^ a b c d Richard Arvid Johnson. Management, systems, and society : an introduction. Pacific
Palisades, Calif.: Goodyear Pub. Co..
3. ^ a b Richard Beckhard (1969). Organization development: strategies and models. Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley. p. 114. ISBN 0876205406. OCLC 39328.
4. ^ a b Wendell L French; Cecil Bell. Organization development: behavioral science interventions
for organization improvement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
5. ^ Weisbord, Marvin. (1987). Productive Workplace: Organizing and managing for dignity,
meaning and community. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
6. ^ a b c d Richard Arvid Johnson (1976). Management, systems, and society : an introduction.
Pacific Palisades, Calif.: Goodyear Pub. Co.. pp. 223–229. ISBN 0876205406. OCLC 2299496.
7. ^ Bradford, D.L. & Burke, W.W. eds, (2005). Organization Development. San Francisco:
Pfeiffer.
 8. ^ Bradford, D.L. & Burke, W.W.(eds), 2005, Reinventing Organization Development. San
Francisco: Pfeiffer.
9. ^ deKler, M. (2007). Healing emotional trauma in organizations: An O.D. Framework and case
study. Organizational Development Journal, 25(2), 49-56.
10.^ a b c Kurt Lewin (1958). Group Decision and Social Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston. p. 201.
11.^ a b c Richard Arvid Johnson (1976). Management, systems, and society: an introduction. Pacific
Palisades, Calif.: Goodyear Pub. Co.. pp. 224–226. ISBN 0876205406. OCLC 2299496.
12.^ Wendell L French; Cecil Bell (1973). Organization development: behavioral science
interventions for organization improvement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. chapter 8.
ISBN 0136416624. OCLC 314258.

[hide]v · d · eAspects of organizations

See also: template Aspects of corporations · template Aspects of occupations · template

Aspects of workplaces ·

Architecture · Burnout · Capital · Chart · Citizenship behavior · Climate · Commitment ·

Communication · Complexity · Configuration · Conflict · Culture · Design · Development ·
Diagnostics · Dissent · Ecology · Effectiveness · Engineering · Ethics · Field · Hierarchy ·
Identification · Intelligence · Justice · Learning · Life cycle · Mentorship · Network analysis ·
Ombudsman · Patterns · Performance · Politics · Proactivity · Psychology · Resilience ·
Retaliatory behavior · Safety · Space · Storytelling · Structure · Studies · Suggestion box
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_development"
Categories: Organizational studies and human resource management | Management | Change
management
Hidden categories: Wikipedia articles needing style editing from August 2009 | All articles
needing style editing | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced
statements from August 2009
Personal tools
• Log in / create account
Namespaces
• Article
• Discussion
Variants
Views
• Read
• Edit
• View history
Actions
Search
Top of Form
Special:Search
 Search

Bottom of Form
Navigation
• Main page
• Contents
• Featured content
• Current events
• Random article
• Donate to Wikipedia
Interaction
• Help
• About Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Recent changes
• Contact Wikipedia
Toolbox
• What links here
• Related changes
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Permanent link
• Cite this page
Print/export
• Create a book
• Download as PDF
• Printable version
Languages
• Deutsch
• Español
• ‫فارسی‬
• 한국어
• िहनदी
• ‫עברית‬
• ಕನನಡ
• Polski
• தமிழ்
• This page was last modified on 14 March 2011 at 18:04.
• Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit
organization.
• Contact us
• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers