of interest to both academic and popular management thinkers. With change as the overriding context for OD work, OD practitioners develop interventions so that change can be developed and integrated into the organization’s functioning. Significant changes today are facing organizations and their teams and individual employees.
To become effective, productive, and satisfying to members, organizations need to change. It will come as no surprise to any observer of today’s organizations that change is a significant part of organizational life. Change is required at the organizational level as customers demand more, technologies are developed with a rapidly changing life cycle (especially high-tech products; Wilhelm, Damodaran, & Li, 2003), and investors demand results. As Rita McGrath (2013) writes, “Music, high technology, travel, communication, consumer electronics, the automobile business, and even education are facing situations in which advantages are copied quickly, technology changes, or customers seek other alternatives and things move on” (p. 7). This requires that organizations develop new strategies, economic structures, technologies, organizational structures, and processes.
Change is required of team members, who now are likely to work virtually in collaboration with members from around the globe. Cultural differences, changes in communication technologies, and a changing diverse workforce all combine to complicate how team members work together. Role conflict and confusion in decision processes and decision authority are common when members who have never worked together are thrown into an ad hoc team that is responsible for rapid change and innovation.
Change is also required of individuals. Employees learn new skills as jobs change or are eliminated. Organizational members are expected to quickly and flexibly adapt to the newest direction. Best-selling business books such as Who Moved My Cheese? teach lessons in ensuring that one’s skills are current and that being comfortable and reluctant to adapt is a fatal flaw. Leaders today need to adapt to matrix organizational structures and new participative styles of leadership rather than old hierarchical patterns and command and control leadership (Holbeche, 2015). For organizational members, change can be enlightening and exciting, and it can be hurtful, stressful, and frustrating.
Whether or not we agree with the values behind “change as a constant,” it is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Whereas some decry an overabundance of change in organizations (Zorn, Christensen, & Cheney, 1999), others note that it is the defining characteristic of the current era in organizations and that becoming competent at organizational change is a necessary and distinguishing characteristic of successful organizations (Lawler & Worley, 2006).
There are, however, more and less effective ways to manage change. Creating and managing change in order to create higher-performing organizations in which individuals can grow and develop is a central theme of the field of OD. When we speak of organization development, we are referring to the management of certain kinds of these changes, especially how people implement and are affected by them.
What Organization Development Looks Like
It may be easiest to understand what organization development is by understanding what forms it takes and how it is practiced. The following are five examples of published case studies of OD in action.
Example 1: Increasing Employee Participation in a Public Sector Organization
Public sector organizations, it has been noted (Coram & Burns, 2001), often face additional special challenges in the management of change. Bureaucratic structures, interfaces with regional governments and legislatures, political pressures, and legislative policies all complicate the implementation of new processes and changes to organizational practices. In the Republic of Ireland, a special initiative aimed to reduce bureaucracy in the public sector to gain efficiency, improve customer service, and improve interdepartmental coordination (O’Brien, 2002). Many programs of this type have been launched in other organizations as top-down mandates from senior management, causing frustration and decreased commitment among staff members who resisted the mandated changes.
One department wanted to do things differently. The offices were in the division of Social Welfare Services, a community welfare organization of 4,000 employees. Two Dublin offices (50 employees each) became the focus of this case. These offices chose to involve employees in the development of an initiative that would improve working conditions in the department as well as increase the employees’ capacity for managing changes. A project steering team was formed, and it began by administering an employee survey to inquire about working relationships, career development, training, technology, and management. Follow-up data gathering occurred in focus groups and individual interviews. The tremendous response rate of more than 90 percent gave the steering team a positive feeling about the engagement of the population, but the results of the survey indicated that a great deal of improvement was necessary. Many employees felt underappreciated, distrusted, and not included in key decisions or changes. Relationships with management were also a concern as employees indicated few opportunities for communication with management and that jobs had become routine and dull.
The steering team invited volunteers (employees and their management) to work on several of the central problems. One team worked on the problem of communication and proposed many changes that were later implemented, including a redesign of the office layout to improve circulation and contact among employees. As the teams continued discussions, they began to question standard practices and inefficiencies and to suggest improvements, eventually devising a list of almost 30 actions that they could take. Managers listened to employee suggestions, impressed by their insights. As one manager put it, “I have learned that a little encouragement goes a long way and people are capable of much more than given credit for in their normal everyday routine” (O’Brien, 2002, p. 450).
The joint management–employee working teams had begun to increase collaboration and interaction among the two groups, with each reaching new insights about the other. As a result of the increased participation, “There appeared to be an enhanced acceptance of the change process, coupled with demands for better communications, increased involvement in decision making, changed relationships with supervisors and improved access to training and development opportunities” (O’Brien, 2002, p. 451).
Example 2: Senior Management Coaching at Vodaphone
Vodaphone is a multibillion-dollar global communications technology company headquartered in the United Kingdom and was an early leader in the mobile telephone market (Eaton & Brown, 2002). Faced with increasing competition, the company realized that in order to remain innovative and a leader in a challenging market, the culture of the organization would need to adapt accordingly. Specifically, senior management realized that its current “command and control” culture of blame and political games would hinder the collaboration and mutual accountability needed to succeed in a competitive environment. Instead, the company wanted to encourage a culture of empowered teams that made their own decisions and shared learning and development, speed, and accountability.
Several culture initiatives were implemented, including the development of shared values, the introduction of IT systems that shared and exchanged information across major divisions that had hindered cross-functional learning, and the establishment of teams and a team-building program.
To support the initiatives and encourage a new, collaborative management style, Vodaphone implemented a leadership coaching program. Top managers attended the program to learn skills in conducting performance reviews, helping employees set goals, and coaching teams. Following the program, managers had one-on-one coaching sessions with a professional coach who worked with participants to help them set coaching goals and reflect on how successfully they were able to implement the skills learned in the program.
As a result of the program, managers began to delegate more as teams started to solve problems themselves. Teams began to feel more confident in their decisions as managers trusted them. Eaton and Brown (2002) attribute several subsequent company successes to the program, noting that it was critical that the coaching program was integrated with the other culture change initiatives that it supported. “Cultural change takes time,” they note, and “traditional attitudes to management do