|
Chapter
12
Organization Development
157
It is becoming increasingly apparent that there
exists a considerable discrepancy between OD as
practised and the prescriptive stances taken by
many OD writers... The theory of change and
change management which is the foundation of
most OD programmes is based on over-simplistic
generalizations which offer little specific guidance
to practitioners faced with the confusing
complexity of a real change situation. (ibid: 13)
Armstrong (1984: 113) commented that: ‘Organiza-
tion development has lost a degree of credibility in
recent years because the messianic zeal displayed by
some practitioners has been at variance with the
circumstances and real needs of the organization.’
Burke (1995: 8) stated that ‘in the mid-1970s, OD was
still associated with T-groups, participative manage-
ment and consensus, Theory Y, and self-actualization
– the soft human, touchy-feely kinds of activities’.
An even more powerful critic was Legge (1995:
212), who observed that the OD rhetoric fitted the
era of ‘flower power’ and that: ‘OD was seen, on the
one hand as a form of devious manipulation, and
on the other as “wishy-washy” and ineffectual.’ She
noted ‘the relative lack of success of OD initiatives
in effecting major and lasting cultural change, with
the aim of generating commitment to new values
in the relatively small number of organizations in
which it was tried’ (ibid: 213), and produced the
following devastating critique.
The main criticisms of OD, as noted by Marsh et al
(2010: 143), were that it was: ‘Oriented to pro cess
and tools rather than results... where techniques are
considered to be ends in themselves rather than a
means to deliver organizational performance.’
New approaches
During the 1980s and 90s an alternative approach
emerged, that of culture management, which aimed
at achieving cultural change as a means of enhanc-
ing organizational capability. Culture change or
culture management programmes start with an
analysis of the existing culture, which may involve
the use of a diagnostic such as the ‘Organizational
Culture Inventory’ devised by Cooke and Lafferty
(1989). The desired culture is then defined – one
that enables the organization to function effectively
and achieve its strategic objectives. As a result, a
‘culture gap’ is identified, which needs to be filled.
This analysis of culture identifies behavioural expect-
ations so that HR processes can be used to develop
and reinforce them. This sounds easier than it really
is. Culture is a complex and often hard to define
notion and it is usually strongly embedded and
therefore difficult to change. Anthony (1990: 4)
argued that: ‘The management of culture... purports
to define the meaning of people’s lives so that they
become concomitant with the organization’s view
of itself. [It is] the adjustment of human meaning for
organizational ends.’ He also observed that: ‘Published
cases do exist of organizations within which major
changes in culture have been successfully accom-
plished and shown to persist but they are rare’
(ibid: 5). However, culture management became a
process in its own right and OD consultants jumped
on the bandwagon.
Culture management involves change manage-
ment, another important item in the OD toolkit.
But as Caldwell (2003: 132) argued: ‘It is assumed
within most OD models that change can be planned
in a “rational” or linear manner, and that the change
agent can facilitate this group process, although
there is little evidence to support this illusion of
“manageability”.’
Other movements in this period that could be
described as organization development activities
but exist as distinct entities included total quality
management (TQM) and quality circles. TQM aims
to ensure that all activities within an organization
happen in the way they have been planned in order
to meet the defined needs of customers. Its approach
A critique of organization development
– Legge (1995: 213)
In order to cope with an increasingly complex and
changing environment, many of the initiatives were,
in retrospect, surprisingly inward looking, involving
schemes of management development, work system
design, attempts at participation, almost as a good
in their own right, without close attention as to how
they were to deliver against market-driven
organizational success criteria. The long-term
nature of OD activities, together with difficulties to
clearly establishing to sceptics their contribution
to organizational success criteria (and within a UK
culture of financial short-termism) rendered the
initiatives at best marginal... and at worst to be
treated with a cynical contempt.
Source review
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: | 
