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 on them. Therefore, successful team functioning is essential to larger systemwide success. Coghlan (1994) concludes, “As the success of an organization’s change endeavors depends on an effective utilization of teams and groups to move the change through an organization, skills at understanding and facilitating groups and teams are essential for the management of change” (p. 22). Because of their prevalence and importance, paying attention to the health of groups and teams is a key value in OD.
In addition to formal groups and teams, individuals are also members of informal groups of colleagues, friends, and associates, often from multiple departments, that exert a powerful impact on an individual’s behavior. Formal and informal group norms and cultural beliefs of groups comprise the unwritten code of behavior, and these codes are taught to new members. Understanding these norms and codes, what they tell individuals about how to behave, and what impact they have on the organization is an important part of understanding the group’s ability to contribute to organizational change.
Growth, Development, and Learning
Perhaps the value that differentiates organization development from most other management and consulting work is its emphasis on growth, development, and learning. Think about your own beliefs, skills, and attitudes compared to what they were 5 or 10 years ago. In small or perhaps more significant ways, you are likely to be different. You have learned from mistakes or perhaps changed a belief or habit based on experience. In organizational settings, people are no different. They are, and the organization itself is, “in process,” meaning that we see people and organizations as constantly evolving and changing. For OD consultants, this value implies that we choose not to give up on a person or group during challenging times, instead finding ways to help them grow and develop. This runs counter to the notion that unsuccessful people should be terminated and unsuccessful departments should be disbanded. Instead, it means first understanding the factors inhibiting success and then providing opportunities for change. This optimistic view of people and groups also implies that engagements and interventions should be constructed as opportunities for learning, so that the organization can learn not only to solve the immediate problem but also to learn how problems or situations like this one can be addressed next time, without fostering dependence on a consultant. Ideally, this learning process will become ingrained into the organization itself so that learning is increasingly a normal part of leadership and management (Schein, 1987).
Valuing the Whole Person
Recognizing and valuing a person as a “whole person” means three things. First, it is often the case that a person who has been in a job or followed an educational path for any length of time can become typecast or pigeonholed by professional category, as an accountant, a marketing person, a receptionist, a manufacturing line employee, and so on. Consequently, work assignments and problems are brought to that person in accordance with people’s existing labels for him or her and assumptions about professional knowledge and interests. The accountant will not be brought a customer service problem, the receptionist will not be invited to contribute to a public relations problem, and the manufacturing line employee will not be asked for an opinion on an engineering problem. Presumably, this is because this is how labor is organized, but it is also due to assumptions about what kinds of work people want to do. People also want variety, or perhaps may be interested in a career change, and organizations can structure opportunities to recognize organizational members’ multiple interests and skills. Consider what a manufacturing employee knows about the construction and engineering of products or what a receptionist knows about customer service and public relations problems. They can be very knowledgeable about areas outside their immediate job descriptions. It is also true that “most people desire to make, and are capable of making, a much higher level of contribution to the attainment of organization goals than most organizational environments will permit” (French, 1969, p. 24). Unfortunately, many organizations hold their members back from greater contributions. Organizations can provide support for learning, growth, and development that recognizes that people can make contributions beyond those for which they were originally hired.
Second, recognizing organizational members as whole people respects their feelings as people. They may be especially enthusiastic about a recent success and deserve genuine congratulations, or they may desire an opportunity to celebrate the organization’s success with colleagues. They may be worried about taking on new responsibilities, concerned about new expectations, or angry at a policy change. OD interventions aim to respect these expressions of emotion and to acknowledge them. The expression of anger and conflict is a natural and normal reaction to organizational change and ought not to be ignored or suppressed.
Finally, respecting the whole person means acknowledging and recognizing diversity and the benefits that individual differences bring to an organization. We come to organizations with multiple identities—gender, age, race, national origin, religion, disability, economic background, and so on. Many organizational practices have historically resulted in ignoring or silencing alternative voices (Prasad, Pringle, & Konrad, 2006). This has been especially true for members whose identities were not identical to those of management. The result has been that ideas and contributions from members with rich backgrounds and experiences have frequently not been heard or included. Recognizing the diverse identities of organizational members implies paying explicit attention to, valuing, and respecting the unique contributions of all members.
Profiles in Organization Development
Frederick A. Miller
CEO and Lead Client Strategist, Kaleel Jamison Consulting Group
A recipient of an Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters from The Sage Colleges, Fred specializes in developing workforce utilization strategies that accelerate results to deliver higher individual, team, and organizational performance. A past member of the board of directors of Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, Inc., he currently serves on the boards of Day & Zimmermann (a $3 billion family-owned business), Rensselaer
