The final report 1

On
Organization development & change (448511)
Academic year 1/2009
To Dr. Jamnean Joungtrakul

By
Xu Ao (Victor)
Human Resource Development Centre
MA (Human Resource Development)
International Graduate Studies

Student NO.51921595
 The Organization Development

Practitioner

Much if the literature about OD practitioners views them as internal

and external consultants providing professional services-diagnosing
system, developing interventions, and helping to implement them.

The term Organization Development Practitioner refers to at least

three sets if people.

1. Most obvious group of OD practitioners are those people

specializing in OD as a professional. They may be internal or
external consultants who offer professional services to
organizations.

2. The second set of people to whom the term OD practitioner

applies are those specializing in fields related to OD, such as reward
system, organization design and total quality and so on.

3. The third set of people to whom the term applies is t he

increasing number of managers and administrators who have
gained competence in OD and who apply it to their own work area.

But in fact, in practice, the distinctions among the three sets of OD

practitioners are blurring.

Competences of an Effective Organization

Development Practitioner
The literature about OD competencies reveals a mixture of
personality reveals a mixture of personality traits, experiences,
knowledge, and skills presumed to lead to effective practice.

Two projects currently seek to define, categorize, and prioritize the

skills and knowledge required of OD practitioners.

1. In the first effort, a broad and growing list of well-known

practitioners and researchers are asked to review and update a list
of professional practice.

2. The second project, sponsored by the Organization Development

and Change Division of the Academy of Management, seek to
develop a list of competencies to guide curriculum development in
graduate OD programs.

Look at the Table 3.1, this table list the knowledge and skills what is
the requirements of OD Practitioner

Processing the listed knowledge and skills seems reasonable,

especially in light of the growing diversity and complexity of
interventions in OD.

OD professionals would extend their breadth of skills across the

remaining categories in Table 3.1.

The information in Table 3.1 applies primarily to people specializing

in OD as a profession

Base on the data in Table 3.1 and the other studies available, all OD
practitioners should have the following basic knowledge to be
effective
1. Intrapersonal Skills of “Self-Management” Competence

2. Interpersonal Skills

3. General Consultation Skills

4. Organization Development Theory.

Role of Organization Development Professionals

Internal consultants-Are members of the organization and may be

located in the human resources department or report directly to a
line manager.

Advantages:
1. Familiar with culture and norms.
2. Knows power structure.
3. Personal interest in organization.

Disadvantages:
1. May lack specialized skills.
2. Lack of objectivity.
3. Likely to accept organizational system.
4. May lack necessary power and authority.
External consultants-Are not members of the client organization;
they typically work for a consulting firm, a university, or themselves.

Team combines external practitioner working with internal

practitioner.
Probably most effective approach.

Partners bring complementary resources.

External practitioner brings expertise, objectivity, and new insights.
Internal practitioner brings knowledge of issues and norms, and
awareness of strengths and weaknesses.

Provides support to one another.

Achieve greater continuity over OD program.
Team combines advantages of both while minimizing disadvantages.

The Table 3.2 shows the difference between these two roles at each
stage of the action research process.

There have 3 key parts we need to pay an attention.

1. Marginality

2. Emotional Demands

3. Use of Knowledge and Experience

Careers of organization development professionals

In contrast to such long-standing occupations as medicine and law,
organization development is an emerging practice, still developing
the characteristics of an establish profession: a common body of
knowledge, educational requirements, a recognized code of ethics,
and rules and methods for governing conduct.

Professional Values

Value is an important role in organization development from its

beginning.

The joint values of humanizing organization and improving their

effectiveness have received widespread support in the OD
profession as well as increasing encouragement from managers,
employees, labor leaders, and government officials.
The more return on investment more

Professional Ethics

Ethical issues in OD are concerned with how practitioners perform

their helping relationship with organization members.

Ethical Dilemmas

Misrepresentation
When OD practitioners claim that an intervention will product result
that are unreasonable for the change program or the situation.

Misuse of Data
When information gathered during the OD process is used
punitively.

Coercion
Coercion occurs when the organization members are forced to
participate in an intervention.

Value and Goal Conflict

When the purpose of the change effort is not clear or when client
and the practitioner disagree over how to achieve the goals.
Technical Ineptness
When OD practitioners try to implement interventions for which they
are not skilled or when the client attempts a change for which it is
not ready.
Summary
This chapter has examined the role of the organization development
practitioner.

Simply put, an Organization Development practitioner is to an

organization as a physician is to a human body. The practitioner
"diagnoses" (or discovers) the most important priorities to address
in the organization, suggests a change-management plan, and then
guides the organization through the necessary change. There are
different definitions and views on how the change should occur.

Discussion
Pass this chapter I know that what is the role of organization
development practitioner in a organization development process,
but when I search something from internet about this, I find one
article, it is write by Michael Beitler, below is his passage:
 The Death of the OD Practitioner
By: Michael Beitler

Published: September 14, 2007

In my recent book, “Strategic Organizational Learning,” I made
some controversial remarks about the continuing decline in the field
of OD. Let me be blunt here: “OD is dead.”

My comments and the comments of others, such as those of Jerry

Harvey, have enflamed the passions of the few remaining adherents
to the faith known as OD. David Bradford and Warner Burke have
published a new book, entitled “Reinventing Organization
Development,” which appears to be a last stand to defend the faith.
(I received a complimentary copy of the book this week. Considering
my views of OD, it is quite a compliment indeed.)

For the uninitiated, let me briefly discuss what OD practitioners

believe and why OD practitioners have failed to convert others to
their beliefs.

Organization Development practitioners (note, if you use the word

“organizational” instead of “organization” you will not be accepted
as one of them), claim to represent the applied behavioral sciences
approach to the fields of organizational change and change
management.

While various approaches in any professional practice are welcomed

and healthy, OD practitioners have never been completely forthright
and honest about their beliefs. OD practitioners are staunch
believers in humanistic philosophy, and they practice their faith with
cult-like devotion. OD practitioners stand together against
“strategic” approaches, “economic” approaches, and “capitalistic”
approaches to organizational change, change management, or
doing business.

While other organizational consultants, such as trainers,

organizational learning consultants, HR consultants, and
management consultants in general are seeking to become
strategic business partners, OD practitioners still refuse to “partner”
with their clients to produce business results.

Christopher Worley, one of the defenders of OD, has said OD is

“concerned with learning and growth… [not] performance.” Clearly,
management is, and should be, concerned with performance.
Management is responsible to multiple stakeholder groups.
Businesses are not founded to make employees happy; businesses
are founded to serve the needs of all their stakeholders (customers,
stockholders, and the community in general, not just employees).

OD practitioners look at business executives (their clients) with

disdain. They see business people as bourgeois money-seekers who
don’t care about the worker. They look down their noses at the
“capitalists,” who incidentally happen to be their clients. Bradford
and Burke complain about “OD and its marginal position.” Is there
any wonder why? Why should anti-business, anti-capitalism, anti-
management rhetoric be appreciated in the boardroom? OD
practitioners do not want the responsibility for “performance,” but
they do want the right to criticize the hard decisions management
must make.

I believe there are two reasons why the OD practitioner has declined
in importance and is now dead: 1) OD practitioners have not
adopted a strategic partnering approach with management, and 2)
many OD practices have already been adopted by mainstream
corporations. Let me comment briefing about how OD has
marginalized itself by not partnering with its client, and then I want
to comment about the positive contributions of OD practitioners.

First, OD practitioners have marginalized themselves with cult-like

vocabulary designed to separate themselves from the clients they
serve. In his article, entitled “The Future of OD: Or, Why Don’t They
Take the Tubes Out of Grandma?” Jerry Harvey included a list of this
off-putting verbiage: “deconflicting, leadershiping, gridding,
sensitizing, feedbacking, spiritualizing, T-grouping, rolfing, deep
sensing, cheese chasing, renewing, life balancing, energizing, story
telling, holistic knowing, mind mapping, Enneagramming,…”

So am I saying OD has been worthless? Not at all. OD practitioners

have contributed many ideas that are now common practice in
corporate America. Even some of OD most hated “enemies” (such
as Jack Welsh) adopted many OD practices.

The second reason I believe OD is dead is the fact that the OD

movement succeeded! Many OD practices, such as empowerment
and participative management, are now part of organizational
culture and practice in mainstream American business. Even if the
initial intentions of OD were anti-business, anti-capitalism, and anti-
management, the result of adopting OD practices has been higher
productivity of profits. But, in addition to higher productivity and
profits, I believe we also have “happier” empowered workers.

Yes, I believe OD is dead. But, I believe OD should be buried with

honor. OD’s contributions were ultimately significant for all
stakeholders in American business.

What’s next? OD practitioners should drop the anti-business, anti-

capitalism, anti-management rhetoric and the OD practitioner
banner that it represents. It’s time to become consultants who serve
clients as strategic partners.

After read this article, I’m wondered that what the truth of the
organization development practitioner is. Why this people said OD
practitioner is a part of HR professional who ”stand together against
“strategic” approaches, “economic” approaches, and “capitalistic”
approaches to organizational change, change management, or
doing business.” I mean, OD practitioner just teach the organization
members how to realize the change and let them grasp the skill how
to face the change, this always is an important part of the
organization change strategy, why Michael Beitler said OD
practitioner like that?