Organizational Development

Week 1

      Organizational development is an ongoing, systematic process to implement effective change in an organization. It is also 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. (Kokemuller, 2015) It is the readiness to meet changes that may come up during the course of the business. OD aims at treating each member of the company important and useful.

      There are many reasons why OD is relevant. They are making themselves more streamlined, responsive to outside demands and ecologically sustained. (Cummings & Worley, 2015, p. 5) Organizations are involving employees in big decisions and paying for performance instead of time. OD helps businesses' employees transform not only on the surface but in the underlying assumptions governing their behavior. It also is important to those who plan a career in their field. It can help managers and employees perform their duties more effectively. (Cumming & Worley, 2015, p. 6)

The major similarity to all the definitions of OD is that they are planning a change or improvement in an organization. Also it is a social network of human beings brought together by the businesses need but is influenced by the individual behaviors and aspirations.

Reference:

Cummings, T&G, & Worley, C.G. (2015) Organizational Development and change, (10thed.) Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning

Kokemuller, N. (2015) Organizational Development, Hearst Newspaper, retrieved on January 12, 2015 from https://www.smallbusines.chron.com

Week 2

Compare and contrast Lewin’s change model, the action research model, and the positive model. Describe their strengths and weaknesses.

According to Cummings and Worley (2015, pg. 23), there are three theories of changing: Lewin's change model, the action research model, and the positive model; these can be applied towards a general planned change model for organizational development, and it is important to understand the strengths and weaknesses associated with each. Lewin's change model is one of the original planned change models, and is designed around his belief that there are forces which keep the behavior of a system stable and change is the modification of these, with behaviors stemming from either a force to maintain the status quo or to push for change; in this system, equality between behaviors indicates that the current behaviors will remain unchanged, with changes in the state deriving from changes in either of the forces (Cummings & Worley, 2015, pg. 23-24). Within Lewin's change process, there are three steps: unfreezing, which involves the reduction of the forces which are currently responsible for maintaining the behaviors within the firm at their current level, and can be accomplished utilizing techniques such as demonstrating discrepancies between behaviors desired and exhibited by the members of the organization which motivates change; moving, which involves taking the current behavior to a new level with an intervention in the system to allow for the development of new attitudes, behaviors, and values through new structures or processes in the organization; and refreezing, which is the stabilization of the behaviors in the organization at their new level of equilibrium using supporting and reinforcing mechanisms (Cummings & Worley, 2015, pg. 24). With regards to weaknesses, this method has been considered very broad, and lacking in assistance for developing the intermediate steps; however, its strength lies in the ability for users to implement it in any number of manners, and it can be used as a basis for illustrating types of change in organizational development (Cummings & Worley, 2015, pg. 25).

The action research model, according to Cummings & Worley (2015, pg. 24), holds that the cyclical process of planned change begins with initial research providing information about the organization for the following action, with the results of that action being considered and assessed for guidance on subsequent actions, and so forth. The cyclical nature inherent in the model requires the members of the organization and the organizational development practitioners to collaborate, emphasizing the gathering and analyzing of data prior to the planning and implementation, with the following of additional evaluation; this method can be used both for the assistance of specific organizations as well as for the development of general knowledge to further the field of organizational development as a whole (Cummings & Worley, 2015, pg. 24). Within the action research model, Cummings and Worley (2015, pg 24-25) have identified eight main steps: identification of the problem to be consider; consulting with the expert in behavioral sciences; joint diagnosis of the problem identified within the organization by the members of the organization and the organizational development specialist; planning for action with both the planner for organization development and the members of the organization; action, or the actual change in the state of the organization; and the gathering of data after the action has occurred in order to measure the effect of the taken action and provide the found results back to the organization. For weaknesses, this plan can take a long time from start to completion, especially in larger organizations, and it involves a commitment from all parties at all stages, getting increasingly more complex as the size and level of political complexity inherent in the organization increases; it also tends to espouse assumptions regarding change which are regional and may not be applicable in all situations (Cummings & Worley, 2015, pg. 26). For strengths, the action research model does advocate for the involvement of the members of the organization, which allows for increased learning and growth among the members; this also allows for the inclusion of unique information and resources from the members (Cummings & Worley, 2015, pg. 26).

According to Cummings and Worley (2015, pg. 26-27), instead of placing emphasis on where the organization can improve to function better, highlighting the deficits, the positive model places focus on what the organization is currently doing well, allowing the members to know when the organization is running at peak performance and building off of these known capabilities in order to generate improvements; the focus is positive dynamics for extraordinary outcomes, because expectations have been found to impact outcomes. There are five phases associated with the positive model: initiating the inquiry in order to determine the subject of change; exploring and gathering information regarding best practices; discovering and highlighting themes within experiences of organizational members; designing a the preferred future from the themes, visualizing the bridge between the current state of the organization and its future; and designing and delivering methods for creating the envisioned future, including actions and assessments for analyzing progress (Cummings & Worley, 2015, pg. 28-29). As with the previous model, both a strength and a weakness of this design is the emphasis on co-learning, the inclusion of organization members which means that the design will be based on information from members it impacts, but also requires effort to get these individuals involved; another strength is the highlighting of good behaviors already in place in the organization, this is lacking either of the other two methods (Cummings & Worley, 2015, pg. 29).

Which of the three models is more applicable in today’s marketplace?  Provide an example to justify your choice.

To me, the model which is most applicable in the current marketplace is that of the positive model. This model, according to Cummings and Worley (2015, pg. 29), focuses on specific organizational development activities, involves the members of the organization for their input, and recognizes the current beneficial work from the members of the organization, allowing for future building. Without this recognition, I feel that it would be difficult for organizational development practitioners to effect much change as the organizational members would be less likely to open up to change if made to feel negatively about their current behaviors.

References:
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2015). Organization development and change (10th Ed). Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning.