Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315777556
CITATIONS READS
4 984
1 author:
Allan H. Church
PepsiCo Inc.
106 PUBLICATIONS 2,152 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
How are top companies defining and organizing talent management globally View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Allan H. Church on 04 April 2017.
By Allan H. Church How do we evaluate the impact of our to design a meaningful and robust evalu
organization change programs, processes, ation process?
and initiatives? What are the best ways Whether you are an external consul-
to measure success or failure of various tant or internal practitioner there are a host
interventions? How do we know we have of challenges associated with the measure-
really made a difference? While the field of ment of causal relationships resulting from
organization development (OD) has its ori- organizational interventions at the individ-
gins in action research and enhancing the ual or systems level. Despite the definitive
growth and development of organizations writings of Kirkpatrick (1998), the prospect
and their people, if we are honest with of evaluating much of what we do in the
ourselves, our focus as a field on formally social sciences and in organizational set-
evaluating the impact of our work has tings involves dynamic, interdependent,
lagged far behind. The level of emphasis and often long-lead times that can far
collectively placed as a field on the debate outlast the consultant-client (or employee-
around having a clear and consistent employer) relationship. In fact, one of the
definition of OD, the right set of core OD most frustrating elements of being an
values, and creating new types of tools and external practitioner is the lack of visibility
techniques has far overshadowed the rigor to the long-term impact of one’s work. This
and share of mind given to measuring the is often cited as a key reason why people
impact of our efforts. take internal positions. While it’s fantastic
Why is this the case? Is this due to experience multiple client organizations
to practitioners’ lack of measurement and challenges, it can also be quite reward-
design and analytics capability as some ing to experience first-hand the changes
have argued (e.g., Church & Dutta, 2013)? in a company (or other social system)
Recent research conducted on over 380 following work you have personally had a
practitioners in the field (Shull, Church, hand in over time. The alternate side of the
& Burke, 2014) would suggest this might equation are the personal challenges and
be part of the issue. Only 29% cited using even threat to evaluating one’s own work.
statistics and research methods in their As an external consultant, if your project
OD toolkit. Or is it because it is not part fails to deliver you might not get paid for
of their values structure? That same study that engagement. As an internal practi-
reported that evidence-based practice was tioner, your program or process might be
ranked 21st out of 34 possible values that cancelled and you could find yourself out
drive their efforts. The history of evaluation of a job.
as a core practice area in OD would also All of this sits squarely in juxtaposition
support this argument. Could the reason with the client’s interest in measuring the
for our lack of focus on outcomes simply impact and in some cases financial return
be because it’s too difficult and daunting on investment (ROI) of our interventions.
While this element of the work has always
that can be linked to the timing of a spe- on target than there is on determining the there is often not a definitive end to the
cific intervention. best window (and method) for measuring engagement. In fact, many organiza-
the impact of that work over time. tional processes (and in particular those
2. Setting Realistic Time Horizons A related issue, and common fallacy implemented for employee development,
for Measurement in organizations, is the use of the “pilot” performance management, and talent
OD practitioners all know the simple concept as a means for testing the impact management purposes) continue to evolve
fact that change takes time. Based on of a new program. While launching an long after the initial design and imple-
the prevailing problem, scope, and inter- intervention in a small-scale environment mentation phases. From an evaluation
vention, this can range anywhere from or controlled area of the business can perspective then the measurement aspect
minutes following a process observation to be very useful for ironing out the imple- of assessing impact needs to be seen as
years after a leadership transition. Unfor- mentation kinks, rarely does this offer an occurring at discrete points-in-time and
tunately, clients are not always of the same effective means for predicting the potential not as an end-state. This is an important
mind. While fewer and fewer executives impact of a much larger scale program. distinction as it enables the practitioner to
seem to believe in the fallacy of changing This is because larger scale OD efforts contract regarding “points of impact” mea-
corporate culture overnight, their sense of need to be aligned to a larger set of systems surement at different stages of evolution,
timing and urgency is often directly pro- factors which require much broader think- and not rely exclusively on a single evalu-
portional to the pace of their business. For ing about organizational impact than what ation metric. Not only should this remove
example, consumer products organizations typically occurs in a small pilot context. some of the burden of having to show
generally move faster than pharmaceuti- The question to ask yourself here is “given impact all at once, but the measurement
cals. The point is that as part of the out- what we are anticipating measuring, when quality will improve as well. Time series
come alignment process OD professionals do we expect to see this outcome change as studies and multi-method approaches are
need to ensure that the timing window of a result of our efforts?” far more rigorous and valid than are single
the evaluation and measurement compo- One important caveat should be raised program reviews.
nents is clear and reasonable. here. Although the discussion so far might Case in point, in the mid-2000s there
Another issue that can occur is an suggest that all OD interventions have a was an applied study done at PepsiCo on
over emphasis up front on planning for distinct beginning and end to them, we the impact of their global employee organi-
the timing of the intervention launch, and know this is not the case. While the clas- zational health survey program (Church &
less attention paid to the appropriate lag sic consulting model tends to present the Oliver, 2006). The research was conducted
time required to observe the impact of the world in this semi-linear fashion, the vast in an effort to answer senior leadership’s
effort. Often this is because the bulk of the majority of our work rarely begins from questions regarding the impact of the
development work and consulting delivery a blank slate. Burke, et al. (1997) have survey on key employee outcomes. The
costs are front-loaded. There is more con- termed this effect “midstream consult- researchers analyzed survey data over time,
cern about meeting the deadline to deliver ing” and it applies in just about every including the use of an action planning
a new program or rollout a change agenda case whether internal or external. Further, variable, and demonstrated the impact
Copyright © 2017 by the Organization Development Network, Inc. All rights reserved.
ORGANIZATION
DEVELOPMENT
Organization Development in Practice
IN PRACTICE Editors
William J. Rothwell, Jacqueline M. Stavros,
Roland L. Sullivan, and John Vogelsang
WILLIAM J. ROTHWELL, JACQUELINE M. STAVROS,
ROLAND L. SULLIVAN, & JOHN VOGELSANG Editors
Organization Development in Practice brings together experienced OD professionals who share their methods
for developing more effective and resilient organizations, enabling organizational and social change, and being
responsive to continuous change.
Some of the chapters include:
The Ebb and Flow of OD Methods the fundamentals of action research in a process
Billie T. Alban and Barbara Benedict Bunker describe called the Culture of Opportunity that leverages
the first and second wave of OD methods and their the talent, relationships, knowledge, capital, and
perspective on what is happening in the 21st century. communications that are largely fragmented and
When OD methods first emerged in the 1960s, they were disconnected in most organizations. They outline the
considered innovative and exciting. OD practitioners process of instilling a Culture of Opportunity within
have shifted their methods with time and adapted to three distinct organizations that hit crisis points in
current situations. However, Alban and Bunker question response to changing environments and difficult
which of the current methods are new and which are just circumstances.
a repackaging of already existing practices. As the pace
At the Crossroads of Organization Development
of change has accelerated, they also wonder whether
and Knowledge Management
the turbulent external environment has driven many to
Denise Easton describes what emerges at the
think they need new methods when what they may need
intersection of OD and Enterprise Knowledge
is more creative adaptation of existing methods.
Management, where a collaborative partnership
How the Mind-Brain Revolution Supports accelerates the understanding, development, and
the Evolution of OD Practice transformation of dynamic, techno-centric systems
Teri Eagan, Julie Chesley, and Suzanne Lahl believe of knowledge, information, learning, and networks
that the early promise of OD was inspired by a found in 21st century organizations. When OD is part
desire to influence human systems towards greater of developing knowledge management processes,
levels of justice, participation, and excellence. They systems, and structures the organization not only
propose that a critical and integrative neurobiological survives but thrives.
perspective holds the potential to advance OD in two
Accelerating Change: New Ways of Thinking
ways: what we do—the nature and quality of our ability
about Engaging the Whole System
to assess and intervene in service of more effective
Paul D. Tolchinsky offers new ways of developing,
organizations and a better world; and who we are—our
nurturing, and leveraging intrapreneurialship in
competencies, resilience, and agility as practitioners.
organizations. Most organizations underutilize
Culture of Opportunity: Building Resilient the capabilities and the entrepreneurial spirit of
Organizations in a Time of Great Transition employees. Tolchinsky describes how to unleash the
Mark Monchek, Lynnea Brinkerhoff, and Michael entrepreneurial energy that exists in most companies.
Pergola explore how to foster resiliency, the ability In addition, he offers five suggestions organizations
to respond effectively to change or challenges. They can implement, drawing on several examples from
examine the inherent potential of resilient organiza corporations such as Zappos, FedEx, HCL Technologies,
tions to reinvent themselves by understanding their and companies developing internal Kick Starters and
social networks, using design thinking, and utilizing crowd sourcing platforms.
Journal of the Organization Development Network
Guidelines for Authors
Journal Information or rejecting the article. If they decide preparation for publication. The ODP
the article is publishable with changes, Editor makes the final decision about
The OD Practitioner (ODP) is pub- one of the Review Board members will which articles will be published.
lished by the Organization Develop- email or call the primary author to dis-
ment Network. The purpose of the cuss the suggested changes. Once the Criteria for Accepting an Article
ODP is to foster critical reflection author has made the changes to the
on OD theory and practice and to satisfaction of the two Review Board Content
share applied research, innovative members, the ODP Editor will work »» Bridges academic rigor and
approaches, evidence based practices, with the author to prepare the article relevance to practice
and new developments in the OD field. for publication. »» Is accessible to practitioners
We welcome articles by authors who »» Presents applied research, innova-
are OD practitioners, clients of OD Process 2 (double blind peer review): tive practice, or new developments
processes, Human Resource staff who This option is offered to meet the in the OD field
have partnered with OD practitioners standards for academic institutions. »» Includes cases, illustrations, and
or are practicing OD, and academics Submit articles with a cover page with practical applications
who teach OD theory and practice. As the article’s title, all authors’ identify- »» References sources for ideas, theo-
part of our commitment to ensure all ing and contact information, and brief ries, and practices
OD Network programs and activities biographies for each of the authors; »» Reflects OD values: respect
expand the culture of inclusion, we also include any acknowledgements. and inclusion, collaboration,
encourage submissions from authors Provide an abbreviated title running authenticity, self-awareness, and
who represent diversity of race, gender, head for the article. Do not include empowerment.
sexual orientation, religious/spiritual any identifying information other than
practice, economic class, education, on the title page. Two members of Stylistic
nationality, experience, opinion, and the review board will independently »» Clearly states the purpose and
viewpoint. receive the article without the author’s content of the article
information and without knowing the »» Presents ideas logically and with
The Review Process identity of the other reviewer. Each clear transitions
reviewer will recommend accepting »» Includes section headings to help
The ODP is a peer reviewed journal. the article for publication, rejecting the guide the reader
Authors can choose between two article with explanation, or sending »» Is gender-inclusive
review processes and should notify the the article back to the author for revi- »» Avoids jargon and overly formal
Editor which they prefer when they sion and resubmittal. Recommenda- expressions
submit an article: tions for revision and resubmittal will »» Avoids self-promotion
include detailed feedback on what is
Process 1 (open peer review): Submit required to make the article publish- If the article is accepted for publica-
articles with a cover page with the able. Each ODP Board member will tion, the author will receive a PDF
article’s title, all authors’ identify- send their recommendation to the proof of the article for final approval
ing and contact information, and a ODP Editor. If the Editor asks the before publication. At this stage the
50– 80 word biography for each of author to revise and resubmit, the Edi- author may make only minor changes
the authors; also include any acknowl- tor will send the article to both review- to the text. After publication, the Edi-
edgements. Two members of the ODP ers after the author has made the tor will send the author a PDF of the
Review Board will review the article. suggested changes. The two members article and of the complete issue of
They will recommend accepting of the Review Board will work with ODP in which the article appears.
the article for publication, pursuing the author on any further changes,
publication after suggested changes, then send it to the ODP Editor for (continued next page)
Copyright © 2017 by the Organization Development Network, Inc. All rights reserved.
Member Benefits
Copyright © 2017 by the Organization Development Network, Inc. All rights reserved.