What is OD and Why Does it Matter Now More Than Ever?

The Past, Present and Future of Organisation Development: What Makes it Unique and Why it Matters More Than Ever

This week, I have had some great conversations with many HR colleagues and leaders over what Organisation (al) Development is, is not and where it can add value. So, here is a short history of OD answering some of those questions. I have bolded, some of the good search terms if you want to find out more.

Organisation Development emerged after World War 2 as a humanistic approach to managing organisational change, in contrast to the cold efficiency of Taylorism. This mechanical view was exemplified by Alan Turing describing his mathematicians as “computers” who “is supposed to be following fixed rules; he has no authority to deviate from any detail.”

OD took a different view - seeing workers as humans with potential, not as programmable machines. While OD has evolved over the decades, at its core it retains a focus on human potential, participation, and making organisations function better for all stakeholders vs. other mechanical change management techniques.

Aspects of OD are now commonplace in how we manage and lead. But with trends of social fragmentation and loss of trust, OD’s humanistic foundations provide wisdom to heal divisions and bring people together around a deeper value, mission driven purpose. OD faces challenges in staying relevant, but may be more necessary than ever in re-uniting the need for organisations and society to be sustainable.

The Foundations of OD: Humanism and Democracy Against a Backdrop of Change

Kurt Lewin is considered the founder of OD, building on his work on organisational psychology and group dynamics. But OD's humanistic DNA can also be traced back to Mary Parker Follett, an early pioneer of participative management.

Lewin was a German Jew who fled the Nazis in 1933, later working to heal social divisions through techniques like sensitivity training. His belief in spreading democratic values took on new resonance after witnessing the horrors of fascism and World War 2.

Other founders like Douglas McGregor also reacted against Taylorism's dark view of human nature, believing that workers were not inherently lazy and looking to realise their potential (Theory X vs Theory Y). This humanistic ethos remains a core tenet of OD today.

OD also focused on the interplay between people and organisational structures/systems. Pioneers like Eric Trist and Fred Emery saw how new technology reshaped work in industries like mining, having social ripple effects. This led to the idea of "sociotechnical systems" - recognising organisations as complex human-tech ecosystems. Their work identified how the mechanisation of work impacted workers not only in work, but in the towns and villages that were built around these locations.

These founders seeded OD's humanistic orientation and focus on organisational systems dynamics. But OD also evolved in a climate of enormous economic, political and social change.

The mid 20th century saw the rise of industrialisation, globalisation and individualism. OD pioneers recognised that organisations needed to evolve as society modernised. This context drove OD's focus on marshalling change in complex systems.

Key OD Innovations: Building Tools to Drive Change

OD brought scientific rigor to studying organisational change via quantitative surveys and research. Rensis Likert's Likert scale revolutionised attitude measurement. Surveys uncovered employee perceptions, guiding organisational improvements.

Action research was also pioneered as a change methodology, interweaving theory and practice. Change was enacted in an iterative process of planning, reflection and adaptation (what we would now brand agile). Kurt Lewin's simple "unfreeze-change-refreeze" change model provided an influential early blueprint for driving change.

The qualitative focus grew too, with innovations like sensitivity training surfacing unspoken cultural issues. T-Groups and encounter groups tapped into human emotion, creating intensive experiences aimed at individual growth and insight.

Quantitative and qualitative tools provided OD practitioners with ways to diagnose problems and activate solutions. This evidenced-based toolkit gave OD credibility and wide application.

By the 1960s, OD was blossoming with influential centers like NTL providing training and research. OD became recognised as a change management discipline in its own right.

The 70s and 80s Backlash: Questioning OD's Focus and Values

But OD hit roadblocks in the volatile 1970s/80s as economic uncertainty arose. Critics saw OD as too focused on qualitative process, losing relevance in a results-driven business climate. The humanistic ethos was also questioned as too disconnected from tough business realities.

OD was faulted for overemphasising individual development versus organisational performance. And T-Groups drew criticism for potential harm as radical self-exploration without boundaries.

OD seemed to drift from its research base as practice growth outpaced evidence. Lack of regulation opened the door to unrigorous interventions.

By the 1980s, OD entered the wilderness, seen as a soft fad. Hard-nosed business thinking pushed OD's humanism aside.

The Dialogic Turn: OD's Journey Back from the Wilderness

But OD reemerged with new relevance in the 90s and 2000s as organisations recognised that purely technical solutions neglected human needs. The "dialogic turn" reoriented OD as organisations became more nimble, team-based and knowledge-driven.

Dialogic OD focuses on stirring organisational discourse to surface issues and opportunities and engage people meaningfully. It positions that behaviour comes from beliefs, so to change behaviour, we need to change beliefs. David Cooperrider's appreciative inquiry model exemplifies this, driving change through shared dialogue on organisational strengths, not just problems.

As organisations move beyond rigid hierarchies, dialogic OD taps into decentralised change driven by networks and teams. This orientation fits the complexity of the modern workplace.

OD has also connected more deeply with street-level change agents, not just external experts. Practices like Open Space Technology foster grassroots leadership in directing organisational change.

OD today weaves together varying ideas rather than being a rigid discipline. It blends quantitative and qualitative, diagnostic and dialogic, expert-driven and grassroots-led. This conceptual diversity drives innovation and widening application.

The Road Ahead: Relevance Amidst Polariz\sation and Need for Purpose

While OD has renewed its currency, some fundamental challenges endure today. And new forces necessitate OD’s humanistic lens more than ever.

Research shows declines in social trust and cohesion, as political and cultural polarisation increases. As these societal divides permeate the workplace, OD’s unifying and participative values provide an antidote. OD can again bridge divides by surfacing tensions and fostering inclusion.

Younger generations also expect businesses to pursue purpose beyond profits, addressing social needs like sustainability, diversity, and justice. OD is adept at catalysing organisational purpose that connects people around shared ethical values.

OD must strengthen the research-practice link to maintain rigorous evidence, not just ad hoc interventions. Updating legacy OD tools for the digital age is crucial too. Areas such as Evidence Based HR provide methodologies for grounding the many new shiny things available to Leaders and HR practitioners.

In sum, OD’s historical commitment to human development, democracy and social integration provides wisdom to heal fragmentation amidst this era of polarisation. OD’s next horizon will likely involve digital transformation, social advocacy, and reimagining our post-pandemic future of work. The world needs OD’s lens more than ever on unlocking human potential for the greater good. OD faces challenges, but remains vital in uniting organisations and society.