Selling OD by Doing OD

Getting top management support for OD efforts in an organization is absolutely crucial. Because OD works on whole organizations, significant change needs to be understood and fully supported by senior management. Sometimes we learn this the hard way: I know of a very successful plant redesign project that used the conference-based model developed by Dick and Emily Axelrod. It was highly participative, with large cross-section groups from all plant functions meeting for three days at a time, integrating the outcomes of the session, then meeting again for three days--five cycles of conferences. The focus for each one was built on the outcomes of the previous one. They worked on generating a shared vision for a better, more effective way to operate, followed by an analysis of the plant's technical production system, then an analysis of the social system, then a redesign of key aspect of the plant to optimize both technical and social system goals, and finally an implementation planning conference.

This all worked very successfully and generated creative new approaches for organizing the work and also great enthusiasm for implementing the changes. And then they hit a catastrophic glitch: The internal consultants and plant manager had made an early decision to not include a key vice-president in planning the project. He had a reputation of not supporting participative work methods, so they thought they would demonstrate the success of the project to him after it was completed and thus get his approval. Instead, the VP walked in on the implementation planning session, having missed all the previous ones, and was outraged. He declared the new design totally inappropriate: "This is communism--we're not doing it." And that was that. The whole project was canceled and everyone went back to the old way of doing things, though with great disappointment and frustration.

So what should one do when the needed support at the top is not there? For one thing, it depends on the role of the OD practitioner. External OD consultants learn to focus on the clients who are genuinely interested and ready to work in this different way. Rather than convincing or "selling" managers that this would be good for their organizations, the strategy is to work only with those organizations that have a demonstrated readiness, understanding and interest in an OD project. Since these projects are much more likely to succeed, they will create the track record of effective change projects, and word of these successes will quickly get around to other organizations that were almost ready, often leading them to consider the OD approach themselves. I learned this perspective from Herb Shepard, who was my mentor at Case Institute of Technology, and one of the founders of OD. One of his rules of thumb for change agents was "Never work uphill."

But what about internal OD consultants or managers who see the potential for OD in their organization, but don't have the support of higher managers? Shepard also said, "Start where the system is." He meant by this that one must assess the situation and propose projects that the organization and its leaders understand as relevant and appropriate. These may be less ambitious than the consultant can envision, but they are much more likely to be accepted and to succeed--thus laying the foundation for more comprehensive projects. This way of working requires great patience, and great empathy. One must see the world through the managers' eyes, and design and propose projects that are relevant to their current view of the organization.

This is a tough discipline and requires patience, self-acceptance, and a focus on the long view--even if that key manager is being driven by this quarter's business numbers. Shepard also used to say, "Think globally and act locally." The corollary of that statement might be, "Think about the future and act in the present."

I invite further comments and questions.

Creating Benign Cycles in Organizations

Here's my elevator speech about what Organization Development is (OK, it's a long elevator ride, but a good one):

Just like individuals need to make a living by doing something useful, every organization does something useful to make its living. This means producing something people want to buy, or providing a service that is worth paying for. Organizations need to make that product or provide that service in ways that are effective in terms of the cost to the consumer and with satisfactory quality and reliability, compared to competitors. OD practitioners help people to make their own organizations more effective in producing whatever they produce. This is an important part of OD, but not all there is.

In order for an organization to function effectively, the people in it need to communicate in sane and constructive ways. Without that kind of communication organizations devolve into environments that look like the Dilbert comic strip (which, by the way, is based on letters about real events in organizations, continually sent to the cartoonist). As new technologies are introduced, or new competitors enter the market, or new needs emerge from customers, people in organizations need to talk and work together sanely, effectively, creatively, to adapt and innovate. Otherwise the organization soon goes out of business, or loses its funding.

As a consultant, I generally find dysfunctional task processing arrangements that are caused or maintained by dysfunctional interaction patterns among its people. Over the years, new employees are taught the dysfunctional procedures, which may have originally been temporary work-arounds, as the right way to do things ("Don't ask--that's the way it's done here.")

OK, it keeps getting interesting: Much of the reason for dysfunctional patterns of interaction among people in organizations is that the task procedures, technologies, work structures and hierarchies, tend to isolate people, pit them against each other, and limit their ability to engage their full intelligence and creativity in the work setting. So dysfunctional task structures create or maintain dysfunctional interaction patterns, which prevent people for making sensible changes to the task structures. It's a vicious cycle.

The good news is that when you find a vicious cycle you can reverse it by reversing any of its elements. When we bring people together in a collaborative creative context they spontaneously generate significant design improvements to the task structure. As new task structures are implemented, these tend to reduce the crazy-making qualities of the task arrangements, and interaction patterns continue to improve. It becomes a benign cycle. This is true OD.

People who claim to do OD and work only on "bottom line" improvements, or only on touchy-feely "team-building" experiences are not doing real OD. Those partial approaches tend not to work, or to actually make things worse. OD is about working with people to improve their own task structures and interaction patterns by improving both.

I'm looking for examples of what I'm describing here. I welcome your short stories.

Self-Managed Teams and Culture Shifts

The field of socio-technic systems work redesign emerged in England at the Tavistock Institute in the 1960s. Eric Trist and Fred Emery discovered that coal miners had developed an unusual work arrangement: they preferred to mine coal as self-managed cross-functional teams. Upper management tried to organize them into conventional structures of specialization and hierarchical supervision, but their productivity and morale plummeted. When they were allowed to work again as a team, they regained their very high quality output.

Trist and Emery thought there might be something in that work pattern that could be generalized and applied in other settings. Out of that investigation came the understanding that there is an intrinsic interdependence between the way work arrangements are structured and the way people feel and act toward the work and toward each other--that a change in the technical work system affects the social work system, and vice-versa. Looking for descriptive terminology for this they came up with "socio-technic systems (STS)." They developed ways to design new work arrangements, or to redesign old ones, guided by these discoveries. Most often--though not always--the redesign process led to self-managed teams that included all the skills and resources needed to complete a whole job from beginning to end.

The increases in productivity and work spirit in a range of organizations where this was implemented during the next two decades were astounding. In a world that was beginning to experience accelerated change, technological innovation, and globalized competition, these self-managed teams had a superior ability to adapt and innovate, and to move up any learning curve quickly. And they showed an amazing intrinsic motivation to do so. They didn't need a supervisor to tell them to improve the work--they had an interest in doing it themselves and did it quite well. In fact, supervisors tended to get in the way.

The emerging realization was that there is a fundamental clash of cultures between these two ways of structuring work. Emery distilled the difference in terms of a Design Principle I, referring to the conventionally vertical coordination of work through hierarchy, and a Design Principle II, referring to the horizontal coordination and self-regulation of self-managed teams. Part of the difference, too, was the shift from organizing departments according to function--marketing, fabrication, R&D, etc. (what we now refer to as silos), toward the inclusion in any team of all the skills required by the job--they were not only self-managed teams, they were cross-functional self-managed teams. The classic example is the redesign of the Volvo assembly line, so that instead of each individual attaching the same part to each car moving by on the assembly line, a team of assemblers traveled with the car from beginning to end, putting the whole car together. At the end, they expressed their pride in the quality of their work by engraving all their names on the engine block.

But the shift from Design Principle I to II is not a simple one. It affects technology, organization, supervision, reward systems, assumptions, and interaction skills. Supervisors, especially, can feel threatened because their role seems to become redundant. It takes an appropriate amount of time, planning, training, and coaching support to implement this shift successfully. At an oil extraction plant in Canada where I was part of the consulting team guiding this shift, the staff of the Utilities Division (that produced all the electricity, steam and processed water for the mine) was released from work for one week per month for six months to carry out the planning and training needed to make the shift (yes, temporary workers were hired during this time). At a Motorala cell-phone assembly plant in Florida, teams went through several phases of change, in which supervisors first became participative leaders, then coaches, then on-call consultants.

The tragic error among some managers who learn about the benefits of self-managing teams is to try to implement them by memo--to decree the end-result structure while skipping the participative analysis of all work processes, the appropriate tailoring of the new work design to their core work situation, the necessary investment in training and support, and the time people need to integrate a fundamentally different work culture. In the end, the effort therefore fails, and work structures revert to the old ways--problematic but familiar.

But properly implemented, especially by engaging people appropriately in the redesign of their own work processes, STS can lead an organization toward surprising improvements in both work effectiveness and teamwork.

Use the Comments link to respond, or go to http://human-systems.blogspot.com/

How Did OD Emerge?

Note: This and the next few items are reprinted from another blog I previously created. You will find a thematic connection to the exploration of how our assumptions shape our work and our lives. Your comments and questions are invited.

Organization Development (OD) has been understood--and misunderstood--in a variety of ways by different people at different times. It can be helpful to know how the field got started.

When I was a grad student at UCLA, I learned from mentors like Bob Tannenbaum and Jim Clark that OD emerged from the growing awareness that Management Development, even when very successful, had major limitations. Key managers could be immersed in powerful training experiences like T Groups, developing a fundamentally different understanding of themselves and their interaction with people, but when they returned to their own organization they faced three difficult choices:

1. They could become change agents, leading their organization toward significant new ways of being and working--very few people managed to do this.

2. They could become trouble-makers, out of step with their peers and subordinates' assumptions and expectations, working uphill to create change that nobody seemed to believe in or want. Some people did this for a while, and then gave up; or they were neutralized or expelled from their organization as alien organisms. A few left purposely, and even changed their chosen profession, becoming writers, sculptors, etc.

3. They could unlearn what they had learned and go back to their old way of doing things, encapsulating their brief departure from the corporate cultural norm as a temporary aberration, hopeful but naive; most managers chose this option, and achieved it rather quickly.

So there was something not working with Management Development--the development of managers as individuals. The underlying assumption that you could change an organization by changing individuals did not pan out. Time for a paradigm shift.

Borrowing from what were then new developments in family therapy, such as the work of Virginia Satir, some applied social scientists and consultants began to consider the need to develop the organization as a whole, not just the individuals within it. Family therapists were learning that they could treat a problem child with apparent success, but on returning to the family s/he promptly reverted to the previous problem behavior. The problem was not in the child as an individual, but in the family as a system. Similarly, an organization could be improved not by developing individuals within it, but by changing the organization as a whole--hence the shift in thinking--from management development, to organization development.

Think about some problem in your own organization. Consider how it can be interpreted in terms of the problematic behavior of a particular individual. Then consider how this behavior might be an expression of the organization's unacknowledged, perhaps unmentionable problematic patterns.

What thoughts or questions do you have about this, or about OD, or about the OD Program at Sonoma State? Use the Comments link to respond to or comment on this entry.

Click Follow or enter you email in the field on the right to receive notification when new entries are posted.

James commented about my suggestion that each one of us could plant a tree:

"Great idea, Saul!

A new tree once a year for each person would go a long way toward not only beautifying our environment, but strengthening it.

Now, in terms of human systems; what would the world look like if each one of us could, once a year, plant a tree of hope...or a tree of education...or a tree of housing...or a tree of justice? What a lovely place we would have to live in then!"

What kind of tree have others here planted recently? What small seed did you use? How are you nurturing it?

Use the Comment link to post your response.

We Can Plant a Tree

Here's a thought: What if every human being planted one tree each year? What kind of effect might this have on sequestering carbon and stabilizing our global climate?

The commitment would be to care for and nurture that tree through one's lifetime and the tree's lifetime, rather than using it for construction or firewood.

What a lovely new tradition this would be for celebrating one's birthday!

And for celebrating one's Earth home.

And what if we did this together, as the human race, and celebrated our shared stewardship of the planet? How might this develop our sense of community with other human beings, and with all life?

Assumption 11: "I can't do anything about it," or "We can do it together."

We are so often overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problems around us, and we therefore decide to do nothing. Think about something else. Feel bad about it occasionally. There is the continuing tragedy of Darfur, and the ineptness of the UN or the African Union in doing something about it. There is the inexorable, accelerating warming trend in the global climate that is melting our polar ice and will soon disrupt ocean currents. And the startling collapse of the world economy, and its terrible consequences for human beings. And so much else…

"What can I do about it?" Nothing, it seems. The problems are so big. So we shift our focus down to the narrower scope of everyday concerns and activities. We make breakfast, take the kids to school, call Aunt May, respond to email. We can check off items on our do-list, and derive some satisfaction; some sense of accomplishment.

Watching cable news and the public station keeps us abreast of developments on that larger scale, the worrisome ones, but in a protected way, as spectators. It helps to know there are people out there tracking all these developments, or arguing about them (senselessly), or affirming our reasons to feel concerned. So we're not crazy.

"But what can I do?"

Everything. As human beings, we have evolved a capacity and a need for social interaction. We are fundamentally herd animals—we prefer to be with others, and have survived through our compulsion and genius to communicate, collaborate, and co-create. Together we have created cities, laws, science, corporations, the Internet, and baseball. There is individual effort and genius involved in all this, but it is based on what others have done and taught us, and is useful only through mutual support and teamwork.

Together we have accomplished a lot, both good and bad. As human beings and as a society we are slowly, perhaps just in time, learning to consider consequences beyond the immediate gain. We are definitely slow learners about all this, but we learn. And we learn together. Like ants touching fellow ants to exchange scents of newly discovered food, we avidly communicate about individual discoveries, questions, conjectures.

As we consider the overwhelming circumstances we find ourselves in as a global society, as nations and states, as communities and families, it is useful to remember occasionally that we have a choice: We can hide from ourselves in our imaginary isolation, or we can embrace our human and social power to make a difference, for ourselves, our dear ones, our society.

The first step is simple, though difficult: We can choose to talk with each other about these larger challenges. Talk seems useless, unless it leads to action, but concerted action that makes a difference begins with talk. We don't need to convince anyone to do anything they don't want to do. What is most useful is to express one's own concerns and aspirations, and to ask others about theirs. The rest emerges by the human magic of creative initiative and collaboration.

We can do it, together.

I look forward to your thoughts in the Comments section.

Workshop on Human Systems Coaching

Human Systems Coaching
Using the Self-Empowerment Sequence
With Saul Eisen, Ph.D.

• Are you caught in a vicious cycle, or not sure what to do next?
• Do your clients keep getting in their own way but can't see it?
• Is your group paralyzed and unable to move forward?
• Are people stuck in scapegoating and feeling powerless?

Discover the transformational power of the Self-Empowerment Sequence (SES) for catalyzing significant shifts in your own understanding and effectiveness. Explore the application of this perspective to the human systems in your life, including key interpersonal relationships, teams, families, the work setting and organizations, communities, and the global society.

The Self-Empowerment Sequence is a seven-stage road map for working through any concern, problem, goal, or aspiration. Action steps for implementation emerge naturally, along with the clarity and commitment for following through with one's own decisions.

Who will benefit:

• External and Internal Organization Development practitioners
• Executive coaches
• Group facilitators
• HR Training and Development professionals
• Managers and team leaders

Upon completion, you will:

• Have direct experience with the effectiveness of the Self-Empowerment Sequence
• Have used the SES to work through personally-relevant topics in three or more human systems
• Have developed skill in working through the task presented by each stage of the SES
• Have developed skill in facilitating and coaching others through the Self-Empowerment Sequence

Location:

Sebastopol, CA

Dates and Times: Four consecutive Wednesdays:
April 22 & 29, May 6 & 13, 2009.
We meet from 5:30 to 9:00 pm.

Program Fee: $250
Light dinner food will be catered, and is included in the fee.

Registration: Space at this facility is limited.
Contact Saul Eisen for registration form.

Reality 10: "There will be surprises!"

So there you have it: I promised to tell you about nine assumptions and ten realities. We have considered nine sets of assumptions that make a difference in how we live our lives; nine choices in how we think, which have consequences for what we experience:

1. Stable Growth, or Discontinuous Change
2. Rationality, or Unconscious Reactiveness
3. Competition, or Collaboration
4. Scarcity, or Abundance
5. Abundance, or Ecological Limits
6. Coercion, or Community
7. Information, or Interaction
8. Vertical, or Horizontal Coordination
9. "Someone's in charge," or "Yes—We are!"

There are other sets of assumptions and other topics I plan to explore here, but for now let's pause and consider what this is about: We are attracted to the comfort of certainty, especially in difficult times, and about that which is dear to us. But certainty is elusive, especially about the important questions.

So we make some educated guesses about how things are, and what is likely to happen, and then we choose our behavior accordingly. Years ago, George Kelly wrote brilliantly about this in The Psychology of Personal Constructs. We are all scientists, he told us, continually developing hypotheses and then acting on them. But competent scientists remember that these are hypotheses—best guesses—and that emergent data and experience can be used to confirm, disprove, or modify them. That is the scientific process, and more generally it is the learning process, which helps us to function effectively and happily as human beings.

We get in trouble when we forget that these are assumptions, tentatively held, pending further information. Blind certainty is at the core of much injustice, cruelty, and human folly. But when we follow the discipline of constant inquiry, we have the opportunity to do what we do best as human beings and as a society—we learn, we improve, we develop, and we grow.

What assumptions have you modified lately?