Traditional and Modern Organizational Development Models

Visionary Mindset to Dialogic

Organizational Development in the 1950-70s established OD as a set of practices and premises that emerges to improve the overlay bounded functions of hierarchical organizations by viewing them as living, open systems (Bushe & Marshak, 2012). Due to the early emphasis on a team’s functioning, OD consultants were expected to bear high competencies in group dynamics that were small. In the wake of Lippitt’s and Lewin’s theories, small groups where thought to be the vehicle and target for planned change using action research practices (Lewin, 1943, 1947; Lippitt, Watson, & Wesley, 1958; Bushe & Marshak, 2012).

Traditional OD Models

The organizational development field emerged as a result of movements and methodologies in early research, with one root leading to the OD field development being systems theory and open system theory (Tschudy, 2006;  Karakas, 2009). One early model of planned change was presented by Kurt Lewin. His change process consists of three steps that include unfreezing, moving, and refreezing and offers a general framework for organizational change understanding. This included a process that involved individuals in learning and describing from their behavior and collectively making results and enhancing commitment to carry out these resolutions (Lewin, 1948; Hinckley, 2006; Karakas, 2009). Lewin believed a certain set of behaviors at any moment in time is from two group forces that included those striving to keep the status quo and those intrusive for change (Cummings & Worley, 2009). When both forces are close to being equal present behaviors are managed in a "state of quasi-stationary equilibrium" (Cummings & Worley, 2006, p. 22). To minimize that state, an individual can raise the pushing forces for change, minimize the forces supporting the present state, or apply a combination of the two. 

Kotter's eight-step model has been widely used to prepare and review organizational change (Tanguay, Waltman, & Defebaugh, 2011) and unfolds in a sequence of phases. This step-by-step change process analysis offers used framework for understanding organizational change. The eight steps for Kotter's model are establishing a sense of urgency that change is needed, forming a powerful coalition, creating a vision for change, communicating the vision, removing obstacles, creating short-terms success, build and consolidate improvements, and institutionalizing new approaches (Spencer & Winn, 2004).More so, Kotter suggests two common principals for his model. The first being that most changes measured go through an array of steps over an extensive length of time and that mistakes in any step can generate challenging problems for the whole change process (Spencer & Winn, 2004).

There are two ways standard change procedures build special situations or processes. First, is data collection analysis and methods of reflection such as survey’s interviews, and instruments to produce new knowledge used to design a changed place to a new anticipated state (Sorensen, 2017). Second, special situations are created that attempt to briefly change the way individuals depict the expectation they'll take a new way of connecting in the future.

From the 1980s until the present, developments in OD has influenced biological, social, and physical sciences as well as approaches and interviews to change established by innovative practices (Bushe & Marshak, 2012). Over time, these developments have now united to set outlines of a contrasting model now called Dialogic Organizational Development.

Dialogic OD

Dialogic Organization Development was designed to assist leaders in addressing the necessary changed by making clear plans, goals, and visions through analyzing and collaboratively collecting data to manage action planning (Bushe & Marshak, 2016). This approach is in alignment with complex encounters where answers entail numerous perspectives. Rather than an open systems focus, dialogic OD is based on the view that organizations as dialogic systems where group, organization, and individual actions stem from socially constructed realities sustained and created by versions in which individuals provide meaning about one’s experiences (Bushe & Marshak, 2012). Therefore, instead of change guided by the requirements of an open systems theory, the dialogic viewpoint considers inducing new thinking ways by changing the continual conversations that conceive, recreate, and construct action and understanding. A dialogic advisor creates an environment that conversations arise but limits controlling or guiding those processes and instead lets them appear and self-organize (Goodson, 2017).

A culture that incorporates dialogues gives new opportunities the chance to emerge. Field theory can offer dialogic OD with a metaphoric power similar to what open systems theory adds to diagnostic OD (Noumair & Shani, 2016). When dialogic practices are used to engage the individuals of a system in conversations that focus on self-issues, they not only fix the immediate issue but leave a more evolved system behind with a bigger sense of hope and direction in connection and the will to work beyond unbridgeable barriers in the past (Holman, 2013). A dialogic intervention can create a new structure of rules of behaviors, relationships actors, and meaning. a cooperative business can improve its brand by concentrating on three dialogic OD theories of using inquiry to raise engagement, changing conversations, and why language matters (Goodson, 2017).

From traditional to dialogic OD thinking

When companies use the traditional OD path, the main focus is exploiting current possibilities and not exploring new ones (Sorensen, 2017). The move to dialogic OD continues to be unvalued in organizational scholarship as OD scholars resume teaching and researching from the view of traditional, conventional diagnostic OD (Bushe, 2012; Bushe & Marshak, 2009; Gilpin-Jackson, & Crump, 2018). First and second-generation OD processes are dubbed as traditional methods as they are applied with a problem-solving lens (Gilpin-Jackson, & Crump, 2018). Nonetheless, third-generation processes represent dialogic OD practices that are linked to the future of organizational development (Rothwell & Sullivan, 2010; Gilpin-Jackson, & Crump, 2018). Therefore, the length of dialogic depends on how one moves from the diagnostic end to the facilitator at the end of the dialogic spectrum. The key to mastering the dialogic and diagnostic grey zone becomes how satisfactory a practitioner moves along the continuum that is appropriate to the situation (Gilpin-Jackson, & Crump, 2018). More so, the main factor becomes an experts will to understand philosophical bases, intentions and orientations of the various OD forms in such that they move effectively amidst and change their mental patterns to practice in either realm (Gilpin-Jackson, & Crump, 2018).

Conclusion

In conclusion, OD consultants were expected to bear high competencies in group dynamics that were small due to early emphasis on a team’s functioning. One early model of planned change was presented by Kurt Lewin that consisted of three steps and offers a general framework for organizational change understanding. Another model, Kotter's eight-step model of change, offers used framework for understanding organizational change. Until the present, developments in OD has influenced science approaches and interviews to change established by innovative practices (Bushe & Marshak, 2012). Over time, these developments have now united to set outlines of a contrasting model now called Dialogic Organizational Development.

Dialogic Organization Development was designed to assist leaders in addressing the necessary changed by making clear plans, goals, and visions through analyzing and collaboratively collecting data to manage action planning (Bushe & Marshak, 2016). A culture that incorporates dialogues gives new opportunities the chance to emerge. Instead of change guided by the requirements of an open systems theory, the dialogic viewpoint considers inducing new thinking ways by changing the continual conversations that conceive, recreate, and construct action and understanding. However, the move to dialogic OD continues to be unvalued in organizational scholarship as scholars resume teaching and researching from the view of traditional diagnostic OD (Bushe, 2012; Bushe & Marshak, 2009; Gilpin-Jackson, & Crump, 2018).

References

• Bushe, G. R., & Marshak, R. J. (2012). Advances in Dialogic OD. OD Practitioner, 44(4), 3. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=82764530&site=eds-live
  Bushe, G. R., & Marshak, R. J. (2016). The dialogic mindset: Leading emergent change in a complex world. Organization Development Journal, 34(1), 37-65.
  Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.
• Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2009). Organization Development and Change. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
• Goodson, M. (2017). Using Dialogic OD to Drive Communications and Change. OD Practitioner, 49(2), 63–65. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=122379969&site=eds-live
• Gilpin-Jackson, Y., & Crump, M. (2018). Practicing in the Grey Area Between Dialogic and Diagnostic Organization Development: Lessons from Another Healthcare Case Study. OD Practitioner, 50(4), 41–47. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=132099708&site=eds-live
• Holman, P. (2013). A Call to Engage Realizing the Potential of Dialogic Organization Development. OD Practitioner, 45(1), 18–24. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=90648285&site=eds-live
• Karakas, F. (2009). New Paradigms in Organization Development: Positivity, Spirituality, and Complexity. Organization Development Journal, 27(1), 11–26. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=38797438&site=eds-live
• Noumair, D. A., & Shani, A. B. (2016). Research in Organizational Change and Development (Vol. First edition). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=1335895&site=eds-live
• Sorensen, H. B. (2017). Time for a New Agenda: Organizational Development in a Changing World with much Disruption. Annual International Conference on Business Strategy & Organizational Behaviour (BizStrategy), 21–26. https://do
  • i-org.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/10.5176/2251-1970_BizStrategy17.07
• Spencer, M. H., & Winn, B. A. (2004). Evaluating the Success of Strategic Change Against Kotter’s Eight Steps. Planning for Higher Education, 33(2), 15–22. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=507948373&site=ehost-live&scope=site
• Tanguay, D. M., Waltman, J., & Defebaugh, S. (2011). An Ethics Program Assessment: A Case Study Using Kotter’s Transformational Change Model. Ethics & Critical Thinking Journal, 2011(2), 15–26. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ent&AN=72324521&site=eds-live