Theories And Models Of Organizational Development 1x163r

Theories and Models of Organizational Development Thus far in the paper, one can understand the baseline evolution of OD. This section will summarize key parts of some of the theories and models that have remained in tact since the launch of this new and fascinating field. After a brief presentation of these theories and models, an analysis of social, political, economical, and interpersonal influences towards OD will be presented. Kurt Lewin and Followers One applicable and active theory of organizational development and change is the equilibrium theory as developed primarily by Lewin. In essence this theory finds the balance point between desirable and non-desirable behaviors that OD practitioners and industrial/organizational psychologists use to move the equilibrium point to one side or the other to gain ideal results. As an initial concept from the early 1940’s today’s practitioners will find that Lewin’s “concept is useful for thinking about the dynamics of change situations” (French and Bell, 1999, p. 82). Finally, Lewin’s second idea mirrors the first in the basic idea that the behavior can be moved by unfreezing, moving, and freezing certain behavioral traits found within the change process. Ronald Lippitt, Jeanne Watson, and Bruce Westley later introduced Lewin’s second theory broken down into seven stages that affords practitioners the ability to narrow in better on the consulting process of organizational development. The Burke-Litwin model of organizational change Another approach of organizational development is that founded by researchers Warner Burke and George Litwin. The Burke-Litwin model of organizational change became the foundation of what is now known as transactional and transformational leadership. This model helps OD practitioners define areas of first-order and second-order change. “The premise of the

Burke-Litwin model is this: OD interventions directed toward structure, management practices, and systems (policies and procedures) result in first-order change; interventions directed toward mission and strategy, leadership, and organization culture result in second-order change” (French and Bell, 1999, p. 77). Through this model organizations can split the needed changes between task related needs and non-tangible needs. One of the primary challenges of the Burke-Litwin model is the difficulty in using the model to apply to individual behavioral development within an organization. Porras and Robertson model of organizational change Contrary to the last model this paper reviews, the Porras and Robertson model focuses on individual behavior. The model’s premises suggest that by focusing on individual behavior the overall disposition of the organization can be impacted. French and Bell (1999) agree with researchers that through focusing on what is “expected, required, and rewarded” OD practitioners can obtain the desired work behaviors (p. 79). The next few theories and models have been under research for several years. Each of them ties in with the previous theories identified in this paper in one way or another. However, the following theories seem to be focused towards more contemporary and even futuristic model of thinking. Systems theory This theory identifies that organizations are “open systems that exchange with the environment” (French and Bell, 1999, p. 82). The systems theory first came about in 1950 under the direction of Ludwig von Bertalanffy. In most cases organizations work in an input and output environment and as open systems they communicate with the environment. As such they can be receptive to changes needed from from their environment. In today’s fast paced

global marketplace organizational development under the systems theory is very common. One of the risks of such an approach could be the inability to gather data from the top three areas that feed such an approach. Participation and empowerment Another approach to OD is through the use of sharing power throughout the organization. Many successful customer service organizations use this approach. A very popular example of the participation and empowerment is the ability for Zappos.com representatives to do, basically, whatever it takes to satisfy the customer. OD designs with this approach are specifically designed to increase participation of organizational . According to French and Bell (1999) the primary goal is to,“involve all those who are part of the problem or part of the solution,” and “Have decisions made by those who are closest to the problem” (p. 88). As a result the organization can have better chances of becoming leaders in their industries. Teams and teamwork The final model of OD this paper will summarize is that the teams and teamwork. Teams and teamwork have been around for a long-time; however, the approach to OD through teams and teamwork is relative modern. “Work teams are the building blocks of organizations” (French and Bell, 1999, p. 91). As a result work teams, teamwork are some of the most popular findings in today’s organizations. The power of teams and teamwork has been primarily found in the social interactions team have with one another. However, research is still being completed to understand why some teams are successful while others are still striving for the power found in teams. The Driving Forces of Organizational Development

Although there are several approaches, theories, and models of organizational development the driving forces of social, political, economical, and inter-personal remain intact. Bradford and Burke’s (2005) interview with Jerry L. Porras discusses some of the history and driving forces behind organizational development (p. 51). One will agree that with today’s organizational needs the driving force behind OD is more complex than ever before. The United States social systems are more integrated, political views are in turmoil, and the economy remains unstable. As a result, those theories outlined in this paper are critical to review and understand so that better hybrid solutions can be developed to meet the needs of organizations of the future.