Throughout the evolution of the concept of the organization, the definition of organizational development changed accordingly. The most widely used and recognized one is a definition by Richard Beckhard which outlined five crucial components of OD. The components include its planned nature, organization-wide scope, the vertical top-down direction of management, improvement of organizational effectiveness and health as a goal, and utilization of behavioral science for intervention facilitation (Gallos, 2006). This definition aligns well with most OD activities and can be traced to related concepts. For instance, the formulation of organizational development objectives by Block (2011) includes the improvements of interface management between different plant segments and increased cooperation between product directors and the market research group, which are consistent with the increased organizational effectiveness. Besides, the creation of a culture of strong commitment and accountability likely requires behavioral science knowledge and results in improved organizational health (Block, 2011). However, it should be noted that while this definition is robust and diverse which ensures its relative relevance, the recent changes in the understanding of the principles of successful organizational function demand an update of this definition. For example, change management is becoming recognized as an essential component of the organization’s success. On the other hand, Beckhard’s definition treats an organization as a stable, well-established, and rigid mechanism which can be definitively operated with predictable and measurable results. Besides, the experience of individuals involved in an organization’s functioning is considered vital for ensuring the success of the overall development results. Therefore, I suggest the following definition: organizational development is a planned effort of improving the efficiency and health of an organization through influencing its members by encouraging responsibility and involvement in both vertical and horizontal directions.
The two questions that need to be clarified when engaging with the new clients are the initial problem they have and the expectations regarding the results of the collaboration. The former is important because on certain occasions clients can search for new opportunities rather than aim to address the existing issues. In this case, further contracting is likely to take a completely new direction and incorporate a wider scope. The latter needs to be detailed since the consultant may view the solution and the desired outcome from a different perspective, which may result in misunderstandings and dissatisfaction regarding the results.
The identification of the initial need has several important details that need to be acknowledged and, on some occasions, inquired in detail. For instance, it is necessary to determine the underlying causes of the issue brought up by the client. In this way, the consultant will be able to determine the amount of work to be done as well as the level of responsibility of the firm for the encountered problem. This approach will also give the consultant an advantage of acting on par with the client, thereby assuming a certain amount of responsibility, displaying the determination of active involvement, and fostering trust.
As can be seen from my definition, change is an important component of successful OD. It is also an inevitable element of the consulting process, involved as early as on the stage of negotiations. It is necessary to outline the perspectives of implementing change to the client, define its value, and agree on its presence in the project. In addition, it must be incorporated in the implemented design to ensure the establishment of the change-predisposed culture.
The strong reaction I have quite often – and expect to have again in the future – is annoyance with certain traits of an interlocutor. According to my observations, such feeling most often originates from poor language skills and inappropriate use of certain constructions. I can remember several occasions when it occurred during an interview with clients and forced me to conclude that they somehow lacked leadership skills. Fortunately, I am well aware of the effect this reaction has on me and try to avoid bias by assuming as neutral a stance as possible. However, it reveals a weak point that hurts both the consultancy services and organizational development in general. While the drawn conclusions may not be completely unsubstantiated, it is important to recognize the risks of incorporating them into the final project or using them to communicate with the client. Even more importantly, the reflection upon this effect reveals that the client might be subject to the same effect. In the cases when the person holds an important managerial position within the organization, such a possibility must be considered as one of the underlying causes of the initial problem. While there is no definitive and easy way to conclusively identify the exact bias of such kind, one must remember that this factor can be an additional variable unaccounted for in the project and, on some occasions, either undetected by the customer or perceived as an advantage. Therefore, it is recommended both to account for the risk of bias emerging from such strong reactions in the professional area and consider it a possible part of the system that is both elusive and influential.
References
Block, P. (2011). Flawless consulting: A guide to getting your expertise used (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gallos, J. V. (2006). Organization development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.