Origins of od in us and india

The Origins of OD in the US and India

Introduction

History of OD

The history of organization development can be traced back to four separate but related behavioral-science applications: Laboratory training, Tavistock method, Socio-technical Systems, and Survey research and feedback.

1. The laboratory-training sessions were carried out in the 1940s under the leadership of Kurt Lewin. The concept of T-groups was birthed in 1946. During this time period, small group trainings were initially called “sensitivity training sessions,” since they were designed to sensitize participants to the forces of group dynamics (like decision making and conflict resolution).

2. A second major precursor to OD was Wilfred Bion’s Tavistock method. While Lewin was working in America, Wilfred Bion was working with traumatized and shell-shocked soldiers from the battlefield. He presented the notion that when the leader fails to take responsibility for the group’s output, participants will predictably react to the authority figure with one of three behavioral options – fight, flight, or pairing. When the leader takes responsibility, the participants are more likely to respond with a fourth option that Bion called work.

3. The third influence on OD was the emergence of socio-technical systems. The approach pioneered by Trist and his colleagues is based on the premise that an organization is simultaneously a social and a technical system. Prior to his contribution, Organization Development paid more emphasis on the social subsystem (i.e. people who interact) and not on the technological subsystems (those systems that produce something tangible).

4. Finally, the fourth major contribution was survey research. Much of this work was conducted in the Institute of Social Research at the University of Michigan under Rensis Likert. He demonstrated how information can be collected from members of an organization and used as the basis for participative problem solving and action planning.

2

Group Process Consultation

Eric Trist

Laboratory Training

SurveyFeedback

The Tavistock Method

Kurt Lewin

Wilfred Bion

Socio-Technical Systems

1940 - 1959 1960 - 1979

Rensis Likert

1980 -1999

Appreciative Inquiry

David Cooperrider

Future Search

Marvin Weisbord

Open Space

Harrison Owen

2000 - Current

Edgar Schein

Timeline of Key OD Thinkers

FIRST WAVE SECOND WAVE

3

Application 1: Laboratory / Sensitivity Training

Overview - Laboratory / Sensitivity Training

The scientific study of the processes that influence individuals in group situations

Based on Kurt Lewin’s belief that increased awareness of self and others could be accomplished through facilitated group dialogue in Training Groups (or T-Groups) that advocate open-minded appreciation and inclusion of differences

The initial aim to study the dynamics of groups has undergone a number of transformations and broadenings over its 70+year history.

Current common scientific goal: to explain particular aspects of the complex dynamic interdependence between the psychological life of an individual and the social system in which that person exists.

Methodology of group learning by experience rather than lecture

5

History of Laboratory / Sensitivity Training (ST)

http://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu

1945Research Center for Group Dynamics (RCGD) established by Kurt Lewin at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

1947Research Center for Group Dynamics (RCGD) relocated to Michigan in 1948 with Dorwin Cartwright as the first director

1949RCGD joined with the Survey Research Center to establish the Institute for Social Research at Michigan.

1946The United States Office of Naval Research and the National Education Association (NEA) funded a planning group named the National Training Laboratory for Group Development (which was later changed to NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science) with the vision of Kurt Lewin.

http://www.ntl.org

1957Rolf Lynton conducted the first T-group in India

1971Indian Society for Applied Behavioral Science (ISABS) was formed

1979Indian Society for Individual and Social Development (ISISD) was founded by Pulin Garg and others at ISABS who believed that Sensitivity training in its western form applied directly to India would reduce its efficacy. A new form of ST formed in India which integrated Indian mythology and philosophy with the Western ST philosophies.

1996After almost two decades of intense involvement with ISISD, some members felt the need for a creative departure, a need to synthesize the learning's from ISISD with others concern they held in Education and in Organization Development. A new institution called Aastha was formed to bring ST to educators through a holistic educational paradigm.

http://www.aasthafoundation.org

1996Sumedhas – The Academy of Human Context was founded by a group of people who were concerned with the dynamic interplay of multiple contexts in which the individual is located. The pull in this approach is more towards the freedom of action and movement rather than on redoing and understanding the past.

Parikh I. J., Jeyavelu, S. (2002). New trends in sensitivity training in organizations. Vikalpa, The Journal of Decision Makers, Vol. 7. No. 4.

http://www. sumedhas.org

www.isabs.org

6

Different Forms of Laboratory/Sensitivity Training

Laboratory Training Different Forms

Unstructured Sensitivity Training Labs Personal growth labs Explorations in roles and identity Interpersonal labs

Semi-structured labs Interface labs Leadership labs Self-renewal labs Visioning Co-creating labs

Structured workshops Managerial and leadership roles Team building Building a cross-functional team Integrating Emotional Intelligence across multiple

roles & system Managing cross-cultural diversity Interpersonal and group dynamics Dynamic equilibrium between personal and

professional lives

Parikh I. J., Jeyavelu, S. (2002). New trends in sensitivity training in organizations. Vikalpa, The Journal of Decision Makers, Vol. 7. No. 4.

7

Comparative Analysis – The ConceptEven though the Indian perspective was based on the NTL philosophy, the evolution of a unique Indian perspective started as early as the seventies.

Western Perspective (Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Effectiveness)

Indian Perspective (Role and Identity Approach)

• Conceptual understanding and Experiential learning Experiential learning, Self-reflectivity, and Awareness

• Emphasis on gaining skills and competencies Emphasis on unfolding of inherent potential

Focus on: Individual growth and development Team working and role taking Leadership Work climate / culture Resistance to change and Mindset change

Balancing individual and organizational goals

Focus on: Individual growth and development Role creation and enactment Collective leadership Co-creation of Organizational reality Self and Professional renewal – individual, teams,

and organizations Aligning simultaneous and multiple individual and

organization goals

• Interventions to solve problems Interventions to change the working paradigm/perspective

• To achieve organizational objectives To Co-create organizational reality and future

Parikh I. J., Jeyavelu, S. (2002). New trends in sensitivity training in organizations. Vikalpa, The Journal of Decision Makers, Vol. 7. No. 4.

8

Comparative Analysis – The Process

Western Perspective (Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Effectiveness)

Indian Perspective (Role and Identity Approach)

Focus on: Individual Psychological Processes Individual and Interpersonal processes Individual as a Psychological and Social Being

Repeating patterns in Relationships Understanding of the Impact of Past on

repeating patters

Focus on: Individual and Collectivity Cognitive and Emotive Processes Role and Identity Individual as a Member of Collectivity, Co-creator

of Identify and Role taker Repeating patterns in roles Cognition of the Given and the Co-created Identity,

and Action choices

• Socio-cultural context is considered to be of lower importance to intra-personal and interpersonal processes

Socio-cultural context as shaper of meaning given to: Roles and Relationships Self, Identity, and Growth Meaning of Existence Purpose of Life Individual Collectivities

Orientation is to achieve: Immediate action choices Change

Orientation is to achieve: Increased self-reflectivity Acceptance of Emotive and Cognitive

Simultaneity Acceptance of self’s role in Co-creating identity

and roles

• Objective is Awareness of Self, Repeating Intra and Interpersonal patterns, and change for increased Effectiveness

Objective is Well-being and Acceptance of Humanness of Self, Others, and the System

9

Nature and Processes / Underlying Assumptions

Process Statements Explanation

Invitation versus Compulsion to explore The role of the facilitator is to open the space and invite the participants without any compulsion

The only pressure is internal and the individual is either ready or not ready

The Lab space in time and movement versus Concept of ownership

The lab space is a shared space amongst the participants and the facilitator in order to being the self for sharing and reflection

The space has no ownership but only to the coordinates of time and structure linked to the external interface of the system, institution where the lab is held, and an invitation

Role of the participants and the role of the facilitator

The lab space is a sacred and shared space. Each individual offers what he/she wishes to offer

The facilitator reflects like a mirror what he/she sees, hears, touches, and feels. Je/she goes behind the events, encounters, and experiences, and articulates the processes of the identity and the being of the person

The participants are not clear about the lab space and their roles in the lab

Directionality versus Specificity The facilitator does not provide specific solutions to specific problems of the participants. Instead, he/she states the direction from which the participant can make his/her choices.

Unfolding the Person versus Boundaries of Growth

The lab space is an invitation to review and reflect upon life and to walk the path of self-discovery

It is up to the individual to define the boundaries of exploration by overcoming the fears and anxieties associated with unfolding

Personal Growth Labs

Parikh I. J., Jeyavelu, S. (2002). New trends in sensitivity training in organizations. Vikalpa, The Journal of Decision Makers, Vol. 7. No. 4.

10

Application 2: Tavistock / Group Relations Conference

• Based on Wilfred Bion’s series of small study groups at London's Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in the late 1940s and A. Kenneth Rice’s work (chairman of Tavistock's Centre for the Applied Social Research) that individuals cannot be understood, or changed, outside the context of the groups in which they live.

• Essential to the Tavistock approach is the belief that when an aggregate becomes a group, the group behaves as a system—an entity or organism that is in some respects greater than the sum of its parts—and that the primary task of the group is survival.

• Although this primary task is frequently disguised or masked, survival as a group becomes the primary preoccupation and latent motivating force for all group members. This emphasis on survival provides the framework for the exploration of group behavior and all the overt and covert manifestations of the primary task.

Overview – The Tavistock Method

Group Relations Conferences (GRC’s, also known as Working Conferences) are temporary educational institutions for learning from ‘here and now’ experience. By ‘here and now’, one means working with experiences that are readily available to all the participants (both members and staff) within the conference. To that end they provide opportunities for the participants to explore their experience in the GRC as it takes place in different events – experiences that are both conscious and unconscious. A GRC usually runs for 5 to 14 days and several events are built into it.

12

• The task of the consultant in a group relations conference is to fulfill a carefully defined role function. The consultant consults only to the group, not to individual members of the group, and only within the time boundaries prescribed. Frequently, the consultant's role is a subject of much consternation among members.

• The consultant behaves as he does in the interest of assisting members to pursue the task of the event in which they are involved. His objective is to facilitate the group's task to the exclusion of all other concerns.

• The consultant does not engage in social amenities, advice-giving, parental nurturance, or direction.

• The consultant performs his task by providing interventions for the group's consideration. In a theoretical sense, the consultant "takes" the group by attending to its basic assumption functioning and then reports his observations back to the group.

• As Rice (1965) describes it, the consultant's job is "to confront the group, without affronting its members; to draw attention to group behavior and not to individual behavior, to point out how the group uses individuals to express its own emotions, how it exploits some members so that others can absolve themselves from the responsibility for such expression" (p. 102).

The Role of the Consultant

13

History of Group Relations

1965The ideas of the A. K. Rice Institute originated when Margaret Rioch collaborated with Kenneth Rice to organize the first group relations conference held in North America.

1969The A. K. Rice Institute was founded by Margaret Rioch to create a U.S. organization to manage and promote group relations conferences using the methodology developed by A. Kenneth Rice in his work at the U.K.-based Tavistock Institute.

2000Human and Institutional Development Forum (HIDF) formed to enhance human and institutional capacities in development organizations and individuals through a process of continuous learning, democratic functioning and contributing to change in power relations

http://www.hidforum.org/

20114th Group Relations Conference

held in India

http://akriceinstitute.org

14

Section 3: Socio-Technical Systems (STS)

• Originally developed at the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London, this approach to designing work has spread to most industrialized nations in a relatively short period of time. In the USA, STS theory has become the major underpinning of efforts involving work design. Cincinnati Milacron, Amoco, USAA, Stanley Works, General Electric, and Caterpillar are among many organizations using STS theory to design work.

• Socio-technical system design is based on the premise that an organization or a work unit is a combination of social and technical parts and that it is open to its environment. Because the social and technical elements must work together to accomplish tasks, work systems produce both physical products and social/psychological outcomes.

• The key issue is to design work so that the two parts yield positive outcomes; this is called joint optimization. This method contrasts with traditional methods that first design the technical component and then fit people to it. The traditional methods often lead to mediocre performance at high social costs. In addition to joint optimization, STS design is also concerned with the work system and its environment. This involves boundary management, which is a process of protecting the work system from external disruptions and facilitating the exchange of necessary resources and information.

• Over 30 years ago, the early contributions to socio-technical theory by Emery and Trist included approaches to design jobs and work systems. More recently, there seems to be frequent reference to STS, given the inevitable infiltration of technology into organizations in all industries.

Overview

16Appelbaum S. H. (1997). Socio-technical systems theory: an intervention strategy for organizational development. Management Decision. 35/6.

Application 4: Survey Research and Feedback

Rensis Likert developed a widely used approach to action research using a scale of responses, allowing people to indicate how strongly they held a particular position on some item of organizational concern.

Survey feedback, although used by industrial psychologists, has been part of the OD field and widely used, not only with teams but also in assessing entire organizations. There are surveys that look at employee morale, perceptions of leadership, clarity about mission and strategy, and so on.

A number of different types of surveys are used to gather data feedback, both from the managers and from their subordinates and peers, often including something on their managerial style. This feedback was then used to provide training and development in the necessary skills. Data feedback surveys like LIFO, DISC, and MBTI are used for self-assessment. Other feedback surveys such as 360-degree feedback are developed to provide data from multiple sources on how their behavior was perceived.

Overview – Survey Research and Feedback

18

History of Surveys

1946Survey Research Center was founded by Rensis Likert

1948Research Center for Group Dynamics (RCGD) was founded

1970sSurvey feedback enters Corporate India

Current

Survey feedback extensively used in various capacities:

• As a sensing instrument• For organizational

improvements• For strategic shifts in

structure, styles & personnel policiees

• For team building• For initiating cultural

changes• For developing motivating

climate

19Rao, T V;Vijayalakshmi, M. (2000). Organization development in India. Organization Development Journal.

1949The Institute of Social Research (ISR) was created as an umbrella organization for both centers. The ISR has contributed powerfully to the body of knowledge about human behavior and social interaction

http://www.empiindia.com