What is it about OD that makes it a desirable activity? Every trainer also wants to be an OD Practitioner. Perhaps, it has something to do with the name itself. Developing the organization is a worthy goal. I am reminded of the statement of a Japanese U-boat captain in a hilarious film says, “we will target Hollywood, because it is an honorable target.
OD has a similar attraction for HR professionals. It is an honorable target . An inherent disadvantage of the HR profession is the intangible outcome of HR effort. Thus, there is a latent desire in every HR professional’s heart to make a lasting and visible impact on an organization, which can not be questioned. It is quite tiresome to be the favorite punching bag of anybody who has a grudge with the organization.
Desiring to add value to the organization through OD is one thing, actually catalyzing an enhancement in the organization’s effectiveness is another. In OD, one cannot get away because of the inadequacies of the system as in the measurement of training effectiveness. The barometer of the success or failure of an OD intervention is there for everybody to see and feel.
One major block in the implementation of OD is the lack of understanding of what it is all about. It is confused with training. The prevalent mental pattern related to training is useful for reducing resistance to training but it creates a blind spot for OD.
The inadequacies of the training mindset cascade into OD. Participants of training programs have got used to the “passive” role which is predominant in different training scenarios. The trainer has to do all the work. The participants can sit back and evaluate the program. This predominant mindset results in their being a little surprised when an OD intervention is initiated. All of a sudden, there is serious work going on in the workshop. Real issues are being discussed and real solutions are being found. This can lead to them becoming a little disconcerted unless they are briefed properly.
This is exemplified by the failure of an ambitious OD intervention in a Technology company. This company ventured to roll out an OD intervention in 3 phases. The participants were not briefed about the objectives, the process to be followed and their role in the OD Intervention. The atmosphere during the initiation of the OD Intervention was non serious. The participants were approaching it as just another training program. The result was that the HR department did not put into place the structures and systems that trigger the conversion of the learning in the first phase of the OD intervention into action.
The result was that the OD intervention got truncated after the first phase.
What do we learn from this experience?
The HR department as well as the participants need to approach an OD intervention with a completely different mindset as compared to training.
The participants have to be active elements of the OD intervention rather than the passive role that they tend to adopt in training programs.
Moreover, the HR department needs to play a facilitative and persistent role in the implementation of the OD action plan. Thus, the HR department needs to make a transition from an observer’s role during regular training programs to an active facilitator’s role. Without this participation, the OD Intervention is bound to fail.
Let’s examine another OD failure that highlights this. An organization wanted to generate Innovations in different functional areas. This required an OD intervention which involved competence development as well as competence application.
The organization deployed a highly effective competence development system taking into consideration each stage in the competence development process.
However, not enough attention was given to ,”Application of Innovation competencies’ to generate innovations in Key result areas. No structures were created to support the Prototype development process.
The impact was that in spite of having potent Innovation ideas, no innovations ensued. After 6 months of the OD initiation, the potent innovation ideas were still languishing. They had not been converted into prototypes.
Hence, a lot of potential got wasted.
The key learning that emerges is that multiple initiatives need to be taken in order to make an OD intervention successful.
This leads to the obvious question, “Is OD really worth it?” The power of OD lies in its ability to trigger self organizing as well as planned change.
The diagnostic data collected in most OD interventions makes the intervention valid thereby making it difficult to oppose.
Nobody wants to be told that there is something wrong with them. If any diagnosis is not backed up by data, it is bound to be opposed.
The diagnostic data reduces opposition and creates openness to change.
During the action planning stage of an OD intervention in a large public Ltd Company, the consultant was facing staff resistance regarding the need for a change in the upward communication process.
“There is no need for any change. We are getting all the suggestions or grievances”” was the quote.
It was only when the quantitative data, regarding the ineffectiveness of upward communication was highlighted that the resistance to a “Communication Process change” declined.
The diagnostic data by itself acts as “feedback” to the organization and its key personnel. Even, if no planned change is initiated, self organizing change tends to set in.
This is highlighted by the experience of a consultant who had done a diagnostic exercise. A key competency gap among senior management functionaries emerged in the data. The impact of this data was that suddenly all senior management members had queries about the competency and the search behavior which is associated with exploration was predominantly evident.
Thus, it is not surprising that HR professionals also want to be OD practitioners.
Back