In addition to formal groups and teams, individuals are also members of informal groups of colleagues, friends, and associates, often from multiple departments, that exert a powerful impact on an individual’s behavior. Formal and informal group norms and cultural beliefs of groups comprise the unwritten code of behavior, and these codes are taught to new members. Understanding these norms and codes, what they tell individuals about how to behave, and what impact they have on the organization is an important part of understanding the group’s ability to contribute to organizational change.
Growth, Development, and Learning
Perhaps the value that differentiates organization development from most other management and consulting work is its emphasis on growth, development, and learning. Think about your own beliefs, skills, and attitudes compared to what they were 5 or 10 years ago. In small or perhaps more significant ways, you are likely to be different. You have learned from mistakes or perhaps changed a belief or habit based on experience. In organizational settings, people are no different. They are, and the organization itself is, “in process,” meaning that we see people and organizations as constantly evolving and changing. For OD consultants, this value implies that we choose not to give up on a person or group during challenging times, instead finding ways to help them grow and develop. This runs counter to the notion that unsuccessful people should be terminated and unsuccessful departments should be disbanded. Instead, it means first understanding the factors inhibiting success and then providing opportunities for change. This optimistic view of people and groups also implies that engagements and interventions should be constructed as opportunities for learning, so that the organization can learn not only to solve the immediate problem but also to learn how problems or situations like this one can be addressed next time, without fostering dependence on a consultant. Ideally, this learning process will become ingrained into the organization itself so that learning is increasingly a normal part of leadership and management (Schein, 1987).
Valuing the Whole Person
Recognizing and valuing a person as a “whole person” means three things. First, it is often the case that a person who has been in a job or followed an educational path for any length of time can become typecast or pigeonholed by professional category, as an accountant, a marketing person, a receptionist, a manufacturing line employee, and so on. Consequently, work assignments and problems are brought to that person in accordance with people’s existing labels for him or her and assumptions about professional knowledge and interests. The accountant will not be brought a customer service problem, the receptionist will not be invited to contribute to a public relations problem, and the manufacturing line employee will not be asked for an opinion on an engineering problem. Presumably, this is because this is how labor is organized, but it is also due to assumptions about what kinds of work people want to do. People also want variety, or perhaps may be interested in a career change, and organizations can structure opportunities to recognize organizational members’ multiple interests and skills. Consider what a manufacturing employee knows about the construction and engineering of products or what a receptionist knows about customer service and public relations problems. They can be very knowledgeable about areas outside their immediate job descriptions. It is also true that “most people desire to make, and are capable of making, a much higher level of contribution to the attainment of organization goals than most organizational environments will permit” (French, 1969, p. 24). Unfortunately, many organizations hold their members back from greater contributions. Organizations can provide support for learning, growth, and development that recognizes that people can make contributions beyond those for which they were originally hired.
Second, recognizing organizational members as whole people respects their feelings as people. They may be especially enthusiastic about a recent success and deserve genuine congratulations, or they may desire an opportunity to celebrate the organization’s success with colleagues. They may be worried about taking on new responsibilities, concerned about new expectations, or angry at a policy change. OD interventions aim to respect these expressions of emotion and to acknowledge them. The expression of anger and conflict is a natural and normal reaction to organizational change and ought not to be ignored or suppressed.
Finally, respecting the whole person means acknowledging and recognizing diversity and the benefits that individual differences bring to an organization. We come to organizations with multiple identities—gender, age, race, national origin, religion, disability, economic background, and so on. Many organizational practices have historically resulted in ignoring or silencing alternative voices (Prasad, Pringle, & Konrad, 2006). This has been especially true for members whose identities were not identical to those of management. The result has been that ideas and contributions from members with rich backgrounds and experiences have frequently not been heard or included. Recognizing the diverse identities of organizational members implies paying explicit attention to, valuing, and respecting the unique contributions of all members.
Profiles in Organization Development
Frederick A. Miller
CEO and Lead Client Strategist, Kaleel Jamison Consulting Group
A recipient of an Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters from The Sage Colleges, Fred specializes in developing workforce utilization strategies that accelerate results to deliver higher individual, team, and organizational performance. A past member of the board of directors of Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, Inc., he currently serves on the boards of Day & Zimmermann (a $3 billion family-owned business), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s Center for Automated Technology Systems, and Hudson Partners (a real estate investment trust fund). Fred was the first person to serve on all three boards of the most prestigious organizations in his field—ATD (formerly ASTD), Organization Development Network, and National Training Labs (NTL). He recently completed terms for Pinchot (one of the first graduate schools focused on sustainability), The Sage Colleges, and One World Everybody Eats (pay-what-you-can community cafes). His experience includes partnering with organizations to accelerate growth, enhance bottom-line results, and work through turnaround situations, as well as positioning leaders for success in start-ups, entrepreneurial ventures, and transitioning from founder-led companies to the next generation of leadership. In the 1970s, as an officer with the Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (now CIGNA), he helped pioneer one of the nation’s first corporate diversity and inclusion efforts.
1 What kind of OD work do you do? (Please describe your research or practitioner area of interest). Do you have a certain specialization, style, or approach that is unique?Large systems change ensuring that diversity is leveraged and that there is a culture of inclusion.
2 Why do you find it a compelling profession of research and/or practice? Why is OD relevant today?OD is about the people of the organization being able to bring their humanness to a workplace where they are heard, cared about, and do their best work in service of the organization’s mission and strategies.
3 What first drew you to the field of OD? How did you get started? Can you briefly describe an initial project, course, mentor, or event that you found compelling and led you to the profession?Seeing Tony Petrella, Billie Alban, and Barbara Bunker and working with Herb Shepherd, John Weir, Edie Seashore, Kaleel Jamison, Peter Block, and other pioneers both inspired me and drew me to OD.I started in the field of OD when I was employed by the Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (now CIGNA) in the 1970s. After I left Connecticut General, I joined Kaleel Jamison as her partner in Kaleel Jamison Associates. After Kaleel’s death in 1985, Judith H. Katz joined me as a partner and in the leadership of The Kaleel Jamison Consulting Group, Inc.
4 Can you give an example of a recent OD project (research or practice) that you completed?Over a five-year period, myself, Judith Katz, and other members of KJCG were involved in a transformational