sumer mm uya20rm1r5yvv20yroy · 2018. 4. 3. · jeremy beaudry 21. design school: mastering od...

Sum

mer Year 20

15 Vol. 47 N

o. 3

Summer Year 2015 Volume 47 No. 3

OD and Design Intelligence

4. FromtheEditors

6. NewODPEditorialReviewBoardMembers

design intelligence

7. DesignastheBridgeBetweenIntentionandImpactDavidW.Jamieson,CinoAdelson,andLauraDye

15. DesignToolsforSocialEngagementinOrganizationsJeremyBeaudry

21. DesignSchool:MasteringODDesignPrinciplesOutsidetheGuildExperiencePeterNorlinandJudyVogel

27. UsingDesignIntentionally:ExperimentandExperienceJoannW.Gadbaw

31. WhytheSocio-EconomicApproachtoManagementRemainsaWellKeptSecretJohnConbereandAllaHeorhiadi

38. StrategicODandComplexity:FacilitatingEmergentChangePeterM.Dickens

44. PeopleIntegration:CreatingandSustainingValueRussellPodgorskiandDeirdreSherwood

54. NewEditorsforPracticing OD

Journal of the Organization Development Network

Published quarterlyCopyright 2015Organization Development Network, Inc.ISSN #0256112312

Editor-In-ChiefJohn D. Vogelsang

ProofreadersLoni Davis, PhDJillian J. Gonzales

Editorial Review Board

John Adams, PhDEmeritus Professor, Saybrook University Organizational Systems PhD ProgramSan Francisco, CA

Philip T. Anderson, PhDBKD Consulting, Grayslake, IL

Marilyn E. Blair, PhDPrincipal, TeamWork Consulting, Denver, CO

Michael Brazzel, PhDExternal Consultant, Columbia, MD

Gordon Brooks, MSODIndependent Consultant

Gervase Bushe, PhDBeedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Steven H. Cady, PhDGraduate Faculty Member, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio

Mee-Yan Cheung-Judge, PhDVisiting Fellow, Roffey Park Managment Institute; Dean, NTL/Q&E OD certificate program

Allan H. Church, PhDPepsiCo, Inc., Pound Ridge, NY

David Coghlan, PhDSchool of Business Studies, University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

John Conbere, MDiv, EdDPresident, SEAM, Inc.; Director, SEAM Institute Minneapolis, MN

Marjorie DervenManaging Partner with Hudson Research & Consulting

Anne Gardon, MSWPrincipal, Strategies for Change Now, Poughkeepsie, NY

Tim Goodly, PhDHR Executive, Vinings, GA

Claire Halverson, PhDProfessor Emeritus, Master’s Program in Service, Leadership, and Management, SIT Graduate Institute, Brattleboro, VT

Tonya Hampton, EdDSenior Director D&I and EngagementHealthPartners, Minneapolis, MN

George W. Hay, PhDAssociate Professor, Business Psychology DepartmentThe Chicago School of Professional Psychology Chicago, IL

Alla Heorhiadi, PhD, EdDVice President, SEAM, Inc.; Director, SEAM InstituteMinneapolis, MN

David W. Jamieson, PhDAssociate Professor and Department Chair, Organization Learning and Development, University of St. Thomas, Minneapolis, MN

Judith Katz, EdDKaleel Jamison Consulting Group, Troy, NY

Anne Litwin, PhDAnne Litwin & Associates, Jamaica Plain, MA

Maurice L. Monette, EdDThe Vallarta Institute, Oakland, CA and Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

Cathy Royal, PhD Senior Consultant, Royal Consulting Group, LLC Riverdale, MD

Peter Sorensen, Jr., PhDDirector, PhD Program Benedictine University, Lisle, IL

Nancy L. Southern, EdDChair, PhD Organizational Systems ProgramSaybrook Graduate School, San Francisco, CA

Dalitso Sulamoyo, PhDPresident/CEO of the Illinois Association of Community Action Agencies, Springfield, IL

Ross Tartell, PhDIndependent Consultant, Wilton, CT

Maya Townsend, MSODLead Consultant, Partnering Resources,Cambridge, MA

Peter B. Vaill, DBAProfessor of Management,Antioch University, Yellow Springs, OH

Lynne E. Valek, PhDAdjunct Faculty, Alliant International UniversityFresno, CA

Annie Viets, EdDAssociate Professor of Management, Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University,Khobar, Saudi Arabia

Judy Vogel, MLAVogel/Glaser & Associates, Inc., Columbia, MD

Don D. Warrick, DBAProfessor, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO

Henry E. Williams, PhDAssistant Professor, Organizational LeadershipPurdue University North CentralWestville, IN

Therese Yaeger, PhD PhD and MSMOB-OD Programs Benedictine University, Lisle, IL

Design Whitehouse & Company, New York, NY

ProductionFrank Brayton, San Francisco, CA

OD Practitioner

Organization Development NetworkBoard of TrusteesMatt Minahan, EdD, ChairSherry Duda, Vice ChairMagdy Mansour, TreasurerYasmeen Burns, SecretaryChristina BellJaya BohlmannMarco CassoneLoretta HobbsNorm Jones, PhDMartha KeslerKris LeaZoe MacLeod

Executive Director

Gail McCauley

Director of Operations

Janet Huynh

For information regarding advertising opportunities in the OD Practitioner, please e-mail Andrew Werfelmann at [email protected]

Organization Development Network

330 North Wabash Avenue Suite 2000Chicago, IL 60611

T: 312.321.5136F: 312.673.6836

E: [email protected]

www.odnetwork.org

OD Practitioner is now available to academic and corporate libraries by special subscription. We invite you to include this publication in your library resources.

Library Subscriptions USA Canada* All Other*University Non-profit $150 $160 $180CorporateFor-profit $200 $225 $255

Individual Subscriptions $90

* All prices in US funds.

Membership in the OD Network

• Individual Membership: $225

• Persons over 65: $115

• Full-time students in a degree program (employed half-time or less): $115

Please direct all inquiries to:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


www.odnetwork.org



Special Issue of OD Practitioner Summer 2016

The Global Practice of ODCall for Articles

The professional and skillful practice of OD has never been more needed than now. The world is churning with clashing narratives, accelerated change, paradigm-breaking technological development, and unprecedented access to communication, enabling the voiceless to mobilize against oppression. OD as an approach offers mindsets and means to enable groups to bridge conflict, acknowledge differences, and not only address complex human problems, but support systems in implementing the means to address such problems in the future.

Yet practicing OD skillfully in our interconnected world has never been so challenging. As OD practitioners we need to be effective in supporting our client systems in situations where we cannot assume a common value system, language, or worldview. OD, as it is being practiced all over the world, has been evolving as global practitioners adapt the values and methodologies of OD to be effective in different cultural contexts (Fagenson-Eland, Ensher, & Burke, 2004; Jaeger, 1986; Litwin, 2007, 2014; Marshak, 1993; Vonk, 2014; Zaldivar, 2008, 2010).

If we acknowledge the need to navigate worldviews and different value systems, we also must acknowledge that this navigation requires greater awareness, agility, and a deepened ability to stay grounded. We need to be aware of our own cultural context as well as the power dynamics at play around our identity and that of our client system. We need to be agile in the face of the unknown in an increasingly fast changing environment. And we need to acknowledge privilege and

oppression in the histories of our own countries and that of our client countries, which will in turn affect the nature of our dialogue.

We invite articles that shed light on and share best practices about what global OD practitioners have learned about any of the following questions: » What have been your most

important learnings and challenges as you have worked in a cultural context different from yours?

» In what ways has working as a global OD practitioner impacted your practice? Your skills? Your ability to navigate across cultures?

» How do you as a global OD practitioner ensure that interventions you utilize are culturally appropriate? What adjustments have you made for cultural fit?

» What are some examples of local OD practices you have encountered in your global OD work that you have adopted to enrich your own techniques?

» As a global OD practitioner, do you find cultural frameworks useful in cross- cultural settings? If so, what frameworks have you found useful and how have they influenced your work?

» How do you balance your own values when dealing with a culture with different values?

» How do you recognize when your own values blind you to the client situation?

» How do you make space for worldviews that are uncomfortable for you?

1TheGlobalPracticeofOD:CallforArticles

» How do you bear witness to pain, inequity, and histories of struggle?

» How do you deepen your skills and develop finesse at navigating cross-cultural situations?

» When working across cultures, what assumptions or perspectives do you hold as a guide for Leaders-Executives-Managers-Supervisors (LEMS) to view the world and engage in “human information processing” as they lead and manage change in themselves and their respective organizations?

Submission Deadline is April 11, 2016

Articles should be sent to the special issue editors, Suzanne Zaldivar ([email protected]), Anne Litwin ([email protected]), Dalitso Sulamoyo ([email protected]), Perla Riza-lina M. Tayko ([email protected]) and the Editor of the ODP, John Vogel-sang ([email protected]). Sub-missions should follow the Guidelines for Authors, which appear on page 55 of this issue of the ODP. The special issue editors will screen the articles and provide initial feedback. Final articles will be reviewed by two members of the ODP editorial board.

Special Issue Editors

Suzanne Zaldivar, MSOD, co-founder of Inspired-Inc, is an international organization development consultant who collaborates with clients around the world in managing change and creating effective and sustainable futures. She has coached hundreds of leaders and consulted to dozens of organizations in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Zaldivar’s clients include Fortune 50 multinationals, NGOs, supranationals, as well as small companies and governments. She is also an adjunct professor with American University’s master’s program in OD and has taught at Trinity University in Washington, DC. She has published and taught about the theoretical and practical challenges and implications of practicing OD across cultures. She serves on the executive committee of the International OD Association. Zaldivar can be reached at [email protected].

Anne Litwin, PhD, has been a consultant to organizations and a coach to senior managers for more than 30 years in the USA and internationally. She has worked in China, Africa, Myanmar, Singapore, Malaysia, India, Mexico, Europe, and Canada. She has been the CEO of her family retail business and is past-Chair of the Board of Directors of NTL Institute. Her most recent book is New Rules for Women: Revolutionizing the Way Women Work Together. Litwin is also co-editor of the book, Managing in the Age of Change, and the author of numerous journal articles. She can be reached at [email protected].

Dalitso Sulamoyo, PhD, is the Presi-dent/CEO of the Illinois Association of Community Action Agencies, a mem-bership organization of 40 nonprofits and public entities that serve communi-ties and the economically challenged citizens of Illinois; and President & CEO of the Illinois Community Action Development Corporation, a statewide affordable housing development cor-poration, and the Illinois Community Action Fund. Sulamoyo is also a Senior Executive Scholar and distinguished vis-iting scholar at Benedictine University. He has been published in books and leading journals on the subject of global organization development, capacity building, and change management. He has presented both nationally and inter-nationally on his work of facilitating change within mission driven organiza-tions and the understanding of African culture within the context of organiza-tion development. Sulamoyo recently published Creating Opportunities for Change and Organization Development in Southern Africa. He can be reached at [email protected].

Perla Rizalina M. Tayko, PhD, is the OD Program and OD Institute Director of the Graduate School of Business, Assumption University of Thailand. She conceptualized and designed the underpinning frame/flow of the OD masters and doctoral programs/projects of ABAC.GSB.ODI with the collaborative support of the IODA (International Organization Development Association). This was a development initiative when she was the newly elected Vice-President of IODA. She has served as a consultant

OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 47 No. 3 20152

inspired-inc.com






inspired-inc.com



ABAC.GSB.ODI

ABAC.GSB.ODI

in various development projects of the World Health Organization in Malaysia; the Asian Development Bank in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Bangladesh; SEAMEO-VocTech in Brunei; and independent consulting projects in Indonesia, Myanmar, and Brunei. She has extrapolated and developed brain-based frame/flow “thinking through” processes, which she calls a “whole brain literacy” approach to “transformative learning and change” in organization development and transformation (ODT). Her three books on these processes are Whole Brain Literacy: Key to Holistic Education and Success in Today’s World (2010), On the Ball: Leveraging the Future You Want with WBL (2012), and Making It to Big Four: A Journey of a Decade (2014). She can be reached at [email protected].

References

Fagenson-Eland, E., Ensher, E. A., & Burke, W. W. (2004). Organization development and change interven-tions: A seven-nation comparison. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(4), 432–464.

Hall, E. (1998). The power of hidden differences. In M. Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication (p. 59). Boston, MA: Intercultural Press.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation leadership and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organization Dynamics 9(1): 42–63.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures con-sequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Cultures and organization: Software of the mind (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Jaeger, A. M. (1986). Organization development and national culture: Where’s the fit? Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 178–190.

Litwin A., (2007). OD: Dancing in the global context. OD Practitioner, 39(4), 11–15.

Litwin, A. (2014). Global OD practice: The legacy of colonialism and oppression. In B. B. Jones & M. Brazzel (Eds.), The NTL handbook of organization development and change: Principles, practices and perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 483–498). San Fran-cisco, CA: Wiley.

Marshak, R. (1993) Lewin meets Confucius: a re-view of the OD model of change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(4), 393–415.

Vonk, A. (2014). Interactive OD interventions and the dimensions of Hofstede. Presented at the International OD Association/International OD Association of Japan Conference, Kyoto, Japan.

Zaldivar, S. (2008). International development through OD: My experience in Afghanistan. OD Practitioner, 40(1), 4–9.

Zaldivar, S. (2010). Change in Afghan-istan: Contrasting values and what is essential about OD. OD Journal, 28(2), 9–17.

3TheGlobalPracticeofOD:CallforArticles

Copyright©2015bytheOrganizationDevelopmentNetwork,Inc.Allrightsreserved.


Guest Editors’ Introduction to the Special Issue

In our “Call for Articles” for this special issue, my co-editor, Lisa Kimball, and I voiced a clear desire to extend the use of the word “design” in OD practice beyond the limits of its familiar link to organiza-tion charts and job roles. While “organiza-tion design” continues to represent a key approach to building organization effective-ness, we proposed that design is an activity that transcends the boundaries of organiza-tion architecture. Our hypothesis, which we invite our readers to test, is that design is, in fact, a deep structure embedded in every aspect of our work as OD profession-als. And that because the act of designing is at its core about identifying a new, pos-sible future and what we must change to reach it, it is clear that OD practitioners and members of the formally-designated design community are actually cousins in an extended family.

Despite this certainty, when we constructed the frame for this issue, Lisa and I were uncertain about who might be called to assess and explore our hypothesis about the importance of design and design intelligence in OD work. While design has certainly not been ignored as a lens for viewing OD practice (e.g., an entire issue of JABS in March, 2007, devoted to Bringing the Design Sciences to Organiza-tion Development and Change Management; Wastell, 2014), until a few years ago, we rarely heard design included in discussions of essential OD practices. As a result, we could not predict whether anyone else felt as strongly as we do about the contribution of design to our work; and we felt equally unsure about where OD professionals might position their exploration of design thinking: at the level of contracting and

engagement design, intervention design, event design, small-group process design, specific skill development, and so on.

Fortunately, as you will see, the impor-tance of design has begun to capture our attention. However, before I review the design articles included in this issue, I should first point out we are presenting no articles written by professionals in the “formally-designated design community.” While this is disappointing, it is perhaps not surprising. There are several ways to account for this absence, if we step back and consider the historical context. More than anything, I think that this absence of voices from the design community tends to validate an unavoidable reality: the OD and design communities are still operating in their own, familiar siloes, and there seem to be very few conduits for sharing ideas and experience.

As a result, this conjures up one of those classic conundrums that con tinue to bedevil us, i.e., “how can I get experience, if no one will hire me to give me experi-ence?”. In this case, how can we approach the design community with attention, curiosity, and a welcoming spirit, if the channels to extend such an invitation for dialogue seem difficult to identify? Like most human endeavors, solving this appar-ent conundrum depends on human rela-tionships and social capital, and we must now pursue these relationships with more entrepreneurial energy and intention if we are to finally have those inter-community conversations about design that will enable us to learn from each other. Hopefully, this issue of the OD Practitioner will be seen as an enthusiastic invitation from our side of the canyon that currently appears to sepa-rate us, and that our two communities, and all OD professionals, will eventually profit from an easy, open dialogue.

When we turn our atten tion to the arti-cles from our own OD community that are included in this issue, we are rewarded with a selection that ranges from the systemic to the deeply personal.

David Jamieson, Cino Adelson, and Laura Dye make a strong case for the importance of design and design thinking as the bridge we use in our work to move from intention to impact. They also offer a

set of useful design principles to guide our thinking and choices when, as practitio-ners, we approach any change initiative.

Jeremy Beaudry introduces a new frame for describing the application of design thinking, “social design,” and he provides some important examples of how a practitioner might guide change in a social system through the lens of “design culture.”

In their description of OD “design school,” Peter Norlin and Judy Vogel invite us to think about both what and how OD professionals learn to design, first propos-ing a series of principles and guidelines for the design of small-group learning and change, and then reflecting on the chal-lenge we now face as OD professionals, shifting our context for learning from the “guild” to a virtual setting.

Finally, Joann Gadbaw offers a personal story that describes her journey from emerging to experienced practitioner, while outlining a set of design criteria she now applies when approaching any human systems intervention.

The underlying message in this collection of articles is that without question, all OD professionals are designers who use design intelligence and design thinking to meet the challenges of our work, whether we acknowledge that fact or not. The value of acknowledging it is that we are then able to sharpen our understanding of our professional role; to deploy more conscious, overt strategies to deepen our competence with design, as an essential practice; and to use our slightly-expanded professional identity to initiate new, productive connections with colleagues in various professional design communities who themselves serve as stewards of learning and change. So I hope you will find the views expressed by these authors provocative and persuasive, and that they will ultimately serve to validate your own work as a designer and contribute to the development of your own design intelligence.

Peter Norlin

From the Editors

Former Editors

Larry Porter 1973–1981Raymond Weil 1982–1984Don & Dixie Van Eynde 1985–1988David Noer 1989–1992Celeste Coruzzi 1993–1995David Nicoll 1996–2000Marilyn E. Blair 2000–2008


From the ODP Editor

The other articles in this issue deal with how organizational dysfunctions lead to hidden costs, usually at the expense of developing human potential; seven key organization-specific factors that facilitate emergent change in organizations; and how people integration strategies can reduce the failure rate of Mergers and Acquisitions.

Building upon the work of Kurt Lewin, Rensis Likert, Douglas MacGregor, and Chris Argyris, Henri Savall developed the Socio-Economic Approach to Management (SEAM) as a response to flawed manage-ment theory, incomplete accounting theory that could not account for hidden costs, and a way to enact his premise that the source of adding value to an organization is in developing human potential. John Conbere and Alla Heorbiadi describe how SEAM is a counter to the common failures of organizational change and a successful method for improving organizational effec-tiveness, profitability, and morale.

In every interaction within an organization people mutually adjust their behaviors in ways needed to cope with changing internal and external environmental demands. As a result change emerges that can spontaneously increase a system’s coherence, resilience, and agility. Peter M. Dickens offers seven key organization- specific factors that facilitate positive emergent change. He describes how he identified these factors and constructed a survey, Organizational Resilience Assessment, which can be used to assess the presence or absence of these factors in a specific organization.

According to Russell Podgorski and Deirdre Sherwood, most Mergers and Acquisition objectives are never fully realized because the people integration efforts are managed poorly. They describe people integration activities that high performing organizations engage in to create more value for Mergers and Acquisitions. They also identify the roles and responsibilities for human resources and organization development departments necessary to support and implement the additional people integration activities.

OD has been evolving as global practi-tioners adapt the values and methodologies of OD to be effective in different cultural contexts. The guest editors of the summer 2016 issue of the ODP, The Global Practice of OD, are inviting articles that capture suc-cessful practices, innovative approaches, and the continuing challenges for the global practitioner. See the Call for Articles on page 1.

The ODP Editorial Review Board has two new members, Tonya Hampton and Henry Williams. You will find more infor-mation about them on page 6.

Finally, there are two new editors for one of ODN’s other publications, Practic-ing OD, Beth Applegate and Tim Lannan. Find more information about them and details about publishing in Practicing OD on page 54.

John Vogelsang

References

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. (2007), 43(1).

Wastell, D. (2014). Archarios: Dialogue between Socrates and a novice manager on the relevance of design to management practice and education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 13 (4), 641–652.

guest editors

Peter Norlin, PhD, PrincipalofChangeGuides,andformerlyExecutiveDirectoroftheODNetwork,hasspentover30yearsinthefieldofOD,servingarangeofcustomersfromtwo-personpartnershipstoFortune100companies.AgraduateofTheJohnsHopkinsUniversityMaster’sDegreePrograminAppliedBehavioralScience/OrganizationDevelopment,healsohasanMAandPhDfromNorthwesternUniversity.HisteachingexperienceincludesfacultyappointmentsatVanderbiltUniversity,JohnsHopkinsUniversity,andGeorgetownUniversity.BasedinAnnArbor,Michigan,heisalsoaprofessionalmemberoftheNTLInstitute,andtreasureroftheInternationalODAssociation(IODA)[email protected].

Lisa Kimball, PhD,isCEO,GroupJazz.Sheisanactionaryknownforherabilitytohelporganizationstacklecomplexchallengesbychangingtheconversationaboutproblemsandpotentialsolutions.Shehasworkedformorethan30yearswithclientsincludinggovernmentagencies,corporations,nonprofitorganizations,andeducationalinstitutionstodesignandfacilitateorganizationalchangeanddevelopmenteffortsinvolvingdiversestakeholders.Kimballhasadeepinterestindesigningprocessesthatengagestakeholders,andshepioneeredthedevelopmentandapplicationofLiberatingStructures,amashupofopensourcemethodsthatmakehighengagementpractical,exciting,andfun.SheservedontheBoardoftheOrganizationDevelopmentNetworkfrom2006–2011andiscurrentlyontheBoardoftheOrganizationDesignForum.Shecanbereachedatlisa@groupjazz.com.

5FromtheEditors




Tonya Hampton, EdD, is the Senior Director, Diversity, Inclusion, and Engagement at HealthPartners based in Minnesota. She is responsible for the organization development and change management initiatives necessary to deploy and sustain the organization’s Diversity and Inclusion strategy. She joined HealthPartners in September of 2012. Prior to HealthPartners, Hampton worked at Medtronic, Accenture, Ecolab, Best Buy, Honeywell, Piper Jaffray, and Dorsey and Whitney. She is a Board Member of The Bridge for Youth organization. She holds a PhD in Organization Development and received her MBA with a minor in Human Resources, both from the University of St. Thomas. Hampton operates as a strategic HR and Organization Development practitioner and leader with 20 years of professional experience and is committed to organizational effectiveness, change, diversity, and inclusion. She also has experience in leadership coaching, change management, consulting, employee engagement, training and learning development, and talent management.

Henry E. Williams, PhD, has over 20 years of experience in operations management in the public sector. He has served on labor contract negotiation teams, handled hundreds of EEO claims, as well as grievance and unemployment hearings. Over the past 10 years he has also worked with a variety of public and private agencies as a consultant delivering an array of human resources services including labor relations, conflict resolution, performance efficiency and effectiveness, executive coaching, and executive salary negotiations. Williams has a BA in Developmental Psychology, a MA in Organizational Psychology, a MBA International Business Concentration, and a PhD in Organization Development. He is currently an Assistant Professor, Organizational Leadership at Purdue University North Central. His research includes publications in the areas of Leadership development, Public-Sector Leadership, Challenges for Minority Executives in the Global Business Environment, and Accelerated Change Management.

New ODP Editorial Review Board MembersJournal of the Organization Development Network



Design is the central tool in bridging the gap between intention and impact. When we see high failure rates with change or experience ineffectiveness in impact, Design is a likely culprit. In this article, we will highlight the importance of designing as an ongoing function of change work, how it has lost some of its earlier promi-nence, the key principles to guide design work in change, and a brief look to the future for ways to integrate learning from across fields, develop greater design com-petence, and align better with the changing needs in the organizational world.

Design has long been a critical skill in OD work and was utilized and developed by our Founders years ago, when they were inventing the field and trying to solve difficult problems with organizations and people; and each situation was a new experiment. Early “designs” were then expanded by practitioners for many decades, and many have survived the test of time. However, over time, as more methods and techniques were developed and commercialized, there seems to have been less attention to “doing design” or “teaching design.” Consequently, many have entered the field perceiving less need to custom design their work for the uniqueness in situations or develop design skills. Education programs seemed to

have moved to teaching interventions as commonly used, pre-designed, structured methods, and fewer people in the field seem to develop competence in “designing for change.”

Most OD practitioners can remember being a participant in many designs that did not work well whether for a training, a conference session, or for a large group activity. We might also remember something we designed or was pre-designed that we used, but it did not accomplish our desired outcomes. This disconnect could have been attributed to the mix of participants, the existing culture, a lack of participant understanding, timing, difficulty doing what was asked, or misalignment among too many moving parts. We believe these are factors we need to consider in our design work and important design choices along the way that contribute to the outcome.

Designing for Change

Design in change work means the thinking and selection processes used to create strategies, frameworks, structures, and processes for interaction, learning, and changing. Designing for change must therefore start with data and understanding from the system, including current and future

ByDavidW.Jamieson,CinoAdelson,andLauraDye

Design as the Bridge Between Intention and Impact

“Adesignisneverstablebecausethesystemsweworkinareincontinuousfluxandsodesignworkalwayshasanemergentdimension.Changeinsystemsusuallyinvolvesnavigatingthroughexpectedandunexpectedwatersandorchestratingamongmultipleactions,stakeholders,activities,andtimelines.”


7DesignastheBridgeBetweenIntentionandImpact

state pictures, preferences, expectations, assumptions, and desired outcomes from the change. From that stating point, a series of choices is made to enable context-specific learning and changing to occur, through various forms of planned and emergent interaction, so that the desired outcomes and impact can be achieved. Since we are in the business of change, our work involves creating ways to engage the mindsets and behaviors within the targeted system to support desired shifts. Simply stated, design revolves around the

choices we make, large and small, along the path of change to guide the human system to uncover and/or move toward desired outcomes. These choices allow practitioners to bridge between the intent and ultimate impact, on a small and larger scale.

Change work, requiring design, can be driven by a problem to be solved, a needed innovation, a new aspiration, or a shift in paradigm. Designing can be focused on the solution, end result, output, or desired future state and/or it can be about the means or process to get there. In OD, we think one of our main purposes needs to be on the means (or process) to bridge between intention and impact.

Practitioners create intentions following various diagnostic or discovery processes (needs assessment, data generation) and make sense of either what is going on in the system and/or what would be a desired future state for the system. The work we are invited to do in an organization may not necessarily

be the work we end up doing. We need to listen deeply to what is being said and what is not being said. At times we need to influence the client system to reframe the purpose of “the work.” Drawing on OD philosophy, we conduct these activities jointly with participants within and outside of the system, so they own and create their future; while building capabilities along the way. OD practitioners are iterating and co-creating with clients--keeping an eye on the big picture, the details, and all the factors that will directly and indirectly push

and pull on the systems we are working with. How we design in each phase of change work and how it is accepted and experienced will have a huge impact on how well the desired outcomes are achieved.

Design often begins with a view of what is possible and exists within a spe-cific context. We need to remember that what we are doing exists at a moment in time, and that context is a part of what we consider in the design and what we learn during the needs assessment process. Context includes recent history, current culture, human, financial, technical resources, and constraints. Only then can we begin to think about how we operation-alize the purpose of our work and begin our designing.

In design work, we need to be cog-nizant that there is a “what” and “how” component. We must choose what to do and how to do it (design choice). The “what” could be what we started with or were asked to do; or a choice among

options that we understand from diagnosis or discovery phases. The “how” is about choosing means. The purpose, context, and our abilities all influence these decisions: » The choice of language should ideally

resonate with the system’s experience, inspire action, envision the desired state, or simplify the complex.

» How we choose to intervene inter-personally along the way with support, challenge, invitation, a poke or prod, a push or pull, or a modeling or critique -- all can make a difference as part of design.

» Just as in action research, each action in the system makes a shift and we need to notice the subtle and significant shifts that may inform our next design decisions.

For example, when working on improving communications, the client may believe it is a structure issue that needs reorganiza-tion, while we may see a lack of compe-tence in the skills needed to work in the white space between parts of the structure. Each of these “what” decisions will drive completely different “how” decisions and designs.

There is Big D designing (the whole process, the overall strategy guide) and Little d designing (the activities and actions along the path, both simultaneously and sequentially, that create the interactions, learning, and change). In a major change the practitioner and client may have a Big Design outlining the issue (need for the business), strategy, and rationale for approach (appreciative, confrontative), pri-mary targets of change (first senior leaders then middle managers or one whole unit first then moved across organization), and general planned timeline (one year). Then as they work on the change, they would have many little designs for stakeholder meetings for introduction, like role groups or cross-role groups, or a training session needed to conduct the rest of the change or similar activities.

A design is never stable because the systems we work in are in continuous flux and so design work always has an emer-gent dimension. Change in systems usu-ally involves navigating through expected

Design often begins with a view of what is possible and exists within a specific context. We need to remember that what we are doing exists at a moment in time, and that context is a part of what we consider in the design and what we learn during the needs assessment process. Context includes recent history, current culture, human, financial, technical resources, and constraints. Only then can we begin to think about how we operationalize the purpose of our work and begin our designing.


and unexpected waters and orchestrating among multiple actions, stakeholders, activities, and timelines. Doing change work involves iterative cycles of data, learning, change, and reflection. Our designs need to adapt to these require-ments. We generally need an upfront “planned design” and an emergent “adap-tive design” as the unfolding and naviga-tion occurs. Every choice along the way becomes part of the design.

The potential problem with tightly designed, standardized processes, or interventions is the inability to adapt quickly as situations change, new data surface, or action and contexts are not aligned. They often violate much of the context/culture, human system and readiness information. Every human system and situation has differences that need to be considered in any design we develop, use, or adapt.

Design and Designing Across Fields

In the design of products, machines, soft-ware, fashion, landscapes, buildings, and many other physical items, there is often a tangible output that did not exist before or one that needed substantial modification. In change work, the outputs are often less tangible yet have presence through struc-tures, processes, mindsets, behaviors, and ultimately organization mission outcomes, results, and participant experiences. This aspect of designing has more similarities with instructional design that produces learning and some of the newer processes, workplace or customer experience design work (Gruber, de Leon, George, & Thomp-son, 2015). Sometimes the immediate outputs are intermediate stages during the change process (and less tangible), leading to the ultimate desired organization results.

While there are many similarities and common steps with all design processes, they are not all exactly the same nor do they all carry the same purpose. Much of the popularity of Design Thinking (DT) (Brown, 2008) has been the disciplined process for generating creativity and innovation, leading to greater speed and efficiencies in reaching goals. Many business schools have been adopting

DT courses with heavy emphasis on developing innovations, which is in high currency on the business agenda today. The underlying values and most steps in DT resonate well with OD. Yet in some changes, it is not all about innovation or creativity, but more about new learning and changing experiences. Often we do not have the time or opportunity for prototyping or testing, as might occur with a product or process. We have seen some newer design work in change from various large scale methods, such as Future Search (Weisbord & Janoff, 2010), the Conference Model (Axelrod, 2012), Theory U (Scharmer, 2009), Social Labs (Zaid, 2009), and Transformative Scenario Planning (Kahane, 2012).

In many ways, Design in other fields and OD both mirror and are integrated with each other. There are similari-ties in how the practitioner begins with inquiry and listens empathically to understand all the variables they need for developing purpose or intention for their design work. Processes from IDEO (Brown, 2008; also see http://www.ideo.com/about/) like Inspire, Ideate, and Imple-ment are similar to Diagnose, Action Plan, and Intervene from action research. Many common design frameworks use some form of understanding and empathizing, considering options, focusing, proto-typing, and testing and implementing, which is highly similar to the common OD consulting cycle of Entry & Contracting, Diagnosis/Discovery, Action Planning, Intervention, and Evaluation. In reality, none of the frameworks are as linear or simple as their terms suggest. Yet, they resemble each other in their process flow.

For example, after working with an organization development consultant for many years on other projects, leaders at an international environmental design firm learned, adapted, and began using with their clients a design process mod-eled closely after organization development large scale, all stakeholder engagement processes. They were able to efficiently articulate their client’s diverse stakeholder needs, brainstorm possibilities, literally model their ideas on a small scale, and interactively design, critique, and walk away with a structural plan in three days. Before this, the process typically took 3 to 13 months of meetings, drafts, critiques, and solo efforts. In this case organiza-tion development methodologies influ-enced the process of designing for this design firm.

In many ways, all OD work involves designing and design work can be enhanced with OD principles and meth-ods. All aspects of OD work can be enhanced by intentional design from entry to evaluation, and all of the meetings, events, one-on-one interactions and data collection, sharing, action planning, and doing in between.

Tim Brown (2008) described design thinking as working at the intersection of a consumer need, what adds viable value for the business, and what is technologi-cally feasible. In change design we have a similar intersection of the system’s need or purpose, the capability of its people, and the sustainable, operational viability of the change. In both sets of intersections, each component creates the constraints and offers the possibilities for creative solutions.

Tim Brown described design thinking as working at the intersection of a consumer need, what adds viable value for the business, and what is technologically feasible. In change design we have a similar intersection of the system’s need or purpose, the capability of its people, and the sustainable, operational viability of the change. In both sets of intersections, each component creates the constraints and offers the possibilities for creative solutions.


http://www.ideo.com/about/

http://www.ideo.com/about/

Seven Principles Informing and Guiding Designing for Change

As we explored the intersection of design and OD, we developed the model depicted in Figure 1, highlighting first that design is the bridge between intention and impact and how the principles inform/guide designing.

The seven principles of functionality, aesthetics, context/culture fit, constraints, learning in and for change, open, inquir-ing mindset, and interaction operate jointly and separately so that sometimes one is missing or one makes a significance difference and other times a few work extremely well together to achieve desired experiences.

FunctionalityFor every design we create and use there needs to be a clear purpose, a desired outcome of the work or experience. Functionality refers to how well the desired result is met or the outcome is realized. How efficient is the process from start to end? How well does the design create the desired outcomes?

Functionality could also be considered as the inter-workings of the intervention or mechanism. How does it work? How does it function to serve the result? Do the gears turn as they were intended to, and does the design of the intervention itself work within its parts and as a whole?

For example, consider an event that was created to engage a large number of people in an activity that would cap-ture insights derived from mapping an

organization’s history. It required three rounds of individual and small group tasks. In the first one, individuals needed to populate sections of a timeline (decades) on a wall of paper with sub-categories (major events, major topics, personal highlights) in each section. In the second round, small groups were assigned each timeline section (decade) to synthesize and share what had been written on the wall with the larger group, and in the third round, new small groups were to integrate the new synthe-sized themes across the timeline sections. The instructions for the first round were not well understood (what goes where, how it would be used) and resulted in individu-als interpreting them differently and using the sub-categories differently. It was almost impossible for the second round teams to make sense of what was on the wall (for synthesizing themes and sharing with all). With difficulty at the second round, it was almost impossible to even do a third round as the information to use had not been gen-erated. The event began to fall apart during stumbling in round two and many people left before the final round. More interven-tion/facilitation could have caught the problem during round one and changed participants understanding, or the design-ers might have had a plan B for a different round two after they saw what round one produced on the wall.

In another missed-the-mark design, consultants designed a women’s con fer-ence bringing diverse people together to collaboratively examine issues facing women leaders worldwide. The espoused values of the conference (collaboration,

dialogue, differences) were not integrated into the actual conference design. A conference about diversity did not consider diverse points of view. The design was so structured it lost the ability to be flexible, which contributed to upset and angst amongst presenters and participants during times when flexibility was needed. What could have been a meaningful time between engaged, passionate people turned into frustration and disengagement. Allowing space for more diverse voices and dialogue might have fit the intent differently.

On the other hand, during a large-scale intervention in a public education system, OD practitioners met at the beginning and end of each day to consider stakeholder input and design nuances and obstacles. Based on these conversations and check-ins, they were able to adapt to the changing variables and refine the design for the next day. This enabled a successful event fueled by a responsive design. It’s important to continuously assess the functionality principle—are we getting what we thought or something else? Now what should we consider doing?

In each of these examples, we can see how issues with timing, directions, adaptability to circumstances, and alignment with values and the intended populations contribute or detract from the functionality of the process/method and successful outcomes of the events.

AestheticsAesthetics refers to how the participants experience the design—how it feels, looks,

Figure 1. DesignastheBridgebetweenIntentionandImpact

INTENTION

Func

tion

alit

y

Aes

thet

ics

Cons

trai

nts

Cont

ext

Lear

ning

Ope

n In

quir

y

Inte

ract

ion

DESIGN

IMPACT


and sounds. How easy or difficult is it to work through? How do people perceive what they are doing? How integrated are the parts and how smoothly do segments or cycles transition?

Aesthetics also refer to a holistic, sensory impression of the experience created from these parts. Whether or not the overall look and feel leaves participants in a place where they will continue to serve the change moving forward, is an impression created by many small design decisions. This intangible feeling might also be considered the aesthetic of the design. Sometimes there is an equally intangible application of what in other design worlds is known as “taste.” Here taste is served not necessarily by the visual representation of a choice, but by the creation of a feeling that will be in sync with the greater message and tone of the overall initiative, and equally matched to the client need. While functionality might capture the mind, aesthetics can capture the heart and desire to participate. Is the experience fun, engaging, attracting, or personally satisfying? Are there visual images, icons, and takeaways? What music is played during quiet times, on breaks or during small group dialogue? What emotional state is generated?

In preparation for a leadership team-ing and strategy advancement meeting, the consultant asked the client what their vision was for the session. Did they imag-ine playful or serious? What emo tional tone did they hope for initially, mid point, and end? Would flowers be seen as soft or signs of growth? What food fit their culture? Even the visual images and brief videos used during limited PPT presentations send a subtle message. What type of music spoke to the attendees? What meth-ods would create energy when calling the group back from interacting? Ultimately, the environment selected for the event was a simple, contemporary retreat center with abundant outdoor space used for reflection and other activities. As a result of this kind of planning and decision-making, the cumulative effect of all the aesthetic choices subtly sent a message and created a tone that left the participants feeling energized by the experience.

Context/Culture Fit We need to design in ways that work with, are accepted by, and fit with reasonable existing norms in order to engage with the system for change purposes. Herb Sheppard (1975, p. 1) taught us to “meet the system where it is,” even when we sometimes are there to change it. The practitioner still needs to successfully get in and be able to establish enough trust and acceptance to influence the situation. When we do not fit the context well enough to begin engagement, we often get resistance and rejection and consequently

no platform for change. Often the change goals involve changing or shifting key aspects of the context and culture. In these cases we still need to match first and then nudge towards change.

During an Executive Coaching process with a young executive, his coach was challenged by how much candor or toughness was enough given the damaged yet defensive executive immersed in a conflict adverse culture. One of the feedback providers was harsh in his comments yet asked the coach not to report it back to the client in that way. The coach grappled with how much the company’s culture should influence the overall process and ended up buffering the 360 just enough so the executive could hear the key messages, maintain esteem, and act on the feedback in a healthy manner.

Designing a feedback session pro-vides good opportunities to either fit or miss align with an organization’s culture. The type of data needed will vary across engineering-dominated, marketing/sales-dominated or research-dominated cultures. The degree of openness in sharing infor-mation needed to carry out planned activi-ties might vary across different country

cultures, being too formal and rigid in an informal, highly flexible culture may lose the participants’ engagement.

Working with Constraints As with any design endeavor, OD projects work within a set of constraints based on the client context and specific project parameters. Designers often find that constraints lead to unique solutions that would not have been arrived upon in a “blue sky” scenario. For some designers, the “blank slate” concept can help to reduce constraints and open up possibilities.

While we rarely have a blank slate in our change work, the concept is still useful to enter without solutions or a hypothesis in mind, or dwell too much on existing constraints. Sometimes the slate is too full and needs to be cleaned first, while other times we have an inaccurate picture on the slate and need to fill in the current picture some. It is critical to understand constraints and balance them with opportunity space.

One of the most famous examples of constraint driven design is the work of Ray and Charles Eames between the 1940s and 1960s. Under the economic limitations of that era combined with their vision to “bring the most of the best to the greatest number of people for the least,” the Eames’s prototyped new materials for furniture and architecture that stripped away previous decades of practice to achieve new functionality and aesthetics (Koenig, 2005, p. 7). Out of these constraints arrived bent plywood furniture, a technique previously used for military medical splints, and molded plastic chairs reinforced with fiberglass, a material previously used by the U.S. Air Force (Koenig, 2005). The constraints afforded

While functionality might capture the mind, aesthetics can capture the heart and desire to participate. Is the experience fun, engaging, attracting, or personally satisfying? Are there visual images, icons, and takeaways? What music is played during quiet times, on breaks or during small group dialogue? What emotional state is generated?


by these materials resulted in unique visual form language and functionality that defined American mid-century design and innovation. The designs of Ray and Charles Eames remain in style and are sought after some 60 years later.

In this example, constraints drove creativity and invention. In suggesting the application of design techniques in the OD process, we are suggesting that creativity exists within the constraints of the work, and that through those constraints discovery and invention are possible. In fact, the constraints themselves might lead to more creative outcomes than previously imagined.

A state college wanted to put all of their staff through customer service training. While learning more about the situation, timing, and available resources, the project evolved and was reframed to one of improving the experience and engagement of staff, students, and other stakeholders. It moved from a training initiative to a cultural shift that engaged all stakeholders. Without the additional constraints it would have remained “just” a training initiative. With all stakeholders actively engaged in the process and outcomes, the stakeholder experience improved significantly.

In another example of how personal constraints can affect both design and outcome, two leaders were in the midst of a deep interpersonal conflict at a mid-sized service organization. They had both dug in their heels, felt “right” and were unwilling to talk with one another. Using design helped to create readiness on both their parts to enter a dialogue to resolve the conflict. This required intention, subtlety, humor, and the desire to create a blank slate of sorts between the two of them. Their upset was diffused through listening, affirmation, apology, and encouragement to understand what happened as a story with different points of view. Both were willing to let go of being right and move forward to a place of possibility. They had been locked within their constraints and needed a way out.

Learning In and For ChangeAll change involves various forms of learning: learning to understand the system, what is going on and what the options are for the future; learning the different perspectives of stakeholders as they evolve during the change process; learning the skills needed to build change capability; and learning how to function in desired outcomes. Because learning is such an essential part of change, the fields of instructional design and adult learning can be very helpful in our design work.

Another learning aspect involves the readiness, capability, and motivation for change, which has been discussed in OD for years. Sometimes when we can understand a system’s current situation and see possible futures or desired states more clearly, we have to consider the readiness, capability, and motivation of the system toward change and check for alignment. Learning about the current state, obtaining new skills, and seeing growth and rewards through change can all involve designs that produce such shifts in preparation for bigger changes. The Gleicher Change Formula, as interpreted by Beckhard (1975), suggests that Dissatisfaction with the present state times Vision of desired future times clear First steps has to be greater than the Resistance to change (DxVxF >R). Learning methods can be very useful in sharing information and creating new knowledge that informs and assists each of those steps.

When designing feedback meetings, it is important to build acceptance and ownership into stakeholder feedback so that readiness for change, not resistance, is built. Specific design aspects are needed in feedback meetings to achieve this result. We can ask the stakeholders if they hear their voice in the feedback. We can ask them what they agree with and what they do not agree with in the feedback. Finally, we can ask them what they would add to the feedback. All of these things can increase their engagement and readiness for change.

In a design team for a culture change project, in order to build their capability to guide the project, upfront education

was designed and employed to increase their understanding about culture, data collection, and change methods. This team quickly took the lead and worked collaboratively with the consultant during the next 6 months of work to complete the project successfully and present to their executive leadership.

Open, Inquiring MindsetWhen designing in change work, we might also consider the mindset with which we enter into the design process. We are in the process of co-creating or building the future with our client system. As we look to the future, how might we help the client system to be open and suspend their past experience and existing constraints of the present reality? Designers believe that good things come from constraints, so we are not suggesting a constraint free approach, however we are recommending that a balance between reality and the wide-open future needs to be struck to create change in an existing system. Without that balance, we could be weighed down with too much of the current reality or may unintentionally bias our beliefs about the future or develop something with no chance of success.

We also need to avoid falling in love with any of our ideas, beliefs, or assumptions. Our views can be part of the future, but must never be the drivers. Openness to the future and to emergence is critical in our work and we need to walk alongside our clients and help them to not succumb to present reality nor be overtaken by constraints, but to challenge assumptions and see possibilities. Both good thinking and motivation are needed in moving from one organizational state to another. Both the task and emotional dimensions are always in play.

In an organization design initiative involving a key process change, a cross-functional team struggled to define what process would best serve their future organization. This organizational design involved bringing multiple separate functions with existing processes together into a unified function with a shared process. The team toggled between


creating their ideal state future process and adapting a process recently rolled out successfully to one of the primary functions. The ideal state future thinking approach was championed by the lead strategist, whereas the operations stakeholders where quite aware of the difficulties in successfully rolling out a cross-functional process change and had seen tangible success from their recent process implementation. As the cross-functional team toggled between one position or the other, they eventually struck a balance between both and created a

phased approach where the ideal would be held up as a future aspiration, and the near term plan would be to further roll out the existing process to the other functions and work towards the aspirational process over a period of years.

InteractionIn all designs, both Little d and Big D, we need some form of interaction and exchange between players so that perspec-tives are shared, collective meaning-making is possible, and understanding is expanded. The containers used to inter act can be small or large groups, indi viduals or pairs, or an organization and its relevant environ-ment. In changing mindsets and behaviors, social interaction is necessary for learning and establishing new meanings, and for individuals to make behavioral shifts. In this way, structured and facilitated interac-tion processes are designed to enable and support the changes.

A classic example comes from Roger Harrison’s earlier work on Role Negotia-tion (Harrison, 1972). In this design, pairs

of people (from a team or across units) are each asked to reflect and prepare feedback for each other. The structure calls for what you wish the other would Do More of, Do Less of, and Continue. Each creates and shares with the other. Then they are asked to identify any aspects they can agree on and what changes would be made. These are then shared with the larger group. The structure provides some safety in that people choose what to share in each category, all participate and the conversa-tion is in pairs. Often this process opens up discussions that enhance further

exchanges and teams or cross-unit opera-tions can be greatly improved.

In another great design from the early days (Blake, Shepard, & Mouton, 1965; Fordyce &Weil, 1971), interaction is structured to bring out critical information that is often well understood by the players but rarely shared or used to solve problems. It is generally between two groups who have some interdependencies and conflict and need to work together. Each group meets to identify: » What they like about the other group?

(Or, what they believe they do for/provide to the other group).

» What they dislike about the other group? (Or what they believe they need from the other group).

» What they think the other group will say about them (like, dislike or do for, need from).

Then this information is shared. There is time for clarifying questions. In the next round, groups are formed with people from each group and are asked to clarify

misperceptions, develop actions for change or ways to resolve identified problems. These are also shared with the whole group at the end. The process design helps to create more open, honest information exchange, leading to their joint work on actions.

Next Steps for Enhancing Design Use in OD

We think there is a call to action with designing for change. The nature of the new normal provides greater complexity, uncertainty, and volatility and therefore less clear answers, greater need for agility, creative processes, and actions. In this world, more customized approaches will be necessary, adaptive action-taking will be common, and design will be a critical ingredient going forward. We need to move the OD field and our abilities forward, maintain relevancy with a new genera-tion of business leaders, and continue to enhance our work, impact, and results with better designs.

Some next steps to get started: » The field should consider more

professional development offerings teaching design awareness, frameworks, and skills. The OD Network or ISODC could launch such offerings. Webinars could be run through the OD Network.

» Create more opportunities to collaborate, learn from and integrate with other design professionals working in other industries, and use more OD with other design professionals and their organizations to learn from each other. Bring renowned designers from other fields to our conferences. Team OD professionals with design firms to share presentations at each other’s conferences.

» Enhance our education programs in preparing the next generation by including part of a course or a course on designing in change. This would be especially helpful in the many master programs around the country and also in doctoral programs, where new research could be generated to contrib-ute to our understanding of the science

Designers believe that good things come from constraints, so we are not suggesting a constraint free approach, however we are recommending that a balance between reality and the wide-open future needs to be struck to create change in an existing system. Without that balance, we could be weighed down with too much of the current reality or may unintentionally bias our beliefs about the future or develop something with no chance of success.


behind design and change. They can also straighten out the confusion often seen in the field between organization design and what we are talking about in designing for change.

» Design Thinking (DT) is now taught in more business schools as an approach to greater innovation and creativity. We should understand it, use it in our work to inform designs and help improve our clients’ continuous need for innovation. OD professionals could be the faculty teaching these courses or they might take some of the courses to better translate into our work.

As professionals practicing in the change field, we have much to gain from a deeper understanding of how design bridges between intention and impact in change. Changes in today’s environment are driving a need to further adapt how we evolve and customize what we do. Design skills will help us deliver better results in the more demanding client world.

References

Axelrod, R. (2010). Terms of engagement: New ways of leading and changing orga-nizations (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler Publishers.

Beckhard, R. (1975). Strategies for large system change. Sloan Management Review, 16(2), 43–55.

Blake, R. Shepard, H., & Mouton, J. (1965). Managing intergroup conflict in industry. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.

Fordyce, J., & Weil, R. (1971). Managing with people. Reading, MA. Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Gruber, M., de Leon, N., George, G., & Thompson, P. (2015). Managing by design. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 1–7.

Harrison, R. (1972). Role negotiation: A tough minded approach to team development. In W. Burke & H. Hornstein (Eds.), The social technology of organization development (pp 84–96). San Diego, CA: University Associates.

Kahane, A. (2012). Transformative scenario planning: Working together to change the future. San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler Publishers.

Koenig, G. (2005). Eames. Cologne, DE: Taschen

Scharmer, O. (2009). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges. San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler Publishers.

Shepard, H. (1975). Rules of thumb for change agents. OD Practitioner, 7(3), 1–5.

Weisbord, M., & Janoff, S. (2010). Future search: Getting the whole system in the

room (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler Publishers.

Zaid, H. (2014). The social labs revolution: A new approach to solving our most complex problems. San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler Publishers.

David W. Jamieson, PhD,isProfessorandDepartmentChair,OrganizationLearning&DevelopmentattheUniversityofSt.Thomas.HeisalsoPresidentoftheJamiesonConsultingGroup,Inc.andPracticumDirectorfortheMSinOrganizationDevelopmentProgramatAmericanUniversity.Hehas40yearsofexperienceconsultingtoorganizationsonleadership,change,strategy,design,andhumanresourceissues.HeisaPastNationalPresidentoftheAmericanSocietyforTrainingandDevelopment(1984),PastChairoftheManagementConsultationDivisionoftheAcademyofManagement(1995)andcurrentlyservesasChairoftheODEducationAssociation.Hehaspublished5books,14chapters,andnumerousarticlesinjournalsandnewsletters;andserveson4editorialreviewboards.Hecanbereachedatdjamieson@stthomas.edu.

Cino Adelson, MA,founder&CEOofCinovations,guidingindividual,team,andorganizationtransformation.Adelsonhasmorethan25yearsofconsultingwithinnovativeorganizations.Herconsultingpracticecentersoncollaborativelyhelpingleaderscausetransformationwithintheirorganizations.Sheisanexecutivecoach,afacilitator,andbuilderofpartnerships,strategicplans,andleadershipteams;shemediatesconflict,supportsleadershiptransition,andfacilitateslarge-scaleorganizationculturetransformationresultinginhighperformingprofessionals,organizations,andsystems.AdelsonhasworkedacrossNorthAmericainmanydifferentindustriesandsectors.Shecanbereachedat [email protected].

Laura Dye, MSOD,believesdesigncanchangecommunities,organizations,andtheworld.Inpursuitofthisbelief,sheisexploringtheintersectionoftwofieldsthatvalueahuman-centeredapproachtochange—DesignThinkingandOrganizationDevelopment.DyeiscurrentlyaDirectorofGlobalOrganizationCapabilityatNike,Inc.Shehas12yearsofexperienceindesignandbrandstrategy,productinnovationanddevelopment,andcross-functionalideation.Shefocusesoncreatingandco-creatingprocessesandstrategiesthatbringthefuturetolifeandmobilizecross-functionalteams.SheholdsaMasterofScienceinOrganizationDevelopmentfromAmericanUniversityandaBachelorofScienceinIndustrialDesignfromArtCenterCollegeofDesign.Shecanbereachedatlauradye@me.com.






“Bycombiningthisdesign-ledapproachwithorganizationdevelopment’sdeepexpertiseinchangemanagement,thereisimmenseopportunityforreciprocalpartnershipsbetweenODanddesignprofessionals.”

Design Tools for Social Engagement in Organizations

Design thinking is valued within the busi-ness world because it contains a power-ful set of methods and tools for creative problem solving and catalyzing innovation in many different sectors (Brown, 2008; Martin, 2009; Design Thinking, 2006). Following from this recognition, designers and design innovation consultancies are increasingly being asked to contribute to the (re)design of organizations, where an inclusive, multi-stakeholder design process can have a significant impact on individual mindsets to support large scale organiza-tional culture change. In particular, social engagement tools that emphasize visual communication and embodied interactions have the power to reorient organization dynamics. By combining this design-led approach with organization development’s deep expertise in change management, there is immense opportunity for recipro-cal partnerships between OD and design professionals.

In this paper, I will briefly recount the expanding scope of design within a recent history in order to track its disciplinary evo-lution. I will then expand upon the char-acteristics of design culture as it relates to organization development. Finally, through case studies, I will discuss how design tools for social engagement can change the nature of collaboration and communica-tion within organizations, and what this suggests for future partnerships between

designers and organization development practitioners.

The Expanding Scope of Design

The boundaries and scope of problems addressed by designers has continued to expand over the last half century. Design-ers increasingly have applied their creative problem solving methods and design think-ing process to issues beyond the realm of products and visual communication, addressing processes, systems, services, strategy, and culture. The long view of this historical shift in design practice has been tracked by Richard Buchanan who charac-terized the discipline as practicing within four distinct “placements” over the last hundred years of its brief history (1992). Tony Golsby-Smith (1996) furthered refined Buchanan’s four “placements” by describing these as expanding “orders” of design practice, which he contextualized through specific practical applications within widening domains (see Figure 1, next page).

The first order concerns the design of text and image (words and symbols), which is most readily identified with graphic and communication design. In the second order, designers primarily give form to objects, creating industrial and commercial products for mass markets. In the third order, designers apply the creative problem solving process to the

ByJeremyBeaudry


15DesignToolsforSocialEngagementinOrganizations

strategic planning and operations domain to bring a heightened level of efficiency, responsiveness, and even innovation to the production, marketing, and user experience of products and services. The expanding role and impact of design continues into the fourth order, where designers move beyond the details of industrial processes and consumption to address issues pertaining to systems and culture. Ultimately, the story of design thinking’s rise over the past several years is about building multi-disciplinary teams with the capacity to confidently navigate complexity and address seemingly intractable problems with a new set of highly collaborative and creative tools and methods.

Social Design

Even more recently, a finer distinction has been suggested by those designers who primarily take on complex social entities, relationships, and systems as a problem space in which to work, which may be described in several ways: design for social impact, design for social innovation (Manzini, 2015), transformation design (Burns, Cottam, Vanstone, & Winhall, 2006), or social design (MICA Social Design, 2014). The definitions of these terms are by no means settled, and each implies subtle distinctions. For this

paper, I will refer to social design, which describes a distinct, although emerging, sub-discipline with an expanded set of competencies for its practitioners.

Social designers require more developed skills of emotional intelligence and organizational sensitivity along with appropriate tools focused on facilitation and collaboration with a variety of different stakeholders, most of whom are non-designers. Often referred to as co-design, involving stakeholders throughout every step of the process fosters creativity and collaboration from the earliest stages of design research through rough prototyping, to testing and evaluation of design proposals and outputs (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). It is here where I see the most potential for productive, reciprocal partnerships between design and organization development.

Design Meets Culture

I have recounted above a brief history of the design discipline’s expanding sphere of impact to include the domains of organizations, systems, and culture. An essential opportunity and consequence brought on by this shift, though, has been the transference of certain key design competencies to the organization and community partners within any given client engagement. This transference, facilitated by a highly collaborative, participatory process, is ultimately a means to establish a design culture within an organization.

While the celebration of design thinking by influential members of the business community may begin with a focus on more creative ways to innovate and respond to a volatile, uncertain future, it is also about changing how organizations function, communicate, and collaborate across established silos. Introducing design thinking into organi-zations is, and should be, about building an internal culture of design. Here I use design culture instead of design thinking in order to better describe a set of practices and behaviors, an organizational mindset even. As a detached set of methods and tools, design thinking is often deployed ad hoc, initiated as one-off engagements (design workshops) or project-specific consultancies, which may or may not become sustainable within an organiza-tion over the long-term after the first contact. Nurturing design culture suggests a more permanent transformation in the way an organization and its members do their work, as well as their attitudes Figure 1. TheFourOrdersofDesign

1stOrder

Text image

2ndOrder

Object

3rdOrder

Process Strategy Experience

4thOrder

Systems Organization Culture

As a detached set of methods and tools, design thinking is often deployed ad hoc, initiated as one-off engagements (design workshops) or project-specific consultancies, which may or may not become sustainable within an organization over the long-term after the first contact. Nurturing design culture suggests a more permanent transformation in the way an organization and its members do their work, as well as their attitudes toward collaboration, failure, learning, and ambiguous problems.


toward collaboration, failure, learning, and ambiguous problems.

There is not a single, correct defini-tion of design culture. Nor will a culture of design within one organization be expressed in the same way in another organ ization. However, it is useful to outline what the term means by articulat-ing several values that are essential in the promotion of a design culture (see Table 1) (Brown, 2008; Buchanan, 1992; Cross, 2011; Kolko, 2011).

Case Study: IBM Design

I turn now to a high-profile example of an organization that is remaking itself through a culture of design. In the last few years, IBM has reoriented itself around design-led innovation and human-centered design process (Lillington, 2015). The goal is ambitious and transformative: infuse a strong design ethos within a multinational enterprise software and business operations corporation.

At the heart of this mission is design education, the transference of design

process, methods, and tools through proj-ect-based experiences. New hires fresh out of undergraduate and graduate design pro-grams are brought to IBM Design’s Austin, Texas studio for an intense 3-month design camp during which they are oriented to the organization and culture, assigned to various product development projects, and pushed to quickly deliver results within a highly complex, iterative, and rigorous enterprise environment.

Expanding beyond the confines of the design studio, members of IBM Design’s Education and Activation unit travel around the world to other IBM sites to facilitate week-long design workshops with product development teams, most of which are already integrated with IBM designers. The goal of these engagements is to, again, transfer aspects of design thinking and human-centered design process by working closely with developers, engineers, and managers, by modeling and reinforcing those values so important to design practice.

The dissemination of design culture at this scale is ultimately a massive

organizational change initiative. It is fascinating, not so much as a strategic goal, but in practice, in the specific methods, behaviors, and relational work being done to meet this goal. The question remains to be answered, of course, about the net effect and impact of IBM’s reorientation around design, as judged by its key business metrics. How successful will the establishment of a new design culture be in transforming the organization?

An Opportunity for Organization Development and Design

The IBM example represents a design-led approach to organizational change through the creation of an internal design culture, which makes sense given its strong legacy of design. For many organizations, though, different engagements with design will have to achieve culture change because the opportunities may be more rigidly defined within the framework of organization development. Organization development practitioners will be sought by companies to help frame the questions around organizational change, establish the protocols for managing change, and facilitate a multi-stakeholder process. OD practitioners have decades of experience and collectively amassed huge portfolios of clients and change management projects, working both externally and internally.

Designers and design innovation consultancies (e.g., IDEO, Continuum, Catapult Design) are increasingly play-ing similar roles as design becomes valued for its ability to steward change in the realm of organizational culture (the fourth order of design). Rather than fol-lowing an either-or scenario in which the relative effectiveness of each discipline’s approach is judged against the other, I believe that there is immense opportunity for reciprocal partner ships between OD and design professionals. In particular, social engagement tools that emphasize visual communication and embodied inter actions have the power to reorient organization dynamics by instituting a design culture.

Several studio projects undertaken in the Design for Social Impact (DSI)

Table1.Design Values that Promote a Design Culture

Design Values Expressed by

Generative,Solutions-Focused,Optimistic

» Seeingconstraintsasopportunities.» Brainstorming,thinkingoutsideofthebox.» Divergentthinking.

Action-orientedandExperimental » Learnbydoing.» Making,prototyping.» Iteration.» Enacting.

Empathic » Talkingtoandlisteningtopeople.» Understandingtheexperiencesofpeople.

Reflective » Self-awareness.» Evaluation.» Learning.

IntegrativeThinking » Systemsthinking.» Synthesisandsensemaking.» Employingabductivereasoning.» Informedintuition.

Collaborative » Interdisciplinary.» Co-creative.» Inclusiveandparticipatory.

Visual » Usingnon-verbalmodellingmedia.» Visualthinkingandvisualization.


graduate program at The University of the Arts in Philadelphia (where I am the program director) have pointed to this OD and design partnership opportunity and suggest the need for more refined and focused test cases to model such a partnership. DSI graduate students, led by experienced faculty, have engaged partner organizations in addressing a range of organization and systems-level issues. In dealing with complex, ambiguous problems, the DSI design teams have often touched upon (sometimes reluctantly) challenges regarding organizational culture change. In fact, the program relies on faculty and visiting lecturers with expertise in organization development, organizational psychology, and community organizing to mentor students in navigating complex community and organization dynamics.

The DSI program has been involved in several projects (Design for Social Impact, n.d.) in partnership with the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS), one of the leading health systems in the nation, which includes three major hospitals in Philadelphia and an array of clini-cal practices across the region. Through graduate thesis and design studio projects, students have worked with PennMed’s Center for Health Care Innovation and the Performance Improvement in Action teams. These projects have focused on organizational dynamics and change, patient services and customer experiences, and the role of design in fostering innova-tion within health care. The long-term goal of these partnership projects with UPHS has been to improve the quality of care it provides by slowly and incrementally intro-ducing designerly behaviors and practices which foster new approaches at all levels of staff.

One student project in particular addressed the issue of organizational culture change at UPHS. In 2013, DSI graduate student Benjamin Hillson joined a team of cardiac nurses within the framework of UPHS’s Performance Improvement in Action (PIIA) cycle to discover an opportunity for innovating a process directly connected to the nurses’ work. (PIIA invites teams to compete in

an “innovation tournament” style process to improve an aspect of the team’s work and measure its impact.) Hillson’s role was largely that of designer-facilitator, assisting the nurses in establishing a process for discovery and problem finding, ideation and prototyping, and evaluation and iteration of design-driven solutions. The nurses had identified a problem stemming from inconsistent, inaccurate information being communicated to cardiac surgery patients, and they were eager to improve it (Hillson, 2013).

With his knowledge of co-design, action research, co-creation, rapid proto-typing, and iteration, Hillson introduced highly visual and embodied tools and methods to the nurses to support an evolution in their work. These tools and methods included: large-scale brainstorm-ing sessions captured with visual notes and sketching; visual frameworks for making sense of user research, ideas, and processes through mapping; and lo-fidelity paper pro-totyping that allowed the team to quickly visualize possible solutions and gauge their effectiveness (see Figure 2). Apart from the specific project outcome—a better process for communicating the care plan to cardiac surgical patients supported by visual artifacts—the nurses responded positively to a different way of working that was opti-mistic, highly engaging and collaborative, and proactive.

Another long-term DSI partnership

has been with 1199c Training Fund (Design for Social Impact, n.d.), a nonprofit organization which provides free basic job skills training and professional develop-ment for members of a local healthcare workers union. The 1199c Training Fund initially contacted the DSI program to help them understand their membership’s edu-cational needs with the goal of improving the visibility and communication of these offerings and increasing enrollment. A subsequent project addressed how the Training Fund’s physical reception area and intake system functioned in order to learn how improvements might be designed and implemented. The most recent project built off of previous insights in order to design a feedback system and supporting artifacts that would help improve their curriculum, course offerings, and teacher effectiveness.

The Training Fund staff have demon-strated a particular openness to the design process and a willingness to experiment with different formats. The various gradu-ate student teams working with them took advantage of this high level of trust and commitment to collaboration in order to develop tools which emphasize visual com-munication and embodied interactions. Some of the tools that students prototyped include: a three-dimensional mapping tool to visualize communication channels; an oversized die to help ask challenging ques-tions in a less vulnerable way (see Figure 3);

Figure 2. CommunicationMaterialsGeneratedduringthePrototypingProcess


a physical prototyping kit to help staff visu-alize new ideas (see Figure 4); role playing exercises to enact aspects of the Training Fund’s communication processes; and an object for capturing feedback (see Figure 5, next page).

In the workshops where these social engagement tools were used, the Training Fund staff were visibly energized by this more active and visual way of working together to address complex issues within the organization. Notably, they looked forward enthusiastically to the design workshops, and they specifically asked to keep the tools after the lifespan of the projects. For an organization where discussion-based meetings are the normal way of operating, introducing these action-oriented methods seemed a welcome shift towards a more design-oriented culture.

Conclusion

I offer these two case studies not as definitive proof but rather as support for further exploration of the potential of promoting design culture within organizations. What is clear is that a design thinking process reinforced by visual and physical artifacts and interactions has the power to change how people in organizations build community through collaboration, see themselves in relationship to each other and the organization, and engage in a learning process.

This design-led approach differs from facilitated discussions that use physical props because it is infused with specific design values (see Table 1) which promote a design culture. When incorporated into a comprehensive change process, these design tools for social engagement promise to shift mindsets and spark new behaviors to support increased collaboration, empathy, experimentation, visualization, integrative thinking, and reflection. The net effect here depends upon not any single interaction but rather upon a systematic practice sustained over the long term.

A partnership between designers and OD practitioners in organizational change initiatives can produce valuable new tools Figure 4. APhysicalPrototypingKittoHelpTeamsVisualizeNewIdeas

Figure 3. AnOversizedDietoHelpTeamsAskChallengingQuestions


and frameworks for conversation and building shared understanding. Designers create context-specific tools to activate participants through more embodied, visual interactions that emphasize learning by doing, making, and acting. Organization development practitioners bring deep, practice-based experience in managing complex change processes and aligning multiple stakeholders at different levels around a strategic vision. They possess a heightened sensitivity to the hidden structures and vibrations within complex social systems, and they understand how to navigate and confront organizational dynamics. Working together, designers and organization development professionals can become a powerful force for shep-herd ing organizations through change processes with the aid of design tools for social engagement.

References

Brown, T. (2008, June). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.

Burns, C., Cottam, H., Vanstone, C., & Winhall, J. (2006). RED Paper 02: Transformation design. UK Design

Council. Retrieved from http://www.cihm.leeds.ac.uk/document_downloads/REDPAPER02TransformationDesign.pdf

Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking as a form of Intelligence. In S. Stewart (Ed.), Design thinking research symposium, 8(pp. 99–105). Sydney, AU: University of Technology Sydney.

Design for Social Impact MDes – The University of the Arts | 1199c Training Fund (n.d.). Retrieved from http://dsi.uarts.edu/featured/1199c-training-fund-2

Design for Social Impact MDes – The University of the Arts | University of Pennsylvania Health System. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://dsi.uarts.edu/featured/university-of-pennsylvania-health-system

Design Thinking… What is that? (2006, March 20). Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/919258/design-thinking-what/

Golsby-Smith, T. (1996). Fourth order design: A practical perspective. Design Issues, 12(1), 5–25.

Hillson, B. (2013). Sustaining organi-zational culture change (Master’s thesis). The University of the Arts, Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved from http://issuu.com/mid_uarts/docs/hillson_thesis__issuu_

Kolko, J. (2011). Exposing the magic of design:

A practitioner’s guide to the methods and theory of synthesis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lillington, K. (2015, March 12). The man helping IBM rediscover its commit-ment to a strong design ethos. The Irish Times. Retrieved from https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/the-man-helping-ibm-rediscover-its-commit-ment-to-a-strong-design-ethos-1.2135276

Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

MICA Social Design (Producer). Robert W. Deutsch visiting scholar Doug Powell public lecture: Social design: Where do we go from here? [Video file]. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/88416645

Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 4(1), 5–18. doi:10.1080/15710880701875068

Jeremy Beaudry, MSAS,isaprofessorofdesignanddirectoroftheDesignforSocialImpactgraduateprogramatTheUniversityoftheArtsinPhiladelphia.Heworksinandbetweenthefieldsofsocialimpactdesign,communityorganizing,andeducation,andhaslecturedandpubliclypresentedprojectsinnationalandinternationalvenues.Hecanbereachedatjeremybeaudry@gmail.com.

Figure 5. AnObjectforCapturingFeedback



http://www.cihm.leeds.ac.uk/document_downloads/REDPAPER02TransformationDesign.pdf



http://dsi.uarts.edu/featured/1199c-training-fund-2

http://dsi.uarts.edu/featured/1199c-training-fund-2

http://dsi.uarts.edu/featured/university-of-pennsylvania-health-system

http://dsi.uarts.edu/featured/university-of-pennsylvania-health-system

https://www.fastcompany.com/919258/design-thinking-what/



http://issuu.com/mid_uarts/docs/hillson_thesis__issuu_

http://issuu.com/mid_uarts/docs/hillson_thesis__issuu_

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/the-man-helping-ibm-rediscover-its-commitment-to-a-strong-design-ethos-1.2135276




https://vimeo.com/88416645


“Rarelydowehearananalysisorexplorationofarguablythemostcriticaldimensionthatdeterminesthesuccessofanyinterventionthatdeliversmeaningful,sustainableimpact:designthinking,andtheprocessoftranslatingthatthinkingintoablueprintforchange.”

Design SchoolMastering OD Design Principles Outside the Guild Experience

Learning and Change: The Case for DesignWe have noticed during our many years of practice and colleagueship that conversations about OD, whether in person or print, tend to focus on either the desired outcomes achieved during a change initiative, or those theories, models, or frameworks used to achieve them. Rarely do we hear an analysis or exploration of arguably the most critical dimension that determines the success of any intervention that delivers meaningful, sustainable impact: design thinking, and the process of translating that thinking into a blueprint for change. Does this omission make a difference? We think it does, and this article represents our effort to make the case for the power and value of design thinking in our portfolio of professional competencies, and to consider how we can consciously become more skilled designers of human process. Inevitably, to decide how we might learn design skills in the future, we also need to consider OD’s past emergence as a professional field and earlier sources of practitioner design competency.

Design, as the key activity that drives learning and change in human systems, occurs whether practitioners identify it consciously or not. Why do we make this assertion? Because if we really want something to be different, if we have a clear idea about what needs to change,

and if we think about the specific steps and activities that will lead to the outcome we seek, then we are in the act of design-ing. Every human experience that culmi-nates in something changing is built on a conscious design process and using some type of design thinking. And so, from this perspective, all aspects of our work require the use of design, i.e., planning requires designing, influencing requires designing, and improving requires designing. Thus, we see design as the activity that initiates and guides all change, intentional or not; unfortunately, we also believe that because design is so easy to take for granted, it has been overlooked or undervalued in most of our professional literature.

As we have expanded our own awareness of the purpose and value of design in OD, we have become especially curious about how we acquire and refine our design thinking and design skills. That led us first, to initiate a dialogue with a small cohort of trusted, highly-experienced professional colleagues; then, to continue our own dialogue about the learning cycle in our professional relationship with one another; third, to begin to develop a list of proposed OD design principles and guidelines; and finally, to consider how these principles and guidelines are best learned, especially in a progressively-virtual world. The results of these separate streams of inquiry are the focus of the rest of this article.

ByPeterNorlinandJudyVogel


21AchievementLearning:TakingActionLearningtheNextStepUp

Serving Our Customers: The Role of Design Intelligence

In the past few years, we have come to the conclusion that our work is more effective and satisfying if we openly acknowledge that the act of designing resides at the very center of OD practice. To underscore this importance, we, as OD professionals, are now explicitly defining our work as the design and facilitation of processes, structures, and relationships that enable people in human systems to learn, change, achieve their goals, and fulfill their purpose. We are convinced that our work will have more focus, power, and impact if we frame our professional challenges, and the solutions we develop to meet them, as opportunities to use our skills as designers. How, specifically, are we likely to play this role?

Answering this question begins by noticing obvious connections between the organization development and traditional design communities. As an example, some years ago we realized that like other practitioners in the applied behavioral sciences (e.g., psychologists and other therapists), we were in the “business of help.” When we frame our role from this perspective, OD practitioners must always identify the multiple layers of expectations that are typically embedded in our contracts for service with our clients. Because deeply understanding client experience and needs is also the foundation for success in the world of product and service design, whether or not we explicitly specify design thinking in our own, personal theory-of-practice, we must clearly use the same customer-focused approach as our designer colleagues to fulfill our own clients’ expectations.

Also, the recent surge in the publication of resources that articulate the purpose, dimensions, and cycles of design thinking (e.g., Lockwood, 2009) in the traditional arenas of visual, product, and service design have also encouraged applied behavioral scientists to acknowledge the natural connection between our different thought worlds, based on the use of a designing mind or design intelligence. We assume that

such a design intelligence is a condition for successful practice in both our disciplines, either product and service design, or OD.

Effective strategies for change and the emergence of specific, desired outcomes are both the external products of an internal, design-oriented mindset; and our ability either to successfully create a new product or to launch a new team will be determined first, by the way we think about that process, and then, by the way we construct and implement it. With this perspective, our differences as “design professionals” are reflections more of differences in points of application rather than in our intentions to serve as professional helpers.

For OD professionals, we propose that design represents the human sys-tems equivalent of drawing an architec-tural blueprint. It involves pinpointing, creating, and shaping precisely-focused processes, structures, and relationships as scaffolding to guide and encourage people to learn and change. Examples of such processes and struc tures include activities, action sequences, procedures, interactions, agendas, conversations, dis-cussions, scenarios, events, etc.

We design such applications in a variety of roles: as consultants, during system-wide change initiatives; as coaches, in developmental assignments with execu-tive clients; as trainers, delivering programs to develop precisely-targeted skills; and as facilitators, guiding and supporting groups’ progress through process. Whether we define them as clients, coaching partners, participants, or learners, in all such situ-ations we are always designing for people in a particular relational field, all of us in some type of reciprocal, interdependent role. And this reinforces an awareness that all of our design choices, as for all human experience, will be determined by the context.

What we offer in the next section of this conversation represents our best effort to distill our collective experience into a list of those design principles and guidelines we have learned to respect and use. Because we have tested them personally

throughout our professional lives, we trust them; and we offer them to our colleagues as a stimulus for further investigation. The focus of our discussion will be limited to the design of small, face-to-face group experiences; therefore, we must be cautious in extrapolating them to other group contexts. We hope, nonetheless, that you find your own experience represented in this initial list.

Designing for Change: Principles and Guidelines

In this section, we intend to probe expli-citly into the underlying principles of OD design that relate to small group process work, and that may be ineffectively applied during a design process, because they lie outside a consultant’s conscious awareness or because they are only partially under-stood. This lack of clarity and possible fuzzy application may be further com-pounded because, unfortunately, some of our colleagues have also told us they tend to design primarily intuitively. While we recognize that intuition is a rich channel for guidance, we believe it is insufficient as a source of truly powerful design; intuition in all helping professions must be focused and confirmed with precise, disciplined clarity about the needs of the client before any design can be deemed professional.

Before articulating these Principles and Guidelines, however, we need to acknowledge a set of overarching, contextual Factors that describe dynamics typically surrounding small group experience, and that must be managed, regardless of the agenda or hoped-for results. Because they affect critical decisions in a design process, they need to be considered thoughtfully. These Factors include: » Role Shift. You will likely be engaged in

a complex transition from designer to facilitator, and your conscious use-of-self becomes a moment-to-moment challenge. And this shift will, of course, be complicated further when you are working with a co-designer or co–facilitator.

» Time Constraints. There is a limited


arc of time during which the group can work with an awareness of itself as a group, and a limited opportunity for it to make choices about what it will accomplish during this period.

» Group Membership. The group will need to recognize and access its diversity of resources, mobilize its ability to identify and engage needed skills and relationships, and learn to appreciate and use its members’ personal differences.

» Performance Accountability. Group members will need to manage predictable dynamics as they negotiate issues of group membership, authority, and a shifting hierarchy of roles, task goals, and specific criteria for performance.

» Polarity Management. The group will need to recognize and wisely manage certain inevitable, ongoing polarities, such as consistency/stability vs. flexibility/opportunity.

» Shadow Sponsorship. Also in the group will be the shadow presence of key individuals in the organization, who are not physically present in the current process, but who will be critical in determining the success of its results, and whose indirect participation must be managed.

» Resource Constraints. The group will need to deal pragmatically with the reality of limited resources of many kinds, and to make choices conscious of those intended and unintended consequences that might be linked to this resource profile.

In our experience, these overarching dynamics will shape a designer’s decisions about how to deploy the following small group Design Principles. We have found that these Principles differentiate ineffective designs from those that drive truly powerful, sustainable learning and change. Each Principle is followed by Guidelines that specify its implementation.

PRINCIPLE 1. At the beginning, and throughout the design process, be clear with yourself about the arc of the learning experience.

Guidelines: » Articulate and maintain a clear path to

intended outcomes. » Design with the end of the learning

and change process in mind, and track backward to confirm that progress toward that endpoint is precise and coherent.

» Within the agenda, maintain a coherent relationship between topics by orchestrating transitions that build and reinforce participants’ understanding.

» Before introducing new information, whenever possible ensure that participants are familiar with core issues by accessing their own past, relevant experience.

» Include sufficiently-frequent, thoughtfully-timed opportunities for people to reflect on and integrate new information.

These Guidelines create a strong architecture for discovery, learning, and change, regardless of the specific goals of the process or items on the agenda. In your role as designer, it is useful to ask yourself repeatedly how the sequence of the agenda is working for you personally. Is it clear for you? If you were a participant, would the ideas make sense as you engaged with them? While this check does not guarantee success for others, if the design’s flow or the logic of its ideas is confusing or incoherent for you, it will likely be so for them as well.

PRINCIPLE 2. Engage participants as individuals early in the design and help them to connect with each other.

Guidelines: » Begin with activities that encourage

people to make interpersonal connections and initiate relevant conversations.

» Encourage participants to publicly voice their hopes and expectations, and perhaps their fears or concerns, for the outcomes of the collective experience.

These Guidelines reflect the belief that because each participant adds value to the experience, the design should enable them

to connect with each other in a meaningful way and provide an initial opportunity to highlight their unique, personal resources. Such an early exchange, often in the form of a brainstorm, focuses everyone on the task at hand and identifies any differences in expectations so the facilitator can clarify the agenda or perhaps modify it to fulfill their expectations.

It often proves useful to ask par-ticipants to identify their prior experience with the issues at hand, especially those occasions when they have been successful. These appreciative recollections help them to connect to available resources in their repertoire and to surface positive expec-tations for the current work, which can strengthen their engagement in the process beginning to unfold.

PRINCIPLE 3. Ensure that the design utilizes participants’ diverse resources and accommodates multiple preferences and styles of participating and learning.

Guidelines: » Use activities and strategies that

engage participants at different levels of perspective, including individual reflection, small-group interaction, and large-group discussion.

» Use a variety of instructional modalities or experiential strategies to engage a full range of participants’ communication preferences.

» Mindfully attend to human needs for safety, choice, and respect.

» Plan and calibrate the rhythm of participant engagement by consciously and creatively varying the pace and timing of the steps in the process.

» Consciously use the meeting space itself to contain, support, and influence the process in positive ways.

The core principles of adult learning, as outlined by Malcolm Knowles and other authors in the mid-twentieth century, assert that people learn and understand ideas using different cognitive and behavioral modes; thus it is important to use a variety of learning structures, including small group conversations, large group discussions, solo reflection,

23DesignSchool:MasteringODDesignPrinciplesOutsidetheGuildExperience

role playing, visual technologies, etc., to encourage their active, productive involvement. Such variety provides a stimulating learning environment, which also keeps people engaged and aware that they are being consciously served. Skilled designers thoughtfully match the timing of meeting content with strategies for learner participation in order to optimize learning, decision-making, or other intended outcomes.

PRINCIPLE 4. Model shared leadership with participants.

Guidelines: » Include deliberate (and anticipate

spontaneous) opportunities to publicly demonstrate appropriate collaboration in leadership and authority between yourself and participants.

» Maintain transparency of purpose, agenda, and intended outcomes for participants at every stage in the process.

» Choose consciously whether to tell participants key ideas or let them discover these through direct experience in the session.

» Include periodic opportunities to solicit feedback from participants in real time about the impact of the design on their immediate experience and overall learning.

OD values require a stance of shared leadership whenever possible. Thus, effec-tive designs include distance-reducing approaches, such as bystanding, asking the group about its preference or perspec-tive, confirming agreements and next steps, and, when appropriate, creating in-the-moment adjustments based on its feedback.

A designer also needs to make conscious and disciplined decisions in advance about what content to present directly, and what information to allow the group to discover for itself. And of course, we must also to be prepared to modify those assumptions in real time as the learning and change process unfolds. While facilitators can be easily seduced into presenting “juicy” ideas, we believe

that a group’s learning experience and its commitment to new ways of working will be much deeper when it wrestles with an issue and discovers a path forward for itself. As Galileo observed, “We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.”

While we strongly encourage OD professionals to include post-intervention assessment and feedback in their formal contracts, based on the Action Research framework in classical OD, we also believe that inviting participants to evaluate the impact of a process in real time is extremely useful and powerful. Participants benefit in two ways: first, they must pause and reflect, which will deepen their learning in the present moment, and reinforce the value of such reflective practice in many other settings. Second, it also provides the consultant with important information about “how we’re doing,” and allows choices to be made in-the-moment about whether to adjust any of the many dimensions of the design.

PRINCIPLE 5. Promote awareness, appreciation, and inclusion of different participant cultures and resources in the room.

Guidelines: » Recognize the different characteristics,

dynamics, expectations, and needs in participants’ specific backgrounds, cultures, and work systems; and cus-tomize designs accordingly to facilitate awareness and inclusion.

» To increase both depth of participant engagement and quality of outcome, whenever possible increase participants’ access to a diversity of views, values, and experiences, and frame emerging conflict as a potential positive resource.

Another principle of adult learning includes a commitment to involving the learners in processes that respect and engage their autonomy, life wisdom, and unique, personal backgrounds. Honoring this commitment requires designing a learning process that is transparent and explicitly accepted by all

participants. This requires designing with an inclusive mindset.

Although learning and change occur within the individual participant, effective OD designs typically use a group structure as the vibrant container where new under-standing is created and new approaches are adopted. The process occurs most success-fully when participants can become con-scious of the values, needs, cultures, and experiences of the others in the room, and especially those differences that exist between them. When such explorations are genuine, well-timed, and respectful, a group can often make new decisions based on a more inclusive understanding of their different backgrounds; and this inevitably proves to be a more productive framework for future work than the perspective indi-viduals bring to their first conversations.

Especially if you are an external consultant, and not a member of the client system, it is critical to seek to under-stand learners’ thought worlds, cultures, and values, and to use this information to craft designs that clearly express your respect for their unique attributes and characteristics.

PRINCIPLE 6. Orient participants to their progress and accomplishments during the process of learning and change.

Guidelines: » Anticipate and create natural

opportunities for participants to acknowledge the impact of their progress, and to celebrate their contributions and achievements.

» Create a specific, concrete ending process that confirms participants’ understanding of decisions made and that cultivates commitment for agreed-to next steps.

Groups frequently rush out of a session before taking a breath, without acknowledging their accomplishments, or confirming the next steps for action; since these are key activities, it is important to design them into the agenda and invest them with adequate time and attention.

While we must, of course, design and facilitate a customized agenda to meet a


group’s expectations and ensure a desired result, we have found that applying these foregoing Principles and Guidelines helps to ensure the success of any design of small group process.

Joining the Guild: The Way We Learned

As far as we have been able to discover, this current articulation of small group design Principles and Guidelines has little prec-edent in the OD literature, and so what we have just proposed may begin to close this

apparent gap. However, it is important that we be clear here about the nature of the gap we see.

As mentioned in our introduction, when we have asked colleagues whether they are aware of existing materials that describe the use of design intelligence and specific design principles in OD practice, their responses confirmed our impres-sion. If such materials exist, they seem to be remarkably well-hidden. There is no question, though, that what appear to be reliably available to OD professionals are resources that frequently present us with already-completed designs. Such designs are often included in case study reports; in field books that describe the processes used to put specific approaches into practice; resource anthologies that provide a collec-tion of completed designs to meet specific learning needs; and journal articles that outline the steps required to achieve a spe-cific type of change. In whatever context, a reader is presented with a process that is already designed. What we ourselves

have failed to find are those resources that bring us into the mind of the designer, that show us how design intelligence is actually deployed to create a powerful, effective design. In other words, we are not aware of a set of materials that documents the process, rather than the product, of OD design. Why should this be so?

The explanation, we think, lies not in what we have learned on our journey to practitioner competence; it lies, instead, in how we have learned it. And to under-stand how the relationship between OD

and design thinking has remained both strong, and yet apparently covert, we must first acknowledge a dynamic that has enabled the field itself to mature during the last 60 years. We realized that while we ourselves felt we knew a great deal about design and design thinking, most of our knowing was tacit, submerged in that familiar, final stage in skill acquisition: unconscious competence.

Like most practitioners of our genera-tion, our unconscious professional com-petence developed slowly, largely through carefully orchestrated and monitored expe-rience, and this hands-on, trial-and-error experience was guided through conversa-tions with a series of older, seasoned, and successful colleagues and mentors. Their involvement in our learning was high-touch, labor intensive, and intimate. Feed-back was immediate and continuous; and along with specific skills and practices, we were also exposed to a set of professional values, strongly expressed and clearly lived. On reflection, we realized that organization

development—as a field committed to managing the “socio-technical” polarity—has been built and maintained by practitio-ners whose heads, hands, and hearts have been trained in a contemporary version of a guild, itself built and maintained by several generations of masters.

In fact, until recently, when formal, university-based programs were more available to educate aspiring practitioners and “pracademics,” the only option for acquiring and refining OD competencies was through some version of the guild model. Guilds have been a principle container for competency development for millennia. They have been responsible for training generations of carpenters, goldsmiths, stonemasons, weavers, and other highly-skilled trades, where an integration of art and craft was expected. In fact, the guild culture resembles our own contemporary communities of practice. Fortunately, the guild approach to skill mastery is also compatible with one of our core principles-of-practice: the use-of-self as an instrument of influence.

The foundation of guild learning is the largely oral transmission to a learner, an apprentice, of both specific expertise and core principles-of-practice, which are demonstrated by a working professional, an acknowledged master practitioner. Through both presence and practice, the master embodies excellence at the highest possible levels, and apprentices absorb a constellation of lessons that simultaneously build competence and confidence. The guild was also based on a clear and unassailable hierarchy of roles and responsibilities, and through the process of learning and mastering a specific set of skills, the learner’s character was also transformed. Alchemy occurred.

Our inability to identify written material that documents OD design principles indirectly supports our premise that OD, particularly design expertise, was built on guild learning. We believe that most OD professionals learned to design and to cultivate their own design intelligence through some variation of that experience. We are certain that we did; and we have heard from many colleagues in our own generation (and beyond

Guilds have been a principle container for competency development for millennia. They have been responsible for training generations of carpenters, goldsmiths, stonemasons, weavers, and other highly-skilled trades, where an integration of art and craft was expected. In fact, the guild culture resembles our own contemporary communities of practice. Fortunately, the guild approach to skill mastery is also compatible with one of our core principles-of-practice: the use-of-self as an instrument of influence.

25DesignSchool:MasteringODDesignPrinciplesOutsidetheGuildExperience

ours as well) that they, too, had valuable relationships with master practitioners who personally guided them toward their own, eventual mastery. The question we face at this juncture in our evolution as a field is whether this type of experiential learning can continue in this familiar frame.

Beyond the Guild Experience: The Future of OD Design School

During the interviews we conducted, a colleague mentioned that one of her own professional mentors advised her to make sure that whenever possible in her designs, she create opportunities for learners to “go to school on their own experience.” In other words, to encourage people to plumb their own personal biographies and backgrounds to confirm the fact that they had already had experience that reinforced, in some way, what they were now learning.

As we have stated, we experienced the value of that advice in our own professional relationship, and so have underscored its importance in our current articulation of OD design principles. At the same time, we realize that we had the opportunity and privilege of “going to school” several decades ago, when most of our professional work with leaders and organizations, and also our own learning, was conducted through face-to-face contact. Organizational environments (and our customers’ expectations) have experienced a dramatic shift in recent years, however. Technological innovations have exploded, creating new options for “virtual” contact. This evolving capacity has coincided with the economic turbulence that drove the recent global recession, which required many leaders and organizations to cut their budgets for global and transcontinental travel. Just as this occurred, however, a set of wireless, e-learning, virtual portals for planning, collaborating, and learning opened simultaneously.

For us, as learning and change profes-sionals, this has proved to be a trend with more perplexing implications. The key question, while simple, is still bedeviling: as OD professionals, how do we both learn and apply design skills in virtual settings?

And this question, of course, opens its own set of nested Russian dolls. For instance, if what we seek is mastery in our own professional role, can our specialized type of design and design thinking be learned with limited or no contexts for face-to-face demonstration, guidance, and feedback? How will we learn to identify and use the hallmarks of “good” design and avoid the consequences of less effective design without observing them directly, “on the ground?” Can we learn a set of applied principles and practices virtually? And can we design truly powerful, successful small group learning experiences for customers when they are in different geographies and time zones?

While it seems very tempting to answer these questions with a sour, “it can’t be done,” as a field we cannot afford to do so. Just as our customers are having to shape and adjust their expectations to 21st century VUCA (i.e., volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous) realities, so must we. As OD professionals, we ourselves must accept and master these changing realities. For many of us, practitioners “of a certain age,” this is obviously neither an easy nor comfortable assignment, but hopefully a new generation of “masters” is poised to answer these difficult questions. Fortunately, since many of our younger colleagues are now joining the profession with significant virtual learning experience themselves, they seem well-positioned to integrate the future with the past. Based on our experience with these younger colleagues, we are confident and relieved that they seem up to the challenge. And so we expect that a 21st century Design School for OD professionals will ultimately emerge: an evolving, contemporary learning environment where we can ultimately master those virtual design skills now required to enable our customers to learn and change in virtual classrooms.

References

Lockwood, T. (Ed.). (2009). Design thinking: Integrating innovation, customer experi-ence and brand value. New York, NY: Allworth Press.

Authors’ Note: We are grateful to acknowl-edge the support we received during the preparation of this article from a group of extraordinarily wise, experienced, and gener-ous colleagues, including Kendra Cole man, David Glaser, Ann-Michele Gundlach, Alexandra Merrill, Beverly Patwell, and Ruth Wagner. During our conversations, we benefited greatly from their seasoned perspec-tives, and we thank them for their willingness to share them.

Peter F. Norlin, PhD,PrincipalofPeter Norlin ∆ ChangeGuides,andformerlytheExecutiveDirectoroftheOrganizationDevelopmentNetwork,hasspentover30yearsinthefieldofOD,servingarangeofcustomersfromtwo-personpartnershipstoFortune100companies.HisteachingexperienceincludesfacultyappointmentsatVanderbiltUniversity,JohnsHopkinsUniversity,andGeorge-townUniversity.BasedinAnnArbor,Michigan,heisalsoaprofessionalmemberoftheNTLInstituteandtheTreasurerofIODA.Hecanbereachedatpeter@peternorlin.com.

Judy Vogel, MA,PartnerinVogelGlaser&Associates,hasbeenanexternalODconsultantsince1987,beforethatshewasDirectorofODandHRDforseveralcorporationsandlargenon-profits.SheisontheinstructionalteamforAmericanUniversity’sMSODprogramandCoordinatorofLearningCommunityTime’sfacilitatorsforeachcohortoflearners.SheisaprofessionalmemberofNTLInstituteandisactiveincommunity-basedeffortsbothinColumbia,MDandFortLauderdale,[email protected].



“WhenIfirstintroducedsilenceintomydesigns,peoplepushedback;yetovertime,myclientshaveappreciatedtheopportunitythatsilenceprovidestounderstandtheirdataandtoidentifywhatismeaningfulforthemandforthegroupasawhole.”

Using Design IntentionallyExperiment and Experience

The purpose of this paper is to describe how I use design thinking and the application of design principles to create interventions that have more impact. These interventions can range from small group meetings with a team to large-scale culture change with an entire organization. For me, design lies at the heart and soul of every project. Applying consistent design practices provides a predictable structure that both the client and I rely on, and this structure also helps me to more clearly focus our work.

But let me start at the beginning. I grew up in a large family. As the oldest of eight, I had a bit more responsibility for getting things done than my siblings. Sadly, my ability to engage my three brothers to help with the dishes was abysmal; and soon they were out the door, doing whatever boys do after fooling their sister. I was usually left with a pile of dishes and my baby sister in her toddler seat watching curiously as I turned on the water and got down to business.

So, what does this have to do with design? As an Organization Development practitioner for over 20 years, I quickly learned that engaging people in change or getting them to move in the direction their leaders are headed could be fraught with resistance, anxiety, and coercion.

My learning continued as an internal OD practitioner for a business unit of a large company, where a single event led

to the beginning of my design journey. A leader came into my office frustrated with his team because of a failed project, which subsequently led to losing a piece of business. He said emphatically that he was going to fire everyone on the team if they did not figure out what went wrong and correct it on the next project. After he left I felt the weight of his request. The team he referred to included my coworkers and colleagues. I knew I could not rescue them, and that I might not save them from being fired. However, I felt I could do something—but what? That was the question.

This moment of stark reality was the beginning of my experimenting with intentional design. How could I lead this project team down a path of self-discovery? How could I help them understand what had happened in a way that enabled each person to see their part in that outcome, yet without blame? How could I create an intervention that allowed participants, in small steps, to use their own experiential data to identify the pattern of behavior that had tripped them up?

I took time to reflect on not just what needed to happen, but how and when it needed to happen. I pondered which approaches might help the team uncover and explore their own data without defending, debating, or rationalizing it.

A key activity in OD work involves collecting and analyzing data, and

ByJoannW.Gadbaw


27UsingDesignIntentionally:ExperimentandExperience

conducting individual or small group interviews is a way to begin that process. However, for this design, since I had time constraints and strong personalities to work with, how was I going to manage the process? There was nothing definitive in the OD literature about how to do data collection. Then, I realized that if I could simply get the team to be quiet and listen to each other, this might make a difference. Silence was the answer. This awareness generated a huge sense of relief, followed immediately by anxiety. I had never done this before. I had never asked participants not to speak! Yet the possibility this approach might work drove me to include it as part of the design experience.

Conversations with team members highlighted the need to build a common picture of what had happened to help them discover how to learn from the experience in order to respond more effectively to future proposals. With this clarity, purpose and outcomes could be more clearly documented.

The data collection method I used was also something I created based on an activity I learned from Kathie Dannemiller. At the time, she was working on a project at Ford Motor Company. On a quiet Sunday morning, so the story goes, she was read-ing the comics, and in the Peanuts strip, as Lucy is chatting with Charlie Brown, she asks him, “What are you glad, sad, and mad about?” In Dannemiller’s mind, she connected this question to her own work and wondered how her client might respond. I have taken the activity she devel-oped, Glads, Sads, and Mads, and made it my own. I have adapted it to various client situations, adjusting the wording to fit the need. And I always do it in silence. Over time, I have observed that using silence gives people a sense of safety and opportu-nity to think through, own, and understand their experience in useful, powerful ways.

As this current team meeting got under way and the activities unfolded, participant data began to cover the walls of the meeting room. Then the information was sorted and categorized. All this was done in silence. Not being allowed to talk was not a familiar, comfortable way of operating for this team. However, in

the silence of these activities, a moment of collective awareness emerged. It began with a long slow pause, followed by a resounding, “Holy cow! Now we see where we made our mistake!” This acknowledgment of collective awareness by the participants is still alive in me today, and the memory of that moment and the experience of creating each piece of the design that led to that moment has inspired my work ever since.

In over two decades of creating such designs, I have learned through the experience of trial and error. As I began writing this article and thinking about the principles I use to design interventions intentionally, ten items immediately appeared on that list. Moses and the Ten Commandments came to mind, and I thought that Moses was fortunate to receive all ten at one time, already inscribed on a tablet. My list of ten design principles took over 20 years to inscribe in my head, my heart, and my mind. And while I could not say these are commandments to be followed by other practitioners, these principles are at the heart of every design I create.

Before I present these principles, let me acknowledge that I have learned them from many people. These people, to whom I am forever grateful, include my teachers, my mentors, and my guides. Through their example, these principles are more than a list; they are infused with meaning, purpose, and heart. They encouraged me to experiment, fail, and try again, and through that process I created my own style and developed my own approach to doing things that worked for me. I encourage my professional colleagues to do the same, whether they are experienced or at the beginning of their careers

What principles enable OD practi-tioners to design interventions that have impact? For experienced professionals, these may be already familiar. Emerging professionals may find some new, useful perspectives as they begin a process of intervention design.

For me, the intentional design of effective interventions involves the following 10 principles:1. Use a Design Team.

2. Identify Purpose and Outcomes.3. Balance I – Us – All.4. Move from Safety to Risk.5. Make Data Public.6. Use Silence.7. Invoke Mindfulness. 8. Include Time for Shifts of Awareness

and Insights to Occur.9. Do Not Allow Your Personal Material to

Interfere with Client Work. 10.The Invisible Consultant.

1. Use a Design Team What is a design team? Early in my career, I had the good fortune to work with Kathie Dannemiller and Roland Loup from Dannemiller, Tyson, & Associates. They taught me the value of engaging the client system from the outset to create a design. Assembling a team of people who are invested in the outcome of an intervention enables me to understand more clearly what is currently happening in the organization, how the organization needs to change, and what conversations are likely to lead to those outcomes. The members of the design team are the content experts in this process. They identify “what” needs to be included in the design; my role is providing the “how.”

2. Identify Purpose and OutcomesIdentifying a clear, shared purpose and outcomes with the client is a part of the design process that I truly enjoy. Purpose is about meaning: why are we doing this event; and how will the client’s world be different as a result? This process can also be arduous and time consuming, and a consultant needs to be patient with both self and client. Working with the client to select exactly the right words and put them together to precisely articulate the intent of the intervention is worth all the effort, because once accomplished, the client is now the owner of the process. From personal experience, when I notice the client taking a breath and nodding in agreement as I read the final draft of their purpose statement aloud. They know, and as a result, you know, this is it!

During these conversations, desired outcomes for the intervention also emerge, and these are identified, documented, and


validated. Outcomes are the results that the intervention needs to achieve.

3. Balance I – Us – AllWith the purpose and outcomes articulated and owned by the client, a draft of specific steps and activities in the intervention can then be designed. Thinking about a process that involves “I to Us to All” is a way to structure an overall process. » I: Each person participating in the event

must share their individual story. I want to make sure that early in the session, participants hear one another’s stories. This represents something personal about their investment in the purpose and outcomes, i.e., why they came, what matters to them, and what they are prepared to contribute.

» Us: Small groups within the whole group must have opportunities to share conversations and experiences, and to sort through issues. As a session unfolds and we get to the core of a meeting design, I incorporate small group conversations so participants begin to understand what is at stake in relation to the purpose and outcomes of an overall intervention.

» All: Ultimately we also need the whole group to share conversations and experiences collectively. I usually have whole group conversations at the end of a process to enable learning and insights from small groups to be transferred to the group-as-a-whole. I call them “knee-to-knee” conversations. The whole group will bring their chairs into a large circle; individuals will be close enough for their knees to touch. What I have discovered is that such collective learning helps to reinforce the purpose of an intervention, assess whether we hit or missed the mark, and determine where the group needs to go next.

4. Move from Safety to RiskIt is also important to include elements in the design that invite the client system to move from safe conversations and activities to more risky conversations. Steps can be small as long as the process is aligned consistently with the purpose of the

intervention, confirms client ownership, and maintains a commitment to action.

5. Make Data Public This is the common and shared data identified by participants in the room, without judgment or editorial comment. This data describes “the truth” of their current situation as the client sees and experiences it. What makes this data public is its display on the walls, either on flip chart paper or on many post-it notes. Over the years I have created many safe and engaging ways for participants to tell their stories and have their experiences acknowledged and validated. When done well, there is a whole-group acknowledgment of this information with a collective sigh, affirming that “Yes, this is my world. Here it is.” When this occurs, I can trust that the group is then more willing to talk about where we might go from here. However, when I include public data gathering in the design of an intervention, I never do so without also including the next principle on the list: silence.

6. Use SilenceI have learned, both as a teacher and an OD practitioner, that people can talk them-selves into and out of many things. They can defend, debate, reject, talk-around things, and somehow not reach the heart of an issue. Once I noticed this phenomenon, I began to experiment conducting certain activities in silence. What I observed was amazing. First, most activities took less time. However, I also noticed that partici-pants had to re-read information on post-it notes many times in order to sort them into the appropriate categories. As a result, this process enabled the information to settle not just in their heads, but also in their hearts, which helps participants move with greater flexibility from the past into a possible future. When I first introduced silence into my designs, people pushed back; yet over time, my clients have appre-ciated the opportunity that silence provides to understand their data and to identify what is meaningful for them and for the group as a whole.

7. Invoke MindfulnessThis is a recent addition to my designs. I invoke mindfulness by taking the time during a session to have the group, in silence, focus their attention in the moment on their inner experience, and notice, without judgment, what is happening in their head, their heart, and their body. Depending on the purpose and the flow of activities in a group session, I will be intentional about where I include mindfulness, so it deepens the experience and leads to greater movement toward the purpose. As a consultant, I have now included mindfulness into my own daily practice, and I frequently use it before meeting with a group to bring myself with greater openness and attentiveness into a client system.

8. Include Time for Shifts of Awareness and Insights to Occur In our fast paced work environment there is a need to hurry up and get things done. I find that if a group is to move in alignment with their purpose, and to take ownership for results and action, it is crucial as a practitioner to schedule time in the design for clients to shift their perspective and gain insight into their experience. Encouraging such shifts may occur naturally when silence or mindfulness is incorporated into a design. Making it possible for such shifts to occur has led to significant differences in the outcomes of my designs. In one meeting, for example, I added a five-minute journaling activity following a piece of work we had just completed. The results were more than worth the effort. One manager became more aware of how his behavior was affecting the team, and he was then also willing to share that with the whole group during our large group debrief.

9. Do Not Allow Your Personal Material to Interfere with Client Work This item is typically not talked about or considered explicitly. Early in my OD career, I was curious about how my “use- of-self” could influence an intervention. What I learned were key lessons: to be full of the group, their world, and their data; and to act as though they were the subject

29UsingDesignIntentionally:ExperimentandExperience

matter experts about their own experience, not me. And most importantly, I ultimately understood that the stories and thoughts I shared had the potential to undo their good work. I wanted to empower them to fulfill their own purpose, and achieve their intended outcomes. I had to be willing to trust their wisdom.

10. The Invisible Consultant If I have listened to my client and created a design that allows participants to show up, contribute, have conversations that matter, work with their own data to solve problems and take action, then by the end of the event participants may have forgotten that I was even in the room. Ironically, the first time this happened, I felt let down. Apparently I needed some acknowledgement that I had helped them learn and change. Then when teams continued to rally around making plans and taking action, I had to reflect on my own use-of-self and trust that the team’s response was a validation of my contribution. I had to believe and trust that, in fact, I did help them get there. And now they owned what needed to happen next, which had nothing to do with me, and everything to do with them.

During one of these times I was reading The Heart Aroused by David White, he told the story of Beowulf and the slaying of Grendel. However it was the slaying of Grendel’s mother that had significance for me. Following a harrowing battle and the final demise of Grendel’s mother, his sword melted away in his hand. The only thing he had to slay evil demons and protect the village was gone. I remember thinking: “What is my sword? What is the one thing that I do have, and what would I do if I did not have it anymore?” This story helped me to shift my perspective on my work. For me, my sword is intentional design, and it dissolves when the people I have been working with take ownership for their work and their progress, because they now know what to do and how to do it, and even more importantly they want to do it because they know they can. This, I believe, is the power of intentional design.

An Example of Design at Work

To highlight how these principles work in action, I would like to present a brief case study of a project I have been working on during the past three years. To better utilize resources and leverage expertise and skills, a utility company has been undergoing a shift from working in silos to working functionally across departments. Initially the focus of the project centered on uncovering and shifting old patterns of operating that were so deeply imbedded in the culture that the new structure would have little chance of succeeding. Once that data was collected and leaders began to address those issues, the new structure was introduced, and each functional team created its operating charter. The charter session established clear boundaries and purpose for the teams, and it allowed the new structure to take hold. Members would now be accountable to each other and to the agreed-upon charter. Once each team charter was in place, I moved to the next level of team development to ensure that the focus of collaboration was anchored with the teams. While the organization was focused on getting work done, they still made the time and put in the effort to do that work differently. The teams struggled with communicating and collaborating, yet over time, with the consistent support of leadership, their work processes are improving.

Conclusion

The 10 principles are the touchstones that enable me to coordinate and manage the various projects and to plan each session. I have also noticed that several leaders are adding their own version of the principles into their meetings with team members. New teams that I begin supporting are now telling me that they are familiar with being on a design team and that they understand why it matters. They also often describe specific data collection methods I have used. (This actually makes me smile.)

Observing the organization’s leaders, managers, and supervisors experimenting

with intentional design elements and appreciating their value has made my jour-ney with them extremely satisfying. Feed-back from employees suggests that people have felt heard and valued, and believe that their contribution matters. While this has not been an easy journey, I am grateful to have played a role in enabling them to fulfill their purpose and mission.

References

Dannemiller Tyson Associates, Inc. (2000). Whole-scale change: Unleashing the magic in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Whyte, D. (1994). The heart aroused: Poetry and preservation of the soul in corporate America. New York, NY: Bantam-Doubleday-Dell Publishing Group, Inc.

Joann W. Gadbaw, MA,isanindependentODPractitionerwithover20yearsofexperienceasaninternalpractitionerandasanexternalconsultant.Herworkfocusesoncreatinginterventionsthatsupportteamsandorganizationsdoingforthem-selveswhattheycannotdobythemselves.SheisalsoamemberoftheBoardoftheOregonODN,andacoreteammemberoftheCommunityConsultingProjects(CCP),whichprovidespro-bonoconsultingtononprofitsinthecommunity.Shecanbereachedatjwgadbaw66@gmail.com.




ByJohnConbereandAllaHeorhiadi

“Organizationaldysfunctionsactasadrippingfaucetwastingorganizationalresources.Theproblemwiththedysfunctionsisnotthattheycannotbefixed,butratherthattheyarehidden.”

Why the Socio-Economic Approach to Management Remains a Well Kept Secret

In my judgment, most of [the consulting advice on organizational change] is – most of the time – simply not actionable. And even if it is imple mented correctly, it will lead to con sequences that run counter to the intentions of those providing it. (Argyris, 2000, p. 3)

It is not a secret that many organi za tional change efforts fail. “Even with dozens of change models developed and countless changes implemented, in a study of 210 North American businesses, Smith (2002) found that 75% of initiatives fail to make an impact” (Raelin & Cataldo, 2011, p. 482). This is true not only for North America. British scholars found that, “Major organisational change requires huge investments in energy, time and resources, but many change programmes fail to meet expectations. Published estimates of success levels can be as low as 10%” (Oakland & Tanner, 2007, p. 1). The failures of organizational change both lead to and stem from the lack of employee engagement. The Gallup report, The State of the American Workplace: Employee Engagement Insights for U.S. Business Leaders, indicated that 70% of American workers are not fully engaged in their work.

Given such a failure rate in changing organizations and engaging employees, one would expect that a highly successful method for improving organizational effectiveness, profitability, and morale would be a hot news item. Instead, the method is almost unknown in the US.

We refer to the Socio-Economic Approach to Management (SEAM), which since 1973 has had a remarkable track record in helping organizations become more efficient, more profitable, and happier. According to SEAM founder Henri Savall, in over 1,300 organizational interventions, carried out by the consultants from the Institut de socio-économie des entreprises et des organizations (ISEOR) in Lyon, France, only two have failed (H. Savall, personal communication, October 13, 2014). One reason for such a success rate is that ISEOR is very careful about choosing its clients; they turn down around half of the prospective clients. However, other reasons include specific philosophical and practical premises. In this paper, we explore why, in our opinion, SEAM is so effective, and speculate on why SEAM is far from the public awareness.

SEAM

Socio-Economic Approach to Management, developed by Savall and his colleagues in Lyon, France, provides an alternative to traditional management. It helps to look at SEAM conceptually, philosophically, and practically. Conceptually, SEAM is based on the work of the founders of organization development, such as Kurt Lewin, Rensis Likert, Douglas MacGregor, and Chris Argyris (Conbere & Heorhiadi, 2011a). Savall, who was interested in OD but also had an accounting background, realized that modern accounting does not measure around 40% of what happens financially in an organization. He called this 40% hidden

31WhytheSocio-EconomicApproachtoManagementRemainsaWellKeptSecret

costs (Savall & Zardet, 2008). US account-ing standards currently do not allow for the recognition of these hidden costs in the financial statements. However, without this additional information, leaders are decid-ing with grossly incomplete data. Savall cre-ated his approach to organiza tional change as a response to flawed management theory and incomplete accounting theory; and in this approach, calculating hidden costs became one of the cornerstones of SEAM interventions.

Philosophically, SEAM might look like an approach with two foci – people (socio) and financial results (economic). In reality, the focus is one, which is symbolized by a hyphen in the word socio-economic. From a linguistic perspective, one of the hyphen’s functions is to join two ordinarily separate words in one single word. Therefore, the “socio-economic” becomes a single word and thus the only focus of SEAM; it is like a coin with the two sides. Henri Savall likes to hand a quarter coin to people who ask him about SEAM. He first holds it with George Washington’s profile up, “What do you see here? A human. This is socio.” Then he turns it and exposes the other side with the words “one quarter dollar” on it, “What do you see now? Money, or econom-ics. The whole coin is socio-economic. The sides do not work without each other.” His point is that one cannot separate the people side from the economic side without creating a distortion.

Practically, the ideas that shape SEAM appear very reasonable, almost common sense, yet they are rarely seen in practice. In a quick summary, these ideas are: (a)

organizational dysfunctions lead to hid-den costs, (b) an organization’s task is to develop human potential, and (c) poor management is a major dysfunction. Let us explore them.

Organizational dysfunctions and hidden costs. Any organization has to perform a certain set of functions. If a function does not work properly, it becomes a dys function. Modern organizations tend to have many dysfunctions and this is normal, given the need to coor-dinate the people and the processes. However, the more dysfunctions, the less effective the organization. Organizational dysfunctions act as a dripping faucet wasting organiza tional resources. One problem with the dysfunctions is not that they cannot be fixed, but rather that they are not measured by tradi tional accounting.

The other problem with the dys-functions is that people stop seeing them. The old metaphor of a frog in boiling water comes to mind. Even if at first dysfunctions can be an irritant, people get used to the dysfunctions and do not see them anymore or even believe that the state of things is normal. Meantime this “normal state of things” has an average hidden cost of over $20,000 per employee per year (Conbere & Heorhiadi, 2011a). Hidden costs can take different forms and can pertain either to the present or to the future. For example, hidden costs such as wasted resources, wasted time, lost income, or lost opportuni-ties can be tracked in the present. Failing to prepare employees and the organiza-tion for work in the future or avoiding potential problems and ignoring risks are examples of hidden costs that may happen in the future. The amount of hidden costs depends on the organization. As a rule of thumb, the bigger and more techno-logically advanced the organization is, the more hidden costs occur. Table 1 shows the difference in terms of industry. While the data are 25 years old, the trend is still accu-rate, and one can imagine that the amount today would be much higher.

Human potential. Often, when some-thing does not work in an organization, the tendency is to blame an individual, or those who “do not measure up.” How-ever, through the lens of systems theory, the problem is the organization, not the indi vidual. The unhealthy system is the

Table1.Average Hidden Costs in 1991

Sector of activity Per person per year

Industry

Electronics $60,000

Metallurgy $23,400

Glassworks $46,400

Householdappliances $15,600

Agro-food $14,300

Bank $22,100

Services

TelecommunicationMaintenance $20,800

Municipalgovernment $10,400

Majordistribution $11,700

Employees’ participation is essential for effective organizations. In fact, SEAM is based on the premise that the source of adding value to an organization is in developing human potential. This is a direct challenge to the more common beliefs that the source of value added is capital (neo-classical economics) or labor (Marxist economics). In SEAM theory, the heart of enriching an organization lies in developing its people. When people develop, they are more engaged, and more willing to contribute to the organization’s well-being.


problem; and thus blaming, or fixing indi-viduals, will not fix the system. Most work-ers want to do well, and they are willing to contribute to the success of their organiza-tions. When workers are respected and allowed to participate in improving their workplace, they take an ownership of their work and the workplace thrives. Employ-ees’ participation is essential for effective organizations. In fact, SEAM is based on the premise that the source of adding value to an organization is in developing human potential. This is a direct challenge to the more common beliefs that the source of value added is capital (neo-classical economics) or labor (Marxist economics). In SEAM theory, the heart of enriching an organization lies in developing its people. When people develop, they are more engaged, and more willing to contribute to the organization’s well-being.

Poor management is a major dysfunction. Treating people respectfully in the work-place actually starts with good manage-ment. Yet in our consulting practice, we often see organizations that are managed poorly, which in turn leads to high hidden costs. Poor management is not the fault of the individual managers, it is both a

system’s failure and the result of the domi-nant mental model about management in the western world (Heorhiadi, A., Conbere, J. P., & Hazelbaker, C., 2014).

It is not a secret that often people are being promoted to managerial positions based on their technical skills. Somehow there is a belief that if a person is a good teacher (physician, lawyer, or…), the person will be a good manager. However, being a good professional does not automatically make people good managers, as knowing and managing a business process is different than managing people. In our practice, we encounter many managers and supervisors not only without any managerial training and knowledge of management tools, but also with little elementary training in interpersonal communication or conflict management. On the other hand, being an MBA graduate does not guarantee that the person can manage people well. One of the SEAM’s tasks is to train and sometimes to re-train mangers, so they are effective in their role of steering people toward organizational strategic goals.

Intervener-researchers. One of the unique aspects of SEAM is its rich research

foundation. Since 1973, ISEOR has conducted over 1,300 interventions, each of which is also a case study and part of their research data base. This understanding is shared by the clients and the contract stipulates that the data, although in anonymous manner, will be added to ISEOR’s body of knowledge. Thus, when ISEOR makes a claim that hidden costs are $23,000 per person per year, they have the data to support their claim. All SEAM practitioners are trained to be intervener-researchers, who serve two functions. First, the inter veners lead the intervention according to the process, developed and tested by ISEOR, and second, they collect and analyze data to add to the research data base of ISEOR. In this way, the gap between practice and theory (Bartunek, 2007, 2011; Kuchinke, 2004; Hutton & Liefooghe, 2011; Markides, 2011; Moats & McLean, 2009) is perfectly bridged in the SEAM approach. SEAM intervener-researchers are practitioners and scholars. Merging theory and practice is their daily task.

The research methodology that is used in the SEAM research is the positivistic case study (Conbere & Heorhiadi, 2011b) as described by Yin (2014). This is different

Table2.Differentiating Interpretive and Positivistic Case Study

Element Interpretive Case Study Positivistic Case Study

PhilosophicalPremise Socialconstructionism:realitydoesnotexistseparatelyfromtheresearcher.Everyactionoftheresearcherimpactsthesubjectofresearch.

Objectivism:realityisobjective,unchanging,measurable,andexistsseparatelyfromtheresearcher.Actionsoftheresearcherdonotimpactthereality.(Note-Post-positivismacceptssocialconstructionism,butfollowstheproceduresofpositivism.)

FocusofInquiry Boundedsystem(case). Boundedsystem(case).

ResearchDesign Beginswithresearcher’sopenmindtoexploretheunknown.

Beginswithatheorytobetested.

MethodsofDataCollection

Mostlyinterviews;questionsareveryopenandmaychangewithdifferentparticipantstoyieldmorerichdata.

Researchprotocolisthesameforallparticipants.Questionsaredesignedtotesttheelementsofthetheory.

GeneralizationofFindings Notpossible. Appliedtotheory,notlargerpopulation,calledanalyticalgeneralization.

Validity Achievedthroughtacticslikememberchecktomakesureoneunderstoodcorrectlyanddatatriangulation.

Replicationsofthesamestudy.

Researcher’sBias Researcher’sbiasisdisclosedanddealtwiththroughthemeansofmemowriting,journaling,peerreviewing.

Theassumptionisthatbiasdoesnotexist,oristakencareofbyarigorousprotocol.


from the more common interpretive case study in which one explores a case to see what is happening in the situation. In positivistic research, one constructs a theory, and then tests to see if the theory is supported (see Table 2). With a positivistic case study, validity is not demonstrated by statistical generalization to a population, but by analytical generalization to a theory: The more replications there are, the more one can trust that the theory is valid. All 1,300 plus SEAM interventions can be considered replications of the original

Savall theory. Since the theory development in the 1970s, every intervention that served as a research case study contributed to the theory’s robustness. Some modifications and elaborations have been made over time, yet the core theory has been supported over and over. We know of no other research on organizational change that has been as extensive as that of ISEOR.

How the SEAM Intervention Works

A SEAM intervention is a combination of three simultaneous processes: (a) the intervention itself, in which dealing with the whole system by following a rigorous process is paramount; (b) teaching leaders and managers about the socio-economic management, which includes learning the principles of SEAM and six simple management tools; and (c) coaching leaders through the series of organiza tional changes and making sure these changes are in accord with political and strategic goals of the organization. We would

like to briefly comment on each of these processes.

Intervention. SEAM works with whole sys-tem change. It begins with the top leaders, and then cascades through the organiza-tion to reach all employees. In this manner, leaders demonstrate their ability to identify and correct dysfunctions, safely, without blame or retaliation, before employees are asked to do the same. In the first year of a typical SEAM intervention, the leaders and two or three silos (departments, divisions)

are part of the intervention. Each year two or three more silos are added, until the whole organization has been involved.

This systemic nature is obvious not only in working with the whole organizational system, but also in the way the intervention is carried out. The intervention is conducted by a team of intervener-researchers, with guidance from experienced SEAM intervener-researchers, so an immense amount of experience and expertise go into shaping each inter vention. This is not a matter of a small team of con-sultants interacting with an organization, it is the interaction of two systems.

Process-wise, the intervention is similar to Lewin’s classic action research, in which one gathers data from partici-pants, analyzes the data, feeds it back to participants, and then assists them to solve organizational problems. There are some differences with SEAM. The first differ-ence pertains to calculating hidden costs, in other words, attaching a financial figure to things that do not work. Leaders like numbers, and when they see how much

money some dysfunctions cost them, they are more eager to invest time and energy into the most expensive issues. Second, after the data collection (which is called a diagnostic phase), the feedback session is split into two sessions with very different goals. At the first session, the feedback con-sists only of employees’ quotes addressing key dysfunctions and presenting the cost of each dysfunction. During the second ses-sion, which usually happens a month later, the interveners share their perspectives and provide analysis, followed by suggestions of potential improvement projects. Splitting the feedback session in two allows partici-pants to separate raw data and its inter-pretation. Separating the sessions in time helps the client to absorb the information, live with it for a while, without jumping into a quick fix of superficial problems.

Teaching. Teaching and educating leaders and managers about the principles and the process of SEAM is a second aspect of a SEAM’s process. Additionally, the SEAM interveners train a few internal interveners, who later become “flame keepers” of the process. Both teaching and preparing internal interveners play important roles in sustaining the change effort. Teaching managers six management tools increases the quality of management and frees the managers’ time to do their important job, managing, or steering the division they manage.

Coaching. The last aspect, and perhaps most important, is coaching leaders and managers through the process. One can imagine that any change process raises a lot of questions, confusion, and anxiety. The coaching process is designed to help managers align changes (such as restructuring, developing new policies, designing training, etc.) in their units with bigger strategic goals of the organization. We also found that along with the sub-stan tive aspect, which is aligning events happening in the change process, coaching provides emotional and psychological benefits to managers. Managers, who are being coached, often feel valued, supported, and appreciated.

SEAM works with whole system change. It begins with the top leaders, and then cascades through the organization to reach all employees. In this manner, leaders demonstrate their ability to identify and correct dysfunctions, safely, without blame or retaliation, before employees are asked to do the same. In the first year of a typical SEAM intervention, the leaders and two or three silos (departments, divisions) are part of the intervention. Each year two or three more silos are added, until the whole organization has been involved.


Examples of Success

It is said that one picture can be worth thousands of words, so we would like to illustrate the kinds of results that come from a SEAM intervention. One case is based on an intervention in a transportation center of a large public school system in the US. The second case is based on the intervention in three hospitals in Lebanon. The selection

of cases shows that the results of intervention do not depend on industry or national culture.

The transportation center. The department had around 125 employees, most of whom were part time bus drivers, plus office staff, mechanics, and a few managers. Initially there were problems with communica-tion, morale, and turnover. Keeping costs low was always a concern. The SEAM

intervention ran from 2012 to 2014. For the budget of $7,000,000, the hidden costs were calculated at almost $700,000.

Results of the intervention can be regarded as qualitative, quantitative, and financial. Qualitative results were evident in the improvement of employee morale and communications. Employees said their ideas were heard and felt more valued. Quantitative and financial results included, but were not limited to, reduction of accidents (17%), less turnover, less conflict, and reduction of hidden costs. Overall, the savings in hidden costs in the first full year after beginning the intervention showed a reduction of $161,198, or 23% of the total hidden costs for the areas involved in proj-ects of dysfunctions reduction (see Table 3).

Lebanese hospitals. In Lebanon, three hospitals, run by a Roman Catholic order of sisters, began the SEAM intervention in 2010 (Tabchoury, 2015). There were 1,000 employees and an annual total revenue of $40,000,000. Externally the hospitals had many challenges, including the unstable political climate and fierce competition. Internally there were unresolved conflicts between the sisters and the management of the hospitals, high employee turnover, miscommunication between physicians and management, and shrinking number of patients. Hidden costs that were identified are shown in Table 4.

In 2014, the rate of satisfaction from internal and external patients rose from 76% to 91%. The number of patients rose from 70,000 to 80,000. Overtime hours decreased 70%. Over the 4 years, the hospitals reduced hidden costs and improved performance, and the increased added value for the 3 years was about $10,000,000. This change was calculated through a standard SEAM practice, the Hourly Contribution to Value Added on Variable Costs (HCVAVC) (see Table 5).

The growth each year in Hourly Contribution to Value Added on Vari-able Costs demonstrates the cumulative effect of SEAM intervention. Each year the HCVAVC grew as employees became increasingly able to apply the Socio- Economic Approach to Management.

Table3.Reduction in Hidden Costs in the Transportation Department in 2013 and 2014

Hidden Costs March 2013

Hidden Costs March 2014

Savings

Mechanics $284,352 $231,223 $53,129

Office $134,875 $73,578 $61,121

Drivers $276,780 $226,832 $49,948

Total $696,007 $531,633 $161,198

Wastedstudenthrs 123,729hrs 107,884hrs 15,845hrs

Table4.Hidden Costs in the Lebanese Hospital Group

Sector Hospital Number of persons

Yearly hidden costs ($)

Average hidden cost per person per year

Operatingroom H1 40 $484,300 $12,100

Intensivecare H1 27 $389,100 $14,400

Integral H3 150 $848,300 $5,600

Maternity H2 20 $361,100 $18,000

Emergency H2 20 $794,600 $39,700

Table5.Change in the Hourly Contribution to Value Added on Variable Costs (HCVAVC)

HCVAVC Hospital 1 Hospital 2 Hospital 3 Average

2010 $16.22 $10.51 $13.20 $13.80

2011 $16.52 $11.82 $13.54 $14.22

2012 $17.00 $12.48 $14.00 $15.00

2013 $23.00 $14.00 $17.00 $19.00


Why SEAM is Not Widely Practiced in the US

So why then is SEAM not widely known and practiced in the US? One reason for the lack of public awareness of SEAM is that this approach is a French creation. SEAM was developed by Savall and his colleagues in Lyon, and the majority of the interventions have been conducted in Europe. The original writing about SEAM was in French, and it was years before the books and articles were trans-lated into English. Teaching about SEAM was mostly in French and Spanish. This, perhaps, explains why many more SEAM

interventions are done in francophone countries and Mexico than in the English speaking world.

Yet, even in France, despite its high reputation among business people and corporate CEOs who implemented SEAM, the SEAM approach is not a mainstream approach to management. A reason lies in a division between the academy and practice in France. Academics are expected to stay in the academy and wrestle with conceptual issues and not meddle in the field. For some French academics, the work of intervener-researchers is not acceptable, since it is adulterated with practice, and so not academically pure. Consulting, in turn, is believed to be the domain of application; so business people see academics as people who do not know how things work in real-life. So there is a built-in chasm between research and practice.

We also surmise that SEAM is not widely spread in the US for the same

reason it is not being well-accepted in France. SEAM requires that an organiza-tion’s leaders understand and practice socio-economic management. Most orga-nizations or leaders are not able or willing to do so. The dominant mental model of management (Heorhiadi, Conbere, & Hazelbaker, C., 2014) is a century old, is still taught in management schools, and is assumed by the great majority of leaders. According to this model, employees are a commodity, human capital, which in the time of crisis should be disposed of. This “disposal of human capital” is antitheti-cal to the moral and spiritual premises of SEAM.

Ironically, SEAM meets the espoused beliefs of many managers and leaders. SEAM analyzes hidden costs, creates an exchange of information among all parts of an organization, and increases employee morale, all of which are very desirable. In spite of the fact that many managers say they need effective processes, good com-munications, and organizational climate, these same managers, when faced with the need to change, find excuses to maintain the status quo, or use a Band-Aid when serious interventions are needed. Their desire to keep status-quo is understand-able; because in order to embrace SEAM, the organization has to enter into a period of transformational change, change that involves changing one’s beliefs and the actions produced by these beliefs.

As we wrote elsewhere on how to be a learning organization (Heorhiadi, LaVen-ture, Conbere, 2014), the organization had to be willing to develop the intellectual and

emotional ability “to create an environ-ment, in which people examine their basic assumptions safely; which in turn, calls for developing the intellectual and emotional muscles that will allow people to release large quantities of basic anxiety from time to time” (Heorhiadi, LaVenture, & Conbere, 2013, p. 8). Any significant organizational change often involves transformational learning, which takes some time. The American model of change is often short term, precluding significant transforma-tional learning.

Another reason, which we believe is significant in the lack of attention to SEAM, is the research methodology used by the approach. We previously mentioned that ISEOR, without naming it, uses a positivistic case study methodology, which works well in unique, complex, and chang-ing situations, like human organizations. The methodology calls for testing theory through multiple case studies, or replica-tions, to see if the theory is supported. Using this methodology, a researcher cannot generalize findings to the larger population, like in other positivistic meth-odologies. It is possible to apply research findings to the theory, in other words to provide an analytical generalization.

At some point, through replications, one can make a claim that the theory seems to be valid. This is what happens in ISEOR. Each consulting case can be viewed as the opportunity to test the evolving theory, developed from analyzing the previous cases (Conbere & Heorhiadi, 2011b). Many scholars are not familiar with positivistic case study methodology and as a result, we suspect the validity and strength of the SEAM research is frequently discounted.

Finally, there have only been a few programs in the US that teach about SEAM. Courses are offered at Benedictine University, Colorado Tech, and the College of St. Scholastica. At this time, we know only of three programs that teach students to practice SEAM: New Mexico State University, Western Carolina University, and the SEAM Institute.

In spite of the fact that many managers say they need effective processes, good communications, and organizational climate, these same managers, when faced with the need to change, find excuses to maintain the status quo, or use a Band-Aid when serious interventions are needed. Their desire to keep status-quo is understandable; because in order to embrace SEAM, the organization has to enter into a period of transformational change, change that involves changing one’s beliefs and the actions produced by these beliefs.


Conclusion

SEAM is an effective intervention that has demonstrated that it can reduce hidden costs, develop human potential, and improve morale and profitability. It is most effective when the intervention involves the entire organizational system. We acknowledge that for SEAM to work, the organization must be ready to accept the changes in management that is at the heart of the SEAM process. Perhaps it is time for organizations in the US and Canada to explore the effectiveness of SEAM.

References

Argyris, C. (2000). Flawed advice and the management trap. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bartunek, J. M. (2007). Academic-practitioner collaboration need not require joint or relevant research: toward a relational scholarship of integration. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1323–1333. Doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.28165912.

Bartunek, J. M. (2011). What has happened to mode 2? British Journal of Management, 22(3), 555–558. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00773.x.

Conbere, J. P., & Heorhiadi, A. (2011a). Socio-Economic approach to management: A successful systemic approach to organizational change. OD Practitioner, 43(1), 6-10.

Conbere, J. P., & Heorhiadi, A. (2011b). Epistemological, ethical, and theological aspects of SEAM. Paper presented and published in proceedings, ISEOR conference, Lyon, France.

Heorhiadi, A., Conbere, J. P., & Hazelbaker, C. (2014). Virtue vs. Virus: Can OD overcome the heritage of scientific management? OD Practitioner, 46(3), 27–31.

Heorhiadi, A., LaVenture, K., & Conbere, J.P. (2014).What do organizations need to learn to become a learning organiza-tion? OD Practitioner, 46(2), 5–9.

Hutton, C., & Liefooghe, A. (2011). Mind the gap: Revisioning organization devel-opment as pragmatic recon struction.

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sci-ence, 45(1), 121–134.

Kuchinke, K. P. (2004). Theorizing and practicing HRD: Extending the dialogue over the roles of scholarship and prac-tice in the field. Human Resource Devel-opment International, 7(4), 535–539. DOI: 10.1080/1367886042000299825.

Markides, C. (2011). Crossing the chasm: How to convert relevant research into managerially useful research. The Jour-nal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(1), 121–134.

Moats, J. B., & McLean, G. N. (2009). Speaking our language: The essen-tial role of scholar-practitioners in HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(4) 507–522. DOI: 10.1177/1523422309337820

Oakland, J. S., & Tanner, S. (2007). Suc-cessful change management. Total Quality Management, 18(1–2), 1–19.

Raelin, J. D., & Cataldo, C. G. (2011). Whither middle management? Empow-ering interface and the failure of orga-nizational change. Journal of Change Management, 11(4), 481–507.

Savall, H. (2010). Work and people: An economic evaluation of job-enrichment. Charlotte, NC : IAP-Information Age Publishing, Inc. (First published in French in 1973).

Savall, H., & Zardet, V. (2008). Mastering hidden costs and socio-economic performance. Charlotte, NC : IAP-Information Age Publishing, Inc. (First published in French in 1987).

Tabchoury, P. (in press, 2015). Applying socio-economic approach to manage-ment in Lebanon: Challenges, design and results. In J. P. Conbere, H. Savall, & A. Heorhiadi, (Eds.), Decoding the socio-economic approach to management: Results of the second SEAM conference in the US. Charlotte, NC: IAP-Information Age Publishing, Inc.

The state of the American workplace: Employee engagement insights for U.S. business leaders. (2013). Washington, DC: Gallup, Inc.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

John Conbere, MDiv, EdD,andAlla Heorhiadi, PhD, EdD,haveextensiveexperienceconsultingandteachingODattheMAanddoctorallevels.TheyareCo-directorsoftheSEAMInstitute,whichcollaborateswiththeInstitut de socio-économie des entreprises et des organisations (ISEOR),Lyon,France,andpro-videsSEAMinterventionsandtraining.TheyhavebeenstudyingSEAMsince2006andteachingSEAMclassessince2011.Theyarescholar-practitioners/intervener-researcherslicensedbyISEORtoconductSEAMinterventions.TheyhavebeenconductingSEAMinterventionssince2011innonprofit,publicschoolsystems,andhighereducationinstitutions.Theycanbereachedatjpconbere1@gmail.com;[email protected]





ByPeterM.Dickens

“Unliketraditional,moremechanisticmodelsofchangethatareoftenmotivatedbysomeformofexternalagentanddrivenfromthetopdown,emergentchangearisesoutoftheunplannedinteractionofagentswithinasystem.Thusthenatureofthechangeisnotknownapriori.”

Strategic OD and ComplexityFacilitating Emergent Change

Complex systems find their own form of order and coherence, often referred to in terms of self-organization and emergent change. What can strategic OD professionals do to create the systems and structures that facilitate emergent change? This article identifies seven key organization-specific factors that have been found to facilitate emergent change. These factors were initially identified through an extensive literature review, interviews with the CEOs of 15 healthcare organizations, and a think tank of subject matter experts. This resulted in the development of a validated Organizational Resilience Assessment survey (ORA) that can be used to assess the presence or absence of these factors in a specific organization, thus providing OD leaders with a framework for change.

Self-Organization and Emergent Change

By now, most OD practitioners have at least a passing awareness of complexity science and several have become leading proponents of its application to organizational change. Much of this is to the credit of Margaret Wheatley (1994) and Olson and Eoyang (2001), among others, who introduced these ideas to the organization development world. Complexity helps us to see past the neat lines of an organization chart and see how the system actually operates: relational, often irrational, and regularly messy. Yet, for all their apparent disorder or chaos, there is in most organizations an innate movement towards coherence and order

that cannot be explained by traditional management theories that rely heavily on images of machine-like precision and detailed planning. Much of the movement to coherence comes from two seminal, complexity science concepts: self-organization and emergent change.

Self-organization is a characteristic of all social systems that operates whether we recognize it or not, and some would say it is the defining characteristic of complex, adaptive systems (Arena, 2009; Lichtenstein, 2000; Olson & Eoyang 2001; Zimmerman, Plsek, & Lindberg, 1998). In every interaction people mutually adjust their behaviors in ways needed to cope with changing internal and external environmental demands (Capra, 1996; Waldrop, 1992). As a result, unplanned and unpredictable changes emerge out of these interactions. As Zimmerman (2010) states, what emerges is “the appearance of outcomes in the form of new structures, patterns, or processes that are unpredictable from the components that created them” (p. 17). Put another way, self-organization is a process whereby the coherence, resilience, and agility of a system spontaneously increases, without this increase being controlled by formal directive or an external system (Chiles, Meyer, & Hench, 2004, p. 500).

Unlike traditional, more mechanistic models of change that are often motivated by some form of external agent and driven from the top down, emergent change arises out of the unplanned interaction of agents within a system. Thus the nature of the change is not known a priori. In discussing

38 OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 47 No. 3 2015

the work of Chris Langton, Waldrop (1992) proposed that, “instead of being designed from the top down, the way a human engineer would do it, living systems always seem to emerge from the bottom up, from a population of much simpler systems” (p. 278). Emergent properties are ones that “exist at one level of the organization that cannot be explained by understanding properties at other levels of the organization” (Lanham, 2009, p. 91).

It is important to recognize that conceptually, emergent change is neither

positive nor negative, it simply is. A riot is as much an example of self-organization and emergent change as was the gathering that heard Martin Luther King’s famous “I have a dream” speech. The change therefore needs some sort of anchoring or even ennobling concept to ensure that it is meaningful. It is my belief that positive emergent change, to borrow a phrase from Philip Rost, “Contributes to the mutual purposes of both leaders and followers who intend real change” (1993).

What is evident from my research is that there are specific systems, structures, and processes that facilitate positive emergent change, thus giving OD practitioners new language and approaches for reshaping organizational culture.

Locating the Research

As a practitioner/researcher, I have a natural bias toward understanding the practical implications of whatever I am studying. I have become extremely curious about the levers of change in an organization and their contribution to the strategic role that organization development leaders can take in shaping the culture of their organizations. If, as

Schein (2004) suggests, culture is “how we get things done” in organizations, then what happens when OD brings new concepts and frameworks to the table? What if, instead of arguing for conformity, detailed planning, and a barrage of measurable outcomes, we advocated for the systems and processes that would unleash the power inherent in self-organization and emergent change? The system would find new ways of doing things that enhance its resilience and capacity for innovation.

Several years ago, I was asked to take on a role of Vice President of Organization Development at a large metropolitan hospital. This hospital had just gone through a forced merger, and the new CEO knew of my work with complexity. His gut, and apparently little else, told him that he needed to bring a radically new voice to the senior table and the Board. Out of that experience and subsequent consulting engagements, I began to surface some ideas about the levers of change that might facilitate emergent change and lead to enhanced organizational performance, resilience, and agility in times of rapid change. For example, it became clear that in the complex world of a hospital, it was impossible to imagine that the executive team could identify, let alone solve all of the problems.

I had a hospital client declare that they wanted to develop 1,001 leaders: the 1,000 representing the broad plurality of leadership, while the “1” represented the power of an individual to make a difference. With each incoming of participants in the leadership program I led, the CEO would say bluntly, “We have lots of problems in this place, big and small. I can’t possibly recognize them, let

alone solve them. Only you can and that’s why you are here. You have an opportunity, regardless of formal role, to step in and be a leader – and please know you have my full support.” It was heady stuff for nurses and porters who had never been given that kind of opportunity or support. As my old mentor, Dick Couto once said, “Any action, no matter how small, in pursuit of shared values and purpose is an act of leadership.” It takes courage to loosen the controls and give people the opportunity to lead. What mattered most was that they were all drawn toward a common focus on patient-centered care.

As many organizations have found, creating new structures to support collaboration were key. Health care has been notoriously defined by a medical model of leadership in which staff, no matter how qualified, deferred to the doctor for all key decisions. Over time, we have seen this give way to interdisciplinary teams that put the patient (and family) at the center of their deliberations.

After a highly collaborative process, the hospital in which I was a VP began to focus on a common vision—Together: Leadership in Healthcare Innovation. The whole organization took tremendous pride in setting benchmarks in terms of both clinical and operational innovation. There was an openness to experimentation and a culture that supported change. The process involved a working group that worked with me to facilitate a series of dialogues with staff, management physicians, the Board, and community partners, drawing from them language that could shape a “straw dog” or draft statement. The working group was cross-disciplinary and cross-functional. Once we had a draft, they then took that draft out to various stakeholder groups to measure their response and bring back suggestions. We went through three iterations before we were prepared to present the draft language to Senior Management and the Board, so by that time, anyone who wanted to had provided input. The draft was quickly ratified, and then transposed to large posters, at which point we had a formal “signing on” ceremony with the Board and all management, so that we

What if, instead of arguing for conformity, detailed planning, and a barrage of measurable outcomes, we advocated for the systems and processes that would unleash the power inherent in self-organization and emergent change? The system would find new ways of doing things that enhance its resilience and capacity for innovation.

39StrategicODandComplexity:FacilitatingEmergentChange

had two signature copies to hang at each of our sites. Additional copies were hung in every department. We then facilitated a department-by-department discussion of specific behaviors and accountabilities to which each department was prepared to commit, to demonstrate their alignment with the values and mission. Within a year, the values were an embed part of the recruiting and hiring process as well as individual performance development conversations.

The language of the vision, the mission, and the underlying values, as well as the process for their development, underscored three critical elements that became the seeds of my later research. The first is the importance of distributed leadership, in which staff throughout the organization had the opportunity to take on leadership roles in order to move the overall mission forward. While some were obviously in formal leadership roles, most were staff that saw an opportunity for change and stepped up to make that change happen. The role of senior leaders was not to control or manage the process, but to provide encouragement, support, and training. Over the course of four years, more than a thousand staff were involved in a six-week leadership development project, which involved classroom time, mentorship from senior leaders, and participation in project teams related to specific process and quality initiatives.

The second element was the incredible power of collaboration. This was supported through the leadership development process, but also through a variety of quality teams and other improvement initiatives. It became clear that there needed to be deliberate intent behind this, creating structures and systems that facilitated effective collaboration. As a result, cross-functional work teams became the norm as people found the value of a variety of perspectives in trying to find new ways of working on issues and opportunities.

The third element was the focus on innovation. Complex adaptive systems are constantly in a state described as far from equilibrium, which means that they need the capacity to rapidly and collectively

assess their immediate environment and then make appropriate adaptations and changes. One example of such innovation was the decision to have nurses in the post-operative area call patients within 24 hours of discharge. While initially questioned as simply adding to the workload, the nurses rapidly found they could assist patients quickly if they had not understood their discharge orders, and they received a steady stream of qualitative data that helped them improve their systems and process.

Research Methods

Prior to the development of the ORA Survey, I interviewed senior leaders in the Ontario healthcare sector. This included 13 hospital CEOs, a Deputy Assistant Minister in the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, and a senior researcher. There was broad consensus that the system is extremely complex and that the complexity is increased by the lack of clarity regarding the role of the Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs), Ontario’s initial foray into some form of regional delivery model. Broadly speaking, the interviewees all pointed to the importance of several of the elements of the seven validated factors that emerged from the exploratory factor analysis, particular the importance of leadership engagement and organization-wide leadership development in order to provide the skills to engage in the sorts of collaborative behaviors indicated by the survey results. The feedback from the interviews aligned with the information drawn from the literature review and thus formed the initial constructs of interest for the survey.

Development and Evaluation of the ORA Survey

The survey was developed following a careful analysis of the literature and the interviews, looking for common patterns and themes. From this analysis, seven initial constructs of interest were developed. A panel of individuals with experience with emergent change was then asked to identify specific factors that they felt had facilitated the change. From this

feedback, two new constructs emerged as well as language that began to frame items within each construct. A draft of the survey was then circulated to the panel for further refinement. Once the draft had gone through two more iterations, an Ethics Review was completed at the study site. The site was selected because it consistently achieved strong financial, patient care, and staff satis fac tion results.

The survey was conducted using Survey Monkey® and allowed for both quantitative and qualitative responses. 174 leaders and staff at the hospital responded to the survey, but 10 did not complete it, leaving N = 164. The survey group was intentionally limited to past participants in a formal leadership development program at the hospital, in the expectation that would increase the response rate. It did (response rate was 40%) but it also appears to have skewed the results, which were consistently above the mean. Since this was the first use of the survey, there was not a pool of data against which to assess the results, but since the intent was the validation of the survey rather than the formal assessment of the hospital, the process served its

One example of such innovation was the decision to have nurses in the post-operative area call patients within 24 hours of discharge. While initially questioned as simply adding to the workload, the nurses rapidly found they could assist patients quickly if they had not understood their discharge orders, and they received a steady stream of qualitative data that helped them improve their systems and process.


purpose. Qualitative data, in the form of individual comments on each of the factors, was more balanced, but the overall tone of responses indicated affirmation of all seven factors.

The results were then loaded into SPSS®, a software package that facilitates an exploratory factor analysis. After careful analysis, five factors with 4–6 items in each factor indicated Cronbach’s Alpha over .700, which is indicative of their internal validity. Two more emerged with Alpha between .550 and .700, which indicated some level of validity but also indicated the need for further refinement. A second version of the survey was then prepared.

The Seven Factors that Facilitate Emergent Change

The factors that I identified included:

1. Executive Engagement: The degree to which senior management demon-strates support for, and commitment to non-hierarchical approaches. The importance of commitment and sup-port from senior leadership is almost counterintuitive when thinking in terms of CASs, where the emphasis tends to focus on a more distributed model of leadership (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2007). My previous research at the study site hospital indicated the significance of senior-level support (Dickens, 2010). As one interviewee in that study said, “I know it sounds a bit silly, but it was almost as if we needed, or wanted, mom and dad’s permission to experiment.” Items in this factor include such elements as:

• I feel like I know the senior leader as a person.

• I regularly see our senior leader engaged in informal conversation with staff.

• The executive team appears to genuinely respect each other.

• The leadership team is very visible in our organization.

• The senior leader is often seen in the organization.

It should be noted that some of the items in each factor were reverse

coded for analysis, meaning they were deliberately written in the negative.

2. Safe-Fail Culture: The degree to which the organization is perceived to be comfortable with making mistakes, learning, and moving on without fear of recrimination. The idea that orga-nizations need to create safe spaces to foster innovation has been present since organizations began to talk about innovative cultures (Dombrowski et al. 2007). However, historically these safe spaces have been segregated and given terms like skunk works. Today, it would appear the pace of change facing every function of an organiza-tion rarely allows for the luxury of such separateness. Instead, organizations need to create and support safe holding spaces for experimentation throughout the organization (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009). Although the sur-vey validated the importance of this, written feedback and the focus groups indicated that, although vital, it was not universal at the study site. It appears to be contingent on the level of trust between staff and management. Some of the items in this factor include:

• People rarely spend time trying to place blame when things go wrong.

• People feel comfortable proposing innovative ideas.

• Our group looks for best practices from other groups and organizations.

3. Collaborative Decision Processes: The degree to which people throughout the organization have timely input into the decisions that affect the work they do. Holman, Devane, and Cady suggested that “what keeps [a] system whole over time is a commitment to collaborative meaning making” (2007, p. 12). The opportunities for such collaboration can be left to chance, but the strategic organization takes the lead in creating collaborative work structures. Tekell et al. described collaborative work systems arising from “a holistic design process that creates the framework for successfully

changing the organization to support collaboration and improve business results” (Holman et al., 2007, p. 440). These collaborative structures create the space within which people at all levels of the organization can engage in highly collaborative work. Some of the key items in this factor include:

• I have opportunities to have input into decisions that affect my work.

• I feel comfortable providing input into our group meetings.

• We regularly receive updates on our group’s performance.

4. Collaborative Quality: The degree to which decisions about quality measures and strategies are defined by the people doing the work, supported with the data they need to make decisions. In an extensive study on academic quality by Wergin (2003), he found that one factor differentiated high quality departments: Evaluation policies were flexible and decentralized. Each department defined what quality meant in their context and then were held accountable for meeting that standard. “The only institution-wide requirement was that departments include in their study an analysis of how they contribute to the mission of the institution” (Wergin, 2003, p. 35). Items in this factor include:

• My group has direct input into the way we measure quality.

• Quality standards are valued in our organization.

• Our group adjusts our quality expectations on a regular basis.

• I feel comfortable giving feedback on quality in my group.

• Our group has regular opportunities to share learning with our peers in other groups.

• There is a commitment to constructive feedback in our group.

5. Intentional Learning Processes: The degree to which there is both formal and informal support for both technical and relational skills and the willingness of the organization to learn as it goes. Learning and constant adaptation are central elements of a CAS’s capacity


to adapt and change (Olson & Eoyang, 2001; Westley, Zimmerman, & Patton, 2007). My research is focused on the organizational factors that contribute to emergence, so the focus here is on system structures. From that perspec-tive, the question becomes whether or not the agents of the system are inten-tionally aligned to teams and groups that will facilitate learning. Key items include:

• I have access to the learning resources I need.

• I have the opportunity to attend a range of courses and workshops.

• Our group regularly debriefs a project once completed.

• We get sufficient data on how our group is perceived in the organization.

• There are many formal learning opportunities in our organization.

6. Culture of Experimentation: The degree to which people are willing to try new ideas and approaches, to listen to people who think differently than they do, and to welcome innovation. Central to this type of experimentation is having real-time access to meaningful data in order to constantly adapt and change. Like learning, feedback is a central concept in complexity theory. Complex systems are open systems with feedback loops that can enhance and stimulate positive emergence when there is a steady flow of real-time information so the agents within the system can adjust their

innovative efforts in order to increase effectiveness. Key items include:

• I feel safe telling the truth to my manager.

• You can try new things even if they don’t work the first time.

• Management rarely takes control of initiatives.

7. Purposeful Orientation: The degree to which people feel they have a common purpose and focus and share a passion for that purpose. This is the anchoring construct that gives emergent change its coherence. Wheatley suggests that, “we need to trust that something as simple as a clear core of values and vision, kept in motion by continuous dialogue, can lead to order” (1994, p. 147). This suggests a different way of thinking about an organization’s strategic framework or high-level

organizational commitments. Rather than seeing them as solely the organization’s “brand” (as important as that is), they can be the attractors or simple rules that elicit coherence in the system. See Craig Reynolds’ “boids” experiment to more fully understand this phenomenon (Described in Waldrop, 1992, p. 329). Some of the items in this factor include:

• My work serves a higher purpose.• Our organization is adept at

adjust ing strategies in light of new external factors (regulatory bodies, govern ment, public expectations, etc.).

• I regularly think about the mission and values of our organization.

• I seldom work on my own and don’t interact with others.

The Whole Really Is Greater Than the Sum of the Parts

In one of my focus groups, a participant made an astute observation when asked which factors might be more important than others. She said, “It’s a bit like a chemical compound or a molecule. You can take a hydrogen atom away from H

2O,

and you still have something (hydrous oxide). It just isn’t water. The same is true for these factors, they are all part of an integrated whole, and you need to see them as a whole, and see the interplay between the factors, to really understand the change.”

As we probed this for examples, the group made it clear that the organization’s commitment to things like leadership development at all levels was essential to creating a collaborative culture. They also pointed out that helping staff learn how to use Lean Process Improvement Methodology supported the notion of collaborative quality and learning. Lean is a process borrowed initially from Toyota that trains teams to review processes with an eye toward maximizing value while reducing cost and waste. It succeeds when there is a high level of collaboration, constant access to “just in time” data, and a willingness to engage in rapid cycle quality improvement. Based on the participants’ comments, it is perhaps the interdependence of the factors that may be central to our understanding of the power of systems to embrace emergent change.

Conclusions

Complexity science provides OD leaders with a compelling framework of systems, processes, and structures to create con-ditions in which self-organization and emergent change might thrive. This is not a linear, “if you do this it will work” model as much as it is a way of connecting ideas into a coherent whole from which a new form of order can emerge. The availability

In one of my focus groups, a participant made an astute observa tion when asked which factors might be more important than others. She said, “It’s a bit like a chemical compound or a molecule. You can take a hydrogen atom away from H2O, and you still have something (hydrous oxide). It just isn’t water. The same is true for these factors, they are all part of an integrated whole, and you need to see them as a whole, and see the interplay between the factors, to really understand the change.”


of a validated survey instrument to assess the presence or absence of these factors provides OD leaders with a starting point in determining where they need to focus their efforts.

References

Arena, M. J. (2009). Understanding large group intervention processes: A complexity theory perspective. Organization Development Journal, 27(1), 49–64.

Capra, F. (1996). The web of life. New York, NY: Bantam.

Chiles, T., Meyer, A., & Hench, T. (2004). Organizational emergence: The origin and transformation of Branson, Missouri’s musical theaters. Organizational Science, 15(5), 499–519.

Dickens, P. (2010) Cultural & global dimensions of change: Power dynamics in a health care setting. Unpublished manuscript, Antioch University, Yellow Springs, OH.

Dombrowski, C., Kim, J. Y., Desouza, K. C., Braganza, A., Papagari, S., Baloh, P., et al. (2007). Elements of innovative cultures. Knowledge and Process Management, 14(3), 190–202.

Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Holman P, Devane T, & Cady S. (2007). The change handbook: The definitive resource on today’s best methods for engaging whole systems (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Lichtenstein, B. B. (2000). Emergence as a process of self-organizing - new assumptions and insights from the study of non-linear dynamic systems. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(6), 526–544.

Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2007). Introduction to the special issue on leadership and complexity. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 293–296.

Olson, E. E., & Eoyang, G. H. (2001). Facilitating organization change: Lessons from complexity science. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rost, P. (1993). Leadership for the 21st century. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishing.

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Waldrop, M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science on the edge of order and chaos. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Wergin, J. F. (2003). Departments that work: Building and sustaining cultures of excellence in academic programs. Boston, MA: Anker.

Westley, F., Zimmerman, B., & Patton, M. Q. (2007). Getting to maybe: How the world is changed. Toronto, ON: Vintage Canada.

Wheatley, M. (1994). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Zimmerman, B., Lindberg, C., & Plsek, P. (1998). Edgeware. Irving, TX: VHA.

Peter M. Dickens, PhD,isaninternationallyrecognizedspeaker,facilitator,andstrategistintheareaofleadershipandchange.HehasworkedwithgroupsacrossCanadaandtheUS,inAustraliaandNewZealand,England,Egypt,andCentralAsia.HeiscurrentlytheExecutiveDirectoroftheOpenLearningCentreandDirectoroftheLeadershipCentreatTyndaleUniversityCollegeinTorontowherehealsoteachesleadershipintheGraduateSchool.HeblendshisconsultingandteachingrolesatTyndaleandhisprivatepracticewithresearch.HereceivedhisPhDinLeadershipandChangefromAntiochUni-versity,wherehisresearchwasfocusedondevelopingadeeperunderstandingofcomplex,[email protected]




“SuccessfulorganizationsapproachM&Asandpeopleintegrationinaverysystematicandmethodicalmanner....Companiesusestandardized,butadaptableintegrationplaybooksthatcontainstepbystepdetailedinstructionswithtools,templates,checklists,processdocumentation,andtipstocovereachmajorphaseoftheM&Afrombeginningtoend.”

People IntegrationCreating and Sustaining Value

ByRussellPodgorskiandDeirdreSherwood

Successfully integrating people after Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) are announced continues to be elusive and challenging for many organizations. Not surprisingly, when key people are not integrated successfully, companies find it difficult to achieve their intended strategic and financial goals (Schweiger, 2002). Most M&A objectives are never realized because the people integration efforts are managed poorly. The failure rates are esti-mated to be as high as 70% in some cases (Omri, 2011). What is even more troubling is that 85% of major organizations sur-veyed indicated that their human resources professionals were underperforming at helping the business to integrate people (CEB, 2006). Mercer Management Con-sulting conducted research and discovered that companies utilizing people integra-tion playbooks through the phases of a merger were 50% more likely to create value for their respective organizations (Teten baum, 1999).

This article describes people integra-tion activities that high performing organizations engage in to create more value for M&A. Failures in people integra-tion strategies result in a failure to retain and motivate key people from the acquir-ing and target organizations, affecting the organization’s ability to achieve its financial and strategic objectives. Organizations adept at integrating people include those types of activities in their M&A playbooks, which allows them to repeatedly real-ize increased employee engagement and decreased negative turnover. This article also describes the roles and responsibilities

for human resources and organization development departments needed to sup-port and implement the additional people integration activities.

Case for Including People Concerns in M&A

As a talent acquisition manager in several large organizations, I have seen the effects of poorly planned organizational trans-formation. In one example, the company started a major reorganization across multiple states, centralizing shared services to gain cost reductions; and then within two years embarked on an aggressive M&A strategy to gain market share. The intention of all this change was to reduce costs, achieve economies of scale, decrease duplication, and create synergies across the entire organization while obtaining a com-petitive edge in the marketplace (Deloitte, 2009). The human resources organiza-tional structure was being affected by the shared services improvements at the same time they were expected to assist with the M&A activities. The transformation was messy to say the least, and overall there were repeated weaknesses for every effort: » The vision and strategy from executives

was unclear and not well developed. » Responsible human resources

integration teams were not identified and there was no HR project leader selected to oversee each body of work.

» There was no playbook and no work plan for HR activities to help manage the very complicated integration pro-cesses from a people perspective.

44 OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 47 No. 3 2015

» Communication to employees was sparse and neither transparent nor meaningful.

» Cultural assessments did not happen, and this resulted in many challenges for the acquiring and target companies.

» Turnover increased because people were concerned and did not know if they would have jobs from one day to the next.

» Talent assessments were not conducted, and high performing talent was not identified and retained.

» The recruiting and selection processes were not always planned and took a long time, which exacerbated other problems.

» Employees complained about unfair selection processes because leaders of the new organizational structure selected their prior employees.

» Displaced or affected employees had no internal support mechanism to help them find different jobs within the organization.

» According to engagement surveys, employee morale plummeted to record lows.

» When successful employees tran-sitioned into new roles, they were surprised by changes in compensation and benefits.

» Employees who moved to their new positions struggled to meet perfor-mance goals because performance management systems were not aligned across all organizations.

» There were also major challenges with moving employees under different payroll and information technology systems.

The results were lost revenues, unpro-duc tive employees, much firefighting and rework in HR/Recruitment, severe drops in morale in both the affected depart-ments and HR, and thousands of top talent employees leaving the organization.

Integration Playbooks

Successful organizations approach M&As and people integration in a very systematic and methodical manner (Ashkenas et

al., 1998). Companies use standardized, but adaptable integration playbooks that contain step-by-step detailed instructions with tools, templates, checklists, process documentation, and tips to cover each major phase of the M&A from begin-ning to end. The playbooks should be stan dardized because many key tasks, goals, and processes are repeated in each M&A, but vary in magnitude and scope depending upon the unique features of each M&A.

Human resource integration play-books should typically be stored in cen tral-ized, collaborative repositories, and should include activities such as organizational design, cultural assessments, cultural inte-gration tools, communication strategies, plans for the retention and recruitment of key people, talent assessments, employee

engagement techniques, and much more. Once centralized, the playbooks can then become a resource to educate leadership about people integration activities, com-municate status and roadblocks to human resource tasks, and facilitate the definition of human resource professionals’ skillset requirements and level of effort for the M&A project.

A comprehensive human resources integration playbook will include objec-tives, activities, and deliverables. Each section of the playbook must be assigned to a human resource subject matter expert to own and manage the playbook content, utilizing the described tools and templates. The section owner must advise on the mag-nitude and scope of each task in relation to the unique scope of the M&A to ensure thorough but efficient coverage of the sec-tions’ requirements without unnecessarily overtasking the organizations’ resources. Additionally, the owner should ensure that their assigned section of the playbook is updated with status and progress notes on a regular basis.

Human resources professionals play a role in all five phases of an M&A:1. Target Identification & Strategy

Formulation.2. Due Diligence. 3. Integration Planning.4. Integration Implementation and

Management. 5. Integration Evaluation.

The following sections of this article briefly describe the five M&A phases and what people integration playbook tasks should be included in each phase. Then each section clarifies those tasks, defines human resources professional’s roles and responsibilities, and suggests helpful tools that can be used to facilitate the described work.

Phase I – Target Identification & Strategy Formulation

In the first phase of any M&A, the target company is identified, strategies are formu-lated, and initial high level plans are made. To reduce the opportunity for failure, business executives must involve the chief

Each section of the playbook must be assigned to a human resource subject matter expert to own and manage the play-book content, utilizing the described tools and templates. The section owner must advise on the magnitude and scope of each task in relation to the unique scope of the M&A, to ensure thorough but efficient coverage of the sections’ requirements without unnecessarily overtasking the organizations’ resources. Additionally, the owner should ensure that their assigned section of the playbook is updated with status and progress notes on a regular basis.

45PeopleIntegration:CreatingandSustainingValue

human resources officer early in the plan-ning (CEB, 2006) so everyone has a com-mon understanding of the financial and strategic goals. Once the chief of human resources understands the M&A scope, that person must communicate a shared vision and goals with the human resources professionals involved in the M&A work.

The key people integration deliverable for Phase I is to create a highly functioning human resources team that is empowered to manage and implement the people inte-gration playbook:

Select a strong Integration Leader. The Integration Leader will be responsible for the overall execution of the plan and will ultimately be accountable for project outcomes. Additional duties include human resources team selection, assessing/managing and increasing team skillsets as needed, collaboration with stakeholders from the target company, and keeping the project on time and under budget (CEB, 2006).

Identify a dedicated core team. The Inte-gration Leader must determine needed skillsets for the specific M&A and then obtain adequate resources to achieve goals by the required timeline. Best practice companies include a diverse set of subject matter experts on their teams: project managers, benefits specialists, organization development personnel, business partners, and internal communications profession-als. For this article, the people integration core team will be referred to as the PIC team. Depending on the complexity of the M&A, other experts may be needed from compensation, payroll, immigration, relocation, recruiting, and/or training (CEB, 2006).

Educate the team. The chief human resources officer must ensure that the PIC team fully understands the M&A sched-ule and plan, its objectives/goals, and any financial or cultural issues already identi-fied. The PIC team must also understand the M&A playbook content, its role in defining the structure of the human resources and people integration activ-ity, and its scalability to the current M&A. Additionally, the team should be made fully aware of their roles and responsi-bilities as defined by the M&A playbook, including communication and documenta-tion expectations. The playbook must be reviewed and updated as needed to refer-ence shared tools, best practices, project charters, training documents, people inte-gration plan, and other related resources (CEB, 2006).

Phase II – Due Diligence

The purpose of due diligence is to examine the target company’s financial, compli-ance, and people related risks allowing the acquiring company to establish a bidding price. During this phase, the PIC team should help with the due diligence

assessments of the target company in three ways: (a) assess the human resources finan-cial and regulatory compliance health; (b) complete a cultural assessment; and (c) conduct initial talent assessments of the target organization’s leaders for retention purposes.

Assess the Human Resources Financial and Regulatory Compliance HealthDuring phase two, the PIC team surveys primary contacts at the target company to obtain detailed information about its financial and regulatory compliance health regarding human resource concerns. All of the tools and documents used in Phase II should be incorporated into the M&A playbook as well as helpful sugges-tions to support the work. For example, to enable a more streamlined communica-tion approach, it is best to identify a single point of contact at the target company and level-set expectations regarding account-ability, timeliness, amount of detail, and nondisclosure agreements. Once expectations are set, standardized human resources due diligence survey templates should be provided to the target company for completion. The due diligence survey should contain questions about general organizational size and make-up, ben-efits details, payroll expenditures, talent succession plans, number of open posi-tions, voluntary turnover data, organiza-tional charts, policies, union contracts, employment agreements, employee engagement data, equity plans, pending litigation, retirement plan information, and severance agreements of leaders (CEB, 2006). An example Human Resources

Table1.Tools for Phase 1

» M&AIntegrationPlaybook–PhaseI

» HumanResourcesSkillsAssessmentandImprovementPlan

» HumanResourcesCapacityPlanandMitigationStrategiesDocument

» CentralizedRepositoryforplaybookandpeopleintegrationartifacts

Best practice companies include a diverse set of subject matter experts on their teams: project managers, benefits specialist, organization development personnel, business partners, and internal communications professionals. For this article, the people integration core team will be referred to as the PIC team. Depending on the complexity of the M&A, other experts may be needed from compensation, payroll, immigration, relocation, recruiting, and/or training ...


Due Diligence Questionnaire is included in Table 2.

If the target company is uncooperative during the due diligence survey process, then it is the responsibility of the Integra-tion Leader to intervene, and seek assis-tance from senior executives as needed. Once the survey information is returned, the PIC team must analyze the data to identify potential problem areas and alert the M&A leadership so mitigation strate-gies can be developed. Information dis-covered during the Human Resources due diligence survey could potentially impact the decision to continue with the M&A, so it is critical to compile the information into an executive summary that is easily understood by the M&A leaders. Often, the PIC team and Integration Leader will be asked to provide consultation on mitigation strategies. Some of the more likely mitiga-tion strategies could be incorporated into the M&A playbook as the business gains experience over time.

Complete a Cultural AssessmentA well-performed cultural assessment during the due diligence portion of a M&A can help to avoid cultural clashes between the two organizations when they come together, and thereby enhance the M&As ability to achieve the intended strategic goals. The culture of an organization influ-ences employee behavior, processes, and overall organization structure (CEB, 2006). The cultural assessment must analyze communication processes and styles, leadership philosophies and practices, and performance measurement systems and values. Seasoned organizational develop-ment staff on the PIC team should use focus groups and interviews at all levels of the company to evaluate the cultural com-patibility of the target organization.

The cultural assessment of the target company must be compared to the culture of the acquiring organization. The cultural assessment will be used in later phases of the M&A to build integration and com-munication strategies/plans. The cultural assessment data can be populated into a cultural compatibility/fit comparison score-card like the one in Table 3 to better support a review by leadership.

Table2.Human Resources Due Diligence Questionnaire

Due Diligence Preparation

0.01PleasesignandreturntheattachedNon-DisclosureAgreementassoonaspossible.

Please provide the following information and attach documents to provide detailed supporting evidence.

Employee Information

1.01Employeehandbook.

1.02Mission,Vision,andValues.

1.03Numberoffulltimeemployees:

1.04Numberofparttimeemployees:

1.05Numberofagencystaff:

1.06Numberoftempsonpayroll:

1.07PleaseprovideacomprehensivesetofOrganizationalcharts.

1.08Pleaseprovideacompleteemployeerosterwithjobtitlesandemploymentdates.

1.09Pleaseprovideacomprehensivesetofjobdescriptions.

Total Rewards Information

2.01PleaseprovideCompensationpaygrades.

2.02PleaseprovideExecutivecompensation.

2.03PleaseprovidedetailedexplanationsofIncentivePlansandcopiesofallcurrentagreements.

2.04PleaseprovidepolicydocumentsforSeveranceagreements,anddataforanyactiveseverancepackages.

2.05PleaseprovideHealthInsurancebenefitsdocumentationandSummaryPlandescriptions.

2.06PleaseprovideDentalInsurancebenefitsdocumentation.

2.07PleaseprovidePTOplansandbalancesforallemployees.

2.08PleaseprovideSickLeavebalancesforallemployees.

2.09PleaseprovideTuitionReimbursementpolicyanddetailsofpayoutforthepastfiveyears.

2.10PleaseprovideLifeInsurancedocumentsandreports.

2.11PleaseprovideShortTermDisabilitydocumentsandreports.

2.12PleaseprovideLongTermDisabilitydocumentsandreports.

2.13PleaseprovideRetirementPlanexplanationsanddataindicatingcurrentretirementbenefitstoretirees.

Regulatory Compliance Information

3.01Pleaseprovidedetaileddescriptionsofallaffirmativeactionplansandanyregulatoryincidentsoverthepast10years.

3.02Pleaseprovideanyhistoricalandcurrentlawsuitsoverthepast10years.

Employee Engagement Information

4.01PleaseprovideTurnoverdataforbothvoluntaryandinvoluntarydismissals.

4.02PleaseprovideRecruitmentdata.

4.03PleaseprovidedataonallemployeesonCorrectiveAction.

4.04PleaseprovidedataonallEmployeeEngagementscores.

4.05PleaseprovideLeadershipDevelopmenttoolsandresources.

4.06PleaseproviderecordsofTalentAssessmentsforthepast5years.


The tools and templates for the cul-tural assessment should be in the M&A playbook. Also, as the PIC team adjusts any tools/templates content to support each M&A, the playbook should be updated including helpful strategies for successful completion of the M&A work: for example how to select members of focus groups and how to conduct the meetings.

Conduct Initial Talent Assessments of the Target Organization’s Leaders for Retention Purposes. Top performing talent, especially in leadership, helps the organization achieve its goals, and it is critical to retain these people during and after M&A. It is vital to conduct talent assessments of leadership during the due diligence phase. Often key leaders and performers will leave during the M&A process for other opportunities. Talent assessments can help the acquiring organization target key players for aggres-sive retention strategies.

The talent assessment process should be managed by the organization develop-ment professionals on the PIC team. Any talent assessment data obtained during the due diligence survey process should be reviewed. If recent talent assessments at the target company are not available, performance evaluations, bonus payouts tied to goal attainment, or other related business documents can be reviewed to determine high potential and high per-forming talent. If the target company does not have that documentation, then the acquiring company can assess talent through its own interviews, focus groups, or through the behaviors, con versations, and presentations during the M&A process. The PIC team should collect, ana-lyze, and document resulting talent assess ment information.

Additionally, the chief human resources officer must help the PIC team to identify the roles that will be critical to success of the new organization. The information should be organized into four distinct categories: long term talent in a key role, short term talent in a key role, senior long term talent not in a key role, and junior talent not in a key role (CEB, 2006). The talent needs and inventory

assessments should be consolidated into a comprehensive report for execu-tives. Retention strategies should then be developed and implemented to ensure key leaders do not leave the organization. Again, successful retention strategies should be added to the M&A playbook as the PIC team gains experience in these areas.

Phase III – Integration Planning

After the deal has closed and official announcements to the public and employ-ees have begun, the process of merging and integrating two companies needs to be planned and executed properly. At this step the HR teams have ownership of significant activities that are essential for effective people integration. Those activi-ties include: (a) create a detailed human

Table4.Tools for Phase II

» M&AIntegrationPlaybook–PhaseII

» HumanResourcesDueDiligenceSurvey,seeTable 2

» ExecutiveSummaryandDashboardforDueDiligenceSurveyFindings

» CulturalCompatibility/FitComparisonScorecard,seeTable3

» ComparisonReportbetweenKeyRoles/Talentvs.theTalentassessmentsintheTargetcompany

Table3.Cultural Compatibility/Fit Comparison Scorecard

Cultural Fit Index

Cultural Indicator Low Medium High

Focusonteamwork X

Changereadiness X

Importanceofdiversity X

Customerfocus X

Servingthecommunity X

Missionemphasis X

Importanceoflearninganddevelopment X

Changeresistant X

Focusonquality X

Innovationfocus X

Sizeoforganization X

Centralizedsharedservicesmodelforadministrativefunctions

X

Metricsdriven X

Leadershipmodel X

Governanceanddecisionmakingstructure X

(CEB,2006)


resource integration work plan and success metrics, (b) leverage a change manage-ment model, (c) develop and be ready to deploy communication plans immediately, and (d) optimize organizational design. The depth of planning and managing the integration depends on the size, scope, and complexity of the transaction ( Schweiger, 2002).

Create a Detailed Human Resource Integration Work Plan and Success MetricsA detailed work plan of the human resources integration tasks must be developed and owned by the Integration Leader of the PIC team. The core work for implementation must mirror the tasks defined in the M&A playbook. The work plan must include specific tasks, due dates, and task ownership with enough detail for the Integration Leader to over-see the work and ensure completion of all deliverables. The Integration Leader must also make sure that all human resource personnel understand their tasks, deliverables, and due dates. The work plan must include the following integration activities as defined by the M&A playbook: » Change management. » Communication plans. » Organizational design development. » Cultural integration. » Employee engagement and retention. » Recruitment and building organiza-

tional capability. » HR Policies and Information Systems

alignment.

Success metrics with specific goals must also be developed at this phase of the integration and should be based on the expected outcomes of the M&A. Employee

integration metrics must also be included to quantify success. Appropriate integra-tion metrics might include: » Employee engagement. » Voluntary turnover. » Retention of key talent. » Employee performance scores.

Accountability structures such as regular status meetings and status report docu-mentation expectations must be estab-lished. The Integration Leader must be ready to drive adherence to the work plan dates and minimize any roadblocks that jeopardize success.

Lack of focus and attention to details during the Integration Planning phase can result in diminished returns for the M&A. The PIC team must build the work plan with that in mind; however, the timing of execution in M&As is often even more criti-cal. This means that the PIC team cannot allow analysis paralysis to jeopardize the timely implementation of the M&A activi-ties. They must remain sensitive to the needs of the organization and its leaders. Some of the more time sensitive elements are described below.

Leverage a Change Management ModelM&As are significant change initiatives and will need to be planned and managed effectively to ensure value is sustained. There are several different change man-agement methodologies that can be used, but selecting the methodology is not as important as using one consistently. The PIC team is responsible for change man-agement regarding people integration, so knowledge and use of the methodology is a core competency. Regardless of the approach used, there are generally four

core components to any change manage-ment process including: 1. Planning for change. 2. Managing the change. 3. Communicating to and engaging the

organization.4. Measuring the success of the change.

The M&A playbook should contain the appropriate change management planning templates with explanations of how to use them (CEB, 2010).

Develop and be Ready to Deploy Communication Plans ImmediatelyCommunication plans and message con-tent must be developed early. Best practice companies will be ready to initiate com-munication at a moment’s notice if needed, with a goal of reducing employee stress and fear prior to and during the M&A. The following list reflects the minimum communication points and can be adjusted based on the specific M&A requirements. For organizations that frequently use M&As as a growth strategy, their M&A playbook should establish communication plan patterns and content standards to ensure consistency for their stakeholders.

Pre-Deal message. If details about the merger leak, it is imperative that a high-level announcement be on standby. This message content must include general information for employees and factual M&A strategies with no reference to rumors of an impending deal.

Post-Deal message. To reduce employee confusion, best practice companies suc-cinctly communicate information about talent implications. Key talking points are shared with line managers before sending the general communication so employee meetings allow for questions and discus-sion. It is vital to use multiple communi-cation vehicles such as email, town halls, voice mail, blogs, intranet, and webcasts. In all messages, two-way communications must be encouraged so employees can share their feedback.

Post-Close of the deal message. Best practice companies will tend to over

Table5.Tools for Phase III

» M&AIntegrationPlaybook–PhaseIII

» ChangeManagementTemplates,i.e.,RACICharts

» WorkPlanTemplate

» CommunicationTemplatesforaVarietyofMedia

» OrganizationalChartTemplate


communicate once the deal is closed. Two audiences must be considered to ensure maximum success of the M&A: customers and employees. External communications to customers are developed and timed appropriately to improve customer reten-tion. Employee communication must be as comprehensive as feasible to reduce employee speculation and fear. To maxi-mize people integration effectiveness, best practice companies will cascade integra-tion plans, explaining how they will affect employees, and defining the roles that

employees will play in the integration pro-cess. Slotting and recruiting plans with key milestone dates should be communicated as soon as possible so employees know if they have jobs in the new organization. (CEB, 2006).

Optimize Organizational DesignThe organization development lead from the PIC team facilitates the creation of the organizational design by working with key stakeholders to understand the busi-ness direction and vision, clarifying the structure of all levels of the organization. Design and implementation of the top two layers of the new organization structure must be started as soon as possible, and completed within 30 days of the deal being closed. This allows recruiting and retention activities to commence. Additionally, when developing the organizational design, consideration should be given to the gover-nance structure to ensure adequate integra-tion and elimination of redundancy.

Here are some of the key questions

that prepare the way for an optimal organizational design:1. How are the two organizations

structured at this point in time? Analyze organizational charts, management layers, job titles, and job descriptions.

2. If we compare both organizations side by side what do they look like? How are they similar or dissimilar?

3. Where is the newly formed organiza-tion headed in the future?

4. What do the answers to the first three

questions suggest about the size and scope of the organizational design changes needed?

5. What organizational design ideas or vision are in the minds of the execu-tives at this time? How many manage-ment layers? Will there be a centralized support services model or not? (CEB, 2006)

The remainder of the integration activities enumerated in the work plan and success metrics sections above will be described in Phase IV – Integration Implementa-tion and Management. The nature of the remaining activities are longer in duration and are core implementation deliverables.

Phase IV – Integration Implementation and Management

The integration implementation and management phase executes the plan as defined in phase III. This work includes rebuilding the organization into a stronger

more competitive company to achieve synergies as well as the intended M&A financial and strategic objectives (Schwei-ger, 2002). If done correctly, capable people are in the right roles, added to the appro-priate teams, and driving value into the business through their contributions. The key activities are: (a) integrate the cultures, (b) improve employee engagement and retention, (c) recruit to build organizational capa bility, and (d) align HR policies and information systems.

Throughout implementation, the PIC team should manage and monitor all of the implementation work, including tracking success metrics and making course corrections as needed. For example, if employee turnover is getting worse, it may be necessary to work with the business to create new mitigation strategies. Additionally, the work plan should be regularly reviewed and updated, and status summaries should be communicated at all levels of the organization. Regularly scheduled stakeholder meetings can help to gather status and quickly identify any roadblocks that need to be resolved.

Integrate the CulturesCultural clashes between the acquiring and target companies happen often, but they can be mitigated by following a more systematic cultural integration process (Schweiger, 2002). This work should build upon the information gathered from the prior cultural assessment in the M&A’s Due Diligence phase.

To begin, the Integration Leader must get clear direction from the executives in order to understand the desired vision and culture for the new organization (CEB, 2006). Then a deep-dive review and expansion of the prior cultural assessment should include the most recent collective knowledge of the target company’s culture and a review of business processes, hierar-chies, and organizational structures. The assessment should now incorporate a more complete picture and comparison of the two cultures.

After that is complete, a cultural integration plan can be conceived with the goal being to get teams from both organi-zations to work together collaboratively as

Employee communication must be as comprehensive as feasible to reduce employee speculation and fear. To maximize people integration effectiveness, best practice companies will cascade integration plans, explaining how they will affect employees, and defining the roles that employees will play in the integration process. Slotting and recruiting plans with key milestone dates should be communicated as soon as possible so employees know if they have jobs in the new organization. ...


early as possible. There is a highly effective four-step cultural integration process called Cultural Mirroring that should be incorpo-rated into every company’s M&A playbook (Schweiger, 2002):1. Increase communication. Identify

key organizational team leaders from both organizations who need to work together. Ensure that they are intro-duced to one another and that they define roles and responsibilities for their future work together.

2. Enable cross organization pollination. Set collaboration and communication expectations for the cross-organiza-tional teams, defining cross-company goals and target completion dates.

3. Clarify culture expectations. Remind all cross-organizational teams and leaders of their need for professional courtesy, communicate the new vision for the culture, and explain the core values within which the teams should operate.

4. Define and articulate the value in both cultures. As the vision for the new cul-ture is communicated, it is important to articulate the most valuable elements of the two organizations’ cultures, what they bring to the new organization, and how those elements will support the new cultural vision. (Schweiger, 2002)

Integrating cultures does not happen over-night. It is an iterative process. To be suc-cessful, cultural integration planning needs to ensure that teams and leaders of both organizations are working collaboratively together on a regular basis.

Improve Employee Engagement and Retention M&A success requires the retention of high performing teams, individual contributors, and functional managers. Retention and improvement of employee engagement should follow a systematic process. That systematic process should be documented

in the playbook, and should have the following steps at minimum:1. Conduct anonymous employee risk sur-

veys. For expediency, the survey should be provided electronically. Survey ques-tions should be designed to (a) assess employee perceptions of the M&A, (b) assess the need for course correction of M&A implementation activities, and most importantly, (c) determine if employees are thinking of leaving the organization. Effective examples of employee risks survey questions should be maintained in the M&A playbook.

2. Share the survey results. Responses need to be reviewed by managers. The PIC team should work with the functional manager to build a specific retention strategy for any team that appears to be at risk for high turnover. Functional managers should be asked to share the survey results with their teams, and any additional feedback supplied by the employees during those communication sessions should be shared with the PIC team.

3. Complete talent assessments. Line managers also need to complete talent assessments to evaluate the talent on the team. This analysis will help to determine the capabilities needed to support the new organization as well as the key employees that are crucial to the success of the functional areas.

4. Complete follow-up employee inter-views. Functional managers should also conduct individual interviews with each employee to determine where each is on the retention spectrum. If manag-ers identify critical risks during this process, they should work with the PIC team to define mitigation strategies.

5. Provide retention packages. High performing employees who are thinking of leaving the organization need to be flagged and provided with retention packages if necessary.

All retention packages need to be developed and coordinated by the HR business partners on the PIC team.

During the above work, the PIC team needs to monitor all activities and ensure that they are completed in a timely fashion per the defined work plan in Phase III. Regular status updates and risk summa-ries need to be communicated to the M&A leadership and executives. The PIC team should document all mitigation strategy activities on the work plan and monitor their implementation and effectiveness. Particularly effective mitigation strategies should be incorporated into the M&A play-book to support future M&A work.

Recruit to Build Organizational CapabilityOne of the most important factors in any M&A is the expedient redistribution of the best and brightest employees into the new organizational design. Managers must be tasked to hire and retain the best talent to make the new organization more competitive. Employees in both organi-zations will be understandably anxious. Many will not know if they will have jobs or not, and some are so talented they can find jobs anywhere. It is therefore impera-tive that recruiting teams partner with the business to move quickly to ensure that the right people are placed in the right position at the right time, acquiring and retaining top talent and intellectual capital (Tetenbaum, 1999).

Many best practice organizations such as GE Capital complete this work within 30 days of the deal being closed, which is an optimal goal to strive for, and ensure maximum retention of top talent. GE Capi-tal has succeeded because they designed a streamlined recruiting process in advance to support all of their M&A engagements (Ashkenas et al., 1998). M&A recruitment processes should provide the following ele-ments at a minimum: » Determine which positions should be

posted vs. slotted. It is ideal for employ-ees to be slotted into their positions because this reduces apply/interview/hire activities and eliminates unneeded stress for employees and managers. Positions should be posted only if there

Table6.Tools for Phase IV

» M&AIntegrationPlaybook–PhaseIV

» CulturalAssessment&CulturalMirroringModel

» EmployeeRiskSurveys

» TalentAssessments


are (a) job redundancies, (b) more people than positions in the budget, or (c) a new skillset needed in the new organization.

» Develop a communication plan. The key to success is being transparent and communicating regularly about the recruiting processes and the jobs that will be available.

» Develop notification and support services for exiting employees. If it is anticipated that employees will lose positions they should receive proper notice and support. The recruiting team should provide affected employees with career guides and other related tools to assist them in finding jobs inside or outside the company.

» Identify affected employees that could fill other roles. When identifying types and numbers of posted positions, there is extensive coordination and many handoffs between the PIC team and functional managers. If employees will not be securing positions in the new organization, functional managers should strongly suggest that employees work with recruiters to locate other suitable roles. Recruiters and manag-ers should review talent assessments to identify high performing employees that could take on other roles in the organization.

Align HR Policies and Information SystemsThis is a brief section, but only because most HR organizations already intuitively provide adequate support in these areas. Obviously, alignment of HR policies and information systems in the newly formed organization are key to the success of the M&A. When updating HR policies, be sure to define and communicate a clear transition plan so employees know which pre-existing policies to follow and for how long. Communication about the status of the policies needs to be disseminated to employees apprising them of updates and changes (CEB, 2006). These communica-tion points should be incorporated into the overall communication plan so messages can be timed appropriately amongst all other communication.

The HR information systems being used in both organizations also need to be evaluated for strengths and weaknesses to determine what should be kept, integrated, or eliminated. Include the Information Technology departments of both organiza-tions to capitalize on any integration and automated data migration opportunities. It might also be helpful to add historical experiential notes of particularly effective technology integration tactics in the M&A playbook.

Phase V – Integration Evaluation

The post implementation review and overall assessment of the integration is needed now. This is when organizations (a) conduct a post integration employee survey, (b) evaluate the PIC team’s services to their customers, (c) conduct an assess-ment of the effectiveness of the tools, and (d) update the playbook, and create improvement plans for future M&A.

Conduct a PostIntegration Employee SurveyThe most vital post-implementation activity is addressing employee concerns. People integration risks identified in the due dili-gence and integration planning phases will change over time. Employee satisfaction and morale surveys should be conducted throughout the M&A implementation and two to three months after the deal is closed. After the results of the assessment have been analyzed, retention strategies and mitigation plans should be reviewed and updated as needed.

Evaluate the PIC Team’s Service to Their CustomersBest practice companies continually assess and track their human resources outcomes throughout the entire M&A, documenting their issues as they go along. This allows them to learn and make course corrections along the way to maximize effectiveness and results. Another best practice is for the chief human resources officer to continually assess the PIC team’s performance by ask-

ing for performance feedback from internal customers as well as the newly acquired company. At minimum, the PIC team should conduct interviews of key players who were a part of recent M&A process. Then the PIC team could conduct online surveys to obtain a broad set of feedback from line managers and other stake-holders. Some questions that should be asked include: » Did the PIC team understand the objec-

tives of the M&A deal, and did they understand their role?

» Did the PIC team collaborate with one another and deliver a coordinated service?

» Did the PIC team know how to use M&A tools?

» Did the PIC team manage conflict effectively?

» Were the right resources and skillsets present on the PIC team to adequately address the integration scope?

» Were there enough PIC team resources available throughout the project?

» Is there enough redundancy of PIC team skillsets to ensure adequate cover-age for future M&As? (CEB, 2006)

Another best practice is for the chief human resources officer to continually assess the PIC team’s performance by asking for performance feedback from internal customers as well as the newly acquired company. At minimum, the PIC team should conduct interviews of key players who were a part of recent M&A process. Then the PIC team could conduct online surveys to obtain a broad set of feedback from line managers and other stakeholders.


Conduct an Assessment of the Effectiveness of the ToolsThe PIC team should also conduct a retro-spective on tools and methods used during the M&A. Were the tools as effective and comprehensive as they could have been? Did the acquired organization easily under-stand the tools and their intent? Were the tools easily scaled to the actual size of the M&A, i.e., were they over burdensome for the smaller acquired organization?

Update the Playbook, and Create Improvement Plans for Future M&AOnce the retrospective information from customers and tools has been compiled, the playbook and its supporting tools should be updated. The PIC team should engage also in skills enhancement and expansion training, to improve future M&A work. It is best to continually refresh skillsets to increase speed and flexibility of future M&As.

New and Improved M&A Playbook

A comprehensive M&A playbook with people integration activities, deliverables, and tools has been developed with feedback from key human resources and M&A lead-ers. The following reflects their comments: » The playbook content is rich and

valuable. » The tools, templates, and step-by-step

instructions made the playbook easy to use.

» Several of the people integration con-cepts were anticipated and well-proven.

» The value of the new tools and concepts could be proven through pilots and modified as needed.

» Communication plans are critical, and the communications department needs to drive their development.

» The last M&A phase, Integration Evaluation, is a critical component that should not be overlooked because it outlines the importance of monitoring and evaluating the integration and con-ducting a post implementation review.

The M&A playbook with the people integration elements can be found at http://www.slideshare.net/RussellPodgorski1/people-focused-integration-playbook-48871636

Conclusion

For successful M&As to be realized, the people integration elements must be incorporated, and a strong human resources team and Integration Leader must be assigned the role of overseeing those integration activities. Well-planned and executed people integration pro-cesses can drive value into the business, and a comprehensive playbook can guide them to consistent success. This will create and sustain value so that the financial and strategic goals of the M&A are achieved.

References

Ashkenas, R. N., DeMonaco, L. J., & Francis, S. (1998). Making the deal real: How GE Capital integrates acquisitions. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/1998/01/making-the-deal-real-how-ge-capital-integrates-acquisitions/ar/1

CEB. (2006). HR’s role in mergers and acquisitions. Arlington, VA, 2-117.

CEB. (2010). Change management: An end to end process guide. Arlington, VA, 3–19.

Deloitte. (2009). Shared services for hos-pital systems. Retrieved from http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Australia/Local%20Assets/Documents/Industries/LSHC/Deloitte_shared_services_for_hospi-tal_systems.pdf

Omri, M. (2011). The role of speed of integra-tion in the integration effectiveness and mergers & acquisitions success. Retrieved from http://ktk.pte.hu/sites/default/files/mellekletek/2014/07/Omri_Morag_dis-szertacio.pdf

Schweiger, D. M. (2002). M&A integration: A framework for executives and managers. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Tetenbaum, T.J. (1999). Beating the odds of merger & acquisition failure: seven key practices that improve the chance for expected integration and synergies. Organizational Dynamics, 28(2), 22–35.

Russell PodgorskiistheSystemManager,ExecutiveRecruitmentforProvi-denceHealth&Services.Hebringsoveradecadeofexperiencerecruitingexecutivesandphysiciansforintegratedhealthcaredeliverysystems.Podgor-skispecializesincreatingoptimalrecruitingprocessestodrivestrategiesandvalueintothebusiness.Hehasbuiltsolidorganizationalcapabilitiesbylead-ingteamsthatrecruitedtalentasthecompanyrestructuredorinitiatedM&Astrategies.HeholdsaBAdegreefromColumbiaCollegeinColumbia,MissouriandaMasterofHealthAdministrationdegreefromSt.Joseph’sCollegeinStandish,[email protected]

Deirdre Sherwood startedhercareerintelecommunicationsmanufacturing,workingforIntelandMotorola.ShewasaCertifiedQualityEngineerformanyyearsandherentirecareerhasbeendedicatedtoqualityandprocessimprovement.Sherwoodhasspentthelast15yearsinhealthcare,workingforbothhealthplansandhealthcaredeliveryorganizations.Mostrecently,shehasbeenworkingforProvidenceHealthandServicesasaBusinessProcessEngineer.SherwoodearnedaBSdegreeinIndustrialEngineeringfromNewMexicoStateUniversityandaMasterofHealthAdministrationfromSt.Joseph’sCollegeinStandish,[email protected]



http://www.slideshare.net/RussellPodgorski1/people-focused-integration-playbook-48871636

http://www.slideshare.net/RussellPodgorski1/people-focused-integration-playbook-48871636

http://hbr.org/1998/01/making-the-deal-real-how-ge-capital-integrates-acquisitions/ar/1




http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Australia/Local%20Assets/Documents/Industries/LSHC/Deloitte_shared_services_for_hospital_systems.pdf





http://ktk.pte.hu/sites/default/files/mellekletek/2014/07/Omri_Morag_disszertacio.pdf





Beth Applegate, MSOD, owns and leads an organization development (OD) practice with three decades of experience with national and international social sector agencies, academic institutions, governmental agencies, and socially responsible for-profits. Applegate views Organization Development (OD) as a field of social action as well as an area of academic study. She identifies as an Applied Behavioral Science scholar practitioner positioned to bring to the fore the tradition

of inquiry and dialogue in service of social justice and healthy individuals, groups, and organizations in the world. She roots herself in the constructs of human potential and development, empowerment, equity, demo-cratic processes, and the importance of the use of self as a key indicator of success. Her work is inextricably linked to advancing racial equity and racial healing, social justice, and humanistic values. She can be reached at [email protected].

Tim Lannan, MSOD, is an organization devel-opment consultant with more than 30 years’ experience in all aspects of social sector management and governance. He focuses on helping nonprofit organizations discover and unleash their unique potential for positive change. Lannan works with a broad range of clients in social services, the arts, advocacy, and other spheres – from grassroots groups to multi-site national and international agencies. Prior to launching his consulting practice in 1995, Lannan served for eight years as

a senior executive at Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), where he was integral to advancing the organization’s agenda at every level. He holds a MSOD from American University and is a member of the NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science. His publications include “A Diagnos-tic Model for Assessing Nonprofits and Their Organizational Effectiveness,” which was published in the Journal for Nonprofit Manage-ment. He can be reached at [email protected].

Practicing OD publishes practical ideas, methods, con-cepts, frameworks, applied theories, approaches, and tools in order to enhance the quality of OD practice. Practicing OD seeks short articles (900 to 1200 words) with topics such as, but not limited to: » Practical descriptions, tips, and guidelines for applying

concepts, methods, processes, interventions, and tools that regularly work.

» Brief case studies that highlight implications for future practice.

» Ways to effectively handle recurring situations. » Proven consultation principles and practices. » Innovative, cutting-edge methods or designs, including

new applications or adaptations of well-established processes and tools.

» Thought-provoking essays on practice-related challenges.

» New trends or technologies that will influence or provide new opportunities for OD practice.

» How to effectively integrate frameworks and models from other fields/disciplines into OD practice.

» How to build knowledge and skill as an OD practitioner.

Practicing OD is published online for OD Network mem-bers. Experienced and new practitioners are encouraged to submit articles.

Submission Guidelines: » Short (900-1200 words), practical articles written in

simple, direct conversational language. Bulleted lists, limited graphics, and short sections with subheads help the ease-of-reading and accessibility of content with lower word counts.

» Focus on what you are discussing, how it works, or can be used, and why it works (what you believe or how theory supports it).

» Include everything in the text. No sidebars. » Footnotes are discouraged. Citations, if appropriate,

should be included in the text with a short list of refer-ences at the end of the article.

» Include a short (25-50 word) author bio, including your email for readers to contact you.

» Submit Microsoft Word electronic copies only to: Beth Applegate ([email protected]) and Tim Lannan ([email protected]).

» Include your name, phone number, and email address. » If your article is accepted for publication, you will be

notified via email.

New Editors for Practicing OD

OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 47 No. 3 201554 Copyright©2015bytheOrganizationDevelopmentNetwork,Inc.Allrightsreserved.


Guidelines for Authors

Journal Information

The OD Practitioner (ODP ) is pub-lished by the Organization Develop-ment Network. The purpose of the ODP is to foster critical reflection on OD theory and practice and to share applied research, innovative approaches, evidence based practices, and new developments in the OD field. We welcome articles by authors who are OD practitioners, clients of OD processes, Human Resource staff who have partnered with OD practitioners or are practicing OD, and academics who teach OD theory and practice. As part of our commitment to ensure all OD Network programs and activities expand the culture of inclusion, we encourage submissions from authors who represent diversity of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious/spiritual practice, economic class, education, experience, opinion, and viewpoint.

The Review Process

The ODP is a peer reviewed journal. Authors can choose between two review processes and should notify the Editor which they prefer when they submit an article:

Process 1 (open peer review): Submit articles with a cover page with the article’s title, all authors’ identify-ing and contact information, and a 50– 80 word biography for each of the authors; also include any acknowl-edgements. Two members of the ODP Review Board will review the article. They will recommend accepting the article for publication, pursuing publication after suggested changes, or rejecting the article. If they decide

the article is publishable with changes, one of the Review Board members will email or call the primary author to dis-cuss the suggested changes. Once the author has made the changes to the satisfaction of the two Review Board members, the ODP Editor will work with the author to prepare the article for publication.

Process 2 (double blind peer review): This option is offered to meet the standards for academic institutions. Submit articles with a cover page with the article’s title, all authors’ identify-ing and contact information, and brief biographies for each of the authors; also include any acknowledgements. Provide an abbreviated title running head for the article. Do not include any identifying information other than on the title page. Two members of the review board will independently receive the article without the author’s information and without knowing the identity of the other reviewer. Each reviewer will recommend accepting the article for publication, rejecting the article with explanation, or sending the article back to the author for revi-sion and resubmittal. Recommenda-tions for revision and resubmittal will include detailed feedback on what is required to make the article publish-able. Each ODP Board member will send their recommendation to the ODP Editor. If the Editor asks the author to revise and resubmit, the Edi-tor will send the article to both review-ers after the author has made the suggested changes. The two members of the Review Board will work with the author on any further changes, then send it to the ODP Editor for prepara-tion for publication.

The ODP Editor makes the final decision about which articles will be published.

Criteria for Accepting an Article

Content » Bridges academic rigor and

relevance to practice » Accessible to practitioners » Reflects critically on issues related

to the current practice of OD » Presents applied research, innova-

tive practice, or new developments in the OD field

» Includes cases, illustrations, and practical applications

» References sources for ideas, theories, and practices

Stylistic » Clearly states the purpose and

content of the article » Presents ideas logically and with

clear transitions » Includes section headings to help

guide the reader » Is gender-inclusive » Avoids jargon and overly formal

expressions » Avoids self-promotion

If the article is accepted for publica-tion, the author will receive a PDF proof of the article for final approval before publication. At this stage the author may make only minor changes to the text. After publication, the Edi-tor will send the author a PDF of the article and of the complete issue of ODP in which the article appears.

(continued next page)

55GuidelinesforAuthors

ENGAGINGCHANGEA people-centeredapproach to businessby Mark Wilcox and Mark JenkinsApproach to transformation where Leadership + Engagement= Business Change

New Second EditionORGANIZATIONDEVELOPMENTA practitioner's guidefor OD and HRby Mee-Yan Cheung-Judgeand Linda Holbeche“Well-informed guidance forpractitioners.” —OD Practitioner

LEADINGCULTURALCHANGEThe theory andpractice of successfulorganizationaltransformationby James McCalman andDavid PotterContext, language, and dialogueas key to change process

NEW RELEASES

VISIT www.koganpageusa.comfor information and excerpts.

Sign up for our monthly Newsletter!

KP_ODPractitionerAdV3.qxp_Layout 1 6/8/15 4:16 PM

Guidelines for Authors (contd.)

Preparing the Article for Submission

Article LengthArticles are usually 4,000 – 5,000 words.

Citations and ReferencesThe ODP follows the guidelines of the American Psychological Associa-tion Publication Manual (6th edition). This style uses parenthetical reference citations within the text and full refer-ences at the end of the article. Please include the DOI (digital object identi-fier; http://www.apastyle.org/learn/faqs/what-is-doi.aspx), if available, with references for articles in a periodical.

GraphicsGraphics that enhance an article are encouraged. The ODP reserves the right to resize graphics when neces-sary. The graphics should be in a program that allows editing. We prefer graphics to match the ODP’s three-, two-, or one-column, half-page or full-page formats. If authors have ques-tions or concerns about graphics or computer art, please contact the Editor.

Other PublicationsThe ODP publishes original articles, not reprints from other publications or journals. Authors may publish materials first published in the ODP in another publication as long as the publication gives credit to the OD Practitioner as the original place of publication.

Policy on Self-PromotionAlthough publication in the ODP is a way of letting the OD community know about an author’s work, and is therefore good publicity, the purpose of the ODP is to exchange ideas and information. Consequently, it is the policy of the OD Network to not accept articles that are primarily for the purpose of marketing or advertising an author’s practice.

Submission DeadlinesAuthors should email articles to the editor, John Vogelsang, at [email protected]. The deadlines for submit-ting articles are as follow: October 1 for the winter issue; January 1 for the spring issue; April 1 for the summer issue; and July 1 for the fall issue.



http://www.apastyle.org/learn/faqs/what-is-doi.aspx

http://www.apastyle.org/learn/faqs/what-is-doi.aspx



Engaging scholar-practitioners inthe art and science of leading change

Now AcceptingApplications for the Foundation Program

and the NEWHealthcare Concentration!

www.Antioch.edu/phd | toll free: 877-800-9466 | email: [email protected]

• Live and work anywhere

• Flexible, low-residency program

• Innovative interdisciplinary curriculum

• Internationally renowned faculty

• A vibrant and diverse learning community

• Award-winning dissertations

• Graduation rates that far exceed the national average

OD Network Products and ServicesPublications

» OD Practitioner, the flagship publi-cation of the OD Network, is a peer-reviewed quarterly journal.

» OD Seasonings is an online jour-nal highlighting the experience of seasoned practitioners.

» Practicing OD, our online ezine, provides practice-related concepts, processes, and tools in short articles by and for busy practitioners.

All three publications and their submis-sion guidelines are available online at http://www.odnetwork.org.

Member Benefits

Low annual dues provide members with a host of benefits: » Free subscriptions to all three of our

publications. » Free access to online job ads in the

OD Network Job Exchange. » Discounts on conference regis-

tration, OD Network products

(including back issues of this j ournal), Job Exchange postings, professional liability insurance, books from John Wiley & Sons, and more.

» OD Network Member Roster, an essential networking tool, in print and in a searchable online database.

» Online Toolkits on action research, consulting skills, and HR for OD—foundational theory and useful tools to enhance your practice.

Professional Development

OD Network professional development events offer cutting-edge theory and practice. Learn more at http://www.odnetwork.org. » OD Network Conferences, held

annually, provide unsurpassed professional development and networking opportunities.

» Regular webinars include events in the Theory and Practice Series,

Conference Series, and OD Network Live Briefs.

Online Resources

In addition to the online resources for members only, the OD Network website offers valuable tools that are open to the public: » Education directory of OD-related

degree and certificate programs. » Catalog of OD professional develop-

ment and networking events. » Bookstore of titles recommended by

OD Network members. » Links to some of the best OD

resources available. » E-mail discussion lists that allow

OD practitioners worldwide to share ideas.

» Lists, with contact information, of regional and international OD networks.

» Case studies illustrating the value of OD to potential client organizations.

57Vol.47No.3 ODPRACTITIONER

http://www.odnetwork.org

http://www.odnetwork.org

Human Resource Management is changing. Moving beyond basictransactional functions, your role as an HR professional has nowevolved to working with executives and managers to set priorities andguide change for your organization. Drawing upon the research andpractice of seasoned Organization Development professionals,Handbook for Strategic HR collects articles found in the esteemedjournal OD Practitioner to give you a full overview of the coreknowledge and skills you need to play a trusted advisory role in yourorganization.

A compendium of the best thinking on the subject, Handbook forStrategic HR supplies you with methods to help you: see the bigpicture, think systemically, and strategically identify where best tofoster change in your organization; team up with consultants andsenior level staff in leading change projects; put employeeengagement to practical use in the important work yourorganization is doing; operate effectively in cross-cultural andvirtual working situations; and much more.

Featuring 78 articles containing creative approaches, practicaltips, and proven methods that will help you add value to yourcompany, Handbook for Strategic HR is the gold standardresource on the important topic of organizational development.

Things are changing in theworld of human resources.

Acompendium of the best thinking on the subject, Handbook for Strategic HR includes 78 articlesfrom the renowned OD Practitioner. It introduces readers to core organization development strategiesand skills, giving them creative approaches, practical tips, and proven methods to help them:

• See the big picture, think systemically, and strategically identify where best to foster change in theirorganization

• Team up with consultants and senior-level staff in leading a change project

• Put employee engagement to practical use and involve “minds, hearts, and hands” in the importantwork of the organization

• Operate effectively in cross-cultural and virtual working situations

Comprehensive and practical, this forward-thinking book enables readers to become key partners inleading their organizations forward.

About the Editors:

OD PRACTITIONER is the quarterlyjournal of the OrganizationDevelopment Network, aninternational association whosemembers are committed to practicingorganization development as anapplied behavioral science.

The Handbook for Strategic HR isedited by: John Vogelsang, MayaTownsend, Matt Minahan, DavidJamieson, Judy Vogel, Annie Viets,Cathy Royal, and Lynne Valek

ISBN: 978-0-8144-3249-5Hardcover, $60.00 US

THE BOOK PUBLISHING DIVISION OF

AMERICAN MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

Single copies available at your favorite online retailer or bookstoreGreat discounts on bulk purchases, starting at 40%!For details, call 1-800-250-5308 or email: [email protected]

P E N N S T A T E | O N L I N E

Advance your career with a respected credential

Earn your master’s degree online—on your schedule

Receive the same diploma as our students do on campus

Master’s Degree in Organization Development and Change—

100% Online! The ability to manage change is becoming a critical skill for leaders in all industries and sectors of the global economy.

U.Ed.OUT 14-0530/14-WC-0879gam/sss

worldcampus.psu.edu/OD

Stand out among your peers; apply today!

Register today for the OD Network │ IODA Annual Conference!

http://www.odnetwork.org/?2015GlanceSchedule

330NorthWabashAvenueSuite2000Chicago,IL60611
