Discussion: View Thread

I am doing research on change management (as advertised by consulting
companies) and how this does or does not differ from organization
development ( as taught in most universities). I have received a number
of arguments on why the two are the same and that the term change
management is just a marketing ploy to sell a product (this very
strongly from my advisor Peter Vaill).

I would like to hear from those who would be willing to make a counter
argument, which can be documented, and the possible impact on what
skills students need to be taught in business schools. Additionally, I
have heard that a few schools are offering change management programs
(UMD offers a program called Organization Transformation). I am
interested in how these programs differ from traditional OD programs,
and why the need for such programs exist.

You can respond to the Email address that came with this message or
mkd@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu. I also would be willing to speak with interested
parties by phone (202) 414-8239.

I thank you in advance for your consideration.

Miles Davis

Change means movement. Movement means friction. Only in the frictionless
vacuum of a nonexistent abstract world can movement or change occur
without that abrasive friction of conflict.
Saul Alinsky

Miles Davis asked about the distinction between organization development and
change management.

Miles,

I think I'd like to have a more complete description of what Peter said
about change management before commenting too deeply (although I will),
since Peter is one of the key people in both the organization development
movement and, though his writings about permanent white water, one of the
key people describing strategies for managing change.

Depending upon what Peter is really saying, at one level I might be in
agreement with him. Some consulting firms and schools are pushing "change
management" programs instead of organization development because OD carries
a lot of baggage which hinders its acceptance in some corners of the
business world. The profession's willingness to ignore its roots in
behavioral SCIENCE, accepting anything from EST to Spiritualism as well as
science, and its mixed track record for success as a result, have many
businesses reluctant to consider using professionals who identify themselves
as OD professionals. So consultants and programs are packaging themselves as
"change management" to avoid this baggage.

(By the way, please don't interpret the above as a condemnation of the
profession - I am proud to be a member of the profession.)

However, there are also other strategies for change management than the ones
used by OD professionals, and there is also a basic question as to whether
one can manage change at all. I'll skip the latter argument. Ask Peter about
my position on it if you'd like to hear more. But on change management
strategies, OD intentionally applies a client-centered and client involved
approach. The OD practitioner's responsibilities are facilitative, and
mirroring. The OD practitioner acquires and feeds back information,
facilitating analysis and solution development by the client. S/he generally
does not act as a subject expert.

Other change management strategies (still used by most large consulting
firms like Mickensy and Co.) require the consultant to take on the expert
role - the consultant analyzes and recommends solutions. Admittedly, more
consultants are moving to the OD strategy, since client involvement appears
to result in greater client ownership and implementation. (I'm not certain
this has ever been proven, but it makes logical sense.) Thus, the
"traditional" consultants are actually attempting to generate and manage (in
terms of plan, organize, and control) change. This would be different than
OD.

I hope this helps.

Mark Michaels
People Technologies
michaels@ipat.com

"To move a mountain, start with one pebble at a time."

I'd like to piggy-back on Mark's answer to Miles:

The big consulting firms (McKinsey, Anderson, etc.) have traditionally
recommended WHAT the change should be and left the client the mess of
implementing it. Especially with the advent of massive technical changes
like S.A.P. (whose implementation--or lack thereof--is easy to measure),
the "biggies" have discovered the client needs more--as have the clients.
Unfortunately, the talents in many of those organizations lean toward the
quantitative, not the behavioral. I suspect the programs that have grown
up purporting to offer "Change Management" as opposed to OD are less
"encumbered by theory" and offer more "practical" tips. Some may actually
offer a step-by-step approach.

These programs can be quite valuable in the hands of someone with a solid
OD, behavioral, or emotional systems background--but deadly in the hands of
a linear-thinking engineer or accountant. It's sort of like teaching
someone to play a particular song on a guitar: the instrument is fretted
and the number of chords limited. What is often needed in an organization
is the ability to "fiddle" with the plan--and that requires the unfretted
fingerboard of a violin and either a basic knowledge of music theory--or a
very good ear!

Emily Schultheiss
Why settle for surviving...when you could be thriving?

Will Rogers once said that what scared him about Herbert Hoover was not
what he didn't know, "it was what he knew that wasn't true." Emily
Schultheiss, sad to say, gives us a contemporary reason for the same
concern. What she writes about consulting practice is simply not true.
Then again, what should we expect if one can't even get "Andersen"
spelled correctly?

What is true is that Bain & Co. led the charge to be paid based on
quantifiable results. That practice has spread, even to the McKinseys,
Andersen Consultings (note spelling, Emily), and ADLs of the world.
Heck, there's even a Nasdaq company, Thomas Group, whose stock took a
hit yesterday because, due to "contingent payment uncertainties" from
the fourth quarter of 1997, it couldn't pinpoint its earnings any better
than somewhere in a range between "$.05 and $.30." Sounds like
econometrics to me!

But let me get to the main point: For universities to teach "change
management programs" is rather like Bill Clinton teaching monogamy.
Both are babbling in subject areas in which their day-to-day practice is
diametrically opposite. I know of no institution in this society as
reactionary, as steadfast in its determination to fight "the last war"
instead of the next one, and as determined NOT to change, no matter what
the cost--especially to unsuspecting undergraduate students--as
university business faculties. They're not bad people. They're just
wrong-headed.

This "debate" is too funny. Too, too funny.

WDM

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Warren D. Miller, MBA, CPA-ABV, CMA *
* Beckmill Research/Lexington, Va. *
* "Research Orientation, Results Mentality" *
* 540.463.6200 (v); 540.463.6208 (f) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Davis, Miles K wrote:

> I am doing research on change management (as advertised by consulting
> companies) and how this does or does not differ from organization
> development ( as taught in most universities). I have received a number
> of arguments on why the two are the same and that the term change
> management is just a marketing ploy to sell a product (this very
> strongly from my advisor Peter Vaill).

I believe very strongly that change management is totally different from
organizational development. Change management (allow me to call it "CM")
came about as a result of many Business Process Reengineering (BPR)
initiatives. BPR has gotten a lot of "bad press" lately because one of the
easiest ways to reduce recurring costs is to eliminate jobs. We have
(unfortunately, I think) move away from the old concept of "a job for life"
and we are now hearing that college graduates can expect to work for 5-7
companies during their lifetime.

I understand that companies are now competing in a global market and that
costs have to be reduced. I also understand that robotics and automation
can replace people for many tasks. There are tax advantages to investing in
technology and eliminating people results in savings year after year. But
my 8 year old, Calvin, was completely defeated by AT&T's automated, computer
generated voice, collect calling system when I tried to call home while
traveling recently. Calvin was babbling away and said everything except
either of the two words (yes or no) that the computer was listening for.
This is progress?

I am a consultant in reengineering, continuous process improvement, and
change management. I believe that change management includes the activities
that take place after the decision has been made to reengineer a process or
reorganize the structure of a company. CM involves the employee issues such
as fear of job loss that arise whenever change occurs.

Two good sources of information on CM are:

ProSci's BPR Online Learning Center at http://www.prosci.com which has
a lot of excellent material on reengineering. There is an excellent article
by Jeanenne LaMarsh of LaMarsh & Associates at
http://www.prosci.com/change.htm which addresses the people side of BPR
which addresses communication, education/training, and rewards/reinforcement
as major elements of CM. She addresses the fear of job loss and resistance
to change that are two of the major parts of CM and points out that without
management the process of change, reengineering initiatives often fail. In
this context, CM is not a system, or a process, or a computer program. CM
is the actions managers and leaders take to resolve the problems associated
with change.

Michael Hammer's book "Beyond Reengineering," ISBN 0-88730-729-9 has an
excellent chapter (13) on "The Process Of Change." In this chapter, Hammer
addresses Long Term Change and how an organization must be structures to
enable change to occur. A good quote from page 209 is:

"When a new idea is conceived in a traditional company without
built-in change enabling mechanisms, it must run a gauntlet of
gatekeepers before reaching anyone with the authority and resources to
act on it. Even when a good idea manages to find a champion, it is
analyzed and pondered by a seemingly endless parade of task forces,
committees, and study groups. By the time the notion gets to a point of

action, the opportunity it was meant to capture has often passed. The
implicit assumption underlying all this is that innovation is risky and
suspect, and that carrying on in the traditional way is almost always
the best course."

Hammer than states that organizations need two business systems:

The Surface System includes the value adding activities of the
business processes, the jobs, the structures, the people, etc.

The Deep System is the structure for change and modernization of the
Surface System. Its three purposes are learning (exploration &
interpretation), redesign, and transition

Hammer proposes creation of a "Chief Transformation Officer" (CTO) who
would be similar to and on line with the Chief Operating Officer (COO) or
the Chief Financial Officer (CFO). He says that finding a CTO today is like
finding a computer programmer in the '50s because there is no established
professional school to produce them. He lists desirable traits such as:

- "an organic dissatisfaction with the status quo"
- "a creative itch to improve things"
- "the ability to see processes and business holistically"
- "energized and animated by challenge"

Hammer forgot to include "a skilled and tactful communicator" because
any CTO who is not will probably be lynched by a mob of dissatisfied
employees.

In summery, I believe that Change Management has two major parts:

- the leadership actions managers must take to smoothly implement
change
- establishing a climate for long term change so that an
organization can react to external factors and innovation from
within

I hope this helps...

Jim Massfeller

Peter Vaill <pbvaill@a1.stthomas.edu> writes:

Emily, I agree completely, except that my choice would be the
trombone!

Peter

Re Miles Davis' query on OD vs Change Management.

I teach a final year course "Organizational Development and
Transformation". The title (and content, of course, which is
constantly evolving) was changed a few years back, influenced by:

(a) the article of the same title by Jerry Porras & Robert Silvers
(1991) in the Annual Review of Psychology which clearly
distinguishes OD and OT (they described it as "second
generation OD ... emerging, ill-defined, highly experimental,
and itself rapidly changing"; and

(b) the need for students to extend their awareness beyond the
"standard" OD field to such include such developments as TQM and
re-engineering, for example, some of which are arguably based on
a power-coercive (rather than OD's normative-reeducative)
strategy of change.

See any good OD or management text these days and you will find that
business/management students must be aware that planned change is not
only carried out through OD action research technology. As an
academic, I see part of my task as making my students aware of what is
actually happening "out there", and enabling my students to critically
choose the appropriate strategy and to access the necessary technology
and skills to carry out effective change, whether or not this entails
Gamma B cognition change and concomitant radical behaviour change.

They must also be aware that some managers (and possibly some
consultants) are ignorant or careless about their choice of strategy,
or they lack the skills to intervene effectively even if they do
understand the concepts.

John Etheredge


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dr John Etheredge [E-mail: ethbus@hkbu.edu.hk]
Associate Professor, Department of Management
& Research Fellow, Centre for Applied Ethics,
Hong Kong Baptist University [Website: http;//www.hkbu.edu.hk]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>I am doing research on change management (as advertised by consulting
>companies) and how this does or does not differ from organization
>development ( as taught in most universities). I have received a number
>of arguments on why the two are the same and that the term change
>management is just a marketing ploy to sell a product (this very
>strongly from my advisor Peter Vaill).
>
>I would like to hear from those who would be willing to make a counter
>argument, which can be documented, and the possible impact on what
>skills students need to be taught in business schools.

I don't know what "documented" would mean in this context, exactly, but it
seems clear to me that 'Organizational Development' concerns changes which
are proactively undertaken by the organization or its leaders in the context
of some overall plan and direction, whereas 'Change Management' would also
include handling changes which arise (inside or outside the organization)
apart from that plan and direction.

Thus Change Management is the more inclusive term.

Why is preparedness in this broader arena needed? Because an ability to
identify & handle these 'unplanned' events and circumstances is key to
survival, incl. but not limited to achievement of one's developmental goals.
A poor analogy: Org Devel would be like learning to swim; some aspects of
Change Management would be like, maintaining the salinity levels in your
body, and the health of the semipermeable membranes of your cells, despite
being dumped into the ocean.

Tom Wheeler

Dear Miles,

I am glad to learn of your interest in OD and the management of change.
The question you raise is really one of boundary, it's been hotly debated
over the last 20 years, and the odds are slim that we could ever get
complete agreement. That's probably why there are so many definitions of
OD, why research on OD is so difficult, and why Bob Kahn said of OD years
ago, "The more I do it, the less I understand it." OD in some respects has
become whatever people do when they call it OD. But let's back up a bit...

All the early books and articles on OD (e.g., by Bennis, Schein, Argyris,
French and Bell, Margulies, Huse) said that what made OD different from
other approaches to change was that OD (1) had a strong humanistic intent,
and (2) focused on improving the entire organizational system. Warner
Burke wrote a piece in JABS where he distinguished OD and management
development (MD) in a similar fashion. Wendell French said that OD as a
label would be replaced by OA, for Organizational Assessment, as it evolved
toward adolescence. An article of mine (with Bob Frame and Warren Nielsen)
in JABS described a lengthy OT effort at the Chicago Tribune and
distinguished between OD and OT by examining the different intent of the
words "develop" vs. "transform." And Mike Beer has said OD is dying. So
who knows?

When I founded the Journal of Organizational Change Management in 1988, I
did not see it as an OD journal and the initial Editorials clearly place a
broader boundary around the phenomenon of change and managing change vs.
simply an OD approach to managing change. For example, Fred Luthans' work
on OB Mod would represent an approach to "change management," but it is not
at all OD -- and Fred would be one of the first in line to tell you his
work is not OD. Dave Boje, current Editor of JOCM, has continued this
tradition of considering change management to be broader than OD.

You have the good fortune of working with Peter Vaill, one of the most
knowledgeable people in the field, and I would encourage you to listen
closely to what he's saying, to probe, to challenge, and then make up your
own mind on the boundary question. If the question is, "Do some consulting
firms attempt to manipulate impressions positively by what they call what
they do?" then the answer is a resounding "Yes!" But that, to me, is a far
different issue -- that's about how not what. Anyone can get sidetracked
by slick marketing methods. The way out of that trap is to look to the
substance of the thing being done. It may matter less what it is called
and more what is actually being done.

Best,

Larry E. Pate
University of Wisconsin-Madison


At 10:50 AM 2/25/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I am doing research on change management (as advertised by consulting
>companies) and how this does or does not differ from organization
>development ( as taught in most universities). I have received a number
>of arguments on why the two are the same and that the term change
>management is just a marketing ploy to sell a product (this very
>strongly from my advisor Peter Vaill).
>
>I would like to hear from those who would be willing to make a counter
>argument, which can be documented, and the possible impact on what
>skills students need to be taught in business schools. Additionally, I
>have heard that a few schools are offering change management programs
>(UMD offers a program called Organization Transformation). I am
>interested in how these programs differ from traditional OD programs,
>and why the need for such programs exist.
>
>You can respond to the Email address that came with this message or
>mkd@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu. I also would be willing to speak with interested
>parties by phone (202) 414-8239.
>
>I thank you in advance for your consideration.
>
>Miles Davis
>
>Change means movement. Movement means friction. Only in the frictionless
>vacuum of a nonexistent abstract world can movement or change occur
>without that abrasive friction of conflict.
>Saul Alinsky
>

Yes the string on OC vs CM is interesting.
But for the useful contribution below - its a case of stop the flaw!

BPR notwithstanding its bad press, was about slimming down essential
product/service production processes to allow those who do the work to do it
irrespective of the tasks (and status) of those who were 'indirect' employees.
In old language cut down on staff functions and let the line functions get on
with it. Surely, the present BPR recommendations (from Mike Hammer) merely
replicate the OLD recommendations (of the late '50s onwards) that led to the
growth of OD as a staff function. Explain to me the difference between and OD
manager (c.1975) and a Chief Transformation Officer c. 1998?

This brings me to the OD vs CM. The former was precisely the attempt to
BUILD-IN change (driven by a theory that said this was good) by hiving it off
to specialists (a staff function). Little difference to BPR now - its fallen
in its own hole. This recommendation appears to be the complete antithesis of
BPR.
CM on the other hand is saying change is needed (almost irrespective of why)
so lets do it. It then says well, there are four or five (or whatever number)
of strategies lets use one or two - this is determined by the senior managers
and the context. Dunphy and Stace ('Under New Management, 1990) develop a
model based on scale of change/style of change that has change ranging from
collaborative based fine-tuning to coercive corporate transformation. Its a
case of horses for courses.
My $0.2 worth.
David
--
__________________________
David E. Morgan,
School of Industrial Relations and Organisational Behaviour,
University of New South Wales,
Sydney, 2052, AUSTRALIA.
Ph. +61 2 9385 2181 (w) +61 2 9489 1448 (h)
Fax +61 2 9662 8531 Email d.morgan@unsw.edu.au
===========================================================
Jim Massfeller wrote:
>
> Davis, Miles K wrote:
>
> > I am doing research on change management (as advertised by consulting
> > companies) and how this does or does not differ from organization
> > development ( as taught in most universities). I have received a number
> > of arguments on why the two are the same and that the term change
> > management is just a marketing ploy to sell a product (this very
> > strongly from my advisor Peter Vaill).
>
> I believe very strongly that change management is totally different from
> organizational development. Change management (allow me to call it "CM")
> came about as a result of many Business Process Reengineering (BPR)
> initiatives. BPR has gotten a lot of "bad press" lately because one of the
> easiest ways to reduce recurring costs is to eliminate jobs. We have
> (unfortunately, I think) move away from the old concept of "a job for life"
> and we are now hearing that college graduates can expect to work for 5-7
> companies during their lifetime.
>
> I understand that companies are now competing in a global market and that
> costs have to be reduced. I also understand that robotics and automation
> can replace people for many tasks. There are tax advantages to investing in
> technology and eliminating people results in savings year after year. But
> my 8 year old, Calvin, was completely defeated by AT&T's automated, computer
> generated voice, collect calling system when I tried to call home while
> traveling recently. Calvin was babbling away and said everything except
> either of the two words (yes or no) that the computer was listening for.
> This is progress?
>
> I am a consultant in reengineering, continuous process improvement, and
> change management. I believe that change management includes the activities
> that take place after the decision has been made to reengineer a process or
> reorganize the structure of a company. CM involves the employee issues such
> as fear of job loss that arise whenever change occurs.
>
> Two good sources of information on CM are:
>
> ProSci's BPR Online Learning Center at http://www.prosci.com which has
> a lot of excellent material on reengineering. There is an excellent article
> by Jeanenne LaMarsh of LaMarsh & Associates at
> http://www.prosci.com/change.htm which addresses the people side of BPR
> which addresses communication, education/training, and rewards/reinforcement
> as major elements of CM. She addresses the fear of job loss and resistance
> to change that are two of the major parts of CM and points out that without
> management the process of change, reengineering initiatives often fail. In
> this context, CM is not a system, or a process, or a computer program. CM
> is the actions managers and leaders take to resolve the problems associated
> with change.
>
> Michael Hammer's book "Beyond Reengineering," ISBN 0-88730-729-9 has an
> excellent chapter (13) on "The Process Of Change." In this chapter, Hammer
> addresses Long Term Change and how an organization must be structures to
> enable change to occur. A good quote from page 209 is:
>
> "When a new idea is conceived in a traditional company without
> built-in change enabling mechanisms, it must run a gauntlet of
> gatekeepers before reaching anyone with the authority and resources to
> act on it. Even when a good idea manages to find a champion, it is
> analyzed and pondered by a seemingly endless parade of task forces,
> committees, and study groups. By the time the notion gets to a point of
>
> action, the opportunity it was meant to capture has often passed. The
> implicit assumption underlying all this is that innovation is risky and
> suspect, and that carrying on in the traditional way is almost always
> the best course."
>
> Hammer than states that organizations need two business systems:
>
> The Surface System includes the value adding activities of the
> business processes, the jobs, the structures, the people, etc.
>
> The Deep System is the structure for change and modernization of the
> Surface System. Its three purposes are learning (exploration &
> interpretation), redesign, and transition
>
> Hammer proposes creation of a "Chief Transformation Officer" (CTO) who
> would be similar to and on line with the Chief Operating Officer (COO) or
> the Chief Financial Officer (CFO). He says that finding a CTO today is like
> finding a computer programmer in the '50s because there is no established
> professional school to produce them. He lists desirable traits such as:
>
> - "an organic dissatisfaction with the status quo"
> - "a creative itch to improve things"
> - "the ability to see processes and business holistically"
> - "energized and animated by challenge"
>
> Hammer forgot to include "a skilled and tactful communicator" because
> any CTO who is not will probably be lynched by a mob of dissatisfied
> employees.
>
> In summery, I believe that Change Management has two major parts:
>
> - the leadership actions managers must take to smoothly implement
> change
> - establishing a climate for long term change so that an
> organization can react to external factors and innovation from
> within
>
> I hope this helps...
>
> Jim Massfeller

Thank you so much to those who have taken time to discuss my earlier
posting about OD and CM (notice I did not use versus this time).

If I could, I would like to narrow the focus a bit. In the first draft
of my paper I acknowledged that both OD and CM had roots in the concept
of Planned Change articulated by people like Bennis, Benne, and Chin
(1961) and Kurt Lewins. However, I argued that with the introduction of
"strategic change" from authors like Tichy and the move away from the
humanist and democratic roots (mid 80's) that are at the heart of OD,
that change management (as practiced and articulated by major consulting
companies) represents a difference in values, assumptions, and the role
of the change agent, than what I called classical OD. (Some say
classical OD died twenty years ago.)

I think the distinction is important because students, as well as
clients, need to know what to expect from people who claim to practice a
profession (I will acknowledge those who do not think that change
management is a profession, but I would ask those people to apply that
same scrutiny to OD).

Anyone want to comment, or point me in the direction to either confirm
or dis-confirm my thinking.

>

Dear Warren,

I like your quote from Will Rogers. But I'm concerned that your remarks
seem to suggest that you have no respect whatsoever for the many dedicated
faculty who invest themselves in understanding processes of change and
improvement in organizational settings. Your view of universities is one
thing; but there is a wide gap between the problems of large institutions
(e.g., see Belasco's book, "Teaching the Elephant to Dance") and the
dedication of individuals within those institutions to make meaningful
contributions to knowledge. I'll assume that you were expressing opinion
and did not mean to be offensive by your choice of words like "babbling"
and "wrong-headed." I, for one, would find it hard to attribute such terms
to people like Warren Bennis or Chris Argyris, and the many others who have
done so very much to get us to think differently about what we are doing.

Larry E. Pate
University of Wisconsin-Madison


At 02:33 PM 2/25/98 -0600, you wrote:
>Will Rogers once said that what scared him about Herbert Hoover was not
>what he didn't know, "it was what he knew that wasn't true." Emily
>Schultheiss, sad to say, gives us a contemporary reason for the same
>concern. What she writes about consulting practice is simply not true.
>Then again, what should we expect if one can't even get "Andersen"
>spelled correctly?
>
>What is true is that Bain & Co. led the charge to be paid based on
>quantifiable results. That practice has spread, even to the McKinseys,
>Andersen Consultings (note spelling, Emily), and ADLs of the world.
>Heck, there's even a Nasdaq company, Thomas Group, whose stock took a
>hit yesterday because, due to "contingent payment uncertainties" from
>the fourth quarter of 1997, it couldn't pinpoint its earnings any better
>than somewhere in a range between "$.05 and $.30." Sounds like
>econometrics to me!
>
>But let me get to the main point: For universities to teach "change
>management programs" is rather like Bill Clinton teaching monogamy.
>Both are babbling in subject areas in which their day-to-day practice is
>diametrically opposite. I know of no institution in this society as
>reactionary, as steadfast in its determination to fight "the last war"
>instead of the next one, and as determined NOT to change, no matter what
>the cost--especially to unsuspecting undergraduate students--as
>university business faculties. They're not bad people. They're just
>wrong-headed.
>
>This "debate" is too funny. Too, too funny.
>
>WDM
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>* Warren D. Miller, MBA, CPA-ABV, CMA *
>* Beckmill Research/Lexington, Va. *
>* "Research Orientation, Results Mentality" *
>* 540.463.6200 (v); 540.463.6208 (f) *
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>

Dear Miles,

In the context of the current blockbuster movie --

OD offers swimming lessons to the passengers of the Titanic before it hits
the iceberg. They see no compelling need.

CM offers swimming lessons to the passengers of the Titanic after it hits
the iceberg. They are too threatened with survival to be open to learning.

Each violates different prerequisites for adult learning so either produces
spotted results -- but for different reasons.

While you are at it, consider including the latest theme; Mergers and
Acquistions Integration.

Good luck.

Jack Ring
Innovation Management
32712 N. 70th St.
Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
Phone) 602-488-4615
Fax) 602-488-4616
sendmail:jring@amug.org

Dear MG-ED

I'm new to this list so it's likely I missed a great deal of the
debate. However, as for wrong-headed, etc., bus ed at the PhD level is
hard to beat. Any business that couldn't train replacements in 4 years,
or that practiced discrimination in pay, etc., would be hauled into court
in no time. Yet, at the PhD level there is absolutely no accountability.
The nicest, most well-meaning individuals are helpless in this environment
to create meaningful, ethical changes.

PC


On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Larry Pate wrote:

> Dear Warren,
>
> I like your quote from Will Rogers. But I'm concerned that your remarks
> seem to suggest that you have no respect whatsoever for the many dedicated
> faculty who invest themselves in understanding processes of change and
> improvement in organizational settings. Your view of universities is one
> thing; but there is a wide gap between the problems of large institutions
> (e.g., see Belasco's book, "Teaching the Elephant to Dance") and the
> dedication of individuals within those institutions to make meaningful
> contributions to knowledge. I'll assume that you were expressing opinion
> and did not mean to be offensive by your choice of words like "babbling"
> and "wrong-headed." I, for one, would find it hard to attribute such terms
> to people like Warren Bennis or Chris Argyris, and the many others who have
> done so very much to get us to think differently about what we are doing.
>
> Larry E. Pate
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>
>
> At 02:33 PM 2/25/98 -0600, you wrote:
> >Will Rogers once said that what scared him about Herbert Hoover was not
> >what he didn't know, "it was what he knew that wasn't true." Emily
> >Schultheiss, sad to say, gives us a contemporary reason for the same
> >concern. What she writes about consulting practice is simply not true.
> >Then again, what should we expect if one can't even get "Andersen"
> >spelled correctly?
> >
> >What is true is that Bain & Co. led the charge to be paid based on
> >quantifiable results. That practice has spread, even to the McKinseys,
> >Andersen Consultings (note spelling, Emily), and ADLs of the world.
> >Heck, there's even a Nasdaq company, Thomas Group, whose stock took a
> >hit yesterday because, due to "contingent payment uncertainties" from
> >the fourth quarter of 1997, it couldn't pinpoint its earnings any better
> >than somewhere in a range between "$.05 and $.30." Sounds like
> >econometrics to me!
> >
> >But let me get to the main point: For universities to teach "change
> >management programs" is rather like Bill Clinton teaching monogamy.
> >Both are babbling in subject areas in which their day-to-day practice is
> >diametrically opposite. I know of no institution in this society as
> >reactionary, as steadfast in its determination to fight "the last war"
> >instead of the next one, and as determined NOT to change, no matter what
> >the cost--especially to unsuspecting undergraduate students--as
> >university business faculties. They're not bad people. They're just
> >wrong-headed.
> >
> >This "debate" is too funny. Too, too funny.
> >
> >WDM
> >
> >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> >* Warren D. Miller, MBA, CPA-ABV, CMA *
> >* Beckmill Research/Lexington, Va. *
> >* "Research Orientation, Results Mentality" *
> >* 540.463.6200 (v); 540.463.6208 (f) *
> >* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> >
>

Miles

You raise an interesting question and one that is not new. I have been
teaching an OD/CM program at a major consulting firm for three years. THEY
make the distinction between the two areas. I would be willing to engage in
the conversation with you by phone if you would like.

Karan Powell

Karan,

Please explain the differences as THEY see them and what you teach for each.

Thanks,

Jim Massfeller


KHPowell wrote:

> Miles
>
> You raise an interesting question and one that is not new. I have been
> teaching an OD/CM program at a major consulting firm for three years. THEY
> make the distinction between the two areas. I would be willing to engage in
> the conversation with you by phone if you would like.
>
> Karan Powell

Hi Jim

The consulting firm I work with defines itself as having four disciplines:
information technology, business process reengineering, organization
development and change management. Organization development in their
methodology focuses on specific organization interventions including:
building a relationship with a client, assessing a client situation, and then
intervening in the system. Most OD work in this organization focuses around
building positive relationships both within the organization and with their
clients. Most interventions fall under a broad categories of team building
and conflict resolution. In their model of OD they focus on values and
culture, learning, organizational structure, interpersonal relationships,
performance and rewards, and support infrastructures. They focus on
leadership and mission as it relates to these areas. My sense of them is that
they define OD in short term, quick hit solutions to change on a micro level
(department, team, business unit)

Change management on the other hand is seen as a larger umbrella. Their
primary work is information technology and many of their engagements are major
multi million dollar change efforts. Change management includes leading
change, engaging stakeholders, measuring performance, communicating change,
monitoring readiness for change, organizing for change, and planning for
transition. I believe they define change management as the macro level of
change (the organization, etc) as it relates to assessing and implementing
their technology solutions.

In working with them and teaching them OD and CM skills it has been
interesting to walk in their world and explore the split in interpretation of
the two areas. My sense is that it has to do with size of engagement and
starting point. In their world OD is still "soft and fluffy." They are
working hard to integrate it into business as usual. And it is a major
cultural shift for them in doing this work. It is both exciting and
interesting to be a part of that process.

Karan Powell

In a message dated 98-02-28 16:17:08 EST, you write:

<<
Karan,

Please explain the differences as THEY see them and what you teach for
each.

Thanks,

Jim Massfeller


KHPowell wrote:

> Miles
>
> You raise an interesting question and one that is not new. I have been
> teaching an OD/CM program at a major consulting firm for three years. THEY
> make the distinction between the two areas. I would be willing to engage
in
> the conversation with you by phone if you would like.
>
> Karan Powell >>

Karan,

You could do us a great service by sharing any written, non-proprietary
martials with us.

Joe Champoux

On Sat, 28 Feb 1998, KHPowell wrote:

> Miles
>
> You raise an interesting question and one that is not new. I have been
> teaching an OD/CM program at a major consulting firm for three years. THEY
> make the distinction between the two areas. I would be willing to engage in
> the conversation with you by phone if you would like.
>
> Karan Powell
>

Joseph E. Champoux, Ph.D.
Professor of Management
The Robert O. Anderson Schools of Management
The University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131
USA
(505) 277-3237; (505) 277-7108 (FAX)
(505) 856-6253

KHPowell wrote:
>
> Miles
>
> You raise an interesting question and one that is not new. I have been
> teaching an OD/CM program at a major consulting firm for three years. THEY
> make the distinction between the two areas. I would be willing to engage in
> the conversation with you by phone if you would like.
>
> Karan Powell
At the risk of turning things "on their head", what would happen if OD
issues were considered macro and Change Management to be micro? That
is, what if the relationships, cultural, learning etc. issues are of
equal importance or even larger than any specific program that is
implemented, even if the progam is a multi-million dollar effort? This
would be an interesting "thinking out of the box" question for Karen's
organization.
I wonder if the sense of OD being short-term and "micro" is more a
reflection with discomfort with so-called "soft" and "foreign" issues
actually being potentially as critical as the more "hard" or "familiar"
issues.

'nough said

Mark Edinberg
markedin@snet.net

To add to the dialogue, here is the perspective the consulting firm I work
with has regarding OD and CM. Our core focuses are on change management,
leadership development, continuous improvement, and team development. We view
ALL of these as organization development. To us, OD refers to processes
undertaken to improve the people, systems, strategic focus, design, etc. of an
organization. It is an overarching term applied to these efforts. Change
management is one of many processes that contribute to organization
development. (OD efforts can also include interventions, training, TQ,
changes in HR measures and rewards, etc.). It doesn't need to be any more
complex that this.

In addition, to us change management refers to an experiential approach
applying a change methodology (need, vision, stakeholders, plan, etc.) with an
intact team to an actual project. The goal is to shorten the current -
transition - future state time frame. It is not a "program" rather a concrete
process oriented towards creating results on key organizational issues.

>[Many asked/commented] about the distinction between organization
development and change management.
>
Change management: process of implementing changes planned by
some; carrying out a plan of change. Implies
that the solution to something is "put in."

Organization Development: to "unveil" what the organzation
should/can be. Note that 'development'
would literally mean 'to unveil.' The
people closest to the problems know what
needs to happen to correct them; only
they very often lack something. Something
could be information about suppliers/
customers' needs, it could be assistance
in managing conflict, it could be a structure
to assist in conceptualizing what they know,
etc.
Organization development could be thought
of as "third-force" facilitation where the
OD person must diagnoze what is missing and
provide same in order to generate the
creativity required. The three forces are

Reconcile
^
|
Activate---->|<----Restrain

One force is always missing and so the OD
is about bringing that third force, RATHER
THAN bringing the solution.
Note that this view of OD is part of a
body of knowledge often descrribed generically
as Open Systems Planning.

I know there will be questions. I am restrained by my inability to
forsee WHAT they will be. ;)

Best regards,
Mike

Michael D. Townes, Qual. Specialist, | We must surely hang
USPS, POB 225459, Dallas, TX 75222-5459 | together or surely we
214-819-8797 mdtownes@iamerica.net | will hang separately.
CustomerPerfect! - targeting our future | - B. Franklin