Miles K. Davis writes:
>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.
Well, if what you say above is true, it's news to me. Moreover, it's bad
news to boot. I've been "in the business" as they say for almost 30 years
and I've not seen much lately that passes for sound change management,
primarily, I believe, precisely because of what you term "the move away
from the humanist and democratic roots" of what you further term "classical
OD." I see lots of consultants in action and, frankly, when it comes to
change management, most of them are much better at their technical
disciplines and officer-level politics than they are at introducing change
in a complex organization. There is an unbelievable degree of reliance on
Bennis, Benne & Chin (BB&C) called the "power-coercive" change strategy
(papered over by speeches and memos that smack of BB&C's other two
strategies: "rational-empirical" and "normative-reeducative." But
bread-and-butter tactics appear to me to be totally absent (e.g.,
marshaling and enlisting support, building coalitions, etc.). For the most
part, the so-called change agents I've seen in action lately seem to want
to stick their hands in the CEO's back and make his or her head turn and
mouth move while spewing forth the consultant's words. Not a good show,
that.
In any event, change is about strategy and strategy is about change. Both
occur by way of recurring, patterned conversations. These conversations
occur at the organizational and the local level of a company. Moreover,
they can be and should be structured to some degree, not simply left to
serendipitous good fortune. In this vein, and in response to your request
to be "pointed," you might take a look at an article in the Fall 1996 issue
of the California Management Review. It is titled "Shaping Conversations:
Making Strategy, Making Change," and it was written by Jeanne M. Liedtka
and John W. Rosenblum.
Regards,
Fred Nickols, Executive Director
Strategic Planning & Management Services
Educational Testing Service, Mail Stop 09-C
Princeton, NJ 08541
Tel = 609.734.5077
Fax = 609.734.5590
e-mail =
fnickols@ets.org