Organization Development
“Just as Kurt Lewin observed that the best way to diagnose an organization is to attempt to change it, we may also state that it is easier to understand an organization when it is disturbed by untypical events than when it is operating as usual.”
Who is the Client? A Different Perspective
From the ODP Archive
By W. Warner Burke
First appeared in OD Practitioner, 14 (1), 1982
During the years of my work in OD, I have overheard or taken part in many discus- sions about “Who is the client?” Is the cli- ent the head person, the boss, a particular unit or group, or the total system? In these discussions, OD practitioners have identi- fied at least one of the above.
Let me be concrete. I am currently in the beginning stages of consulting with a small, highly technical company, a subsid- iary of a large corporation. I was introduced by an employee relations person to explore with the president the possibility of my working with the company.
Contracting with the president and later with his top group went fairly smoothly. After some interviewing and observing, I was soon able to provide them with some preliminary feedback.
Although the employee relations person did not accompany me during this early stage, at my request he became my internal counterpart as I began to move downward through the organization.
I looked forward to this consulting effort because I have rarely worked with so small an organization—about 90 employ- ees—and so interesting scientifically and technically. It is developing commercial lasers. In short, this is an organization of a size that I feel I can “get my arms around” and one that may be on the verge of excit- ing technical advances.
The top management group is rela- tively small, consisting of five persons including the president.
Most of the staff resides within Opera- tions, which consists of both manufactur- ing and marketing/sales. At least a third
of my consulting effort will be within this unit of the company.
Now to the central question: Who is my client? Answer by responding to the following multiple-choice question:
The client is: (a) company president (b) top management group (c) employee relations person (d) total company (e) parent corporation (f ) all of the above (g) none of the above To be au courant you would choose
either (d) or (f ). After all, OD is a total system approach to planned change which starts from the top. My contracting, how- ever, was done first with the president and next with his immediate reports as a group. Perhaps a better answer is (a) or maybe (b). But what about the employee relations person? My coming in was originally his idea and he paved the way. Also, he is now very much involved in my efforts. Alterna- tive (c) may be the best answer. But what about the parent company? Am I not really serving them? The president of the parent company is chairman of the board of the subsidiary. Although he is not the subsid- iary’s CEO, he is nevertheless clearly in a position of authority. Maybe (e) is the best reply. These answers all seem reasonable. Thus, the safest alternative should be (f ).
Consider the title I chose for this paper and now, perhaps reacting to the way I presented the multiple-choice question, you already conclude that my answer is (g). The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to provide a rationale for that answer.
44 OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 43 No. 3 2011
Relationships and Interfaces
I chose “none of the above” because I believe that our client in OD consulta- tion is never one individual, regardless of position or role, or any particular group, team or subsystem of the organization, or any combination thereof. Even though I generally subscribe to the idea of OD being “total system,” I often wonder if changing· a whole system is even possible. Besides, I have trouble defining what the total system is since each one resides within yet a larger “total system.”
The truth is that I have come to think of my client as the relationship and/or inter- face between individuals and units within and related to the system. This in-between- ness is the main subject of my consulting.
From the perspective of the consultant role, my notion of client is not new. Argyris (1970) avoided terms such as consultant, change agent, or practitioner, favoring instead “intervener” and “intervention- ist.” These terms were, of course, an extension of his definition of a consultant intervention:
To intervene is to enter into an ongo- ing system of relationships, to come between or among persons, groups, or objects for the purpose of helping them.
For Argyris, then, to consult is to intervene. Margulies (1977) characterized the
role of the OD consultant as a marginal one. He argued that the degree to which the consultant is effective is a function of how capable he or she is (a) at maintaining a certain social distance between self and other individuals in the client organization and (b) at operating on the boundaries of units rather than exclusively within them. In these ways, the consultant can more readily maintain an objective stance in between persons and units in conflict rather than by being with one or the other.
While I agree with both Argyris and Margulies regarding the consultant role, I am here focusing on the other side, the cli- ent, and on the perspective of defining the client as relationships and interfaces rather than individuals and units, i.e., singular entities within the organization. To pursue
this perspective, we shall first consider theory and then practice—the why and then the where and how.
Theory
General systems theory and the theory that underlies Gestalt therapy have both furnished me with useful conceptual frameworks for understanding OD prac- tice. Notions of entropy, input-throughput- output, and equilibrium from the former and the ideas of energy, existentialism, and polarities from the latter have been particu-
larly helpful to me in understanding some mistakes I have made in consultation, that is, why some efforts turned out other than as I had expected. Although I understand only a limited part of what I have read, I find the theoretical ideas of Capra in high energy physics and Prigogine and Jantsch in chemistry and evolution, respectively, particularly stimulating since their think- ing both confirms and challenges general systems and related theory.
Capra (1975) has recently stimulated me to consider organizational diagnosis in quite new ways. Like most OD prac- titioners, I have depended on models to help me make sense of all the data I collect from interviews, documents, observations, and the occasional questionnaire. I have relied on Weisbord’s six boxes at certain times and on the Nadler-Tushman congru- ence model with other clients. While they have been invaluable, they have not been the sine qua non of diagnosis. Their boxes and connecting lines direct me where to
look and how to interpret certain informa- tion, yet when I concentrate exclusively on the components of these models I find that I overlook other important data—the nuances, certain reappearing yet inconstant patterns of behavior, hidden agendas, and collusions. Yes, I know it is imperative that the client organization declare its purpose and mission, clarify its strategy, design an appropriate, workable structure, provide for its members reasonable and attrac- tive rewards, etc. But focusing entirely on these dimensions obscures other data that should enter the consultant’s field of
vision. It may be that what happens out of the ordinary is just as important, if not more so, than what happens routinely. It may be that repercussions in one of more of the boxes brought about by events in another box in the model are more impor- tant for diagnosis than what happens in the changed box itself. For example, a change of leadership may have stronger implica- tions for organizational purpose than for the organization’s leadership per se.
Let us now consider some of Capra’s thoughts more directly. According to Capra and other physicists, matter at the subatomic level does not exist in terms of “things” but as “probability waves.” They only tend to exist. Those terms that we learned in high school—protons and neutrons—the subparts of an atom, are not parts, particles, or tangible things as we normally think of them. They may be conceived of as entities but only as a conve- nience. Capra’s own words may help:
Depending on how we look at them,
I have relied on Weisbord’s six boxes at certain times and on the Nadler-Tushman congruence model with other clients. While they have been invaluable, they have not been the sine qua non of diagnosis. Their boxes and connecting lines direct me where to look and how to interpret certain information, yet when I concentrate exclusively on the components of these models I find that I overlook other important data—the nuances, certain reappearing yet inconstant patterns of behavior, hidden agendas, and collusions.
45Who is the Client? A Different Perspective
they appear sometimes as particles, sometimes as waves. This dual aspect of matter was extremely puzzling. The picture of a wave that is always spread out in space is fundamentally dif- ferent from the picture of a particle, which implies a sharp location.
The apparent contradiction was finally resolved in a completely unexpected way that dealt a blow to the very foundation of the mecha- nistic world view—the concept that matter is real. At the subatomic level, it was found, matter does not exist with certainty at definite pinpointable places but rather shows “tendencies to exist.” These tendencies are expressed in quantum theory as probabilities, and the corresponding mathemati- cal quantities take the form of waves; they are similar to the mathematical forms used to describe, for instance, a vibrating guitar string or sound wave. This is why particles can be waves at the same time. They are not “real” three-dimensional waves like sound waves or water waves. They are “probability waves,” abstract mathematical quantities related to the probabilities of finding the particles at particular points in space and at particular times.
At the atomic level, then, the solid material objects of classical physics dissolve into wavelike patterns of probabilities. These patterns fur- thermore, do not represent probabili- ties of things, but rather probabilities of interconnections. (1977, p. 22)
Capra is therefore discussing relations of abstract particles. These relations consti- tute a unified whole. This kind of thinking suggested to me that I should consider more directly and diligently the web (to use Capra’s term) of relations in organiza- tions. It is this web, the interactions, the interfaces that make up or at least define, the total system more clearly than the units and individuals that form the connecting points. For me, this way of conceiving and diagnosing a system depicts the reality of organizational behavior more closely than other models.
Jantsch (1980), basing much of his theorizing on the prior work of Prigogine, states that to understand the evolution of living things, one must concentrate more on disequilibrium than on equilibrium. The former, he contends, is far more natural, affirmative, and central to growth and change. To achieve equilibrium is to gain comfort, yet this victory may bring us closer to stagnation and death than to vibrancy and life. Jantsch also holds that evolution is accelerating just as the overall process of change appears to be.
His theory has been heralded by some
as a paradigmatic shift comparable to Einstein’s move away from Newton. Just as Einstein’s theory of relativity wrested the physical sciences away from Newton’s static ideas of gravity, Jantsch’s ideas chal- lenge us to view movement, relativity, and change in living systems as constant. He argues that all living things are always co-evolving yet maintaining a “relativity” to one another. Both Jantsch and Prigogine believe that the disequilibrium and pertur- bation that arise from time to time in living things are actually a kind of “molting,” a shedding of the old within organisms as they strive to attain a higher level of existence. These perturbations, activities of disequilibrium, are signs of positive change that lead to self- organization rather than to decline. Thus, out-of-the-ordinary events may be more significant for organizational understanding than ordinary ones.
A related principle from general systems theory is the idea of the steady state and dynamic homeostasis. According to this principle, open systems to survive must maintain a steady state.
However, a steady state is not
motionless or a true equilibrium. As Katz and Kahn (1978) characterize this principle for organizations, “There is a continuous inflow of energy from the external envi- ronment and a continuous export of the products of the system, but the character of the system, the ratio of the energy exchanges and the relations between parts, remains the same.” Even though their theory contends that the steady state is not motionless, Katz and Kahn do note that “relations between parts remain the same” and they conclude that “The basic principle is the preservation of the character of the
system.” Perhaps their interpretation of general systems theory and Jantsch’s think- ing are not that different. Perhaps it is a matter of emphasis.
But it nevertheless occurred to me that in my practice I have been working too much toward achieving a steady state and equilibrium. Yes, OD is at heart identified with change, yet one of our major interven- tions—team building—is more often than not a striving toward greater equilibrium. (“Let’s learn to work better together; let’s learn to trust; let’s build a more cohesive unit;” etc.) These equilibrating goals are worthy, but if I spend all my consulting time in this manner and in resolving con- flicts, I may be helping to squash needed perturbations and disequilibrium.
Life cycle theory of organizations is pertinent to this last point. Usually for an organization to move successfully from one stage of the cycle to another, wrenching changes have to be made even to the point of modifying the basic character of the organization.
To summarize, theory from sources other than the ones I usually turn to
Yes, OD is at heart identified with change, yet one of our major interventions—team building—is more often than not a striving toward greater equilibrium. (“Let’s learn to work better together; let’s learn to trust; let’s build a more cohesive unit;” etc.) These equilibrating goals are worthy, but if I spend all my consulting time in this manner and in resolving conflicts, I may be helping to squash needed perturbations and disequilibrium.
OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 43 No. 3 201146
has challenged my way of understand- ing and diagnosing organizations. These ideas about matter and living things have stimulated me to concentrate more on the relationships between people and units rather than the individuals and units per se, and on unusual events rather than on routine operations.
Let me now call attention to some findings and different emphases from the world of practice that have influenced my outlook.
Practice
Some recent studies in management have further influenced my thinking about the importance of relationships’ and interfaces. We shall consider these studies in four different domains of relationships: (I) the manager’s relationships downward with subordinates; (2) the manager’s relation- ship upward with his or her boss; (3) the manager’s lateral relationships; and (4) the manager’s unit’s relationships with other individuals and units.
Managing Subordinate Relationships. There is mounting evidence that, used appropriately, a participative management approach pays off. For example, some recent research reveals that managers who move rapidly up the hierarchy tend to involve their subordinates in decision-mak- ing more than managers who move up less rapidly. These faster-rising managers were rated by themselves and their subordinates as having a participative style, whereas less successful managers were rated as having a persuasive, “selling” style or one that we might characterize as laissez-faire.
In a study of executive competence in a large federal agency, those executives who were widely considered the most compe- tent tended to (a) manage more collabora- tively, (b) communicate more openly, (c) solicit information from subordinates more frequently, (d) more often establish trust and mutual respect between themselves and their subordinates, (e) provide more opportunities for subordinates to express openly their objections and disagreements with their superiors’ proposed actions or decisions, and (f ) manage work group
meetings in ways to ensure that a frank and open exchange of ideas occurred. There were at least sixteen other significant differences between the most competent executives and those who were less so. The six I have cited sound to me like a partial role description of a participative man- ager. In any case, the other behaviors were related to and supportive of the six above.
Blake and Mouton (1978) have also recently provided further theoretical sup- port for their advocacy of 9.9 or participa- tive management as well as some indirect empirical evidence.
While I believe that the overall pattern of evidence respecting executive compe- tence leans more and more toward partici- pative management, my point here is not to debate the issue of management style. I do wish to emphasize that management is becoming more and more a reciprocal process and less and less a top-down, boss- to-subordinate, one-way street. If reciprocal relationships are a crucial ingredient of management competence, then my job as a consultant is to facilitate reciprocity, to mediate a two-way street, in other words, to work in-between.
Managing up. We have some findings about the importance of learning how to influence one’s boss. Failure to “manage up,” to relate in an active rather than pas- sive way with one’s superior, can readily lead to grave problems in the organization if not outright dismissal of a subordinate.
Gabarro and Kotter (1980) advise that one should learn quickly the boss’s per- sonal and organizational goals, strengths and limitations, work habits and prefer- ences, as well as one’s own patterns and style and how they fit with the boss’s. The more one knows about these subjects, the more influential one is likely to be.
In the aforementioned study of federal executives, we found that three competen- cies in this domain are critical: the execu- tive’s (1) going to bat for subordinates with his or her superiors, (2) ability to present bad news upward in a strategic way, and (3) establishing good relations with upper level executives.
As consultants, then, we can help subordinates sharpen their abilities to
influence upwardly in the hierarchy. Help- ing subordinates to disclose threatening news, for example, will ensure that a boss is never surprised (a sin). Likewise, know- ing how to deflect one’s boss from his/ her preferred path is no small feat, yet it is often critical to organizational effective- ness. The point, once again, is that the crucial consultant role here is to work in between.
Managing lateral relationships. Another set of competencies important to federal exec- utives is skill at managing relationships with outside contractors and with other units within their organization. Moreover, a recent intensive study of successful general managers in the private sector found that the ability and energy to maintain contact with many people (in the hundreds) in their organization was key to their effec- tiveness. The managers knew an amazing number of people throughout the orga- nization on a first-name basis, and they made frequent use of these relationships to be effective in their work. Maintaining a network is therefore highly significant to success of a general manager just as it is to the politician.
What struck me about these findings is, of course, the importance of multiple relationships, of establishing as well as maintaining them. In the federal agency study, we labeled one set of the competen- cies (about a sixth of the total) “influence management” since they were all con- cerned with the executive’s ability to influ- ence others by means other than formal authority. It is perhaps in this domain of management particularly, and organiza- tional functioning in general, that Capra’s “web of relations” becomes more salient. The consultant’s being able to perceive this web in all its intricacy is central to a good diagnosis and vital to constructive intervention.
Managing unit interfaces. In an impor- tant recent paper about the dilemmas of managing by participation, Kanter (1982) treats the matter of linking teams with their environment. This set consists of six dilemmas:
47Who is the Client? A Different Perspective
1. “You had to be there:” problems of turnover A major outcome of good teambuilding is an increase in member participation accompanied by a lift in team spirit. This same spirit becomes a problem when new members join the team, especially if a newcomer happens to be a new boss. The boss can undercut the group’s work and/or lead the team in unwanted directions. If the team is to remain effective, these new and chang- ing relationships must be managed.
2. The fixed decision problem When a group first begins to oper- ate participatively so that a new team starts to emerge, certain ground rules, norms, and policies gradually become decisions. Later, when membership changes, the newer members do not necessarily feel bound by these decisions since they took no part in framing them. Moreover, since all team members should have influence, prior decisions should not be viewed as immutable, the new members might argue. The dilemma, then, is how to continue the process of participation yet not to be obliged continually to re-nego- tiate the team’s earlier decisions.
3. “Suboptimization:” too much team spirit A team can become so preoccupied with itself that its members lose sight of the team’s role and function within the larger organization.
4. Stepping on toes and territories: the problem of power There may be other constituencies within the overall organization who believe that they have a stake in the problem or issue which the team holds as their exclusive domain. The team feels that it has worked so well together on this problem or issue that no one else in the organization is qualified to understand it as well, much less to deal with it effectively. With this knowledge and spirit comes a feeling of power which may be difficult to share even
when it is clear that others outside the team need to be involved.
5. “N.I.H.” (not invented here): the prob- lem of ownership and transfer It is a commonplace that individu- als and organizational units want to do things in their own way. And the greater the team spirit, the more reluctant members may be to adopt someone else’s ideas, especially another team’s. This reluctance, however, may lead to the waste of “re-inventing the wheel” and of not cooperating, say, in the sharing of information. Diffusion of innovation is one of the most difficult problems of organizations.
6. “A time to live and a time to die” Although the evidence is not yet con- clusive, there is some indication that participation needs regular renewal. Members of intensive participation groups, such as quality circles and semi-autonomous work teams, have experienced burnout after 18 months of activity. Periods of interpersonal intensity should alternate with periods of distance. This suggests that some old teams need to die and new ones formed in their place. With other kinds of groups and teams, such as task forces, boards, councils, etc., perhaps it is best to rotate membership rather than kill off old teams and start anew. Kanter’s point is that it is necessary for manage- ment to find ways to sustain continuity of participation as members of groups and as units come and go.
Kanter covers other dilemmas of
management participation especially within teams themselves and in leader- member relationships. Her dilemmas concerning a team’s linkage with its envi- ronment are particularly pertinent to areas of relationships and interfaces that OD practitioners may overlook. Flushed with the success of a teambuilding effort, the consultant may be blind to the greater need of helping the team to manage its relations with (a) new members, (b) perhaps a new leader, (c) other units that may have a stake in some of the outcomes of the team’s work, and (d) its own team members over time since the need for renewal will emerge sooner than one might expect.
Kanter’s dilemmas of managing par-
ticipation, particularly those dealing with a team and its environment, represent fertile ground for OD consultation, and further illustrate that the ground for consultation is comprised largely of relationships and interfaces.
Summary and Conclusions
While I have usually been clear about the person in the client organization with whom I should contract for OD consulta- tion, I have not always been clear that my ultimate client was the same person, or his or her boss, or a specific organizational unit such as the top management group, or the total system. It seems to me that other OD consultants are likewise some- what perplexed about the identity of their ultimate client. As I read works about living systems and reflect on OD practice, I conclude that my ultimate client is that behavior in organizations represented by
I should pay special attention to non-routine events of organizational life since these occurrences generate energy among members to return the system to a steady state, to achieve homeostasis and equilibrium. It is this use of energy and its direction that will tell me more about how the organization really operates than the energy that the members of the organization expend to maintain normal, daily operations.
OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 43 No. 3 201148
interactions, by relationships and interfaces. These interactions represent the basic real- ity of organizational life and therefore my consultation should concentrate on them. Furthermore, I should pay special attention to non-routine events of organizational life since these occurrences generate energy among members to return the system to a steady state, to achieve homeostasis and equilibrium. It is this use of energy and its direction that will tell me more about how the organization really operates than the energy that the members of the organiza- tion expend to maintain normal, daily oper- ations. Just as Kurt Lewin observed that the best way to diagnose an organization is to attempt to change it, we may also state that it is easier to understand an organization when it is disturbed by untypical events than when it is operating as usual.
It is not my contention that one should entirely ignore everyday routine, the organizational structure with its boxes and lines, individuals, work units, the president, and the board of directors. It is more a matter of emphasis for me to focus especially on the in-between. I also believe that relationships and interfaces in organi- zations will grow even more important in the future because of the changing nature of authority, insofar as authority becomes more of a function of expertise and knowledge rather than position, and of the increasing degree of complexity in manag- ing organizations. It is virtually impossible for a single individual to know a consider- able amount, much less everything, about running an organization or even a part of it. This is especially true of high technol- ogy organizations, public or private. Thus, mutual dependency is more the rule than the exception.
Because OD practitioners are knowl- edgeable about interpersonal process and are skillful in dealing with relationships, there will be plenty of opportunity for constructive work. We simply must become clearer about the true subject (in my term, client) of that work.
Epilogue (May, 2011)
Who is the client now that we are well into the 21st century? The same as I maintained in 1982. Not everything has to change even though we are in the change business. In fact, I am even more convinced than ever that our client is in those interstices. A consulting experience not too long ago with a network type of organization brought the point home—in a manner that was not pleasant since the change effort did not last. Being a loosely coupled system that needed “tightening” for long term sur- vival, I paid too much attention to the core (Board and President) at the expense of the relationships with the more peripheral regional centers; in other words, paying insufficient attention to my own perspec- tive about the true nature of who the client is. For the full story, see Noumair, Winder- man, and Burke (2010).
Finally, a longstanding and relevant formula should help us remember who the client is—Lewin’s BfP/E, that is, behavior is a function of personality interacting with the person’s environment. It is that envi- ronment that contains all those relational systems, which is where the consulting work should be focused.
References
Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention theory and method: A behavioral science view. Read- ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Blake, R., & Mouton, J. S. (1978). The Managerial Grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.
Capra, F. (1977). The Tao of physics: Reflec- tions on the “cosmic dance.” Saturday Review, 5(6), 21-23, 28.
Gabarro, J., & Kotter, J. (1980). Managing your boss. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Jantsch, E. (1980) The self-organizing uni- verse: Scientific and human implications of the emerging paradigm of evolution. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
Kahn, D., & Kahn R. (1978). The social psy- chology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Kanter, R. (1982, summer). Dilemmas of managing participation. Organizational Dynamics, 11(1), 5-27.
Margulies, N. (1978). Perspectives on the marginality of the consultant’s role. In W.W. Burke (Ed.), The cutting edge: Cur- rent theory and practice in organization development (pp. 60-69). LaJolla, CA: University Associates.
Noumair, D.A., Winderman, B.B., & Burke, W.W. (2010). Transforming the A.K.Rice Institute: From club to orga- nization. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46 (4), 473-499.
W. Warner Burke, PhD, is the Edward Lee Thorndike Professor of Psychology and Education, Department of Organization and Leadership at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY. Burke is the author of more than 130 articles and book chapters on organization development, train- ing, change, and organizational psychology, and conference plan- ning; and author, co-author, editor, and co-editor of 14 books. Burke has received over 5 distinguished awards for his work including the lifetime achievement award as a scholar-practitioner from the Academy of Management in 2003. He can be reached at burke1@ exchange.tc.columbia.edu.
49Who is the Client? A Different Perspective
Copyright © 2011 by the Organization Development Network, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright of OD Practitioner is the property of Organization Development Network and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.