Organizational Research unit I case study and DQ Question
nasarb
four_trends.pdf
You better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’ —Bob Dylan
If we have learned anything during our collective years researching, practicing in, and writing about the field of organization development (OD) it is that change is a constant phenomenon. In the 1980s we had the Greek salad of change with alpha, beta, gamma, and even omega in the mix (Porras & Singh, 1986). In the 1990s it was likened to whitewater rapids (Vaill, 1989), in the early 2000s it had something to do with the diminishing supply and move- ment of one’s cheese (Johnson, 1998), and over the past decade it has been all about managing the clash of boomers, gen xers and gen yers in the workplace (Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2000; 2013). It is a cliché these days to start an OD article with a statement that organizations are in a constant and/or increasing state of rapid change.
But that is because it is true. Organiza- tions are experiencing change at rates we have never seen before. The best analogy today might be Moore’s Law from the world of semiconductors. It is the asser- tion that advancements in technology double every 18–24 months. This law has proven accurate for the past several decades, despite several proclamations of its death (something this concept shares with the field OD) and has been applied to other domains as well such as business processes (Rawlings & Bencini, 2014) and
digital marketing (Dragojlovic, 2016). In the context of organizations, we would sug- gest that the rate and complexity of change and the implications of those changes are accelerating at a similarly exponential pace. What matters to companies today can quickly shift tomorrow.
Moreover, much of this change is being driven either directly or indirectly by advancements in technology. It is the socio-technical (Trist, 1978) revolution all over again. For example, in 2013 there was debate over allowing employees access to social media at work (Beasley, 2013). Today many functions have hired social media experts (they are in very high demand in executive search) directed at advertis- ing their products, watching for external media impressions, and actively staffing talent. The online traffic and opportuni- ties for impact are certainly there. Dream- grow reports that Facebook tops the social media sites as of 2017 with 1.9 billion visitors each month (Kallas, 2017). While more targeted professional workplace social media sites such as LinkedIn (peer to peer business connections) and Glassdoor (which features anonymous ratings and comments regarding company reputation) see fewer visitors, they are still at about 106 and 23 million respectively each month. The potential for a poor senior leadership decision or a botched change effort leaking out to the public is beyond anything ever imagined in the past.
If we think about the implications of managing complex multi-year organiza- tional culture change vis-à-vis social media,
“Our backgrounds as social scientists puts us at an advantage at understanding the true dynamics of social systems yet our potential impact on the actions taken is diminishing. It is time to enhance our skill set in these areas and direct our academic and professional programs to focus on this as well.”
Four Trends Shaping the Future of Organizations and Organization Development
By Allan H. Church and W. Warner Burke
14 OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 49 No. 3 2017
one could argue it might be a completely different process than in the past. The extent to which OD practitioners are lead- ing edge regarding the impact new technol- ogies have on the nature of organizational change is an open question. Moreover, in the context of the HR and talent manage- ment (TM) vernacular, the term organiza- tional culture is often used interchangeably with “employer brand” and “employee value proposition” (EVP). Although not particularly new (e.g., see Michaels, Handfield-Jones, & Axelrod, 2001), these are terms and related concepts nonetheless that are far less familiar to OD practitioners and probably worth some additional focus as well on our part as a profession.
In the past, we have written about change in the context of helping individu- als (e.g., Burke & Noumair, 2002; Church, 2014), aligning large-scale organizational change interventions (e.g., Burke, 2011a; Burke & Litwin, 1992), and assess- ing the capabilities of OD practitioners (Burke & Church, 1992; Burke, Church & Waclawski, 1993; Church & Burke, 1993). We have also focused on describing major shifts in the field of OD overall (Bradford & Burke, 2004; Burke, 1976; 1997; 2011b; Burke & Goodstein, 1980; Church, 2001; Church, Shull, & Burke, 2016). Some of those changes tend to reflect perennial swings back and forth on a pendulum (e.g., centralization vs. decentralization, specialist vs. generalist capability models,
industry consolidation vs. entrepreneur- ial and niche marketplaces), but other types of change are more significant and long-lasting.
The focus of this paper is on the latter type. The reality is we have never seen anything like the forces facing society today. New technology in the form of social media, tablets and other portable devices, new digital capabilities, and Big Data applications, coupled with the shrinking scope of the world thanks to globalization, and the subsequent shifts in how and what types of work employees desire are result- ing in a sea-change. It is hard to believe these trends will not result in profound shifts in the way companies organize them- selves and run their businesses.
Thus, based on the academic and practitioner literatures and our collective experience in consulting and in large cor- porate settings, we thought we would take a shot at describing where we are headed. Overall, and in the context of the Burke- Litwin model (1992) of organization perfor- mance and change we see three major drivers present in the external environment that are shaping the future of organizations and OD along with them. These drivers are resulting in four major trends that we see already occurring today in the business world. Our primary concern here are the implications of these four trends for both organizations, the role we as OD practitio- ners need to play in helping organizations
manage through them, and the capabilities we need to do so going forward.
The Three Drivers of Change
Although topics such as employee engage- ment, organizational design, mission and strategy, human capital management, total rewards, diversity and inclusion, and workforce planning are all critically important for organizations today and will continue to be going forward depending on the strategy of the firm, we see three key universal drivers of change that generally sit above these. These drivers are shaping how organizations are organized and the skills required for success in the future. These should be familiar to most readers so we will not belabor them here but they are worth mentioning: 1. The Changing Nature of Work—i.e.
the ways in which organizations are literally organizing themselves (e.g., setting boundaries around companies, functions, teams, and jobs), and defin- ing how people do their day-to-day activities and connect in various social systems (Allen & Eby, 2016; Boudreau, Jesuthasan, & Creelman, 2015; Gulati, 2009; Worley, Zardet, Bonnet, & Savall, 2015).
2. The Changing Nature of Data—i.e. the velocity, variety, veracity, and volume (Big Data) of information both pub- lic and private coming in and out of processes, tools and systems including “the internet of things” (Bersin, 2012: Church & Dutta, 2013; Guzzo, Fink, King, Tonidanel, & Landis, 2015).
3. The Changing Dynamics of the Work- force Itself—i.e. the shifting ethnic and generational demographics, values structures, expectations, and social responsibility requirements of the new workforce (Deal & Levinson, 2016; Ferdman, 1999; Meister & Willyerd, 2010; Twenge, 2010; Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2000; 2013).
While these drivers are significant, and we have been talking about them for many years in some cases (e.g., generational differences), by themselves they are not
Figure 1. Global Monthly Visitors to Popular Social Media Websites (Billions)
Source: https://www.dreamgrow.com/top-15-most-popular-social-networking-sites/ and authors’ research.
15Four Trends Shaping the Future of Organizations and Organization Development
actionable. Rather, these drivers have produced four trends that do have conse- quences on the way organizations function and the requirements of doing OD work within them.
Four Trends for the Future
Trend #1: A Shift to Platforms over Products The first major shift we see that has hap- pened already in certain sectors is one of structure—i.e., the move to platforms over products in form. New types of organizational designs have emerged in the last 5-10 years, many as a result of the e-commerce boom, to looser, virtual, fluid, and dynamic structures (e.g., platforms) where the boundaries of what is and is not part of the “firm” are less clear (Boudreau, et al., 2015). This enables them to be more flexible and resilient in business environ- ments. Existing brick and mortar firms are attempting to evolve as well, but some are having more difficulty doing so than others given the nature of their business models, the sophistication of their technol- ogy, and certain elements of their cultures rooted in the need for old school face-time relationships.
Those companies that are moving to platform models, however, are becom- ing less and less focused on a total qual- ity management (TQM) style production mindset and directing energies instead toward an adaptive service approach. Gulati (2009) talks about this shift in terms of the need for “customer centricity” while oth- ers have focused on the concept of design thinking (Brown, 2008). Whatever the term, it represents a fundamental shift in how people conceptualize work, how they operate and involve the customer (or con- sumer), and the face they present externally to the marketplace (remember the EVP and employer brand ideas mentioned earlier). However, one of the cornerstones of design thinking and creating resilient organiza- tions is embracing a systems point of view—something with which OD practitio- ners should be quite familiar.
Our thinking here regarding the shift to platforms over products emerged from a recent analysis of the application
of traditional OD applications to other types of organizations (i.e., those in the government sector). In a special issue of the OD Practitioner, Burke (2017) wrote about “those other organizations.” The question he explored was whether OD, having emerged in the 1950s and 1960s largely from business-industrial organiza- tions such as the Harwood Manufacturing Corporation, General Mills, and Humble Oil, and therefore had (and still does) a social technology based on tightly coupled systems with top-down management, was applicable to federal and state government organizations and healthcare organiza- tions. After a review of the relevant change literature he concluded that the process of OD, e.g., involving people in decision making that directly affects their work and degree of commitment, worked effectively regardless of organizational type. The difference was in the content. For business- industry, the content primarily for OD work is strategy—figuring out customer needs, how to beat the competitor, and supplying those needs. In government organizations, the primary content concerns time, that is, long-term vs short-term. In healthcare, the primary issue is the conflict for a physician in charge of a clinic; hospital department,
etc., that is, following the professional code, e.g., Hippocratic Oath, vs. following the needs of the organization itself—achieving financial goals and matters of budget.
These organizations-business- indus- trial, government, and healthcare—with their variations of hierarchy and inter- dependence, primary characteristics of a tightly coupled system (Burke, 2014), have been around for a long time and are familiar to us. But what about the newer organizations of today, especially those in the “platform” category? Is “normal” OD appropriate for change efforts in these organizations? Let us briefly explore this question. The Internet has changed our work significantly, destroying things, e.g., the telegram, and creating others—the so- called platform organization we mentioned earlier. Even though in cyberspace, certain organizations today provide a platform, a place on the internet for transactions to occur. Of this ilk, perhaps the easiest to understand is eBay. This organization provides a site (platform) on the internet for people, i.e. eBay customers who want to sell something they no longer need or want anymore, say, a baby crib, to anyone who needs a crib (think garage sale) and will not have to pay a fortune for it. The price is
Figure 2. Four Trends for the Future
OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 49 No. 3 201716
agreed to by the two parties and the seller ships the crib to the buyer. eBay makes its money from a percentage of the deal. Other platform organizations include Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Uber.
What makes these organizations unique and reflective of the future is the combination of the central headquarters, if you will, and a huge network composed of transactions on the platform provided by the company. But these transactions are independent of the company. Headquarters does not control them. A platform organi- zation is therefore at least two organiza- tions—a central command that attempts to operate like most any other business, that is, having a CEO at the top of a hierarchy and having interdependent functions such as finance, marketing, operations, human resources, etc., and a network of dispersed customers and constituents that has no hierarchy nor little or no interdependence. In other words, these two organizations are somewhat antithetical, one, headquar- ters, being a tightly coupled system, and the other, a network of customers, being a loosely coupled system. From an OD stand- point one works with these two systems very differently (see Burke, 2014).
At some level, the CEO of Uber, Travis Kalanick understands that drivers are independent. He and his colleagues at headquarters have hired hundreds of social and data scientists (see Trend #4) to entice drivers to work longer hours and have monetary targets for their work day. These enticements are, of course, based on corporate goals not those of the driv- ers, thus, commitment is problematical. The extensive article in the New York Times demonstrated quite dramatically this two- system conflict (Scheiber, 2017). Uber driv- ers, after all, are contractors not employees. However, they are not selected to join as contractors in any systematic way either, which has resulted in all sorts of problems (Church & Silzer, 2016). Instead, they are bound by stipulations within a contract, but otherwise they are independent, free to decide their own working hours and to some extent their geographical domain. They pay a price, literally, for this freedom, e.g., paying for their vehicle, maintenance and insurance costs, and the cost of fuel.
And the long-range future is not rosy. Kalanick and his executive colleagues are moving slowly but ever so deliberately toward driverless vehicles. In the mean- time, intergroup conflict will remain for the two systems.
The practice of OD for these platform organizations will need to be done with a true systems mindset. It will need to be accommodative in approach with an emphasis on common goals across the two systems. It will also need to adapt as well to different types of work contexts and con- structs. For example, imagine conducting a cultural or engagement audit of such a firm. Would you include the drivers as part of the survey effort? And if so, would you expect them to be able to answer the same types of questions as the primary organi- zation? Should they consider themselves as part of the organization or not? What if their engagement levels are lower—is that expected, is that acceptable? Similarly, how would performance management play out there? If you were focused on apply- ing a dialogic model of OD (e.g., Bushe & Marshak, 2009) how would you account for the lack of interaction between drivers in 1000s of disparate locations and the formal organization? Communications are executed in short bursts through hand- held devices. Clearly, for OD practitioners we must be more agile in our approach to working with organizations and change than ever before.
Trend #2: A Shift to Digital Over Mechanical The second major shift occurring in orga- nizations today is a focus on the digital over the mechanical (or the mechanistic) ways of doing business. As technology becomes increasingly integrated into our lives, the need for agility and speed in the way businesses respond to information demands that they adopt a digital mindset and set of processes. While the first step in this direction is often to create formal dedi- cated roles (e.g., a chief digital officer, an eCommerce group, a digital marketeering function, etc.), the bigger challenges lie in the need to transform the entire business end-to-end to reflect a truly digital focus. This means everything from integrating
digital technology across all of one’s exist- ing processes (e.g., people, culture, and structure) as well as building new capabili- ties and infrastructure which have never existed before in their business models. Unfortunately, this is far from easy and many traditional organizations are simply not ready to make the transition. Research conducted by MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte (Kane, et. al., 2016), for example, has indicated that while 90% of executives anticipate their industries will be disrupted by digital trends to a great or moderate extent, only 44% say their organi- zations are appropriately prepared for these challenges today.
One of the most intriguing aspects for us in watching this digital transformation occur (beyond the need for greater clarity in the construct definition itself ) is that it is again forcing organizations to think and operate at the systems level. While most of the authors currently writing about the challenges of going digital are not grounded in the OD space, they are in fact promoting the concept of systems thinking whether intentionally or not. In its most basic form we are simply talking about inputs, throughputs, and outputs as described in classic social psychological theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978). This is encour- aging to say the least. The biggest differ- ences that we see with the current focus, however, is in (1) the nature of those inputs (i.e. data of a completely different nature along with products and/or services), and (2) the speed and direction of that flow throughout the system.
In traditional mechanistic models of organizations, the process flow follows a more simplistic supply chain model. Raw materials enter the system, are transformed along the way into goods or services, and a product (material or knowledge) is deliv- ered. In the digital world data is generated about the data collected along with the process itself, and the feedback loops that occur at every stage along the way are at least as important if not more so than the output itself. They represent end-to-end systems and at higher velocities, depth, and reciprocity between organizational sub-systems than ever before. In other words, fully digital organizations are in the
17Four Trends Shaping the Future of Organizations and Organization Development
unique position of being able to generate, collect, synthesize, and process informa- tion real time that allows them to pivot and adjust their delivery models. This results in ultimate flexibility (or at least that is the goal most hope to achieve with a digital transformation). While feedback loops have always been a key component of process systems and double-loop learning has its roots in OD (Argyris, 1977), the digital focus has taken this thinking to the next level in organizations.
While the implications for organi- zations with more traditional business process models might be clear (e.g., they are facing an uphill battle and will need to retrofit their approaches and/or fun- damentally rethink their designs), what are the parallel implications for our OD efforts? First, we need to help leaders better understand the transition to the digital environment in the first place, and what that means for their organizations. In some cases this may simply be a process of edu- cation and training. In others, we may need to find ways to help our clients learn new knowledge, skills, and behaviors (e.g., how to accelerate the speed of decision mak- ing, how to capitalize on information –see Trend #3). Still in others it might require assessing for fit and changing out the leaders themselves to make way for more enlightened talent (see Trend #4).
Second, it is critical that the different components of the organization are aligned to support the digital transformation. As with any large-scale OD intervention (and the shift from traditional/mechanistic to digital is arguably just another type of cultural change), the degree of alignment and congruence between the different elements of the organizational system need to be managed. The mission-vision, structure, systems and process, leadership and managerial behaviors, cultural messag- ing, climate, and employee value proposi- tions must all appropriately align (Burke & Litwin, 1992). If an organization is moving toward a digital mindset and yet the lead- ers do not embrace technology or the use of data for decision-making, for example, there will be little belief on the part of employees that the transformation is real or supported. This is simply OD 101.
Third, we believe that OD practitio- ners must understand and embrace the concept of “mass customization” (Golay & Church, 2013) as it relates to our interven- tion sets. Mass customization in OD is all about giving employees choices within a given set of boundaries. Given the fluid- ity of the processes needed to support and sustain a digital organization, the OD tools and offerings that are put in place must be able to flex to the needs of individuals and their contexts. For example, and build- ing on earlier implications from Trend #1, employees are expecting there to be choices in how their performance is man- aged, the ways in which they can receive developmental feedback and learning, where and how they work with others, the mechanisms for giving feedback to their managers or offering their opinions and suggestions regarding the organization as a whole, how jobs are defined, identified, and filled, etc. We as OD practitioners need to move away from being too systematic and standardized in our approach to some of these elements of organizational function- ing. In information systems terms, we need to understand the difference between customization and configuration. Not every OD intervention or process needs to follow its own unique path, nor do we want all of them to follow the same exact path. The answer is somewhere in-between but we need to determine where that is. In small companies this has never been an issue, but in larger ones we have our work cut out for us as organizations constantly seek to standardize in the spirit of efficiency and effectiveness.
Finally, as with the first trend noted above, we as OD practitioners need to continue to embrace systems thinking. We also need to embrace technology. This means building new capabilities and skills in the digital marketplace by translating our traditional interventions where pos- sible into this new medium. While neither of these should be hard, our most recent survey of OD practitioners (Shull, Church & Burke, 2014) suggests just the opposite. That is, survey responses from 388 active practitioners indicated that the value of systems thinking was ranked 13th overall (out of a possible list of 36) which was
much lower than we would have expected. Clearly there has been a shift in OD away from having a systems perspective, which is concerning. More troubling, however, are the findings around our ability to embrace technology. Specifically, the item “helping organizations integrate technology into the workplace” was ranked 40th and “the development of socio-technical systems” was ranked almost at the bottom of the list at 56 out of 63 possible interventions in use today. It would seem that OD is not particularly progressive in this area.
Some might review these data and argue this is not an issue, suggesting instead that OD is all about human process and social interaction. And they would be right. However, we would contend that OD is in some ways old school and living in the past from a “technology” and data point of view. As a field we need to think bigger. We need to build our skills and develop more agile processes and interventions that can influence a new generation of data and systems like never before. That is not to say we should lose sight of the human element. If anything, we may be the last bastion of people focused on it! Imagine the day when the digital transformation reaches the next stage of its evolution and robotics become the norm even in the professional workforce. OD needs to stand at the ready to support organizations, their leaders, and their people in this trans- formation. Yet, if we are not part of the solution we are part of the problem. It is on us to define and embrace “doing digital OD”—whatever that might mean.
Trend #3: A Shift to Insights over Data The third major shift concerns the use of data. As might be expected from the dis- cussion above these new types of organi- zational forms (e.g., digital platforms) are producing volumes of data. While the use of data is nothing new in organizations, the expectations for how data is harnessed and used is changing dramatically. More specifically, and as alluded to earlier, the collection and processing of this informa- tion alone is not enough. In today’s busi- ness landscape organizations are focusing increasingly on generating insights from
OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 49 No. 3 201718
that data. Insights that will inform business decisions, drive specific actions, and help set future business directions. In fact, the combination of the digital transformation and the need to generate insights from the massive amounts of data being generated comes together in the Big Data phenomena (Church & Dutta, 2013; Guzzo, et al., 2015). This is where the science of analytics meets business strategy, statistical modeling, and workforce planning. It is no wonder then that organizations are also hiring chief data scientists (along with chief digital officers).
The reasons for why businesses might want to link various sources of informa- tion and identify potential relationships is clear (and again is not entirely new). What is new is the sheer volume, variety, veracity, and velocity of the data available to mine, and the resulting technology infrastructure and capabilities required to appropriately model and leverage it into meaningful insights.
As for OD practitioners and their data analytic capabilities, we have raised the red flag on this gap in skills before (Church & Dutta, 2013; Church, Shull, & Burke, 2016). There is a critical need on the part of current practitioners to be able to ana- lyze large sets of data, find the relevant and actionable insights, and weave them into a compelling story for the organization. Today this is simply not likely to be the case with your average ODer. While OD has his- torically been grounded in action-research and data-driven methods (e.g., Burke, 1994; Nadler, 1977; Waclawski & Church, 2002), and one could argue that qualitative or quantitative data is at the core of 50% or more of the classic OD consulting model (Church, 2017), the fundamental signifi- cance of the role of data has changed.
There is pressure from clients not only on demonstrating the ROI of our existing
efforts in OD, but also to integrate and synthesize disparate data sources to find new solutions based on connections we never even thought would exist. Is much of the “values-free analytics” work done a-theoretically? The answer is yes. Just because a relationship is identified statisti- cally does not always mean it makes sense or is the right thing to do philosophically for an organization’s culture or its employ- ees (Church, 2017). Is the lack of attention to theoretical models, frameworks, and cul- tural contexts stopping organizations from
turning to people with deep analytical skills to determine the solutions to their prob- lems vs. relying on others (e.g., OD) who might have a more informed point of view? The answer is no, it is not stopping them one bit. After all they are data scientists and we are OD people. We have got to fix this.
If you have not already experienced this issue, you probably soon will. We are hearing about OD (and other) profession- als finding themselves competing with practitioners from other disciplines such as economics, finance, information technol- ogy, and statistics where their skills at deep analytics and modeling are significantly better. Even Industrial-Organizational psychologists, who generally have a more reliably consistent level of analytic capabil- ity are having their qualifications come under-fire when it comes to Big Data appli- cations (Church & Rotolo, 2015; Guzzo, et al., 2015).
We believe many practitioners today are woefully ill-equipped to remain cur- rent in the Big Data digital world. This is an area we believe OD professionals need to step-up their game now, as well as ensure professional doctoral and masters programs in the field lay the appropriate groundwork for future entrants before it is too late. If we do not act soon, other
professional groups will soon eclipse us as the key providers of insights regarding how organizations operate and what levers to pull to drive change. We are losing our seat at the table in this regard when in fact we have more context and knowledge about what should make organizations work than most others. Remember, in our study of current OD practitioners only 29% cited using statistics and research methods in their toolkits. As we have stated elsewhere, while this can still be done in the context of new OD philosophical approaches to collaborative and adaptive consulting efforts (e.g., Bushe & Marshak, 2009), the analysis and insights skills them- selves today are lacking.
Trend #4: A Shift to Talent over Employees The fourth and final shift we see in orga- nizations today is one that is perhaps even more controversial than the last, i.e. the emphasis on talent over employees. This trend sits front and center of the HR and OD agenda so the implications for organi- zations and the practice of OD are imme- diately relevant. Here we are talking about the philosophical distinction first made by Church (2013; 2014) between the area of talent management (i.e. a disproportion- ate focus on the few) and OD (a concerted focus on the many). We all would agree that OD has deep roots in the develop- ment and growth of individuals, groups, and organizations. Following the “original” war for talent (Michaels, et al., 2001) pre- cipitated by the dot.com boom, and more recently the emphasis placed on changing demographic trends in the workforce as well as multi-generational workplaces and how to navigate those, (e.g., Deal & Levin- son, 2016; Zemke, et al., 2000; 2013) we are now firmly in what we might whimsi- cally call a “war for talent management.”
The emphasis has indeed shifted in many companies (and particularly those with large established TM functions—see Church, Rotolo, Ginther & Levine, 2015) from creating a development culture in general to focusing on methods for facili- tating talent differentiation and segmenta- tion. In short, this means directing funds and resources to the identification and
We believe many practitioners today are woefully ill-equipped to remain current in the Big Data digital world. This is an area we believe OD professionals need to step-up their game now, as well as ensure professional doctoral and masters programs in the field lay the appropriate groundwork for future entrants before it is too late.
19Four Trends Shaping the Future of Organizations and Organization Development
classification of people into high-potential and non-high-potential categories for deci- sion-making. This is done to ensure that limited resources are applied to the right groups in the leadership pipeline (Silzer & Church, 2010). As a result, the data-driven OD interventions and processes we used to use for developmental interventions (e.g., 360 feedback, surveys, interviews, personality measures—Waclawski & Church, 2002) are now being deployed more consistently for assessment and decision-making.
Not only does this emphasis put more pressure on OD people to be technically adept at using these types of tools given there is now more weight associated with their application, but it also challenges the core assumptions of many practitio- ners. Some may simply refuse to engage in efforts of any nature that will result in the segmenting of talent into the haves and the have nots. On top of this many organizations are shifting away from OD altogether. Recent survey data (Church & Levine, 2017) from 71 large well-known companies on their functional reporting structures noted that 71% of their formal OD groups, and 68% of their culture and engagement survey teams now officially report into the Talent Management function. By comparison only 49% of the diversity teams and 12% of the total rewards (compensation and benefits) report into TM. This suggests a poten- tial challenge when it comes to aligning resources over time and where tradeoffs need to be made. From our perspective, OD practitioners need to fully understand the ways in which our core tools can and cannot be used and what conditions are needed to build effective legally defensible decision-making (TM) vs development only (OD) processes.
Sure, OD people can choose not to work in such environments. They can boycott organizations that are emphasizing TM. But that seems like throwing out the baby with the bathwater to us. If not us, the work will get done by someone in HR, and by engaging in the efforts we remain key players in ensuring it is done well and people are treated with dignity. It is up to OD professionals to ensure that our values
are manifested in how data-driven tools and processes are used for development or decision-making outcomes. That means that we are on point to ensure people are treated fairly, the process is clearly com- municated, and when differentiation does occur there is transparency and account- ability for the how and the why. And we can ensure that leaders are held accountable for their actions as well.
Back in the 1990s, had we been asked to design a 360-feedback system to be used to segment talent and make decisions about who would and who would not be promoted we might have said no. In fact, we did say no at least once to something quite similar. Today, however, times have changed. The process of 360 is no lon- ger a fad but has proven to be stable as a measurement tool when done well and quite ubiquitous. Organizations are using 360 now for decision-making in a variety of ways whether that is for performance management (Bracken & Church, 2013) or talent management and the identification of high-potentials (Church & Rotolo, 2013). If the right procedures are followed in the design and execution of the process it can be done well for the benefit of the organiza- tion and the employees. After all, millenni- als love feedback and want to know if they are likely to have a successful career or not in their current company—transparency works for them (Church & Rotolo, 2016). From our vantage point, the keys to ensur- ing this type of work always aligns with OD principles are making sure: (a) feedback is always delivered to participants in some meaningful and supportive form, (b) what is measured is psychometrically valid and appropriate if used for decision-making, (c) people use the data in the right ways and at the right times, and (d) the process is clearly communicated and transparent to those involved.
Conclusion
In summary, when we look to the future of organizations and the role that OD practitioners can and should play in them we see the potential for real progress. As organizational forms continue to morph into platforms and other virtual structures,
and the business processes themselves become entirely digital in their end-to- end designs, the opportunity for OD to make an impact is very tangible. Given our grounding in the social sciences and systems thinking we should be one of the best groups of professionals to help lead- ers think through the implications of these changes on the culture, people, processes, structure, behaviors required and other ele- ments of the entire organizational system. While there is room to grow when it comes to OD professionals embracing technology in the digital age, as long as we do not lose sight of our higher-level systems thinking skills, there is real value to be offered from the OD perspective. This discussion does make us wonder though if it is time for a return to the socio-technical model.
Our concerns for the future of OD, and perhaps organizations as well by impli- cation, is what happens when the data anal- ysis and insights requirements outstrip our ability to even be part of the discussion. As leaders look to data-scientists for insights, actions, and interventions we need to be at the table and questioning the way the sta- tistics were run, whether certain contextual variables were considered, what research methods and controls were examined, etc. Our backgrounds as social scientists puts us at an advantage for understanding the true dynamics of social systems yet our potential impact on the actions taken is diminishing. It is time to enhance our skill set in these areas and direct our academic and professional programs to focus on this as well. If we do not ensure our students have these capabilities they will be rel- egated to focusing only on the areas where data does not have an impact. If we follow the breadcrumbs above between platform organizations where people are loosely con- nected and digital networks and robotics become the norm, these changes will mean our opportunities to influence will only continue to decrease.
Finally, although the core of OD is all about development, the field is being subsumed under the TM function in many big organizations, and our processes and tools are being used in other ways. Rather than look the other way or run from these issues we should learn the skills needed
OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 49 No. 3 201720
to embrace them. Specifically, who better to design a new leadership competency assessment and help the organization identify and select the best future leader to develop than an OD person? Who better to coach other talented leaders that were not selected for a given role because of their strengths, opportunities, and skill gaps, if not an OD professional? We should be the people managing both sides of the TM and OD equation. That way we know for sure it is being done with the right perspective in mind.
References
Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (Eds.) (2016). The Oxford handbook of work and family (pp. 455–464). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115–125.
Beasley, K. (2013). Should employees access social media at work? Business2Community.com. Retrieved from http://www. business2community.com/social-media/ employees-access-social-media-work- 0639919#Egu8D1FjdUW2SEBf.97
Bersin, J. (2012). Big Data in HR: Building a competitive talent analytics function— The four stages of maturity. Bersin & Associates Research Report.
Boudreau, J. W., Jesuthasan, R., & Creelman, D. (2015). Lead the work: Navigating a world beyond employment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Bracken, D. W., & Church, A. H. (2013). The “New” performance management paradigm: Capitalizing on the unreal- ized potential of 360-degree feedback. People & Strategy Journal, 36, 34–40
Bradford, D. L., & Burke, W. W. (2004). Introduction: Is OD in crisis? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(4), 369–373.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Har- vard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.
Burke, W. W. (1976). Organization develop- ment in transition. Journal of Applied Behavior Science, 12(1), 22–43.
Burke, W. W. (1982). Organization develop- ment: Principles and practices. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
Burke W. W. (1997). The new agenda for organization development. Organiza- tional Dynamics, 26(1), 6–20.
Burke, W. W. (2011a). Organization change: Theory and practice (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burke, W. W. (2011b). A perspective on the field of organization development: The Zeigarnik effect. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(2), 143–167.
Burke, W.W. (2014a). Changing loosely coupled systems. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(4), 423–444.
Burke, W. W. (2014b). On the state of the field: OD in 2014. OD Practitioner, 46(4), 8–11.
Burke, W. W. (2017). Those other organiza- tions. OD Practitioner, 49(2), 10–16.
Burke, W. W., & Church, A. H. (1992). Managing change, leadership style, and intolerance to ambiguity: A survey of organization development practitioners. Human Resource Management, 31(4), 301–318.
Burke, W. W., Church, A. H., & Waclawski, J. (1993). What do OD practitioners know about managing change? Leader- ship and Organization Development Journal, 14(6), 3–11.
Burke, W. W., & Goodstein, L. D. (1980). Organization development today: A retrospective applied to the present and the future. In W. W. Burke & L. D. Goodstein (Eds.), Trends and issues in Organization Development (pp. 3–15). San Diego: University Associates.
Burke, W. W., & Noumair, D. A. (2002), The role of personality assessment in organization development. In J. Waclawski & A.H. Church (Eds.), Organization development: A data-driven approach to organizational change (pp. 55–77). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Burnes, B., & Cooke, B. (2012). The past, present and future of organization development: Taking the long view. Human Relations, 65(11), 1–35.
Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992), A causal model of organizational perfor- mance and change. Journal of Manage- ment, 18(3), 523–545.
Bushe, G. R., & Marshak, R. J. (2009). Revisioning organization development: Diagnostic and dialogic premises and patterns of practice. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(3), 348–368.
Church, A. H. (2001). The professionaliza- tion of organization development: The next step in an evolving field. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (V. 13, pp. 1–42). Green- wich, CT: JAI Press.
Church A. H. (2013). Engagement is in the eye of the beholder: Understanding dif- ferences in the OD vs. Talent Manage- ment mindset. OD Practitioner, 45(2), 42–48.
Church, A. H., (2014). What do we know about developing leadership potential? The role of OD in strategic talent man- agement. OD Practitioner, 46(3), 52–61
Church, A. H., & Burke, W. W. (1993). Exploring practitioner differences in consulting style and knowledge of change management by professional association membership. Consult- ing Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 45(3), 7–24.
Church, A. H., & Dutta, S. (2013). The promise of big data for OD: Old wine in new bottles or the next generation of data-driven methods for change? OD Practitioner, 45(4), 23–31.
Church, A. H., & Rotolo, C. T. (2013). How are top companies assessing their high- potentials and senior executives? A talent management benchmark study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 65(3), 199–223.
Church, A. H., & Rotolo, C. T. (2016). Lift- ing the veil: What happens when you are transparent with people about their future potential? People & Strategy, 39(4), 36–40.
Church, A. H., Shull, A. C., & Burke, W. W. (2016). The future of organiza- tion development, transformation, and change. In W. J. Rothwell, J. M. Stavros, R. L. Sullivan, & A. Sullivan (Eds.), Practicing organization develop- ment: A guide for leading change (4th ed., pp. 419–428). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
21Four Trends Shaping the Future of Organizations and Organization Development
Church, A. H., & Silzer, R. (2016). Are we on the same wavelength? Four steps for moving from talent signals to valid talent management applications. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 9(3), 645–654.
Deal, J. J., & Levenson, A. (2016). What millennials want from work. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Dragojlovic, K. (2016). Moore’s law and digital marketing. Retrieved from https:// www.linkedin.com/pulse/moores-law- digital-marketing-katja-dragojlovic
Ferdman, B. M. (1999). The color and culture of gender in organizations: Attending to race and ethnicity. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 17–34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Golay, L. M., & Church, A. H. (2013). Mass customization: The bane of OD or the cure to what ails it? Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 34(7), 661–679.
Gulati, R. (2009). Re-organize for resilience: Putting customers at the center of your business. Boston, MA: Harvard.
Guzzo, R. A., Fink, A. A., King, E., Toni- dandel, S., & Landis, R. S. (2015). Big data recommendations for industrial– organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Per- spectives on Science and Practice, 8(4), 491–508.
Kallas, P. (2017), Top 15 most popular social networking sites (and 10 Apps!). May 8, Retrieved from https://www. dreamgrow.com/top-15-most-popular- social-networking-sites/
Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A. N., Kiron, D., & Buckley, N. (2016). Digitally savvy executives are already aligning their people, processes, and culture to achieve their organizations’ long-term digital success. Retrieved from http://sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/ aligning-for-digital-future/
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Meister, J. C., & Willyerd, K. (2010). The 2020 workplace: How innovative companies attract, develop, and keep
tomorrow’s employees today. New York: HarperCollins.
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, McKinsey & Co
Porras, J. I., & Singh, J. (1983). Alpha, beta, and gamma change in modelling-based organization development. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 7(1), 9–24.
Rawlings, C., & Bencini, R. (2014). What Does Moore’s Law mean for the rest of society? Futurist, 48(4), 40–42.
Scheiber, N. (2017) How Uber pushes driv- ers’ buttons. New York Times, (April 3) pp.1, 14–16.
Shull, A. C., Church, A. H., & Burke, W. W. (2013). Attitudes about the field of Orga- nization Development 20 years later: The more things change, the more they stay the same. In A. B. Shani, W. A. Pasmore, R. W. Woodman, & D. A. Noumair (Eds.), Research in Organiza- tional Change and Development, (Vol. 21, pp. 1–28). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Shull, A. C., Church, A. H., & Burke, W. W. (2014). Something old, something new: Research findings on the practice and values of OD. OD Practitioner, 46(4), 23–30.
Silzer, R., & Church, A. H. (2010). Identify- ing and assessing high potential talent: Current organizational practices. In R. Silzer & B. E. Dowell (Eds.), Strategy- Driven talent management: A leadership imperative (pp. 213–279). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Twenge, J.M. (2010), A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 201–10.
Waclawski, J., & Church, A. H. (2002). (Eds.). Organization development: A data-driven approach to organizational change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Worley, C. G., Zardet, V., Bonnet, M., & Savall A., (2015). Becoming agile: How the SEAM approach to management builds adaptability. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Zemke, R., Raines, C. , & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at work: Managing the clash of boomers, gen xers, and gen
yers in the workplace. New York, NY: American Management Association.
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2013). Generations at work: Managing the clash of veterans, boomers, xers, and nexters in your workplace. New York, NY: American Management Association.
Allan H. Church, PhD, is Senior Vice President of Global Talent Assessment & Development at PepsiCo. Over the past 17 years he has held a variety of roles in orga- nization development and talent management in the company. Pre- viously he was with Warner Burke Associates for almost a decade, and before that at IBM. He is cur- rently on the Board of Directors of HRPS, the Conference Board’s Council of Talent Management, an Adjunct Professor at Columbia University, and Associate Editor of JABS. He has been a former Chair of the Mayflower Group. Church received his PhD in Organizational Psychology from Columbia Univer- sity, and is a Fellow of SIOP, APA and APS. He can be reached at [email protected].
W. Warner Burke, PhD, is the Edward Lee Thorndike Professor of Psychology and Education at Teachers College, Columbia Uni- versity where he has been since 1979. He has written or edited 20 books and authored well over 150 articles and book chapters. He has received many awards includ- ing the OD Network’s Lifetime Achievement Award and NASA’s Public Service Medal. He was the administrator of the ODN from 1966–1967 and executive direc- tor from 1968–1974. He helped to launch the OD Practitioner in 1968. He can be reached at wwb3@ columbia.edu.
OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 49 No. 3 201722
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.
