Glenn Varney Bowling Green State University

Chris Worley Pepperdine University

Arthur Darrow Bowling Green State University

Mitch Neubert Bowling Green State University

Steve Cady Bowling Green State University

Ozgur Guner Bowling Green State University
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Presented To:

ODC Division

Academy of Management

August 1999

Dr. Terry Armstrong University of West Florida

Mr. Feneydoon Azarhoosh Industrial Management Institute,Iran

Dr. Wayne Boss University of Colorado

Dr. Jack Brittain University of Texas, Dallas

Dr. Harry Bury Baldwin Wallace University

Dr. Gervase Bushe Simon Fraser University

Dr. Al Cooke American University

Dr. David Cooperrider Case Western Reserve Univeristy

Dr. Arthur Darrow Bowling Green State University

Dr. W. Gibb Dyer Jr. Brigham Young University

Dr. Arthur Freedman Quantum Associates/E.C. International

Dr. Ann Feyerherm Pepperdine University

Mr. Jose M. Gasalla Dapena Universidad Autonoma de Madrid

Dr. Robert Golembiewski University of Georgia

Ms. Ozgur Guner Bowling Green State University

Dr. Thomas Head Tennessee University

Dr. Maeve Houliman University College of Dublin

Dr. David Jamieson Pepperdine University

Ms. Laurel Jeris Benedictine University

Dr. Gwen Jones Simon Fraser University

Dr. Darl Kolb University of Auckland

Dr. Miriam Lacey Pepperdine University

Dr. James McFillen Bowling Green State University

Dr. Kurt Motamedi Pepperdine University

Dr. Robert Munzenrider Penn State Univeristy, Harrisburg

Dr. Kenneth Murrell Univeristy of West Florida

Dr. Joanne Preston Pepperdine University

Dr. Michael Sabiers Harvard University

Dr. Raymond Saner Center for Socio-Economic Development

Dr. Rene Schalk Tilburg University

Dr. Peter Sorensen Benedictine University

Dr. Timothy Stearns California State University

Mr. Stephen Treacy Benedictine University

Dr. Glenn Varney Bowling Green State University

Dr. James R. Warren University of Colorado

Dr. Donald Warrick University of Colorado

Dr. Carolyn Wiley Georgia State University

Dr. Chris Worley Pepperdine University

Dr. Lichia Yiu Center for Socio-Economic Development
 
 

I am looking for a graduate program in Organization Development, and I am totally confused. There seems to be no standard description of what knowledge and skills I need to learn to be able to call myself an OD professional. The programs I am investigating are different in their objectives, courses, and even in their definitions of Organization Development. How is a person to choose a program when they all seem to define the field in different ways?
 
 

This example illustrates the confusion potential graduate students face as they study the now 35+ proclaimed Master Degree programs in Organization Development and Change (OD&C). It is abundantly clear that most of our Masters programs are defined by the conceptual picture that the faculty and advisors have of what OD&C is and also what knowledge and skills must be developed to call oneself a competent OD&C professional. These differences stem from the historical nature of the field which says: do not define the field lest you loose the quality of easy entry and freedom of thought so highly valued by many OD&C practitioners.

With all do respect for those who support this notion, it does not fit the well-established definition of a professional discipline.

1) A Common Body of Knowledge

2) A graduate level education

3) Agreed upon conditions for entry into the field

To date we have only scratched the surface of these requirements. Graduate programs do indeed exist and new ones are being added on a regular basis due to demand and interest in the field. Also, many attempts have been made and continue to be made to create a certification process which has not been generally accepted as of this date. To our knowledge there has been no concerted effort to define a common body of knowledge for the field of organization development (OD) and change.

The purpose of this paper is to establish a clear standard for Master level education in OD&C. We request that these competency guidelines be approved by the ODC Division Board as reasonable criteria for curriculum development, student assessment, and other possible application related to a common body of OD&C knowledge and skills.

We propose these competencies as a solid foundation for further dialogue leading to generally accepted standards for entry into the field. Finally, we are seeking ways to innovatively introduce these competencies into the whole learning and development process from the day a person applies to a program until the day the person leaves the profession.

A recent and significant increase in the number of master level programs in organization development and change has brought confusion and complaints from potential students who are trying to select an OD&C graduate program. Despite growing research, colorful brochures, and an increasing number of OD departments in organizations, there is no clear statement about what OD is and is not and what constitutes a competent OD&C professional.

Mindful of this problem, a small group of OD&C division members met at the Vancouver Academy of Management meeting to discuss whether a common body of OD&C knowledge could guide the design of master level programs. This preliminary discussion led to a caucus meeting during the Cincinnati Conference. At this meeting, there was unanimous support to conduct a "search" meeting in Boston the following year. By the time the Boston meeting took place, the number of participants had grown to thirty-five. Twenty members participated intermittently for six hours at a pre-conference meeting the Friday before the conference. Again at the 1998 AOM conference a revised version of the now called "Guidelines for Entry Level Competencies to the Field of Organization Development and Change" was developed. A group of 15 to 20 members refined the description and discussed teaching methods that could apply to each competency. A proposal was made at the Business Meeting of the OD&C Division that the guidelines be published one last time in the OD&C newsletter Winter 1999 to elicit additional comments relevant to the content of the proposed guidelines. The results of this effort are contained in this document.

Not withstanding the lack of interest on the part of many members of OD&C, it is the strong belief that the "guidelines" cited here should be supported by the OD&C Division and should serve as guidelines for program designers, faculty development, student selection and employment, and a host of other applications.

OD&C as a professional discipline is maturing at an increasingly fast pace, and as such this discipline needs to address the professional issues that threatens its development from a field of interest to a professional discipline (Preston, 1993).

There are numerous articles and studies focused on identifying the competencies needed for entry into OD&C. An early paper (Adams and Callahan, late 1960s) addressed the competency issue from the perspective of what good practitioner skills are needed. The authors conceptualized that the development and training of OD consultants should follow the Action Research Model by concentrating on personal awareness of their current needs to function effectively such as dependence, defensiveness, acceptance, mutability, and etc. A second part of their framework looked at skills important to executing the OD consultation process including roles, role conflict, theory, and basic goals. They discussed qualifications related to intervention design, implementation of interventions, and the evaluation of the process.

One perspective (Warrick, 1976) employed a more results oriented approach to OD including a greater emphasis on skills needed to make structural and policy changes and less emphasis on clinical-counseling and/or sensitivity training.

The early search for identification of specific OD&C skills was reported in a paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting in 1994 (Head, Sorensen, Armstrong, and Preston, 1994). A partial text of their discussion follows:

Through an extensive literature review, Varney (1980) identified nineteen requisite skills grouped into three general categories. The first category of Self-Awareness and Personal Impact Awareness includes skills such as self-awareness, personality theory, and organizational theory. The second category, Conceptual, Analytical and Research skills involves, among others, theory building, theoretical mapping, concept model building, and data processing. Finally, skills such as Change Strategy Design, Intervention Design, and Teaching and Educative skills, make up the third category of organizational change and influence skills.

Another salient study by Shepard and Raia (1981) used a delphi approach, similar to the present study, to establish essential OD skills. Their panel identified 83 skills grouped into 10 categories: general consultation skills; intra-personal skills; organization behavior/ organization development knowledge and intervention skills; inter-personal skills; research/evaluation knowledge and research design skills; data collection and data analysis; presentation skills; experience as a line manager; major management knowledge areas; and collateral knowledge areas.

In the third study, Warrick and Donovan (1979) surveyed a variety of practicing consultants (including academics and nonacademics). The results of their study serve as a base for the current study. Warrick and Donovan identified forty skills, grouped into four categories. The first category, knowledge skills, includes topics in OD, OB, and General Business. Proposal writing, synthesizing data, and problem solving are among the 14 competencies that are grouped into consulting skills. The third category, conceptual, involves, five different skills including sound philosophical base, and systems view of organizations and environments. There are 14 competencies in the final category, human, consisting of abilities such as positive attitude, self-awareness, and sensitivity to organizational needs. Table one shows the complete list of 40 skills.

OD Skills: Importance and

Can They Be Acquired in Graduate Education

Skills Imp. Survey Panel

HUMAN

Integrity 4.92 no --

Helping Skills 4.71 yes yes

Sensitivity to Organization Needs 4.61 yes no

Genuine Caring for People 4.57 no --

Positive Self Attitude 4.43 no --

Willingness To Take Risks 4.42 no --

Good Sense of Humor 4.27 no --

Persuasiveness 4.20 no --

Self-Awareness 4.18 yes yes Leveling and Confronting Skills 4.12 yes yes Good Rational/Emotional Balance 4.04 no --

Self-Discipline 3.96 yes yes Handle Stress and Frustration 3.96 no --

Model and Practice Healthy Behavior 3.57 yes no

CONCEPTUAL

Sound Philosophical Base 4.69 yes no

Systems Perspective 4.64 yes yes Ability to Innovate 4.31 no --

Understand and Communicate Theory/Model 4.10 yes yes Manage Long-range Programs 4.07 no --

KNOWLEDGE

Organization Behavior 4.55 yes yes

Organization Development 4.5 yes yes

Behavioral Sciences 4.17 yes yes

Management 3.97 yes no

OD Current Developments 3.71 yes yes

Training Technology 3.31 yes yes

General Business 3.24 yes no

CONSULTING

Identify and Respond to Real Needs 4.55 no --

Problem Solving 4.52 yes no

Ability to Quickly Adapt 4.38 no --

Diagnosing Organizations 4.29 yes yes Ability to Establish Client Trust 4.21 no --

Team Building 4.05 yes yes

Process Consultation 4.03 yes no

Synthesizing Data 3.95 yes yes

Conflict Resolution 3.72 no --

Training and Development 3.72 yes yes

Ability to Retain Lasting Results 3.52 no --

Report Writing 3.38 yes yes

Marketing Programs and Ideas 3.07 yes yes

Proposal Writing 2.98 yes yes

Several researchers have directed attention to specific factors such as personality, behaviors, and skills that predict a practitioner’s effectiveness. Hamilton (1988) defined these categories of characteristics as openness, responsiveness, tolerance for ambiguity, and comfort with oneself in relation to others. Behavioral event interviews were conducted in another study (Eubank, O’Driscoll, Hagward, and Daniels, 1990) to determine consultant behavior judged to be effective and ineffective during organizational interventions. This study resulted in a description of general dimensions of competency and important behavior classes. The authors noted that this was the first phase of a research project designed to develop a behavioral model of consultant competency. Neilson (1984) proposed that to become an OD practitioner, one must develop four basic skill areas: Conceptual, Interpersonal, Technical, and Integrative skills. He believes that mastery of these skills will allow one to be "innovative" in meeting a client’s particular needs.

Other studies investigated preferred models of influence. OD knowledge is related to research design and continuing importance of skills such as listening, organization diagnosis, open systems, process consultation, and technology-based business skills (Church, Waclowski, and Buche, 1966; White and Mitchell, 1976; and McDermott, 1984).

The conclusion drawn from the literature review seems to emphasize the interest along with continuing struggle to define the field and more importantly the knowledge and skills an OD&C practitioner should have to practice the discipline.

Most studies reviewed extracted their conclusions from interviews with practitioners. Until now, there has been little knowledge of how those teaching OD&C in graduate programs feel about the knowledge and skills they believe a practitioner and/or student should acquire.

The guidelines presented in this paper were derived from four years of extensive investigation by those who teach OD&C. There is a consensus of those who contributed to this project (see page 2) that the knowledge and skills represented here can and should serve as Competency Guidelines for Entry Level into the discipline of Organization Development and Change.

It is our hope that persons desiring to become a professional in OD&C will see their route of entry though a Masters level program. For others, already practitioners in the field, the competency guidelines can serve as "remedial" or as standards for updating their knowledge and skills.

The guidelines can best be understood by visualizing the educational process using an input/output system model.

Foundation Knowledge OD&C Core OD&C Competence

Skills Skills

Our vision for those persons wishing to study and develop in the field is that they possess certain foundational competencies. These competencies should serve as the introduction building blocks upon which OD&C competencies are developed. We believe that successful learning and application of core OD&C knowledge and skills can not be achieved without a basic level of foundational competency to start with. (e.g. research methods as applied to organizational diagnosis.)

Finally, it is our belief that Master level degrees in OD&C granted by any institution should in effect certify a specific level of competency both in foundational as well as OD&C knowledge and skills.

The foundation and core OD&C competencies are cited here with minor revisions as they were presented in the Winter 1999 edition of the OD&C Newsletter. You will also find in Appendix I the same list supported by references to literature for both the foundational and core competencies.

The competencies we have identified include the following:

1. organization behavior

a) organization culture

b) work design

c) interpersonal relations (giving and

receiving feedback)

d) power and politics

e) leadership

f) goal setting

g) conflict

h) ethics

2. individual behavior (psychology)

a) learning theory

b) motivation theory

c) perception theory

3. group dynamics

a) roles

b) communication processes

c) decision making processes

d) stages of group development

e) leadership

4. management and organization theory

a) planning, organizing, leading, and controlling

b) problem solving, decision making

c) systems theory

d) contingency theory

e) organization structure

f) characteristics of environment and technology

g) models of organization and systems effectiveness

5. research methods/statistics

a) measures of central tendency

b) measures of dispersion

c) basic sampling theory

d) basic experimental designs (case study, post-test

only control group, etc.)

e) sample inferential statistics

6. comparative cultural perspectives

a) dimensions of national culture

b) dimensions of industry culture

(public, private, ...)

c) systems implications

7. Functional knowledge of Business and Management

principles and practice.

1. interpersonal communication: listen, feedback,

articulate

2. collaboration/working together

3. problem solving

4. using new technology

5. conceptualizing

6. project management

7. present/education/coach

1. Organization Design: The decision processes associated with formulating and aligning the elements of an organizational system, including, but not limited to structural systems, human resource systems, information systems, reward systems, work design, political systems, and organization culture.

a) The concept of fit and alignment.

b) Diagnostic and design model for the various subsystems that comprise an organization at any level of analysis, including structure work, human resources, info systems, reward systems, and so on.

c) Key thought leaders in organization design.

2. Organization Research: Field research methods, interviewing, content analysis, questionnaire and interview protocol design, designing change evaluation processes, longitudinal data collection and analysis, understanding and detection of alpha, beta, and gamma change along host with a of quantitative and qualitative methods.

3. System Dynamics: The description and understanding of how systems evolve and develop over time. The understanding of how systems respond to exogenous and endogenous disruption as well as planned interventions (e.g. evolution and revolution, punctuated equilibrium theory, chaos theory, catastrophe theory, incremental vs. quantum change, transformation theory, and so on.)

4. History of OD&C: An understanding of social, political, economic, and personal forces that lead to the emergence and development of OD&C, including the key thought leaders, the values underlying their writings and actions, the key events and writings, and related documentation.

a) human relations movement

b) NTL/T groups/sensitivity training

c) survey research

d) quality of worklife

e) Tavistock Institute

f) key thought leaders

g) humanistic values

h) statement of ethics

5. Theories and Models for Change: Basic action research model, participatory action research, the planning model, change typologies (fast, slow, incremental, quantum, revolutionary etc.) Lewin’s model, transition models, and so on.

1. Managing the Consulting Process: The ability to enter, contract, diagnose, design appropriate interventions, implement those interventions, manage unprogrammed events, and evaluate a change process.

2. Analysis/Diagnosis: The ability to conduct an inquiry into a system’s effectiveness the ability to see the root cause(s) of a system’s current level of effectiveness. The core skill is interpreted to include all systems, individual, group, organization, and multi-organization, as well as the ability to understand and inquire into one’s self.

3. Designing/Choosing Appropriate/Relevant Interventions: Understanding how to select, modify, or design interventions that will effectively move the organization from its current state to its desired future state.

4. Facilitation and Process Consultation: The ability to assist an individual or group toward a goal. The ability to conduct an inquiry into individual and group processes such that the client system maintains ownership of the issue, increases their capacity for reflection on the consequences of their behaviors and actions, and develops a sense of increased control and ability.

5. Developing Client Capability: The ability to conduct a change process in such a way that the client is more able to plan and implement a successful change process in the future, utilizing technologies of planned change in a values-based and ethical manner.

6. Evaluating Organization Change: The ability to design and implement a process to evaluate the

impact and affects of change intervention, including control of alternative explanations and interpretation of performance outcome
 
 
 
 

There are many practical uses for the guidelines including curriculum design, student assessment, program evaluation, student selection, and program promotion to name a few.

In our initial discussion, debate was stimulated by the issue of the growing number of new programs. This prompted a review of the curriculum content in a group of both the older and newer programs. The result of this review was the conclusion that master level programs in OD&C are strikingly different in how OD&C competencies are defined. For example, programs founded in business schools usually had quantitative and business requirements. Programs founded in College of Education emphasized training and learning. Some programs were based in Psychology Departments and as such often focused on clinical and social psychology. Some of the early programs, because of the influence of NTL and sensitivity training, have strong human growth components in their curriculum.

What appears to be the case is that there are significant differences in core OD&C competencies being taught from one program to another. This is not to imply that programs with a particular bent do not address or apply some or all of the guidelines. To the original point made at the beginning of this paper; ask the question: how can graduate programs certify that their graduates are, in fact, competent in the OD&C knowledge and skills when there is no clearly defined and accepted definition of what constitutes competency in the discipline of OD&C?

Lack of clear competency criteria puts both the student and employer at a great disadvantage. The student does not know if he/she is competent in OD&C. The employer, seeking an OD&C professional, does not know how to define OD&C nor do they know what to look for in a competent OD&C professional.

Perhaps an even more prevailing reason to use the guidelines is what it offers students and faculty in assessing student OD&C knowledge and skills. It can be used as a baseline assessment at the start of the program and several times during the program, and also at the end for evaluation process. Bowling Green State University’s Master in Organization Development Program has experimented with a pre and post assessment. Appendix II shows the self assessment form used by a group of Executive Master in OD students at the end of their first course, as well as, a summary of the self ratings for the thirteen students. This self-assessment form will be administered several times during the 2 1/2 years of the program and also at the conclusion of the program. As such, the assessment outlines for the student the Common Body of Knowledge that they will need to master to reach entry level competency. An important point to make is that it is unlikely that any program will be able to build into their curriculum all of the competencies, thus placing the responsibility on the student to acquire knowledge and skills from other resources. Assessment of the competency levels provides students with learning goals as well as a measurement of their progress towards their goals. The results can also highlight gaps and deficiencies in the structure of the program as well as faculty development opportunities.

All in all there are many advantages to adopting the guidelines for Entry Level into OD&C:

1.  
   1. Help to further define OD&C as a professional discipline.
   2. Provide potential students with criteria that can be used to compare programs and make selections that will truly lead to a degree that certifies an acceptable level of OD&C Competency.
   3. Serve as criteria for OD&C curriculum design and redesign.
   4. Assist students in setting learning goals for development of OD&C competencies.
   5. Assist students’ progress towards completing their goals.
   6. Provide program evaluation criteria.
   7. Assist in faculty selection and development.
   8. Provide employers with OD&C selection criteria.
   9. Assist in the promotion of a program.

      
      As previously stated, the purpose of this paper is to gain acceptance of the competency guidelines as a starting point for design of educational criteria for Master Level OD&C programs. As such, this opens up many application opportunities beneficial to OD&C programs, students, and employers. Probably the most significant benefit will be to nudge OD&C even closer to being 3recognized as a professional discipline.

      These guidelines and especially the proposed pre and post testing of students may force the OD programs to deliver more content. OD programs (at least in my experience) use the "process-based" nature of OD as an excuse to not focus on content. Thus, they produce graduates that are "half-literate" in OD and this in turn, hurts the field and its professionalization effort. I personally hope the acceptance of these guidelines force the programs to focus more on content.

       

      Ozgur Guner

      July 27, 1999

       

      "Lack of a clear competency criteria puts both the students and employer at a great disadvantage. The student does not know if he/she is competent in OD&C. The employer, seeking an OD&C professional, does not know how to define OD&C nor do they know what to look for in a competent OD&C professional."

       

      Chris Worley

      July 29, 1999

       

      REFERENCES

      Adams, J.D., & Callahan, D.M. (Late 1960s). Self Assessment in OD Consultation. Casual Paper 1.4.8.12.

      Church, A.H., Wadowski, J. & Burke, W.W. (1996). OD Practitioner as Facilitators of Change. Group and Organizational Management, 21 (1), 22-66.

      Eubanks, J.L., O’Driscoll, M.C., Hagward, G.B., & Daniels, J.A. et al. (1990). Behavioral competency required for Organization Development consultants. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 11 (1), 77-97.

      Hamilton, E.E. (1988). The Fautation of organizational change; an empirical study of actors predicting change agent effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24 (1), 37-50.

      Head, T.C., Sorensen, P.F., Armstrong, T., & Preston, J.C. (1994). The Tale of Graduate Education in Becoming a Competent Organization Development Professional. Organizational Development and Change Division. Academy of Management Conference Proceedings, 3-4.

      McDermott, L.C. (1984). The Many Faces of the OD Professional. Training and Development Journal, 38 (2) , 14-19.

      Neilson, E.H. (1984). Organizational Change. Englewood, NJ. Prentice-Hall Inc. The skills of the OD practitioner secondary reference cited in Head et al.,79-89.

      Partin, J.J. (1973). Current Perspective in Organization Development. Change agent skills and knowledge Reading, MA: Address-Wesley, 20-24.

      Preston, J.C. (1993). SWOT on the 25th Anniversary Issue. Organization Development Journal, 11, 98-99.

      Shepard, K., & Raia, A. (1981). The OD training challenge. Training and Development Journal, 77, 30-33.

      Spehn, M.R. (1985) The Search for Consultant Competencies Chapter 32, Contemporary organization development. Warrich, D.D. ASTD.

      Varney, G. (1980). Developing OD competencies. Training and Development Journal,77, 30-33.

      Warrick, D.D. (1976). The Changing Role of OD practitioners: Considering the past, present, and future development. Training and Development Journal, 30 (3), 36-39.

      Warrick, D.D., & Donovan M. (1979). Surveying Organization Development Skills. Training and Development Journal, 33 (9), 22-25.

      White, S.E., & Mitchell, T.R. (1976). Organization Development--A Revision of Research Content and Research Design. Academy Of Management Review, 1 (2), 57-73.
       
       
       
       
       
       

       Guidelines

      for

      Entry Level Competencies to OD&C

      
       
       

      The following guidelines for entry level competencies to OD&C was presented to the OD&C Division Board on August 11, 1998 in San Diego. It was agreed that we would present the guidelines to the OD&C AOM members and other constituencies (e.g., ODN and ODI) for application feedback and examples. We further agreed to summarize the results of this inquiry and then hold a meeting of OD&C program directors to discuss application and acceptance of these guidelines. During this meeting we would establish a standing committee to further develop application of the guidelines. The final step will be to formalize the guidelines and standing committee at the OD&C business meeting of AOM in August 1999.

      Please note your own level of competency for each of the following scale by circling the appropriate number.
       
       

      Scale

      LL ML HL

      1 2 3 4 5

      ---

       

      Ways to Instill Competency

      I. Foundation Knowledge & Skills

      A. Foundation Knowledge

      1. organization behavior 1 2 3 4 5

      a) organization culture 1 2 3 4 5

      b) work design 1 2 3 4 5

   10. interpersonal relations 1 2 3 4 5

       
       (giving and receiving feedback

       d) power and polities 1 2 3 4 5

       e) leadership 1 2 3 4 5

       f) goal setting 1 2 3 4 5

       g) conflict 1 2 3 4 5

       h) ethics 1 2 3 4 5

       2. individual behavior (psychology)

       a) learning theory 1 2 3 4 5

       LL ML HL

       1 2 3 4 5

       ---

        

       b) motivation theory 1 2 3 4 5

       c) perception theory 1 2 3 4 5

       3. group dynamics

       a) roles 1 2 3 4 5

       b) communication processes 1 2 3 4 5

       c) decision making processes 1 2 3 4 5

       d) stages of group development 1 2 3 4 5

       e) leadership 1 2 3 4 5

       4. management and organization theory

       a) planning, organizing, leading, and controlling 1 2 3 4 5

       b) problem solving, decision making 1 2 3 4 5

       c) systems theory 1 2 3 4 5

       d) contingency theory 1 2 3 4 5

       e) organization structure 1 2 3 4 5

       f) characteristics of environment and technology 1 2 3 4 5

       g) models of organization and systems effectiveness 1 2 3 4 5

       5. research methods/statistics

       a) measures of central tendency 1 2 3 4 5

       b) measures of dispersion 1 2 3 4 5

       c) basic sampling theory 1 2 3 4 5

   11. basic experimental designs (case study, post-test 1 2 3 4 5

control group, etc.)

e) sample inferential statistics 1 2 3 4 5

6. comparative cultural perspectives

a) dimensions of national culture 1 2 3 4 5

LL ML HL

1 2 3 4 5

b) dimensions of industry culture (public, private, . . ) 1 2 3 4 5

c) systems implications 1 2 3 4 5

1.  
   1. Functional knowledge of Business and 1 2 3 4 5

Management principles and practice.

B. Foundation Skills

1.  
   1. interpersonal communication: 1 2 3 4 5

listen, feedback, articulate

2. collaboration/working together 1 2 3 4 5

3. problem solving 1 2 3 4 5

4. using new technology 1 2 3 4 5

5. conceptualizing 1 2 3 4 5

6. project management 1 2 3 4 5

7. present/education/coach 1 2 3 4 5

II. Core Knowledge & Skills

A. Core Knowledge

The core knowledge of OD includes

advanced theories, concepts, and frameworks

that are directly related to the art and science

of organization development and change.

Mastery of each assumes that the student

possess the foundation skills and knowledge

listed in above.

1. Organization Design

The decision processes associated with

formulating and aligning the elements of an

organizational system, including, but not limited

to structural systems, human resource systems,

information systems, reward systems, work design,

political systems, and organization culture. 1 2 3 4 5

a) The concept of fit and alignment. 1 2 3 4 5
 
 

LL ML HL

1 2 3 4 5

1.  
   1. Diagnostic and design model for the various

subsystems that comprise an organization at any

level of analysis, including structure work,

human resources, info systems, reward systems,

and so on. 1 2 3 4 5

c) Key thought leaders in organization design 1 2 3 4 5

2. Organization Research

Field research methods, interviewing, content,

analysis, questionnaire and interview protocol design,

designing change evaluation processes, longitudinal

data collection and analysis, understanding and

detection of alpha, beta, and gamma change along

with a host of quantitative and qualitative methods. 1 2 3 4 5

3. System Dynamics

The description and understanding of how systems

evolve and develop over time. The understanding of

how systems respond to exogenous and endogenous

disruption as well as planned interventions (e.g.,

evolution and revolution, punctuated equilibrium

theory, chaos theory, catastrophe theory, incremental

vs. quantum change, transformation theory,

and so on). 1 2 3 4 5

4. History of OD&C

An understanding of the social, political, economic,

and personal forces that lead to the emergence and

development of OD&C, including the key thought

leaders, the values underlying their writings and

actions, the key events and writings, and related

documentation. 1 2 3 4 5

a) human relations movement 1 2 3 4 5

b) NTL/T groups/sensitivity training 1 2 3 4 5

c) survey research 1 2 3 4 5

d) quality of worklife 1 2 3 4 5

e) Tavistock institute 1 2 3 4 5

f) key thought leaders 1 2 3 4 5

g) humanistic values 1 2 3 4 5

LL ML HL

1 2 3 4 5

h) statement of ethics 1 2 3 4 5

5. Theories and Models for Change

Basic action research model, participatory

action research, the planning model, change

typologies (fast, slow, incremental, quantum,

revolutionary etc.) Lewin,s model, transition

models, and so on 1 2 3 4 5

B. Core Skills

1. Managing the Consulting Process

The ability to enter, contract, diagnosis, design

appropriate interventions, implement those

interventions, manage unprogrammed events, and

evaluate a change process. 1 2 3 4 5

2. Analysis/Diagnosis

The ability to conduct an inquiry into a system’s

effectiveness the ability to see the root cause(s) of a

system’s current level of effectiveness. This core

skill is interpreted to include all systems, individual,

group, organization, and multi-organization, as well

as the ability to understand and inquire into

one’s self. 1 2 3 4 5

1.  
   1. Designing/Choosing Appropriate/Relevant

Interventions: Understanding how to select, modify,

or design interventions that will effectively move the

organization from its currentstate to its desired

future state. 1 2 3 4 5
 
 

4. Facilitation and Process Consultation

The ability to assist an individual or group toward a

goal. The ability to conduct an inquiry into

individual and group processes such that the client

system maintains ownership of the issue, increases

their capacity for reflection on the consequences of

their behaviors and actions, and develops a sense of

increased control and ability. 1 2 3 4 5

5. Developing Client Capability

The ability to conduct a change process in such a

way that the client is more able to plan and

implement a successful change process in the future,.

utilizing technologies of planned change in a

values-based and ethical manner. 1 2 3 4 5

LL ML HL

1 2 3 4 5

6. Evaluating Organization Change

The ability to design and implement a process to

evaluate the impact and affects of a change

intervention, including control of alternative

explanations and interpretation of performance

outcomes. 1 2 3 4 5
 
 
 
 
 
 

1. Foundation Knowledge

1. organization behavior

1.  
   1. organization culture:

•  
  • Kotter, J.P., & Heskett, J.L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York, NY: The Free Press.
  • Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. 2^nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  • Killman, R.H., Saxton, M., & Serpa, R. (1986). Issues in understanding and changing corporate culture. California Management Review, 28 (2), 87-94.

1.  
   1. work design:

•  
  • Wall, T.D., & Martin, R. (1994). Job and work design. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), Key reviews in managerial psychology: Concepts and research for practice (pp. 158-188). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

1.  
   1. interpersonal relations (giving and receiving feedback):

•  
  • Seashore, C.N., Seashore, E.W., & Weinberg, G.M. (1992). What did you say?: The art of giving and receiving feedback. North Attleborough, MA: Douglas Charles Press.
  • Bennis, W.G., Schein, E.H., Barlow, D.E., & Steele, R.I. (1964). Interpersonal Dynamics. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

1.  
   1. power and politics:

•  
  • Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  • Beer, M. (1976). On gaining influence and power for OD. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12 (1), 44-51.

1. Foundation Knowledge (Continued)

   1. organization behavior (Continued)

1.  
   1. leadership:

•  
  • Behling, O., & McFillen, J.M. (1996). A syncretical model of charismatic/transformational leadership. Group & Organization Management, 21 (2), 163-191.
  • Schein, E.H. (1995). The role of leadership in the management of organizational transformation and learning. OD Practitioner, 27 (1), 17-24.

1.  
   1. goal setting:

•  
  • Pritchard, R.D., Roth, P.L., & Jones, S.D. (1988). Designing a goal setting system to enhance performance: A practical guide. Organizational Dynamics, 17 (1), 69-78.
  • Caroll, S.J., & Tosi, H.L., Jr. (1973). Management by objectives: application and research. New York, NY: MacMillan.

1.  
   1. conflict:

•  
  • Wall, J.A., Jr. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21 (3), 515-558.
  • Mastebroek, W.F.G. (1993). Conflict management and organization development. (expanded ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

1.  
   1. ethics:

•  
  • White, L.P., & Wooten, K.C. (1988). OD ethics: A developmental model. Organization Development Journal, 6 (3), 13-17.
  • Golembiewski, R.T., & Preston, J. (1997). Ethical dimensions of organizational development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

1.  
   1. individual behavior (psychology)

1.  
   1. learning theory:

•  
  • Argryis, C., & Schon, D. A., (1996). Organizational learning: theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Knowles, M.S. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected species. 4^th ed. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

1. Foundation Knowledge (Continued)
1.  
   1. individual behavior (psychology) (Continued)

1.  
   1. motivation theory:

•  
  • Kanfer, R. (1994). Work motivation: new directions in theory and research. In C. Cooper & I. Robertson (Eds.), Key reviews in managerial psychology: Concepts and research for practice (pp. 1-53). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Vroom, V.H., Herzberg, F., Kovach, K.A., & Manz, C.C. (1989). Motivation. In J., & Newstrom, Davis, K., (Eds.), Organizational behavior: readings and exercises (pp. 250-283). New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.

1.  
   1. perception theory:

• Schneider, J.D., Hastorf, H.A., & Ellsworth, C.P. (1979). Person perception. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

1.  
   1. group dynamics

1.  
   1. roles:

• Belbin, R.M. (1993). Team roles at work. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

1.  
   1. communication processes:

• Barker, L.L., Wahlers, J.K., & Watson, W.K. (1995). Groups in process: an introduction to small group communication. Boston, MA: Allyn&Bacon.
• Lumsden, G. (1993). Communicating in groups and teams: sharing leadership. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

1.  
   1. decision making processes:

•  
  • Guzzo, R. A., Salas, E., & Associates. (1995). Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

1.  
   1. stages of group development:

•  
  • Berman-Rossi, T. (1992). Empowering groups through understanding stages of group development. Social Work with Groups 15 (2-3), 239-255.

1. Foundation Knowledge (Continued)
1.  
   1. group dynamics (Continued)

1.  
   1. leadership:

•  
  • Stoker, J.I., & Remdisch, S. (1997). Leading work teams: directions for team effectiveness. In Beyerlein, M., & Johnson, D.A. (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams (pp. 79-96). Greenwich, CT: Jai Press Inc.
  • Tubbs, S.L., Ebrom, R.P., & Widgery, R.N. (1995). Implementing team leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2, 36-49.

1.  
   1. management and organization theory

1.  
   1. planning, organizing, leading, and controlling:

•  
  • Galbraith, J.R. (1983). Strategy and organization planning. Human Resource Management, 22 (1-2), 63-77.

1.  
   1. problem solving, decision making:

• Shapira, Z. (Ed.) (1997). Organizational decision making. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

1.  
   1. systems theory:

•  
  • Taylor, J.C., & Felten, D.F. (1993). Performance by design: Sociotechnical systems in North America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  • Wimmer, T.S., McDonald, D., & Sorensen, P.F. (1992). An OD practitioner’s guide to sociotechnical systems theory and practice. Organization Development Journal 10 (4), 69-82.

1.  
   1. contingency theory:

•  
  • Hess, R.K., & Pate, L.E. (1986). A contingency study: Model of organization development change processes. Organization Development Journal, 4 (3), 40-46.
  • LaVan, H., & Welsch, H.P., & Fell, J.M. (1981). Contingency approach to OD based on differentiated roles. G&OS, 6 (2), 176-189.

1. Foundation Knowledge (Continued)
1.  
   1. management and organization theory (Continued)

1.  
   1. organization structure:

•  
  • Mohrman, S., Cohen, S., & Mohrman, A. (1995). Designing team based organizations: new forms for knowledge work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers.
  • Galbraith, J.R., & Lawler, E.E. III. (1993). Organizing for the future: The new logic for managing complex organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  • Mintzberg, H. (1993). Structure in fives: designing effective organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

1.  
   1. characteristics of environment and technology:

•  
  • Goodman, P.S., Sproull, L.S., & Associates (1990). Technology and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
  • Lawrence, P.R., & Lorsch, J. (1969). Organization and environment. Homewood, IL: Irwin Dorsey.

1.  
   1. models of organization and system effectiveness:

•  
  • Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (Eds.). (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

1.  
   1. research methods/statistics

1.  
   1. measures of central tendency:

•  
  • Pagano, R.R. (1998). Understanding statistics in the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

1.  
   1. measures of dispersion:

•  
  • Christensen, R. (1996). Analysis of variance, design and regression: applied statistical methods. London, NY: Chapman and Hall.

1.  
   1. basic sampling theory:

• Pagano, R.R. (1998). Understanding statistics in the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

1. Foundation Knowledge (Continued)
1.  
   1. research methods/statistics (Continued)

1.  
   1. basic experimental design (case study, post-test only control group, etc.):

•  
  • Pate, L., & Heiman, D.C. (1986). Understanding organizational research: research designs and statistical methods. Organization Development Journal, 4 (4), 74-78.
  • Armenakis, A.A. (1983). Research issues in OD evaluation: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 8 (2), 320-328.
  • Evon, W. M. (Ed.). (1971). Organizational experiments and laboratory field research. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

1.  
   1. sample inferential statistics:

• Pagano, R.R. (1998). Understanding statistics in the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

1.  
   1. comparative cultural perspectives

1.  
   1. dimensions of natural culture:

•  
  • Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures revisited. Behavior Science Research, 18 (4), 285-305.

1.  
   1. dimensions of industry culture (public, private,…):

•  
  • Porter, M. (1979). The structure within industries and companies performance. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 61 (2), 214-227.

1.  
   1. systems implications:

•  
  • Bronson, L. (1994). Cross-cultural organization development.

•  
  • Adler, N.J. (1983). Organizational development in a multicultural environment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19 (3), 349-366.

1.  
   1. functional knowledge of business

• Madura, J. (1998). Introduction to business. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.

1. Foundation Skills
1.  
   1. interpersonal communication (listen, feedback, articulate):

•  
  • Seashore, C.N., Seashore, E.W., & Weinberg, G.M. (1992). What did you say?: The art of giving and receiving feedback. North Attleborough, MA: Douglas Charles Press.

1.  
   1. collaboration/working together:

•  
  • Haskins, M., Liedtka, J., & Rosenblum, J. (1998). Beyond teams: toward an ethic of collaboration. Organizational Dynamics, 26 (4), 34-50.

1.  
   1. problem solving:

•  
  • Wilson, G. (1993). Problem solving and decision making. London, UK: Kogan Page.

1.  
   1. using new technology:

•  
  • Baets, W. (1997). Information technology and organization transformation: Innovation for the 21^st century and organization. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
  • Goodman, P.S., Sproull, L.S., & Associates. (1990). Technology and organizations.
  • Thach, L., & Woodman, R.W. (1994). Organizational change and information technology: managing on the edge of cyberspace. Organizational Dynamics, 23 (1), 30-46.

1.  
   1. conceptualizing:

•  
  • Lippitt, G.L. (1974). Model building – an OD technology. Industrial Training International, 9 (2), 55-57.
  • Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

1.  
   1. project management:

•  
  • Pitagorsky, G. (1996). How to manage projects. CMA, 70 (10), 15-18.

1.  
   1. present/education/coach:

•  
  • Hall, D.T., Otazo, K.L., & Hollenbeck, G.P. (1999). Behind closed doors: What really happens in executive coaching. Organizational Dynamics, 27 (3), 39-53.

1. Core Knowledge
1.  
   1. organization design

1.  
   1. the concept of fit and alignment:

• Nadler, D.A., Gerstein, M.C., Shaw, R.B., & Associates. (1992). Organizational architecture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
• Nystrom, P.C., & Starbuck, W.H. (1981). Handbook of organizational design: Volume 2, remodeling organizations and their environments. Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press.

1.  
   1. diagnostic and design model :

• Burke, W.W., & Litwin, G.H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18 (3), 523-545.

1.  
   1. key thought leaders in organization design:

• Van De Ven, A.H., & Joyce, W.F. (Eds.) (1981). Perspectives on Organization Design and Behavior. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

1.  
   1. organization research:

•  
  • Huber, G.P., & Van De Ven, A. (Eds.). (1995). Longitudinal field research methods: studying processes of organizational change. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Heiman, D.C., Pate, L.E. (1986). Understanding organizational research: the research process. Organization Development Journal, 4 (4), 68-73.

3. system dynamics:

•  
  • Lippitt, R., & Lippitt, G. (1980). Systems thinking: a toll for organizational diagnosis and intervention. Tucson, AZ: Development Publications.

1. Core Knowledge (Continued)
1.  
   1. history of OD&C

a) human relations movement:

•  
  • National Training Laboratories. (1953). Explorations in human relations training: an assessment of experience 1947-1953. Washington, D.C.: NTL.

b) NTL / T groups / sensitivity training:

• Cooper, C.L., & Mangham, I.L. (1971). T-groups: a survey of research. London, UK: Wiley-Interscience.
• Bradford, L.P., Gibb, J.R., & Benne, K.D. (Eds.). (1964). T-group theory and laboratory method: innovation in re-education. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

c) survey research:

• Kraut, A.I. (Ed.). (1996). Organizational surveys: tools for assessment and change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
• Dunham, R.B., & Smith, F.J. (1979). Organizational surveys: an internal assessment of organizational health. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

d) quality of worklife:

• Nicolaou-Smokoviti, L., & Szell, G. (Eds.). (1995). Participation, organizational effectiveness and quality of work life in the year 2000. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
• Taylor, J. (1973). The quality of work life: an annotated bibliography – 1957-1972. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Center for Organizational Studies, Graduate School of Management.

e) Tavistock Institute:

• Trist, E., Murray, H., & Trist, B. (Eds.). (1993). The social engagement of social science: a Tavistock anthology, Vol. 2: the socio-technical perspective. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Fox, W.M. (1990). An interview with Eric Trist, father of the sociotechnical systems approach. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26 (2), 259-279.

1. Core Knowledge (Continued)
1.  
   1. history of OD&C (Continued)

f) key thought leaders:

• French, W.L., & Bell, C.H. (1995). Organization development: behavioral science interventions for organization improvement. 5^th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Westgaard, O. (1989). Allow me to introduce…Kurt Lewin. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 2 (4), 67-75.

g) humanistic values:

• French, W.L., & Bell, C.H. (1995). Organization development: behavioral science interventions for organization improvement. 5^th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Margulies, N., & Raia, A. (1990). The significance of core values on the theory and practice of organizational development. In F. Massarik (Ed.), Advances in organization development, Volume 1 (pp. 27-42). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.

h) statement of ethics:

• Ethical guidelines for an OD/HSD professional. Consultation: An International Journal, 5 (3), 212-218.

1.  
   1. theories and models of change:

•  
  • Burke, W.W., & Litwin, G.H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18 (3), 523-545.
  • Dunphy, D.C., & Stace, D.A. (1990). Transformational and coercive strategies for planned organizational change: beyond the OD model. In F. Massarik (Ed.), Advances in organization development, Volume 1 (pp. 85-104). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.
  • Frohman, M.A., Sashkin, M., & et al. (1976). Action-research as applied to organization development. Organization and Administrative Sciences, 7 (1, 2), 129-161.

1. Core Skills
1.  
   1. managing the consulting process:

•  
  • Lippitt, R. & Lippitt, G. (1986). The consulting process in action. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company.

1.  
   1. analysis/diagnosis:

•  
  • Harrison, M.I. (1994). Diagnosing organizations: methods, models, and processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Weisbord, M.R. (1978). Organizational diagnosis: A workbook of theory and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

1.  
   1. designing/choosing appropriate/relevant interventions:

•  
  • Dyer, W.G. (1982). Selecting an intervention for organizational change. Training and Development Journal, 35 (4), 62-68.
  • Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention theory and method. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

1.  
   1. facilitation and process consultation:

•  
  • Schein, E.H. (1987). Process consultation: Volume II. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

1.  
   1. developing client capability:

•  
  • French, W., & Bell, C. (1999). Organization development: behavioral science interventions for organization improvement. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

1.  
   1. evaluating organization change:

•  
  • Jackson. C.N., & Manning, M.R. (Eds.). (1994). Organization development annual, Volume V: Evaluating organization development interventions. Alexandria, VA: ASTD.
  • Seashore, S.E., & Lawler, E. (1983). Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures and practices. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience.
  • Terpestra, D.E. (1981). OD evaluation process: some problems and proposals. Human Resource Management, 20 (Spring), 24-29.