organisational change & intervention

8/12/2019 Organisational Change & Intervention

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/organisational-change-intervention 1/37

CCHHAAPPTTEERR 33:: OORRGGAANNIISSAATTIIOONN DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT ((OODD))

3.1. Introduction

The previous chapter served to illustrate that the changing world of work poses a number of

challenges to contemporary organisations, some of which hold potentially severe ramifications

for employees. As was shown in Chapter 1, Cascio (1995) views these circumstances as creating

various opportunities for industrial and organisational psychologists to “contribute to the

betterment of human welfare” (p. 928). This assumption lends support to the positioning of this

study – which is aimed at making a contribution to employees’ welfare by addressing their

experience of meaning in life during organisational change – within the field of industrial

psychology (see Section 2.2). One field of such opportunity specified by Cascio (1995) then lies

within the discipline of organisation development (OD). Subsequently, the primary objective of

this chapter is to explore the OD discipline, thereby illustrating how this field may fulfil Cascio’s

expectation regarding “the betterment of human welfare” (p. 928).

Given the primary objective stated above, it was noted in Chapter 1 that the aim of this study is

to develop a novel OD intervention, based on logotherapeutic principles (see Chapters 4 and 5),

which contributes to the facilitation of organisational change

1

by addressing the individual’sexperience of meaning in life. Subsequently, this chapter in no way constitutes an attempt at

providing a comprehensive overview of OD. Rather, the discussions will be limited to

addressing four secondary objectives. 1) The origins of OD are to be traced by means of an

exploration of its historical foundations. 2) OD is to be conceptualised. In particular, its

definition, core values, and relationship with planned change are to be investigated. 3) The

scope and focus of OD is to be addressed. 4) Four specific OD interventions are to be discussed.

These approaches are singled out for two reasons in particular: firstly, each focuses on the

human-social subsystem (see Figure 3.1 below), and secondly, each shares a number of

characteristics with the proposed logotherapy-based intervention (see Chapters 5 and 6). Despite

these commonalities, however, limitations to each of these four approaches are also highlighted,

1 The envisaged role of the logotherapy-based intervention in facilitating organisational change is discussed in Section 5.6.

94



thereby continuing to build a case for the need for a logotherapy-based OD intervention in

contemporary organisations.

3.2. Historical foundations of OD

The initial stages of OD lay in the 1930s (Worren, Ruddle & Moore, 1999), a time characterised

by “organizational humanism” (Robbins, 1990, p. 39). According to Mirvis, it was during this

time “that leading thinkers recognised the limits of Taylor’s… principles of scientific

management and sought to promote human relations in industry” (Mirvis, 1990, p. 16). This

field gained a major boost in 1945, when Kurt Lewin founded the Research Centre for Group

Dynamics (RCGD) at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology (MIT). By 1946, interventions

that came to be known as ‘t-groups’ (‘t’ denoting ‘training’; see ‘Sensitivity Training’, Section

3.5.1) were carried out by a number of researchers at MIT (Cummings & Worley, 2001; French

& Bell, 1994; 1999).

Despite these early beginnings, Buchanan and Huczynski (2004) pointed out that the term OD

was only coined in the late 1960s when Richard Beckhard attempted to name a consulting

programme that aimed to improve individual as well as organizational effectiveness. However,

Beckhard (1997) himself maintained that the term was first used in 1959, when “two

organizational interventions by consultants, coincidentally and simultaneously, were named

‘organization development’ efforts”. These consultants were Herbert Shepard and Robert Blake,

who implemented the Managerial Grid at the Esso Refinery in New Jersey, and Douglas

McGregor and Richard Beckhard, who conducted a culture change intervention at General Mills

in Dewey Balch (Beckhard, 1997, p. xi).

French and Bell (1994, 1999) identified four dominant OD stems in its preliminary development

phases, namely the Laboratory Training Stem, the Survey Research and Feedback Stem, the

Action Research Stem, and the Socio-Technical and Socio-Clinical Stem. The first was initiated

by the work of Kurt Lewin, particularly in the field of group dynamics, and further developed by

esteemed theorists such as Chris Argyris, Douglas McGregor, Herbert Shepard, Robert Blake,

Jane Mouton, and Richard Beckhard. The Survey Research and Feedback Stem evolved around

95



the techniques developed by Rensis Likert and other staff members at the University of

Michigan’s Survey Research Centre. Thirdly, the Action Research Stem, although intertwined

with the other stems due to their utilising the technique of action research, developed from the

1940s through the work of researchers such as William F. Whyte, Edith L. Hamilton, John

Collier and Kurt Lewin. Finally, the Socio-Technical and Socio-Clinical Stem developed

primarily from work done at the Tavistock Institute in London by researchers such as Eric Trist

and W.R. Bion (French & Bell, 1994; 1999).

Mirvis (1988, 1990) provided a comprehensive overview of the development of OD throughout

the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. This author held that OD developed from a philosophy in the 1960s into

a focus on technology and structure in the 1970s. By the 1980s, OD had developed into an

approach that focuses on strategy and human achievement. This latter period then coincides with

the end of the certainty of the Thatcher/Reagan era in the Western world, and the emergence of

the uncertainty that is the new, changing world of work (Handy, 1996). It is then also during this

time that organisational changes started to escalate to dramatic proportions, which to some extent

explains OD’s focus on both strategy and the importance of human achievement during this era.

Given the purpose of this chapter, a more comprehensive discussion of the development of the

OD discipline is not warranted. Subsequently, Mirvis’s (1988, 1990) synopsis is summarised in

Table 3.1 below.

Table 3.1.

Developments in OD: 1960 to 1980 (Adapted from Mirvis, 1990, p. 48)

Dimension 1960s 1970s 1980s

Source of development Personal growth Organisational design Organisational culture

Target of change Person and group Hierarchy and

technology

Vision, values and

beliefs

Exemplary form of

laboratory education

t-group Power and systems lab Theatre of inquiry

Resistance to change Interpersonal

incompetence

Structural barriers Competing forces

Desired consequences Authenticity and

openness

Empowerment and

engagement

Self and systems

responsibility

96



Table 3.2.

Weberian vs. OD assumptions (adapted from Huse, 1980, p. 417)

Weberian assumptions OD assumptions

1. The hierarchical arrangement of offices

facilitates communication/cooperation between

organisational levels. It generally assumes

organising according to function is ‘best’.

1. Hierarchical arrangement may inhibit

communication/cooperation because of the

inherent inequality between organisational

levels. Organisation according to function is

not always best; other forms, like matrix or

collateral, may be superior.

2. The most competent people rise to the top of

the organisation. Thus, centralised forms of

organisation are best because most competent

people are involved.

2. Emphasises the authority of knowledge and

competence, as well as the importance of

locating decision making as close to the source

of information as possible.

3. Formalising of acts and decisions in writing

protects the organisation from information

loss/distortion and helps ensure stability.

3. Focus is on relevant results, not paperwork.

Therefore, reduce paperwork criteria as far as

possible.

4. Implicitly accepts a policy/administration

dichotomy – impersonal, impartial treatment of

client fosters fairness and efficiency.

4. Effectiveness is partially the result of paying

attention to emotions, which are legitimised

and accepted as an integral part of life. Seeks

to integrate individual and organisational goals.

Emphasises personal development; man is not

an objective, emotionless machine.

5. Establishes rules, procedures, regulations,

policies, etc., encourages a rational approach to

task accomplishment.

5. Manage according to relevant objectives and

not ‘past practices’ or traditions.

6. The uniform application of rules and

classifying personnel according to the function

performed, leads to greatest efficiency.

6. Goals are specifically tailored to individual

employee’s circumstances, and may change

even within the same classification category.

7. Authority:obedience-based relationships 7. Authority is accepted as important, but

confidence and trust are emphasised.

8. Emphasis is on individual skills, abilities and

accomplishments.

8. Emphasises importance of individual, but also

focuses on relationships between/within group.

99



Over the past 50 years, OD has progressed from programmes aimed specifically at individual

behavioural change, to strategic system-wide interventions that encompass both individual and

organisational effectiveness (Farias & Johnson, 2000). Thus, put into change terms,

contemporary OD facilitates both first- and second-order change (see Section 2.4). In this

regard, Chapman (2002) indicated that whereas OD was traditionally aimed at successfully

achieving incremental change, it is increasingly concerned with facilitating organisational

transformation4. Chapman further went on to provide an overview of the core differences

between first- and second-order change from an OD perspective. These differences are

summarised in Table 3.3 below.

Table 3.3.

Core differences between first- and second-order change from an OD perspective (adapted from

Chapman, 2002, p. 17)

Central OD issues Core elements of first-order change Core elements of second-order change

Nature and scope

of organisations

and the purpose of

change

• Organisations are discrete focal

units

• Change improves organisational

performance and individual

development

• Organisations are multiple

overlapping systems

• Change improves internal

organisational performance and

individual development, and

interlinks purposes with business

partners and society

Change

management

strategy

• Primary change levers are people,

processes or structures

• Secondary change levers are

attitudes, beliefs and values

• Participation and collaboration are

enablers of change

• Primary change levers are attitudes,

beliefs and values

• Secondary change levers are

processes, structures and systems

• Involvement of stakeholders is

informed by the notion of

“organisational citizenship”

Change agent

roles

• CEOs are drivers of change

• Those affected by change

• CEOs provide visionary leadership

and enable change

4 In Section 2.4, it was pointed out that in this study, no evaluative stance is taken with regard to the relative value of eitherapproach to organisational change. However, it was also pointed out that the nature of second-order change implies that it issubstantially more demanding, and has a greater probability of failure.

100



Central OD issues Core elements of first-order change Core elements of second-order change

participate in the change process

• External consultants facilitate the

change process

• All members of the system can be

change agents

• External consultants partner the

change process

Regarding the above perspectives, a growing debate exists within the change management

literature regarding the difference between OD and organisational transformation (see Section

2.4), so much so that some leading authors have incorporated the concept of transformation into

their traditional OD titles (see, for example, French, Bell & Zawacki, 1994b; Cummings &

Worley, 2001). Others, such as Bartunek and Reis Louis (1988), have gone so far as to identify

the differences and similarities between these two perspectives. What is more, debates also

continue in the literature regarding the exact nature, definition and scope of OD. Nevertheless,

most authors agree that its primary focus remains on the human component of the organisation,

particularly in the context of organisational change (e.g. Beckhard, 1969; 1994; 1997; Burke,

1997; Cummings & Worley, 2001; French & Bell, 1994; 1999; Grieves, 2000; Huse, 1980;

Mirvis, 1988; 1990; Porras & Robertson, 1992; Sanzgiri & Gottlieb, 1992). Entering into these

debates is beyond the scope of this study. Subsequently, for the purposes of this study, OD is

assumed to encompass the characteristics as pointed out above.

Mullins (1999) emphasised the human focus of OD by stating that an “organisation is made up of

people. When we talk about organisation development it is important to remember that, in

practice, we are referring to the development and performance of those individuals and groups of

people who comprise the organisation” (p. 708; emphasis removed). Given the essential role of

people in successful organisational change, and the potentially devastating effects that such

change holds for individuals (see Chapter 2), it is apparent that such human-centred interventions

may be critical to ensure the competitive advantage of organisations. Farias and Johnson (2000)

confirmed this importance by stating that:

101



The evidence is quite clear, whether it be from reengineering, downsizing, or high-

performance work systems, that change without a people focus does not have great a chance

for success … OD … [would not] exist if people-related issues did not surface in the context

of change. And addressing people-related issues without humanistic values would be

nothing short of manipulation (p. 378).

Although OD was initiated more than half a century ago, its popularity seems not to have waned

like that of many other approaches. For example, popular academic texts in this field are

continuously updated and newer editions published (e.g. Cummings & Worley, 2001; French &

Bell, 1999). OD also progressed as a social movement, as “marked by the codification of OD

knowledge in journals in texts, the developments of training programs for students and

practitioners, and the establishment of professional associations and forums” (Mirvis, 1988, p.

21). Furthermore, its philosophical foundations are also becoming increasingly popular in

contemporary organisational change literature and practice. For example, Mirvis (1990)

contended that “wellness and spirit”, as “touchy, feely” as they are, are again “central aspirations

for individuals and a focal point of intervention in organizations” (p. 3). This is also reflected in

the emergence of a focus on meaning in work and the workplace, as discussed in Chapter 5.

Related to the above, a study conducted by Hurley, Church, Burke and Van Eynde (1997) found

that humanistic values are still seen as the core of OD. These authors postulated that this

humanistic orientation may be summarised as being aimed at “improving organizational life for

all members” (p. 80). Hurley et al. also found that OD still places a strong emphasis on the

effectiveness of organisations through “adding business value” and “improving organisational

efficiency and bottom line-results” (p. 80), as is apparent from the ranking of the top five values

which were driving OD at that stage. These values are, in rank order, 1) Increasing effectiveness

and efficiency; 2) Creating openness and communication; 3) Empowering employees to act; 4)

Enhancing productivity, and 5) Promoting organisational participation. This reflects the tensionthat continues to exist in OD between the promotion of humanistic values and focusing on

“bottom-line productivity” (Hurley et al., 1997, p. 86). Sanzgiri and Gottlieb (1992) maintained

that despite these factors and tensions, the OD practitioner’s role “remains with the process and

human aspects of the work environment”, as it is this focus that helps OD “define itself as a field

with a unique and meaningful contribution” (p. 67).

102



For the purposes of this study, these arguments are essential. Not only is the proposed OD

intervention aimed at benefiting both employees and organisations by addressing the ‘softer’

aspects of organisational change (see Section 2.5), but it is also intended to make a ‘unique and

meaningful contribution’ to both the field of OD and industrial psychology by putting in place

the first OD intervention based on logotherapeutic theory and practice (see Sections 1.4, 1.7 and

1.8). Whereas these contentions are further explored in the subsequent chapters, the role of the

OD practitioner and OD’s humanistic values are addressed in Section 3.3 below.

3.3. Conceptualising OD

In the literature, OD is conceptualised in myriad ways. According to Newstrom and Davis

(1997, p. 416), OD refers to “the systematic application of behavioral science knowledge at

various levels… to bring about planned change”. Beckhard (1994) defined OD as “an effort (1)

planned , (2) organizationwide, and (3) managed from the top, to (4) increase organization

effectiveness and health through (5) planned interventions in the organization’s ‘processes’,

using behavioral-science knowledge” (p. 21; emphasis in original). Cummings and Worley

(2001, p. 1) saw OD as “a system wide application of behavioral science knowledge to the

planned development, improvement, and reinforcement of the strategies, structures, and

processes that lead to organizational effectiveness”. Finally, French and Bell (1999) contended

that OD is

a long-term effort, led and supported by top management, to improve an organization’s

visioning, empowerment, learning and problem-solving processes, through an ongoing,

collaborative management of organization culture – with special emphasis on the culture of

intact work teams and other team configurations – using the consultant facilitator role and

the theory and technology of applied behavioral science, including action research ( pp. 25-

26).

A number of central themes may be derived from the above explications. Firstly, OD is based on

behavioural scientific knowledge5. Orpen (1981, p. 120) contended that the behavioural sciences

5 Other authors (Massarik & Pei-Carpenter, 2002; Spector, 2000) pointed out that much OD knowledge and application is basedon disciplines such as anthropology and economics.

103



systemic view of organisations and related change efforts, and a strong focus on group process

and dynamics” (Church, Burke & Van Eynde, in McLachlin, 2000, p. 243). This is further

supported by De Greene’s (1982, p. 54) postulation that

the biggest impact of OD, however, may not be on objective organizational outputs like

productivity and profits in specific companies, but rather on maintaining, perhaps even

increasing, the collective momentum towards more humanistic organizations.

“OD’s core beliefs and values can be found in McGregor’s (1960) Theory Y assumptions

(discussed below) about human nature and in Maslow’s (1954) conception of self-actualization.

These humanistic perspectives stressed people’s potential to learn and grow in their work and to

contribute and express themselves more fully in humanly designed organizations” (Mirvis, 1988,

p. 5). Whereas McGregor played a leading role in the establishment of OD as a discipline (see

Section 3.2), Maslow is commonly regarded as the father of humanistic psychology (see Section

4.4.1.2 for a discussion of his most famous work – the hierarchy of needs) (Hergenhahn, 1997).

Both Maslow and McGregor believed that one is inherently motivated to fulfil one’s needs, and

that the alignment of one’s needs with organisational goals would contribute to organisational

performance (Heil et al., 2000; McGregor, 1960; Maslow, 1954; 1998). Ignoring individual

needs may therefore inhibit organisational effectiveness.

Similar to McGregor and Maslow, Carl Rogers, whose client- (or person-) centred therapy

defined the open and facilitative role played by OD practitioners (Mirvis, 1988), believed that the

individual has inherent resources for “self-understanding, for altering his or her self-concept,

attitudes and self-directed behavior”, but only if a “climate of facilitative psychological attitudes

can be provided” (Rogers, 1987, p. 1). Likewise, a fundamental proposition in OD is that

“individuals have needs for personal growth and development”, and that these needs “are most

likely to be satisfied in an supportive and challenging environment” (Huse, 1980, p. 29). The

utilisation of this inherent human potential, then, requires that organisational conditions be

arranged in such a way that people can achieve their best by directing their efforts toward

organisational objectives (McGregor, 1960; 2000b).

105



As is apparent from the previous paragraph, McGregor’s (1960) Theory Y also had a significant

impact on OD’s value base. Briefly, McGregor (1960; 2000b) contended that managers’ views

of human nature are based on one of two groupings of assumptions, namely Theory X and

Theory Y. These assumptions, as summarised in Table 3.4 below, determine the nature of

managerial behaviour towards subordinates. McGregor argued that organisational success can

be promoted if managers change their assumptions, as Theory Y managers will contribute to

both employees reaching self-actualisation and organisations reaching their objectives.

Table 3.4.

Theory X vs. Theory Y (Adapted from McGregor, 2000b, pp. 132 & 140)

Theory X Theory Y

•

The average individual is by nature indolent

and works as little as possible. He/she lacks

ambition, dislikes responsibility, and prefers to

be led

• The average individual is inherently self-

centred and indifferent to organisational needs

• This employee is gullible, not very bright, the

ready dupe of the charlatan and the demagogue

•

Management is responsible for directing

people’s efforts, motivating them, controlling

their actions, and modifying their behaviour to

fit the needs of the organisation

• Without this active intervention (persuasion,

reward, punishment, control) by management,

people will be passive, even resistant, to

organisational needs

•

People are not by nature passive or resistant to

organisational needs – they have become so as

a result of their experience in organisations

• The motivation, the potential for development,

the capacity for assuming responsibility, the

readiness to direct behaviour towards

organisational goals are all present in people. It

is the responsibility of management to make it

possible for people to recognise and develop

these human characteristics for themselves

• The essential task of management is to arrange

organisational conditions and methods of

operation so that people can achieve their own

best by directing their own efforts toward

organisational objectives

Inherent in Theory Y is thus the assumption that people have the capacity to develop their

potential, but that it is the responsibility of the organisation to provide the context in which this

may happen. Accordingly, the fundamental propositions of humanistic psychology infer that the

individual has the capacity for development, given the right circumstances. To further illustrate

106



these contentions, Table 3.5 below provides a synopsis of some of the fundamental propositions

of humanistic psychology. Table 3.6 offers an overview of the values and assumptions

underlying OD. A comparison of these two tables, clearly shows the strong humanistic influence

on the development of OD.

Table 3.5.

The basic tenets of humanistic psychology (compiled from Greening, 1998; Hergenhahn, 1997).

• The ultimate concern is with valuing the dignity

and worth of humans and an interest in

developing the potential inherent in every

person

• People exist in both a uniquely human context

and a cosmic ecology

• Attempts should be made to unmask that which

enrich the experiences of the individual

•

Human beings supersede the sum of their partsand cannot be reduced to components

•

Addressing human problems should be thefocus of research

• Human behaviour is intentional, primarily

guided by subjective reality, and strives for

goals, meaning, value and creativity

• More is learnt from the study of individuals

than from similarities between groups of

individuals

• Human beings are conscious (aware of being

aware). Such consciousness includes an

awareness of oneself in the context of other

people

• Psychology should be aimed at completely

describing the meaning of being a human being

• The individual has choices, and with that,

responsibilities

107



Table 3.6.

Assumptions and values underlying OD (adapted from Hellriegel & Slocum, 1989, p. 800; Huse, 1980,

pp. 29-30; Newstrom & Davis, 1997, p. 417)

Assumptions Values

Individuals:

• People want to grow and mature

• Employees have much to offer (e.g. creativity

and energy) that is not being used at work

• Most employees desire the opportunity to

contribute (they desire, seek and appreciate

empowerment)

Individuals:

• OD aims to overcome obstacles to the natural

human tendency to grow, enabling employees

to contribute more to the organisation

• OD stresses open communication

• Treating employees with genuine dignity and

respect is emphasised

Groups:

• Groups and teams are critical to organisational

success and individual need satisfaction

• Groups have powerful influences on individual

behaviour

• The complex roles to be played in groups

require skill development

Groups:

• Hiding feelings or not being accepted by the

group diminishes individual willingness to

solve problems constructively

• Acceptance, collaboration and involvement lead

to expressions of feelings and perceptions

Organisation:

• Excessive controls, policies and rules are

detrimental

• Conflict can be functional if properly

channelled

• Individual and organisational goals can be

compatible

• In most organisations, the level of interpersonal

support, trust and cooperation is lower than

desirable and necessary

Organisation:

• The way groups are linked, influences their

effectiveness

• Change should start at the top and gradually be

introduced through the rest of the organisation

• The group links the top and bottom of the

organisation

108



Other humanistic values underlying OD, include human development and growth, fairness,

openness, choice, freedom, dignity, potential, autonomy, human worth, equality and equity,

respect, empowerment, democracy, trust, honesty, teamwork, collaboration, informed decision

making, community, diversity and meaningful participation (Burke, 1997; Hurley et al., 1997;

Wooten & White, 1999; Xenikou & Simosi, 2006). Olson and Eoyang (2001) contended that

whatever the intervention and however it is executed, these humanistic values are prioritised and

the personal growth of the individual employee is emphasised. Schein (1994) expressed the

importance of humanistic psychology and its value for the success of the organisation in the

following:

[G]iven [rapid change] that requires a great adaptive capacity on the part of organizations,

how can internal environments be created such that members of organizations will be

enabled to grow in their own unique capacities? The underlying assumption is that unless

such personal growth takes place, the organization will not be prepared to cope effectively

with an unpredictable changing external environment (p. 7).

From the above arguments, it may be inferred that by adhering to humanistic principles, OD may

contribute to the personal growth that Schein denoted as potentially crucial for successful

organisational change. In so doing, OD thus addresses organisational effectiveness in ways that

are acceptable to employees (Greenberg & Baron, 1993). The role of OD in organisational

change is further discussed in the subsequent section.

3.4. Scope and focus of OD

Research has shown that a systemic or holistic perspective is of critical importance in effectively

managing change. According to Hall, Rosenthal and Wade (in Cao et al., 2003), taking a

reductionist view of organisational change, where initiatives are implemented withoutconsidering their impact on all systems (or the interaction between these systems), often leads to

improvements in the change focus areas, but a decline in the organisation’s overall functioning.

French and Bell (1990) presented an open systems-oriented model that demonstrates the different

subsystems of the organisation that may be influenced by OD. An adapted version of this model

is presented in Figure 3.1 below.

109



Figure 3.1. Major organisational subsystems (adapted from French & Bell, 1990, p. 54)

External interface

subsystem

Task

subsystem Technological

subsystem

Structural

subsystem Human-social

subsystem

Goal

sub-

system

Feedback

Inputs Outcomes

In this figure, the interdependency within the organisation, as proposed by the systems

perspective (see Section 2.3), is indicated by the overlaps between the subsystems. Furthermore,

and also consistent with the systems perspective, the ‘external interface subsystem’ indicates that

the organisation is in continuous interaction with its external environment (see Section 2.3.1).

The location of the goal subsystem in the centre of the figure indicates that all the other

subsystems are strategically directed, and that organisational changes in the other subsystems are

often of a strategic nature, so as to promote organisational goals.

Additional clarification regarding this model is provided by Table 3.7 below, which gives an

overview of the major aspects associated with each of these subsystems. These organisational

subsystems are of particular significance, as they not only encapsulate the levels of

organisational change identified earlier (see Section 2.2), but the large-scale organisational

changes discussed in Section 2.4 also take place within them. The latter contention is addressed

in Section 3.5 below.

110



Table 3.7.

luded in organisational subsystems (adapted from French & Bell, 1990, pp. 54-56)Aspects inc

Subsystem Aspects Included

Ex • Data sensing and collecting (e reaction surveys)

ns)

)

ternal

interface

.g. market or public

• Resource procurement (e.g. recruitment and selection, purchasing)

• Output placement or exchanges of outputs for resources

• Environmental influencing (e.g. advertising, public relatio

• Responses to external demands (e.g. governmental regulations

Human-socia

systems)

ing, justice

ractions)

l • Skills and abilities of organisational members

• Leadership philosophy and style

• Formal subsystems (personnel sub

- Staffing, rewards, appraisal, bargain

• Informal subsystem (non-programmed activities and inte

- Resistant and competitive behaviours and coalitions

- Norms and values, sentiments (feelings) and status

Task ubtasks• Subdivision of total work to be accomplished into tasks and s

Technolog

hnical knowledge

ical • Artefacts and knowledge to produce end product:

- Tools, machines, procedures, methods, tec

- Financial and information technology systems

Structural

luding feedback)

ordination, control

•

Organisational subdivision• Rules and authority

• Communication (inc

• Work flow

• Planning, co

• Decision-making

Goal ls (as usually expressed in organisational mission or charter)• Super-ordinate goa

• Sub-unit goals

•

Programme goals

Section 2.2, it was shown that – consistent with open systems theory – employee behavioursIn

might be affected by changes in any of the other subsystems. What is more, these behaviours

were indicated as being crucially important for organisational effectiveness and the success of

111



change efforts. Thus, it is clear that the human-social subsystem is of great importance to

organisational success. Accordingly, French and Bell (1990, p. 54) indicated that “the human-

social subsystem is the initial change target” (p. 54) of OD interventions. Similarly, Stephens

and Cobb (1999) emphasised that “OD works through the human/social subsystem to accomplish

organizational change” (p. 24), whereas Mullins (1999) described OD as change interventions

aimed at the “social processes of an organisation” (p. 708). This reflects what Porras and

Robertson (1992) deemed OD’s two primary purposes: “the improvement in the organization’s

ability to perform [and] improvement of the organization’s members – that is, their psychological

well-being, their level of self-actualization or realization, and their capabilities” (p. 723). Thus,

the “basic purpose of OD is not only to help organizations become more adept at self-renewal

and survival, but also to ensure that the human values of organizational members are furthered”

(Huse, 1980, p. 17). These statements then not only indicate that OD may play a vital role in

ensuring organisational adaptation, but also reiterate one of the primary objectives of OD –

facilitating planned change.

Organisational survival may be highly unlikely for static and reactive organisations in a changing

ewin, who is commonly regarded as the father of the field of group dynamics (see Section 3.2

society (Szilagyi & Wallace, 1983). Consequently, numerous models have been developed to

facilitate planned change. However, Schein (1994, p. 238) argued that there “is little question

that the intellectual father of contemporary theories of… planned change is Kurt Lewin”.

Similarly, Burnes (2004) argued that the planned change approach originated with Lewin.

L

for insight into his role in establishing OD), is not only credited with relating organisational

change to scientific research (Heller, 1998), but also with providing OD with “its first model of

action research in his conception of change” (Mirvis, 1988, p. 6). Despite accumulated

criticism7 since its introduction, Lewin’s (1951) change model is regarded as classic

(McGuinness & Morgan, 2005; Roberto & Levesque, 2005), which is apparent from its frequent

discussion in the change management, organisation development, organisational behaviour, and

7 For example, whereas some authors view Lewin’s model as being too mechanistic and having an overly-simplistic view oforganisations, others contend that it is “wildly inappropriate” (Kanter, Stein & Jick, 1992, p. 10) in the contemporary era of

radical organisational change – particularly as the speed of change and the magnitude of uncertainty preclude the completion ofthe refreezing stage (e.g. Gratton, 2000; Landrum, Howell & Paris, 2000; Mack, Nelson & Campbell-Quick, in Vakola &

Nikolaou, 2005; Peters & Waterman, 1982).

112



organisational learning literature (see, for example, Burnes, 1996, 2004; Coghlan, 1998;

Counsell et al., 2005; Cummings & Worley, 2001; De Greene, 1982; French & Bell, 1999;

Heller, 1998; Hellriegel et al., 1998; Hendry, 1996; Hunsaker & Cook, 1986; Marks, 1997;

McShane & Von Glinow, 2000; Mullins, 1999; Robbins et al., 2003; Tsoukas, 2005). Schein

(1992, 1994, 1996) elaborated upon Lewin’s model by describing the psychological processes

necessary in each stage to bring about successful change. The subsequent paragraphs, then,

present a synthesis of Lewin’s model and Schein’s contributions.

Lewin (1951) proceeded from the assumption that behaviour at any particular moment in time is

the result of two conflicting forces, namely driving forces and restraining forces, which

constitute opposite sides on what Lewin termed the Force Field Analysis Model. Whereas

driving forces direct behaviour away from the status quo, restraining forces restrict such

movement. When these two forces are equal, the status quo is maintained at a state of “quasi-

stationary equilibrium” (Lewin, 1999, p. 279). Change, then, results from an alteration in these

forces. In particular, movement from the equilibrium can be brought about by means of one of

three courses of action. Firstly, the driving forces can be increased. Secondly, the restraining

forces can be decreased. Finally, a combination of these can be applied. This movement is

illustrated in Figure 3.2 below.

113



Lewin (1951) proposed three steps in the change process, namely unfreezing, moving, and

refreezing (see Figure 3.3 below). During unfreezing, motivation to change is created and the

forces that maintain current behaviour are reduced. Present conceptions and practices are

rejected in favour of new ones that need to be learned through a deliberate “emotional stir up” in

order to “break open the shell of complacency and self righteousness” in organisations (Lewin,

1951, p. 229). This is consistent with Kotter’s (1995, 1996) change framework, which postulates

the creation of a sense of urgency and a need for change as essential to achieve successful

change. According to Armenakis and Harris (2002), unfreezing is concerned with employees

becoming prepared for the change and “ideally [becoming] its supporters” (p. 169), thus

corresponding to readiness for change (Section 2.7). Similarly, Rashid et al. (2004) contended

that the effectiveness of organisational change is dependent upon the challenging and

clarification of employees’ beliefs, assumptions and attitudes, whereas Bartunek and Reis Louis

(1988) proposed that a fundamental tenet of OD is that “there must be some unfreezing event

that initiates change” (p. 127).

Driving

forces

Restrainingforces

Driving

forces

Restraining

forces

Restraining

forces

Driving

forces

Desired conditions

Current

conditions

Before change After change

Figure 3.2. Lewin’s Force-Field Analysis (adapted from McShane &

Von Glinow, 2000, p. 471)

114



In Section 3.5 below, a number of interventions aimed at bringing about movement are

discussed. The decision regarding which interventions are to be utilised to bring about

movement, then, may be influenced by the type of management system dominant in the

organisation. Classic research conducted by Likert (1967) identified four such management

systems. The Exploitative Authoritative System, known as System 1, is characterised by

centralised decision making, autocratic leadership, the use of punishment and rewards to

motivate employees, and downward communication. The Benevolent Authoritative System, or

System 2, allows somewhat more communication, interaction, and decision making, but within

the boundaries set by a paternalistic management style. In System 3, the Consultative System,

management still make the final decisions, but employees are consulted with in this regard.

Finally, the Participative Group System (System 4) to a large extent constitutes the opposite of

System 1, and is characterised by involvement and participation by employees as regards goal

setting, decision making, improvements and the evaluation of outcomes (see Section 2.6.1). This

system also promotes more open communication, both laterally and vertically.

From Likert’s (1967) propositions, the deduction may be made that these systems lie on a

dimension of performance and employee satisfaction8, where System 1 constitutes the lower end,

and System 4 the higher. As was pointed out in Section 2.6.1, the level of employee satisfaction

with the way changes are implemented may exert a significant influence on the level of

resistance to or acceptance of changes, which indicates the importance of understanding these

different systems.

Robbins (1990) cited research that to some extent provides support for Likert’s theory.

According to these findings, change implementation is most often executed by means of four

tactics. When the ‘Edict’ tactic is used, management simply announce their decision to change

and proceed without any employee participation. This technique has been shown to be the least

successful of the four discussed here, which supports Likert’s proposal that System 1, the

Exploitative Authoritative System, is the most ineffective in attaining performance and employee

satisfaction. The second technique, ‘Intervention’, involves ‘selling’ the rationale for change to

8 The level of employee satisfaction with how change is implemented may exert an influence on the degree to which they resist orsupport changes (see Section 2.6.1).

116



those affected, but the method decided upon by those in control is still implemented. The third

tactic, ‘Persuasion’, involves the use of persuasive techniques to sell ideas regarding change

implementation, but the decision in this regard is essentially abdicated to either external experts

or interested affected individuals. Finally, Robbins (1990) reported that the most successful

technique encompasses communicating the need to change to those individuals who will be

affected, after which the implementation decision is delegated to these individuals. This tactic is

known as ‘Participation’, and clearly demonstrates some of the characteristics of Likert’s System

4 discussed above9.

During the final phase of Lewin’s (1951) model, refreezing, the organisation is stabilised at a

new equilibrium state. A balance is achieved between the driving and restraining forces in order

to reinforce the new, post-change situation. Refreezing is a critical stage, as it prevents the

changed behaviours and attitudes from reverting back to what they were before initiating

unfreezing. Schein (1994, 1996) contended that two mechanisms are crucial to ensure such

refreezing, namely personal and relational refreezing.

For change to be successful, the individual must have the opportunity to ascertain the degree to

which the new behaviours or attitudes are congruent with his or her personality, to the extent

where they can be integrated comfortably. This, then, is known as personal refreezing.

Relational refreezing, in turn, encompasses ascertaining the extent to which one’s “significant

others will accept and confirm the new attitudes and behavior patterns” (Schein, 1994, p. 246;

emphasis in original). Schein held that if the latter does not occur, the change programme should

be aimed at groups who are capable of strengthening the desired behaviour patterns or attitudes

in one another. Through these two forms of refreezing one then gains confirmation of the

information attained during the moving phase; confirmation that is critical in preventing one

from reverting back to the previous state.

Regarding the scope and focus of OD, the explicit assumption was made that although OD may

influence all organisational subsystems, its primary aim is to bring about change in the human-

social subsystem. It was subsequently shown that human change can be brought about in three

9 These discussions clearly reflect the arguments posed with regard to empowerment in Section 2.6.1.

117



phases – unfreeze, move, and refreeze – each involving certain psychological mechanisms to

ensure its success. Bovey and Hede (2001) pointed out the crucial importance of such individual

change by stating:

Because organisations consist ultimately of people, organisational change essentially

involves personal change. Change requires the participation of people who must first

change themselves for organisational change to succeed (p. 535).

It was argued that change interventions are to be implemented in the moving phase, as

unfreezing results in individuals being more susceptible to new ways of doing things.

Consequently, a number of OD interventions that may be applied, are discussed.

3.5. OD interventions

Argyris (1994, p. 135) stated that to “intervene is to enter into an ongoing system of relationship,

to come between or among persons, groups, or objects for the purpose of helping them”. OD

interventions may then be aimed at establishing a ‘helping’ relationship in five target areas in

particular: the individual, dyads/triads, teams and groups, intergroup relations, and the total

organisation (French & Bell, 1999). Thus, OD “can be applied to any or all levels of the

organization” (De Greene, 1982, p. 53).

Grieves (2000, p. 345) provided a number of conditions under which OD interventions are

typically required in the organisation. These are the need to change a managerial strategy; to

make the organisational climate consistent with both individual needs and the changing needs of

the environment; to change cultural norms; to change structures and roles; to improve intergroup

collaboration; to open up the communications system; for better planning; for coping with

problems of mergers; for change in workforce motivation, and for adapting to the new

environment. To these conditions, this study adds that OD interventions are also required when

the meaning found by individuals in the organisation is under threat (see Chapters 1 and 5).

Ackerman (1997), distinguished between a number of OD interventions that may be applied in a

variety of change contexts. These are summarised in Table 3.8 below.

118



Table 3.8.

Different types of change and levels of the organisation to which OD may be applied (adapted from

Ackerman, 1997, p. 55)

Purpose Application Sample Technologies

Develop-

ment

Improve, do better, logical

adjustments to normal

operations, attention to

human needs

Individuals, groups, or whole

organisations

Team building; Problem

solving; Conflict resolution;

Survey-Feedback; Training;

Job Enrichment

Transition Achieve/implement a known

desired future state that is

different than the existing

state; balance human and

organisational needs during

change

Individuals, groups, or whole

organisations

Impact analysis; Transition

structures and resources,

running parallel to on-going

operation; Design by level;

Transition manager/plans;

Re-establishment of “order”

Transfor-

mation

Facilitate/allow the

emergence of a new state of

being through the death of

the old; focus on potential

and spirit; individuals

transform as well as total

system

Whole organisations:

individuals, groups and total

system

Visioning and creating

context for change;

Alignment of forms for

energy flow; Using myth and

ritual; Building critical mass;

Creating collective intention;

Changing belief systems

Despite Ackerman’s classification, however, the assumption inherent in OD is that an

intervention at any level will improve organisational effectiveness. In this regard, both the

principle of diffusion (Katz & Kahn, 1978) and the theory of syndrome dynamics (Maslow,

1998) assume that an improvement in the smallest part of the system will result in improvements

throughout the larger system. To illustrate, Maslow (1998) contended that “… the better the

workers… the better the enterprise… the better the world” (p. 137).

In Figure 3.1, an illustration of the major organisational subsystems was provided. Within each

of these subsystems, then, certain OD interventions may occur. Table 3.9 below summarises a

number of these approaches. As was noted in Section 3.1, the aim of this study is not to provide

a comprehensive overview of these approaches, but rather to focus on the human-social

119



subsystem. In particular, the attitudes inherent in resistance to change – as well as its polar

opposite readiness for change (see Sections 2.6 and 2.7) – is to be addressed by means of an

intervention based on logotherapeutic principles (see Chapters 4 and 5).

Table 3.9.

Examples of OD interventions occurring in the major organisational subsystems

Subsystem Change focus Techniques

Human-Social Subsystem Personal change

Group dynamics

Attitude modification

Change management:

o Culture

o Climate

External Interface Subsystem Re-strategising

Re-positioning

Strategic planning

External risk analysis

PEST analysis

SWOT analysis

Task Subsystem Process-based work

Work teams

Worker-machine interface

BPR

Job redesign

Ergonomics

Technological Subsystem Systems speed

Systems accuracy

User-friendliness

BPR

Mechanisation of processes

Information technology

Enterprise resource planning

Goal Subsystem Organisational efficiency

Organisational effectiveness

Competitive advantage

M&As

Strategic re-alignment

Structural Subsystem Flow of communication

Flow of work

Flow of authority

Decision making

Restructuring

Downsizing

De-layering

Empowerment

As can be deduced from the above table, a number of OD interventions may exert an influence

over multiple subsystems in the organisation – be it directly or indirectly. This is again

consistent with the open systems approach (see Section 2.2). Furthermore, it was shown in

120



Section 2.2 that changes at any level of the organisation affect its people – that is, the human-

social subsystem. The importance of interventions aimed at this subsystem addressing as many

aspects as possible to facilitate effective organisational change is therefore apparent. This

provides further support to the objective of this study – establishing an intervention that

addresses the human need for meaning and purpose in life.

Table 3.9 above further also illustrates that the interventions aimed at the external interface

subsystem encompass, for example. re-strategising and re-positioning. The technological

subsystem, in turn, is often subjected to BPR (see Section 2.4.3) – a change strategy driven by

information technology. BPR is also associated with job redesign (Hellriegel et al., 1998), which

implies changes in the task system. Changes in the latter subsystem are also characterised by

interventions such as task redesign, as is evident in Cascio’s (1995) contention that a shift is

taking place from a “task-based [to] a process-based organization of work” (p. 932). Whereas

changes in the structural subsystem often involve organisational restructuring (Section 2.4.2), the

role of strategic concerns in contemporary M&A activities (Marks, 1997) places M&As in the

goal subsystem (together with interventions such as strategic re-alignment). Finally,

interventions utilised in the human-social subsystem are mostly aimed at personal change (see

Table 3.8 above).

As noted, the aim of this study precludes a comprehensive discussion of all the interventions

cited above (texts such as Cummings & Worley, 2001, and French & Bell, 1999, can be

consulted for such discussions). However, due a number of its underlying principles, four

existing OD interventions – all of which are aimed at the human-social subsystem – are relevant

to the construction of the proposed intervention (this assumption is further explored in Chapter

5). These OD interventions – sensitivity training, gestalt OD, process consultation and

appreciative inquiry – are discussed in the following paragraphs. Whereas the relevance of each

of these four approaches to the proposed intervention is explored in Chapter 5, the subsequent

discussions include deductions with regard to the limitations of each, from a logotherapeutic

perspective (see Chapter 4). The aim of these deductions, then, is to further illustrate the

potential importance and relevance of the logotherapy-based intervention in contemporary

organisations.

121



3.5.1. Sensitivity training

Also known as encounter groups, t-groups or laboratory groups, sensitivity training constitutes

an OD intervention typically aimed at the individual level (French & Bell, 1999). This was one

of the first types of OD interventions to be applied in the organisation, particularly by Lewin and

others in the 1940s (De Greene, 1982, see Section 3.2). The underlying assumption of sensitivity

training is that employee ineffectiveness is the result of emotional problems. Hence, this

intervention is focused on emotional (rather than conceptual) training (Gibson et al., 1988). This

focus was clearly illustrated by Shimmin and Van Strien’s (1998, p. 86) postulation that:

“T-groups” and sensitivity training sought to bring about changes in organizations by

changing individuals who, through exploring the interpersonal processes occurring in the

unstructured group setting, were enabled to develop more open and trusting behaviours.

Whereas Argyris (1964) discussed sensitivity training by identifying a number of things that it is

not , Luthans (1977) identified five objectives of this OD intervention. Both these perspectives

are summarised in Table 3.10 below. Robbins et al. (2003) emphasised that sensitivity training

is process rather than content focused – individuals learn through observation and participation,

rather than instruction. In particular, the aim is to increase participants’ sensitivity to “feelings in

themselves and others” by letting them discuss their feelings in an environment where feedback

can be obtained from other participants (Appell, 1984, p. 198). Robbins (1993, p. 686) held that

this process is “loosely directed by the behavioral scientist”, who creates the opportunity for

members to “express their ideas, beliefs, and attitudes”. This is believed to give participants an

increased “awareness of their own behavior and how others perceive them, greater sensitivity to

the behavior of others, and increased understanding of group processes”.

122



Table 3.10.

What sensitivity training is and what it is not (adapted from Argyris, 1964, pp. 68-70; Luthans, 1977,

pp. 535-536).

Sensitivity training is not… Sensitivity training is…

• A set of manipulative processes by which

individuals are brainwashed into believing or

feeling what others want them to

• Aimed at making participants increasingly

aware of, and sensitive to, their own and

others’ emotional reactions and expressions

• An educational process guided by an individual

who is secretly in control

• Aimed at augmenting participants’ ability to

focus attention to their own and others’ feelings

to perceive and learn from the consequences of

their actions

• Aimed at suppressing conflict or getting all

participants to like one another

• Aimed at stimulating the clarification and

development of personal values and goals

consistent with a democratic and scientific

approach to social and personal decisions and

actions

• Aimed at teaching participants to be callous,

disrespectful of society, or disliking of people

who live less open lives

• Aimed at developing concepts and theoretical

insights that will be instrumental in linking

personal goals, values, intentions to action, and

the requirements of the situation.

• Psychoanalysis, intensive group therapy, or

education for authoritarian leadership.

• Aimed at fostering behavioural effectiveness in

transactions with the environment.

Sensitivity training has been labelled a controversial intervention by a number of theorists. De

Greene (1982) contended that sensitivity training has been criticised in terms of its “inherent

deficiencies” and its failure to produce “long-term positive effects” (p. 52). Regarding the

former, Gibson et al. (1988) argued that as the trainer encourages participants to explore different

behaviours, the individuals are exposed to the risk of a breakdown in psychological coping

responses. Similarly, Appell (1984) stated that whereas some employees may find sharing their

emotions traumatising, others may deem this training inappropriate for the work setting.

Furthermore, De Greene (1982) postulated that by assuming that aspects such as attitudes and

traits can be changed in the relatively short time-span of an intervention, sensitivity training is

contradictory to personality theories. These theories generally indicate that personality

123



characteristics are not only relatively stable, but they are also mostly formed in the early years of

one’s life. Greenberg and Baron (1993) presented a defence for sensitivity training (as regards

its lack of positive evidence) by contending that the nature of what is addressed makes the

assessment of results particularly difficult. Nevertheless, these authors also pointed out that as a

result of these and other criticisms, sensitivity training is no longer used by itself for OD

purposes. Rather, it is applied as a section of or in addition to other interventions.

One may also level critique against sensitivity training from a logotherapeutic (see Chapter 4)

perspective. Firstly, although it stimulates the clarification and development of personal values

and goals, and aims to contribute to the linking of personal goals, values, intentions to action,

and the requirements of the situation (see Table 3.10 above), all of which may contribute to the

individual’s experience of meaning, the primary focus of sensitivity training is on the emotions

of participants. As will be seen in Section 4.4.1.2, Frankl (1988) postulated that the direct

pursuit of subjective conditions (such as emotions) results in a phenomenon known as

‘hyperintention’, which ultimately makes the state unattainable. In other words, the strong focus

sensitivity training exerts on the emotions of participants, may actually result in the

intervention’s failure to successfully address these affective states. However, should this

intervention make the meaning that participants experience its primary focus, emotional

awareness will ensue (see Figure 4.2).

Secondly, sensitivity training tends to focus on participants’ negative (emotional) experiences.

Logotherapy, in turn, pursues the experiences which individuals find meaningful and as

contributing to their sense of purpose. According to the appreciative inquiry literature (see

Section 3.5.4 below), such a positive focus is more inspirational to employees, thereby

contributing to the growth of the system. By contrast, a focus on pathology, like that of

sensitivity training, may result in employees being unable to move past the undesirable present

state and embrace the post-change situation10.

10 This proposition reflects Lewin’s change model, as discussed in Section 3.4.

124



3.5.2. Gestalt OD

Gestalt OD, as based on Gestalt therapy, is generally aimed at the individual, dyad/triad, or

team/group level (French & Bell, 1999). The central premise in Gestalt therapy is that people

function as an integrated whole, and that behaviour should be understood from this perspective.

Gestalt therapists are thus opposed to breaking up human processes into elements (Louw, 1987;

Louw & Edwards, 1993; Perls, Hefferline & Goodman, 1973), as such fragmentation leads to

people losing touch with their inner or total selves (French & Bell, 1999; Kilcourse, 1994), often

resulting in dysfunctional psychological consequences such as depression and anxiety (Westen,

1996). Gestalt therapy, then, attempts to bring about “awareness, integration, maturation,

authenticity, self-regulation, and behavioral change” (Harman, in French & Bell, 1999, p. 165).

French and Bell (1999) contended that the main aim of Gestalt OD is to “make the individual

stronger, more authentic, and more in touch with the individual’s own feelings” (p. 165). This

requires that individuals be able to express their emotions completely – something that takes

place in structured exercises. In this sense, Gestalt OD resembles sensitivity training. However,

due to the complexity of this approach, French and Bell (1999) warn that only practitioners who

have received training in Gestalt OD should attempt to implement it as an intervention.

As will be shown in Chapter 5, Gestalt OD shares a number of characteristics with logotherapy,

particularly as both these approaches draw on theory from the Phenomenological School of

Thought. Nevertheless, this approach to OD may still have deficiencies upon evaluation from a

logotherapeutic perspective. In particular, as is the case with sensitivity training, Gestalt OD

may be criticised for its propensity to result in hyperintention (see Section 4.4.1.2). By focusing

almost exclusively on the strength, authenticity and emotional awareness of the individual, this

approach to OD may produce a situation where these states are unattainable. If, on the other

hand, this intervention were to pursue the meaning individuals find in the changing organisation,

these subjective states may ensue. What is more, such an approach may then also result in the

individual functioning as an integrated – rather than a fragmented 11 – human being, as is the

11 The application of Gestalt therapy in the workplace reflects the assumption that work can result in individual alienation. Thisargument is explored in Section 5.2.4.

125



ultimate goal of Gestalt OD. This again indicates the potential value of integrating

logotherapeutic principles into organisational change initiatives.

3.5.3. Process consultation

Process consultation is generally attributed to Edgar Schein (Koch, 1999). This approach

involves an external consultant providing the organisation with insight into the processes in the

organisation that need improvement (Robbins et al., 2003) – processes that include aspects such

as “communication, interpersonal relations, decision making, and task performance” (Cummings

& Worley, 2001, p. 219). Process consultation is similar to sensitivity training in that it assumes

that dealing with interpersonal problems and emphasising involvement will ultimately increase

the effectiveness of the organisation (Robbins et al., 2003). As an OD intervention, process

consultation is typically aimed at the dyad/triad, teams/groups, intergroup relations, or total

organisation level (French & Bell, 1999).

Schein (1995) argued that process consultation starts with the needs of the client, but the

consultant does not solve the client’s problems. Rather, clients are actively involved in the

process of both diagnosing the problem and formulating an intervention that will be suitable for

their particular situations (Schein, 1993). The process consultant therefore serves as a ‘helper’ or

facilitator assisting clients in solving their own problems. This relationship or intervention is

terminated as soon as the client has developed the capability to deal with similar problems in the

future (Gibson et al., 1988). Finally, as regards process consultation, Cummings and Worley

(2001, p. 219) contended:

Is more a philosophy than a set of techniques aimed at performing this helping relationship.

The philosophy ensures that those who are receiving the help own their problems, gain the

skills and expertise to diagnose them, and solve them themselves. Thus, it is an approach to

helping people and groups help themselves.

From a logotherapeutic perspective (see Chapter 4), it may be deduced that one of process

consultation’s strongest points involves its reliance on individual inputs with regard to what is to

be addressed or improved in the organisation, rather than prescribing a solution. Nevertheless, as

126



was pointed out above, these focus areas most often include communication, interpersonal

relations, decision making, and task performance – aspects which may not necessarily be related

to the individual’s experience of meaning in the organisation. What is more, process

consultation addresses processes fundamental to many areas of human performance within the

organisation, but may fail to consider the uniquely human experience of these processes, as well

as the impact they may have on the individual’s sense of purpose in the work context.

3.5.4. Appreciative inquiry

Appreciative inquiry (AI) is a form of action research based on the social constructionist

paradigm (Karp, 2004; Watkins & Mohr, 2001) and is heavily influenced by the field of positive

psychology (Crous, 2007; see Section 1.4) that is aimed at the team/group or the total

organisation (French & Bell, 1999). AI focuses on achieving action through transformative

dialogue, which is ignited by the ‘unconditional positive question’ (Ludema, Cooperrider &

Barrett, 2001, p. 191). Thus, it is suggested that effective organisational change begins with

conversations about “the positives” (Keers, 2007, p. 10) – or what the organisation does right

(Berrisford, 2005; Cummings & Worley, 2001). Underlying this approach is the belief that a

dominant focus on problems has brought about the failure of action research in advancing large-

scale organisational change (Cooperrider & Srivasta, 1987). In this regard, Ludema et al. (2001,

p. 189) argued that if “we devote our attention to what is wrong with organizations… we lose the

ability to see and understand what gives life to organizations and to discover ways to sustain and

enhance that life-giving potential”.

In essence, then, AI approaches the organisation as a “miracle to be embraced” rather than a

problem to be solved (French & Bell, 1999, p. 139). It “replaces our focus on problems with an

appreciation of what is and what might be, followed by agreement on what should be and what

will be” (Cooperrider & Srivasta, 1994, p. 207; emphasis in original). The importance of such an

appreciation and the unconditional positive question is expressed in the belief that human system

growth and the construction of reality are directed by the questions most often asked in the

organisation (Ludema et al., 2001). Positive questions result in positive expectations, and people

tend to act in ways that will realise their expectations (Cummings & Worley, 2001). Karp (2004)

and Ludema et al. (2001) suggested that such positive behaviours may be found by utilising the

127



4-D model of appreciative inquiry. This suggests that after a positive topic has been chosen, a

process of Discovery, Dreaming, Designing, and Destiny is followed. The final outcomes of this

process, then, include “a positive revolution of change” (Ludema et al., 2001, p. 198).

Although AI, like logotherapy, focuses on the value of positive experiences for the individual, it

may nevertheless be subjected to criticism from a logotherapeutic perspective. For example, it

may be argued that AI’s focus on an appreciation of ‘what is and what might be’ lends itself to

embracing that which individuals find meaningful in the organisation. Nevertheless, a deeper

investigation into the mechanics of the AI process (see, for example, Watkins & Mohr, 2001)

reveals that the ultimate areas on which it is focused are determined by the majority. In other

words, the individual’s wishes with regard to what needs to be addressed may be abandoned in

favour of the group’s decision. Thus, although AI starts off considering all individual inputs, the

ultimate decision (on areas to be changed) is based on a utilitarian framework. This may result

in individual dissatisfaction12 and failure to find meaning in the change process. This criticism

reinforces the importance of incorporating into the changing organisation an intervention that

addresses the unique individual need for meaning and purpose.

3.6. Conclusion

French et al. (1994, p. vii) argued that OD “offers a prescription for improving the goodness of

fit between an individual and the organization13

and between the organization and its

environment”. This statement is of potentially critical importance, for two reasons in particular.

Firstly, OD was indicated as being primarily aimed at the human-social subsystem. The

significance of this lay in the critical role of people in successful change efforts (see Chapter 2),

as well as in the increasing realisation that the organisation’s true competitive advantage resides

in its people (see discussion in Chapter 1). In addition, French and Bell (1990) argued that

although OD interventions are primarily aimed at people, their influence is not restricted to this

realm. Rather, as was shown in Section 3.5, such interventions also impact directly or indirectly

12 This assumption reflects the commonly held belief that employees’ participation in the formulation of change strategies will

increase their satisfaction with and commitment to change initiatives and thus reduce their resistance to change (see Section2.6.1).13 Improving the person–organisation fit is also regarded as essential for job satisfaction (Pool & Pool, 2007; see Section 5.2.3.2).

128



on the other organisational subsystems (see Figure 3.1), thereby contributing to increasing

organisational effectiveness. Hence, OD efforts may be described to some extent as a “gestalt

kind of consulting” (French & Bell, 1990, p. 57). The second implication of the statement by

French et al. (1994) pertains directly to earlier arguments (see Chapter 2) that adapting to the

environment is essential for establishing an organisational competitive advantage. To illustrate

this point, Gibson et al. (1988) argued that systems theory emphasises organisational adaptation

to the external environment as a criterion for organisational effectiveness. It is thus apparent that

by contributing to the ‘goodness of fit’ organisations achieve with their employees and

environments, OD may make a significant contribution to the effectiveness of organisations, and

thus to their own survival.

The primary objective of Chapter 3 was to provide an overview of OD, thereby firstly illustrating

how this discipline can make a contribution to “the betterment of human welfare” (Cascio, 1995,

p. 928), and secondly providing additional grounding to the aim of this study – the development

of a logotherapy-based OD intervention (see Chapters 4, 5 and 6) that facilitates change by

addressing the individual’s experience of meaning amidst organisational transitions. To this end,

four secondary objectives were addressed. Firstly, an overview of the historical foundations of

OD was provided. Secondly, OD was conceptualised as an approach to implementing and

facilitating planned change that is based on behavioural scientific knowledge and humanistic

psychology, and implemented in various organisational subsystems to ultimately reach

organisational goals. Thirdly, the scope and focus of OD were addressed, where it was showed

that OD is fundamentally aimed at the human-social subsystem. Furthermore, Kurt Lewin’s

Force Field Analysis Model and three-step change process were also discussed. Finally, in order

to lay the foundations for discussions regarding the new OD intervention to be developed in this

study (see Chapters 5 and 6), four established OD interventions which focus on facilitating

organisational change by addressing the human-social subsystem, were addressed. These

interventions, namely sensitivity training, Gestalt OD, process consultation and appreciative

inquiry, were further criticised from a logotherapeutic perspective, so as to continue building the

case for a new OD intervention – one that is firmly grounded in logotherapy and pursues the

facilitation of individual meaning amidst organisational transition, in order to ultimately address

individual resistance to change.

129



Regarding the theoretical foundations underlying this new intervention, OD and logotherapy, a

number of consistent elements may be apparent in these two bodies of knowledge. For example,

Frankl (1978, p. 72), the father of logotherapy, contended that:

What at present seems to be needed in psychology more than anything else is for

psychotherapy to enter the human dimension, the dimension of the human phenomena.

It may be argued that this proposed humanising of psychology greatly resembles attempts made

in the field of OD to add a human dimension to the managing of people, particularly amidst

change in organisations. The subsequent chapter, then, constitutes a discussion of the work done

by Frankl and others in the field of logotherapy. As was indicated in Chapter 1, the rationale for

the inclusion of this discussion in this study is that the proposed new OD intervention will be

based on the principles prescribed by this movement (a more comprehensive discussion of this

rationale is provided in Chapters 5 and 6). This may then contribute to a better understanding of

the applicability of logotherapy in the organisational change context, particularly as an OD

intervention.

organisational change & intervention

Documents