Robert J. Marshak

Revisioning Organization Development: Diagnostic and Dialogic Premises and Patterns of Practice

This article identifies a bifurcation in the practice of organization development (OD) that is not fully acknowledged or discussed in OD textbooks or journal articles. Forms of OD practice exist that do not adhere to key assumptions and prescriptions of the founders of OD. Some of these dialogical forms of organization development practice are described and contrasts and similarities with the original, diagnostic, form of OD are analyzed. Practices that define dialogical forms of OD are identified with a call for increased acknowledgment of this bifurcation in OD research, practice, and teaching.

Organizational Discourse and New Organization Development Practices

A new ensemble of organization development (OD) practices have emerged that are based more on constructionist, post modern and new sciences premises than the assumptions of the early founders. These include practices associated with appreciative inquiry, large group interventions, changing mindsets and consciousness, addressing diversity and multicultural realities, and advancing new and different models of change. We propose that the emerging field of organizational discourse offers sympathetic concepts and research that could add additional insights and theoretical rigour to the New OD. In particular, studies of organizational discourse based upon social constructionist and critical perspectives offer compelling ideas and practices associated with the establishment of change concepts, the role of power and context in relation to organizational change, and specific discursive interventions designed to foster organizational change.

Managing the metaphors of change

For most leaders and change agents, one seven-word expression has become synonymous with resistance to change: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” On the surface, it’s a straightforward, rather blunt statement of fact and advice: “Don’t mess with what’s already working.” As usually interpreted, however, it’s a slogan of resistance, defiantly asserting: “No change is wanted or needed here; go tinker somewhere else!” Considered symbolically, it may also reveal an unarticulated set of assumptions about change and the organization in question. Every individual, and for that matter, cultural system, views and interprets empirical events through a set of beliefs and assumptions. Often these beliefs and assumptions are subconscious and rarely examined or questioned. They just are. Yet they exert a profound influence over how a person sees a situation, and what actions will or will not be taken. If, for example, someone implicitly assumes that interpersonal communication is like calling another person on the telephone, then any miscommunication might be attributed to a “bad connection” or “static on the line.” Viewed as a computerto-computer interface, the difficulties might be alternatively defined as “incompatible software or hardware.” Depending on the implicit view, different remedies are likely to be suggested: “Let’s hang up and try again,” or “Let’s make sure we are both using the same (computer) language.” This discussion advances the proposition that these underlying, usually unarticulated understandings about a situation are often shaped and revealed metaphorically. Furthermore, because these understandings are critical to how people assess the need for change—and indeed, their conception of change itself—paying attention to managing the metaphors of change becomes a critical competency for leaders and change agents.

Lewin Meets Confucius: A Review of the OD Model of Change

Questions have been raised in recent years about the cultural limits and overall efficacy of organization development (OD) to address the current and emerging problems of contemporary organizations. This discussion attempts to speak to both issues by examining the OD model of change, that is, Lewins three-stage change process of unfreezing, movement, and refreezing. When the OD model is compared to the model(s) of change based in East Asian and Confucian cultural traditions, different assumptions about change are revealed. The analysis suggests that different culturally based models of change exist and are likely to lead adherents to employ different change methods and approaches. Consideration of both models as valid points to a possible synthesis that would address developmental and transformational change processes. More research into the change models and assumptions inherent in different cultures and cosmologies is needed not only to inform current OD practice but to expand the range of change theories and methods available for dealing with contemporary organizational issues.

Conceptualizing organizational discourse as situated symbolic action

This article presents a conceptualization of organizational discourse as situated symbolic action, drawing from the fields of speech act theory, rhetoric, ethnography of communication and social constructionism. This conceptualization is illustrated through analysis of an episode of negotiated order accessed through an organization development intervention; a meeting of senior managers of Systech, a major IT organization, to decide on a new business model. This perspective helps to respond to some of the key challenges facing the organizational discourse field in terms of developing more clearly specified conceptualizations of discourse suited to the organizational level of analysis, achieving a more holistic and discourse-sensitive understanding of empirical contexts by organizational researchers, and illustrating that organizational discourse analysis is not simply an intellectual luxury but can have pragmatic, relevant implications.

Toward a Discourse-Centered Understanding of Organizational Change

Although organizational change involves a complex set of communicative and language-based processes, discourse-based approaches for understanding and managing change dynamics have been relatively underutilized by researchers and practitioners. To help address this situation, this article advances an analytic framework for explaining how discourse and organizational change are mutually implicated. Drawing on the research literature, the constructive, multilevel, conversational, political, reflexive, and recursive nature of organizational change discourses are presented and discussed. Implications for research and practice are then reviewed.

From Outer Words to Inner Worlds

Drawing primarily on the articles published in this edition of The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, this article examines two significant lacunae in the organizational discourse literature. First, the authors examine the methodological and practical implications of incorporating a discourse-sensitive perspective into everyday organizational analysis. Second, the authors explore the potential insights to be gained from discourse analysts developing a more focused methodological and substantive concern with the inner worlds from which discourse springs.

The Dialogic Mindset in Organization Development

Abstract Extending the argument made in Bushe and Marshak (2009) of the emergence of a new species of Organization Development (OD) that we label Dialogic, to differentiate it from the foundational Diagnostic form, we argue that how any OD method is used in practice will be depend on the mindset of the practitioner. Six variants of Dialogic OD practice are reviewed and compared to aid in identification of a Weberian ideal-type Dialogic Mindset, consisting of eight premises that distinguish it from the foundational Diagnostic Mindset. Three core change processes that underlie all successful Dialogic OD processes are proposed, and suggestions for future research offered.

A discursive approach to organization development

This article presents a conceptualization of organizational discourse as situated symbolic action that is then illustrated through an analysis of a meeting of senior managers during an organization development intervention. This perspective encourages a more holistic understanding of organizational contexts and offers an actionable framework to help make sense of workplace episodes and choose appropriate interventions. The ways in which action research was conceptualized and applied are also discussed.

Organizational Discourse and Change: Positions, Perspectives, Progress, and Prospects

It has been 10 years since The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (JABS) published a special issue titled “Discourses of Organizing” (Vol. 36, No. 2, 2000) based on the then emerging field of organizational discourse. A decade on seems to be an appropriate juncture at which to reflect on the range of work produced and the general progress made and consider possible future directions. In addition to briefly taking stock of developments within the field, this opening piece provides an opportunity to introduce the subsequent articles contained in this special issue and locate them within the developing landscape of discursive contributions on organizational change. Given these broad aims, there are three main sections in this introductory article. First, the general trajectory and shifting patterns of “organizational discourse and change” contributions are considered and a way of thinking about different waves of engagement is presented. Then, in the second main section, the focus and general contribution of the articles presented in this collection are discussed. Finally, we conclude by speculating on emerging trends and the scope for further inquiry.