Organizational Development: Driving Change in the 1960\'s,

Organizational Development: Driving Change

In the 1960's, Organizational development (OD) emerged as a field identifiable with survey research, action research, T-groups, open system theory, humanistic psychology, building team and channeling process consultation. The methods and ideas have thus broadened and enriched its range and approach. Since the 80's, these methods and ideas have converged in a form of OD which begs to vary from the OD of the 60's in both theory and practice. This new development has been labeled as 'Dialogic OD' and compared with many shapes of 'Diagnostic OD', founded on previous held ideas and practices (Bushe and Marshak, 2009, Marshak and Bushe, 2013). The aim of this chapter is to introduce Dialogic OD and examine waysit's similar to and begs to diversify from OD. There are some practices and methods related to it and proper implementation period to use it. References are made to information from Dialogic OD theory and practices from time to time.

This paper will start off by comparing the OD and Dialogic OD structure and then further analyze the tools in the dialogic OD structure that can help the organization in focus for this paper when applied from the CEO across the entire staff of the organization.

Key difference between Dialogic Organization development and diagnostic organization development

During the last three decades, the social sciences have taken a linguistic and postmodern approach, discoveries have been made in natural sciences and nonlinear sciences; the change practices and change ideas have also taken a drastic turn.

Many new methods have arisen such as open space, appreciative inquiry, world cafe, art of hosting, re description and conference model to name some (Bushe, 2013). They are philosophically different in terms of paradigm from the diagnostic OD. The Dialogic OD doesn't base the organization as an open-based system; instead the Dialogic OD is founded upon the concept that organizations are dialogic system. In this case, the group action, organizational action and individual action is driven from self-organizing, creating new socially apt realities and driven by present narratives, interactions and stories people derive from their experiences.

The organizations are deemed as complex phenomena where people's thoughts and action is a nonstop process involving, making, meaning and emergence. From this angle, change derives from modifying the conversation which occurs on a daily basis and maps the daily thinking and behavior by engaging more opinions and voices, talking to different individuals, and by producing generative / alternative images, the thinking pattern of people also changes.

The Dialogic OD is also easy to misinterpret, the Dialogic OD is not about driving nice interactions and exchange information. It's more than that. The change is driven in order to align the elements of an organization with the growing demands of the broader environment as indicated by open system theory. It's a new way of inviting novel thinking strategies keeping the present organizational conversations in conjunctionredesign and reframe comprehension and action (Barrett, Thomas andHocevar, 1995, Grant & Marshak, 2011;Nistelrooij & Sminia, 2010; Whitney, 1996).

The Dialogic OD practice

The Dialogic OD practice can vary from episodic change practices to nonstop change practices. The episodic change concentrates on more than one event to assist a group. The group can be small or big. It can be limited to one stable state to some other. In case of continuous change practice, continuous interactions take place in order to modify the group or an organization. This drives the group into a transformed state.

In both cases, there is a clear need from the sponsor to have the ownership of an organization or a group which uses the assistance of Dialogic OD consultant for fostering change. In case of addressing difficult problems, for instance, health care, education; sponsoring groups comprise of many organizations. The sponsors are unsure of what changes will be implemented and how will they will be implemented. They may react to certain issues and concerns, or they might seek a plausible outcome; rest assured they are unsure about how to tackle the change and it's after effects.

During entry, the concerned Dialogic OD consultant will assist the sponsors to recognize, the thoughts and range of the afflicted stakeholders who are entailed in the Dialogic OD process. They may agree or not agree on a general hosting group / planning group, which can assist in arranging the afflicted stakeholders with a change scenario. This is quite important in case of change targeting a particular issue for instance, regional transportation, where a desire to involve a big group with numerous people is entailed or when working with a change mindset.

It's imperative for the OD consultant as well as the sponsor to see eye-to-eye on the potential outcome of a change initiative. The sponsor must be willing to pool the required resources which could entail time, money and compromise personal commitments for the project.

The Dialogic methods enable the participants in being aware of narratives, stories and discourse patterns which are embedded (Oliver, 2005; Swart, 2013), while don't (Cooperrider, Whitney & Stavros, 2008; Owen, 2008b). In both cases, change is needed to change the narratives. Some concentrate on altering the discourse (e.g., Shaw, 2002; Storch & Ziethen, 2013), while some may concentrate on altering discourse as well as changes brought from the action (e.g., Cooperrider, 2012; Nissen & Corrigan, 2009).

The Dialogic OD just like Diagnostic OD engages structured interventions (similar to action research) as well as experimental interventions (similar to process consultation). Below, we will examine both forms of Dialogic OD briefly:

1: Structured dialogic OD

The structured Dialogic OD engages more than one event. The purpose of such events is enhancing relationships to boost more engagement and creativity. The questions and generative images are developed to inculcate newer ideas. Often, they are handed by the consultants and the leaders, more often the process needs to drive stimulated images for the groups and organizations (see Barrett & Cooperrider, 1990 and Bushe, 2013 for examples). They can view more options previously unseen before, newer ways to drive change; the participants can develop more concrete commitments and take on new projects and behaviors. Subsequent to the events, new connections, new thinking and conversations allow people to seep in new realities in everyday interactions.

The generative image can propel self-organized project groups. The real transformation comes from the group participants with their assumptions and attitudes as they adjust to changes in their daily operations as the reality changes with a new social construction.

The structured Dialogic OD practices engage a particular set of activities where Dialogic OD works most of the time. In any case, these tasks are necessary for the CEO to consider and carry out to attune the organization in focus for this paper:

1: Assisting the sponsors in articulating their demands in a focused manner

The sponsors work with the Dialogic OD and host a group to evaluate the outcome of a desired change and paint an image, which will appeal the interest and energy of the concerned individuals being part of the team.

The aim is far headed into the future in a sense that the present is perfectly in coordination. They do open up new possibilities for attaining a future desired rather than basing convergence on one solution. They are described as questions and sometimes they are described as themes.

2: Coaching the sponsors to drive emergent change

The Dialogic OD has different ideas of social construction and emergence. The leaders have a very controlling and planning image of themselves. The sponsors need to work and drive the emergent change. The Dialogic OD deems that each change situation is new as the human meaning is complex, what works in one organization can't work in another company. With each interaction, there are possibilities of new meanings, the causes and their effects are unpredictable, so it's better to let the changes drive themselves in the right directions. In such a given situation, it is better to tryout many changes and narrow down the most successful one. The sponsors need to understand from the beginning that these events are not organized for recognizing, driving and agreeing upon a change element. The primary purpose is to release, stimulate and support a variety of ideas and prospects for the participants, for changing the organization or the group in a given direction.

The change process must ensure two key factors to occur:

1: The people responsible for carrying out and delivering the change are entailed. Leaders are stakeholders are also factored in. They have a say in what to create and changes necessary to bring in the future.

2: The members can work out and identify the changes required in a group or the organization.

As a result of these events, the beliefs are altered, narratives and mental models regarding a group are formed, the possible and plausible is mapped out, the changes made by the groups and individuals are needed to be factored in, in the absence of least say by their top leaders. The winnowing takes place subsequent to the events as spectacular ideas fall aside replaced by other exciting ones. The leader's key roles according to Dialogic OD are:

Evaluate the desired result in terms of possibility centric

Inspire the appropriate participants and recognizing their potential

Participate in such events

Paying attention to projects and ideas, gaining strength subsequent to events, and take charge of an organization in a particular direction.

Asking generative questions

Amplifying behaviors and resources new ones

3: Including and identifying the appropriate stakeholders

The practitioners are now emphasizing the need of including all stakeholders who constitute a system during events for a successful Dialogic OD. This can mean events comprising of large number of individuals ranging from hundreds to thousands. The Large group intervention and Dialogic OD differ due to their mindset, which separates their choices and practices resultantly.

According to Holman (2013, p 22), 'goes far from habitual definitions of what and who make a system. The protestors protesting against the power is a case in point. In case, if they were invited for a dialogue, what then? Such actions create the way for creative engagement as different perspectives collide in a healthy environment. According to Weisbord & Janoff (2010), the acronym 'Are in', means the candidates to be present at dialogic events: the candidates who have information, expertise, resources, authority and need. Axelrod 2010 adds the opposed here and allows volunteers. Axelrod 2010 invites everybody.

Inviting the right people isn't enough; they should be invited in events which attracts their attention. The sponsors can compel some people to appear at such events, not all people are stakeholders for the changes to be incorporated in. The willingness to take part in such events shape up the events and the way their invitation is taken care of. That is the job of the sponsors. There is a need of widening the engagement circle. For instance, Axelrod (2010) explains employing group meetings in events to boost participation.

4: Designing and hosting talks

The Dialogic OD is differentiated by suggestions as to how to host talks and design them. Be it a large community or a small group, these can be series of multiple events. There is an absence of Dialogic OD narrative which in turns compels the Dialogic OD practitioners to be known by their method of use. They are seldom known as torchbearers of appreciative inquiry / Open space / World cafe and etc. They are hired by companies to work out such processes instead of consulting them for change at a strategic level. The new approach of Dialogic OD might assist them stepping out of the trap, in case if limitations, strengths and opportunities the Dialogic OD method provides are better comprehended.

The dialogic practice ensures that the participants have the willingness to engage in useful talks before adjusting to change. According to Bushe (2002), it is a promotion of the group from a small, large or a medium state to transcend to a post identity state. According to Art of hosting, there is a need of welcoming, in case if groups are quite diverse (Brown & Issacs, 2005). It is also stated in Holman's 2010 explanation of developing opportunities for making personal connections.

The idea of hosting a dialogic OD event sounds favorable when large groups are invited. These events are designed so people are having interactive talks in the absence of facilitation (Weisbord, 2012). This is often achieved through a series of talks designed for generating maximum productivity (e.g., Bushe, 2007; Vogt, Brown & Issacs, 2003). It can also entail some self-organizing processes as the participants can recognize the talks they might be interested in case of Open Space (Owen, 2008b).

The Dialogic OD practitioners usually have an image of a container. Being hosts, our job description is not to interfere, instead develop a container. A friendly place for working with unpredictable events is more like it (Homan, 2013, p.22). Bushe (2010) and Issacs (1999) have done some groundwork in this regard to explain a container and how better containers are made; the principle of a container is very much a set of guidelines and principles. The main purpose of Dialogic OD process is to develop a plan and implement action. This may seem light agreements in small groups with members to work differently, coupled with different opinions people have and perform their jobs the following day. The dialogic processes need an inquiry process, for thinking for a bit and structuring the multiple kinds of experiences and conversations occurring during the events to offer help in moving forward (e.g., Holman, 2013, Nissen & Corrigan, 2009).

Launching new initiatives is the call of the day for some which has been driven by event(s) (e.g., Bushe, 2013; Cooperrider, 2012). The Dialogic OD practitioners do differ in their approach, it is stimulated by the initiative, expectations and culture of the organization and group can matter in this case. The practitioners help design processes which instigate collective decision instead of facilitating convergence. Instead of anticipating collective agreement for action, they can develop key ideas and projects which people can pursue. People may often wonder how they may act differently, then are advised to work on what's meaningful and relevant. It is necessary to observe the change and its quality after the event. The quality of the events also matter in this case.