Dialogic OD vs. Diagnostic OD: Driving Organizational Change

Introduction to Organizational Development and Dialogic OD

In the 1960s, Organizational Development (OD) emerged as a field identifiable with survey research, action research, T-groups, open system theory, humanistic psychology, team building, and process consultation. The methods and ideas associated with the field have since broadened and enriched its range and approach. Since the 1980s, these methods and ideas have converged into a form of OD that differs from the OD of the 1960s in both theory and practice. This new development has been labeled "Dialogic OD" and contrasted with various forms of "Diagnostic OD," which are founded on previously held ideas and practices (Bushe and Marshak, 2009; Marshak and Bushe, 2013).

The aim of this paper is to introduce Dialogic OD and examine the ways in which it is similar to and differs from traditional OD. There are specific practices and methods related to it, as well as appropriate contexts for implementation. References are made to Dialogic OD theory and practice literature throughout.

This paper begins by comparing the structures of OD and Dialogic OD, and then further analyzes the tools within the Dialogic OD framework that can assist an organization when applied from the CEO across the entire staff.

Key Differences Between Dialogic OD and Diagnostic OD

During the last three decades, the social sciences have taken a linguistic and postmodern turn. Discoveries have also been made in natural and nonlinear sciences, and change practices and change thinking have undergone a significant transformation.

Many new methods have arisen, such as open space, appreciative inquiry, World Café, Art of Hosting, re-description, and the conference model, to name a few (Bushe, 2013). These are philosophically different in terms of paradigm from Diagnostic OD. Dialogic OD does not base the organization on an open-system model; instead, it is founded on the concept that organizations are dialogic systems. In this view, individual, group, and organizational action is driven by self-organizing processes, the creation of new socially constructed realities, and the present narratives, interactions, and stories that people derive from their experiences.

Organizations are understood as complex phenomena where people's thoughts and actions constitute a continuous process of meaning-making and emergence. From this perspective, change derives from modifying the conversations that occur daily and shape everyday thinking and behavior — by engaging more voices and opinions, talking with different individuals, and producing generative or alternative images that shift people's thinking patterns.

Dialogic OD is also easy to misinterpret. It is not simply about facilitating pleasant interactions or exchanging information. 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 is a new way of inviting novel thinking strategies while keeping present organizational conversations in view, in order to redesign and reframe understanding and action (Barrett, Thomas, and Hocevar, 1995; Grant & Marshak, 2011; van Nistelrooij & Sminia, 2010; Whitney, 1996).

The Dialogic OD Practice Framework

Dialogic OD practice can range from episodic change practices to continuous change practices. Episodic change focuses on one or more discrete events to assist a group — whether small or large — in moving from one stable state to another. In continuous change practice, ongoing interactions take place to progressively modify a group or organization, driving it toward a transformed state.

In both cases, there is a clear need for the sponsor to have ownership of the organization or group, and to use the assistance of a Dialogic OD consultant to foster change. When addressing complex problems — such as in health care or education — sponsoring groups may comprise multiple organizations. Sponsors are often uncertain about what changes will be implemented and how they will unfold. They may be responding to particular issues and concerns, or they may be seeking a desired outcome; in either case, they are typically unsure about how to manage change and its after-effects.

During entry, the Dialogic OD consultant assists sponsors in recognizing the scope and range of the affected stakeholders who are to be involved in the process. Sponsors and consultants may agree on a general hosting or planning group to help arrange the affected stakeholders within a change scenario. This is particularly important when change is targeting a specific issue — such as regional transportation — where involving a large and diverse group of participants is necessary, or when working with a change-oriented mindset.

It is imperative for the OD consultant and the sponsor to reach a shared understanding of the potential outcomes of a change initiative. The sponsor must be willing to commit the required resources, which may include time, money, and personal commitments to the project.

Dialogic methods enable participants to become aware of embedded narratives, stories, and discourse patterns (Oliver, 2005; Swart, 2013), while other methods do not foreground these explicitly (Cooperrider, Whitney & Stavros, 2008; Owen, 2008b). In both cases, change requires altering those narratives. Some approaches concentrate on modifying discourse (e.g., Shaw, 2002; Storch & Ziethen, 2013), while others focus on modifying both discourse and the actions that flow from it (e.g., Cooperrider, 2012; Nissen & Corrigan, 2009).

Dialogic OD, like Diagnostic OD, engages both structured interventions (analogous to action research) and experimental interventions (analogous to process consultation). Both forms are examined below.

Conclusion

The Dialogic OD practices discussed in this paper are not entirely new. In most organizations, they have been understood and applied as foundational OD, which views organizations as open systems whose health needs to be assessed through action research and improved by applying behavioral scientific knowledge. This remains one valid way of thinking about them.

Dialogic OD, however, offers a generative image that promotes new frames of reference for thinking about OD. It also encourages new theories and new practices within organizational development to emerge. As organizations face increasingly complex challenges, the shift from diagnostic to dialogic approaches offers leaders and practitioners a richer set of tools for fostering meaningful, lasting change.

References

Axelrod, R. (2010). Terms of engagement: New ways of leading and changing organizations. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Barrett, F. J., & Cooperrider, D. L. (1990). Generative metaphor intervention: A new approach for working with systems divided by conflict and caught in defensive perception. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26(2), 219–239.

Barrett, F. J., Thomas, G. F., & Hocevar, S. P. (1995). The central role of discourse in large scale change: A social construction perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31(3), 352–372.

Brown, J., & Issacs, D. (2005). The World Café. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Bushe, G. R. (2013). Dialogic OD: A theory of practice. OD Practitioner, 45(1), 10–16.

Bushe, G. R. (2010). Being the container in dialogic OD. Practicing Social Change, 1(2), 10–15.

Bushe, G. R. (2007). Appreciative Inquiry is not (just) about the positive. OD Practitioner, 39(4), 30–35.

Bushe, G. R. (2002). Meaning making in teams: Appreciative inquiry with pre-identity and post-identity groups. In R. Fry, F. Barrett, J. Seiling, & D. Whitney (Eds.), Appreciative inquiry and organizational transformation (pp. 39–63). Westport, CT: Quorum.

Bushe, G. R., & Marshak, R. J. (2009). Revisioning organization development: Diagnostic and dialogic premises and patterns of practice. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(3), 348–368.

Cooperrider, D. L. (2012). The concentration effect of strengths: How the whole system "AI" summit brings out the best in human enterprise. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 106–117.

Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2008). Appreciative inquiry handbook (2nd ed.). Brunswick, OH: Crown Custom Publishing.

Grant, D., & Marshak, R. J. (2011). Toward a discourse-centered understanding of organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(2), 204–235.

Holman, P. (2013). A call to engage: Realizing the potential of dialogic organization development. OD Practitioner, 45(1), 18–24.

Issacs, W. N. (1999). Dialogue: The art of thinking together. New York, NY: Crown Business.

Marshak, R. J., & Bushe, G. R. (2013). An introduction to advances in dialogic organization development. OD Practitioner, 45(1), 1–3.

Nissen, M., & Corrigan, C. (2009). The art of harvesting v2.6. Self-published document. Retrieved from http://www.artofhosting.org

Oliver, C. (2005). Reflexive inquiry. London, UK: Karnac.

Owen, H. (2008b). Open space technology (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Schein, E. H. (1969). Process consultation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Shaw, P. (2002). Changing conversations in organizations. New York, NY: Routledge.

Storch, J., & Ziethen, M. (2013). Re-description: A source of generativity in dialogic organization development. OD Practitioner, 45(1), 25–29.

Swart, C. (2013). Re-authoring the world: The narrative lens and practices for organizations, communities and individuals. Unpublished manuscript.

van Nistelrooij, A., & Sminia, H. (2010). Organization development: What's actually happening? Journal of Change Management, 10(4), 407–420.

Vogt, E. E., Brown, J., & Isaacs, D. (2003). The art of powerful questions. Waltham, MA: Pegasus.

Weisbord, M. R. (2012). Productive workplaces (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Weisbord, M. R., & Janoff, S. (2010). Future search (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Whitney, D. (1996). Postmodern principles and practices for large scale organization change and global cooperation. Organization Development Journal, 14(4), 53–68.