In these three researches, the biggest difference is that Eubanks, Marshall and O’Driscoll’s research shows that implementing the intervention is the most important skill, which is not mentioned in Turpin and Johnson’s research. The reason might be that Turpin and Johnson’s research was done more than 20 years ago. At that moment, the practitioners could not involve deeply into the implementation of organization development. There is one problem in the research conducted by Marshall and O’Driscoll. In their second research method called “matched set”, they only use 25 samples to implement their research, which is not convincing. Another problem is that most of their samples are OD consultants with high experience, which may cause their result not accurate (Eubanks, Marshall & O’Driscoll, 1990). In Worley and Feyerherm’s research, they state that knowledge and experience are more important than other skills, which is a biggest difference among these three researches. This research not only focuses on the skills but also highlights the experience and knowledge.
Development of OD practitioners
Shepard & Raia (1981) stated that the demand of OD practitioners would increase dramatically. They estimated “about 15,000 to 18,000 OD practitioners have to be trained in the next 20 years”. Not matter you are aspiring OD practitioners or experience practitioners, it is always a good way to develop yourself by attending a good academic training program and joining into OD-related professional association(Varney, 1980; Shepard & Raia, 1981; McDcrmott, 1984; Eynde and Honeybone, 1998). Eynde and Honeybone (1998) suggest that aspiring OD practitioners should attend a good program in the OD field or related field. Varney (1980) states “the most popular program is the best program to attempt”. It means OD practitioners should attend the program that most OD practitioners attend. This view tends to be too arbitrary, but it is generally true. The research conducted by McDcrmott (1984) indicates that all of the respondents belong to at least one OD professional associations. Those OD professional associations will present the profession and provide service. Firstly, OD professionals would like their association can encourage the use of theory and material in other training program. Another reason why OD practitioners join in different OD associations is because it can provide them a forum for discussing and evaluating OD training program. In addition, his study also shows that “the most frequently used professional development tools are journals and books”.
Theory can be seen as the foundation of OD profession, so OD practitioners should keep developing their theory. A good OD practitioner must understand a wide range of knowledge about social science (Eynde & Honeybone, 1998; Worley, Feyerherm, 2003). Eynde and Honeybone (1998) point out that the reason why theory is so important for OD practitioners is that theory is the foundation of how things work. Particularly, for those OD practitioners who are not very experienced, theory can be the only thing that they can rely on when they are in the situation, in which they have not experience. Nowadays, lots of OD practitioners should develop their foundational theory. This view can be proved by a Managing Change Questionnaire conducted by Burke, Church and Waclawski (1993). It shows that although the performance of OD practitioners was better than the performance of managers and executives, they still have some weak areas, which is urgent to be improved. What OD practitioners need to do is to acquire more fundamental knowledge of change. If OD practitioners want to improve their knowledge of managing change, they should increase the underlying principles. That means OD practitioners have to do their homework again.
Because practical experience is very important for effective OD practitioners, they should develop their practical experience during their work (Warrick & Donovan, 1979; Eynde & Honeybone, 1998; Worley & Feyerherm, 2003). A person, who has a list of skills that an OD practitioner need, can not be called as an effective OD consultant. What he need is experience. Eynde & Honeybone (1998) claim that experience can be seen as the prerequisite of being an OD consultant and suggest that a new OD practitioner should find a mentor, who is experienced in OD field. Similarly, Worley & Feyerherm (2003) declare that the individual, who is in absence of experience, need to have internship or other supervised fieldwork to accumulate their experience before they become a good OD consultant or practitioner. What they need is not only the experience of OD filed but also the experience of outside the OD field. Again, Worley and Feyerherm (2003) claims that broad exposure to, and experiences in, areas outside of the field of OD is important.
The development of OD practitioners does not mean that OD practitioners only need to improve their skills, theory and experience. The development of self is one part of the development of OD practitioners (Eynde & Honeybone, 1998; Worley, Feyerherm, 2003). Eynde & Honeybone (1998) states “an effective OD practitioner has an extensive knowledge of self and is committed to a continual process of self development”. They think good consultants with good understanding of self can distinguish between the one's own personal issues and those of the client; moreover, the consultants who are more familiar with themselves can improve their efficiency, because they have a good understanding of who they are and how they can use themselves. Although, Worley, Feyerherm (2003) agree with Eynde & Honeybone by saying that “personal growth is critical in the development of OD practitioners”, they also point out the problem that “an OD practitioner's pursuit of self-knowledge to the exclusion of productive value-added activity is narcissistic, and it is misguided when personal growth is normatively viewed as central to the client (unless that is what has been contracted for)”.
The role of OD consultants
Kubr (cited in Massey &Walker, 1996) claims that OD consultants play two roles. Firstly, he thinks OD consultants play a “source” role. Playing this role, OD consultants provide their clients technical expertise. Secondly, he notes that “process” is OD consultants another role. Consultants try to help the organizations solve their problems by making it aware of organizational process. Consultants take the primary responsibility for choosing which role they want to play (Massey & Walker, 1996). Smith & James (2000), tend to choose the second role, states that consultants should play as the helper of clients. Most other field consultants, such as business consultant, would like to tell their clients what to do rather than teach them how to figure out the solution. They will give their clients a package-based solution rather than a process-based solution. These consultants tend to use a doctor/patient model of consulting. When the client is “sick”, a consultant will be called in to “cure” this illness. However, OD consultants use client-centered approaches when they are called in to cure the “sick” organization, which means they will tell their client how to find out the solution rather than only give them the “drug”. Therefore, clients have to participate into the setting of objectives, diagnosing of the situation, planning of interventions, and follow-up and monitoring of success. Teaching clients how to learn is more important than only give them the solution. Moreover, OD consultants may encounter the situations where there are problems with intergroup relation, such as a joint union-management change. In these situations, traditionally, OD consultants were seen as a neutral third party as a source of unbiased help. However, Huszczo & Sheahan (1999) argue “Helping others help themselves still means actively helping people, not passively listening as a neutral or issuing decisions as a judge”. OD consultant should serve as an advocate for the interests of both parties and strategies.
Issues in client/consultant relationships
There was a survey conducted by Smith (2002) about what client employees think about OD consultant. The researcher asked the respondent “What value the consultant contributed to the change effort and in what ways the consultant could have been more effective in supporting the change effort”. The researcher used the finding of this survey to draw a set of inferences, which can be used as a framework of managing the relationships of consultants and clients. The first inference is that consultants and clients should have an accurate definition of the project outcomes and parameter. Both of parties should clearly understand this definition. The second one is that both consultants and sponsors should realize that the success of the project depends on the effective collaboration of stakeholders. The third inference is that communication between consultants and clients should be carried out through the whole project. The forth inference is that there are two processes of managing the relationships of those two parties. First process is producing and implementing the structures, technology, staffing and systems, which is required to effect the organizational change. The second phase is coordinating and managing resources to support the first process. The final one is the performance of consultants be assessed by the comment of consultants’ performance from stakeholders against their exception of change outcomes.
Deaner(1994) produce a simple model, which can be applied to clients system and practitioners. There are three principles, which are participation, shared power, and truth, in this model. Participation means that all the people who are influenced by the organization changes should have opportunity to participate it. The purpose of applying this principle is to create a sense of belonging. Shared power states that all stakeholders influenced by the organization changes should share the decision- making power. It’s function is similar to the first principle, which is enhance the sense of belonging. Truth means that all people who are involved in the organization changes have to tell truth to each other. Telling truth in the organization can create more high quality choices. Telling the truth seems to be very important during the implementation of organization development. According to Varney (1980), honesty is one of the most important characteristics for an OD professional.
Conclusion
OD consultant has been playing a very important role in the organization development field in these decades. Without their help, the implementation of organization change is difficult to succeed. An OD practitioner can be seen as a facilitator of the organization development. OD consultants should continue to develop their skills, knowledge and experience. Moreover, OD consultant should be aware of the relationship between them and client.
List of references
Burke, W. W., Church, A. H. & Waclawski, J. (1993), “what do OD practitioners know about managing change?”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 14, Iss. 6, pp. 3-11.
Church, A. H., Waclawski, J. & Burke, W. W. (1996), “OD practitioners as facilitators of change”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 21, Iss. 1, pp. 22-66.
Deaner, C. M. D. (1994), “A model of organization development ethics”, Public Administration Quarterly, Vol. 17, Iss. 4, pp. 435-446.
Eubanks, J. L., Marshall, J. B. & O'Driscoll, M. P. (1990), “A competency model for OD practitioners”, Training and Development Journal, Vol. 44, Iss. 11, pp. 85-89.
Eynde, D. F. V. & Honeybone, M. S. (1998), “Advice from the experts for the aspiring practitioner of organization development”, Organization Development Journal, Vol. 16, Iss. 1, pp. 83-88.
Huszczo, G. E. & Sheahan, M. (1999), “The advocacy approach to OD consulting: neutral is not enough”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 20, Iss. 5, pg. 262.
Massey, C. & Walker, R. (1999), “Aiming for organizational learning: consultants as agents of change”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 6, Iss. 1, pg. 38.
McDermott, L. C. (1984), “The many faces of the OD professional”, Training & Development Journal, Vol. 38, Iss. 2, pp.14-19.
Shephard, K O. & Raia, A. P. (1981), “The OD Training Challenge”, Training & Development Journal, Vol. 35 Iss. 4, pp. 90-94.
Smith, M. (2002), “What client employees say about consultants”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23, Iss. 1/2, pp. 93-103.
Smith, w. j. (2000), “Organization development consulting”, Journal for Quality & Participation, Vol. 23, Iss. 4.
Turpin, R. S. & Johnson, H. H. (1982), “OD-Current Theory and Practice”, Training & Development Journal, Vol. 36 Iss. 4, pp.14-16.
Varney, G. H. (1980), “Developing OD competencies”, Training & Development Journal, Vol. 34, Iss. 4, pp.30-35.
Waddell, D. M., Cummings, T. G. & Worley, C. G. (2004), Organization development & change, Thomson, Australia.
Warrick, D.D. & Donovan, T. (1979), “Surveying organization development skills”, Training &developing Journal, Vol. 33, Iss. 9, pp. 22-25.
Worley, C. G. & Feyerherm, A. E. (2003), “Reflections on the future of organization development”, The journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 39, Iss. 1, pp. 97-115.
