To move an organization: The corning approach to organization development

What are the requisites for an eflective OD eflort? To answer this qtiestion, the article probes the dynamics of OD in six critical areas.

TO MOVE AN ORGANIZATION:

William F. Dowling

iversity

and unity

is the joint

theme

of the

Corning Glass Works Corporation’s approach to organization development. The unified strategy

is based on the conviction

successful

change

effort requires

people, processes, and structures, necessarily Chris

but

determine

changes although

identifies

four

interacting

the behavior

regulations,

thermore,

sets of inde-

and

that

of any organization-

human

claims Argyris,

and incontrols

controls.

Fur-

“Any major change

less web and that for change priate adjustments

in all the parts? It’s simply are linked

tems and subsystems system

and

the old song, “The

system.

within

to his

To quote

toe bone’s connected

to to

the ankle

bone’s . . . ,” and

bone, the ankle

so on. (For a depiction a system, see Figure

of the organization

1.) When

as

one part of the

system is changed,

the total system is affected.

More

unless

important,

the impacts

of the

are anticipated or examined changes made in other parts

of the system, the initial

all systems Why the indivisibility of change the organization-the belief that in

by sys-

the foot bone, the foot bone’s connected

dysfunctional and, in time, discredited and abandoned.

add “amen”

together

such as the budgeting

the planning

fer with Argyris as to nomenclature, that they would

in one part of

that organizations

initial changes and appropriate

but we’re

is a seam-

the system to be lasting, there must be appro-

in an organization is doomed to failure unless major changes take place in all four characteristics.” The OD staff at Corning might difconfident claim.

16

not

characteristics

structure and technology, leadership terpersonal relations, administrative and

in

at the same time or in that order.

Argyris

pendent

that any

the final analysis, the organization

tend toward

tend to reject dysfunctional

changes

will become

are likely to be In other words,

an equilibrium

and

elements.

On the other hand, as Michael

Beer,

director

of organization

development

ning Glass, has stressed repeatedly, organizational

effectiveness

on the use of particular tiveness

depends

tools.” Instead,

lem. He mentions,

for example,

OD effort at a Corning data

feedback,

structure,

changes consultant

and

prob-

one five-year

plant

that included

job enrichment,

making,

effec-

fit between

and the particular

changes

in policy, third-party coaching

intergroup

and

problem-solving

in

Beer cautions,

peace

OD efforts at Corning each technology situation

inappropriate building

there

impact

each technology

of

is most

easier to identify

for employees

around

problems

throws

on

(3)

ship,”

effective

(5)

we

people

technology, and

have

with

example,

an team

who do not work to-

how

the two

presents typical

strains

problems

documentation.

we might

of paucity

The

issue

sub-issues:

breaks

down

into

(Corning’s

client

to feel a need?

ment

should

they

What

determines sultant’s

plex, in-depth, conscientiously currently

carefully

start with?

need for the con-

services and under

what conditions?

these

anything

The

questions,

should

Either

the client manager and

problem

that

feels that he

the consultant

is something

dysfunctional

in the in-

he thinks

the

It’s important, the consultant client

the parameters

the client has decided

of time

of riches. To do it full justice would

lated point, Beer is even more dogmatic. crucial

not this article but the book

that we trust Michael

on a charge-back

the client isn’t financially

responsible

“It’s

basis;

if

for the

find

consultant’s

services, he can either take them

to do it prox-

for granted

or ignore them. This way they are

Beer will someday

the time to write. In an attempt

to operate

and

upon. On a re-

months

the end product

for

to reject the

if he feels his goals are unobtainable,

at least within money

Beer is convinced,

to be in a position

require

with

con-

satisfactory

surplus

of research and writing,

can

use OD terms, he feels

state of affairs even better.

we

is a

to sell his

arise from two situa-

can help make a currently

and

wait for the

to feel a need, not attempt

has a problem

Beer

but eclectic. He

sultant

program

should

the continuing

environment--or

thought-through,

in operation.)

Who

ternal

and

of agree-

services? Who

there

the most comOD

kinds

add, the

observation,

implemented

tions:

of

wait for the

foot the bill for the consultant’s

help him with it-to

OD effort is per-

strike out the perhaps]

a number

Does the consultant

in practice

of examples

haps [and, based on personal should

demonstrating

intertwine

problems-not,

of

are complemen-

But

piece,

The issue of entry

client

We will try to show that the cornerstones contradictory.

that would

of a didactic

services. Needs typically

not

issues

priorities

But these are our priorities.

the confines

feels that the consultant

tary,

“owner-

evaluation.

neglected

In answering

GETTING A HANDLE ON CORNING

to OD

or

sponsor-

(4) (6)

different

is very clear-and

approach

entry

less is usually more.

gether as a group or make joint decisions.

Corning’s

(1)

or top-down

feedback,

Obviously, other

the Corning

them:

(2) bottom-up

ship,

of six issues or

and the light we think

experience entree,

a discussion

And within

in the total OD effort or the

technology-for

some possible the rest of the

have emphasized.

and elsewhere,

It is much

and

successful.

as to the relative

in which

appropriate.

article

to provide

we have organized

meetings.

however, that in this as in other

is little evidence

justice

feedback,

The tools in the kit were right for the problems and the effort was deemed

imate

guidelines,

does not depend

on the proper

tools or technology

at Cor-

“Increased

17

n ”

Values Abilities Expectations

Needs

INPUTS

External

Organization Structure Meeting Structure Job Structure Policy Personnel Systems Administrative Systems Physical Space

t INTERNA I_ ENVIRONMENT

i

External

ORGANIZATION

Figure 1

?

Environment

+

Leadership Group Process Goal Setting Planning Communication Quantity/Quality Role Clarification Conflict Decision Making Problem Solving Personnel Development Integration Meeting Process Organizational Renewal

PROCESSES

1

CULTURE

:

Environment

Personnel Movement Education Compensation

PERSONNEL

Productive Motivation Commitment Satisfaction Adaptability Personal Growth Collaboration/ Trust/Supportiveness Innovation

t HUMAN OUTPUTS

A SYSTEMSMODEL OF ORGANIZATIONS

SYSTEM

a

F e r n

E

Growth

OUTCOMES

& Paper System

Report Control

System

SYSTEM

Survival Performance

FINAL

ADMINISTRATIVE

1

part of his budget, and he’s compelled a continuing Corning,

evaluation

of their

clients and consultants

yearly informal ate what

contract

and

in which they evalu-

set goals

client

relationship

larly when manager Managerial

Grid@

technology

usually

(2)

healthy,

abound:

particu(1) A key

from a T-group

to improve

morale-the

fuse, a personnel sponsibility;

of fairly

most

unique

manager that

effort

whole project is difand so is the re-

high-level

executives project

to having

in terms

Corning

has more than

tions-“is

of now

themselves

is, the systems

to go the voluntary

progressively

better

Is it true that organization

has cleared,

usually some changes have been made.”

from

above is likely moment;

OD is viewed as window as a fundamental tion, and bered;

suffer

in the third

manent

damage

the change

is

at the cost of per-

management:

own

dirty

use personnel

with

involved for top work,

or

the OD

mark on their guns.) superior

of this argument.

Corning

has been

engaged

is fully or partially

in the OD effort (see Figure

2). Yet

and “benevolent

neutrality”

is about

tive as we can get in describing of top management fort. The much

spread

toward

normative

the attitude

the total OD ef-

of OD at Corning

a case of success breeding

not at all of the imposition

level,

as posi-

is very

success and

of a program

or a

model on lower levels by top man-

agement.

Not that the Corning problems,

and for the most

there is still no OD at the top corporate

are num-

to the consultants

Do your

its massive

OD effort, is the outstanding

of the total organization

rather than

(Moral

don’t

must

into OD for a decade, and a large percentage

and the whole image of OD. at least

with

part successful refutation

in the organiza-

instance,

and lasting

development

in the second,

the days of the change

unmistakable

sponsorship

to be rejected

dressing

change

or top-down

always begin at the top of the organization? Corning,

the fol-

defects: In the first case, “conversion”

at the first expeditious

to the sys-

tems that have passed up the OD option.

acts as a

imposed

that allow

for which

Miles put it, “The consultant

lowing

installa-

OD route look

as compared

gunman;

examples

organization”-

that the rich get richer and the poor

hired

three

the

of pay-

50 separate

mond

The

to the

Says he, “The big prob-

of the total

Bottom-up

after the smoke

as com-

a clear commitment

As Ray-

much

again. Beer feels

disadvantages

appetite.

no one else showed

al-

of specific goals for which

get poorer.” That

is brought

to do a dirty the dismissal

it was cancelled

ment and evaluation. lems

The

after the plant

client assumes the dual responsibilities

depart-

vacuous

the contract.

was written-an

procedure-but

these are minor

is instituted,

expendable-a

felt was necessary being two months)

had once more failed to live up to

the contract,

effort

job, such as recommending

department

the contract

achievement

into a sort of Mafia operation a batch

or a

year

pared

gimmick,

case, the plant man-

for the job (his estimate next

has

it should

agree to the six man-months

that the OD

to

(3) the OD consultant

considered

ager wouldn’t

of

sometimes

contracts

have rejected. In another

decides

OD

as a vague,

into

entered

his zone

and

at the behest of the personnel

ment,

The OD department

sometimes

within

exercise

an

tives just described.

and the OD group cancelled

some of the alterna-

of which

impose influence;

time

year.

appears

“gets religion” the

allocate

view of the consultant-

we consider

tives-examples

in the past

and

and money for the following The Corning

At

enter into a

has been accomplished

12 months

to make

value.”

though

formula

lacks

it is to the alterna-

Consider Medfield

plant,

the example in which

of Corning’s

Beer and his staff

19

Figure 2 ORGANIZATIONDEVELOPMENT

WHERE

T. C. MacAvoy

Dawson

IN CGW

EXTENT

OF EFFORT

Signetics

Full

Electronic Television C

Lighting

Products

Full

Products

Partial

Products

Partial

Technical

Products

Full

Consumer

Products

None

Science

Products

Medical

Products

Partial

Corhart

Refractories

None

Full

Controllers

Industrial

P.T.

Clark

None

Relations

Partial

Facilities

Partial

Transportation

None

Purchasing

None

Manufacturing

Corning J. R. Houghton

within

(Technical

E. M. Olivier

I

a three-year

Full

Corp.

Partial

Treasury

None Development

Partial

Staffs

Starting

Planning

period were able to bring

about a drastic and successful change in the plant environment. The only person committed to the effort in the beginning,

International

Full

Legal

Manpower

W. H. Armlstead

8 Engineering

and the

up

None

Nor

was he the

most

skilled

manager

in

applying some of the new approaches. In addition, the plant manager’s boss never fully knew what was going on in the plant, nor

man responsible for bringing Beer into the plant, was the personnel manager. The top

did he commit

man on location, the plant manager, began by being only mildly interested, and although his commitment increased, it was never total.

was in 1969) that “it is possible to change a relatively autonomous unit of a large orga-

From

nization

himself

this experience

without

to the OD program. Beer concluded

the total commitment

(this

of top

management,

and in a larger and more com-

plex organization,

even without

edge.” Certainly

this

their knowl-

was what

had

taken

management

sions on solving

in the several divi-

their

problems

Some caveats are in order-first

as to

and second as to the general

propo-

as successful

top management

commitment

and

involve-

ment. At Medfield,

what Beer calls “the mod-

erators

development”

of climate

all favored

OD

efforts

pointed

Organizational

New Work

Dynamics

ferent

companies,

only

fused

throughout

the

of a new climate

specific

graphic

separation

uniqueness

changes

being

in response made.

from headquarters

of its technology

Geo-

and the

and

products

job restructuring

-Volvo-was

was initially

thusiastically

supported

part in limiting

omy. And, of course, the plant manager

He

at least neutral

and later

changes being planned. been

less favorable,

support

might

higher

instruments)

supportive

If the moderators more

have

subsystem

disinterest

would

have

and

necessary

from

with

Obviously,

of the leader of a

the prospect

lists,

One sobering

field model.

re-

by Med-

Despite

the

one of Corning’s the Med-

the lack of diffu-

sion as largely due to two facts: first, that the were unique

to Med-

elsewhere

in Cor-

duplicated

ning;

that the OD

sequent

second,

to Medfield,

played

a number

the diffusion

of technology

a

concedes. of fac-

of Medfield

(cited by Beer),

the fact that the plant was much smaller than most Corning

installations,

and the fact that

the plant was nonunion

while most Corning

plants

Yet he argued

were

unionized.

that

variable, is in some

has fully duplicated

field and not

factors Walton

utive, always an important

note provided

and technology

by the corporation’s other

any OD program

of diffusion.

Beer explains

and en-

by the chief exec-

of substantial

not a single

50-plus plants

This

the degree of involvement

success of Medfield on almost every conceivable count of both economic and interpersonal performance,

dif-

in which

sponsored

example,

instances

the key variable. The

field is the absence

of

in eight dif-

organization.

diffusion

limited

-uniqueness

sistance.

products

for

tors that

that

an insufficient

been

base from which to launch faced

had

commitment

been

levels of the organization.

the benevolent

was of the

That

of

examples

one was widely

the program

bined to give the plant a high degree of auton-

laboratory

successful

also the only instance

chief executive.

and

issue of

Diffusion

that he studied

com-

(medical

(“The

. . . ,” pp. 2-22),

Structures

was relatively

could have prevented

have

as Rich-

out in the winter

of the eight eminently

new-that

in divisions

Still, we think it’s significant, ard Walton

the success of the OD effort. There was no prior history or climate-because the plant

to the

than

spread downward.

sition that you can get effective OD without

the emergence

rather

to work on change at the plant level. Recently, however, OD has again reached the plant floor

place at Medfield. Medfield

with higher

department

following

sub-

the path

of

qualifications

close look at Medfield look elsewhere

an initial division

With

typically

commitment managers.

moderating

by

from

Clearly,

influences

a

if we

other

OD

took longer even

they were less sweeping

and involved plant

or even

in these cases the

were

less

favorable

than at Medfield. A recent OD department, Beer’s imprimatur, treat from

statement

from

bearing,

top-management

or a combination

essential.

It begins

support

Corning’s

at least implicitly,

suggests

his 1969 position

least resistance, greatest perceived opportunity, of the two, chose to work

in Corning.

efforts the changes though

suggested

are strengthened

a substantial

was nice

by citing

re-

that in essence a recent

but

not

survey

21

finding

that approximately

half of the OD

efforts studied

had been initiated

rate presidents

or board

cluded that “eventually management. formed and

by corpo-

chairmen

OD must include

Organizational

at the top. Similarly,

restraints

against

and confronting here.” And

and con-

risk

top

climate

is

the rewards

for

taking,

leveling,

conflict issues are established

in the list of four future

tives for the Corning “get OD started

OD

objec-

effort, one is to

at the top and linked

with

answer

believe that it’s possible tervention

strategy

egy, equally

as the most effective stratBeer thinks

that team building comes closer than any other intervention to filling the bill-he labels it “perhaps quently

the most advanced

used of all OD

it’s far from a universal used so far-for

and most fre-

technologies.”

nostrum,

But

having

been

the more

the strategy

is to begin

tion with takes

a structural

at many levels and with many diverse groups. (For the full range of intervention employed

by Corning

the

answer

should

seems

come

first,

ior, is it better ventions

to which

certain,

is which

changes

in

behavior

to begin

or structural

or

Or to state the question

If we wish to change with

process

interventions?

behavinterWhich

of the two is more likely to be effective? one level, the answer is that it all depends

inevitably,

structural brings

At on

in-

Not

structure

is necessarily

a variety

of new

is something changing

provides

organization

the internal

the stimulus and compel

configurations

and attitudes.

the ballpark have the old rules and established

and

no longer seem sufficient.

The point is not which should come first, process intervention or structural intervention,

but

the necessity

that the OD program

of making

eventually

team

serve primarily

to in-

to

of

uals and groups. Beer is reflecting

would

the

the participants

both tasks and organization

building

In

environ-

to unfreeze

the nature of the problem. If we’re talking about an impoverished job at the hourly level, tensify the feelings of deprivation. Misery probably loves company, but communication and mutual commiseration are likely to confirm the sentiments of misery and deprivation. The root of the problem and the object of intervention has to be the job itself.

the

else again-and

feel the need for new behaviors

patterns

needs.”

that can’t be taken for granted.

other words,

changed,

a

pace of change is change because

the new needs, in turn, generate

something

The

that Beer

more or less automatically

into being

Whether

inevitably

the redistribution

“The structural

change

the internal

and

of resistance.

by

power

of power

poor place to begin: heightened

with

approach

redistribution

feels that changing

ment

question,

more

changes in structure? more precisely:

strategies

see Figure 3.)

A more complex

status. And

It apparently

by changing

all, this

some

the con-

that his unit is in serious

to begin After

the

of interven-

of a man

and the conviction

involves

likely

change.

a combination

right responses

the most part successfully-

that the greater

sultant

cites a measure

to all circumstances

for all problems.

Beer thinks

level of the client,

doesn’t

to label any one in-

appropriate

and adequate

Corning

of

the pain felt by the client and the higher

Eflective

previously,

the

the client before the OD process begins. Gen-

environment.

mentioned

level, as it appears

the OD consultant,

largely on the perspective

erally speaking,

trouble

OD technology

agent,

depends

other OD efforts.”

As

22

At the pragmatic to the change

as the interpersonal psychologist

rather

of priorities

when

structure

relationships than

first.”

as well

of individhis bias as a

any inherent

order

he asserts that “it is prob-

ably better if social and interpersonal occur

sure

deals with

Where

he

is on

ground

is in his subsequent

though

systems

and

structures

changes

unassailable

claim

that

al-

can and

do

crucial activity, while the withholding

Figure 3

information

INTERVENTION STRATEGIES EMPLOYED BYOD CONSULTANTS

through

is the key problem,

improving

munication

Diagnosis of divisions using questionnaires, interviews, observations, and project team organization Team building Job enrichment at hourly level Improving integrations through matrix or business team structures Improving intergroup relations through intergroup confrontation meetings Functional groups Union-management CGW-customer Diagnosis through diagnostic task forces Living in the organization Meeting processing Counseling and one-to-one consulting Organizational mirrors (units get feedback on their services from internal customers) Annual measurement of organizational health and action planning for change Corporate and divisional interaction meetings Sales meetings Communication meetings

tion of decisions,

places, the changes

be successful

unless

interpersonal

and

they’re social

example,

“a recent

nization

in one division

have

personal

behavior

function

effectively.”

it’s an Argyris,

opinion another

acute

for

to a project

orgawill

will

allow

the further

that

up by

of a company

by standards

that

Beer makes

followed

changes-that,

change

to be followed

will not

he shares

Two

INTERVENTIONSTRATEGIES-

COMPARISONSAND CONTRASTS A brief summary gies pursued Corning

of the intervention

at two quite

with different

tially different

trate the contingency nology-the

first

contrasts field

between

was

new

approach

to OD techand

Division.

Medem-

30 salaried technical

and 15 managerial

personnel)

and

a technology

and

nonunion,

and

that lent itself to job

and the establishment

mous work groups.

the The

(75 hourly

small

women;

professional

Division

Medfield

the two are striking:

and clerical personnel;

a

and substanhelp to illus-

Products

and

ployees-mainly

parts of

should

being

second the Electronic

strate-

different

problems

outcomes

of autono-

The Electronic

Products

was larger and long-established,

multifunctional

and

persed organization sibility.

The

and

geographically

dis-

with total profit respon-

basic problem

too. At

Medfield,

teams

to

satisfaction

point-and with

Chris

and

the problem

differed,

mate that advanced both economic and human values and that gave equal weight to job

ob-

lem in the Electronic how

to improve groups

at higher

five new products-an

making

is the

Products

integration

of new products

is simple:

was to develop

and job performance.

ment

levels, decision

tend

to be the root of the problem.

tional

At the higher

weaknesses,

implementation,

of inter-

practitioner

explanation

of them, is

while structural

to effective

server of the OD process-that structural interventions are generally more effective with problems involving lower-level employees while process interventions are more decisive levels. The

at the top. By

not the making

the key activity, roadblocks

enrichment in many

the men

at the lower level, the implementa-

employed

change

the level of trust and com-

among

contrast,

of valid

to be resolved

and thereby

The

prob-

Division between

was func-

spur the develop-

in the division.

five years before 1968, when

inadequate

were to maintain,

The

the change

gram began, had seen the introduction the division

a cli-

pro-

of only output

if

let alone im-

23

top man-

sions;

(4)

agement

and

groups

in some

knew

committed

it was in trouble

Products

Division,

in mind

a normative

they

felt,

would

and the Electronic

model

solve

nization

and its emphasis from

the top down. Division

problem.

up as well as

Professors

maintains

(named

Paul Lawrence

Jay Lorsch of the Harvard The model

Products

Lawrence-Lorsch

model of organization

its developers,

With

on the importance

the Electronic

it was the

Business

and rapidly

calls for an organization high degree of integration

a major

own productivity personnel

by a

and the formula-

re-

trainhourly their

and (6) redesigning

and pay systems to more closely reon-the-job

Electronic

Products

tions supportive (1) meetings

performance. Division,

with all divisional planned

included

personnel

changes;

(2)

including

the sales service group

At

interven-

of the key changes

group confrontations,

changing

(5) allowing

goals;

flect individual the

total

assembly,

share in determining

after

that is

characterized

ing, and some quality; workers

autonomous with

for scheduling,

communicate

and

of

departments

con-

School).

that a business

cyclical, unpredictable,

had

Y model of orga-

the bottom

With

group

whose adoption,

the

it was the Theory

of initiative

sponsibility

the consultant

Medfield

tingency

was

to the idea of change.

In both Medfield

to

inter-

one in which

observed

and partici-

pated in a meeting

between

facturing

whose activities they were

personnel,

supposed to coordinate; the marketing of primary

sales and manu-

(3) skills training

for

men, who were cast in the role

integrators

but whose competence

tion of decisions as close to the point of execu-

image was low in the eyes of the consultants,

tion as possible.

key

their peers, and themselves;

but

sultation

at a variety

to the

meetings

of the newly formed

personnel dimly,

At Medfield,

grasped they

did

Theory

although

Y concepts

commit

idea of experimenting;

themselves

in the Electronic

ucts Division, top management and bought the Lawrence-Lorsch

Prod-

both grasped model.

In both cases, interestingly the key intervention was structural.

enough, At the

(5) counseling tegrators process;

That Products

line

by the

one-person,

at Med-

whole-product

ap-

proach that started small in a single department but gradually proliferated throughout the plant. A host of other interventions, both structural and process, accompanied and reinforced

what

terventions.

we choose to call the key in-

group

weekly

meetings

meetings

was so different getting

new-product

level that would job of handling employees

in the Electronic

decisions

be equipped them-and

involved

was

to do a better that the level of

so different-basi-

cally, middle- and top-line management with

highly

should

trained

staff

lead us to expect that the bulk of the

interventions structural.

would

be process

rather

And, in fact, although

were structural

in both instances,

sis at Medfield

was on structural

than

the key in-

that called into being all the rest

and a sample of production

and clerical em-

while the emphasis

ployees;

productivity

Division

ses-

along

professionals-

(2)

and

to

to a lower

at every level;

manager

from Med-

top management

terventions

the plant

in-

of data evaluating

(1)

between

(3) technical

of project

they included

At Medfield,

monthly

the problem

Division

tional project teams, each of which was given of the assembly

project teams;

by consultants

and (6) feedback

delegate

for a new product;

including

progress of the change effort.

field-basically,

field it was the replacement

(4) process con-

of meetings

and other key actors in the change

Electronic Products Division it consisted of the establishment of a network of cross-functhe responsibility

24

establishment

prove, its market position. Divisional

the emphainnovations,

at the Electronic

was on process interventions.

Products

What

about

the results?

field become a Theory

Y plant?

Did

tronic Products

Division

and its dismal

rate of new-product

tion?

Yes to both

transformed

Med-

Did the Elec-

improve

questions.

innovawas

into the very model of a Theory

Y organization,

with

indices

of job perfor-

mance and job satisfaction

high on all counts.

In the Electronic

Division,

Products

after

the l&month

saw

nine

new

change

than

were

introduced

the year

program

products

(1970)

in the previous

success in the Electronic seems to justify

of Dr. Allan

Hundert,

ment

five

team

for changing snowballing forcement

requisite

the installation

effective

a bureaucracy

The

expertise

locus

inputs

one representative

have

by the OD making

had under-

the upper levels

to the project teams

membership

possessed

and information

the various

strategy with rein-

of decision

shift-from

decisions.

of of a

and could

The

project

turn, fostered more empathy ing among

entry

in the division

management

collective

the correct

member

effects when followed

gone a dramatic whose

that

is “an

for new products of division

of why

don’t hap-

I have

a better

didn’t

happen.

they

It is important

the other Marcus,

guy another

prophesied (the

but

not

sympathy.”

Corning

internal

that a combination

formation

change

in

consultant,

teams)

and

process-oriented

lead to increased

creased integration

the

variables

integration,

would

for

Samuel

of this change

of project

other

them

to have empathy

and in-

lead to more new

to make in

and understand-

functional

commented,

the

teams, groups.

“Problems

Yet in the Electronic

Products

Divi-

sion, all was not wine and roses. To use Blake

and research develop-

and additional

consultant.”

If things

griping.

I ask how I can help to make

happen.

Prod-

the contention

another

organization

department,

project

start

products. And so they did.

ucts Division Corning’s

Now

would

introduced-more

years combined. The

and understood. I don’t

understanding

integration

Medfield

shared pen,

and

Mouton’s

tronic

provocative

Products

phrase,

Division

suffered

drag,” the inability

tural

“cul-

of an organization

to escape its own past. Medfield fortune

the Elecfrom

had the good

to lack a past from which

to escape.

This happy absence fostered the development of parallel, gruent

mutually

changes

cial processes, Products an

practices,

mutually

in internal and people.

Division,

omnipresent

tion’s

reinforcing,

and

con-

environment,

so-

In the Electronic

by contrast, constraint. people,

reinforced

and

the past was The

organiza-

structures

each other strongly

had

to create

a

resistant

to

mechanistic

organization

any attempt

to move it in the opposite

direc-

As

tion. Apart from setting up the project teams,

are

the consultants

were

compelled

to rely ex-

“Medf;eld wm trdnsfomedinto the uerymodel of d Theory Y orgdniz~tion,with indices of job perfommce md job sdtifdction high on dl cozlnts, ”

25

elusively

on process

summed

it up, “Changing

mate

has

been

interventions.

much

As Beer

organizational

integration

assume the correlation in integration ducing

cli-

ingly felt left out of the major decisions being made

had improved

(we

between

products)

improvements

Questionnaire

and

in intro-

provided

complacency

and

a limited

teams

compiled in inte-

increase

confrontation

and prob-

lem solving rather than smoothing increasingly intergroup

became

the means

conflict.

However,

face, the integration

between

and marketing formally

all project

designated

as integrators attributed

and relative (apparently

ufacturing

function,

the accounting

inexperience

of the division’s

the various

the contin-

that favored the man-

and the failure to change system

that would make the integrators

in ways of new-

to put

vance over the sterility

26

business

manager

into

practice.

and

Tensions

tween the top group and the members business

beof the

team were rife. The team members

also felt that their primary

allegiance

was to

areas, since their performance

in these areas was still their promotions.

sole avenue

Disillusionment

to pro-

gressed to the point where the business teams, instituted

in December

1971, were abandoned

in March 1973. However,

a searching

sional top management kind of business petitive, problems

look by divi-

in August

incurred

was abandoned disappointing.

1973 at the

they were in-cyclical,

and changing-and

for members

The sequel in the Electronic Products Division has an enduring lesson for change efforts in general. Project teams represented an adand unproductiveness

past. But they were tem-

they did not help in integrating

three business

and who,

But what looked good on paper was difficult

percent

and

teams reported to the components the division

Initially

com-

the integration

when the matrix

led to reconstituting the results

structure the busi-

were just as

But, as James Thurber,

when the division REAL REWARDSBRING REAL RESULTS

strategic

for a

to whom

another

Corning consultant, described it, a dramatic increase in effectiveness came in January 1974

product development.

of the organizational

permanent

responsible business,

project

ness teams.

in marketing

for the outcome

to

the Electronic four

each one

reported

directly

his staff.

of

not fully compen-

and controls

really “responsible”

on

the fail-

to the follow-

sated for by their skills training), uing power differential

segment

raises and

representatives

ure to achieve more integration the youth

change

created

teams,

their functional

manufacturing

showed no significant

teams. Marcus

the integrators

or forcing of resolving

at a key inter-

despite the fact that marketing

porary;

reporting

business

data

changes

Furthermore,

Division

team-essentially

interview

an overall

Products

in turn,

one and a half years after the initial

ing:

by project

congratulation.

occurred

showed

increas-

up-

and the turnaround

new for

were

managers

the top. To fill that vacuum, That

gration.

where

organization

swimming

like

stream.”

basis

the

tactical segments

decisions

in

major each

of

run by the division,

and they created a vacuum

in the middle

of

changed

the reward system

of the business

of their

overall

teams. Now

performance

was based on their contribution

50

rating

to the busi-

ness team

on which

they served;

the other

half continued

to reflect their performance

their functional

areas.

On structural

the

ence. Whereas

this

was

but it made

the business with

a simple

all the differ-

teams

groups,

consultant

they now became decision-making

zons

changed,

people

the plant

groups. Their

whom

managers.

of longer

than

influence

of the plant

horizons

such as

who talked in terms

six months. newly

Now,

under

motivated have

to encompass

the

business

enlarged

planning

their for the

next two, three, or even five years.

FEEDBACK-WHAT

AND WHEN

Feedback

properly

bringing

about

strongly

handled

successful

entrenched

before

is a key lever in

reinforced

by what

there. Feedback two

elements-first,

that

the employee

about

his performance

(the definition

and

breaks receive

learned

down

that

the question,

better

than

By and large an adult’s learning “takes” only after he has experimented with new approaches and received appropriate feedback in an on-the-job situation. . . . In our experience, the first change was typically behavioral, not cognitive or even attitudinal. If the manager was successful in the attempt by his own subjective criteria, this would often lead to some change in attitude toward organization development but certainly to another try. Several successful experiments led to a change in attitudes and values with respect to the management of human organizations and organizational development. Several individuals who were dead set against OD initially are now its strongest proponents.

a diagrammatic

learning,

version

of the process,

4.) In short, the basic model as revealed by Corning’s

is the reversal

experience,

of the traditional

model-from

changed

for

educational

behavior

to changed

attitudes,

rather than the reverse. All of which

ensures

suggests

that,

information

at feasible

argument

into

intervals

of feasible being as soon as it

is possible to answer I doing?“),

1975 issue of

a process will

the theoretical

Apex-

we have ever heard it stated before:

(For

p, 36) was further

essentially

pressed

see Figure

we heard

and

can be the double-edged

Beer, in his paper “A Systems to Organizational Development,”

Corning

Dynamics,

are ignorance

proach

A belief

Organizational

performance feedback

visiting

see the Winter

is

sword that slays both dragons.

change.

(for example,

Compensation

of

Before it had been rare

managers

perspectives

time hori-

they interacted,

to find a plant manager

teams,

the help of the OD

as did the time

with

his performance.

inequity;

had been

discussion

and problem-solving

rate with

itself a form of feedback. The biggest enemies of superior

surface

change,

in

“How

that the employee’s reward will be commensu-

minded,

we’re

and we are prepared

to extend the experiment,

provided

it worked

in the first place.

am

and second, a process that ensures

at least in our culture,

experimentally

So much

for theory.

do we have that practice our tronic

two

examples,

Products

production

Medfield

Division?

employees

What

confirmed and

evidence theory at the Elec-

At Medfield, were

the

reorganized

around the production of substantial components for which they were individually responsible, in place of fractional units in which the responsibility was diffused and di&ult to pinpoint. Furthermore, they determined items

such as scheduling

and in many

cases

27

Figure 4 MODELFORLEARNING

Outside Unfreezing Incident (peer pressure, boss pressure, or consultant influence) Behavior

Change

Reinfokement Through Success

Cognit.ive and Information Change

Attitude

set

their

own production

of overall

plant

goals.

Change

As far

goals on the basis Under

such circum-

stances, they both set their own goals and received feedback,

tronic Products

on a daily basis, as to how them-a

closed

Of necessity,

the Electronic

Division

was a different

different.

The primary

time

span

had

concentrated

for feedback:

contribution

Medfield

and an appropriate

time span for them,

Electronic

Division

the (with

lower

Products and

project

middle teams)

had focused on

management and

the

later

on

levels higher

levels of management (with business teams) ; here, in both cases, the time perspectives were vastly different. It took a day or less to evaluate the performance of an hourly employee, but it took a year or two to evaluate the performance of someone whose prime function was to initiate a successful new product.

Division,

Medfield

Division

feedback

and

system

of the individual

if they continued their managers

the

employee

and

would

Products

was the same

but

the

The OD consultant

that the performance

team members

easy

to match

in the Electronic

the moral

the

the Elec-

were not that great.

story was more complex. realized

key

concerned,

the reward

his compensation;

employees

other

in Medfield it proved relatively

not that was in the

Whereas

on production

between

Products

story-but difference

However, to rework

loop that was strongly reinforced.

as the

element-compensation-was differences

close they were to achieving

28

and Value

of the project

be affected

to be judged

negatively

exclusively

by

on the basis of their contribu-

tion to a functional area. The problem was complicated because all the members of project teams served on a part-time basis; therefore, at most, all evaluations had to be on the basis of a part-time contribution. The problem was resolved by measuring the overall performance of project team members, that is, by measuring functional

their performance

area and their contribution

in their to total

team results. This approach the contention

is consistent

of Lawrence

for the integrating must be judged

with

and Lorsch

function

that

to be successful, it

and rewarded

on the basis of

total results. Membership

on business

built into it perhaps

teams

an even longer feedback

time, but feedback

remains

crucial.

cisive change in the performance ness teams

in the Electronic

sion-after

what appeared

failure-occurred,

as we

members

began

percent)

and

of their

contribution

The

of the busi-

Products

leave diagnosis

and problem

up to participation

among

organization

may

commitment

all right-but

OD

process

is in suggesting

to believe in it enough

seen,

when

evaluated

(50

and rewards

be-

standards

to persist in its imple-

Is the problem sophistication a tradeoff,

as Beer stated in an earlier paper?

and

examples,

Beer himself

importance

of getting

bers more directly subsequent

sumption

effective

they

involved

to its imple-

in diagnosis

problem

solving-“the engaged

as-

are those

that that

the most take

place

during a feedback meeting when the group identifies for itself what their problems are, decides to change,

and determines

the direc-

tion of the change. The problem plays down the possibility

began

from adopting many

it. There

is little evidence

of the participants

theory or its implications. that should

fully

the role of expertise

and ignores

that only the professional

possess the data necessary

to make

may

a correct

Y

trying

a step-by-step any attempt pattern

the

Certainly

there was

to a pattern

of man-

prevail

most, there was commitment tion-to

that

grasped

in the plant.

At

to experimenta-

out some new approaches. basis.

Beer is convinced

to force a commitment

of management

been threatening

on that

to a new

early on would

enough

have

to kill the OD pro-

gram on the spot. The plant also contained

its share of

what might be called natural change agents -people who were ready to initiate changes at the first sign of encouragement.

is that such an approach

with

model and the positive results that might flow

agement

about how to learn.”

finding

the effort

no explicit commitment

in this

Division

that sought to explain the Theory

memand

Products

and its solution ?

of the

not only own the findings

a recent

changes

of the

is convinced

but also learn something quotes

that

organizational

being that members

type of diagnosis He

them

effort and are committed

mentation.

the

among

develop-

seminars

Returning

what light do Med-

the Electronic

At Medfield of the OD effort by the mem-

versus involves

And must this tradeoff be faced and resolved

throw on the problem

stake in the outcome

of ownership

one that, of necessity,

for each case on its own merits?

OWNERSHIP

we mean

the ‘right’

mentation.”

on the basis teams.

adopts

the

have

field

OD

solutions,

the organization

divisionwide

of the feeling

the dilemma

but the less likely it is to ‘own’ it or

evaluation

have a personal

an-

: “The more explicit the

differently

to our previous

ment

and

to the wrong

swer. George Strauss formulated somewhat

of the

ownership

answer,

feedback

bers of the organization”

members

stimulate

To

largely

quicker

and concerns tended to become important.

By “ownership

solving

Divi-

to the business

less parochial,

de-

along with the skill and experience

to come up with what is a correct solution.

to be a conclusive

to be partially receive

As performance came

has

diagnosis

ple often perimented only

went

ahead

with

new

half understood.

first-line

supervisor

on their

Such peoown and ex-

approaches Take

that

they

the case of the

in the hotplate

depart-

29

ment,

who walked

nounced

in one morning

and an-

to his crew that they would be orga-

Lorsch

was better

nized into groups with complete responsibility

Nonetheless,

for producing

ing the problem

one type of product.

the supervisor change

subsequently

agents-the

Of course,

used the oflicial

in-house

a resource to make recommendations dling specific problems. proximately supervisors

agent;

take action

and

most

after it many

on their

own

people began to that

reflected

objectives of the change program. agent’s sense

role was transformed to that of resource of ownership,

agents

agents.

Four

management Medfield

that And

withdrawal

of the per-

of the

years after the change (1972), years that

a 100 percent

ranks,

back meetings

from

established,

had left the scene

also had witnessed

the

The change

person.

once

sisted after the complete change

the

turnover

questionnaires

showed

in

review

meetings,

served

lies in the fact that

had locked in most of the

the rest, in the persistence

strong feelings of ownership continued to pay off.

as process

organization

similar.

the change model developed

of

Products

To be sure,

by Lawrence

and

and

intergroup the

members

and

so on.

gained

As

the

in knowledge

the change months

confronta-

teams

con-

feedback,

progressed

and strong

and identification less dependence

for reasons

effort-at

the

how to confront

de-

on the

already

given,

least in the initial

of the program-was of

agents

showing

and competence,

with

ful as the change sense

business

change

consultants,

at-

partici-

meetings,

flict, give and receive interpersonal

effort at Medfield,

ownership

18

not as success-

was

and the

proportionately

weaker.

as the program

The story in the Electronic

What

is our core contention?

reflecting

on Corning’s

and

Electronic

the

reached

a twofold

experience Products

conclusion

After

at Medfield Division,

we

on ownership:

First, the importance of involving the members of the organization early on in defining the problem

and

tions is greatly portant

deciding

on the interven-

overestimated;

far more

is the proper definition

im-

of the problem

and the correct choice of technology.

Second,

if the problem

and

technology

30

and

Basically

meetings.

suc-

department

meetings

pated in team development tion

their

of the organizational

all the early

However,

by 1968.

was somewhat

tended

were estab-

by the change

development

experts.

stable state

to

struc-

separate

to ensuring

cess. A representative and

teams

provided

along

of the state achieved

Division

was essential

veloped

haps 80 percent

improvements;

the expertise

agents

that the OD effort at to per-

change

lished,

research

essentially

the project

of ownership

in Beer’s judgment,

structural

an

during

feelings

had reached a relatively

Part of the explanation

exception

and feed-

-retrogressing,

designed

of the reward

ture of the business teams being an important

Once

from

interventions

redesign

strong re-

ac-

and next to no part in plan-

various

change effort.

changes

support

the

of the

to develop

point

prodding

gadfly

it took ap-

toward the effort.

Up to that change

However,

and employees

feelings of ownership quired

for han-

two years for the bulk

ning

and more

of the organization.

they played no part in identify-

resolve it-the

consultants-as

understood

cepted by the members

participation

is properly

defined

fits the problem, becomes irrelevant.

the absence

the of

As organiza-

tion members

sense “the sweet smell of suc-

her husband’s

morale

we don’t care to specu-

cess,” feelings of ownership inevitably develop. Eventually the experience of success

late.) Again,

will snowball,

dotal evidence like the one example previously

and the organization

will ar-

at the Electronic

rive at what Beer calls the “point

of climate

quoted

emergence”

of owner-

fected organization

in which

the feelings

to substantiate

the claim that the af-

project

teams

where

impact

of the various

many

members

take actions

on their

alent

OD interventions

do we determine

the payoff

from

How do we measure

an

whether

the change effort has achieved its goals? Does the evaluation

of organization

deserve

measures

side provides

of improvement

in his recent

-“The

Missing

Conference

Link”?

Board

compassing

all employee

structure abashed

and

(2)

equiv-

attributable

study

As far as Corning

the hotplate went down

from

within

a six-month

on in this article are concerned, the designation is undeserved. The goal at Medfield was

trodes

that

to transform

team-striking

tion and to improve

both employee

tion and job performance the Electronic to introduce

Products more

Y opera-

in the process;

Division,

and to in-

crease the level of trust, cooperation, among key employees

and qualitative

evidence

in

the goal was

new products

is an abundance

satisfac-

and in-

in the process.

have improved in department

that both goals were

and

met. At Medfield, a series of interviews conducted in 1968 indicated an extremely high level of job satisfaction. A few sample excerpts : “You get involved in your job here

for ten

in seven by a temporary to the level of com-

in the plant. Here’s how Beer sums “Voluntary

more

indirect

turnover

has consistently

for the area;

handles

and

to 1 percent

was scheduled

testimony

hourly employees

of both quantitative

rejects

period. An order for elec-

initially

up the results: that

result in

to 1 percent

11 percent

days was completed mitment

an un-

controllable

from 23 percent

absenteeism

were

is correspond-

To take the initial

department,

Glass and the two OD efforts we have focused

the plant into a Theory

levels and the total

the results

success, the evidence

ingly impressive.

development

the tag affixed by Harold

Rush

There

and

to the composite OD effort. At Medfield, because (1) the program was a total effort en-

OD program?

tegration

the

perceived them as improvements.

the change program.

EVALUATION

programs

on the

in particular-recognized

The quantitative

How

Divi-

or anec-

members-people

ship, fueled by success, have reached the point own that reinforce

Products

sion, we have a mass of subjective

productivity

as changes after labor;

been below and

with

quality

have been made

department.

volume

among

The

plant

less supervision

management

introduce new and highly complex without drops in productivity.”

is able to products

As for the Electronic Products sion, the results, previously mentioned,

Diviwere

and won’t stay home because you have a goal to meet,” Medfield, pervisor

and

“Since

I’ve been

working

at

my husband

is a much

better

su-

in his plant.

I tell him

what

he

should do to make his people more interested in what they are doing, on the basis of what our supervisors

do here.” (What

this does for

31

a dramatic product

turnaround

in the rate of new-

innovation-the

primary

the OD program-and less-than-hoped-for of integration various

a substantial

improvement

and

of

though

in the levels

cooperation

functional

nificant,

purpose

between

areas. Furthermore, solving

of intergroup

con-

flict occurred. In convincing

we have

evidence

substantial

to validate

exist for other OD programs

there

is the definitive

as the “missing

validations

at Corning,

has been

no attempt

specific contribution

For

but

Not that

refutation link.”

and

the effective-

we lack the space to describe them.) tion

of the improvement

prima

more industrial

engineers

of evaluaone thing,

to evaluate

the

of each OD intervention

and fewer behav-

ioral scientists. Remaining

are the perennial

ties of evaluating Corning

an OD

affords

length

no

exception.

of time involved-18

the other; tiple

another

variables

environment

di&ul-

effort,

to which

One

is the

months

in one

and over two years in

is the coexistence

in the internal

of mul-

and

external

that could and probably

fect, negatively

or positively,

The problem

did af-

the end results.

is that no organization

to date

has had the resources or the expertise to prove a direct cause-and-effect an OD

effort

and

relationship

between

its consequences.

We’re

stuck, as it were, with the situation

we face at

to the success of the total OD effort. To our knowledge, only one such evaluation has been

Corning:

cause and

attempted-that

short of conclusive

of Marrow,

shore in Management

Bowers, and Sea-

by Participation

with results that were not calculated improvement ascribed gram,

in productivity,

to the earnings 5 percent

mers, 5 percent relations,

effect is persuasive,

11 percent development

pro-

Let’s briefly

recapitulate

to training

in interpersonal

the Electronic

solving,

to miscellaneous

primarily

derstand

them.

consultants

(the God only knows) factors. In other words, seen from the perspective of a trio of dedi-

differently.

cated OD practitioners,

ment

the OD effort

it was an elaborate one) collectively

but it falls

CONCLUSION

ning,

6 percent

even seductive, proof.

was

out low perfor-

to group problem

between

to enlist

to weeding

3 percent

and the remaining

The relationship

and

converts to the OD cause: Out of a 30 percent

(and

accounted

Products Other

at Corning,

Entry between

the lessons Division, people, might

ideally involves client

and

and

as we un-

including interpret

the them

a clear agree-

consultant

as to

both the strategy and the tactics of the OD

is pemusive, even sedzlctive,ht it fdlls abort of conchwive proof”

of Cor-

the lessons of Medfield

“Therelhiombi$~ between cawe md effect

32

in

facie case for hiring

of two prime examples short,

ness of both OD efforts. (Similar

Corning

8 percent

productivity-a

the a sig-

positive shift toward more confronta-

tion and problem

for only

change

eflort. One basic aim of OD is to in-

crease the levels of trust and openness the organization. between

Obviously,

client

model

and

the relationship

consultant

should

of the type of relationship

to foster. In addition, a continuing

responsibility

OD he wants

for the effective-

he must decide how and when

he wants

and he must pay for the consultant’s Otherwise,

be a

OD seeks

if the client is to assume

ness of the relationship, much

within

services.

the effort is not responsive

to the

client’s needs, and after initial enthusiasm, OD

effort

may

lapse

into

it,

the

desuetude

and

to examine

der normal conditions, requires

the division

company,

corporation,

an eflective

sponsorship-that

ment and commitment

un-

OD eflort

is, active involveby the top people

of a corporation.

sponsorship

in

In a smaller

would

have

to come

the very top, but even in a large cor-

poration

involvement

by the top is necessary

if the OD effort is to have corporate Medfield

was an exception,

a sport-if favorable, stances.

of climate

a rare

of personalities.

occur in a highly

terned

structure.

the failure

we change

It may be, as James Thurber structural

change

always

ioral readiness-people

the pat-

contends,

change because it is implicit

structural

change.

should

for the in the

But even this subtle point

not obscure

the structural

that

comes after behavsee the need

behavioral

the key role played

change

by

as the deus ex

itself

machina for the desired behavioral

of success, that

Products

change.

of effective

structural

and

sponsorship process

illus-

what model

was for been pat-

in which

both

battery

technology

of both

interventions.

tural are the more inherent

capacity

Medfield

Division

requires

structural

But between potent

and

Whyte’s insight:

and

because

menting

Products

of William

recognizing

F.

the need

in attitudes

in

interventions.

But

unless

the

effort will never emerge.

put it this way: “For OD to participants

short-run

should

of actually

specific

en-

imple-

organizational

changes such as introducing

a new production

line, changing

policy, or the like.

a promotion

More than this-for

OD to continue

must lead to directly ably measurable)

observable

long, it

(and prefer-

improvements

creased productivity

such as in-

or shortened

lead times.”

Amen! Ownership

program.

of their

or

in be-

favored by the change and then

joy the success experience

process

the Electronic

“While

by a change

ment to the change

program

behaviors.

structural

participants experience success along the way -and not in small measures-real commit-

a shift-

new

bear out the truth

the directions by successive

the involvement

the two, the struc-

to compel

followed

had the full

support of the division head and his staff. Etfective

havior,

to those

may lead to a change

internalized,

the usual

changes

by the eflort. The initial

process change

become

were

has never

illustrated

aoected

and favorable feedback

all of

in a single plant. The Electronic

Division

on continuing

Strauss

of circum-

to serve as a normative

fully imitated

Both

Unless

pat-

tern, we can do little to change the behavior.”

George

too, that Medfield

the rest of the corporation

ing

They

was

development

concatentation

Remember,

intended

impact.

but Medfield

you will, a freak in which

the moderators

tern

we should

The success of any OD effort depends

In a multidivisional

trates

relations,

simply as the interplay

neglect.

from

interpersonal

not see these relations

depends

not so much

of those aflected

on

by the OD

in its design as on the success of the

In other words, adoption

is a func-

tion of success. And success, in turn, depends on favorable

moderators

ment in sufficient number, the required

expertise Products

develop-

on consultants and

plenty of luck, Certainly Electronic

of climate

dedication,

at Medfield

Division,

with plus

and the

participation

33

played

a minor

involvement

role as compared

in the success

tervention

cesses

to consultant

of the various

in-

failure

of many

field

than

and

the

demonstrate

Electronic that

quantitative,

The

volved

are

too long

fall

short

is that

too complex

to preclude that

the achievement

writings, and

his colleagues.

Beer’s

“The

time

inspans

or even

variables

have

af-

results.

tional Development” September-October Huse,

Development”

and,

Approach

David

vs.

(Winter

Bowers,

organiza-

are Michael to Organizawith

and Stanley

Seashore’s and Row,

articles

issues of Or-

in previous

vocate

Organization”

(with Credits

while and

Chris

presented

“PerArgyris

a capsule

of the best-known

reservations)

of intervention, ment:

by

3-17)

of the views

of the process

“Organizational Debts”

adschool

Develop-

by George

Strauss

(Winter 1973, pp. 2-16) contains a penetrating analysis of the OD process by an authority whose views are close to Whyte’s.

Edward

to Organizational

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Behavioral

the unpublished Development”

from the Change

de-

Alfred

by Participation (Harper

1974, pp.

statement

and “Organizational

The unpublished

of the struc-

The best single

Marrow,

Management

I want to express

my gratitude

Beer and Allan Hundert James Thurber

mate: A Viewpoint

the clearest and most suc-

of the proponents

of an OD effort so far remains

opment

monograph)

Lentz

Organiza-

scription

items by Dr. Beer upon which I drew were “The of Organization

Action

Edith

1965) and

tural school of intervention.

Technology 141-page

34

1969), contain

cinct statements

sonality

(]ournaZ of Applied

Science, Vol. 8, 1972). Among

(Irwin-Dorsey,

Two

(Harvard Business Review, 1967)

“A Systems

Whyte,

with

1967).

of Dr. Beer

them

Approach

Dorsey,

for Management

ganizational Dynamics were very pertinent.

of Corning’s

Among

state of OD in in-

by William

tional Behavior: Theo y and Application (Irwin-

and unpublished,

Dialectic

of the current

dustry. Two volumes

im-

positive

effort, my prime sources are the

published

based overview

while

of the desired

this appraisal

A Reconnaissance (The

Board, 1973), the most recent survey-

Hamilton

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

In writing

I con-

Rush’s Or-

OD

CD tion development

that

of an

possibility,

other

Conference

works

useful were Harold

ganization Development:

Samuel

of Structural,

on Integration.”

the general

sulted and found

and

Effects

Research

systems

the

The

and

of

the

and

the

establish

qualitative

measures,

to

problem

the probability, fected

The

Med-

Division to

effectiveness

continue

proof.

Products both

of the

program.

pressive,

Both

it is possible

measures,

impressive change

of methodology.

Integration,”

and Role Changes Among

organizations

to evaluate their OD eflorts is more a failure of nerve

Enhance “Findings:

Cultural,

technologies. The

to

Marcus’s

(a Cli-

Agent.”

of Corning’s

department

to Drs. Michael

and to Allan Burns and organization

for their

devel-

time and their

in-

sights into the OD effort at Corning. At the same time, I want to stress that

papers by other mem-

the conclusions

and interpretations

reached

in the

bers of Corning’s organizational research and development department included Dr. Alan T.

by my conversations

Hundert’s “Problems and Prospect Teams in a Large Bureaucracy,” Dr. Gerald Pieters’ “Chang-

leagues. But an outsider usually views events in a somewhat different light from the insiders, and

ing Organizational

this article constituted

Structures,

Roles,

and

Pro-

article are mine. Obviously,

they were influenced

with Dr. Beer and his col-

no exception.