Use of OD

The decline of traditional OD, as described above, has been partly caused by disenchantment with the jargon used by consultants and the unfulfilled expectations of significant improvements in organizational effectiveness. There was also a reaction in the hard-nosed 1980s against the perceived softness of the messages preached by the behavioural scientists. Managements in the later 1980s and 1990s wanted more specific prescriptions which would impact on processes they believed to be important as means of improving performance, such as total quality management, business process re-engineering and performance management. The need to manage change to processes, systems or culture was still recognized as long as it was results driven, rather than activity centred. Team-building activities in the new process-based organizations were also regarded favourably as long as they were directed towards measurable improvements in the shorter term. It was also recognized that organizations were often compelled to transform themselves in the face of massive challenges and external pressures, and traditional OD approaches would not make a sufficient or speedy impact. A survey of the views of chief executives about organizational development, (IPD, 1999a) found that a large proportion of them are expecting greater team contributions, more sophisticated people management practices and processes for managing knowledge. As the IPD commented, ‘HR has a pivotal role in developing the behaviours and culture to support the delivery of these strategies.’