Search results

Extending the argument made in Bushe and Marshak (2009) of the emergence of a new species of Organization Development (OD) that we label Dialogic, to differentiate it from the foundational Diagnostic form, we argue that how any OD method is used in practice will be depend on the mindset of the practitioner. Six variants of Dialogic OD practice are reviewed and compared to aid in identification of a Weberian ideal-type Dialogic Mindset, consisting of eight premises that distinguish it from the foundational Diagnostic Mindset. Three core change processes that underlie all successful Dialogic OD processes are proposed, and suggestions for future research offered.

Generativity is defined in this chapter as the creation of new images, metaphors, physical representations, and so on that have two qualities: they change how people think so that new options for decisions and/or actions become available to them, and they are compelling images that people want to act on. Research and experiences that suggest “positivity,” particularly positive emotion, is not sufficient for transformational change, but that generativity is a key change lever in cases of transformational change, are reviewed. A model of different characteristics of generativity is offered and ways in which appreciative inquiry can be a generative process, increase generative capacity, and lead to generative outcomes, are discussed. Ways to increase the generativity of appreciative inquiry through generative topics, generative questions, generative conversations, and generative action are offered.

This article categorizes organization development (OD) approaches to change management into three categories and explains their differences and when each might be most appropriate. It focuses on the differences between two different change strategies that utilize the same methods and are associated with a Dialogic OD mindset: high engagement and generative. The generative change strategy is the newest and least discussed in the change literature. The article endeavors to alert practitioners and researchers to important differences that make the generative change strategy the most rapid and transformational catalyst for change of the three.

Descriptions of the high engagement and generative change strategies are followed by brief case examples. The differences in roles and activities of leaders (sponsors), change agents and those affected by the change are identified. Propositions about when each strategy is appropriate are offered.

The rate and depth of change produced by generative change is beyond what change professionals normally aspire to. High engagement strategies appear to be the most common form of dialogic organizational consulting. It is probably not coincidental that managerial control is retained while engaging the targets of change in participating on some aspect of change planning and solution finding. Generative strategies that lead to rapid transformations are based on complexity science, so are more agile, emergent and self-organizing, and thus less managerial control. A generative strategy is of limited value when high levels of interdependence or large capital outlays require central coordination of change. In such cases, high engagement is a better choice.

The authors believe this is the first article to identify the differences between high engagement and generative strategies utilized by Dialogic OD practitioners using large group interventions and propose when each may be the most appropriate. Additionally, the generative change model provides a new lens for creating a path to the agile organization.

Parallel learning structures coexist with formal bureaucratic structures. They show great promise as a techno‐structural intervention to compensate for bureaucratic organisation′s inability to learn and adapt. A number of their applications are briefly reviewed. System transforming innovations create the need for change in the very nature of the organisations in which they are implemented. Using a case study of one manufacturing plant′s efforts to implement such an innovation (statistical process control) the article examines the practical advantages of using a parallel learning structure to aid in implementation.

This empirical study tests hypothesized relationships between team effectiveness and a measure of shared cognition that quantifies the degree of similarity between knowledge of the actual group and beliefs about preferred group states.

The proposed model of shared cognition is based upon the triadic structure of actual‐ideal‐ought cognitive representations employed within self‐discrepancy theory. Self discrepancy theory proposes that the degree of discrepancy (similarity) between cognitive representations of the actual self and representations of both the ideal and ought self represents particular emotional situations. This study elevates the concept of a self‐state representation to the group level by asking group members to list attributes associated with the actual, ideal and ought group‐states (group‐state representations). Shared cognition for 56 project teams is measured by comparing the actual group‐state representations of each member with both the ideal and ought group‐state representations of the other members. This extends the measurement of shared cognition beyond the aggregation of individual measures and creates the potential for capturing group level cognition structures that have the potential to evoke affect, influence motivation and impact outcomes.

Hypotheses proposing a relationship between team effectiveness and both shared actual‐ideal and shared actual‐ought group‐state representations, mediated by cohesion and confidence in the team's ability, respectively, are mostly supported.

By examining the degree of similarity between perceptions of what currently exists (knowledge) and what is preferred (belief) this research examines evaluative cognitive structures that have the potential to evoke affect, influence motivation and impact on outcomes.

The purpose of this paper is to understand what contributes to transfer of soft‐skill, leadership training.

The paper presents a literature review resulted in five broad factors that may influence transfer of leadership training. These were used to guide a qualitative, exploratory study. Interviews were conducted with 18 participants of an extensive, soft skill oriented leadership development program, along with peer observers. Where possible, quantitative analyses are used to test and confirm qualitative findings.

The results showed substantial transfer of training and suggest that actual utilization of newly learned skills is influenced differently than judgments about the value of the training. The greatest inhibitor to transfer appeared to be fear of breaking cultural norms and the most important remedy, the number of other managers who receive the training. In particular, having one's boss take the same training was strongly associated with post‐training utilization. Some kinds of social support, like encouragement and verbal praise, were associated with positive judgments of the training but not with utilization. Instead, observing others use the skills and being able to coach one another was the kind of “support” that effected utilization, which depended on colleagues and bosses also receiving the training.

As an exploratory case study, the study lacks a large sample and the kind of methodology that could prove the validity of the findings.

A number of implications for training managers wanting to ensure their leadership development programs have real impact are discussed. In particular, the study points to a need to plan for rapid diffusion of the training and for cultural change processes in parallel with leadership development courses.

The paper meets a need for empirical investigation of factors associated with transfer of soft skills into the workplace, as called for by researchers like Cheng and Ho. It identifies differences in what impacts judgments of value versus what actually impacts transfer. It also identifies how changing leadership behavior is as much a cultural intervention as a change in skill sets.

This paper seeks to understand what contributes to the transfer back to the workplace of soft‐skill leadership training.

The study draws on information from a study carried out at Vancouver Island Health Authority, Canada.

The paper reveals that the greatest inhibitor to transfer appears to be the fear of breaking cultural norms and the most important remedy, the number of other managers who receive the training. In particular, having one's boss take the same training is strongly associated with post‐training utilization.

The paper points to the need to plan for the rapid diffusion of training, and for cultural‐change processes to run in parallel with leadership‐development courses.

The paper shows that some people are motivated to transfer their training back to the workplace because the organization has “invested” in them.