Search results

This chapter outlines current and emerging approaches in change communication from both scholarly and practice perspectives, and what this means for organisations and practitioners, including practical implications for education. A literature review is conducted using the Kemmis and McTaggart framework for studying practice based on individual-social, objective-subjective dichotomies leading to an integrated reflexive-dialectical approach. Five roles are suggested for the practitioner in leading and influencing change, namely that of a Communication Architect, a Story-enabler, an Empathiser, an Engager and a Community Builder. These roles go beyond the traditional informative role, to practitioners co-constructing communication with stakeholders during change. With new ways of thinking about change management, there is the possibility for new methods of educating practitioners beyond the traditional qualification or professional certification. These would require greater collaboration between scholars and practitioners in creating vehicles for continuous learning.

Suggests that change is inherent in contemporary organizational experience, and its management is not only critical to organizational success but it is also at the centre of the field of organization development (OD). Describes the results of a survey of 357 OD practitioners regarding their knowledge and understanding of important aspects of organizational change. Based on a comparison of the survey data collected with previous research, demonstrates that this group of presumed “change experts” is, in fact, more knowledgeable in most areas about the application and process of organizational change than their managerial and executive counterparts. Presents further analyses that serve to highlight different areas of knowledge and application of change management techniques with respect to various respondent characteristics, e.g. internal versus external status, number of years of experience in the field, etc. Concludes with a call for reflection regarding the results obtained and continued research in this area.

This paper seeks to provide perspectives of HR practitioners based on their experiences with mergers, acquisitions, and/or downsizings.

This qualitative study utilized interviews with 13 HR practitioners. Data were analyzed using a constant comparative method.

HR practitioners were not involved in planning decisions related to downsizings, mergers, and/or acquisition. Neither the practitioners in this study nor other members of the HR team in their organizations had an upfront due diligence role in these change initiatives.

Additional research is needed to guide HRD practitioners in repositioning their roles so that they are more central to an organization's strategic decisions. Given the method of this study, the findings are not intended for generalization to larger populations. Future research should address the needs of HRD practitioners who are affected by downsizings, mergers, and/or acquisitions.

The primary role of HR practitioners need to be more than transitional activities after these change events are announced. Rather, these practitioners need opportunities during the planning stages to ensure that training and development supports the financial goals of these change events. After these change events occur, HRD practitioners need support for interventions to counter the impact of dismissed cultural artifacts and broken human links.

Study participants explained that failure to identify employee issues in the pre‐downsizing due diligence phase creates a chaotic workplace atmosphere and increases employee fears and stress levels. Participants explained how these change events affect career uncertainty, fear, and stress in employees.

Organization development (OD) and the business environment, more generally, have seen many changes in the last 20 years. This chapter describes findings of a research study that investigated current perceptions of the field of OD as compared to data collected in a 1993 study (published in 1994). Survey data collected from 388 OD professionals indicated findings along the following themes: (1) continued perceived weakening of traditional OD values; (2) focus on business effectiveness and fewer perceptions that OD is too “touchy feely”; (3) increase in commitment to organizations and standing against the misuse of power; (4) coaching is seen as an integral part of OD; and (5) practitioners are very optimistic about the future of OD. Implications for the current and future practice of OD are discussed.

The world of management and technology has become accustomed to the notion of “2.0” advancements and transformative innovations. Is the field of Change Management/Organizational Development itself in this story? Not enough! We re-examine the field’s foundational beliefs, practices, focus, research directions, and value add. We conclude that there is strong evidence from the front line and from an IBM Case Study that the field must “reboot” – to rethink our methods and frameworks; the role and skills of change leadership for the future; change practitioner capabilities for the future; the metrics needed to evaluate progress; and the knowledge exchange between Academe and practitioners.

In recent years, practitioners have identified a number of problems with traditional performance management (PM) systems, arguing that PM is broken and needs to be fixed. In this chapter, we review criticisms of traditional PM practices that have been mentioned by journalists and practitioners and we consider the solutions that they have presented for addressing these concerns. We then consider these problems and solutions within the context of extant scholarly research and identify (a) what organizations should do going forward to improve PM practices (i.e., focus on feedback processes, ensure accountability throughout the PM system, and align the PM system with organizational strategy) and (b) what scholars should focus research attention on (i.e., technology, strategic alignment, and peer-to-peer accountability) in order to reduce the science-practice gap in this domain.

Investigates the effects of policy change‐the Government New Contract (1990) – on the workload and lives of family doctors, using an open‐ended interview approach and numerical research adapted from it. Provides an account of 20 urban general practitioners′ perceptions of their stresses in general practice under the new 1990 contract. Uses an open‐ended, emic, interview approach in order to reflect the perspectives of the participants rather than the assumptions of the researcher. Considers some of the problems and assets of the methodology. Uncovered many stresses during the interviews but focuses on the main ones which involve the effects of the new contract on being “on call”; nightwork; administration and increased paperwork; financial problems; relationships; inherent practice stresses; and job satisfaction. Involves a quantitative component to the survey, which consisted of a postal questionnaire designed from the findings of the preliminary open‐ended interviews; and includes results from the questionnaire findings. Also notes some of the comments given in answer to two open‐ended questions on the form. The preliminary interviews and quantitative findings suggest that it is important to be aware of the effects of the new contract on the general practitioner′s life and work as it is perceived by the doctors themselves, for many feel it has affected their adaptability and may alter the balance between their stresses and their ability to do their job in the most satisfactory spirit for their patients, staff, the administration and their family and personal life.

Understanding occupational boundaries is vital in the contemporary economy, in which knowledge-based work is a central feature. The purpose of this paper is to identify and decipher boundary work which affects the cooperation and demarcation between human resource (HR) managers and external organization development (OD) practitioners during organization change processes.

Data are based on in-depth interviews with HR managers and external OD practitioners in the Israeli business sector.

Encounters between HR managers and external OD practitioners are potentially volatile given mutual experiences of occupational threat. Three distinct patterns of boundary work for negotiating OD-HR jurisdiction are identified. These yield differential occupational and organizational outcomes.

This study is based on a medium-sized sample of practitioners of HRM and OD in the Israeli business sector. The data focused on one-sided descriptions of occupational relations.

The findings shed light on boundary work associated with fruitful HRM-OD partnerships. This may greatly advance the success of costly organization change and development interventions which demand the collaboration of both parties. Implications are offered regarding the academic education and practical daily management of both groups of practitioners.

Despite their growing relevance, empirical investigations of daily HRM-OD interfaces are scarce. This exploratory research addresses this gap in the literature and offers theoretical and practical insights.

Thus far, I have introduced the reader to evidence based practice in a broad sense, and evidence based relationships across important variables. In this chapter, I further build on this by extending the need for evidence based responsiveness as applied to client factors. While the practitioner brings themselves and their bag of tools to the therapy encounter, the client brings not just their presenting problem, but their characteristic way of thinking about their problems and how they manage distress and change. Therefore, the supportive practitioner will be best served to understand how these client factors manifest for each individual that they work with. The purpose of this chapter then, is to discuss coping style, reactant level, stage of change, attachment style, and client preferences, within the context of the practitioner being responsive to these factors as they impact on therapy outcomes.

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.