|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
flaw in the beginning of the text
Flaw in the beginning of the text "Organization development (OD) is a planned, organization-wide effort to increase an organization's effectiveness and viability." only to be followed a few sentences later by: "The term "Organization Development" is often used interchangeably with Organizational effectiveness". I removed the sentence. While "development" is an effort and not a property, "effectiveness" is a property - therefore they cannot be used "interchangeably". I am not an expert in the field, so if I missed a point please reverse my post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Postdeborinite (talk • contribs) 08:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
This article is extremely incomplete and idiosyncratic. Anyone reading it in search of substantive knowledge about OD will be either misinformed (if they are naive or uninformed on arrival) or will simply disregard it (if they already have some understanding of the topic.) It requires much attention, and if time permits, I (a recognized expert) will return and work on it.
incomplete? absolutely. i was hoping others would come along and help fix it.
idiosyncratic? thank you!User:Thseamon
Hello Goodoldpolonius, It took me a while (years!), but I finally added OD to the Org Studies page See Also list.User:Thseamon
Marked for cleanup. Needs major work... The field is called Organization Development. Let's get it right. Perspective 18:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you, Perspective. Change the title to Organization Development. User:Thseamon
- Done. (OK, so it took a while). -Willmcw 05:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I deleted Kaushik Kumar and Olusegun Samuel from the list, because I couldn't find a trace of them with Google. If anyone has specific information about them and their importance to the field, please let us know. -Willmcw 05:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I've further trimmed the list. Some appear in Google, some with an OD background, but so do thousands of others. We need some quality control. Perhaps having a valid wikipedia entry about the individuals work is a starting point. Spamburger 10:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Once again marked for cleanup. The article is little more than a series of lists. It needs content, expansion and explanation. --Buridan 21:35, 8 April 2006
Actually the founders of the field specifically named it ORGANIZATION development, NOT "organizational development". The analogy was with "Human development". I don't have my books with me to give you a published reference. Here's one take on the difference between the two terms.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ3Py72xLtg and another one: http://managementhelp.org/organizationdevelopment/od-defined.htm#anchor74706 126.96.36.199 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Organization = Group
I think that the definition of organization as "two or more people working together toward one or more shared goals" is misleading. This, to me sounds like the definition of group. See wikipedia article on Group_(sociology).
If the same definition of group is used for organization, we would be equating a company such as IBM with a group of 3 software engineers working together. It will also mean that what we know about how a group develops is all we need to know about how a company, an organized religion, or a sports organization develops. Anybody has a better definition? I recall Robert Bales, a famous researcher of small groups, writing somewhere that the difference between small groups and large groups is that in a small group people are able to remember pretty much everything that was said by everybody in a group interaction. Btw, I am working on a page on group development if others are interested. Jsarmi 19:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The article suggests, change is only required when an organization is "ill"
There is a direct analogy here to the practice of psychotherapy: The client or patient must actively seek help in finding a solution to his problems.
This, of course, is not true. Many reasons for change exist and having problems may be one of them. A "healthy" organization will still need to change to match the requirements from the changing environment it is operating in, including social, competitive and renewal aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think OD is really very new
I have a reference to an earlier edition of Organization Development and Transformation: Managing Effective Changethat dates back to 1983, and they talk about 'traditional OD techniques'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedian! I am looking to make small edit to this article by adding:
Self-managing work groups allows the members of a work team to manage, control, and monitor all facets of their work, from recruiting, hiring, and new employees to deciding when to take rest breaks. An early analysis of the first-self-managing work groups yielded the following behavioral characteristics (Hackman, 1986):
- Employees assume personal responsibility and accountability for outcomes of their work.
- Employees monitor their own performance and seek feedback on how well they are accomplishing their goals.
- Employees manage their performance and take corrective action when necessary to improve their and the performance of other group members.
- Employees seek guidance, assistance, and resources from the organization when they do not have what they need to do the job.
- Employees help members of their work group and employees in other groups to improve job performance and raise productivity for the organization as a whole.
2.^ Schultz, Diane P. Schultz, Sydney Ellen (2006) Psychology and work today: and introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (9th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice Hall p262. ISBN 0-13-193212-8. Angela Sandy (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)