Should the profession of Organization Development (OD) require professional certification or licensing for practitioners to practice?

As we look to the future of OD, some questions come to mind :

-  Should anyone wanting to “hang out a shingle” as an OD practitioner be allowed to do so?

-  Should there be minimum educational requirements?  If so, what should they be?

-  Should OD practitioners be licensed through a formal licensing or certification process?

-  How would a governing body for licensing or certification be “selected”?

-  What risks to the OD profession are posed if licensing or certification is required?

-  How do you market your practice to differentiate and distinguish yourself?

Having practiced in the field for 30 years, now, I have seen OD grow to encompass a broad range of “specialty” areas beyond its origins in the area of “group dynamics”, “human relations research”, and “action research” back in the 1940’s and 50’s.  (See the Wikipedia article on OD here). Over the past nearly 60 years, the field of OD has grown and expanded to include a multitude of “sub-disciplines”, including organization design, change management, executive coaching and development, team building, appreciative inquiry (AI), future search, systems theory, employee engagement, organizational culture/climate, employee surveys, performance improvement, process improvement, strategic planning–the list goes on and on.

As with any field – whether it be medicine, law, chemistry, biology, engineering, etc. – this trend toward increased specialization affords exciting opportunities for people practicing in these fields to deepen their skills and knowledge in areas that are valued by society.  Just as deepening the field of medicine in, say, the specialization of oncology, can lead to new and more effective treatments for cancer, so can deepening the field of OD in, say, the specialization of organization design, can lead to new and more effective organizational forms.

But imagine that you are a potential client for a project that requires you to hire an OD consultant, and that project is going to cost your business $500K for the next 6 months.  You put out a request for proposal (RFP) stating your requirements, wait for the proposals to come in, and then interview the top finalists.  How do you, the somewhat uninformed client, know how to identify the right consultant or consulting firm?  They all claim to be OD consultants.  They all claim to have the right experience.  Each one of them tells you a different story about your problem, one saying that it’s a “performance management” problem, another saying that it’s a “reengineering problem”, and yet another saying that your executive team needs team-building or executive coaching.  How do you, as a client, know how to sort through the inevitable “BS” and make an informed buying decision?

Now, imagine that you’re the OD consultant!  How do you avoid being a “Johnny-one-note” with a “pet solution” designed to fit every problem?  (In other words, a hammer in search of a nail!)  Or how do you differentiate yourself from “OD wannabees” who have had little to no formal education or training in OD without sounding arrogant or prideful?  Or how do you market yourself so that you demonstrate depth in key (hopefully marketable) areas, without becoming so narrowly specialized that you miss out on potentially interesting and profitable consulting opportunities?

Paradigm shifts aside, for now let’s consider the future of OD as a cohesive “field”: OD “purists” and those who teach in academic institutions continually emphasize the need for empirical research and scientific methods in the field of OD to establish the validity of OD interventions and give the profession its due credibility in the business world.  But as a seasoned OD practitioner, how often are you asked for scientific evidence for your recommendations, or for the statistical validation of the efficacy of your group facilitation techniques?  I would imagine, however, that you have been asked to share specific examples of where your efforts have led to measurable improvements in business results and/or increased employee engagement. I am eager to hear from other professionals and engage in a debate on these matters!

(We encourage public comments! Private comments may be sent to Chagen_at_PlusDelta_dot_net)

[youtube]zDwe4LBPscM[/youtube]

I recently had the honor and privilege of sitting down with Geoff Bellman and Kathleen Ryan, co-authors of the new book Extraordinary Groups: How Ordinary Teams Achieve Amazing Results. What a treat!  Geoff has been a personal idol of mine ever since I started my doctoral program more than 15 years ago, and Kathleen may now be my newest favorite OD consultant. Whether I’ve known them long or short, both are tremendously caring and generous souls who are ever-so-graciously giving back to the field of OD these days just as they have given to their local Seattle community for many, many years.

So why do you, our blog readers, care about Geoff and Kathleen? Because they are two leading team performance experts who just published an eye-opening book……that clearly demonstrates why some groups just come and go while others produce that “wow” experience that inspires us to achieve exceptional results. According to their Group Needs Model, anyone (yes, I said ANYONE!) can create extraordinary group experiences and produce greater results. Listed below are the 6 common needs people have when they join groups, and as Geoff and Kathleen discussed in our interview, groups can achieve remarkable outcomes even if only 2 of these 6 needs are met.

• Acceptance of Self while moving toward One’s Potential
• A Bond with Others that grows while pursuing a Common Purpose
• Understanding the Reality of the World while collectively Making an Impact

Please read their book! It’s written for everyone – project managers, senior executives, group facilitators, and trainers, and really anyone who leads or participates in professional or social community groups. This short video clip about the Group Needs Model was just a snip-it of our extensive interview together. We’ll be sharing a complete transcript of the entire interview very soon so you too can find out how to create extraordinary group experiences that produce outstanding team results.

Edie Seashore (left) and Laura Horwitz (right)

As organizational psychologists, we look at human interactions as comprised of content and process. The OD Network conference was certainly chock full of great content, sessions that re-explored foundational theories, highlighted innovations, and introduced new applications at the boundaries of the field. And, with 800 participants, including many of organizational development’s leading theorists and practitioners, the conference offered a rare chance to connect with others who share my interests and values. Yet, as I reflect on my time in Seattle, what stands out about my first OD Network conference is not so much what I learned or who I met, but how I engaged with the content and process… through Twitter.

Now, as a recent adopter of this technology, I can imagine the skepticism of some non-tweeters as to how Twitter might apply to the work of OD professionals and what if any place tweeting has at a conference, one of the few face-to-face forums left in our increasingly virtual workplaces. For me tweeting at the OD Network Conference underscored the theories and values that drew me to OD in the first place. We are in the business of enabling individuals, groups, and organizations to better connect with one another so as to more effectively meet their goals. Relationships – whether forming new ones, enhancing existing ones, or untangling dysfunctional ones – lie at the heart of our work and the belief that relationships are foundational to change is, to me, one of the central values of our field.

Twitter, a tool that allows users to share brief thoughts with others in real-time, can be used for nothing more than navel-gazing and minutiae, but can also be harnessed to build dynamic and meaningful relationships with likeminded and geographically dispersed individuals. Twitter and other web 2.0 tools expand information access by minimizing the role of “expert” gatekeepers and empowering users to collaborate in the creation and spread of information in a self-organized way. These technologies embody many values central to organizational development, such as collaboration, transparency, and bottom-up engagement, and seem aligned with several theories and practices highlighted at the 2009 OD Network Conference, including Marshak and Bushe’s dialogic approach to organizational development, and those practices, like Liberating Structures and Positive Deviance, that draw on complexity theory.

I started a Twitter account (@ODforNonprofits) a couple months ago at the urging of my brother, a 2nd grade teacher, who uses his account (@globalrams) to connect with other educators and classrooms worldwide and incorporates tweeting into his teaching. Soon thereafter, I attended the National Conference on Citizenship at which participants were asked to “turn their cell phones on” and encouraged to tweet throughout the day. The conference organizers went so far as to take questions from Twitter, an approach that powerfully displayed the potential of web 2.0 tools to expand participation.

So when I learned about Flocking to Seattle, an action research project that aimed to explore the value of and influence the conversation over Twitter at the OD Network Conference, I was excited to continue my experiment with Twitter. I had two questions I hoped to answer by actively tweeting throughout the conference. First, I wondered if Twitter would prove a distraction or an enhancement to my conference experience. Second, I was curious as to whether tweeting would isolate me from or help me connect with other conference goers.
Linda Stone’s work on continuous partial attention points out the opportunities and pitfalls of a hyper-connected, information rich world. Stone explains that “in our effort not to miss anything” we fail to be fully present in our here and now lives, and also suggests that we can make strategic choices as to when partial attention is useful and/or desirable.

In my use of Twitter at the conference, I wanted to benefit from the connective potential of Twitter while maintain a “here and now” presence. I tried to accomplish this by approaching Twitter as a tool for taking notes in the sessions I attended. Doing so allowed me to stay focused on the content of the keynote speeches and sessions and benefit from the memory enhancing effects of note-taking, but also meant that my Twitter persona was one of providing information rather than connecting to outside content or with or among other users. As I learned from Rachel Lyn Rumson (@CosmoGenisis), there are developmental stages of tweeting behavior: initially, users generate content by telling what they are doing or hearing; next, users begin to point to resources elsewhere that connect to what they are experiencing; then, users connect other users to one another and connect across streams of thoughts by re-tweeting content and asking questions.

As far as the use of Twitter as isolating or connective, I found that my experience was “both/and.” Conference goers who tweeted were a small subset of mostly young professionals. Tweeting was a great way to get to know this peer group and allowed me to attend the conference as an individual but gain the benefits group association, such as splitting up for sessions and reporting back, and reflecting with others on the conference as a whole. At the same time, the twittering-conference-goers illustrated existing generational divides in the OD Network, and provided a bridge between tweeters and non-tweeters and among generations. Twitter served as a conversation piece that gave me, as a young professional and first-time attendee, a unique role and entry to conversations with experience practitioners that may not have otherwise been possible. Moreover, tweeting allowed me to feel that I was provided an important service to people who couldn’t attend the conference but hoped to follow what was happening.

In all, my online participation enhanced my offline experience and visa versa. My Twitter experiment at the OD Network Conference reaffirms my sense that the power of Twitter and other web 2.0 technologies lie in identifying and leveraging the nexus between online and offline connections. As Edie Seashore reminded us, Twitter is just a new tool for developing the support systems we consider foundational to personal and organizational transformation.

Laura Horwitz is a nonprofit professional with an MA in Organizational Psychology from Columbia University.  She tweets @ODforNonprofits.

I recently conducted a two-part interview with Juliette Powell (author of 33 Million People in the Room) at the OD Network Conference in Seattle, just after she delivered the final keynote speech, titled “The Technology of Relationships: Social Networking and the Future of Human Communities.” This first interview gives you a behind-the-scenes look into Juliette’s take on the field of OD after delivering the keynote and meeting with OD practitioners for several days. You’ll especially want to watch if you were at the keynote or you plan to watch it on YouTube when it gets posted by the OD Network. I highly recommend you watch that keynote address when posted; her points are crucial for OD practitioners to remain relevant in the shifting organizational and media landscape.

You won’t want to miss our upcoming blog post featuring the second interview. There she clears up the misconception from the keynote address around her provocative comment regarding the demise of traditional conferences. She also further elaborates on her upcoming Leadership Engine project – an exciting new development for OD.

Here is a quick glimpse of that comment regarding the future of conferences during the keynote address

[youtube]Gkoc489yWQE[/youtube]

For those interested in the future of organizations with respect to the social-technological systems that enable people to be effective in the organization, and for those interested in the future of how conferences may be organized, be sure to visit this blog for our second interview with Juliette.

I was fortunate enough to spend some time with Juliette during the conference. She is a fascinating individual who is passionate about her work and is clearly making a significant contribution to the world. Our private discussions about our own personal transparency on the web may ironically become increasingly public, in that we may continue these discussions on various social networks and in public online spaces, as they may be of interest to others (she has already challenged me to change my personal Twitter handle from @rhetor to my full name). Perhaps it is not ironic after all, but rather a small example of the greater discussion around authenticity and community that Juliette challenges us to wrestle with as we strive to be effective and happy in our organizational and personal lives. I see the lines blurring between those we used to call “public figures” and “everyone else,” and maybe that can produce extraordinary results. If you have a strong opinion on this please be sure to comment on this post. Can it be taken too far? For an extreme example of such behavior, see We Live In Public.

During her keynote Juliette tells us that those companies who are at the center of their industries are ones that gather the most information, hence achieve the best results. One of the keys to arriving at the center of one’s industry is having the most connected employees, both online and offline. I would tell those companies who currently block social networking sites at their offices to promptly purchase Juliette’s book and reconsider their policies!

Click here to view more conference photos courtesy of OD Network staff photographer Robin Reid

This week at the OD Network Conference, organization development consultants – -seasoned and newly inspired – gathered to hear one of our favorite thought leaders, Peter Block. Block spoke of the “collective possibility” to “create a future distinct from the past.” This conference, like so many others, lives off of this premise – that people come together to share experience, debate new ideas, learn from each other in order to move their cause, profession or passions forward.

Individuals gathered in “community” can be a powerful force to bring about change at the macro level. And, at the micro level, it simply rejuvenates the individual to be with those who share their interests. Conferences mimic real-life in this way, offering a myriad of concurrent sessions on different topics. When the doors close, the community filling the chairs reflects those who chose to put their time and energy into this particular collective conversation. For the next 90 minutes, the exchange will feed their need to learn, contribute, and form new opinion.

The need to connect with others in community is part of our DNA. In historical times, tribes and clans held us together. Other examples of our need to “belong” to a community include our choice of religion, our expression of our cultural heritage, our loyalty to our company, and more benign examples: college fraternities, rock band groupies, football fans, and those who won’t miss an episode of Heroes! Not only do we get new ideas, we also find information, support and a sense of identity within these groups. But community is not just about what we receive, it’s also about the fulfillment of giving. Consider those in public office or those who organize the local food drive. And each of us gives in small and fleeting community moments as well. Think of how you felt when you helped lift a suitcase into the overhead, or gave directions to a “stranger” on the street.

We see how the power of community plays out in organizations of all kinds. In our book, Social Media At Work, we share how social media tools such as wikis, blogs, and social networking sites accelerate the formation of community and improve performance. These tools enable people who would have never known of each other to connect, communicate and collaborate on difficult problems or new innovations. They facilitate learning and provide new ways for us to engage with each other, to receive and to give our ideas, our opinions and our insights. (Although we haven’t met, you’re reading this now!) This kind or community within organizations – large, small, public, corporate, social – will certainly super charge our ability to effectively “create a future distinct from the past.”

The other night we were honored to be invited to a mixer hosted by Plus Delta Consulting. There we met new friends and found old friends from the previous year’s conference. This new community exchanged ideas, shared wisdom from our experience, and sparked possibilities for new collaborations. Yes, like many others we met at the conference, we will keep in touch via the Internet. We will tweet and blog and join the online social network, and this will keep our community energized. But, we all know that there’s nothing like a good old-fashioned handshake. For that reason, we look forward to seeing everyone again next year to revel in the collective possibility and to continue shaping a future distinct from our past.

The topic of the conversation last night was the “Future of OD”. Here is what these two had to say about their professional (and personal) past, and where they see the field going in the future:

part 2
part 3
part 4

This quiet venue was the perfect ending to an action-packed day, and we deeply thank the Seashores for their time!

Where do you think the field of OD is going? Is the future bright or dark? Join the discussion on our Future of OD group on LinkedIn and provide your initial comments below!

Are Web 2.0 and social networking technologies the next “great app” in the field of OD to enable self-organizing systems and to build better working relationships in the organization?

If I were a betting man, I would bet that half of the attendees at this year’s OD Network conference would click “Delete” on their email application if this showed up in their mailbox. The other half (or less?) would be intrigued and hit the “scroll down” button to read more. Are we at the “cutting edge” of OD by talking about the role of Web 2.0 technologies instead of talking about “authenticity”, “power and affiliation needs”, or “process facilitation”? Or are we so far off base in introducing this vernacular into the lexicon of OD professionals that we will see it fall off the radar screen of OD and into the abyss of other “flash in the pan” concepts?

Many OD professionals can’t tell you the difference between a “blog” and a “blob”. Or a “Tweet” from a “Twit”. But by now, it’s safe to say that most OD folks know “Google” and “Yahoo”. So what about these social networking apps like Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, Twitter, and others? Surely, most OD professionals have at least begun to recognize the value of having a presence on LinkedIn, as it is the leading professional networking application out there. It’s a great way to reconnect with colleagues, former college classmates, etc., and find out what everyone’s been up to, right?

And most folks who have been on Facebook or MySpace will tell you that these can afford great opportunities to keep in touch with family and friends, to reconnect for high school reunions, or to share family photo albums of last summer’s vacation. And most folks will have had the opportunity to use one of the many “instant messaging” applications for real-time communication with co-workers and friends.

But do these tools, and the use of these tools, need a close look in terms of the power they wield in aiding self-organizing systems? Some would say you should pick up the phone and talk to your co-worker, rather than “IM” them, but what if your co-worker is across the world, working on a software design problem, and happens to notice that you’re online and can probably answer a quick question? (Saves the embarrassment of waking your colleague up at midnight over what might seem like a trivial question). Are there “rules” or “best practices” that need to be developed for using Web 2.0 apps effectively? What about the questions of leadership, authenticity, power, authority, transparency, feedback, and trust while using Web 2.0? How DOES emotionally laden content get conveyed and filtered in a blog about healthcare reform, politics, or downsizing the company?

Click below to add your comments. We recognize that many of you may be reading this while at the OD Network Conference; now is the time for this conversation. See Michael Liskin’s post on the potential for this conference to become a tipping point for the introduction of web 2.0 into our field.

Last night, several of Plus Delta’s team members attended a reception hosted by Geoff Bellman in Seattle. It was designed to be a warm welcome to kickoff this year’s OD Network annual conference, and boy was it ever! The food was excellent, the wine was superb, and the conversation with our OD brethren – some long-time friends and colleagues, and others new acquaintances – quite delightful. The high point of the event though was a presentation by Rob Fijlstra and Harry Wullings, two seasoned OD practitioners from the Netherlands (click here for more on them).

In their talk, Rob and Harry posed the question of whether or not those in attendance were “Tour Guides” or “Expedition Specialists”. To paraphrase them a bit, a tour guide is someone who leads his/her client group on a safe and well-planned journey to sites that he/she has probably experienced many times over again. While the metaphor may sound reasonable for many – and even necessary at times – this type of OD guidance may never get a client group out of their comfort zone or beyond something that might be called incremental change.

An expedition specialist, on the other hand, takes his/her client group off of this somewhat traditional path. In essence, he/she would say, “You know, I’ve never been down this road before, but I think you’ll enjoy the journey. Just trust me. Everything will be OK!” And the right type of client with ample trust in his/her OD guide might just agree. That’s the type of relationship and type of work I aspire to. Realistically though, I’m still committed to meeting my clients where they’re at and believe that incremental change is better than no change as long as it puts them on the path.

So are you a tour guide or expedition specialist? Check out these links to their presentation to learn more from Rob and Harry’s approach to OD:
Presentation part I
part II
part III
part IV
part V
part VI