Document created: 29 December 03
Air University Review,
July-August
1973
Lieutenant Colonel
Peter E. LaSota
Captain Robert A. Zawacki
New times demand new measures and new men; the world advances, and in
time outgrows the laws that in our fathers’ day were best; and doubtless after
us, some purer scheme will be shaped out by wiser men than we, made wiser by
the steady growth of truth.
—James Russell Lowell
The United States Air Force is indeed in new times, and a new measure for
the new times is organizational development. Organizational development (OD) is
a little-known management tool that has been utilized in complex organizations
since 1957, when the late Douglas McGregor implemented a program to deal with
creative change at Union Carbide.1 Although
limited, OD has begun to raise its head in military circles during the past two
years. The United States Navy now has a Human Resources Development Command,
which is tasked with evaluating this technique called command development for
command-wide usage. The
What is organizational development? There are many definitions, but perhaps Wendell French’s definition is best:
Organization development is a long-range effort to improve an organization’s problem solving and renewal processes, particularly through a more effective and collaborative management of organization culture—with special emphasis on the culture of formal work teams—with the assistance of a change agent or catalyst and the use of the theory and technology of applied behavioral science, including action research.2
In short, OD is a way of looking at the whole human side of organizational
life. This human technology “. . . accepts as inevitable the conflicts among
the needs of individuals, work groups, and the organization, but advocates
openly confronting these goals using problem solving strategies. Its goal is to
maximize the use of organization resources in solving work problems through the
optimal use of human potential.”3
Organizational development has many focuses. Two that are of significance to managers today are managing change and directing human energy toward specific goals. What do we mean by this? Have you ever heard such complaints as, “Supply doesn’t know its ass from first base,” “Personnel never keeps us manned,” “Intelligence is out to lunch”? The target of these complaints could be the system or its manager. Where is the breakdown in communication between the complainer and his target? Is there any communicative link between the two parties involved? Can the problem be solved through improved communication? The complaining is a complete waste of energy. In fact, it can hurt the organization even more by turning other people off. The problem is how to get the complainer to direct his energy toward something constructive rather than expending it to do further harm in the organization. The practical application of one or more organizational development concepts can focus on problem-solving, improved communication, or building a staff into a team—maybe all three.
Although the objective of OD will vary according to each specific diagnosis of organizational problems, some typical objectives are the following:
a. To increase the level of trust and support among organizational members.
b. To increase the incidence of confrontation of organizational problems, both within groups and among groups, in contrast to sweeping problems under the rug.
c. To supplement the authority associated with role or status with the authority of knowledge and competence.
d. To increase openness of communication.
e. To increase the sense of ownership of organizational objectives throughout the work team.
f. To increase the level of self and group responsibility in planning and implementation.
g. To create an open problem-solving climate throughout the organization
that finds synergistic solutions to problems with greater frequency.4
Underlying the above objectives are the values and beliefs of behavioral science change agents. The primary value which OD represents is the humane and nonexploitative treatment of people in organizations.5 All other values relate to this basic value. They include:
a. Trust and openness—An open and nonmanipulative sharing of data is required for effective problem-solving.
b. Leveling—All team members should tell it like it is!
c. Feedback—Feedback is a communication skill for checking out the accuracy of assumptions and data. Feedback must be shared in a helpful and nonaccusatory manner.
d. Confronting conflict—Conflict is a natural occurrence between people on work teams and it should not be “placed under the rug.”
e. Risk-taking—The ability to take an unpopular
stand on an important issue.6
With this background of OD objectives and values, let us next discuss some components of an OD package.
recognizing a need
How does any organizational development program get its start? Are there signals to indicate that OD is necessary? Naturally, there is no one answer to these types of questions; the answer will vary according to the organizational setting and management styles. However, there is normally one element that is present in originating OD programs, and that is pressure for change. The pressure for change normally will show up as a felt need on the part of management. The felt need in civilian institutions can vary from a cry for increased profits to problems with excessive personnel turnover. In the military, it can be anything from problems in productivity and sortie rates to low re-enlistment or high drug-usage problems. These are but a few examples of identifiable (tangible) types of problems that are often mere indicators of internal disorder or people problems which have been festering within an organization for undetermined time periods.
As increased technology causes more problems with job satisfaction of subordinates, the supervisor needs to become more aware of how his people feel about their jobs—their level of job satisfaction. If one is not concerned about this facet of his management job, he may soon find himself confronted with problems and publicity such as the U.S. Navy recently had in the race relations aboard some of its frontline warships.
What can OD do to help solve the types of problems or improve the situations just described? We feel the one technique that is most applicable to Air Force problem-solving and improved communication is team building. The form that will be outlined is commonly called the family group, i.e., a manager and those directly under him. Team building is a super staff meeting in some senses, but it differs in that it is longer, the atmosphere promotes open communication, a third party (change agent) is often present, and the agenda is jointly formulated.
Although the design for team building varies, a typical outline is as follows:
1. Formulate meeting objectives—normally done by the manager, group representatives, and the third party.
2. Information collection—the third party collects information by interviewing, by questionnaire, or both.
3. The team-building meeting—can last one to three days, third party reports on information collected, an agenda is formed, issues are discussed, and, hopefully, action items are identified.
4. Follow-up—review agreements, report progress on action items, and insure that openness continues.
5. Renegotiation—follow-on team building of a shorter duration.7
Perhaps the issues and plans have taken on new perspectives and need to be
rediscussed.
third party
In the foregoing discussion, we have used the terms “change agent” and “third party.” Who are these people and what are their functions? Perhaps this aspect should have been discussed sooner, but certainly we cannot proceed beyond this point without a few details on this subject. The third party, to be effective, is not the Inspector General; it is a behavioral scientist. Basically, three major change agents or third parties have been identified:
a. The change agent who is completely outside the organization.
b. The change agent who is internal to the organization and serves functional areas other than the functional area to which he or she is assigned.
c. The change agent who is internal to the organization and serves various units of the system of which he or she is a part.
All three types must be trained in the behavioral sciences, organizational psychology, organizational theory, and/or management. Change theory, process, and strategies must be part of “his bag.”
An internal change agent has advantages over the external change agent, such as: (1) familiarity with local jargon and procedures, (2) the fact that his expenses are less than an external agent’s, and (3) knowledge of some of the “blocks” to organizational effectiveness. However, there is no Santa Claus, and the disadvantages of an internal change agent are that (1) he may be part of the problem; (2) he may not see the forest for the trees; (3) regardless of his courage and independence to hold to a position, he is still rewarded or punished by the organizational unit he is trying to change; and (4) his fellow team members may perceive him as a spy or the tool of the boss. Therefore, he may never gain the support or trust of the OD participants.
We recommend that the initial OD effort be managed by a change agent who is external to the organization. Fordyce and Weil state it this way: “The Third Party in Organizational Development is often called in by a group to help it explore its everyday conduct and to assist it in defining how it wishes to change and how it will go about making the change.” A second purpose “is to guide the parties toward more self-sufficient behavior in solving their problems, not to make them dependent on him for decisions.”8 As the program develops, then an internal change agent may be appointed to coordinate the program. In industry, the internal agent is typically under the supervision of the director of personnel or may even be the director of personnel.
Given this background and theory, just what are the military applications of organizational development?
military applications
There is no doubt in the authors’ minds that the Navy is the armed forces
frontrunner in applying behavioral sciences to the management of personnel
resources. Under the direction of Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, the Navy has formulated
its Human Resources Development Command (HRDC) at the Naval Station,
The HRDC is responsible for command development (CD), interracial education,
and drug and alcohol rehabilitation. In fiscal year 1972, approximately
$410,000 was invested in an operational and consultation budget. In FY 73,
approximately $217,000 is earmarked for consultation and training contracts.
The Navy runs its own CD workshops at
The U.S. Naval Academy has been working on a program for improved
communication and human relations skills development for its brigade officers
and personnel within the brigade. The program is under the direction of
Commander Warren Newman, and the National Training Labs (a nonprofit
organization that conducts OD workshops) of
With funding assistance from the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, the Air Force Academy is conducting research on the application of OD in the commandant’s area. Their basic approach is improved communication and team building at the air officer commanding and cadet wing levels. Although the OD experience in the armed services is limited, what does the future hold?
the future
It appears the military services are beginning to investigate the applicability of organizational development to management techniques and problem-solving at various levels. Except for the Navy effort, however, all attempts at OD have been very limited and somewhat token or halfhearted attempts. If one believes that survivability in the seventies is predicated on management of technological and personnel (human) resources, then he must investigate new methods of dealing with his subordinates.
What can the Air Force do to improve personnel management techniques? The problem
must be attacked from two directions: The first is to orient and train existing
leaders in this area. This can be done at the senior service schools and NCO
academies. At the same time, the management of personnel resources should
become a subject for the leaders of tomorrow at the
In conclusion, organizational development is a tool that can assist a
commander and his staff in sorting out the interpersonal conflicts that reduce
the productivity of his organization. Despite the
misconception that a tough-minded manager can become soft and that the
responsibility and force of the manager are reduced with the advent of group
consensus, OD has progressed in many of our large corporations and institutions
today. The Maytag Company, Honeywell, Inc., Jones and Laughlin Steel
Corporation, Charmin Paper Products,
The successful manager or commander of the future must insure that the maximum of human energy expended is focused on specific goals. The higher the mutual trust and openness in his organization, the more free a manager is to act without being misunderstood and the more ready he will be to manage crisis situations.
Each Air Force officer, NCO, and civilian supervisor, regardless of his level of supervision, should have some knowledge of organizational development skills. OD is here to stay in the Air Force of today and the future!
We have not succeeded in answering all our questions. Indeed, we sometimes
feel we have not completely answered any of them. The answers we have found
only serve to raise a whole new set of questions. In some ways we feel we are
as confused as ever. But we think we are confused on a higher level and about
more important things.
—Anonymous
Notes
1. Douglas McGregor, The Professional Manager (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967), pp. 106-10.
2. Wendell French and C. H. Bell, Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organizational Improvement (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973).
3. Lyman K. Randall, “Common Questions and Tentative Answers Regarding
Organization Development,”
4. Wendell French, “Organization Development Objectives, Assumptions, and
Strategies,”
5. W. Warner Burke, “A Comparison of Management Development and Organization Development,” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 7 (1971), p. 576.
6. These values are a modification from Randall, pp. 47-48.
7. For a detailed discussion of the strategy in OD, see the Action Research Model in French, “Organization Development Objectives, Assumptions, and Strategies,” p. 26.
8. Jack K. Fordyce and Raymond Weil, Managing with People (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1971), p. 20.
Lieutenant Colonel Peter E. LaSota (M.Ed.,
Captain Robert A. Zawacki (M.S.,
Disclaimer