Generations

Although the concept of dualities may be simplistic, Seo et al. argue that it provides a framework for understanding how the “relationships among and the management of these bipolar pairs are the keys to grasping the complexities and dynamics of planned change” (Seo, Putnam, & Bartunek, 2004, p. 102). Seo, et al. formalize the OD duality concept by categorizing OD approaches by three historical generations and then considering each generation against dualities and tensions in change targets and change process.

The dualities in change targets include individual versus organization, internal versus external, human systems versus technical systems, and first-order versus second-order change. The dualities and tensions in change processes include negative focus versus positive focus, continuous versus episodic, proactive versus reactive, and open versus closed. This section will summarize this framework and consider other perspectives within the framework proposed by Seo et al. (2004, p. 102).

First-generation OD approaches

Kurt Lewin established the foundation of OD by providing the theoretical foundation to guide OD practice and establishing research practices for testing real-world issues in laboratory settings. As stated by biographer Alfred Morrow (1969), “Lewin’s most enduring legacy was his innovative blending of science and practice” (p. 234). The OD practices that emerged from Lewinian foundations were built on the American management philosophy of humanistic, democratic values that emphasized individual and organizational growth through collaboration (Robbins & Judge, 2007). First-generation intervention approaches included action research, sensitivity training, team building, socio-technical systems, quality of work-life, and survey feedback.

Seo, et al. (2004) say that first-generation OD approaches tend to focus on the following change targets:

• Groups and individuals while disregarding tensions between the individual and the organization.
• Internal drivers for change while ignoring external forces;
• Favoring human needs over technical systems, and
• First-order change is more than second-order, meaning that organizations attempt to change the current framework (Bartunek & Moch, 1987).

The characteristics of change processes in first-generation OD practice focus on the following:

• Negatives while ignoring positives
• Episodic processes
• Separate proactive and reactive processes
• Open processes rather than closed processes.

Second-generation OD practices

Turbulent global competitive environments in the 1980s forced organizations to develop adaptability as a core competency. Second-generation OD emerged with planned change processes to drive large-scale interventions and organizational transformations for aligning organizations with their dynamic environments. Bertalanffy (1969) offered the biological organism as a metaphor to explain how organizations are a complex open system that survives by aligning with and exchanging resources with the environment, a concept Katz and Kahn (1966) would adapt for OD practice.

Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) proposed a contingency approach to organizational development, arguing that different environments place different requirements on organizations and that organizations exist because they have adapted to their environments. Similarly, congruence theory emerged to explain how aligning environment, strategy, and organizational components could enhance organizational adaptability and performance. While first-generation OD practices focus on gradually developing individuals and groups for organizational effectiveness, second-generation methods focus on radical change at the system level to enhance continuous survival and growth by breaking from the past (Seo, Putnam, & Bartunek, 2004).

Second-generation intervention approaches include organizational transformations and large-scale interventions. Seo, et al. (Seo, Putnam, & Bartunek, 2004) say that second-generation methods tend to focus on the following change targets:

• Organization-wide transformation rather than individual and group change.
• Both internal and external factors that drive change.
• Strategic issues over human systems, and first-order change over second-order change, meaning that change interventions attempt to break from the past by replacing the existing framework with a new framework (Bartunek & Moch, 1987).

Second-generation approaches to change also focus on the following characteristics of change:

• Negative sides while ignoring positive sides.
• Episodic more than dominant; both proactive and reactive processes.
• Open processes rather than closed.

Third-generation OD approaches

Seo, et al. (2004) propose a third-generation OD approach that parts from second-generation methods by assuming that the past plays a crucial role in understanding the development of an organization. Rather than breaking with the past, Kimberly and Bouchihkhi (1995) argue that transforming an organization requires visionaries who can consider the organizational biography to understand how the organization’s history shapes its present and constrains its future. The learning organization and inquiry serve as the vital third-generation approaches.

The learning organization

Senge (1990) offered the learning organization as a model for transformational change by arguing that a learning organization is “an organization that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future” (p. 14). Senge offered five disciplines for a learning organization: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning.

Seo, et al. (2004) say that the learning organization concept focuses on

• The individual, group, and organizational processes without recognizing tensions among them.
• Internal drivers and capacity for change rather than external drivers.
• Human systems as the means and the end of change rather than on technical systems.
• Second-order change over first-order change.

Although Seo et al. (2004) consider only first-order and second-order change in their analysis of OD approaches, the learning organization concept helps expose a limitation of considering change through a dichotomous perspective between first-order and second-order change. Neither of these alternatives adequately explains the third-order change. This natural change occurs as organizational members develop the capacity to recognize when change is necessary to implement change themselves (Bartunek & Moch, 1987; 1994). Third-order change is not planned and cannot be controlled. Instead, it emerges as people become aware of their assumptions and appreciate the alternatives. However, understanding third-order change means agents can influence or explain natural changes. The learning organization concept also focuses on the following characteristics of change processes:

• Both negative and positive aspects.
• Continuous aspects in preparation for episodic processes.
• Proactive in responding to changing environments.
• Open, rather than closed.

Appreciative inquiry

Appreciative inquiry has become widely used worldwide since Cooperrider and Srivastva introduced it in the mid-1980s as a philosophy for creating revolutionary change to implement global sustainable development strategies (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2001). Appreciative inquiry assumes that people create their reality through dialogue with others, social systems have multiple positive outcomes, and social systems can build consensus around positive aspects. Watkins and Mohr (2001) [in (Seo, Putnam, & Bartunek, 2004)] inquiry proposes five generic processes for change, as follows:

• Focus on positive aspects of change.
• Explore stories of life-giving forces.
• Find themes in the stories that invite deeper inquiry.
• Create shared images of the preferred future.
• Find innovative methods to create the preferred future.

Seo, et al. (2004) say that the appreciative inquiry method focuses on the following targets of change:

• The individual, group, and system-wide processes, while not recognizing potential tensions.
• Internal drivers and capacity for change, rather than on external drivers.
• Human systems as the means and ends of change.
• Second-order more than first-order change.

As with the learning organization concept, appreciative exposes the limitation of the dichotomous perspective on change by not recognizing the natural change processes that appreciative inquiry attempts to manipulate. Through appreciative inquiry, change agents attempt to facilitate third-order change by making large social groups aware of established schemata so the members can believe they are creating their future alternatives. Regarding the characteristics of change processes, Seo, et al. (2004) say that appreciative inquiry focuses on the following:

• Positive aspects without acknowledging the negative.
• Episodic and revolutionary change rather than continuous change.
• Strong preference for proactive processes over-reactive processes.
• Open systems over closed systems perspective.