The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm
JMD
30,2
148
Received 4 August 2009
Revised 21 December 2009
Accepted 21 June 2010
Journal of Management Development
Vol. 30 No. 2, 2011
pp. 148-159
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0262-1711
DOI 10.1108/02621711111105740
The case of OD in an NGO in India
Nisha Nair
Indian Institute of Management Indore, Indore, India, and
Neharika Vohra
Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad, India
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to report an organizational development (OD) exercise carried out in a
prominent non-governmental organization (NGO) that works in the area of rights and advocacy in
India.
Design/methodology/approach – The exercise was part of the first author’s graduate program,
which required the application of behavioral science theory to a live organization under the
supervision of her advisor, the second author. The organizational development exercise spread over
four months, involved entering an organization, interacting with key participants and stakeholders of
the organization both formally and informally, diagnosing issues facing the organization and a
mirroring exercise with the management at the end of the intervention to provide feedback.
Findings – Some of the issues and improvement areas that emerged through the exercise are
discussed in the paper. It also offers reflections on some of the key lessons learnt during the process of
intervention, with implications for OD in developmental organizations.
Originality/value – The paper offers insights into OD interventions in the developmental sector,
posing a different set of challenges than conventional organizations, and also because the organization
itself was in a state of flux at the time of the intervention.
Keywords Non-governmental organizations, Business development, Organizational effectiveness,
Labour efficiency, Change management, India
Paper type Case study
Introduction
Organization development (OD) work has largely been carried out in business or for
profit organizations. Bargal and Schmid (1992) refer to the paucity of literature on
consultation done in developmental organizations. OD in nonprofit organizations
provides some unique challenges for the consultant that may not exist in business
organizations (Ramos, 2007; Waysman and Savaya, 1997). Developmental
organizations are thought to differ from for-profit organizations in a number of
ways (Brown and Covey, 1987). Studies have shown that employees in developmental
organizations seek greater autonomy and less organizational control in their work
(Mirvis and Hackett, 1983). Since there is a need for flexibility and local discretion in
the working of developmental organizations, they tend to be more informal and loosely
organized than business organizations ( Joseph, 2000; Lewis, 2003). Another often cited
concern is the existence of high role ambiguity and lack of clarity about roles and
procedures in such organizations (Goldman and Kahnweiler, 2000; McDonald, 1999). In
his study of organizational change in a human service organization, Ramos (2007)
discusses the poor communication across the various units/programs of the nonprofit.
Given that values and ideology play a central role in developmental organizations
(Brown and Covey, 1987; Edwards and Sen, 2000; Lewis, 2003; Tvedt, 2006), they are
known to attract workers high in motivation, commitment and satisfaction (Bacchiega
and Borzaga, 2001; Benz, 2005; Mirvis, 1992). Leadership also plays a critical role in The case of OD in
shaping the ideology of these organizations and it has been noted (Markham et al., an NGO in India
2001) that developmental organizations tend to be dominated by a few and active
number of leaders. Schnell (2005) points to the issue of moving beyond the leadership
of an organizational founder and the challenges of rapid growth in his case study.
The relevance of OD in developmental organizations have been cited variously as
increasing the capacity of the social change agencies to cope with organizational 149
problems (Brown et al., 2004), and enhancing the climate or operations of the non-profit
agency (Ramos, 2007). Discussing the role of participatory action research in
facilitating social change in an Asian developmental organization context, Brown
(1993) argues for greater collective reflections of diverse constituencies and
participants in order to address social change issues that are complex and loosely
organized around various factors and institutions. Using action research and
democratic theory to guide forced dialogue, Gustavsen and Engelstad (1986) discuss
the role of conferences or workshops as a means to engage organizational participants
in an encounter that permits them to experiment with new types of interpersonal
processes and promote dialogue in organizational change projects. Speaking of the
consultant’s role, Ramos (2007) points that the organizational consultation process
employed could include assessment, feedback, and action planning components.
Korten (1980) discusses the three stages of the learning process for a development
organization as learning to be effective, learning to be efficient, and learning to expand.
Although the role of OD can cut across the three stages, it may be most suited for the
second stage, when the organization starts growing and would require the consultant’s
help to mature as an organization.
Given the paucity of research of OD in developmental organizations, this paper
examines the case of OD in a prominent NGO in the state of Jharkand in India, where
many of the challenges facing a developmental organization mentioned in the literature
and some others, come alive. This was an exploratory study with an attempt to diagnose
organizational issues in the NGO during a period of change and mirror back the results
of the organizational diagnosis towards improving the working of the organization.

About the organization

Adhikar[1] (which stands for human rights) is a mass-based organization in the state of
Jharkand in India that started in 1985 with the aim of altering society’s power base
towards the poor and the marginalized. It has been working alongside socially
marginalized communities with the intent to support organized action from within the
community against any unjust distribution of wealth, resources or power. The founder,
Mr Rajan Mishra, sought to espouse the ideal of self-determination through organizing
people into unions and other collectives. The organization has grown from a few
handful inspired by Mr Mishra during its early days to over 200 employees at the time
of the intervention. Mr Mishra currently serves in a prominent position at the Center in
the Government of India. He has chosen to dissociate himself from Adhikar so that it is
seen as politically non-aligned.

Scope of work of Adhikar

The differing areas of Adhikar’s involvement are outlined in Figure 1. Adhikar first
began its work through the Adivasi Sangathan[2] created to organize tribal people of
JMD
30,2

150

Figure 1.
Adhikar’s scope of work

the region into unions. Under the umbrella of the Adivasi Sangathan, other unions
evolved over time. Adhikar also works in the area of budgetary analysis and
expenditure monitoring of the state government through its wing called Arthik
Siksha[3]. There is also a scholarship program that seeks to fund and train local level
leadership, and the emergency response program encompasses relief work at times of
natural calamities.

Structure of the organization

Adhikar is structured along both geography and programs. As the organization has
grown, its structure too has evolved. The various unions and programs are overseen by
different coordinators – all reporting directly to the Managing Trustee, Mr Mishra. In
addition, there are location coordinators in Chaibasa, Ghatsila and Saraikela, which are
districts of the State. There is considerable overlap between program and region. The
structure showing differentiation by program and region along with the respective
heads is shown in Figure 2.

Methodology of the study

The primary methodology of the study comprised:
.
Interviews. The process followed involved closed room interviews with each of
the coordinators, usually lasting for 1-2 hours where the author first introduced
herself and elaborated on the nature of her engagement and sought the views of
those being interviewed regarding the organization, its culture, areas of concern,
and any suggestions or other comments pertinent to the discussion. All the
respondents were assured of the confidentiality of their responses.
.
Field visits. The author also visited the field in Ghatsila where she interacted with
the field workers and the regional coordinator, Mr Dubey. During this visit, she
sat in on one of the regional meetings, following which she had interviews with
the field workers in small groups of four or five. This was done to understand the
 The case of OD in
an NGO in India

151

Figure 2.
Structure of Adhikar
showing differentiation by
program and region

organization from the view of the fieldworkers and gain insight into its issues
through their lens.
.
Memos and reports. The initial familiarization with the organization and its
activities came through a study of the various reports and manuals published.
These included annual reports, budget analysis reports of Arthik Siksha,
newspaper clippings on Adhikar and other documents relating to the
organization.
.
Observations. In addition to the interviews, the author also observed the
non-verbal cues, pattern of interaction and nature of relationships among
members during her visits to the Adhikar office and the field, which was
indicative of the climate of the organization. These observations continued
beyond the course of the interviews to the time when she was sitting in on some
of the meetings of the coordinators and her informal interaction with
organizational members.
.
Diagnostic presentation. Towards the end of the engagement, a session was held
with all the coordinators present, where findings from the authors’ engagement
with the organization were presented to the members in a closed room group
meeting. This served both as a mirroring (feedback) activity as well as a forum
for initiating dialogue and communication across the various units and members
of the organization.

Organizational entry – engagement with Adhikar

The engagement with Adhikar began when the first author contacted Ms Pia Mishra,
who is the program director of Adhikar, and with whom she had worked previously in
another capacity, to discuss the possibility of the intervention. Ms Mishra expressed
JMD interest and welcomed the engagement. A second meeting was arranged where both
30,2 the authors met her again to explain the nature of the intended engagement and seek
formal permission for the first author to enter the organization, conduct interviews and
apply OD principles as and when required.

Meeting with the coordinators

152 The author met each of the coordinators of Adhikar, starting with Ms Pia Mishra, who
served as the point of contact throughout. Following this, she met with each of the
coordinators in turn, to get their perspective on the organization. Most of the issues and
concerns surfaced through these sessions. While most coordinators opened up freely to
discuss their concerns, some like Ms Devi (the then Director of Adhikar) were less open
and did not share much about their views on Adhikar and its functioning.
Most coordinators had been with the organization since its inception. All of them
echoed a strong sense of organizational identification and commitment. There was
high regard for the founder Mr Mishra. His daughter, Pia (the authors’ contact) has had
to prove herself in the organization although she is professionally-qualified and has
been actively working in the field. Interestingly, during the author’s meetings with Ms
Mishra, she never mentioned that she was the daughter of the founder. The author
came to know this only during the course of her later interviews.

Diagnosis
The issues that emerged were analyzed using Weisbord’s six-box model (as cited in
French and Bell, 2003), shown in Figure 3
Each of the emergent issues is discussed in further detail below.

Issues relating to structure

Lack of clarity on structure. There appeared to be a lack of clarity regarding the
structure of Adhikar. Some clarity on the role of Ms Mishra was also sought by one of
the coordinators at the time of the diagnostic presentation. The confusion over the
structure existed primarily because of the organizational boundaries being both

Figure 3.
Weisbord’s six-box model
geographical and program-driven. The resultant matrix-structure caused confusion in The case of OD in
clarifying reporting relationships. Instances were cited during the interviews when this an NGO in India
matrix-structure caused confusion regarding reporting relationships or precedence of
command.
Centralization vs. decentralization. There was considerable autonomy and
decentralization at the coordinator level in the organization. However, some felt that
the sense of responsibility and accountability that comes with empowerment was 153
lacking in Adhikar. The coordinating mechanisms such as periodic meetings among
coordinators to make decentralization effective were absent. In such a scenario, the
different units seem to be operating in silos with little coordination and total absence of
centralization at any level.

Issues relating to purpose

Agreement on objectives. Largely, there was agreement on the objectives of the
organization as being rights-based, facilitating social change through mobilization and
advocacy. However, some coordinators felt that they also needed to work towards the
development of the tribals. The vision and future direction of Adhikar as either
rights-based, developmental or a combination of both did not have consensus among
all the coordinators. The view posed by some was that it is time for Adhikar to foray
into developmental work, given that much of the rights-based work had seen its
culmination and the future lay in the area of developmental work.

Issues relating to relationships

Lack of coordination. This theme emerged as the most common through the interviews.
Most of the program directors thought that there was not enough coordination between
them. The various units of Adhikar were performing their tasks well, but there was
little sharing of information. The high degree of decentralization at the coordinator
level had granted a great degree of autonomy but the coordinating mechanisms were
absent. There had been a noticeable decline, over time, in the number of meetings when
all the coordinators met, and many cited this as a reason for the disconnect they felt
with Adhikar as a whole.
Old vs. new. In talking to the coordinators, some of whom had been with the
organization since its inception and some who were relatively new, there appeared to
be some lack of trust between the two groups. The new coordinators felt their growth,
or initiatives, were stymied by the old who appeared to be guarding their turfs. They
also did not feel welcomed by the old. On the other hand, the older members in the
organization felt that the new were over-ambitious and got right into the field without
making an effort to understand the organization. Though this was a concern echoed by
a few members, it had the potential to grow and create conflict if not properly
addressed.
No proper induction for new employees. Tied in to the seeming gulf between the old
and the new members was the fact that the new entrants did not go through any formal
socialization process, which also manifested in a feeling of not being welcomed into the
organization. Instances were mentioned when the new entrant had to go and seek
information and figure things out for him/herself, which further created a feeling of
isolation.
JMD Issues relating to leadership
30,2 Acceptability of women leaders. Ms Devi had been with the organization since its
inception and enjoyed support in her region. She was however based off Chaibasa. Ms
Pia Mishra, the daughter of Mr Mishra had been with the organization for five years as
the Program Director of Ghatsila. Both Ms Devi and Ms Mishra were potential future
leaders of Adhikar. However, they independently echoed reservations as potential next
154 leaders and mentioned their gender as one of the reasons. They felt that the other male
coordinators and the community they served might not be ready for a female leader.
However, in discussions with most of the other coordinators, the authors got the sense
that they were open to having a woman leader. Some of the coordination issues were
expected to be addressed if a new leader was appointed[4].
Next rung of leaders after a charismatic founding leader. Adhikar had a very
charismatic and dynamic leader in Mr Mishra. A number of those who were associated
with Adhikar had been attracted by his personal charisma. After Mr Mishra’s active
involvement in politics, his association with Adhikar on a regular basis had
diminished. This created a leadership vacuum. Many in the organization exhibited an
inability to think beyond Mr Mishra as their leader. The organization seemed to be
facing a crisis in terms of a leader who could command the same level of respect and
following. There was a dearth of second-level leaders in the organization and Mr
Mishra still appeared to be the de-facto leader. Even though towards the end of the
intervention, Ms Devi was appointed the new Managing Trustee, during the earlier
meetings and in the eyes of others she was a shadow of Mr Mishra and a surrogate
leader for Ms Pia Mishra, the daughter of Mr Mishra. Pia appeared to be the chief
decision maker. She operated from the headquarters while Ms Devi preferred to work
from her Chaibasa location. In our interactions it was felt that Ms Devi may have been
a good worker, but lacked the vision needed to lead a highly motivated team. Ms Devi
had not been very forthcoming in the interview and was not too accommodating of the
diverse views that were expressed during the diagnostic presentation meeting. The
new leader appeared to be in stark contrast to the charismatic leadership of Mr Mishra.
Although Ms Devi appeared a reluctant leader, possibly also inhibited because she was
not a successor from within the family, she brought with her tremendous experience
from the field, having worked alongside Mr Mishra most of her life, and having been
party to the struggles of the early days of setting up the organization. While it is
recognized that the dynamics of leading an organization with family ties strongly
represented, throws up variety of challenges in terms of power and influence, the
predominant leadership issue here appeared to be that of filling the leadership void left
by the founding leader. This leadership issue is a classic problem (Ramos, 2007;
Schnell, 2005) whenever a charismatic leader moves on and his/her shoes have to be
filled.

Issues relating to rewards

Differential pay. Adhikar started out as a rights-based organization. Most of the older
employees chose to work for it due to their dedication to the original cause. The newer
employees (some better qualified professionally) were getting paid higher, which was a
perceived to be discriminatory and was a source of discontent among the older
members.
 Issue of security. Being a developmental organization that has to often depend on The case of OD in
external funding, the issue of job security was a matter of concern to some. With Mr,. an NGO in India
Mishra’s lesser involvement, there was a palpable fear that Adhikar may close shutters
some day. The view expressed was that some form of assurance from the leadership
for the future of Adhikar might ease the sense of insecurity.

Issues relating to other helpful mechanisms

155
Role of reporting. There were some concerns on the irregularity of reporting by some of
the coordinators. The tardiness of some coordinators to turn in reports on their
progress was also tied in to the issue of leadership and authority. Most coordinators in
the past had reported on a regular basis verbally to Mr Mishra, who was able to fill in
gaps of information whenever required for other coordinators. Thus, the formal system
of submitting and reading others reports had never been emphasized.

Diagnostic presentation meeting

Based on the diagnosis and analysis of the issues, it was decided to have a mirroring
(feedback) session with all the coordinators. Since one of the most important issues was
the lack of coordination or communication between the coordinators, this meeting was
also intended as a platform to initiate dialogue at the coordinator level. Around this
time, a change that took place in the organization was the appointment of Ms Devi by
the board of trustees as the Managing Trustee in place of Mr Mishra.
The meeting was attended by five of the eight coordinators. In the beginning, the
first author presented her findings (discussed earlier under issues). The slide
explaining the differentiation by program and geography invited most comments, with
organizational members unclear or divided in their interpretation of the structure.
There was some ambiguity about the role of Ms Mishra too, with questions being
asked if she was a coordinator or a region-in-charge. Although this line of discussion
and debate didn’t get resolved it pointed out to the group an area of concern.
It was observed that there was an apparent reluctance on the part of the
newly-elected Ms Devi, to acknowledge the issues presented. She engaged very little,
and when she did, it was mostly to refute the existence of many of the issues even –
though they were being openly played out before her eyes – such as the lack of clarity
on structure or poor communication between the coordinators. Further, there was a
visible divide between the coordinators, with seating arrangement also crystallizing
this distinction. Ms Mishra and Ms Devi sat on one side of the room along with the
authors and the other coordinators sat on the other side. This was also indicative of the
power distance between the two groups.
What was also interesting was the lack of involvement of some of the coordinators
during the session. Though they had been very open and vociferous during the
individual meetings, when their point-of -view was presented or negated by Ms Devi,
they did not speak up. This could possibly be due to the fear of antagonizing the power
centers in the organization or for fear of being labeled the dissident camp. It could also
be a function of high power-distance (Hofstede, 1983) among Indians, resulting in a
reluctance to be openly critical of superiors. Scollon and Scollon’s (1981) observations
on power-difference and distance in terms of other factors such as differing beliefs and
assumptions hampering the communicative interaction are also relevant in
JMD understanding the reluctance to open up in the presence of power differentials existing
30,2 within the group.
Though the meeting could not resolve all of the issues, this session to some extent
was successful in bringing the coordinators together and engaging them in a
constructive discussion. For an organization where various groups had been operating
in silos and where the coordinators had not sat down together in years beyond the
156 annual meeting, this was a beginning. Due to the limited time available for the
engagement it was left to the organization to follow up on the issues and findings. A
report summarizing the findings and observations was provided to the management.

Lessons from the intervention

This intervention presented a novel opportunity for the first author to enter an
organization of her choice and understand the issues involved and apply the learnings
of OD to the field. Some of the personal learnings and reflections about the intervention
are provided here.
.
Capturing data without appearing intrusive. In her initial meetings, the first
author noticed that whenever she started taking notes the interviewees tended to
be a bit reluctant to divulge information, especially if they were discussing
sensitive issues. For her future interviews she chose to capture what transpired
during the sessions after the interviews, refraining from taking notes so the
interviewee was not inhibited in discussing sensitive issues. What she learned
was that people tend to open up more easily if there are no visible forms of
record-keeping which helps to build a comfortable non-intrusive atmosphere
during the interviews. The potential use of a small recorder to capture data that
interviewees may feel less threatened by as opposed to the overt note taking,
could be explored in future interventions.
.
The need to be non-aligned to any camp. In one of her not too productive
interviews, the author was made aware of how she may be viewed by the
interviewees. Try as she might, she could not get one of the coordinators to open
up. On reflection, it emerged that she had presented Ms Pia Mishra’s
point-of-view on more than one occasion during the meeting. As the coordinator
was not too happy with Ms Mishra (something we figured later), he was being
non-cooperative during the interview, possibly because he viewed the author as
aligned to Ms Mishra’s camp. This interview underlined the importance of
appearing impartial in order to establish trust with the interviewee.
.
The role of interviewer’s own biases. Before the author met with one of the
coordinators, she had heard of him from the other interviewees and had formed a
preconception of him as a trouble-maker. She started out being a little defensive;
however, during the actual interview she was surprised to find him forthright
and candid. The author had a sense that she had been unfair in judging him
before the interview. This session forced her to examine the role of biases in the
interviewer and the need to keep an open mind.
. The importance of getting the leadership involved. During the time of the author’s
engagement with Adhikar, Mr Mishra was not actively involved in Adhikar’s
activities owing to his political involvement. A meeting with Mr Mishra could
not be arranged due to his other commitments. Due to the peculiar circumstance
 of the organization being in a transition period with a change of leadership, the The case of OD in
authors did not get an opportunity to fully engage with the top leader during the an NGO in India
diagnosis. Even though important issues surfaced, the new leader was not ready
to take them further with the authors at that juncture. The importance of the top
leaders’ buy-in for the success of any organization development initiative served
an important lesson.
157
Conclusion
This paper is an attempt to address the gap in the literature regarding documented
work in developmental organizations. Many of the issues and concerns addressed in
this paper are not peculiar to non-profit organizations, but are germane to business
organizations too. However, in developmental organizations members are driven
towards serving the societal purpose passionately. The passion that provides the
motivation could also blind people towards the importance of internal workings, such
as structure or coordination mechanisms, in the long run. The role of an outside neutral
observer such as the consultant becomes all the more valuable to introduce an element
of rationality in the diagnosis of otherwise neglected issues.
The organization studied proved to be an educative one where many of the issues
faced by developmental organizations, as indicated in the literature and few others
came to the fore. This intervention, although limited in scope to organizational
diagnosis and mirroring, provided an ideal opportunity for engagement in a
developmental organization. From the point of view of the first author’s exposure to the
field, it served as an invaluable experience both for the scope and the depth of issues
covered. In addition, the intervention allowed for some very basic yet important
lessons for the consultant that is relevant for any OD work.

Notes
1. The names of the organization, its location and the various individuals have been disguised
to maintain confidentiality. However, all the events and data are true.
2. Adivasi stands for tribals and Sangathan is the local name for organization.
3. Arthik Siksha stands for financial education.
4. On the day of the final presentation to the Adhikar team the authors were told that Ms Devi
had been appointed the new Managing Trustee.

References
Bacchiega, A. and Borzaga, C. (2001), “Social enterprises as incentive structures: an economic
analysis”, in Borzaga, C. and Defourny, J. (Eds), The Emergence of Social Enterprises,
Routledge, London.
Bargal, D. and Schmid, H. (1992), Organizational Change and Development in Human Service
Organizations, Haworth Press, New York, NY.
Benz, M. (2005), “Not for profit, but for satisfaction? Evidence on worker well being in non-profit
firms”, Kyklos, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 155-76.
Brown, D. and Covey, J.G. (1987), “Development organizations and organization development:
towards an expanded paradigm for organization development”, Research in
Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 1, pp. 59-87.
JMD Brown, D., Leach, M. and Covey, J.G. (2004), “Organizational development for social change”,
Handbook of Organization Development, Sage Publications, New Delhi.
30,2 Brown, D.L. (1993), “Social change through collective reflection with Asian nongovernmental
development organizations”, Human Relations, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 249-74.
Edwards, M. and Sen, G. (2000), “NGOs, social change and the transformation of human
relationships: a 21st-century civic agenda”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 4,
158 pp. 605-16.
French, W.L. and Bell, C.H. (2003), Organization Development, 6th ed., Prentice-Hall, New Delhi.
Goldman, S. and Kahnweiler, W.M. (2000), “A collaborator profile for executives of non-profit
organizations”, Nonprofit Management & Leadership, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 435-50.
Gustavsen, B. and Engelstad, P.H. (1986), “The design of conferences and the evolving role of
democratic dialogue”, Human Relations, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 101-16.
Hofstede, G. (1983), “National cultures in four dimensions”, International Studies of Management
and Organization, Vol. 13 Nos 1/2, pp. 46-74.
Joseph, A.J. (2000), “NGOs: fragmented dreams”, Development in Practice, Vol. 10 Nos 3/4,
pp. 390-401.
Korten, D.C. (1980), “Community organization and rural development: a learning process
approach”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 480-503.
Lewis, D. (2003), “Theorizing the organization and management of non-governmental
development organizations”, Public Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 325-44.
McDonald, C. (1999), “Internal control and accountability in non-profit human service
organizations”, Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 58, pp. 11-22.
Markham, W., Walters, J. and Bonjean, C. (2001), “Leadership in voluntary associations: the case
of the international association of women”, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary
and Nonprofit Organizations, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 103-30.
Mirvis, P. (1992), “The quality of employment in the nonprofit sector: an update on employee
attitudes”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 3, pp. 23-41.
Mirvis, P.H. and Hackett, E.J. (1983), “Work and workforce characteristics in the non-profit
sector”, Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 116 No. 4, pp. 3-12.
Ramos, C.M. (2007), “Organizational change in a human service agency”, Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 41-53.
Schnell, E.R. (2005), “A case study of executive coaching as a support mechanism during
organizational growth and evolution”, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 41-56.
Scollon, R. and Scollon, S.B.K. (1981), Narrative, Literacy and Face in Interethnic Communication,
Ablex Publishing Company, Norwood, NJ.
Tvedt, T. (2006), “The international aid system and the non-governmental organizations: a new
research agenda”, Journal of International Development, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 677-90.
Waysman, M. and Savaya, R. (1997), “Differential assessment of the consultation needs of
volunteer organizations according to stage of development”, Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 61-70.

About the authors

Nisha Nair is an Assistant Professor in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource
Management at the Indian Institute of Management Indore. She received her doctoral degree as a
Fellow of the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (IIMA) with specialization in
organizational behavior. Her research interests are in the areas of work alienation, workplace The case of OD in
deviant behavior, organizational development, and emotions and conflict. Nisha Nair is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: nisha@iimidr.ac.in an NGO in India
Neharika Vohra is a Professor in Organizational Behavior at IIM Ahmedabad. Vohra gained
her PhD in psychology from University of Manitoba, Canada. Her research interests are in the
areas of leadership, commitment, positive organizational behavior, engagement/alienation, and
cross-cultural competence. She was the recipient of the Young Psychologist Award at the
International Congress of Psychology, and the Best Teacher Award at the University of 159
Manitoba, Department of Arts. Vohra has published many papers in national and international
journals and has been on the editorial board of several journals.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints