Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/318322567
CITATIONS READS
14 24,466
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
How are top companies defining and organizing talent management globally View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Allan H. Church on 10 July 2017.
By Allan H. Church You better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink digital marketing (Dragojlovic, 2016). In
the context of organizations, we would sug-
and W. Warner Burke like a stone
gest that the rate and complexity of change
For the times they are a-changin’
—Bob Dylan and the implications of those changes
are accelerating at a similarly exponential
If we have learned anything during our pace. What matters to companies today can
collective years researching, practicing in, quickly shift tomorrow.
and writing about the field of organization Moreover, much of this change is
development (OD) it is that change is a being driven either directly or indirectly
constant phenomenon. In the 1980s we by advancements in technology. It is the
had the Greek salad of change with alpha, socio-technical (Trist, 1978) revolution all
beta, gamma, and even omega in the mix over again. For example, in 2013 there was
(Porras & Singh, 1986). In the 1990s it was debate over allowing employees access to
likened to whitewater rapids (Vaill, 1989), social media at work (Beasley, 2013). Today
in the early 2000s it had something to do many functions have hired social media
with the diminishing supply and move- experts (they are in very high demand
ment of one’s cheese (Johnson, 1998), and in executive search) directed at advertis-
over the past decade it has been all about ing their products, watching for external
managing the clash of boomers, gen xers media impressions, and actively staffing
and gen yers in the workplace (Zemke, talent. The online traffic and opportuni-
Raines, & Filipczak, 2000; 2013). It is a ties for impact are certainly there. Dream-
cliché these days to start an OD article grow reports that Facebook tops the social
with a statement that organizations are media sites as of 2017 with 1.9 billion
in a constant and/or increasing state of visitors each month (Kallas, 2017). While
rapid change. more targeted professional workplace
But that is because it is true. Organiza- social media sites such as LinkedIn (peer to
tions are experiencing change at rates we peer business connections) and Glassdoor
have never seen before. The best analogy (which features anonymous ratings and
today might be Moore’s Law from the comments regarding company reputation)
world of semiconductors. It is the asser- see fewer visitors, they are still at about 106
tion that advancements in technology and 23 million respectively each month.
double every 18–24 months. This law The potential for a poor senior leadership
has proven accurate for the past several decision or a botched change effort leaking
decades, despite several proclamations of out to the public is beyond anything ever
its death (something this concept shares imagined in the past.
with the field OD) and has been applied If we think about the implications of
to other domains as well such as business managing complex multi-year organiza-
processes (Rawlings & Bencini, 2014) and tional culture change vis-à-vis social media,
Trend #1:
A Shift to Platforms over Products
The first major shift we see that has hap-
pened already in certain sectors is one
of structure—i.e., the move to platforms
over products in form. New types of
organizational designs have emerged in
the last 5-10 years, many as a result of the
e-commerce boom, to looser, virtual, fluid,
and dynamic structures (e.g., platforms)
where the boundaries of what is and is not
part of the “firm” are less clear (Boudreau,
et al., 2015). This enables them to be more
flexible and resilient in business environ-
ments. Existing brick and mortar firms Figure 2. Four Trends for the Future
are attempting to evolve as well, but some
are having more difficulty doing so than of traditional OD applications to other etc., that is, following the professional code,
others given the nature of their business types of organizations (i.e., those in the e.g., Hippocratic Oath, vs. following the
models, the sophistication of their technol- government sector). In a special issue of needs of the organization itself—achieving
ogy, and certain elements of their cultures the OD Practitioner, Burke (2017) wrote financial goals and matters of budget.
rooted in the need for old school face-time about “those other organizations.” The These organizations-business- indus-
relationships. question he explored was whether OD, trial, government, and healthcare—with
Those companies that are moving having emerged in the 1950s and 1960s their variations of hierarchy and inter-
to platform models, however, are becom- largely from business-industrial organiza- dependence, primary characteristics of
ing less and less focused on a total qual- tions such as the Harwood Manufacturing a tightly coupled system (Burke, 2014),
ity management (TQM) style production Corporation, General Mills, and Humble have been around for a long time and are
mindset and directing energies instead Oil, and therefore had (and still does) a familiar to us. But what about the newer
toward an adaptive service approach. Gulati social technology based on tightly coupled organizations of today, especially those in
(2009) talks about this shift in terms of the systems with top-down management, was the “platform” category? Is “normal” OD
need for “customer centricity” while oth- applicable to federal and state government appropriate for change efforts in these
ers have focused on the concept of design organizations and healthcare organiza- organizations? Let us briefly explore this
thinking (Brown, 2008). Whatever the tions. After a review of the relevant change question. The Internet has changed our
term, it represents a fundamental shift in literature he concluded that the process work significantly, destroying things, e.g.,
how people conceptualize work, how they of OD, e.g., involving people in decision the telegram, and creating others—the so-
operate and involve the customer (or con- making that directly affects their work and called platform organization we mentioned
sumer), and the face they present externally degree of commitment, worked effectively earlier. Even though in cyberspace, certain
to the marketplace (remember the EVP and regardless of organizational type. The organizations today provide a platform,
employer brand ideas mentioned earlier). difference was in the content. For business- a place on the internet for transactions
However, one of the cornerstones of design industry, the content primarily for OD work to occur. Of this ilk, perhaps the easiest
thinking and creating resilient organiza- is strategy—figuring out customer needs, to understand is eBay. This organization
tions is embracing a systems point of how to beat the competitor, and supplying provides a site (platform) on the internet
view—something with which OD practitio- those needs. In government organizations, for people, i.e. eBay customers who want to
ners should be quite familiar. the primary content concerns time, that is, sell something they no longer need or want
Our thinking here regarding the long-term vs short-term. In healthcare, the anymore, say, a baby crib, to anyone who
shift to platforms over products emerged primary issue is the conflict for a physician needs a crib (think garage sale) and will
from a recent analysis of the application in charge of a clinic; hospital department, not have to pay a fortune for it. The price is