NTL Institute Classics in Organization Development

NTL CLASSICS
IN
ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT
the premier source for transformational change

NTL Classics in Organization Development
Table of Contents
Historical Overview of OD Consulting 1

JIM SHULTZ
Consultation-Skills Inventory 6
Diagnosis Is an Intervention 10
ROBERT J. LEE and IRVIN ROBINSON
Survey Data Feedback Approach to Consultation 14

DAVID NADLER
Notes on Data Display and Feedback 17

ALLAN DREXLER, MARVIN R. WEISBORD, and PETER B. VAILL
Similarities and Differences of Internal and External Consultants 19

DONALD H. SWARTZ
Strategy Guidelines for an Internal Organization Development Unit 23

ROGER HARRISON
The Group: A Cycle from Birth to Death 30

RICHARD C. WEBER
Three Gifts of the Organization Development Practitioner 36

DARYL FUNCHES
Historical Overview of OD Consulting

JIM SHULTZ
After World War II, a knowledge industry arose based on the development and maintenance of
organizations. Two major branches of this knowledge industry have become distinct disciplines.
Management science
1. This branch has caused the growth of masters degrees in business administration programs.
Management science focuses on quantitative analysis of business decisions, finance, marketing,
and planning, and emphasizes economics, administration, and industrial engineering.
2. For thousands of years the world had “rulers,” or leaders of large systems. By the rise
of “management,” I mean the rise of an applied science. Peter Drucker, in The Practice of
Management (Harper & Row, 1954) sees this as a mid-twentieth-century phenomenon. The
applied science of management relies heavily on quantitative analysis. (Money itself is a
quantitative measure.)
3. Like applied behavioral science (ABS), management science is an applied science of

organizations. Its emphasis differs from ABS, for it is more tangible and quantitative.
Without the rise of management as a profession, it is difficult to imagine the rise of
organization development (OD).
Applied behavioral science

During World War II, the United States government employed various academic advisors –
including social psychologists and socialists – for major interventions.
1. Stouffer, The American Soldier. A project to study the formation of combat teams in the
Army discovered that casualties declined if training camp teams were carried over as combat
teams – and therefore benefited from group development and cohesion.
2. Kurt Lewin developed force-field analysis to analyze methods attempting to get Americans
to eat tripe, the best available protein under scarcity conditions.
© NTL Institute Page 1

After World War II, Lewin and his students ran a “lab” to study group dynamics. After
the groups met, the scientists met to share observations. By chance, participants overhead
these meetings and asked to sit in while the academic experts discussed the participants’
leader-member roles. Then the participants wanted to share in the analysis. Out of this the
T Group was born. The T Group created a vacuum of formal leadership and highlighted
group dynamics with a cycle of participation followed by process analysis.
Lewin and his doctoral students at the Center for Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology were concerned with democratic leadership. Their work from 1950 to
1970 showed a preoccupation with the autocratic-participative continuum, a continuing theme
of OD.
The T Group, developed in the National Training Laboratories’ (NTL Institute) Human
Interaction Labs, gradually de-emphasized group dynamics and emphasized psychological
processes in the 1950s and 1960s. The T-Group trainer took a more active role in creating
deep psychological experiences, sometimes via nonverbal exercises. Personal growth became
the focus of the T Group.
Whether it dealt with group, interpersonal, or intrapersonal identity, the core identity of NTL
– and probably of all OD – was microsocial, i.e., based on small groups, not on large systems.
The T-Group method included experience-based learning and an emphasis on feelings and
human relations, on individual needs, and on personal growth as exemplified in NTL’s basic
Human Interaction Lab.
When applied to large systems, the T-Group method investigated management style on a
democratic-autocratic continuum.
1. The use of the term “democracy,” a macrosocial concept best applied to nation-states, when
discussing small groups sometimes backfires. The large systems that need democracy most –
e.g., nations or large oligarchic corporations – are perhaps overlooked while we intervene in
small, weak organizations that, lacking police power or economic strength, hardly pose a major
threat to democracy and liberty.
2. Rensis Likert’s System 4, Schmidt-Tannenbaum’s “How to Choose a Leadership Style,” and

Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid all still rely somewhat on the democratic variable.
3. The adult education movement and human relations school of management were closely tied
to NTL in the 1950s. ABS spun off into conference and meeting technology throughout the U.S.
and overseas.

By the early 1970s, OD theory and ABS were expanding, specializing, and proliferating:
• Personnel management grew as a field. Business schools began to offer courses in the
human side of the enterprise. These gradually emerged as a distinct field called
organizational behavior.
• Books by Argyris, McGregor, Bennis, Benne, Lippitt and others had a major, though
perhaps short-lived, impact on management science.
• Another trend was the growth of the NTL network and the spinoff from NTL of the
OD Network and IAASS, the accrediting arm of applied behavioral science.
• ABS expanded its repertoire of tools and techniques. Thousands of exercises, cases,
and instruments became readily available.
– University Associates, NTL, and such authors as Fordyce and Weil (Managing with
People) made “cookbooks” available.
– Professional training throughout NTL and universities trained thousands of

practitioners. Group processes became part of the curriculum in social work,
education, business, and professional schools.
OD practitioners (a) tended to transfer in and out of allied fields – e.g., training and
personnel – and (b) tended to combine the practice of OD with line management or closely
related areas.
In the 1950s and 1960s, OD built a reputation in various organizations, including long-term,
large-scale programs in many large, complex organizations (private, government, and nonprofit).
– NTL’s Presidents Labs brought OD to business. Organizational change often began

with chief executives making a personal reevaluation and with feelings and values as well
as concepts.
– With mixed results, the long-term trend was toward demonstrating an expanding
repertoire of concepts and techniques.
– When human problems in organizations increased, the need for ABS approaches
became more apparent. For example, affirmative action initiatives opened up new
challenges for OD.

By a broad definition of the field, it included perhaps 20,000-30,000 practitioners by the late
1970s, mostly internal OD and human-resources consultants. These staff roles often overlapped
with the personnel management field.
– Approximately three percent of personnel costs will probably be spent on personnel

management and human resource development. So this “field” may account for $20 billion
per year of gross national product. Perhaps one-tenth of this could be termed OD or ABS.
– High-technology organizations made the most extensive use of OD.
– Large, complex OD projects sometimes involved 50-100 OD related people in various

parts and levels of the same corporation, e.g., Procter & Gamble, Union Carbide, Exxon.
– More and more emphasis was placed on the interface with technical systems, e.g., job
redesign, new plant design.
– The rise of sociotechnical systems (see the work of Eric Trist). Using the microsocial
as a core of values, concepts, and skills, OD extended from the social system to the technical
system and organizational structure and to the external systems, e.g., the market, the product
mix, and social responsibility.
– OD also extended from treating parts of the organization – e.g., individuals or teams –
to treating intergroups or the entire organization.
– Open-systems planning includes the total organization and its external environment as
the focus of an OD process.
Is Henry Kissinger an OD specialist? Was the Marshall Plan an OD intervention? The

next local extension for applied behavioral science¹ would be to nation-states, other macrosocial
systems, and international relations. The Marshall Plan was a large-system change effort based
on social science, as were some of Henry Kissinger’s interventions. In extending OD to the
macrosocial level, do we lose the basic concepts rooted in the early NTL work on process, use of
self, collaborative values, trust, experience-based learning that have defined our field – or at least
our professional ideal?
Summary
The field of OD is characterized by (1) fast growth, (2) diffusion, (3) open boundaries, and (4) a
wide variety of career patterns. As it proliferates it will have a weaker and weaker core mission
and may eventually dissolve as a field: the subspecializations may become the only fields with
which practitioners can identify as a professional reference group.

¹ The term social science is more inclusive than behavioral science. The former includes
government, macroeconomics, international relations, and history; the latter, psychology,
social psychology, sociology, anthropology.

Consultation-Skills Inventory
This checklist is designed to think about various aspects of the behaviors involved in
consultation. It gives you an opportunity to assess your skills and to set your own goals for
growth and development. To use it best:
1. Read through the list of activities and decide which ones you are doing the right amount
of, which ones you need to do more of and which ones you need to do less of. Make a check
mark for each item in the appropriate place.
2. Some activities that are important to you may not be listed here. Write these activities
on the blank lines.
3. Go back over the whole list and circle the numbers of the three or four activities in
which you want most to improve.
Need to Need to
General Skills Okay do more do less
1. Thinking before I talk ______ ______ ______

2. Feeling comfortable with my educational background ______ ______ ______
3. Being brief and concise ______ ______ ______
4. Understanding my motivation for working in a helping ______ ______ ______
profession
5. Reading group process accurately ______ ______ ______
6. Separating personal issues and work ______ ______ ______
7. Listening actively to others ______ ______ ______
8. Appreciating the impact of my own behavior ______ ______ ______
9. Being aware of my need to compete with others ______ ______ ______
10. Dealing with conflict and anger ______ ______ ______
11. Building an atmosphere of trust and openness ______ ______ ______
12. Having a clear theory base ______ ______ ______

Need to Need to
Sensing and diagnosing Okay do more do less
13. Helping clients to discover their own problems ______ ______ ______
14. Asking direct questions ______ ______ ______
15. Inspiring the client’s confidence in my ability to do the ______ ______ ______
job.
16. Willing not to be needed by the client ______ ______ ______
17. Offering to find answers to questions ______ ______ ______
18. Drawing others out ______ ______ ______
19. Expecting clients to use my solutions ______ ______ ______
20. Helping clients generate solutions to their own ______ ______ ______
problems
21. Accepting the client’s definition of the problem ______ ______ ______
Contracting
22. Talking about money and fees without embarrassment ______ ______ ______
23. Promising only what I can deliver ______ ______ ______
24. Saying “no” without guilt or fear ______ ______ ______
25. Working under pressure of deadlines and time limits ______ ______ ______
26. Setting realistic goals for myself and the client ______ ______ ______
27. Presenting my biases and theoretical foundations ______ ______ ______
28. Working comfortably with authority figures ______ ______ ______
29. Letting someone else take the glory ______ ______ ______
30. Working with people I do not particularly like ______ ______ ______
31. Giving in to client restrictions and limitations ______ ______ ______
32. Assessing personal needs that determine acceptance of ______ ______ ______
the contract

Need to Need to
Problem Solving Okay do more do less
33. Stating problems and objectives clearly ______ ______ ______
34. Summarizing discussions ______ ______ ______
35. Selling my own ideas effectively ______ ______ ______
36. Helping clients maintain a logical sequence of ______ ______ ______
problem solving
37. Challenging ineffective solutions ______ ______ ______
38. Describing how other clients solved a similar problem ______ ______ ______
39. Asking for help from others ______ ______ ______
40. Evaluating possible solutions critically ______ ______ ______
41. Contributing various techniques for creative problem ______ ______ ______
solving
Implementing
42. Attending to details ______ ______ ______
43. Helping clients use their strengths and resources ______ ______ ______
44. Taking responsibility ______ ______ ______
45. Changing plans when emergencies come up ______ ______ ______
46. Building and maintaining morale ______ ______ ______
47. Requesting feedback about the impact of my ______ ______ ______
presentations
48. Controlling my anxiety while I am performing my task ______ ______ ______
49. Intervening without threatening my clients ______ ______ ______
50. Intervening at the appropriate time ______ ______ ______
51. Admitting errors and mistakes ______ ______ ______
52. Admitting my own defensiveness ______ ______ ______

Need to Need to
Evaluating Okay do more do less
53. Assessing my own contributions realistically ______ ______ ______
54. Acknowledging failure ______ ______ ______
55. Feeling comfortable with clients reviewing my work ______ ______ ______
56. Dealing with unpredicted changes ______ ______ ______
57. Devising forms, inventories, etc., to aid evaluation ______ ______ ______
58. Relying on informal feedback ______ ______ ______
59. Taking notes, writing up what has been done ______ ______ ______
60. Letting go when the task is finished ______ ______ ______
61. Arranging for next steps and follow-up ______ ______ ______
62. Attributing failure to client’s “resistance” ______ ______ ______

Diagnosis Is an Intervention
ROBERT J. LEE and IRVIN ROBINSON
The word “diagnosis,” usually associated with medical practice, means “to understand or know
the underlying reasons or causes” for something. We use the word in OD and consulting, along
with other words from the same sources – such as “intervention” – but with somewhat different
intentions.
A medical doctor diagnoses the patient before taking any actions to help. The process
consultant typically has few, if any, opportunities to do this, and generally does not want to.
Most of the diagnostic process must and should be a participative learning experience for the
client. The diagnostic process is itself a series of interventions and should be seen as an integral
part of the helping process. The obvious paradox is that the client and process consultant are
trying to figure what to do while actually doing things that have a significant impact on the
client. Imagine what would happen if the act of taking X-rays and blood samples changed what
the X-rays and lab results eventually showed.
In some ideal world, or perhaps in some simple medical situations, one could hope to
observe the client objectively, gather data, come to a diagnosis, plan an intervention, and arrange
for it to be implemented – all without there being any change in the client. In the organizational
world, however, such is not the case. Often it is also not the case in medicine, either – for
example, a person’s blood pressure may change just because his or her blood pressure is being
checked.
Diagnosis in process consulting is a complex, interactive event. It creates certain inevitable

interventions into the client system. These interventions are extended even further if the
consultant takes certain optional actions as part of the diagnosis phase of consulting. The result
is that by the time the consultant and the client agree on a desired intervention, the client is no
longer quite the same as when it all began. The client is now one who has participated in a
successful diagnostic process and has learned something from it. That learning is a by-product
of the diagnostic process.
For the process-oriented consultants, the model might look like the chart in Figure 1. Both
the ideal and the actual situations start with some kind of reality – a real person or social system.
Also, both situations end up with a modified reality. But that is where the analogy ends. Actions
that belong wholly to the doctor in the simplified medical model are shared by the client and
consultant in the organizational setting. Mutual influence and impact are inevitable at each step,
beginning with the decisions to ask for help and to offer help.

Figure 1
Diagnostic Model for Process Oriented Consultants
Client’s Actions/Status Consultant’s Process/Comment
Actions/Status
1. Initial “real” situation; Agreement to give help Essential step; creates by-product
request for help intervention (client feels less
alone, better, threatened,
successful, or whatever)
2. Organizational “Check out” nature of filters Option step; creates by-product
filtering; respond to intervention (client learns about
consultant own filters)
3a. Respond to consultant Data gathering and Essential step; creates by-product
and to own data as it is observation intervention (client discovers
generated what’s important to consultant
and may react to own response)
3b. Respond to consultant Consultant’s filtering; Optional step; creates by-product
“check out” nature of filters intervention (client learns about
how consultant thinks, feels,
values)
3c. Categorizing of data
4. Attempts at agreement with
self and team
5. Data display and Essential step; creates by-product
attempts at agreement on a intervention (client learns about
diagnosis by all concerned; itself, how to interpret data,
if successful,* then sharing, etc.)
proceed to Step 6.
6. Jointly plan and Intentional (vs. by-product)
implement an intervention intervention
appropriate to sanctioned
diagnosis
7. Resulting “real”
situation
* If unsuccessful, then either (A) recycle to earlier step or (B) exit. Either of these becomes an
important intervention.

Organizational filters exist which magnify the apparent importance of some aspects of
the reality, while simultaneously blurring or totally obscuring other aspects. The organization
selects, consciously or otherwise, only certain parts of itself to show the consultant. This
happens for many reasons, including desires to look good or to complain, the specific reasons for
having an interest in a consultant’s help, who the consultant is and how the consultant happened
to be chosen. For example, a black and/or female consultant may receive a version of reality
different from the one given to a white male consultant. Distortion is inevitable, however, since
any client system is too complex to be seen in its entirety.
Consultants may find it a useful practice to “check out” whether or not an important
organizational filter is operating. Some questions might be “Why are you telling me about
this so soon?”, “It’s interesting that you hadn’t shown me this side of the group process
earlier,” or “Is this the way things usually happen?” Of course, the decision to “check out”
an organizational filter is itself an intervention.
The data gathering and observation activity is shared by both parties. The mere presence
of the consultant creates a change in the normal state of affairs, and is therefore an intervention,
too. Clients are asked unusual questions or are observed in special meetings. These questions,
answers, interviews, and meetings provide data for the consultant but, because of the
extraordinary situation, they become data for the clients as well. In this sense, data is not just
observed, but is first generated in a visible, participatory way and then jointly observed.
The consultant’s own filters are easily overlooked because they usually operate
unconsciously. Like the organizational filters, they give prominence or anonymity to data,
or lead to other distortions. These filters arise out of the consultant’s needs and background.
Imagine, for example, how differently two consultants would interpret observed data if one were
a Marxist and the other a right-wing political reactionary. Or if one were interested in research
and the other in social action. Or if one were a clinical psychologist and the other a personnel
generalist. Some of these filters represent areas of self-interest which may be shared with the
client. Doing so is a way to “check out” these interests, and this act represents another
intervention into the client system.
Consultants usually have their own priority categories – things they like to look for, areas
of activity that are meaningful to them. Leadership styles, climate, decision making, sexism,
control systems, affect legitimacy, and so forth. Process consultants have their favorites and tend
to change their favorites from time to time. No one can interpret all of the data in terms of all of
the possible categories, and no list of categories is ever perfect.
These three topics – data observation, consultant’s filters, and priority categories – tend to
occur simultaneously. Describing them separately and in sequence is convenient, but it does not
reflect how it happens. The numbering of these steps (3a, b, c) on the model in Figure 1 reflects
their concurrent timing.

At some point, however, the consultant has as much data as he or she wants. There is a step
in which a test is made as to whether the variety, consistency, reliability, and scope of data are
sufficient. When a consultant works alone, this step may occur silently or quickly. When a
consulting team is working, the agreement-testing process is much more evident. Depending
on the prevailing OD theory being used, more or less interpretation of the data may be attempted
at this point.
The next step is data display and working with the client to agree that the data are useful
and sufficient for jointly developing a diagnosis. This step clearly is an intervention by the
consultant into the client systems, even though diagnosis is a decision as to how and when to
intervene.
If agreement cannot be reached, then the consultant has two choices:
• go back, with the client, to an earlier step to check on filters, to re-categorize the data,
or to gather more data, perhaps using a more explicit or a different approach; or
• exit from the client system by acknowledging a mismatch, lack of skill, unreadiness, or
other reason for this not being a right combination of time, people, and circumstances.
If agreement on a “diagnosis” is reached, an intervention can be planned and implemented.

The outcome is a modified reality, and the cycle may or may not have a need to repeat.

Survey Data Feedback Approach to Consultation*

DAVID NADLER
A five-stage cycle of survey data feedback
Comparison of Supervisory vs. Consultant Feedback

Some examples of the five-stage cycle at the individual and group levels which Nadler provides
are (p. 46):
Supervisor Conducts Consultant Works
Situation Performance Appraisal With A Group
Planning to use Supervisor clarifies subordinate’s Group or team asks for help in working
data functions, responsibilities, and goals. together. Group and consultant agree
Sets “ground rules” for performance on the consultant’s role.
measurement and evaluation.
Collecting data Supervisor observes and records Consultant observes interactions of
performance of subordinate. group.
Analyzing data Supervisor compares actual Consultant compares actual process
performance vs. standards and and attempts to identify patterns of
checks to see if conditions have behavior.
changed.
Feeding back Supervisor shares data and Consultant describes aspects of group
data interpretations with subordinate. process as observed. Checks
They discuss validity and observations for accuracy and
implications of performance data. stimulates discussion or process issues.
Following up Plans are jointly developed for Consultant continues to work with
remediation – training or new job group and helps group to develop its
assignments. own capacity to observe and give
feedback on its process.
* Excerpted from Feedback and Organization Development: Using Data-based Methods.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1977, pp. 43-44. Used by permission of David Nadler.
© 1977 David Nadler

DYNAMICS OF DATA-BASED APPROACH TO O.D./PROCESS CONSULTATION*
Methods of Collecting Data

I. Interviews: individual or group
openended
semistructured
structured
A. Advantages
1. Adaptive – data on large range of possible subjects
2. Source of “rich” data
3. Empathic – rapport-building
B. Potential Problems
1. Expensive
2. Interviewer bias
3. Coding/interpretation problems
4. Self-report bias
5. Retrospection
6. Restricted to relatively small numbers

II. Questionnaires: standardized

modified
custom-made
A. Advantages
1. Quantifiable, easily summarized
2. Useful with large numbers
3. Relatively inexpensive
4. Can obtain large volume of data
5. Taps data client-system members may not have been aware of
1. Nonempathic
2. Predetermined questions may miss issues
3. Overinterpretation
4. Response bias
5. Retrospection
III. Direct Observation
A. Advantages
1. Behavioral data, not reports of behavior
2. Real time, not retrospective
3. Adaptive
4. Reveals data client-system members may not be aware of
1. Interpretation/coding
2. Sampling
3. Observer bias/reliability
4. Expense
5. Heisenberg Principle
IV. Ratings (By peers, staff, bosses, subordinates, experts, clients, etc.)
V. MIS statistics/POMR
VI. Personal Diaries
VII. Clinical Exams
VIII. Physical Evidence (nonobtrusive)
IX. Projective Tests
X. Simulations
XI. Tests of Specific Knowledge

Notes on Data Display and Feedback*

ALLAN DREXLER, MARVIN R. WEISBORD, and PETER B. VAILL
Goals of a feedback meeting

(Call it “discussion,” however, not feedback):
1. Present data.
2. Help participants own it.
3. Arrive at a diagnosis of a few pertinent issues. For example, what accounts for gaps or
variances that we can do something about?
4. Data reduction: focus on one, two, or three high-priority items.
5. Action steps: make a decision about what to do next on one, two, or three high-priority
items.
6. Plan how to let others who supplied the data know what was found and what will be done
about it.
Data display tips

1. KISS Principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid)
2. Use clients’ words whenever possible to cover main points. It takes little stimulus to get full
range of data once the process starts.
3. Use simple models. The more you provide structure in advance, the harder it is for others to
own data.
4. Data are stimulae for discussion and action. They are not by themselves a “diagnosis.” The
diagnosis comes only through discussion: assigning meaning to the words (based on a
comprehensive and comprehensible diagnostic model).
5. Let clients wrestle with raw meanings before supplying your interpretation. You can always
add it if nothing seems to happen.
* When the moment for data feedback arrives – the sooner after its collection, the better –
consider the following “goals,” “display tips” and “cautions” – Eds. (provided by: Allan
Drexler, Marvin R. Weisbord, and Peter B. Vaill, NTL Conskills lab, July 1974). Used by
permission of Marvin R. Weisbord.

Cautions
1. Don’t defend data. If people deny your data, ask them to supply the “real” data – here and
now.
2. If necessary, throw away all data and let people make up a new set, on the spot.
3. Don’t belabor issues past the point of ownership. When people say, “Yeah, that’s us,” it’s
time to consider what to do about it.

Similarities and Differences of Internal and External Consultants

DONALD H. SWARTZ
Definitions
The Internal Consultant is a helper – professional or nonprofessional – who is considered a
member of the client system or a closely related system.
The External Consultant is a helper – usually professional – who has minimal or no

organizational/political relationship with the client system.
Why this subject?
Why might a discussion of similarities and differences between internal and external consulting
situations be important? I see three answers to this question:
1. A consultant’s effectiveness depends primarily on his or her professional behavior.

An internal consultant may behave quite differently from an external consultant – even when
working in the same consulting situation. For example, the internal consultant may exercise
extreme caution because he or she “has to live with the client.” The external person has the
option to leave and thus can behave in a more objective, aggressive manner.
2. Consulting behavior can be adjusted appropriately if the consultant is aware of the

situational differences (and the major reasons for those differences) between internal and
external types.
3. The experience of professional consultants tells us that the most effective consultation
occurs when external and internal consultants “team consult.” In these situations, awareness of
similarities and differences is critical in order to match “flat sides” – that is, to complement each
other’s strengths and limitations.
Role similarities
Whether external or internal, consulting roles are similar in these ways:
1. Both are helpers.
*MCB Publications Limited, Bradford, U.K., Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 4,
No. 5, 1975. Used by permission.

2. They must get their job done through others who don’t report to them organizationally.
They do not have “power” by virtue of legitimate authority as line managers.
3. They work with and through client-system members using forms of influence other than
formal authority.
4. They can be called in by the client or imposed upon the client by forces outside the client
system.
5. They can both play multiple consulting roles.
6. They both want to be successful.
Situational differences
The differences between internal and external consultant types result from the unique situations
each must confront. Outlined below are some of these situational differences.
Internal Consultant
1. As part of the system, usually knows the language and background of the problem.
2. As part of the system, may be a part of the problem.
3. Usually will give more time to the client because of availability and costs.
4. Sometimes encounters resistance because of vested interests and organizational politics.
5. Subsystem tends to seem as if things are “o.k.”
6. Usually knows the norms and political realities better than someone from outside.
7. An internal consultant is not seen as a “prophet” in her or his own organization.
8. Internal consultant knows more about potential “linkage” with other parts of the system.
9. Usually identifies with the system’s needs/pains/aspirations.
10. A “known” quantity.
11. May lack perspective.
12. May not have required special knowledge or skill.
13. May have to live down past failure or affiliations.

External Consultant
1. Usually has more “influence” with client system. Seen as “expert” (prophet).
2. Usually has more varied experiences; broader perspective.
3. Usually more objective about the client and the problem; independent of the client power
structure.
4. Pay and continued use are usually tied to results.
5. Is usually aware of other resources that might be helpful to the client.
6. Client tends to be more open with the external consultant about needing help.
7. Free to leave the situation when consultation is complete.
8. Client usually has high expectations that may verge on inappropriate dependency.
9. Free to reject the consulting assignment.
10. In a position to introduce “new” things into the client system.
Some suggested behavior and actions
For the internal consultant
1. Behave like an external consultant. This requires careful role clarification between
consultant and client. In addition, a strong psychological contract characterized by mutual trust
and openness is a must before entering any consulting relationship.
2. Do some outside (external) consulting. Whether for pay or free, external experience
can broaden perspective, increase internal credibility, and increase consultant confidence.
Outside experience provides an arena for experimentation. In some instances, it can provide a
significant part of the financial security required to support the internal consultant when he or
she finds it appropriate to confront or be brutally objective with the internal client system.
3. Be proactive and aggressive at least 25% of the time. It’s important for the internal
consultant to introduce change ideas as well as to help clients to respond to unplanned change.
Influence power accrues to the consistent, responsible innovator.

4. Focus on the job to be done. The internal consultant survives and grows in direct
proportion to the client’s effectiveness in getting the job done. All consulting activities – even
awareness-experience labs – must be focused on the job to be done. There is a saying that
applies to internal consultants: “If you put the turkey on the table, you won’t have to eat crow.”
5. Be your own person. No one owns you. No one manipulates you. No one can change
you any more than you can change them.
For the external consultant
1. Don’t take on an assignment if your gut says “no.” Feelings about the client and
client-system norms/values/methods should be allowed to surface. This means precontract
data gathering and some face-to-face meetings with the client. Then, trust your feelings.
2. Study the client system; learn the language. Empathy for the client system is critical
to building trust. Empathy is best achieved when the consultant understands and appreciates the
culture of the client system. The external consultant may get along famously with the client, but
fail to get close to the system if he or she “can’t speak the language.”
3. Don’t bypass internal helpers. Involve internal helpers (personnel, OD, training) as
early as possible in contracts with the client. Encourage the client to keep them “clued in.”
External consultants are a natural threat to internal helpers. Without their (internal helpers’)
understanding and, at the very least, their neutrality, the external consultant’s work could be
subtly sabotaged.
4. Work collaboratively with internal consultants. If a qualified internal helper is not

apparent, encourage the client to find one. A collaborative working relationship between internal
and external consultants is valuable. It is a powerful approach and, I am convinced, a necessary
one if the positive changes sought through consultative intervention are to be gained and
sustained.
5. Leave the inside consultant with increased power. A major contribution that external
consultants make to client systems is helping them to gain strength to cope with their problems
without outside help. A skilled internal consultant in a legitimate helper role is essential to the
client system’s ability to self-renew. The external consultant should be constantly helping her or
his internal counterpart gain credibility in the organization.
6. Be human. External consultants are expected to be pros; they’re not expected to be

gods. The external consultant who takes the calculated risk, who occasionally leaves the comfort
of a “proven technique” to respond more effectively to unique client-system needs, who can say
forthrightly, “I goofed! Now what can we learn from that?” is the person I want to work with.
Freedom to fail is the target. Fear of failure is the block.

Strategy Guidelines for an Internal

Organization Development Unit*
ROGER HARRISON
These guidelines are intended as a checklist or reminder, rather than as a comprehensive treatise
on organization development (OD) strategy. My concern here is only with strategy, and not with
the goals the strategy is intended to achieve. These notes are relevant to OD means, not ends. I
expect many of the points will be self-evident to experienced OD practitioners and hope that they
all provoke thought and planning on the part of others.
Major strategic problems of an internal OD unit

1. To gain influence based on expertise and ability to help, rather than influence through
channels of authority and power. To deploy limited economic and human resources in ways that
maximize impact.
2. To develop the skills and knowledge of the internal agents of change in the organization.
3. To maintain the OD unit and to preserve the group and its members against the detrimental
effects of pressure and stress. In so doing, to remain independent of organizational pressures
for conformity of thought and action while maintaining confidence and trust on the part of
organization members.
Guidelines for gaining appropriate influence and deploying resources

effectively
1. Work with the forces in the organization that are supportive of change and improvement,
rather than work against those who are defensive and resistant. It is better to find someone who
wants to help and to work with that person than it is to try and convince a skeptic of the need for
OD assistance. Wherever possible, follow the path of least organizational resistance to OD goals
rather than confronting resistance. This implies not doing anything across the board: no mass
training, no wholesale installation of Management By Objectives, no involvement of the entire
organization in staff development programs. The limited OD resources available are weakened
and absorbed by the organization in such frontal assaults on problems, and the results are
invariably disappointing.
*Reprinted from OD Practitioner, 1972, Vol. 4, No. 3. Used by permission of Harrison Kouzes
Associates.

2. Try to develop “critical mass” in each change project, a self-sustaining organization-

improvement process that is motivated and powered from within the system that is changing. To
do this, resources available to the OD unit must be concentrated on the target system for a time,
to get the process underway. Organizations are self-stabilizing systems which can absorb a great
deal of energy from the outside without changing very much. Investments of resources that are
insufficient to move the system beyond its natural equilibrium are wasteful and unproductive.
3. When working with a given system, try to find multiple entry points into it: a variety of
people, groups, processes, and problems with which contact can be made and to which help may
be given. It is useful when approaching a particular organization or subsystem to brainstorm all
the possible points of contact which might be used and all the different ways in which the unit
could offer useful help to the system. As many of these multiple entries as feasible can then be
attempted.
4. Look for “felt needs,” problems recognized by managers which can be dealt with by
OD techniques and processes. The best opportunities occur when you face problems for which
there is no “standard” procedural or bureaucratic solution, and when the managers involved are
really bothered by their difficulty in coping. Look for these problems when new technology is
being introduced (e.g., computers); when a problem requires close collaboration and
coordination across functional lines (e.g., mergers and takeovers); when organization
restructuring of any kind is taking place; when physical locations are being changed or new
plants and facilities being built and commissioned; or when the organization is expanding or
contracting rapidly (e.g., redundancies).
5. Whenever possible, work with relatively healthy parts of the organization which have
the will and the resources to improve. Avoid being seduced or pressured into working on
“lost causes” – individuals or groups who have lost the ability to cope with the situation as
it is. Usually change requires additional energy and talent during the period of transition.
Performance initially worsens even after the most beneficial changes until people learn how to
make the changed organization work up to its potential. Persons or groups whose performance
is substandard or barely adequate usually cannot afford and are not allowed the additional
resources and period of further decreased performance which is required to change successfully.
They are often unusually defensive in their reaction to outsiders offering “help.”
Unfortunately, higher management may put great pressure on an OD unit to work with the
more ineffective subsystems, sometimes on the assumption that the offending group is so far
gone anyway that little harm can be done even by an incompetent intervention.

6. Work with individuals and groups which have as much freedom and discretion in
managing their own operations as possible. It profits nothing to work out an agreed change with
a manager who turns out not to have the latitude to carry it out. It is equally useless to work on a
change with someone who feels dominated and controlled from above and who therefore cannot
muster the courage to risk experimenting on her or his own. These considerations cast great
doubt on the wisdom of management training and staff development programs for lower levels
of staff and supervisors unless the programs actively involve the management levels where
effective control resides.
7. Try to obtain appropriate and realistic levels of involvement in the program of the OD
unit on the part of top management. This does not mean that the highest levels of management
must necessarily be “at the cutting edge of change.” They are too often too personally identified
with the status quo for this to be possible. Except in times of emergency, the system tends to
stabilize itself by placing people in the top positions whose values and styles perpetuate the
accepted ways of doing things. Often the best supporters of an OD unit are among the ranks of
management just below the top where the personal commitment to the present is less, and where
the drive for achievement and advancement may be higher than at the very top.
There are three levels of commitment to OD objectives from top management which can
be helpful. The minimum is giving permission for change to occur. Top management sees
the necessity of change, at least at an intellectual level, and allows it to occur without active
opposition. The unspoken qualifier is usually “as long as we don’t have to do anything
different.”
The next level is that of support and encouragement for change. The involvement in change
activities of other parts of the organization is facilitated, and higher management monitors and
evaluates the changes achieved. As before, however, the actual changes in work and relationship
patterns do not extend to the highest levels. The latter are insulated from actual change.
The third level is participation in change, in which the higher management actively involves
itself in the change process, often as a client for OD assistance. While this level is the most
satisfactory, it is rarely achieved in practice. The failure to involve top management actively
in the change process sets an upper limit on what can be accomplished, but the other levels of
commitments will permit considerable useful work to be done. Unfortunately, in many change
programs, it is not clear that even the first level, permission, has been achieved, and such
programs are usually rather ineffective.

8. Try to establish direct communication and contact with all levels of the organization.
Try to develop customs and accepted practices of operating which exempt OD-unit members
from following normal bureaucratic channels or the “chain of command.” OD practitioners
cannot work effectively through formal authority or by using sources of coercive power. The
only way they can influence anyone is through expertise, persuasion, and helpfulness. Direct
contact and discussion with clients and with sources of information and support are vital, and
reliance on intermediaries, no matter how well intentioned, hampers the work badly.
9. Develop confidence and credibility on the part of organization members through

situations where the OD unit’s unique expertise shows to best advantage. One good way for
behaviorally oriented OD practitioners to develop trust and confidence on the part of potential
clients is in the course of experiential, action-oriented training programs. In the atmosphere of
openness and confrontation which often develops in each program, the client has a chance to
size up the practitioner’s ability to handle difficult situations effectively. Not only educational
situations are a good way of allowing the client some low-risk opportunities to evaluate the
contribution of the practitioner, but also diagnostic studies present chances to begin discussion
with a client. Many projects begin with a commitment to joint study of a problem that commits
neither client nor practitioner to go further.
10. Don’t be afraid to ask to become involved in activities in which you think you may be
able to make a contribution. Go directly to the potential client and tell her or him what you may
be able to do to help. Since the client probably does not know much about what you have to
offer, the person is unlikely to think of coming to the OD unit for help. The worst the client can
do is say no. Proactive practitioners get many more opportunities to contribute than do passive
ones.
11. Make known what the OD unit is doing, particularly when you have successes to report
– but only with the client’s permission, of course. A major failing of OD units is in not reporting
widely enough their activities and achievements. The modesty may be commendable, but it does
not advance the task to let the activities remain unknown. One good way is to hold a seminar for
interested parties in which the client and the practitioner make a joint presentation of the change
project, preferably with an honest description of the difficulties and drawbacks, as well as the
successes.
12. Use outside consultants in ways that enhance – rather than compete with – the
credibility of OD-unit members. For example, outsiders are often used to develop entry to
top management because OD-unit members do not have high enough organizational status to
be acceptable as consultants at that level. If at all possible, the outsider should pair up with
someone from the unit who works as closely with her or him as the client will permit.

Similarly, when outsiders are asked in to give courses and seminars, they should be paired
with OD-unit members as co-trainers. A clear understanding should be developed that the two
will work in such a way as to permit increased visibility for the inside person’s skills and talents,
as well as to enable the insider to learn what the outside consultant can teach.
Outsiders can sometimes also be used to gain acceptance for projects and to get them
started. By involving the inside people from the beginning as co-workers, the latter can take
over once the project is off the ground and run it with only occasional assistance from outside.
13. Link together people who are working to improve organization functioning, so their
activities reinforce and complement one another. People working in such areas as training,
methods improvement, computer technology, and human-resource planning are all working in
areas related to organization development. Frequently they are in different functional lines and
plan and conduct their work quite independently.
This splitting of resources reduces the likelihood of developing “the critical mass” referred
to above, that self-sustaining change process which is the criterion of a really successful project.
I feel strongly enough about the resulting wastage of resources to advocate the combining of
these activities, either functionally or (perhaps as well) through some kind of matrix organization
structure similar to the concept of the “business area.” At the least, there should be some policy
commitment supported by appropriate structure to ensure joint planning and coordination of
strategy and projects, so that the organization-improvement activities would all support one
another.
One example of such coordination is the linking of training (especially in such

attitudinal/style areas as management, leadership, and effective group working) to follow up
activities in the work situation. Any such training should be built into some on-the-job change
activity of the OD practitioner (e.g., helping with problems of entry, diagnosis, team
development, staff development). Attitudinal training and training in management style on an
across-the-board basis should be avoided as a wasteful use of resources.
Training and OD activities can also be linked into technological, procedural, and structural
changes stemming from application of management sciences to problems of rationalizing work.
Such changes can be much more effectively implemented if there is an adequate diagnosis of the
readiness for and resistance to change, proper training of personnel who will be involved, and the
establishment of ways of monitoring and dealing with human problems that develop during the
change process. Activities that lend themselves to this sort of joint approach are the introduction
of computer technology, the implementation of mergers, takeovers and reorganizations, the
starting up of new facilities, and the changing of work methods and procedures.

Guidelines for developing the skills and knowledge of internal change agents
1. A substantial proportion of the time of internal OD practitioners should be budgeted for their
training and professional development. If they tend not to be professionally trained and to be
relatively inexperienced, this should probably be about 20-25% of their time. Most of this
training should be practical and experiential. Some useful training and development activities
are the following:
• Pairing less experienced people with more experienced ones or with outside consultants
on projects. The more experienced person advises and supports, but the less experienced
one does the actual work on the project.
• Presentations and demonstrations of new techniques and processes by outsiders.
• Participation in some projects outside the company in which the practitioner takes the
role of an external change-agent. These are more valuable, in my experience, for providing
opportunities for taking increased responsibility and freedom to take reasonable risks – a
freedom which may be prevented at home by the exposed situation of the OD unit.
Dramatic increases in confidence and competence can be achieved by the judicious use of
such outside experiences.
• Attendance at professional meetings and outside courses is also valuable, but I think
less so than the other learning activities mentioned above.
2. Acquire a library of books and journals on OD and behavioral science applications.

Make a special effort to retrieve techniques and instruments which have come into the hands of
OD-unit members through their work with outside consultants or by their own invention. Keep
an up-to-date list of who has had experience with what different approaches and methods, so that
personnel know where to go for practical help.
3. Arrange learning activities between the related areas of training, management science,
and behavioral applications. In the process of teaching others, people will become more
competent in their own fields, and the cross-functional education will make it easier to work
effectively together.
Guidelines for protecting OD practitioners from undue pressure and stress

1. Arrange most of the work in teams and pairs, for mutual learning and mutual support.
People should not have to work alone in high-stress and high-risk situations until they are quite
experienced.

2. Protect against premature evaluation of OD activities. Absorb a large proportion of the

pressures from above and outside the unit in the senior manager(s) who are responsible.
Management style in an OD unit should provide support and resources rather than direction,
control, and evaluation. The clients may be depended upon for more than enough of the latter.
3. Make special pains to build strong, personal support relationships among OD-unit
members. Frequent team-building sessions and some T Group or group-process work are helpful
in achieving this. The use of an outside consultant to help build supportive internal relationships
is frequently found helpful.
4. Develop career paths within and through the OD unit. The policy and practice should
make it desirable for some to develop professional careers in change facilitation and for others to
advance their line or staff careers by doing well in shorter (two- to three-year) assignments in the
OD unit.
One way of using this checklist might be to review the current organization of OD activities
in the light of the guidelines. I do not imagine that where the guidelines differ from current
practice and policy it means the latter must be corrected; however, it may be that such
discrepancies point to fruitful areas for discussion and decision.
Another way to use the guidelines is in planning particular change and development
projects. The points can remind one of problems to be anticipated or resources which will be
needed for a successful conclusion.
Similarly, it may help to review these ideas these ideas when faced with a particularly
difficult problem in a project, or when an activity seems to go along poorly for no obvious
reason. The framework provided may simply help to gain some perspective on the problem.
Additionally, it may suggest diagnostic leads to the trouble or approaches to a solution.

The Group: A Cycle from Birth to Death

RICHARD C. WEBER
During our professional and social lives, we have all experienced groups that have jelled or
worked and those that have not. How is it that some groups form and develop from a collection
of individuals to a cohesive functional unit? Is there any predictability in the process or is it just
“fate?”
The experience of a “good group” is frequently equated to a mystical experience: something

that “just happens,” either by divine providence or the match of astrological characteristics, or a
blend of individuals’ chemistries. Conversely, the experience of a “bad group” is attributed to
poor leadership, a lack of compatibility of the members, lack of time, or inattention to process.
All of these factors may affect our experiences of groups. Groups are complex living entities,
similar in many ways to the individual. Yet few of us think about the development and growth
of groups.
In this brief presentation, I wish to share a developmental process that all groups go through.
Each group proceeds through three major stages of development, which can be compared to
the infant, adolescent, and adult stages of the person. Each stage has four dimensions that need
attention: Group Behavior, Group Tasks/Issues, Interpersonal Issues, and Leadership Issues.
Numerous behavioral scientists have explored each of these dimensions; I have chosen the
work of Bruce W. Tuckman (1965), William Schutz (1971), and Wilfred Bion (1961) for this
presentation/exploration.
Each stage is unique in comparison to the other stages and how each group experiences and
lives through it. And, each stage is lived by all groups that develop into cohesive, functional
units.
As in the development of the person, certain stages may be more or less pleasant for us to
experience. Each must be lived through, however, and each can be treasured as our own unique
experience in an inevitable cycle of development.

Stage I: Infancy (“Forming”)

Regardless of what events or structure gives birth to a group, it has to form, to come together.
The behaviors in Stage I are initially polite and superficial as each person seeks out similarities
or common needs. While introductions are made, each individual is testing the amount of
compatibility of her or his reasons for being there with the stated reasons of other members.
Confusion and anxiety abound as different styles and needs become evident. The goal for the
individual is to establish safe patterns for interaction. The group issue is the establishment of
basic criteria for membership.
Interpersonally, each individual is working at varying levels of intensity on the issue of

inclusion. Some questions raised during Infancy are: “Do I wish to be included, here and with
these people? Will they include me, accept me as I am? What will be the price and am I willing
to pay it?”
The first stage reflects dependency with regard to leadership. As confusion, ambiguity,
and anxiety abound, individuals look to whatever leadership exists in the group or the
environment. Whatever direction or information is provided is grasped for guidance. Where
there is no response from the designated leadership, written descriptions or charges to the
group may become a substitute, e.g., “The training description says…” If this is also lacking,
the absence of direction itself may be brought forward as direction and guidance, e.g., “As we
are getting no direction, we must be expected to proceed ourselves and take responsibility to…”
Depending on the similarities in style and needs that exist in the group, and depending on
the tolerance for ambiguity that exists in the group, this first stage may be smooth and pleasant
or intense and frustrating.


Stage II: Adolescence (“Storming”)

When and if a common level of expectation is developed, the group can then move into the even
stormier stage of Adolescence. Possibly the most difficult stage of development to tolerate in
either persons or groups, this stage cannot be avoided, as it is a crucial stage dealing with
power and decision making – necessary skills for the future functioning of the group.
In Stage II, after a base level of expectations and similarities is established, individuals
begin to challenge differences in a bid to regain their individuality, power, and influence.
Individuals start to respond to the perceived demands of their task, usually with a full range
of emotions. Regardless of how clear the task or structure of the group, group members react
and will generally attack the designated leadership (facilitators), as well as any emerging leaders
within the group. These bids for power and influence may either take the form of direct attacks
or covert nonsupport. Interpersonally, members are working through their own control needs,
both to be in sufficient control and to have some sense of direction.
The leadership issue is one of counterdependence, i.e., attempting to resolve the felt
dependency of Stage I by reacting negatively to any leadership behavior which is evident.
By doing so, members remain dependent in that they are not initiating but reacting. Until
individuals break out of this frustrating cycle of reaction and begin initiating independent
and interdependent behavior, they will remain in the maze of Stage II.
As group members persevere in their attempts to create acceptable order/process for

decision making within the group, they will lead themselves into Stage III. The activity and
skills gained in this stage are essential for the group to proceed. If the group tries to escape from
the unpleasantries of this stage, it will experience failure and will return to Stage I and II again
until the process is completed and power issues identified, including the mechanics of decision
making. The more aware the group is of what it has accomplished in this stage, the faster the
group will evolve and develop in the future.
Stage III: Adulthood (“Norming & Performing”)

With the frustration of the first two stages behind, the group can finally pull together as a real
group, not merely a collection of individuals. Here the group becomes a cohesive unit as it
begins to negotiate roles and processes for accomplishing its task. Functional relationships are
explored and established in spite of differences. The group is ready to tackle its goals, working
together collaboratively. With the accomplishment of some goals, group members may gain and
share insights into the factors that contribute to or hinder their success.

Interpersonally, members are now working out of affection or a caring about others in
a deeper, less superficial manner than before. Meaningful functional relationships develop
between members. Leadership issues are resolved through interdependent behavior, or working
with others. Tasks are accomplished by recognizing unique talents in the group – leading where
appropriate and sanctioned and following where productive and necessary. As this interplay
occurs, trust evolves.
The experience of accomplishment, whether it be successfully reaching consensus or solving

a group problem, provides a powerful unifying force. The sense of “group-ness,” a feeling of the
uniqueness of the group with all its strength and faults, occurs. The group now has an identity of
its own that is in no way diminished by its having evolved through the same cycle as countless
other groups.
Re-Cycling Through the Process

Groups may proceed through the three stages quickly or slowly; they may fixate at a given stage;
or they may move quickly through some and slowly through others. If they do indeed complete
all three stages, however, and have sufficient time left in their life together, they will again
re-cycle through the stages. This additional development will lead to deeper insight,
accomplishment, and closer relationships.
With the accomplishment of each significant task (or lack thereof), the group must again
address the issues of inclusion (What does it mean to be a member now?); control (Who will
influence now? How?); and affection (How close and personal can we be? How much can we
trust each other?). If the group has learned from its past experience, following cycles will be
substantially easier.
As in any human development process, the group development cycle has pitfalls.
Inattention to possible traps may result in more frustration and anxiety than is needed in the
respective stage. If no learning or insight is gained along the way through the cycle, groups
will ponder, “Why are we doing or going through all of this again?” Groups must be attentive
to their process and learn through it.
Groups may also re-cycle back to a previous stage before completing the full cycle, for a
number of reasons:
– Change in the composition of the group (additions or deletions) necessitates returning to

Stage I.
– Change in the charge of the group, back to Stage I.
– Inattention to the needed activities in a stage will sooner or later require a return to that
stage.

Stage IV: Transforming

When the purpose of the group has been achieved, or if the time for the group has expired,
the group is faced with transforming. Transforming can take one of two paths: Redefinition:
establishment of a new purpose and/or structure; or Disengagement, Termination, or Death.
The group must decide on its future or it will proceed down a frustrating, unfulfilling path. The
natural tendency for any group that has successfully achieved a full cycle is to attempt to remain
together in some form in the future. The shared experience – with all of its pain and joy, it
meaning and insight – bonds the members of the group together.
When the purpose has changed or the time has elapsed, however, the group must disengage.
Not uncommonly, groups will attempt to define ways of retaining contact after separation
through letters or planned reunions in an effort to escape the pain of disengagement. But
failure to disengage, to recognize that the life of the group, as its members have experienced
it, has come to an end, will only lead to a hollow, unfinished feeling in the future. Even if the
members were to remain in contact, or if a reunion were to occur (which seldom happens), the
experience will never be the same, as the contexts of each of the members will have changed. So
as the person must face the inevitability of leaving this life, members must realize that groups too
must die. But if nourished, the spirit or experience can live on.
Experience the joy of your time together!
Complete the cycle! Share goodbyes without sorrow!
Treasure the uniqueness of your experience! Open yourself to the possibility that having
learned here you may facilitate similar experiences elsewhere, equally unique.
References
Bion, W.R. Experiences in Groups. New York: Basic Books, 1961.
Schutz, W.C. Here Comes Everybody. New York: Harper & Row, 1971.
Tuckman, B.W. Development Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 63,
284-399.

Three Gifts of the Organization Development Practitioner

DARYL FUNCHES
Introduction
The topic of professional development for organization development (OD) practitioners
is receiving wide attention in increasing numbers of graduate programs, conferences, and
workshops offered by various organizations. The literature on diagnostic models and types
of interventions also is increasing, although research on the impact of OD work is still
inadequate. With this generation of knowledge and technology, occasional attention has been
given to the internal experience of consulting. The growing use of terms such as “effective use
of the self” and “the self as an instrument of change” indicates a recognition of the importance
of understanding the internal factors affecting the ability to use our knowledge, skills, and
emotions in supporting the development and change of client systems.
This chapter addresses three of these internal factors – three gifts of the OD practitioner. I
became aware of the importance of these gifts as I participated in a personal growth workshop
for practitioners in the helping professions. This workshop, entitled “Holding On and Letting
Go,” was developed by Bob Tannenbaum and Bob Hanna through NTL Institute. Throughout
my career, I have felt the desire to understand more about the effective use of self in the change
process. This desire has been related to the belief that learning about changing and “growing”
myself, so to speak, would ultimately be crucial for developing my own frames of reference
for and abilities to facilitate growth and change in working with organizations, groups and
individuals. Perhaps my insights from the workshop and other experiences will prove
meaningful for others struggling to develop their abilities to use themselves effectively
in serving client systems.
The insight
As I emerged from one of the most emotionally expressive and draining moments of my life, I
began to see things differently. I felt as if I had traveled into the core of my being, looked at the
most fearful truth, and painfully mourned myself into a state of relief, peace, and joy. The relief
came from releasing pent-up thoughts and emotions, and from knowing that one can express
these yet still remain intact. The peace came as I recognized that the “uniqueness” of my
experience was universal. The joy came from experiencing the depths of my pain, of the reality
of not being loved as I wished to be. This joy was not the jubilant type that would have led me
to chatter and rave about what had just happened, but rather caused me to exalt my experience
through meditation, prayer, and praise for the gifts allowing me to know this part of myself –
which enabled me to move on.
© 1989 Daryl Funches Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.

I knew at that moment of awakening that what I had been seeking to reflect in my work
could be expressed in terms of three gifts: the gift of discernment, the gift of presence, and
the gift of heart. Within them lie the blend of the rational and the intuitive; the integration
of the body, mind, emotions, and spirit; and the courage to act according to one’s beliefs,
convictions, knowledge, and feelings. During the week’s journey, I had been blessed with
seeing those gifts in myself, in others, and in our guides on the journey. The technology I had
emphasized throughout the earlier part of my career paled in comparison to these three gifts.
Indeed, I saw how my own history demonstrated both support for and interference with my
ability to manifest these gifts in my work.
The gift of discernment

The gift of discernment is two-fold. The first part is the ability to distinguish between work
and nonwork in client system behavior. The second is the ability to frame and focus the nature
of clients’ activities in ways that enable clients to understand their behavior better and the
choices they can make to achieve their goals. In using the gift of discernment, the practitioner
recognizes which of the client’s activities serve the work of the individual, group, and/or
organization, and which ones either subtly or blatantly hinder the client’s attaining needed
growth or learning. To do this, I am continually working on multiple levels by:
• attending to client system behaviors, noting recurrent themes,
• identifying assumptions and the related affect underlying these behaviors,
• ascertaining the connections among the above behaviors and assumptions and goal
attainment, learning, and growth,
• tracking my own internal responses to situations, and
• selectively sharing observations and judgments so as to focus clients’ attention.
The gift of discernment thus requires us to rely on our perceptions and to exercise
judgment, in addition to using our knowledge and technical skills. It also demands the constant
examination of our internal experience and the selective, responsive, and responsible expression
of that experience in service of our work. The clear sight afforded through discernment is gained
from the perspective of seeing the system (and oneself) as an indivisible whole. From this
perspective of awareness, one can see what is being created and limited, and how.

When working with clients, I often have the occasion to determine that some activity the
clients are performing is not “real” work – that is, work serving the organization’s purpose.
Rather, the activity is conducted as a defense mechanism against the anxiety the real work is
causing, or as an attempt to get some other significant human need met. For example, recently
the top manager of one of my client organizations recognized the occurrence of such an activity.
A list of issues had been generated during a meeting of persons from the two levels of
management reporting to him, and he reacted to the list by saying, “These are matters that
any one of you could spend 20 minutes back in the office resolving. We didn’t come together
to work on rat **** issues!” Everyone in the room knew this was true, but only the top manager
had dared to acknowledge this. During its previous meeting, the group had experienced
substantial discomfort because some members had expressed intense feelings about the difficulty
of the change process the organization was undergoing, raising issues of trust and commitment.
This was so frightening to the group that at the next meeting it sought to avoid the process issues
and focus on technical issues – “real work” – instead. The group had not yet come to understand
that the process issues, such as a high level of vertical conflict and a lack of coordination across
functional work units, were also manifest in the technical problems confronting the group. In
getting its most recent product developed, the company had the same problem in the technical
arena: no vertical integration and poor interfaces with different hardware environments.
Our consulting team intervened occasionally as the process issues were raised implicitly
during the second meeting, but the group did not consider these interventions meaningful at
first. We occasionally felt undervalued and useless, yet were committed to staying engaged
in whatever ways we could until the group was ready to work. In our judgment, the group
members would have indicated their readiness to work by acknowledging either that their
relationships did indeed affect the technical aspects of the organization’s work – even if they
did not understand how – or that their current path was not leading to their goals.
Had we sat back and said nothing, we would not have been “earning the right to work”
with them (Bridger, 1986, discussion at conference entitled “Rethinking Change,” Tavistock
Institute). Our preoccupation with being accepted and valued was potentially debilitating. Had
the client group never acknowledged or faced its own similar preoccupation, it would not have
earned the right to work with us. Expressing the gift of discernment is a key to earning the right
to work in a consulting endeavor.
In this situation, I was struck with the recognition that the entire consulting team –
which was composed of an African-American woman, a white man, and a white woman – all
simultaneously experienced the same phenomena. This was no mere idiosyncratic response to a
situation based on one’s need for acceptance, security, or approval. The organization members,
for all their persistence in pursuing the company’s work, had also begun to feel less valuable,
less certain, and even impotent in their attempts to address the organization’s needs. Had none
of us, client or consultant, been willing to share our perceptions or express our judgments about
the situation, we would have been engaged in a rather collusive pact.

Expressing the gift of discernment sometimes requires substantial courage from a

consultant. One’s comments may product defensiveness, justification of the activity’s legitimacy
and necessity, attacks on one’s own utility, and the like. Even worse, one’s comments may be
ignored, or at least not acknowledged. A preoccupation with this, however, hinders the ability
to be present and thus to work with the client system. Instead, one should use such feelings to
inform oneself of one’s own needs and motives, and perhaps the underlying needs and processes
of the client system. In the situation described above, the consultants learned that that their
feelings of impotence, uncertainty, and inability to make a difference at the particular moment
were shared by the group members. Discernment requires us to trust our internal experience as
a potential source of useful information for the client.
When I am using the gift of discernment, I do not fold when my comments produce dismay,
defensiveness, or no verbal response. Early in my career, a teacher advised that I needed to find
ways other than verbal responses and direct implementation of my ideas to determine the impact
of my work with groups. Only after some time have I come to understand what this advice
means. One must accept one’s own judgments as legitimate, while accepting the client’s
judgments as well. Staying engaged in the face of one’s own or the client’s resistance enables
a person to remain in contact with the work being done.
The combination of having conviction in your judgment and staying engaged with a client
and the client’s experience poses a creative dilemma for OD consultants. You must be willing
to examine your own motivations and needs related to your perceptions, and to consider those
of the client. You must have conviction, yet must not become so locked into one way of working
or expressing yourself that you no longer make yourself heard by the client system. Consultants
can use reactions to their judgments in creative ways that prove meaningful for the system’s
work and development.
As with any other gift, one should use the gift of discernment responsibly. This means
consultants should not withhold discernment to gain approval or acceptance or to punish the
client. Consultants punish clients when they withhold what they believe should be said because
they are angry at the clients’ inability or unwillingness to use their insights. Serving one’s own
ego by “beating up” the client is not a responsible use of discernment. When your ego is overly
affected by a client’s response to the work performed, this means you have an opportunity to
learn from the experience about your own internal needs and motives. Doing so enhances
discernment.
Perhaps it is the fear of failure, rejection, or of not being loved or valued that sometimes
disables us when we try to exercise this gift – particularly when expressions of discernment
may appear to be harsh, critical, or insensitive. In such cases, the recipients of these expressions
may not consider discernment a gift. Discernment, however, can be expressed in succinct,
constructive, and potent ways, enabling oneself and others to do the work that needs to be done.
At its best, discernment is accompanied by the gift of heart, which magnifies the system’s ability
to use the consultant and the consultant’s ability to support the system.

The gift of discernment clearly involves using one’s cognitive powers to sift through vast
amounts of data to frame issues in ways that better enable the consultant and the client to work.
Consultants must also use their affective experience to gain their understanding of the situation
at hand, relying on their strengths and “shadow sides” for perception and judgment.
Consultants have no more monopoly on the gift of discernment than clients have on feelings
of insecurity, impotence, and need for acceptance and approval. Therefore, not only must we
ourselves grow in terms of the gift of discernment, but we must help our clients do the same.
This is part of both the client and the consultant’s earning the right to work with one another,
the right to consult and to be “consulted to.” When clients begin to demonstrate more ability
in this area, this signals that they and the consultant can become partners in the OD work.
The gift of presence

The gift of presence is two-fold. First, it is the ability to exist fully in the “here-and-now”
situation with a client system. From this here-and-now perspective, one assists the client in
taking into account or tuning into different levels of reality as needed: what is actual, what is
desired or potential, what is possible, and what is probable, given current plans and actions.
Through attention to the here-and-now, the past can be understood as it affects the present;
moreover, in the present the future is created.
The second and equally important aspect of the gift of discernment is the ability to use one’s
style, identity, and beliefs congruently with one’s theories and models so that the client system
grows and learns in part from the change practitioner’s ways of doing, being, and seeing the
world. Related to this second aspect it the significance of the intervenor’s role in providing
“a presence that is otherwise lacking in the system, (so) it follows that an effective intervenor
should be able to move from one presence to another. This is an ideal that at best can only be
approximated by most practitioners” (Nevis, 1987). The key is to develop a presence that
integrates your theoretical frame of reference and person so that you become the embodiment
of your message about learning and change. A broad use of presence can be found in those
who are change leaders or practitioners in given system.
In the context of the definition above, the gift of presence is then both a space or place
in which to work and a quality of integration of the self that allows for clear movement along
various continua, providing the push or pull, the validation, or challenge needed to support
learning and/or goal attainment. Presence provides a consultant with the awareness used in
discernment and with the courage and range of behaviors needed to act on what is discerned.
With this courage a consultant is willing to be present “right here, right now” and rely on
oneself as a primary instrument for working with others. Developing this gift requires continual
examination and stretching your own boundaries, allowing for the integration over time of who
you are with what you believe and what you do. It requires that you become more whole and
gain access to and the courage to become more and more of who you are as a unique person –
to change and grow from within.

How often do consultants or managers of a change effort search for that one magical thing to
do or say that can be recalled later as the act that saved the day, the moment to be remembered
and described with a dramatic flair that glorifies the consultant and perhaps the group? If we
have mentors or role models whom we admire from a distance, we may even ask ourselves what
these guides would do in a situation facing us. At such moments, however, the key lies not in
one’s ability to reach consciously backward to old techniques or forward to future glory or
success, but instead in the gift of presence. Projection and reflection have respected places in
our work. The essence of what the intervenor can make of these, however, is in the moment, if
we rely on the fertile ground of the unconscious to bring forth whatever is needed from the past,
and on faith in ourselves to allow the future to create itself from the potency of action in the here
and now.
In the personal growth workshop mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, practitioners
guided us through psychologically difficult journeys with no apparent fear for psychological
safety – either ours or theirs. If they were fearful, they were also courageous. Throughout this
journey, however, they demonstrated a superb ability to attend to the here and now, and in
doing so supported our growth, learning, and insight. The journey was not full of advice and
prescriptions, nor of complex steps for reaching goals. Rather, the methods were simple yet
profound. We could choose to go forward or retreat. The practitioners were present for those
who wanted to work and moved away from or confronted those whose words or actions
indicated that they were engaged in “pseudo-work.”
Courage regarding the psychological safety of others must be coupled with respect for
others’ defenses and boundaries. We cannot be driven by a need to crash through others’
defenses in the service of our own needs. To understand the client’s limits, a consultant must
trust her or his own intuitions while also using data from the client’s behavior and statements.
The consultant must know how to use presence to influence others.
In this regard, we can consider two basic modes of influence in using the power of our
presence: the provocative mode and the evocative mode. According to Nevis (1977, p. 126):
The provocative mode draws on a belief that system outcomes are what count if one
is to be influential in actuality, and that nothing of real consequence can occur unless
the intervenor causes, or forces, something to happen. . . . In the evocative mode,
the consultant strives to get the system interested in what is being attended to by the
system: the goal is creation of fresh awareness and the education of the system to
be more effective in its awareness processes. There is greater willingness on the part
of the intervenor to allow the client system to remain at the awareness stage. . . and to
let client actions emerge. The aim is for the intervenor to be arousing but not unsettling.

There are certainly degrees of freedom along the continuum from evocative to provocative,
and we could probably all find examples of each in our behavior as consultants to or leaders of
change efforts. The evocative mode can be as “passive” as being there and witnessing the work
of a system in a way that evokes a certain sense of safety and ability to work and disclose, or
as active as sharing your observations without interpretation. Beyond this, we move into the
provocative arena by confronting boundaries, interpreting behavior, acting in ways that are
counter to the culture, structuring interventions that are likely to produce particular reactions or
outcomes, or forcing or coercing action in some way, potentially including assault. Nevis
defines modeling and elicitation as two types of evocative behavior and confrontation and assault
as two types of provocative behavior (see Table 1).
Table 1.
Examples of provocative and evocative
modes of the use of self in change efforts
Evocative mode Provocative mode
Modeling Elicitation Confrontation Assault
Buddha’s life style Confucius’ Analects Evangelical preaching Coercive persuasion
Ghandi’s ascetic life Tao Te Ching Boycotts and sit-ins (e.g., Draft card burning
Utopian communities; Client-centered Ghandi, King’s bus Terrorist acts
social experiments that counseling boycott) such as bombing,
may be observed by Teaching through the Techniques of S. Alinsky kidnapping, airplane
others; trend-setting, lecture method Peaceful demonstrations hijacking
new lifestyles Wildcat strikes,
M.L. King’s speeches Strong rhetoric;
Apprenticeship learning propaganda Clamshell Alliance
arrangements Use of rich language: break-ins at
metaphor, imagery, poetic M.L. King’s protest Seabrook Nuclear
President Carter modes, gestures marches
wearing a sweater, Facility
walking to the President Reagan Sadat’s historic trip to D. Ellsberg’s release
White House on saying “there is no energy Jerusalem (1977) of the Pentagon
Inauguration Day shortage in this great land Encounter groups papers to the press
of ours” (paraphrase of his
President Reagan remarks) Assertiveness training Synanon therapy
wearing Western-style Rolfing
clothes and riding a Asking questions or Tavistock Group
making remarks that gain est programs
horse Confrontation meetings
the attention of others Acts that browbeat
Being attractive in Bioenergetics or “rape” others into
manner/style, so as to Awareness-enhancing
techniques, such as those Third-party intervention responding; any act
draw attention, interest of hostility or an act
used in Gestalt therapy, Interpreting another’s
Vicarious learning, psychosynthesis synectics, behavior to them that strongly violates
observing without trying body therapies an agreement
or simply by being in Statements to clients
(Alexander, Felldenkrais,
the same space with that stretch, or go beyond,
etc.)
another established boundaries
© 1987 Edwin Nevis. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission from p. 131 of Organizational
Consulting: A Gestalt Approach.

Organization development practitioners often bring the power of their presence through
modeling, elicitation, and confrontation. Assault may be limited to those change efforts in which
managers have imported into the organization something of a training “cult” that uses assault
methods to deliver its messages.
When client systems struggle with facing the old order or past difficulties, and attempt to
create a new order, change practitioners need to use their presence to attend to the pain, fear,
joy, and excitement of transition and change. In the race of visions, constraints, desires, and
resistance, pressure can be used to explore, push, stretch, and/or affirm boundaries. Most of us
have experienced the gift of presence from friends when we needed someone to “be there” for
us; we have all needed someone to be present to hear and see what comes up, speak words of
reinforcement, encourage us to dig deeper, challenge us when we retreat or lie to ourselves about
what is happening, or give us space when we retreat when we have struggled enough. Although
we may often feel as if we must provide some special answer to help someone in need, we
should remember that sometimes the gift of presence is best expressed by our ability to witness
others, attend to them, and reflect on their experience. At other times, when the call for action is
urgent, our presence may best be used in a confrontational manner.
When we use the gift of presence, we can see when someone has gone too far or may need
to go further. If we cannot see this, we can at least recognize what we need to ask. We are not
limited by a lack of a road map indicating exactly what type of psychological disturbance is
occurring. We do not need a code book of disorders or a checklist of interventions when people
express certain behaviors. What we need is attention to the here and now and a range of ways
we can use ourselves to support awareness and/or action.
We cannot be present, however, when we are preoccupied with how we are being seen or
experiences, or with determining “the right thing to do.” We can be present only when we are
in touch with our feelings, thoughts, and intuitions in the moment. The gift of presence gives
consultants access to an area of “creative indifference” (Zinker, 1977), enabling them to work
with clients without predetermining how things should be and what they should do. Any magic
in the consulting process, if such a thing exists, is often attributed to this type of stance – that of
an evocator – not from one’s investment in a predetermined set of actions. The magic is that the
influence seems invisible until the system begins to learn more explicitly about the process of
change.
The gift of presence requires change practitioners to become more “whole” in the work they
do. Although they must recognize the appropriate role to fill in relation to the client, they must
also integrate themselves as whole beings into that role. If this role is considered substantially
distant from one’s own personal identity and experience, work becomes a form of personal
death, as opposed to an experience of growth and vitality.

When I began practicing OD consulting, I sometimes felt and behaved as if my role called
for me to operate from the right hand, but I operated from the left hand. As soon as I left the
client’s presence, I seemed to become an entirely different person seeking expression and relief,
as if my concept of the role and the work did not allow for the presence of this other being. Over
time, the two have come closer as I have learned to honor my internal experience while engaging
in the practice of consulting. Using the gift of presence calls for us to honor our internal
experience as much as we honor the role we have chosen. The tensions existing between one’s
role and one’s self are akin to the tensions in the client system between individual needs and task
demands.
In the practice of OD consulting, we ask client systems to attend to the process and content
of their work, to the task and nature of relationships, and to their technical and social systems.
Doing this requires them to actively use their experience in the present, reflect on the past, and
anticipate the future in terms of likely outcomes. Consultants must do the same. Yet in my
work in developing OD practitioners, I am struck by how frequently we are so preoccupied with
performance and/or acceptance that we miss the many opportunities available to take advantage
of our competence for the client system.
For example, consultants frequently are unaware of how their internal experience and the
client’s observations at a given moment exemplify the very essence of the issue the client is
talking about. We can miss using what goes on right in front of us as an opportunity to enhance
the client’s awareness of the organization’s dynamics. Awareness, growth, and change are
exciting and vital, yet they also produce anxiety for both the consultant and client. In the midst
of these ambivalent experiences, consultants and clients are challenged to stay engaged with one
another rather than raise their defenses and flee from the intensity of the work that is to be done. 1
Presence involves attending to the symbolic realm in an organization as it relates to one’s

own identity. For example, I consult to many organizations having a predominantly white male
culture. As an African-American woman, I have sometimes experienced confusion within
myself and the system when I enter a new client organization for the first time. A voice from
the past may say: “What am I doing here? This is a mistake. This is not safe.” An unconscious
collective or conscious individual voice in the system may ask what I am doing there as well. I
have learned that being present requires me to face and work out any limitations I experience as
a result of internalizing the oppression of my past, including what may have happened yesterday.
In addition, I must also understand what I symbolize in the system because of my identity.
Rather than run from the symbolism, I can use it and explore it in way appropriate for the
service of the work. 2 I recall one case in which a client said, “They will expect you to be
tough and confrontational and intimidating since you’re an African-American woman.”
This is consistent with what Dumas (1983, pp. 122-123) points out:
1
I do not wish to imply that all defense systems are inappropriate, indeed, they are necessary for protecting
us from elements in our environment that might harm us. Some defensive responses, however, disable clients and
consultants as they seek to perform the work needed to allow the system to more fully accomplish its purpose.
2
The symbolic meaning of presence as it relates to identity is one of the reasons that race and gender diversity
of consulting staff is so significant in change efforts. A diverse staff sends a message that we are willing to engage
client systems in ways meaningful to the changes they face currently and in the future.

The mythical image of the powerful castrating black matriarch pervades contemporary
organizations and poses a critical dilemma for black females that makes competition
for, and competent performance in, leadership positions a costly endeavor. There are
increasing efforts to resurrect the black mammy in today’s ambitious black woman.
There are negative consequences for those who succumb as well as for those who
dare to resist.
My first impulse when the client painted the picture above was to explain how false
this stereotype was and to differentiate myself from it. I did not think until later how this
representation of who I am could occasionally be helpful in working with the system. On many
occasions, I am aware that as an African-American woman, I can be alternately experienced as
an intimidating force, or as an earth mother or a shaman, with powers to nurture, protect, be
clairvoyant, and heal, depending on the needs of the systems and my responses. Developing the
gift of presence has required me to acknowledge my own vision of who I am in relation to
systems and to acquire and/or cultivate the range of behaviors helping me manifest that vision.
I can now appreciate why I work where I work and what I have to give and learn.
To use presence as a gift in your work, acknowledge and affirm that you are in the right
place right now to learn what you need to learn, and to support the system as it learns what it
needs to learn. Presence not only moves us closer to understanding more about our own
dynamics, it also provides useful information about being engaged with a particular client.
Responsible use of the gift of presence requires us to know ourselves and show ourselves in
the service of the work to be done. As we do this, we are earning the right to work by staying
engaged with the client. Clients earn the right to work by being willing to be so engaged. We
all have the option of being detached or being split – separated from what we teach and speak –
but these occurrences should not be confused with using the gift of presence. As we help leaders
align their own behavior with their visions, we contribute to the power of their presence as well.
The gift of heart

The gift of heart is the ability to attune and connect oneself to the system in which one is
working. Into this gift I assemble those qualities of compassion, humanitarianism, grace for
others, passion for one’s craft, and the will to extend oneself in the service of the work of
learning and growth. This gift involves the inherent struggle of giving versus withholding of the
self, recognizing people’s infinite capacity to love and the finite capacity of our physical selves.
Using the gift of heart requires one to face one’s own pain, struggles, and joy and to connect
with others through what we know about the process of living, learning, and growing. It is not
a gift given lightly, for in expressing it we make indelible marks on others’ lives and draw
ourselves into more and more relationships with others. We are connected to the universe
through this gift; it is at this level that we are one.

Whether we do so through models, concepts, music, movement, words, or touching, we can

give of this part of ourselves to others. The gift of heart represents a leap into others’ lives,
showing one’s desire to be with them in their struggle. It is not always welcomed or accepted,
yet consultants must bring this gift to clients. Otherwise, why bother to engage in OD work?
When practitioners examine the reasons for doing the type of work involved in organizational
growth and change, they always indicate – despite the occasional rewards of recognition, money,
and accomplishment – that the heart is involved at some level.
Clients often comment on what they perceive as my high energy level and its usefulness in
supporting them in their work. I believe that the source of this energy is often centered in the
heart, drawing upon energy in the universe and putting it back out in ways that demonstrate
connection. This is particularly important when we are working on issues of separation – such
as conflict or diversity – within organizations.
The gift of heart can also be expressed just as much when one negotiates a contract as when
one makes an intervention. It must be a part of the business as well as the practice, the role as
well as the person. With this gift, we give meaning to our work and our lives; without it we turn
into stone. Through the gift of heart we pump our life’s blood into our actions and our words.
Perhaps we should not offer advice without the gift of heart. How many of our statements to
clients would we take back if we applied this criterion?
Through the gift of heart we become attuned to the mission, purpose, or vision of a given
client system. Through the gift of heart we can best see manifestation of the notion that work is
love made visible. Choices concerning the client systems with which we work and the nature of
our work enable us to discover which paths have heart for us. This gift enables a consultant to
recognize the connection between her or his own values and sense of purpose and those of the
client system. Although the client’s values may not represent your own, you can learn more
about your willingness and ability to influence those systems, and answer the question “toward
what end?” In working with a particular client, a consultant faces the ways in which the system
is both similar to and different from one’s perceptions of it. We discover in our hearts the
extent to which we can join the system and care about its mission and its internal experience
in accomplishing its purposes. In some cases, a sufficient bond is lacking. Thus, the gift of
heart enables us to belong, although marginally, to some systems and not at all to others.
Once a consultant is in a given system, this gift influences the nature of what one does.
In my work, I have occasionally thought, “Something else is needed here, and it’s not on an
intervention checklist or in the book.” Often what is needed is a higher order of work – a level
of healing, a different consciousness of what is happening and of what can happen. With the gift
of heart, we can support and lead this order of work. First, however, we must know how the
work connects with one’s own sense of purpose and meaning in life.

We don’t attain the gift of heart by reading one more article on sociotechnical systems,
morphogenesis, or strategies for change in systems. Perhaps we can read about interventions
that failed or interventions that succeeded, but rarely do authors write about the experience
of connecting or not being able to connect with a client system and the nature of its work.
Joining the three gifts

Together, these three gifts affirm the importance of determining with whom we work and
what we do. When they flow together, the gifts represent a higher order of doing, being, and
knowing, into which we can integrate the theoretical and technological frames we use in our
work. Together, they are similar to the brain, heart, and courage that were so essential for
Dorothy to find her home in “The Wizard of Oz.” “Home” really does rest in effective use
of self.
The heart provides the very basis for doing the work needed and being with a particular
system. It also provides the connection through which one can have sight of the whole.
Discernment provides the sight with which to see oneself and the system clearly. Presence
integrates thought, action, and emotion together in ways that symbolize what we desire to create.
Without the gift of presence, discernment would be experienced as being “out there, not in here.”
Together, I think the three gifts provide significant symbols for facilitating and creating change
at deeper levels. Indeed, the gifts are essential if we are to help create new ways of seeing and
knowing in organizations that are necessary to move forward into the next century.
In teaching and developing OD practitioners, I have noticed that some persons misinterpret
the importance of the three gifts by devaluing knowledge and skill development. The knowledge
and skills of the OD practitioner are assets that must be seen in their proper place in the business
of growth and change. The mechanisms that we use to “grow ourselves” stay with us and
increase our ability to work with clients. The gifts that we can bring as a result of developing
ourselves are with us in every consulting situation, but knowledge and skills vary in their
applicability to particular situations. Knowledge and skills are necessary, but not sufficient for
the work of supporting the growth and change of others. Knowledge and skills provide ways of
helping clients learn about learning; they enable us and clients to understand more about what
clients are experiencing in the process of growth and change. But when we can blend knowledge
and skills with the three gifts, we have the most that we can bring at any given moment to a
client and to ourselves.
In a sense, the confluence of the gifts along with other knowledge, techniques, and feelings
is a part of becoming whole in our work. A variety of streams in our lives join this endeavor.
Acknowledging the importance of the three gifts in one’s work in simple; the challenge is to
embrace and integrate these gifts firmly into the foundation of what one does as a practitioner.

The path to the three gifts

The swiftness with which I gained insight into the three gifts was matched only by the
elusiveness of clarity about tapping into these gems. Thus far in my journey, I can point
to only one path to learning to share them with clients.
Immediately after the personal growth workshop described in the beginning of this chapter, I
was committed to perform in a trainer role with three colleagues, conducting our own laboratory
experience for 40 participants. I did not know how I would conjure up the physical, emotional,
and mental reserves for doing this. I simply told my colleagues, who I knew would understand,
that I was emotionally exhausted, spiritually uplifted, and ready to work. I knew I would not
have the energy to experience my usual anxiety about preparing lectures, my usual preoccupation
with whether I was doing “the right thing” in small group sessions, and the like. I trusted that
I would be able to do whatever needed to be done during the seven-day period. During the
laboratory, I was able to assume the stance of creative indifference described earlier in this
chapter. The gifts were present in me throughout the week; indeed, I did some of the best work
I have ever done, and had a newfound appreciation for the provocative and evocative ways of
using myself.
In reflecting on other such peak experiences in my practice, I became aware of a common

thread. In each case the professional work came after I had performed an exceptional amount
of work on myself, whether this lasted an hour or a week. This practice of reflecting upon and
envisioning my own patterns of practices clearly had a positive effect on my work. In these peak
experiences, the gifts have been the grounding forces of my work, allowing for effective use of
self. The knowledge and skills I brought were resources I brought into this broader framework.
Consequently, I argue strongly that practitioners should work on the self constantly and
recognize that personal growth is the same as professional development. I believe that all
OD practitioners know this to some extent, although we vary greatly as to how we act on this
knowledge. The quality of what we do when working with colleagues on our own behavior also
has immense value for developing the three gifts. In a sense, we must earn the right to work with
one another, exploring the motives, needs, and assumptions reflected in our behavior with one
another and with the client systems. This is part of earning the right to work with the client and
with other consultants. Those of us who are involved in graduate programs and professional
development programs for OD practitioners should ask ourselves how our work contributes to
the development of the three gifts. When we work with clients and colleagues, we should ask
how our work expresses these gifts and helps others develop them.

The path to the three gifts is one of challenge, confrontation, support, grace, and the
discipline to engage in continual examination of oneself, of others (clients and colleagues),
and of one’s relationships with them. This examination requires vigilance, and is simultaneously
loving, exciting, frightening, painful, and rewarding (Peck, 1979). Negotiating a contract with a
client may give a consultant the formal right to work, but the consultant and client may also earn
the right to work with one another in behavioral and psychological terms. We must be willing to
examine ourselves and one another with the same scrutiny we apply to client systems.
I have begun to practice developing the gifts within myself by using the same change
model (a subject for another paper) that I use with my client systems. This is not a surprise, as
the model itself came out of work I did on my own process of creating change. My reflective
work in this regard has increased the quality of my work in consulting to change processes in
organizations. I have also come to recognize that the gifts are as applicable to leaders of change
efforts in organizations as they are to OD practitioners.
Paradoxically, developing the three gifts thus relies in part on using these gifts in the
service of the work of our own development and that of our clients. We develop them by
acknowledging their existence and using them. This paradox raises another question about
the path to the three gifts: What are their origins? The term “gifts” implies some form of
endowment. This endowment does not come from other people, however. It is the legacy of
one’s own creation and “re-creation” in the struggle to become whole. This legacy is the trust,
so to speak, that we can use as we do the work and grow in the discipline that enables us to claim
the legacy.
Underlying each of the three gifts, then, is a sense of self-authorization, self-empowerment,

unconditional love, and entitlement. These cannot come from other people; if they could, others
could take the gifts away. The origin of the three gifts is in the spiritual domain, transcending
yet incorporating valuable assets from other domains in our work and lives. Hence, the path to
the three gifts is essentially a spiritual journey requiring us to recognize another order of our
existence. In doing so, we must fact the unpleasant aspects of ourselves along with the “good”
parts. The insight that I describe above is based on such an encounter with the self. The beauty
of this process is that it lets us realize that the creation of and effective use of the self is truly a
work of art.
Acknowledgments
I thank the following colleagues and friends for listening to and supporting me when I
developed these ideas: B. Tannenbaum, B. Hanna, L. Wells, J. Katz, B. Marshak, C. Brantley,
M. Weisbord, D. Tucker, P. Parham, A. Mayas, G. King, R. Anderson, N.J. Anderson, and
E. Lowry.

References
Dumas, R. (1983). Dilemmas of black females in leadership. In R. Ritvo & A. Sargent (Eds.),
NTL manager’s handbook. Arlington, VA: NTL Institute.
Nevis, E. (1987). Organizational consulting: A Gestalt approach. Cleveland: Gestalt Institute

of Cleveland Press.
Peck, M.S. (1979). The road less traveled. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Zinker, J. (1977). Creative process in gestalt therapy. New York: Vintage Books.

NTL Institute Classics in Organization Development

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NTL Institute Classics in Organization Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NTL CLASSICS

the premier source for transformational change

Historical Overview of OD Consulting 1

Survey Data Feedback Approach to Consultation 14

Notes on Data Display and Feedback 17

Similarities and Differences of Internal and External Consultants 19

Strategy Guidelines for an Internal Organization Development Unit 23

The Group: A Cycle from Birth to Death 30

Three Gifts of the Organization Development Practitioner 36

Historical Overview of OD Consulting

3. Like applied behavioral science (ABS), management science is an applied science of

Applied behavioral science

© NTL Institute Page 1

2. Rensis Likert’s System 4, Schmidt-Tannenbaum’s “How to Choose a Leadership Style,” and

© NTL Institute Page 2

– Professional training throughout NTL and universities trained thousands of

– NTL’s Presidents Labs brought OD to business. Organizational change often began

© NTL Institute Page 3

– Approximately three percent of personnel costs will probably be spent on personnel

– High-technology organizations made the most extensive use of OD.

– Large, complex OD projects sometimes involved 50-100 OD related people in various

Is Henry Kissinger an OD specialist? Was the Marshall Plan an OD intervention? The

© NTL Institute Page 4

© NTL Institute Page 5

1. Thinking before I talk ______ ______ ______

© NTL Institute Page 6

© NTL Institute Page 7

© NTL Institute Page 8

© NTL Institute Page 9

Diagnosis in process consulting is a complex, interactive event. It creates certain inevitable

© NTL Institute Page 10

© NTL Institute Page 11

© NTL Institute Page 12

If agreement cannot be reached, then the consultant has two choices:

If agreement on a “diagnosis” is reached, an intervention can be planned and implemented.

© NTL Institute Page 13

Survey Data Feedback Approach to Consultation*

A five-stage cycle of survey data feedback

Comparison of Supervisory vs. Consultant Feedback

© NTL Institute Page 14

DYNAMICS OF DATA-BASED APPROACH TO O.D./PROCESS CONSULTATION*

Methods of Collecting Data

© NTL Institute Page 15

II. Questionnaires: standardized

© NTL Institute Page 16

Notes on Data Display and Feedback*

Goals of a feedback meeting

2. Help participants own it.

4. Data reduction: focus on one, two, or three high-priority items.

Data display tips

© NTL Institute Page 17

© NTL Institute Page 18

Similarities and Differences of Internal and External Consultants

The External Consultant is a helper – usually professional – who has minimal or no

Why this subject?

1. A consultant’s effectiveness depends primarily on his or her professional behavior.

2. Consulting behavior can be adjusted appropriately if the consultant is aware of the

1. Both are helpers.

© NTL Institute Page 19

5. They can both play multiple consulting roles.

6. They both want to be successful.

2. As part of the system, may be a part of the problem.

4. Sometimes encounters resistance because of vested interests and organizational politics.

5. Subsystem tends to seem as if things are “o.k.”

1. Thinking before I talk __