The Challenge of OD
Traditionally, OD has been recognized as a discipline which emerged from social psychology. However, as a discipline develops, it needs to lengthen its branches and absorb from different fields which can add value to it and further its objectives. Furthermore, as a discipline is applied, new issues are thrown up and new learning happens resulting in the discipline’s transcending of traditional boundaries.
This is what is happening with OD. It is breaking away from its traditional moorings in the social psychological area and is beginning to develop a new and more valuable place for itself in an organizational setting.
Let’s examine the transitions of this field on the basis of its success and failure pattern in its endeavor to add value to organizations.
A Government organization entered the field of OD by hiring an OD consultant for doing survey feedback. The consultant followed a text book approach. He collected data from all members of the senior management team and also through focuses group interviews. He also deployed a questionnaire to collect individual response data from a cross section of organizational personnel.
The consultant diligently analyzed the data and presented it to the senior management team members.
Dissatisfaction of decades of lack of upward communication and an ivory tower attitude emerged in cascades of negativism towards the organization and its leaders.
The organizational personnel spoke out in strength against bureaucratic processes and the hijacking of HR policies by senior management personnel.
The consultant did the job of analyzing, synthesizing and categorizing data.
As the consultant was presenting the data, there was strong resistance from the senior management team members.
The “Survey Feedback Report” became a political document to downgrade the leaders. The “Performers” as well as the “Initiators” of the OD exercise suffered while the “Non-performers” became the aggressors.
The “Survey Feedback Report” did not yield any positive organization development outcome. It only had negative political fallouts. Thus, a lot of effort was put in with no impact.
Such OD failures become important steps on the learning ladder. They yield important learning points.
Some of the key learning points that emerge are:
1. The data collected should be evenly balanced between qualitative and quantitative data.
Both these kinds of data have their weaknesses. It is only in combination that they become potent especially when they throw up patterns about performance parameters.
2. There needs to be briefing of all senior management team members when the OD intervention is initiated. The buy in of all the Sr.Management Team members is important for the success of the OD intervention.
This reduces the forces of resistance to the OD interventions. It also creates alignment among senior management members regarding the objectives and the process of the OD intervention.
3. The framework of the OD intervention should focus the intervention on enhancing organizational performance. If it is focused on only social-psychological change, it is not only inadequate, it also raises questions about the OD intervention’s relevance to a business organization.
An often repeated statement against OD intervention is that they are good to do things but impractical and would not impact the organization’s effectiveness in any manner.
In order to make the OD intervention relevant, it needs to identify and assess the organization on performance parameters, key organization processes, competencies, SMT activities as well as mindsets.
After incorporating the framework, an organization deployed it to enhance the performance of its sales personnel.
This was an interesting application of the OD framework since it was not focused on the entire organization but to one set of organizational personnel.
When the collected data was presented to the national sales management team, there was a remarkable level of seriousness in the air.
The National sales manager took immediate action with respect to an inadequacy in the incentives system of the sales personnel.
A comprehensive system of diagnostics makes the data difficult to ignore.
The process gaps and competency gaps which emerged got addressed and the process innovations which got generated were examined for application.
The successful practices adopted in our part of the working were replicated in other regions.
These actions had a direct impact on the functioning and performance of the sales force.
That is the hallmark of a potent OD intervention. It impacts organizational functioning and performance.
When OD is practiced in such a manner, the relevance can be judged by the lack of rude comments and the seriousness of action planning and execution that results.
Which leader does not want to enhance performance?
If an OD intervention can enable the leader to influence performance, there is no shortage of time for it.
OD: An honorable target
What is it about OD that makes it a desirable activity? Every trainer also wants to be an OD Practitioner. Perhaps, it has something to do with the name itself. Developing the organization is a worthy goal. I am reminded of the statement of a Japanese U-boat captain in a hilarious film says, “we will target Hollywood, because it is an honorable target.
OD has a similar attraction for HR professionals. It is an honorable target. An inherent disadvantage of the HR profession is the intangible outcome of HR effort. Thus, there is a latent desire in every HR professional’s heart to make a lasting and visible impact on an organization, which can not be questioned. It is quite tiresome to be the favorite punching bag of anybody who has a grudge with the organization.
Desiring to add value to the organization through OD is one thing, actually catalyzing an enhancement in the organization’s effectiveness is another. In OD, one cannot get away because of the inadequacies of the system as in the measurement of training effectiveness. The barometer of the success or failure of an OD intervention is there for everybody to see and feel.
One major block in the implementation of OD is the lack of understanding of what it is all about. It is confused with training. The prevalent mental pattern related to training is useful for reducing resistance to training but it creates a blind spot for OD.
The inadequacies of the training mindset cascade into OD. Participants of training programs have got used to the “passive” role which is predominant in different training scenarios. The trainer has to do all the work. The participants can sit back and evaluate the program. This predominant mindset results in their being a little surprised when an OD intervention is initiated. All of a sudden, there is serious work going on in the workshop. Real issues are being discussed and real solutions are being found. This can lead to them becoming a little disconcerted unless they are briefed properly.
This is exemplified by the failure of an ambitious OD intervention in a Technology company. This company ventured to roll out an OD intervention in 3 phases. The participants were not briefed about the objectives, the process to be followed and their role in the OD Intervention. The atmosphere during the initiation of the OD Intervention was non serious. The participants were approaching it as just another training program. The result was that the HR department did not put into place the structures and systems that trigger the conversion of the learning in the first phase of the OD intervention into action.
The result was that the OD intervention got truncated after the first phase.
What do we learn from this experience?
The HR department as well as the participants needs to approach an OD intervention with a completely different mindset as compared to training.
The participants have to be active elements of the OD intervention rather than the passive role that they tend to adopt in training programs.
Moreover, the HR department needs to play a facilitative and persistent role in the implementation of the OD action plan. Thus, the HR department needs to make a transition from an observer’s role during regular training programs to an active facilitator’s role. Without this participation, the OD Intervention is bound to fail.
Let’s examine another OD failure that highlights this. An organization wanted to generate Innovations in different functional areas. This required an OD intervention which involved competence development as well as competence application.
The organization deployed a highly effective competence development system taking into consideration each stage in the competence development process.
However, not enough attention was given to ,”Application of Innovation competencies’ to generate innovations in Key result areas. No structures were created to support the Prototype development process.
The impact was that in spite of having potent Innovation ideas, no innovations ensued. After 6 months of the OD initiation, the potent innovation ideas were still languishing. They had not been converted into prototypes.
Hence, a lot of potential got wasted.
The key learning that emerges is that multiple initiatives need to be taken in order to make an OD intervention successful.
This leads to the obvious question, “Is OD really worth it?” The power of OD lies in its ability to trigger self organizing as well as planned change.
The diagnostic data collected in most OD interventions makes the intervention valid thereby making it difficult to oppose.
Nobody wants to be told that there is something wrong with them. If any diagnosis is not backed up by data, it is bound to be opposed.
The diagnostic data reduces opposition and creates openness to change.
During the action planning stage of an OD intervention in a large public Ltd Company, the consultant was facing staff resistance regarding the need for a change in the upward communication process.
“There is no need for any change. We are getting all the suggestions or grievances”” was the quote.
It was only when the quantitative data, regarding the ineffectiveness of upward communication was highlighted that the resistance to a “Communication Process change” declined.
The diagnostic data by itself acts as “feedback” to the organization and its key personnel. Even, if no planned change is initiated, self organizing change tends to set in.
This is highlighted by the experience of a consultant who had done a diagnostic exercise. A key competency gap among senior management functionaries emerged in the data. The impact of this data was that suddenly all senior management members had queries about the competency and the search behavior which is associated with exploration was evident.
Thus, it is not surprising that HR professionals also want to be OD practitioners.
OD in name and not in deed
Riding the OD Horse: Easier said than done
Organization development is an exciting field from the perspective of the brand that it carries. When, you hear or utter the term, “O.D”, ears pick up and fellow professionals look at you with new respect in their eyes.
The few initiatives that have been taken have either resulted in failure or minimal success. The amount of effort required to make OD initiatives successful has not been realized. Everybody wants to eat the cake but nobody wants to put in the effort to make it sweet and value adding.
Triggering any change is easier said than done. The entire system rebels against new initiatives. Most of the time, it is not even rebellion, it is plain inertia. Newton’s law of motion is applicable even in the context of Organization change, “Everything continues in its state of rest or motion until some force acts on it.”
For organizational change, enormous force and persistence in application is required.
Let’s examine the experience of an OD initiative which resulted in minimal success..
A leading software organization wanted to surface and address organizational issues. A questionnaire was prepared for the purpose. It consisted of statements which utilized the Likert scale(strongly agree to strongly disagree) & open ended questions related to organization strength, weaknesses and issues that needed to be addressed.
The questionnaire was filled up quite enthusiastically by everybody. The analysis was done and the conclusions were presented to the entire group on an LCD screen.
Then the problems began………
Small groups of personnel stated, “we do not agree with those findings”.
Another group said, “The statements in the questionnaire were unclear”. This threw up doubts regarding the efficacy and validity of the questionnaire.
The OD exercise would have ended right there, had it not been for the data in the open ended questions.
The validity of the responses to the open ended questions, could not be doubted because the responses were consolidated without any changes.
The issues that needed to be addresses and the opportunities for improvement were given to the groups to address. Each group presented its solution to the organization issues taken up.
The organization leader gave his feedback to the solutions presented and selected the ones to be implemented.
Everybody was very happy that organization issues had finally surfaced and were being addressed.
The implementation was not worked out in detail and the responsibilities were not fixed.
The result was that the entire effort got wasted except for some perception expansion of organizational personnel, which may have impacted their day to day managerial actions.
In fact, the intervention could have had an opposite impact to the one intended. Rather than solving organization problems, it could have triggered an additional problem of a negative mindset against OD interventions in the organization.
What do we learn from this experience?
If an organization wants to do an OD intervention, it needs to be mentally ready to put in an enormous amount of energy. An OD intervention should not be considered to be a one shot, quit fix activity.
A fundamental understanding of OD and what it entails among the organization personnel is fundamental to its success. A lock- in into the training paradigm is a sure recipe for failure. Utilizing the training mindset for an OD intervention will not work. The OD intervention does not end after the analysis has been done .That is where it starts. However in most cases the training program ends after the class-room experience. Therefore the entire focus as well as the quantum of effort required is fundamentally different in an OD intervention as compared to a training program.
The implementation plan without a responsibility matrix will never take off.
Subsequently, what happens is that nobody wants to discuss whether anything was implemented. When implementation comes up for discussions, everyone is little embarrassed and somehow the implementation plan gets pushed off the agenda. This is because everyone subconsciously realizes that the effort required is huge.
Thus, it slowly shifts to the bottom of the pile of files. Thus, after a couple years, a brave soul opens the file. By that time, the team leader has changed and the brave soul is told, “This is outdated data, it can not be used anymore”.
The OD intervention disappears without a whimper “What is the use of going through all that effort, if this is going to be the outcome?”
Even if implementation occurs, it requires regular follow up and reviews. The OD intervention needs to be undertaken as a project. Thus, everything that is entailed in project planning and execution needs to be an integral part of the OD intervention.
Another key learning from this experience is the danger of using internationally accepted research scales such as the Likert scale in the diagnosing instrument. These scales may be considered valid in organizational and action research circles but to those personnel, who are not exposed to these instruments, they may not be perceived as reliable.
It is prudent to use open ended questions, along with scales which are especially designed for the type of questions asked and the type of industry in which the organization is functioning. The acceptability of such diagnostic instruments is decidedly more. Academic validity does not ensure practical acceptance.
Taking into consideration, the enthusiastic involvement of all organization personnel in the exercise, it is heartening to note the inherent power in the approach and the field. There is potential here, which can be perceived and felt. However, poor application and a lack of a clear understanding of what it entails and achieves, is resulting in the effort put in by a lot of personnel going down the drain.
The charm and challenge of OD is in the agenda of dealing with live rather than fictitious data. It however is a double edged sword. While, OD successes will shine like a star on the shoulders of OD practitioners, failures will make an OD practitioner bleed because of their high visibility level.
Thus, OD is not for the faint hearted HR practitioner. It is for the dedicated, the persistent and the believer.
From India, Nasik
15Traditionally, OD has been recognized as a discipline which emerged from social psychology. However, as a discipline develops, it needs to lengthen its branches and absorb from different fields which can add value to it and further its objectives. Furthermore, as a discipline is applied, new issues are thrown up and new learning happens resulting in the discipline’s transcending of traditional boundaries.
This is what is happening with OD. It is breaking away from its traditional moorings in the social psychological area and is beginning to develop a new and more valuable place for itself in an organizational setting.
Let’s examine the transitions of this field on the basis of its success and failure pattern in its endeavor to add value to organizations.
A Government organization entered the field of OD by hiring an OD consultant for doing survey feedback. The consultant followed a text book approach. He collected data from all members of the senior management team and also through focuses group interviews. He also deployed a questionnaire to collect individual response data from a cross section of organizational personnel.
The consultant diligently analyzed the data and presented it to the senior management team members.
Dissatisfaction of decades of lack of upward communication and an ivory tower attitude emerged in cascades of negativism towards the organization and its leaders.
The organizational personnel spoke out in strength against bureaucratic processes and the hijacking of HR policies by senior management personnel.
The consultant did the job of analyzing, synthesizing and categorizing data.
As the consultant was presenting the data, there was strong resistance from the senior management team members.
The “Survey Feedback Report” became a political document to downgrade the leaders. The “Performers” as well as the “Initiators” of the OD exercise suffered while the “Non-performers” became the aggressors.
The “Survey Feedback Report” did not yield any positive organization development outcome. It only had negative political fallouts. Thus, a lot of effort was put in with no impact.
Such OD failures become important steps on the learning ladder. They yield important learning points.
Some of the key learning points that emerge are:
1. The data collected should be evenly balanced between qualitative and quantitative data.
Both these kinds of data have their weaknesses. It is only in combination that they become potent especially when they throw up patterns about performance parameters.
2. There needs to be briefing of all senior management team members when the OD intervention is initiated. The buy in of all the Sr.Management Team members is important for the success of the OD intervention.
This reduces the forces of resistance to the OD interventions. It also creates alignment among senior management members regarding the objectives and the process of the OD intervention.
3. The framework of the OD intervention should focus the intervention on enhancing organizational performance. If it is focused on only social-psychological change, it is not only inadequate, it also raises questions about the OD intervention’s relevance to a business organization.
An often repeated statement against OD intervention is that they are good to do things but impractical and would not impact the organization’s effectiveness in any manner.
In order to make the OD intervention relevant, it needs to identify and assess the organization on performance parameters, key organization processes, competencies, SMT activities as well as mindsets.
After incorporating the framework, an organization deployed it to enhance the performance of its sales personnel.
This was an interesting application of the OD framework since it was not focused on the entire organization but to one set of organizational personnel.
When the collected data was presented to the national sales management team, there was a remarkable level of seriousness in the air.
The National sales manager took immediate action with respect to an inadequacy in the incentives system of the sales personnel.
A comprehensive system of diagnostics makes the data difficult to ignore.
The process gaps and competency gaps which emerged got addressed and the process innovations which got generated were examined for application.
The successful practices adopted in our part of the working were replicated in other regions.
These actions had a direct impact on the functioning and performance of the sales force.
That is the hallmark of a potent OD intervention. It impacts organizational functioning and performance.
When OD is practiced in such a manner, the relevance can be judged by the lack of rude comments and the seriousness of action planning and execution that results.
Which leader does not want to enhance performance?
If an OD intervention can enable the leader to influence performance, there is no shortage of time for it.
OD: An honorable target
What is it about OD that makes it a desirable activity? Every trainer also wants to be an OD Practitioner. Perhaps, it has something to do with the name itself. Developing the organization is a worthy goal. I am reminded of the statement of a Japanese U-boat captain in a hilarious film says, “we will target Hollywood, because it is an honorable target.
OD has a similar attraction for HR professionals. It is an honorable target. An inherent disadvantage of the HR profession is the intangible outcome of HR effort. Thus, there is a latent desire in every HR professional’s heart to make a lasting and visible impact on an organization, which can not be questioned. It is quite tiresome to be the favorite punching bag of anybody who has a grudge with the organization.
Desiring to add value to the organization through OD is one thing, actually catalyzing an enhancement in the organization’s effectiveness is another. In OD, one cannot get away because of the inadequacies of the system as in the measurement of training effectiveness. The barometer of the success or failure of an OD intervention is there for everybody to see and feel.
One major block in the implementation of OD is the lack of understanding of what it is all about. It is confused with training. The prevalent mental pattern related to training is useful for reducing resistance to training but it creates a blind spot for OD.
The inadequacies of the training mindset cascade into OD. Participants of training programs have got used to the “passive” role which is predominant in different training scenarios. The trainer has to do all the work. The participants can sit back and evaluate the program. This predominant mindset results in their being a little surprised when an OD intervention is initiated. All of a sudden, there is serious work going on in the workshop. Real issues are being discussed and real solutions are being found. This can lead to them becoming a little disconcerted unless they are briefed properly.
This is exemplified by the failure of an ambitious OD intervention in a Technology company. This company ventured to roll out an OD intervention in 3 phases. The participants were not briefed about the objectives, the process to be followed and their role in the OD Intervention. The atmosphere during the initiation of the OD Intervention was non serious. The participants were approaching it as just another training program. The result was that the HR department did not put into place the structures and systems that trigger the conversion of the learning in the first phase of the OD intervention into action.
The result was that the OD intervention got truncated after the first phase.
What do we learn from this experience?
The HR department as well as the participants needs to approach an OD intervention with a completely different mindset as compared to training.
The participants have to be active elements of the OD intervention rather than the passive role that they tend to adopt in training programs.
Moreover, the HR department needs to play a facilitative and persistent role in the implementation of the OD action plan. Thus, the HR department needs to make a transition from an observer’s role during regular training programs to an active facilitator’s role. Without this participation, the OD Intervention is bound to fail.
Let’s examine another OD failure that highlights this. An organization wanted to generate Innovations in different functional areas. This required an OD intervention which involved competence development as well as competence application.
The organization deployed a highly effective competence development system taking into consideration each stage in the competence development process.
However, not enough attention was given to ,”Application of Innovation competencies’ to generate innovations in Key result areas. No structures were created to support the Prototype development process.
The impact was that in spite of having potent Innovation ideas, no innovations ensued. After 6 months of the OD initiation, the potent innovation ideas were still languishing. They had not been converted into prototypes.
Hence, a lot of potential got wasted.
The key learning that emerges is that multiple initiatives need to be taken in order to make an OD intervention successful.
This leads to the obvious question, “Is OD really worth it?” The power of OD lies in its ability to trigger self organizing as well as planned change.
The diagnostic data collected in most OD interventions makes the intervention valid thereby making it difficult to oppose.
Nobody wants to be told that there is something wrong with them. If any diagnosis is not backed up by data, it is bound to be opposed.
The diagnostic data reduces opposition and creates openness to change.
During the action planning stage of an OD intervention in a large public Ltd Company, the consultant was facing staff resistance regarding the need for a change in the upward communication process.
“There is no need for any change. We are getting all the suggestions or grievances”” was the quote.
It was only when the quantitative data, regarding the ineffectiveness of upward communication was highlighted that the resistance to a “Communication Process change” declined.
The diagnostic data by itself acts as “feedback” to the organization and its key personnel. Even, if no planned change is initiated, self organizing change tends to set in.
This is highlighted by the experience of a consultant who had done a diagnostic exercise. A key competency gap among senior management functionaries emerged in the data. The impact of this data was that suddenly all senior management members had queries about the competency and the search behavior which is associated with exploration was evident.
Thus, it is not surprising that HR professionals also want to be OD practitioners.
OD in name and not in deed
Riding the OD Horse: Easier said than done
Organization development is an exciting field from the perspective of the brand that it carries. When, you hear or utter the term, “O.D”, ears pick up and fellow professionals look at you with new respect in their eyes.
The few initiatives that have been taken have either resulted in failure or minimal success. The amount of effort required to make OD initiatives successful has not been realized. Everybody wants to eat the cake but nobody wants to put in the effort to make it sweet and value adding.
Triggering any change is easier said than done. The entire system rebels against new initiatives. Most of the time, it is not even rebellion, it is plain inertia. Newton’s law of motion is applicable even in the context of Organization change, “Everything continues in its state of rest or motion until some force acts on it.”
For organizational change, enormous force and persistence in application is required.
Let’s examine the experience of an OD initiative which resulted in minimal success..
A leading software organization wanted to surface and address organizational issues. A questionnaire was prepared for the purpose. It consisted of statements which utilized the Likert scale(strongly agree to strongly disagree) & open ended questions related to organization strength, weaknesses and issues that needed to be addressed.
The questionnaire was filled up quite enthusiastically by everybody. The analysis was done and the conclusions were presented to the entire group on an LCD screen.
Then the problems began………
Small groups of personnel stated, “we do not agree with those findings”.
Another group said, “The statements in the questionnaire were unclear”. This threw up doubts regarding the efficacy and validity of the questionnaire.
The OD exercise would have ended right there, had it not been for the data in the open ended questions.
The validity of the responses to the open ended questions, could not be doubted because the responses were consolidated without any changes.
The issues that needed to be addresses and the opportunities for improvement were given to the groups to address. Each group presented its solution to the organization issues taken up.
The organization leader gave his feedback to the solutions presented and selected the ones to be implemented.
Everybody was very happy that organization issues had finally surfaced and were being addressed.
The implementation was not worked out in detail and the responsibilities were not fixed.
The result was that the entire effort got wasted except for some perception expansion of organizational personnel, which may have impacted their day to day managerial actions.
In fact, the intervention could have had an opposite impact to the one intended. Rather than solving organization problems, it could have triggered an additional problem of a negative mindset against OD interventions in the organization.
What do we learn from this experience?
If an organization wants to do an OD intervention, it needs to be mentally ready to put in an enormous amount of energy. An OD intervention should not be considered to be a one shot, quit fix activity.
A fundamental understanding of OD and what it entails among the organization personnel is fundamental to its success. A lock- in into the training paradigm is a sure recipe for failure. Utilizing the training mindset for an OD intervention will not work. The OD intervention does not end after the analysis has been done .That is where it starts. However in most cases the training program ends after the class-room experience. Therefore the entire focus as well as the quantum of effort required is fundamentally different in an OD intervention as compared to a training program.
The implementation plan without a responsibility matrix will never take off.
Subsequently, what happens is that nobody wants to discuss whether anything was implemented. When implementation comes up for discussions, everyone is little embarrassed and somehow the implementation plan gets pushed off the agenda. This is because everyone subconsciously realizes that the effort required is huge.
Thus, it slowly shifts to the bottom of the pile of files. Thus, after a couple years, a brave soul opens the file. By that time, the team leader has changed and the brave soul is told, “This is outdated data, it can not be used anymore”.
The OD intervention disappears without a whimper “What is the use of going through all that effort, if this is going to be the outcome?”
Even if implementation occurs, it requires regular follow up and reviews. The OD intervention needs to be undertaken as a project. Thus, everything that is entailed in project planning and execution needs to be an integral part of the OD intervention.
Another key learning from this experience is the danger of using internationally accepted research scales such as the Likert scale in the diagnosing instrument. These scales may be considered valid in organizational and action research circles but to those personnel, who are not exposed to these instruments, they may not be perceived as reliable.
It is prudent to use open ended questions, along with scales which are especially designed for the type of questions asked and the type of industry in which the organization is functioning. The acceptability of such diagnostic instruments is decidedly more. Academic validity does not ensure practical acceptance.
Taking into consideration, the enthusiastic involvement of all organization personnel in the exercise, it is heartening to note the inherent power in the approach and the field. There is potential here, which can be perceived and felt. However, poor application and a lack of a clear understanding of what it entails and achieves, is resulting in the effort put in by a lot of personnel going down the drain.
The charm and challenge of OD is in the agenda of dealing with live rather than fictitious data. It however is a double edged sword. While, OD successes will shine like a star on the shoulders of OD practitioners, failures will make an OD practitioner bleed because of their high visibility level.
Thus, OD is not for the faint hearted HR practitioner. It is for the dedicated, the persistent and the believer.
From India, Nasik
I just got to this site through a Google seach and I immediately registered.
Why? I am doing a Postgraduate Diploma Programme in OD and just finished my first practice assignment.
Imagine my horror when despite all the evidence, the CEO of the organisation repudiated my findings. I have never been that upset before.
Thank you for the post.It has made me understand the the challenges of OD.
I shall recommend this site to my classmates at the University of Cape Coast, Ghana.
From Ghana, Accra
Why? I am doing a Postgraduate Diploma Programme in OD and just finished my first practice assignment.
Imagine my horror when despite all the evidence, the CEO of the organisation repudiated my findings. I have never been that upset before.
Thank you for the post.It has made me understand the the challenges of OD.
I shall recommend this site to my classmates at the University of Cape Coast, Ghana.
From Ghana, Accra
@ Shyamali,
Your post was really helpful. Thank you.
I am doing my Masters in Management Studies in HR. I came across this post when looking for data for an assignment on "Challenges and Barriers to OD"
From India, Mumbai
Your post was really helpful. Thank you.
I am doing my Masters in Management Studies in HR. I came across this post when looking for data for an assignment on "Challenges and Barriers to OD"
From India, Mumbai
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Introduction to OD.doc
The Challenge of hiring and retaining women - An interview with Head HR eBay.08.pdf