Article Review: Organizational Development and Change By Claude Faucheux, Gilles Amado & Andre Laurent

Article Review: Organizational Development and Change By Claude Faucheux, Gilles Amado & Andre Laurent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The authors of this review, Claude Faucheux, Gilles Amado and Andre Laurent discuss and compare organizational development (OD) and quality of working life (QWL). Later on they extend the discussion to the cultural foundations of OD and QWL. Last but not least, they look at a variety of developments specific to the Latin countries before attempting to broaden the perspective.
The authors cite the work of Friedlander & Brown (1974) to show how the sociotechnical approaches have been somewhat foreign to OD practice though they were nonetheless perceived as working toward similar goals. They also cite Kahn (1974) who welcomed the job design, the division of labor as a facet that will not only strengthen the practice of OD but it will also bring research. According to them, this occurrence will only bring about the long-awaited convergence. They cite Burke (1977) to reinforce their doubts as to whether QWL is the same as organizational development (OD).
Grappling with what the role of OD is going to be, the authors refer to Burke (1980a) who sees that the emerging role of the OD consultant will be to either fine tune and tinker with the system, or quit the system altogether, or attempt to fundamentally change the system itself. They reiterate the suggestion by Burke that OD consultants should also attempt to change bureaucracies in some fundamental ways.
The authors believe that collaboration between British and Scandinavian researchers led to the development of the Quality of Work Life (QWL) movement. They see that although their work was closely linked to action research or even a version of action research in reality it is more concerned with the democratization of the workplace.
Looking at planned change in the Anglo-Saxon countries, the authors single out Lewin’s conceptualization of ecological psychology as an early recognition of the open system nature of persons and groups within the social field. They cite (Katz & Kahn 1978) to argue that this formulation was attractive to the researchers of the Tavistock Institute who had gone a long way in this direction, whereas that same orientation in the US was retained by only a few. According to the authors, the Tavistock approach was not only deeper with its psychoanalytic framework, was also broader in the sense that they preserved a sociological and anthropological interest which made them sensitive to the cultural contexts in which groups and organizations found themselves. Still on this same issue, the authors are categorical in pointing out that the US government was very influential in the development of a concern for the QWL.
On the question of research on OD, the authors point at useful considerations about research methodology, stressing the distinction between implementation research and theory building research. They laud the concrete recommendations provided by an empirical study of OD in a large system (Porras & Wilkins 1980), yielding unexpected findings contradictory to the generally accepted OD theory and practice.
Moving on to the question of research on QWL, the authors note the fact that while research on OD seems to be largely critical, research on QWL projects seems to be gathering momentum (Taylor 1977, 1978). They explain that even though some sobering observations have been made by Walton (1977) at Topeka, a positive and pragmatic overall view of the work improvements over the last 10 years has been observed (Walton 1979).
On the issue of culture, the authors are of the opinion that different approaches to organizational change seem to have emerged in different cultural contexts but they should not come as a surprise since the very same cultural blindness, ethnocentrism, and claim for universality that has plagued the field of management and organization theory (Hofstede 1980) may have plagued also the field of planned organizational change.
On the question of organizational change in Latin American countries, the authors found power to be the key factor around which all major research work revolves. This fact led to the questioning of the very fundamental assumptions of OD. These include its cultural origin, presuppositions about development, organization, adaptation and change, its epistemological basis consequently, but also its methods and aims.
On the vital question of psychological intervention, the authors see that in opposition to American functionalism, to its trust in the self-regulating exchanges of a liberal economy and to its humanistic psychology, the gap had been widening and several basic assumptions of OD were exposed and seriously questioned, if not entirely rejected (Dubost & Levy, in Mendel & Beillerot 1980). The authors also proceed and say that in the institutional approach, the institution is put “in negation” according to the expression of Basaglia (1967). The institution then invades the universe of pedagogy and is espoused by pyschosociologists critical of the school of Human Relations. They also see that the goal of sociopsychoanalysis is not far from that of institutional analysis but borrows a somewhat different methodology and theory which may explain its greater success. They proceed to explain that psychoanalysis has considerably influenced research about organizations within Latin countries, France and Italy above all. In addition to this, they believe that in the US, the psychoanalytic approach is predominantly normative. On the other hand, they observe that in England, the influence of psychoanalysts from psychiatric nosography has helped researchers of the Tavistock Institute to look at the organization differently. Instead of considering it merely as a setting for self-actualization, they deal with it as a defense structure against archaic anxieties.
The authors are very pointed when it comes to design in which organizational change happens in Latin America. They stress that organization is not the primary place for social change as it is for instance in the US and also to some extent in Northern Europe. They explain that Latin social scientists favor the institutional dimension because it is there that society pervades organizations. Consequently, change is more likely to be looked for at the societal level.
In concluding, the authors assert that the innovativeness of Japanese organizations has to be understood at least as much in the context of Japanese society as in the context of industrial technology. They see Japan as the only non-Western industrialized nation that is able to compete successfully in the liberal economy game. One explanation for this occurrence is the fact that American experts have adequately transmitted statistical techniques of quality control to Japan. The authors also admit that the field of planned change, which has been commensurate with OD in the US for nearly 20 years, is now undergoing a very significant transformation. Thus is may not be an exaggeration to see in the societal system approach a new paradigm, and in QWL a significant social movement. They stress that more research of a new kind is needed before a more substantial knowledge about social change becomes available.
Central terms and their authors:
Quality of Working Life: A term that had been used to describe the broader job-related experience an individual has. Hackman and Oldham (1976)(5) brought attention to what they referred to as psychological growth needs as relevant to the consideration of Quality of working life. A number of such needs were identified; Skill variety, Task Identity, Task significance, Autonomy and Feedback. In their view, such needs have to be addressed if employees are to experience high quality of working life. On the other hand, Taylor (1979)(6) more logically identified the essential workings of Quality of working life as; basic extrinsic job factors of wages, hours and working conditions, and the intrinsic job notions of the nature of the work itself. He suggested that a number of other aspects could be added, including; individual power, employee participation in the management, fairness and equity, social support, use of one’s present skills, self development, a meaningful future at work, social relevance of the work or product, effect on extra work activities. Taylor suggested that applicable Quality of working life concepts may vary according to organization and employee group.
Socio-technical systems: Is an approach to multifaceted organizational work design that recognizes the interface between people and technology in workplaces. The term also refers to the relations between society's complex infrastructures and human behavior. In this sense, society itself, and most of its substructures, are complex sociotechnical systems. The term sociotechnical systems were coined in the 1960s by Eric Trist and Fred Emery, who were working as consultants at the Tavistock Institute in London.
Parsimonious: Parsimony is the use of the simplest or most frugal route of explanation available. The word derives from Middle English parcimony, from Latin parsimonia, from parsus, past participle of parcere: to spare. It is a general principle that has applications from science to philosophy and all related fields. (Wikipedia).
Single-loop type organizational change: Distinguished between single-loop and double-loop learning, related to Gregory Bateson’s concepts of first and second order learning- Wikipedia