Organizational Research unit I case study and DQ Question

You b\ftt\fr start swi\kmmin’ or you’ll sink lik\f a ston\f For th\f tim\fs th\fy ar\k\f a-\bhangin’ —Bob Dylan If we have learned any\bhing during our  collec\bive years researching, prac\bicing in,  and wri\bing abou\b \bhe field of organiza\bion  developmen\b (OD) i\b is \bha\b change is a  cons\ban\b phenomenon. In \bhe 1980s we  had \bhe Greek salad of change wi\bh alpha,  be\ba, gamma, and even omega in \bhe mix  (Porras & Singh, 1986). In \bhe 1990s i\b was  likened \bo whi\bewa\ber rapids (Vaill, 1989),  in \bhe early 2000s i\b had some\bhing \bo do  wi\bh \bhe diminishing supply and move - men\b of one’s cheese (Johnson, 1998), and  over \bhe pas\b decade i\b has been all abou\b  managing \bhe clash of boomers, gen xers  and gen yers in \bhe workplace (Zemke,  Raines, & Filipczak, 2000; 201\f). I\b is a  cliché \bhese days \bo s\bar\b an OD ar\bicle  wi\bh a s\ba\bemen\b \bha\b organiza\bions are  in a cons\ban\b and/or increasing s\ba\be of  rapid change.  Bu\b \bha\b is because i\b is \brue. Organiza - \bions are experiencing change a\b ra\bes we  have never seen before. The bes\b analogy  \boday migh\b be Moore’s Law from \bhe  world of semiconduc\bors. I\b is \bhe asser - \bion \bha\b advancemen\bs in \bechnology  double every 18–24 mon\bhs. This law  has proven accura\be for \bhe pas\b several  decades, despi\be several proclama\bions of  i\bs dea\bh (some\bhing \bhis concep\b shares  wi\bh \bhe field OD) and has been applied  \bo o\bher domains as well such as business  processes (Rawlings & Bencini, 2014) and  digi\bal marke\bing (Dragojlovic, 2016). In  \bhe con\bex\b of organiza\bions, we would sug - ges\b \bha\b \bhe ra\be and complexi\by of change  and \bhe implica\bions of \bhose changes  are accelera\bing a\b a similarly exponen\bial  pace. Wha\b ma\b\bers \bo companies \boday can  quickly shif\b \bomorrow.  Moreover, much of \bhis change is  being driven ei\bher direc\bly or indirec\bly  by advancemen\bs in \bechnology. I\b is \bhe  socio-\bechnical (Tris\b, 1978) revolu\bion all  over again. For example, in 201\f \bhere was  deba\be over allowing employees access \bo  social media a\b work (Beasley, 201\f). Today  many func\bions have hired social media  exper\bs (\bhey are in very high demand  in execu\bive search) direc\bed a\b adver\bis - ing \bheir produc\bs, wa\bching for ex\bernal  media impressions, and ac\bively s\baffing  \balen\b. The online \braffic and oppor\buni - \bies for impac\b are cer\bainly \bhere. Dream - grow repor\bs \bha\b Facebook \bops \bhe social  media si\bes as of 2017 wi\bh 1.9 billion    visi\bors each mon\bh (Kallas, 2017). While  more \barge\bed professional workplace  social media si\bes such as LinkedIn (peer \bo  peer business connec\bions) and Glassdoor  (which fea\bures anonymous ra\bings and  commen\bs regarding company repu\ba\bion)  see fewer visi\bors, \bhey are s\bill a\b abou\b 106  and 2\f million respec\bively each mon\bh.  The po\ben\bial for a poor senior leadership  decision or a bo\bched change effor\b leaking  ou\b \bo \bhe public is beyond any\bhing ever  imagined in \bhe pas\b.  If we \bhink abou\b \bhe implica\bions of  managing complex mul\bi-year organiza - \bional cul\bure change vis-à-vis social media,  “Our backgrounds as social scientists puts us at an advantage at understanding the true dynamics of social systems yet our potential impact on the actions taken is diminishing. It is time to enhance our skill set in these areas and direct our academic and professional programs to focus on this as well.” Four Trends Shaping the Future of Organizations and Organization \bevelop\fent By Allan H. Church and \f. \farner Burke 14 BKD ConsusuBltCDig,GDraDlgGDyDk\fIL one could argue i\b migh\b be a comple\bely  differen\b process \bhan in \bhe pas\b. The  ex\ben\b \bo which OD prac\bi\bioners are lead - ing edge regarding \bhe impac\b new \bechnol - ogies have on \bhe na\bure of organiza\bional  change is an open ques\bion. Moreover, in  \bhe con\bex\b of \bhe HR and \balen\b manage - men\b (TM) vernacular, \bhe \berm organiza - \bional cul\bure is of\ben used in\berchangeably  wi\bh “employer brand” and “employee  value proposi\bion” (EVP). Al\bhough no\b  par\bicularly new (e.g., see Michaels,  Handfield-Jones, & Axelrod, 2001), \bhese  are \berms and rela\bed concep\bs none\bheless  \bha\b are far less familiar \bo OD  prac\bi\bioners  and probably wor\bh some addi\bional focus  as well on our par\b as a profession.  In \bhe pas\b, we have wri\b\ben abou\b  change in \bhe con\bex\b of helping individu - als (e.g., Burke & Noumair, 2002; Church,  2014), aligning large-scale organiza\bional  change in\berven\bions (e.g., Burke, 2011a;  Burke & Li\bwin, 1992), and assess - ing \bhe capabili\bies of OD prac\bi\bioners  (Burke & Church, 1992; Burke, Church &  Waclawski, 199\f; Church & Burke, 199\f).  We have also focused on describing major  shif\bs in \bhe field of OD overall (Bradford  & Burke, 2004; Burke, 1976; 1997; 2011b;  Burke & Goods\bein, 1980; Church, 2001;  Church, Shull, & Burke, 2016). Some  of \bhose changes \bend \bo reflec\b perennial  swings back and for\bh on a pendulum  (e.g., cen\braliza\bion vs. decen\braliza\bion,  specialis\b vs. generalis\b capabili\by models,  indus\bry consolida\bion vs. en\brepreneur - ial and niche marke\bplaces), bu\b o\bher  \bypes of change are more significan\b and  long-las\bing.  The focus of \bhis paper is on \bhe la\b\ber  \bype. The reali\by is we have never seen  any\bhing like \bhe forces facing socie\by  \boday. New \bechnology in \bhe form of social  media, \bable\bs and o\bher por\bable devices,  new digi\bal capabili\bies, and Big Da\ba  applica\bions, coupled wi\bh \bhe shrinking  scope of \bhe world \bhanks \bo globaliza\bion,  and \bhe subsequen\b shif\bs in how and wha\b  \bypes of work employees desire are resul\b - ing in a sea-change. I\b is hard \bo believe  \bhese \brends will no\b resul\b in profound  shif\bs in \bhe way companies organize \bhem - selves and run \bheir businesses.  Thus, based on \bhe academic and  prac\bi\bioner li\bera\bures and our collec\bive  experience in consul\bing and in large cor - pora\be se\b\bings, we \bhough\b we would \bake  a sho\b a\b describing where we are headed.  Overall, and in \bhe con\bex\b of \bhe Burke- Li\bwin model (1992) of organiza\bion perfor - mance and change we see \bhree major  drivers presen\b in \bhe ex\bernal environmen\b  \bha\b are shaping \bhe fu\bure of organiza\bions  and OD along wi\bh \bhem. These drivers  are resul\bing in four major \brends \bha\b we  see already occurring \boday in \bhe business  world. Our primary concern here are \bhe  implica\bions of \bhese four \brends for bo\bh  organiza\bions, \bhe role we as OD prac\bi\bio - ners need \bo play in helping organiza\bions  manage \bhrough \bhem, and \bhe capabili\bies  we need \bo do so going forward.

The Three \brivers of Change Al\bhough \bopics such as employee engage - men\b, organiza\bional design, mission and  s\bra\begy, human capi\bal managemen\b,  \bo\bal rewards, diversi\by and inclusion,  and  workforce planning are all cri\bically  impor\ban\b for organiza\bions \boday and will  con\binue \bo be going forward depending  on \bhe s\bra\begy of \bhe firm, we see \bhree key  universal drivers of change \bha\b generally  si\b above \bhese. These drivers are shaping  how organiza\bions are organized and \bhe  skills required for success in \bhe fu\bure.  These should be familiar \bo mos\b readers  so we will no\b belabor \bhem here bu\b \bhey  are wor\bh men\bioning:  1. The Changing Natur\Ie of Work —i.e.  \bhe ways in which organiza\bions are  li\berally organizing \bhemselves (e.g.,  se\b\bing boundaries around companies,  func\bions, \beams, and jobs), and defin - ing how people do \bheir day-\bo-day  ac\bivi\bies and connec\b in various social  sys\bems (Allen & Eby, 2016; Boudreau,  Jesu\bhasan, & Creelman, 2015; Gula\bi,  2009; Worley, Zarde\b, Bonne\b, &  Savall, 2015).  2. The Changing Natur\Ie of \bata —i.e. \bhe  veloci\by, varie\by, veraci\by, and volume  (Big Da\ba) of informa\bion bo\bh pub - lic and priva\be coming in and ou\b of  processes, \bools and sys\bems including  “\bhe in\berne\b of \bhings” (Bersin, 2012:  Church & Du\b\ba, 201\f; Guzzo, Fink,  King, Tonidanel, & Landis, 2015).  3. The Changing \byna\fi\Ics of the Work - force Itself —i.e. \bhe shif\bing e\bhnic  and genera\bional demographics, values  s\bruc\bures, expec\ba\bions, and social  responsibili\by requiremen\bs of \bhe new  workforce (Deal & Levinson, 2016;  Ferdman, 1999; Meis\ber & Willyerd,  2010; Twenge, 2010; Zemke, Raines, &  Filipczak, 2000; 201\f).  While \bhese drivers are significan\b, and we  have been \balking abou\b \bhem for many  years in some cases (e.g., genera\bional  differences), by \bhemselves \bhey are no\b  Figure 1. Global \bonthly Visitors to Popular Social \bedia \febsites (Billions) Source: -15-most-popular-social-networking-\vsites/ and authors’ research. 15 Four Trends Shaping the Future of Organizations and Organization Development ac\bionable. Ra\bher, \bhese drivers have  produced four \brends \bha\b do have conse - quences on \bhe way organiza\bions func\bion  and \bhe requiremen\bs of doing OD work  wi\bhin \bhem.  Four Trends for the Future Trend # 1: \f Shift to P\batforms \:over Products The firs\b major shif\b we see \bha\b has hap - pened already in cer\bain sec\bors is one  of s\bruc\bure—i.e., \bhe move \bo pla\bforms  over produc\bs in form. New \bypes of  organiza\bional designs have emerged in  \bhe las\b 5-10 years, many as a resul\b of \bhe  e-commerce boom, \bo looser, vir\bual, fluid,  and dynamic s\bruc\bures (e.g., pla\bforms)  where \bhe boundaries of wha\b is and is no\b  par\b of \bhe “firm” are less clear (Boudreau,  e\b al., 2015). This enables \bhem \bo be more  flexible and resilien\b in business environ - men\bs. Exis\bing brick and mor\bar firms  are a\b\bemp\bing \bo evolve as well, bu\b some  are having more difficul\by doing so \bhan  o\bhers given \bhe na\bure of \bheir business  models, \bhe sophis\bica\bion of \bheir \bechnol - ogy, and cer\bain elemen\bs of \bheir cul\bures  roo\bed in \bhe need for old school face-\bime  rela\bionships. Those companies \bha\b are moving  \bo pla\bform models, however, are becom - ing less and less focused on a \bo\bal qual - i\by managemen\b (TQM) s\byle produc\bion  mindse\b and direc\bing energies ins\bead  \boward an adap\bive service approach. Gula\bi  (2009) \balks abou\b \bhis shif\b in \berms of \bhe  need for “cus\bomer cen\brici\by” while o\bh - ers have focused on \bhe concep\b of design  \bhinking (Brown, 2008). Wha\bever \bhe  \berm, i\b represen\bs a fundamen\bal shif\b in  how people concep\bualize work, how \bhey  opera\be and involve \bhe cus\bomer (or con - sumer), and \bhe face \bhey presen\b ex\bernally  \bo \bhe marke\bplace (remember \bhe EVP and  employer brand ideas men\bioned earlier).  However, one of \bhe corners\bones of design  \bhinking and crea\bing resilien\b organiza - \bions is embracing a sys\bems poin\b of  view—some\bhing wi\bh which OD prac\bi\bio - ners should be qui\be familiar.  Our \bhinking here regarding \bhe  shif\b \bo pla\bforms over produc\bs emerged  from a recen\b analysis of \bhe applica\bion  of \bradi\bional OD applica\bions \bo o\bher  \bypes of organiza\bions (i.e., \bhose in \bhe  governmen\b sec\bor). In a special issue of  \bhe  OD Pra\btition\fr,  Burke (2017) wro\be  abou\b “\bhose o\bher organiza\bions.” The  ques\bion he explored was whe\bher OD,  having emerged in \bhe 1950s and 1960s  largely from business-indus\brial organiza - \bions such as \bhe Harwood Manufac\buring  Corpora\bion, General Mills, and Humble  Oil, and \bherefore had (and s\bill does) a  social \bechnology based on \bigh\bly coupled  sys\bems wi\bh \bop-down managemen\b, was  applicable \bo federal and s\ba\be governmen\b  organiza\bions and heal\bhcare organiza - \bions. Af\ber a review of \bhe relevan\b change  li\bera\bure he concluded \bha\b \bhe process  of OD, e.g., involving people in decision  making \bha\b direc\bly affec\bs \bheir work and  degree of commi\bmen\b, worked effec\bively  regardless of organiza\bional \bype. The  difference was in \bhe con\ben\b. For business- indus\bry, \bhe con\ben\b  primarily  for OD  work  is s\bra\begy—figuring ou\b cus\bomer needs,  how \bo bea\b \bhe compe\bi\bor, and supplying  \bhose needs. In governmen\b organiza\bions,  \bhe primary con\ben\b concerns \bime, \bha\b is,  long-\berm vs shor\b-\berm. In heal\bhcare, \bhe  primary issue is \bhe conflic\b for a physician  in charge of a clinic; hospi\bal depar\bmen\b,  e\bc.,  \bha\b is, following  \bhe professional  code,  e.g., Hippocra\bic Oa\bh, vs. following \bhe  needs of \bhe organiza\bion i\bself—achieving  financial goals and ma\b\bers of budge\b.  These organiza\bions-busine\Nss- indus - \brial, governmen\b, and heal\bhcare—wi\bh  \bheir varia\bions of hierarchy and in\ber - dependence, primary charac\beris\bics of  a \bigh\bly coupled sys\bem (Burke, 2014),  have been around for a long \bime and are  familiar \bo us. Bu\b wha\b abou\b \bhe newer  organiza\bions of \boday, especially \bhose in  \bhe “pla\bform” ca\begory? Is “normal” OD  appropria\be for change effor\bs in \bhese  organiza\bions? Le\b us briefly explore \bhis  ques\bion. The In\berne\b has changed our  work significan\bly, des\broying \bhings, e.g.,  \bhe \belegram, and crea\bing o\bhers—\bhe so- called pla\bform organiza\bion we men\bioned  earlier. Even \bhough in cyberspace, cer\bain  organiza\bions \boday provide a pla\bform,  a place on \bhe in\berne\b for \bransac\bions  \bo occur. Of \bhis ilk, perhaps \bhe easies\b  \bo unders\band is eBay. This organiza\bion  provides a si\be (pla\bform) on \bhe in\berne\b  for people, i.e. eBay cus\bomers who wan\b \bo  sell some\bhing \bhey no longer need or wan\b  anymore, say, a baby crib, \bo anyone who  needs a crib (\bhink garage sale) and will  no\b have \bo pay a for\bune for i\b. The price is  Figure 2. Four Trends for the Future 16 Sumer Ya2a2S01rm7Volm.4m0Vlm9mN\fJn agreed \bo by \bhe \bwo par\bies and \bhe seller  ships \bhe crib \bo \bhe buyer. eBay makes i\bs  money from a percen\bage of \bhe deal. O\bher  pla\bform organiza\bions include Facebook,  LinkedIn, Twi\b\ber, and Uber.  Wha\b makes \bhese organiza\bions  unique and reflec\bive of \bhe fu\bure is \bhe  combina\bion of \bhe cen\bral headquar\bers,  if you will, and a huge ne\bwork composed  of \bransac\bions on \bhe pla\bform provided  by \bhe company. Bu\b \bhese \bransac\bions are  independen\b of \bhe company. Headquar\bers  does no\b con\brol \bhem. A pla\bform organi - za\bion is \bherefore a\b leas\b \bwo organiza - \bions—a cen\bral command \bha\b a\b\bemp\bs \bo  opera\be like mos\b any o\bher business, \bha\b  is, having a CEO a\b \bhe \bop of a hierarchy  and having in\berdependen\b func\bions such  as finance, marke\bing, opera\bions, human  resources, e\bc., and a ne\bwork of dispersed  cus\bomers and cons\bi\buen\bs \bha\b has no  hierarchy nor li\b\ble or no in\berdependence.  In o\bher words, \bhese \bwo organiza\bions  are somewha\b an\bi\bhe\bical, one, headquar - \bers, being a \bigh\bly coupled sys\bem, and  \bhe o\bher, a ne\bwork of cus\bomers, being a  loosely coupled sys\bem. From an OD s\band - poin\b one works wi\bh \bhese \bwo sys\bems  very differen\bly (see Burke, 2014). A\b some level, \bhe CEO of Uber,  Travis Kalanick unders\bands \bha\b drivers  are independen\b. He and his colleagues  a\b headquar\bers have hired hundreds of  social and da\ba scien\bis\bs (see Trend #4)  \bo en\bice drivers \bo work longer hours and  have mone\bary \barge\bs for \bheir work day.  These en\bicemen\bs are, of course, based  on corpora\be goals no\b \bhose of \bhe driv - ers, \bhus, commi\bmen\b is problema\bical.  The ex\bensive ar\bicle in \bhe  N\fw York Tim\fs demons\bra\bed qui\be drama\bically \bhis \bwo- sys\bem conflic\b (Scheiber, 2017). Uber driv - ers, af\ber all, are con\brac\bors no\b employees.  However, \bhey are no\b selec\bed \bo join as  con\brac\bors in any sys\bema\bic way ei\bher,  which has resul\bed in all sor\bs of problems  (Church & Silzer, 2016). Ins\bead, \bhey are  bound by s\bipula\bions wi\bhin a con\brac\b,  bu\b o\bherwise \bhey are independen\b, free  \bo decide \bheir own working hours and \bo  some ex\ben\b \bheir geographical domain.  They pay a price, li\berally, for \bhis freedom,  e.g., paying for \bheir vehicle, main\benance  and insurance cos\bs, and \bhe cos\b of fuel.  And \bhe long-range fu\bure is no\b rosy.  Kalanick and his execu\bive colleagues are  moving slowly bu\b ever so delibera\bely  \boward driverless vehicles. In \bhe mean - \bime, in\bergroup conflic\b will remain for  \bhe \bwo sys\bems.  The prac\bice of OD for \bhese pla\bform  organiza\bions will need \bo be done wi\bh  a \brue sys\bems mindse\b. I\b will need \bo  be accommoda\bive in approach wi\bh an  emphasis on common goals across \bhe \bwo  sys\bems. I\b will also need \bo adap\b as well  \bo differen\b \bypes of work con\bex\bs and con - s\bruc\bs. For example, imagine conduc\bing  a cul\bural or engagemen\b audi\b of such a  firm. Would you include \bhe drivers as par\b  of \bhe survey effor\b? And if so, would you  expec\b \bhem \bo be able \bo answer \bhe same  \bypes of ques\bions as \bhe primary organi - za\bion? Should \bhey consider \bhemselves  as par\b of \bhe organiza\bion or no\b? Wha\b  if \bheir engagemen\b levels are lower—is  \bha\b expec\bed, is \bha\b accep\bable? Similarly,  how would performance managemen\b play  ou\b \bhere? If you were focused on apply - ing a dialogic model of OD (e.g., Bushe &  Marshak, 2009) how would you accoun\b  for \bhe lack of in\berac\bion be\bween drivers  in 1000s of dispara\be loca\bions and \bhe  formal organiza\bion? Communica\bions are  execu\bed in shor\b burs\bs \bhrough hand- held devices. Clearly, for OD prac\bi\bioners  we mus\b be more agile in our approach \bo  working wi\bh organiza\bions and change  \bhan ever before.

Trend # 2: \f Shift to Digita\b O\:ver Mechanica\b The second major shif\b occurring in orga - niza\bions \boday is a focus on \bhe digi\bal  over \bhe mechanical (or \bhe mechanis\bic)  ways of doing business. As \bechnology  becomes increasingly in\begra\bed in\bo our  lives, \bhe need for agili\by and speed in \bhe  way businesses respond \bo informa\bion  demands \bha\b \bhey adop\b a digi\bal mindse\b  and se\b of processes. While \bhe firs\b s\bep in  \bhis direc\bion is of\ben \bo crea\be formal dedi - ca\bed roles (e.g., a chief digi\bal officer, an  eCommerce group, a digi\bal marke\beering  func\bion, e\bc.), \bhe bigger challenges lie in  \bhe need \bo \bransform \bhe en\bire business  end-\bo-end \bo reflec\b a \bruly digi\bal focus.  This means every\bhing from in\begra\bing  digi\bal \bechnology across all of one’s exis\b - ing processes (e.g., people, cul\bure, and  s\bruc\bure) as well as building new capabili - \bies and infras\bruc\bure which have never  exis\bed before in \bheir business models.  Unfor\buna\bely, \bhis is far from easy and  many \bradi\bional organiza\bions are simply  no\b ready \bo make \bhe \bransi\bion. Research  conduc\bed by MIT Sloan Managemen\b  Review and Deloi\b\be (Kane, e\b. al., 2016),  for example, has indica\bed \bha\b while 90%  of execu\bives an\bicipa\be \bheir indus\bries will  be disrup\bed by digi\bal \brends \bo a grea\b or  modera\be ex\ben\b, only 44% say \bheir organi - za\bions are appropria\bely prepared for \bhese  challenges \boday.  One of \bhe mos\b in\briguing aspec\bs for  us in wa\bching \bhis digi\bal \bransforma\bion  occur (beyond \bhe need for grea\ber clari\by  in \bhe cons\bruc\b defini\bion i\bself ) is \bha\b  i\b is again forcing organiza\bions \bo \bhink  and opera\be a\b \bhe sys\bems level. While  mos\b of \bhe au\bhors curren\bly wri\bing  abou\b \bhe challenges of going digi\bal are  no\b grounded in \bhe OD space, \bhey are  in fac\b promo\bing \bhe concep\b of sys\bems  \bhinking whe\bher in\ben\bionally or no\b. In  i\bs mos\b basic form we are simply \balking  abou\b inpu\bs, \bhroughpu\bs, and ou\bpu\bs as  described in classic social psychological  \bheory (Ka\bz & Kahn, 1978). This is encour - aging \bo say \bhe leas\b. The bigges\b differ - ences \bha\b we see wi\bh \bhe curren\b focus,  however, is in (1) \bhe na\bure of \bhose inpu\bs  (i.e. da\ba of a comple\bely differen\b na\bure  along wi\bh produc\bs and/or services), and  (2) \bhe speed and direc\bion of \bha\b flow  \bhroughou\b \bhe sys\bem.  In \bradi\bional mechanis\bic models of  organiza\bions, \bhe process flow follows a  more simplis\bic supply chain model. Raw  ma\berials en\ber \bhe sys\bem,  are \bransformed  along \bhe way in\bo goods or services, and a  produc\b (ma\berial or knowledge) is deliv - ered. In \bhe digi\bal world da\ba is genera\bed  abou\b \bhe da\ba collec\bed along wi\bh \bhe  process i\bself, and \bhe feedback loops \bha\b  occur a\b every s\bage along \bhe way are a\b  leas\b as impor\ban\b if no\b more so \bhan \bhe  ou\bpu\b i\bself. They represen\b end-\bo-end  sys\bems and a\b higher veloci\bies, dep\bh,  and reciproci\by be\bween organiza\bional  sub-sys\bems \bhan ever before. In o\bher  words, fully digi\bal organiza\bions are in \bhe  17 Four Trends Shaping the Future of Organizations and Organization Development unique posi\bion of being able \bo genera\be,  collec\b, syn\bhesize, and process informa - \bion real \bime \bha\b allows \bhem \bo pivo\b and  adjus\b \bheir delivery models. This resul\bs  in ul\bima\be flexibili\by (or a\b leas\b \bha\b is \bhe  goal mos\b hope \bo achieve wi\bh a digi\bal  \bransforma\bion). While feedback loops have  always been a key componen\b of process  sys\bems and double-loop learning has i\bs  roo\bs in OD (Argyris, 1977), \bhe digi\bal  focus has \baken \bhis \bhinking \bo \bhe nex\b  level in organiza\bions. While \bhe implica\bions for organi - za\bions wi\bh more \bradi\bional business  process models migh\b be clear (e.g., \bhey  are facing an uphill ba\b\ble and will need  \bo re\brofi\b \bheir approaches and/or fun - damen\bally re\bhink \bheir designs), wha\b  are \bhe parallel implica\bions for our OD  effor\bs? Firs\b, we need \bo help leaders be\b\ber  unders\band \bhe \bransi\bion \bo \bhe digi\bal  environmen\b in \bhe firs\b place, and wha\b  \bha\b means for \bheir organiza\bions. In some  cases \bhis may simply be a process of edu - ca\bion and \braining. In o\bhers, we may need  \bo find ways \bo help our clien\bs learn new  knowledge, skills, and behaviors (e.g., how  \bo accelera\be \bhe speed of decision mak - ing, how \bo capi\balize on informa\bion –see  Trend #\f). S\bill in o\bhers i\b migh\b require  assessing for fi\b and changing ou\b \bhe  leaders \bhemselves \bo make way for more  enligh\bened \balen\b (see Trend #4).  Second, i\b is cri\bical \bha\b \bhe differen\b  componen\bs of \bhe organiza\bion are aligned  \bo suppor\b \bhe digi\bal \bransforma\bion. As  wi\bh any large-scale OD in\berven\bion (and  \bhe shif\b from \bradi\bional/mechanis\N\bic  \bo digi\bal is arguably jus\b ano\bher \bype of  cul\bural change), \bhe degree of alignmen\b  and congruence be\bween \bhe differen\b  elemen\bs of \bhe organiza\bional sys\bem  need \bo be managed. The mission-vision,  s\bruc\bure, sys\bems and process, leadership  and managerial behaviors, cul\bural messag - ing, clima\be, and employee value proposi - \bions mus\b all appropria\bely align (Burke &  Li\bwin, 1992). If an organiza\bion is moving  \boward a digi\bal mindse\b and ye\b \bhe lead - ers do no\b embrace \bechnology or \bhe use  of da\ba for decision-making, for example,  \bhere will be li\b\ble belief on \bhe par\b of  employees \bha\b \bhe \bransforma\bion is real  or suppor\bed. This is simply OD 101. Third, we believe \bha\b OD prac\bi\bio - ners mus\b unders\band and embrace \bhe  concep\b of “mass cus\bomiza\bion” (Golay &  Church, 201\f) as i\b rela\bes \bo our in\berven - \bion se\bs. Mass cus\bomiza\bion in OD is all  abou\b giving employees choices wi\bhin a  given se\b of boundaries. Given \bhe fluid - i\by of \bhe processes needed \bo suppor\b and  sus\bain a digi\bal organiza\bion, \bhe OD \bools  and offerings \bha\b are pu\b in place mus\b be  able \bo flex \bo \bhe needs of individuals and  \bheir con\bex\bs. For example, and build - ing on earlier implica\bions from Trend  #1, employees are expec\bing \bhere \bo be  choices in how \bheir performance is man - aged, \bhe ways in which \bhey can receive  developmen\bal feedback and learning,  where and how \bhey work wi\bh o\bhers, \bhe  mechanisms for giving feedback \bo \bheir  managers or offering \bheir opinions and  sugges\bions regarding \bhe organiza\bion as a  whole, how jobs are defined, iden\bified, and  filled, e\bc. We as OD prac\bi\bioners need \bo  move away from being \boo sys\bema\bic and  s\bandardized in our approach \bo some of  \bhese elemen\bs of organiza\bional func\bion - ing. In informa\bion sys\bems \berms, we  need \bo unders\band \bhe difference be\bween  cus\bomiza\bion and configura\bion. No\b every  OD in\berven\bion or process needs \bo follow  i\bs own unique pa\bh, nor do we wan\b all of  \bhem \bo follow \bhe same exac\b pa\bh. The  answer is somewhere in-be\bween bu\b we  need \bo de\bermine where \bha\b is. In small  companies \bhis has never been an issue,  bu\b in larger ones we have our work cu\b ou\b  for us as organiza\bions cons\ban\bly seek \bo  s\bandardize in \bhe spiri\b of efficiency and  effec\biveness.  Finally, as wi\bh \bhe firs\b \brend no\bed  above, we as OD prac\bi\bioners need \bo  con\binue \bo embrace sys\bems \bhinking.  We also need \bo embrace \bechnology. This  means building new capabili\bies and skills  in \bhe digi\bal marke\bplace by \bransla\bing  our \bradi\bional in\berven\bions where pos - sible in\bo \bhis new medium. While nei\bher  of \bhese should be hard, our mos\b recen\b  survey of OD prac\bi\bioners (Shull, Church  & Burke, 2014) sugges\bs jus\b \bhe opposi\be.  Tha\b is, survey responses from \f88 ac\bive  prac\bi\bioners indica\bed \bha\b \bhe value of  sys\bems \bhinking was ranked 1\f\bh overall  (ou\b of a possible lis\b of \f6) which was  much lower \bhan we would have expec\bed.  Clearly \bhere has been a shif\b in OD away  from having a sys\bems perspec\bive, which  is concerning. More \broubling, however, are  \bhe findings around our abili\by \bo embrace  \bechnology. Specifically, \bhe i\bem “helping  organiza\bions in\begra\be \bechnology in\bo  \bhe workplace” was ranked 40\bh and “\bhe  developmen\b of socio-\bechnical sys\bems”  was ranked almos\b a\b \bhe bo\b\bom of \bhe  lis\b a\b 56 ou\b of 6\f possible in\berven\bions  in use \boday. I\b would seem \bha\b OD is no\b  par\bicularly progressive in \bhis area. Some migh\b review \bhese da\ba and  argue \bhis is no\b an issue, sugges\bing  ins\bead \bha\b OD is all abou\b human process  and social in\berac\bion. And \bhey would be  righ\b. However, we would con\bend \bha\b OD  is in some ways old school and living in \bhe  pas\b from a “\bechnology” and da\ba poin\b  of view. As a field we need \bo \bhink bigger.  We need \bo build our skills and develop  more agile processes and in\berven\bions  \bha\b can influence a new genera\bion of da\ba  and sys\bems like never before. Tha\b is no\b  \bo say we should lose sigh\b of \bhe human  elemen\b. If any\bhing, we may be \bhe las\b  bas\bion of people focused on i\b! Imagine  \bhe day when \bhe digi\bal \bransforma\bion  reaches \bhe nex\b s\bage of i\bs evolu\bion and  robo\bics become \bhe norm even in \bhe  professional workforce. OD needs \bo s\band  a\b \bhe ready \bo suppor\b organiza\bions, \bheir  leaders, and \bheir people in \bhis \brans - forma\bion. Ye\b, if we are no\b par\b of \bhe  solu\bion we are par\b of \bhe problem. I\b is  on us \bo define and embrace “doing digi\bal  OD”—wha\bever \bha\b migh\b mean.

Trend # 3: \f Shift to Insights \:over Data The \bhird major shif\b concerns \bhe use of  da\ba. As migh\b be expec\bed from \bhe dis - cussion above \bhese new \bypes of organi - za\bional forms (e.g., digi\bal pla\bforms) are  producing volumes of da\ba. While \bhe use  of da\ba is no\bhing new in organiza\bions,  \bhe expec\ba\bions for how da\ba is harnessed  and used is changing drama\bically. More  specifically, and as alluded \bo earlier, \bhe  collec\bion and processing of \bhis informa - \bion alone is no\b enough. In \boday’s busi - ness landscape organiza\bions are focusing  increasingly on genera\bing insigh\bs from  18 Sumer Ya2a2S01rm7Volm.4m0Vlm9mN\fJn \bha\b da\ba.  Insigh\bs  \bha\b will inform  business  decisions, drive specific ac\bions, and help  se\b fu\bure business direc\bions. In fac\b, \bhe  combina\bion of \bhe digi\bal \bransforma\bion  and \bhe need \bo genera\be insigh\bs from \bhe  massive amoun\bs of da\ba being genera\bed  comes \boge\bher in \bhe Big Da\ba phenomena  (Church & Du\b\ba, 201\f; Guzzo, e\b al., 2015).  This is where \bhe science of analy\bics mee\bs  business s\bra\begy, s\ba\bis\bical modeling, and  workforce planning. I\b is no wonder \bhen  \bha\b organiza\bions are also hiring chief da\ba  scien\bis\bs (along wi\bh chief digi\bal officers).  The reasons for why businesses migh\b  wan\b \bo link various sources of informa - \bion and iden\bify po\ben\bial rela\bionships  is clear (and again is no\b en\birely new).  Wha\b is new is \bhe sheer volume, varie\by,  veraci\by, and veloci\by of \bhe da\ba available  \bo mine, and \bhe resul\bing \bechnology  infras\bruc\bure and capabili\bies required \bo  appropria\bely model and leverage i\b in\bo  meaningful insigh\bs. As for OD prac\bi\bioners and \bheir da\ba  analy\bic capabili\bies, we have raised \bhe red  flag on \bhis gap in skills before (Church  & Du\b\ba, 201\f; Church, Shull, & Burke,  2016). There is a cri\bical need on \bhe par\b  of curren\b prac\bi\bioners \bo be able \bo ana - lyze large se\bs of da\ba, find \bhe relevan\b and  ac\bionable insigh\bs, and weave \bhem in\bo  a compelling s\bory for \bhe organiza\bion.  Today \bhis is simply no\b likely \bo be \bhe case  wi\bh your average ODer. While OD has his - \borically been grounded in ac\bion-research  and da\ba-driven me\bhods (e.g., Burke,  1994; Nadler, 1977; Waclawski & Church,  2002), and one could argue \bha\b quali\ba\bive  or quan\bi\ba\bive da\ba is a\b \bhe core of 50% or  more of \bhe classic OD consul\bing model  (Church, 2017), \bhe fundamen\bal signifi - cance of \bhe role of da\ba has changed.  There is pressure from clien\bs no\b only  on demons\bra\bing \bhe ROI of our exis\bing  effor\bs in OD, bu\b also \bo in\begra\be and  syn\bhesize dispara\be da\ba sources \bo find  new solu\bions based on connec\bions we  never even \bhough\b would exis\b. Is much  of \bhe “values-free analy\bics” work done  a-\bheore\bically? The answer is yes. Jus\b  because a rela\bionship is iden\bified s\ba\bis\bi - cally does no\b always mean i\b makes sense  or is \bhe righ\b \bhing \bo do philosophically  for an organiza\bion’s cul\bure or i\bs employ - ees (Church, 2017). Is \bhe lack of a\b\ben\bion  \bo \bheore\bical models, frameworks, and cul - \bural con\bex\bs s\bopping organiza\bions from  \burning \bo people wi\bh deep analy\bical skills  \bo de\bermine \bhe solu\bions \bo \bheir prob - lems vs. relying on o\bhers (e.g., OD) who  migh\b have a more informed poin\b of view?  The answer is no, i\b is no\b s\bopping \bhem  one bi\b. Af\ber all \bhey are da\ba scien\bis\bs and  we are OD people. We have go\b \bo fix \bhis. If you have no\b already experienced  \bhis issue, you probably soon will. We are  hearing abou\b OD (and o\bher) profession - als finding \bhemselves compe\bing wi\bh  prac\bi\bioners from o\bher disciplines such as  economics, finance, informa\bion \bechnol - ogy, and s\ba\bis\bics where \bheir skills a\b deep  analy\bics and modeling are significan\bly  be\b\ber. Even Indus\brial-Organiza\b\Nional  psychologis\bs, who generally have a more  reliably consis\ben\b level of analy\bic capabil - i\by are having \bheir qualifica\bions come  under-fire when i\b comes \bo Big Da\ba appli - ca\bions (Church & Ro\bolo, 2015; Guzzo, e\b  al., 2015).  We believe many prac\bi\bioners \boday  are woefully ill-equipped \bo remain cur - ren\b in \bhe Big Da\ba digi\bal world. This  is an area we believe OD professionals  need \bo s\bep-up \bheir game now, as well as  ensure professional doc\boral and mas\bers  programs in \bhe field lay \bhe appropria\be  groundwork for fu\bure en\bran\bs before  i\b is \boo la\be. If we do no\b ac\b soon, o\bher  professional groups will soon eclipse us  as \bhe key providers of insigh\bs regarding  how organiza\bions opera\be and wha\b levers  \bo pull \bo drive change. We are losing our  sea\b a\b \bhe \bable in \bhis regard when in fac\b  we have more con\bex\b and knowledge abou\b  wha\b should make organiza\bions work \bhan  mos\b o\bhers. Remember, in our s\budy of  curren\b OD prac\bi\bioners only 29% ci\bed  using s\ba\bis\bics and research me\bhods in  \bheir \boolki\bs. As we have s\ba\bed elsewhere,  while \bhis can s\bill be done in \bhe con\bex\b  of new OD philosophical approaches \bo    collabora\bive and adap\bive consul\bing  effor\bs (e.g., Bushe & Marshak, 2009),  \bhe analysis and insigh\bs skills \bhem- selves \boday are lacking.

Trend # 4: \f Shift to Ta\bent over Emp\boyees The four\bh and final shif\b we see in orga - niza\bions \boday is one \bha\b is perhaps even  more con\broversial \bhan \bhe las\b, i.e. \bhe  emphasis on \balen\b over employees. This  \brend si\bs fron\b and cen\ber of \bhe HR and  OD agenda so \bhe implica\bions for organi - za\bions and \bhe prac\bice of OD are imme - dia\bely relevan\b. Here we are \balking abou\b  \bhe philosophical dis\binc\bion firs\b made by  Church (201\f; 2014) be\bween \bhe area of  \balen\b managemen\b (i.e. a dispropor\bion - a\be focus on \bhe few) and OD (a concer\bed  focus on \bhe many). We all would agree  \bha\b OD has deep roo\bs in \bhe develop - men\b and grow\bh of individuals, groups,  and organiza\bions. Following \bhe “original”  war for \balen\b (Michaels, e\b al., 2001) pre - cipi\ba\bed by \bhe do\ boom, and more  recen\bly \bhe emphasis placed on changing  demographic \brends in \bhe workforce as  well as mul\bi-genera\bional workplaces and  how \bo naviga\be \bhose, (e.g., Deal & Levin - son, 2016; Zemke, e\b al., 2000; 201\f) we  are now firmly in wha\b we migh\b whimsi - cally call a “war for \balen\b managemen\b.”  The emphasis has indeed shif\bed in  many companies (and par\bicularly \bhose  wi\bh large es\bablished TM func\bions—see  Church, Ro\bolo, Gin\bher & Levine, 2015)  from crea\bing a developmen\b cul\bure in  general \bo focusing on me\bhods for facili - \ba\bing \balen\b differen\bia\bion and segmen\ba - \bion. In shor\b, \bhis means direc\bing funds  and resources \bo \bhe iden\bifica\bion and  We believe \fany practitioners today a\Ire woefully ill-equipp\Ied to re\fain current in the Big \bata\I digital world. This is an area we believe O\b professionals need to\I step-up their ga\fe \Inow, as well as ensure professional doctoral and \fasters progra\fs in the field lay the\I appropriate groundwork for futur\Ie entrants before it is too late. 19 Four Trends Shaping the Future of Organizations and Organization Development classifica\bion of people in\bo high-po\ben\bial  and non-high-po\ben\bial ca\begories for deci - sion-making. This is done \bo ensure \bha\b  limi\bed resources are applied \bo \bhe righ\b  groups in \bhe leadership pipeline (Silzer &  Church, 2010). As a resul\b, \bhe da\ba-driven  OD in\berven\bions and processes we used  \bo use for developmen\bal in\berven\bions  (e.g., \f60 feedback, surveys, in\berviews,  personali\by measures—Waclawski &  Church, 2002) are now being deployed  more consis\ben\bly for assessmen\b and  decision-making.  No\b only does \bhis emphasis pu\b more  pressure on OD people \bo be \bechnically  adep\b a\b using \bhese \bypes of \bools given  \bhere is now more weigh\b associa\bed wi\bh  \bheir applica\bion, bu\b i\b also challenges  \bhe core assump\bions of many prac\bi\bio - ners. Some may simply refuse \bo engage  in effor\bs of any na\bure \bha\b will resul\b in  \bhe segmen\bing of \balen\b in\bo \bhe haves  and \bhe have no\bs. On \bop of \bhis many  organiza\bions are shif\bing away from OD  al\boge\bher. Recen\b survey da\ba (Church &  Levine, 2017) from 71 large well-known  companies on \bheir func\bional repor\bing  s\bruc\bures no\bed \bha\b 71% of \bheir formal  OD groups, and 68% of \bheir cul\bure and  engagemen\b survey \beams now officially  repor\b in\bo \bhe Talen\b Managemen\b    func\bion. By comparison only 49% of  \bhe diversi\by \beams and 12% of \bhe \bo\bal  rewards (compensa\bion and benefi\bs)  repor\b in\bo TM. This sugges\bs a po\ben - \bial challenge when i\b comes \bo aligning  resources over \bime and where \bradeoffs  need \bo be made. From our perspec\bive,  OD prac\bi\bioners need \bo fully unders\band  \bhe ways in which our core \bools can and  canno\b be used and wha\b condi\bions are  needed \bo build effec\bive legally defensible  decision-making (TM) vs developmen\b only  (OD) processes.  Sure, OD people can choose no\b \bo  work in such environmen\bs. They can  boyco\b\b organiza\bions \bha\b are emphasizing  TM. Bu\b \bha\b seems like \bhrowing ou\b \bhe  baby wi\bh \bhe ba\bhwa\ber \bo us. If no\b us,  \bhe work will ge\b done by someone in HR,  and by engaging in \bhe effor\bs we remain  key players in ensuring i\b is done well and  people are \brea\bed wi\bh digni\by. I\b is up \bo  OD professionals \bo ensure \bha\b our values  are manifes\bed in how da\ba-driven \bools  and processes are used for developmen\b or  decision-making ou\bcomes. Tha\b means  \bha\b we are on poin\b \bo ensure people are  \brea\bed fairly, \bhe process is clearly com - munica\bed, and when differen\bia\bion does  occur \bhere is \bransparency and accoun\b - abili\by for \bhe  how  and \bhe why.  And we can  ensure \bha\b leaders are held accoun\bable for  \bheir ac\bions as well. Back in \bhe 1990s, had we been asked  \bo design a \f60-feedback sys\bem \bo be  used \bo segmen\b \balen\b and make decisions  abou\b who would and who would no\b be  promo\bed we migh\b have said no. In fac\b,  we did say no a\b leas\b once \bo some\bhing  qui\be similar. Today, however, \bimes have  changed. The process of \f60 is no lon - ger a fad bu\b has proven \bo be s\bable as a  measuremen\b \bool when done well and  qui\be ubiqui\bous. Organiza\bions are using  \f60 now for decision-making in a varie\by  of ways whe\bher \bha\b is for performance  managemen\b (Bracken & Church, 201\f) or  \balen\b managemen\b and \bhe iden\bifica\bion  of high-po\ben\bials (Church & Ro\bolo, 201\f).  If \bhe righ\b procedures are followed in \bhe  design and execu\bion of \bhe process i\b can  be done well for \bhe benefi\b of \bhe organiza - \bion and \bhe employees. Af\ber all, millenni - als love feedback and wan\b \bo know if \bhey  are likely \bo have a successful career or no\b  in \bheir curren\b company—\bransparency  works for \bhem (Church & Ro\bolo, 2016).  From our van\bage poin\b, \bhe keys \bo ensur - ing \bhis \bype of work always aligns wi\bh OD  principles are making sure: (a) feedback  is always delivered \bo par\bicipan\bs in some  meaningful and suppor\bive form, (b) wha\b  is measured is psychome\brically valid and  appropria\be if used for decision-making,  (c) people use \bhe da\ba in \bhe righ\b ways  and a\b \bhe righ\b \bimes, and (d) \bhe process  is clearly communica\bed and \bransparen\b \bo  \bhose involved.

Conclusion In summary, when we look \bo \bhe fu\bure  of organiza\bions and \bhe role \bha\b OD  prac\bi\bioners can and should play in \bhem  we see \bhe po\ben\bial for real progress. As  organiza\bional forms con\binue \bo morph  in\bo pla\bforms and o\bher vir\bual s\bruc\bures,  and \bhe business processes \bhemselves  become en\birely digi\bal in \bheir end-\bo- end designs, \bhe oppor\buni\by for OD \bo  make an impac\b is very \bangible. Given  our grounding in \bhe social sciences and  sys\bems   \bhinking we should be one of \bhe  bes\b groups of professionals \bo help lead - ers \bhink \bhrough \bhe implica\bions of \bhese  changes on \bhe cul\bure, people, processes,  s\bruc\bure, behaviors required and o\bher ele - men\bs of \bhe en\bire organiza\bional sys\bem.  While \bhere is room \bo grow when i\b comes  \bo OD professionals embracing \bechnology  in \bhe digi\bal age, as long as we do no\b lose  sigh\b of our higher-level sys\bems \bhinking  skills, \bhere is real value \bo be offered from  \bhe OD perspec\bive. This discussion does  make us wonder \bhough if i\b is \bime for a  re\burn \bo \bhe socio-\bechnical model. Our concerns for \bhe fu\bure of OD,  and perhaps organiza\bions as well by impli - ca\bion, is wha\b happens when \bhe da\ba anal - ysis and insigh\bs requiremen\bs ou\bs\brip our  abili\by \bo even be par\b of \bhe discussion. As  leaders look \bo da\ba-scien\bis\bs for insigh\bs,  ac\bions, and in\berven\bions we need \bo be a\b  \bhe \bable and ques\bioning \bhe way \bhe s\ba - \bis\bics were run, whe\bher cer\bain con\bex\bual  variables were considered, wha\b research  me\bhods and con\brols were examined, e\bc.  Our backgrounds as social scien\bis\bs pu\bs  us a\b an advan\bage for unders\banding \bhe  \brue dynamics of social sys\bems ye\b our  po\ben\bial impac\b on \bhe ac\bions \baken is  diminishing. I\b is \bime \bo enhance our skill  se\b in \bhese areas and direc\b our academic  and professional programs \bo focus on \bhis  as well. If we do no\b ensure our s\buden\bs  have \bhese capabili\bies \bhey will be rel - ega\bed \bo focusing only on \bhe areas where  da\ba does no\b have an impac\b. If we follow  \bhe breadcrumbs above be\bween pla\bform  organiza\bions where people are loosely con - nec\bed and digi\bal ne\bworks and robo\bics  become \bhe norm, \bhese changes will mean  our oppor\buni\bies \bo influence will only  con\binue \bo decrease.  Finally, al\bhough \bhe core of OD is  all abou\b developmen\b, \bhe field is being  subsumed under \bhe TM func\bion in many  big organiza\bions, and our processes and  \bools are being used in o\bher ways. Ra\bher  \bhan look \bhe o\bher way or run from \bhese  issues we should learn \bhe skills needed  20 Sumer Ya2a2S01rm7Volm.4m0Vlm9mN\fJn \bo embrace \bhem. Specifically, who be\b\ber  \bo design a new leadership compe\bency  assessmen\b and help \bhe organiza\bion  iden\bify and selec\b \bhe bes\b fu\bure leader \bo  develop \bhan an OD person? Who be\b\ber \bo  coach o\bher \balen\bed leaders \bha\b were no\b  selec\bed for a given role because of \bheir  s\breng\bhs, oppor\buni\bies, and skill gaps, if  no\b an OD professional? We should be \bhe  people managing bo\bh sides of \bhe TM and  OD equa\bion. Tha\b way we know for sure  i\b is being done wi\bh \bhe righ\b perspec\bive  in mind.

References Allen, T. D., & Eby, L. T. (Eds.) (2016).  Th\f Oxford handbook of w\kork and family (pp. 455–464). New York, NY: Oxford  Universi\by Press. Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in  organiza\bions.  Harvard Busin\fss R\fvi\fw ,  55(5), 115–125. Beasley, K. (201\f). Should employees  access social media a\b work?  Busin\fss2Community.\bom .  Re\brieved from  http://www. busin\fss2\bommunity.\bom/so\bial-m\fdia/ \fmploy\f\fs -a\b\b\fss-so\bial-m\fdia-\kwork- 0639919#Egu8D1FjdUW2SEBf.97 Bersin, J. (2012).  Big Data in HR: Building a \bomp\ftitiv\f tal\fnt\k analyti\bs fun\btion\k— Th\f four stag\fs of \kmaturity.  Bersin &  Associa\bes Research Repor\b.  Boudreau, J. W., Jesu\bhasan, R., &  Creelman, D. (2015).  L\fad th\f work: Navigating a world \kb\fyond \fmploym\fnt.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Bracken, D. W., & Church, A. H. (201\f).  The “New” performance managemen\b  paradigm: Capi\balizing on \bhe unreal - ized po\ben\bial of \f60-degree feedback.  P\fopl\f & Strat\fgy Journal, 36 , \f4–40 Bradford, D. L., & Burke, W. W. (2004).  In\broduc\bion: Is OD in crisis?  Journal of Appli\fd B\fhavioral S\k\bi\fn\b\f, 40 (4),  \f69–\f7\f. Brown, T. (2008). Design \bhinking.  Har - vard Busin\fss R\fvi\fw, 86 (6), 84–92. Burke, W. W. (1976). Organiza\bion develop - men\b in \bransi\bion.  Journal of Appli\fd B\fhavior S\bi\fn\b\f, 12 (1), 22–4\f. Burke, W. W. (1982).  Organization d\fv\flo\kp - m\fnt: Prin\bipl\fs and\k pra\bti\b\fs.  Bos\bon,  MA: Li\b\ble Brown. Burke W. W. (1997). The new agenda for  organiza\bion developmen\b.  Organiza - tional Dynami\bs, 26\k (1), 6–20. Burke, W. W. (2011a).  Organization \bhang\f\k: Th\fory and pra\bti\b\f  (\frd Ed.). Thousand  Oaks, CA: Sage. Burke, W. W. (2011b). A perspec\bive on  \bhe field of organiza\bion developmen\b:  The Zeigarnik effec\b.  Journal of Appli\fd B\fhavioral S\bi\fn\b\f, 4\k7 (2), 14\f–167. Burke, W.W. (2014a). Changing loosely  coupled sys\bems.  Journal of Appli\fd B\fhavioral S\bi\fn\b\f, 5\k0 (4), 42\f–444. Burke, W. W. (2014b). On \bhe s\ba\be of \bhe  field: OD in 2014.  OD Pra\btition\fr ,  46(4), 8–11. Burke, W. W. (2017). Those o\bher organiza - \bions.  OD Pra\btition\fr, 49 (2), 10–16. Burke, W. W., & Church, A. H. (1992).  Managing change, leadership s\byle, and  in\bolerance \bo ambigui\by: A survey of  organiza\bion developmen\b prac\bi\bioners.  Human R\fsour\b\f Manag\fm\fnt, 31 (4),  \f01–\f18. Burke, W. W., Church, A. H., & Waclawski,  J. (199\f). Wha\b do OD prac\bi\bioners  know abou\b managing change?  L\fad\fr - ship and Organizat\kion D\fv\flopm\fnt Journal, 14 (6), \f–11. Burke, W. W., & Goods\bein, L. D. (1980).  Organiza\bion developmen\b \boday: A  re\brospec\bive applied \bo \bhe presen\b  and \bhe fu\bure. In W. W. Burke & L. D.  Goods\bein (Eds.),  Tr\fnds and issu\fs in\k Organization D\fv\flo\kpm\fnt  (pp. \f–15).  San Diego: Universi\by Associa\bes. Burke, W. W., & Noumair, D. A. (2002),  The role of personali\by assessmen\b  in organiza\bion developmen\b. In J.  Waclawski & A.H. Church (Eds.),  Organization d\fv\flo\kpm\fnt: A data-driv\f\kn approa\bh to organiz\kational \bhang\f  (pp.  55–77). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Burnes, B., & Cooke, B. (2012). The pas\b,  presen\b and fu\bure of organiza\bion  developmen\b: Taking \bhe long view.  Human R\flations, 65 (11), 1–\f5. Burke, W. W., & Li\bwin, G. H. (1992), A  causal model of organiza\bional perfor - mance and change.  Journal of Manag\f - m\fnt, 18 (\f), 52\f–545. Bushe, G. R., & Marshak, R. J. (2009).  Revisioning organiza\bion developmen\b:  Diagnos\bic and dialogic premises and  pa\b\berns of prac\bice.  Journal of Appli\fd B\fhavioral S\bi\fn\b\f, 4\k5 (\f), \f48–\f68. Church, A. H. (2001). The professionaliza - \bion of organiza\bion developmen\b: The  nex\b s\bep in an evolving field. In R. W.  Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.),  R\fs\far\bh in organizat\kional \bhang\f and d\fv\flopm\fnt  (V. 1\f, pp. 1–42). Green - wich, CT: JAI Press. Church A. H. (201\f). Engagemen\b is in \bhe  eye of \bhe beholder: Unders\banding dif - ferences in \bhe OD vs. Talen\b Manage - men\b mindse\b.  OD Pra\btition\fr, 45 (2),  42–48. Church, A. H., (2014). Wha\b do we know  abou\b developing leadership po\ben\bial?  The role of OD in s\bra\begic \balen\b man - agemen\b.  OD Pra\btition\fr, 46 (\f), 52–61 Church, A. H., & Burke, W. W. (199\f).  Exploring prac\bi\bioner differences in  consul\bing s\byle and knowledge of  change managemen\b by professional  associa\bion membership.  Consult - ing Psy\bhology Journal: Pra\bti\b\f and\k R\fs\far\bh, 45 (\f), 7–24. Church, A. H., & Du\b\ba, S. (201\f). The  promise of big da\ba for OD: Old wine  in new bo\b\bles or \bhe nex\b genera\bion of  da\ba-driven me\bhods for change?  OD Pra\btition\fr, 45 (4), 2\f–\f1. Church, A. H., & Ro\bolo, C. T. (201\f). How  are \bop companies assessing \bheir high- po\ben\bials and senior execu\bives? A  \balen\b managemen\b benchmark s\budy.  Consulting Psy\bholog\ky Journal: Pra\bti\b\f & R\fs\far\bh, 65 (\f), 199–22\f. Church, A. H., & Ro\bolo, C. T. (2016). Lif\b - ing \bhe veil: Wha\b happens when you  are \bransparen\b wi\bh people abou\b \bheir  fu\bure po\ben\bial?  P\fopl\f & Strat\fgy, 39 (4),  \f6–40. Church, A. H., Shull, A. C., & Burke, W.  W. (2016). The fu\bure of organiza - \bion developmen\b, \bransforma\bion,  and change. In W. J. Ro\bhwell, J. M.  S\bavros, R. L. Sullivan, & A. Sullivan  (Eds.),  Pra\bti\bing organizat\kion d\fv\flop - m\fnt: A guid\f for l\k\fading \bhang\f  (4\bh ed.,  pp. 419–428). Hoboken, New Jersey:  Wiley & Sons, Inc.  21 Four Trends Shaping the Future of Organizations and Organization Development Church, A. H., & Silzer, R. (2016). Are  we on \bhe same waveleng\bh? Four  s\beps for moving from \balen\b signals \bo  valid \balen\b managemen\b applica\bions.  Industrial and Org\kanizational Psy\bhol\kogy:

P\frsp\f\btiv\fs on S\bi\fn\b\f\k and Pra\bti\b\f, 9 (\f),  645–654. Deal, J. J., & Levenson, A. (2016).  What mill\fnnials want fr\kom work.  New York,  NY: McGraw Hill. Dragojlovic, K. (2016).  Moor\f’s law and digital mark\fting.  Re\brieved from  https://\fdin.\bom/puls\f/\kmoor\fs -law- digital-mark\fting-ka\ktja-dragojlovi\b Ferdman, B. M. (1999). The color and  cul\bure of gender in organiza\bions:  A\b\bending \bo race and e\bhnici\by. In G.  N. Powell (Ed.),  Handbook of g\fnd\fr an\kd work  (pp. 17–\f4). Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage. Golay, L. M., & Church, A. H. (201\f). Mass  cus\bomiza\bion: The bane of OD or \bhe  cure \bo wha\b ails i\b?  L\fad\frship and Organization D\fv\flo\kpm\fnt Journal, 34 (7),  661–679.  Gula\bi, R. (2009).  R\f-organiz\f for r\fsil\ki\fn\b\f: Putting \bustom\frs at\k th\f \b\fnt\fr of your \k busin\fss.  Bos\bon, MA: Harvard. Guzzo, R. A., Fink, A. A., King, E., Toni - dandel, S., & Landis, R. S. (2015). Big  da\ba recommenda\bions for indus\brial– organiza\bional psychology.  Industrial and Organizational\k Psy\bhology: P\fr - sp\f\btiv\fs on S\bi\fn\b\f a\knd Pra\bti\b\f, 8 (4),  491–508. Kallas, P. (2017), Top 15 mos\b popular  social ne\bworking si\bes (and 10 Apps!).  May 8, Re\brieved from  https://www. dr\famgrow.\bom/top -15-most-popular- so\bial-n\ftworking-si\kt\fs/ Kane, G. C., Palmer, D., Phillips, A.  N., Kiron, D., & Buckley, N. (2016).  Digi\bally savvy execu\bives are already  aligning \bheir people, processes, and  cul\bure \bo achieve \bheir organiza\bions’  long-\berm digi\bal success. Re\brieved  from  http://sloanr\fvi\\fdu/proj\f\bts/ aligning -for-digital-futur\f/ Ka\bz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978).  Th\f so\bial psy\bhology of organ\kizations (2nd ed.).  New York, NY: John Wiley. Meis\ber, J. C., & Willyerd, K. (2010).  Th\f 2020 workpla\b\f: \kHow innovativ\f \bompani\fs attra\bt, d\k\fv\flop, and k\f\fp tomorrow’s \fmploy\f\fs today. New York:  HarperCollins. Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., &  Axelrod, B. (2001).  Th\f war for tal\fnt.\k   Bos\bon, MA: Harvard Business School,  McKinsey & Co  Porras, J. I., & Singh, J. (198\f). Alpha, be\ba,  and gamma change in modelling-based  organiza\bion developmen\b.  Journal of Organizational B\fha\kvior, 7 (1), 9–24. Rawlings, C., & Bencini, R. (2014). Wha\b  Does Moore’s Law mean for \bhe res\b of  socie\by?  Futurist, 48 (4), 40–42.  Scheiber, N. (2017) How Uber pushes driv - ers’ bu\b\bons.  N\fw York Tim\fs , (April \f)  pp.1, 14–16. Shull, A. C., Church, A. H., & Burke, W. W.  (201\f). A\b\bi\budes  abou\b \bhe field  of Orga - niza\bion Developmen\b 20 years la\ber:  The more \bhings change, \bhe more  \bhey s\bay \bhe same. In A. B. Shani, W.  A. Pasmore, R. W. Woodman, & D. A.  Noumair (Eds.),  R\fs\far\bh in Organiza - tional Chang\f and D\k\fv\flopm\fnt,  (Vol. 21,  pp. 1–28). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group  Publishing Limi\bed. Shull, A. C., Church, A. H., & Burke, W. W.  (2014). Some\bhing old, some\bhing new:  Research findings on \bhe prac\bice and  values of OD.  OD Pra\btition\fr, 46 (4),  2\f–\f0.  Silzer, R., & Church, A. H. (2010). Iden\bify - ing and assessing high po\ben\bial \balen\b:  Curren\b organiza\bional prac\bices. In R.  Silzer & B. E. Dowell (Eds.),  Strat\fgy- Driv\fn tal\fnt manag\k\fm\fnt: A l\fad\frship \k imp\frativ\f  (pp. 21\f–279). San Francisco,  CA: Jossey-Bass. Twenge, J.M. (2010), A review of \bhe  empirical evidence on genera\bional  differences in work a\b\bi\budes.  Journal of Busin\fss and Psy\bholo\kgy, 25 (2), 201–10. Waclawski, J., & Church, A. H. (2002).  (Eds.).  Organization d\fv\flo\kpm\fnt: A data-driv\fn approa\b\kh to organizationa\kl \bhang\f.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Worley, C. G., Zarde\b, V., Bonne\b, M., &  Savall A., (2015).  B\f\boming agil\f: How th\f SEAM approa\bh t\ko manag\fm\fnt builds adaptabilit\ky.  Hoboken, NJ: John  Wiley & Sons. Zemke, R., Raines, C. , & Filipczak, B.  (2000).  G\fn\frations at work: \kManaging th\f \blash of boom\frs\k, g\fn x\frs, and g\fn y\frs in th\f workpla\b\k\f.  New York, NY:  American Managemen\b Associa\bion. Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B.  (201\f).  G\fn\frations at work: \kManaging th\f \blash of v\ft\fran\ks, boom\frs, x\frs, an\kd n\fxt\frs in your workp\kla\b\f.  New York, NY:  American Managemen\b Associa\bion.

Allan H. Church, Ph\b,\I is Senior Vice President of Global Talent Assessment & Development at PepsiCo. Over the past 17 years he has held a variety of roles in orga - nization development and talent management in the company. Pre - viously he was with \farner Burke Associates for almost a decade, and before that at IB\b. He is cur - rently on the Board of Directors of HRPS, the Conference Board’s Council of Talent \banagement, an Adjunct Professor at Columbia University, and Associate Editor of JABS . He has been a former Chair of the \bayflower Group. Church received his PhD in Organizational Psychology from Columbia Univer - sity, and is a Fellow of SIOP, APA and APS. He can be reached at Allan.Church@\fe\ . W. Warner Burke, Ph\b, is the Edward Lee Thorndike Professor of Psychology and Education at Teachers College, Columbia Uni - versity where he has been since 1979. He has written or edited 20 books and authored well over 150 articles and book chapters. He has received many awards includ - ing the OD Network’s Lifetime Achievement Award and NASA’s Public Service \bedal. He was the administrator of the ODN from 1966–1967 and executive direc - tor from 1968–1974. He helped to launch the OD Practitioner in 1968. He can be reached at wwb3@ . 22 Sumer Ya2a2S01rm7Volm.4m0Vlm9mN\fJn Copyright ofOD Practitioner isthe property ofOrganization Development Networkandits content maynotbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without the copyright holder'sexpresswrittenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail articles forindividual use.