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: https://www.dreamgrow.com/top -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\b.com 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:// www.link\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\fw.mit.\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\fsico.com . 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@ columbia.edu . 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.
