Spot the difference

2/12/2012

Do you work in organisation development (OD) or human resources (HR)? Or do you work in leadership and management and feel curious to know what these fields are, what they cover and what the differences are between them? Do you feel confused by distinctions when when, after all, they are both concerned with human aspects of organisations? I will attempt to introduce both fields below and to explain common focus areas, differences between them and what kinds of people tend to be drawn to them.

What is OD?

OD is a broad field of thinking and practice. Different organisations use this term differently, to mean different things. OD practitioners often have a psychological and systemic orientation and focus their attention on areas such as leadership, culture and engagement. They are interested in questions like, ‘what human-related factors are influencing this organisation's success?' ‘why are things as they are?’, ‘how could we be more innovative or effective?’

Their core skills include relationship-building, questioning, reflecting, influencing, reframing and sense-making. OD practitioners are often found working alongside top teams, providing internal consultancy, guidance and coaching. They aim to raise awareness, stimulate fresh ways of thinking, challenge the status quo, build capacity for the future, enhance organisational experience and effectiveness.

Key words associated with this field: e.g. strategic, leadership, culture, values, relationships, teamwork, engagement, inquiry, challenge, opportunity, influence, concept, change, innovation, dynamics, perspectives, reframing, sense-making, capacity,
learning, development, impact.

What is HR?

HR is a fairly well-defined field of thinking and practice. Different organisations use HR in different ways. As a general principle, however, HR practitioners often have a legal, policy and process orientation and focus their attention on areas such as employment and performance management. They are interested in questions like, ‘what staff resources do we need?’, ‘how can we attract, recruit and retain the best people’, ‘how can we ensure people perform well?’

Their core skills include relationship-building, influencing, applying legal/policy frameworks and assertiveness. HR practitioners are found operating at a number of different levels. These range from HR strategizing through business partnering through policy implementation to payroll. They aim to ensure that staff resources are well deployed and that people are treated fairly and consistently.

Key words associated with this field: e.g. employment law, policy, structure, competencies, jobs, talent, contracts, frameworks, staff, recruitment, selection, contracts, management, performance, appraisal, reward, retention, employee relations, discipline, grievance, salary, payroll, benefits.

What do OD and HR have in common?

OD and HR are both interested in the relationship between people and organisations. They both regard people as a key contributor to an organisation’s success. They both have a humanistic outlook, an ethical belief that people should be treated well.

What are the differences?

It’s difficult to draw direct comparisons and contrasts because OD practitioners work mainly as coaches and consultants to leadership teams whereas HR practitioners operate at many different levels, ranging through strategic HR, business partnering and transactional-administrative tasks. However, there are some general common characteristics outlined in the table below, bearing in mind these vary from practitioner to practitioner and from organisation to organisation. These differences create potential for synergy and, sometimes, sources of tension.

OD practitioners tend to:

Work mostly with leaders and leadership teams.
Focus on teams, groups or the organisation as a whole.
Locate the origin of issues in the organisation as a human
system.
Strive to retain a degree of detachment to see things others
don’t notice.
Pay attention to broad themes, issues and trends.
Question, challenge or reframe the status quo, to see and do
things differently.
Work on initiatives with different client groups.
Work as coaches, consultants or facilitators, building others’
capacity.
Focus on psychological aspects of leadership.
Spend relatively high amount of time on developmental, future-orientated initiatives.
Have a reflective, intuitive, conceptual orientation.
Have professional background/studies rooted in leadership,
learning and social sciences.
Feel comfortable with questions, ambiguity, uncertainty and
emergence.

HR practitioners tend to:

Work mostly with managers and staff.
Focus on individuals and their immediate line relationships.
Locate the origin of issues in the individual or his/her
immediate situation.
Strive to become embedded to engage with others in their
world.
Pay attention to immediate tasks, issues and demands.
Seek to standardise policies and practices to ensure greater
consistency.
Work long-term with the same client group.
Work as business partners or service providers, ensuring good delivery and practice.
Focus on practical aspects of management.
Spend relatively high amount of time on remedial, problem-solving activities.
Have a practical, rational, technical orientation.
Have professional background/studies rooted in employment law, policy and practice.
Feel comfortable with solutions, clarity, certainty and
planning.

What could a typical OD role look like?

This varies from role to role and organisation to organisation. In my own experience, I've been responsible in OD roles for strategy and change, values and culture, leadership and management development, staff and team development, internal communication and staff engagement, performance management and development. However, the following are common:

Develop effective leaders and leadership teams through coaching, consultancy and facilitation.
Support effective change leadership through providing guidance and building leadership capability.
Work alongside leaders to develop an inspiring, engaging and effective organisational culture.
Create leadership development opportunities (e.g. seminars/training, mentoring, action learning).
Oversee the L&D function, focusing on management, staff and team development.

When does OD work with HR?

OD and HR practitioners most commonly work collaboratively in areas including the following:

Change leadership and management.
Performance management and development.
Talent management and development.
Induction and training.

Your feedback

If you've had different experiences of OD and HR, or hold different views about what they are and the differences between them, please do share your views here too! I would be interested to hear more.

71 Comments

Cindy Turner

2/12/2012 12:07:17 pm

Great article, Nick. As a grad student in an organizational psychology program, I was initially confused about the differences between OD and HR. This article describes the differences really well.

Nick Wright

2/12/2012 12:08:59 pm

Hi Cindy and many thanks for the encouraging feedback. I would be very interested to hear more about your studies and any useful applications you have found to the OD field. With best wishes. Nick

William link

2/12/2012 03:05:03 pm

HR is managing by the rules.
OD is continually creating new rules for HR to maage by.

3/12/2012 12:11:55 pm

Hi William and thanks for the note. I guess I hadn't really considered OD as creating rules as such since OD often challenges prevailing 'rules' and the assumptions that create and sustain them. However, I do believe OD can help create the wider cultural context and climate within which HR can be most effective and value-adding. With best wishes. Nick

Eugene Fernandez

3/12/2012 03:55:46 am

Thanks Nick- I found it added to my understanding of both OD & HR. I particularly liked the comparison within the table.

3/12/2012 12:13:25 pm

Thanks for the encouraging feedback, Eugene. Did the comparisons in the table resonate with what you too have observed or experienced of OD and HR? With best wishes. Nick

Sai Oo

3/12/2012 03:56:31 am

I am familiar with"client/s, contract, system etc" and those words are also associated with OD field I think. What do you think?

3/12/2012 12:21:21 pm

Hi Sai and thanks for the note. Yes, OD practitioners are often employed as internal or external consultants, which means that terms such as 'client' and 'contracting' are common in their vocabulary. 'System' is a common term too, sometimes referring to the organisation as a dyamic human system with interdependent parts or to, say, information or technology systems. Does that help? With best wishes. Nick

Paul Waller MSc BA(hons) CFCIPD FCMI

3/12/2012 07:48:15 am

HRD or HRM?
OD - Evolution from the first; nothing to do with the second other than at a very strategic level.

3/12/2012 12:30:59 pm

Hi Paul and thanks for the note, succinctly put! Yes, OD appears to have evolved within or out of HRD in some contexts or as a separate field of thinking and practice in others. Interestingly, in the UK at least, HRD seems now to be frequently associated with L&D rather than a wider OD outlook, agenda and approach. I agree that OD and HR tend to come closest at strategic levels, perhaps partly because that's where most OD practitioners operate and where HR thinking is at its most sophisticated. (...discuss!) With best wishes. Nick

Carter McNamara MBA PhD

3/12/2012 08:27:13 am

Nick, I commend you for tackling such a complex and emotionally charged topic!

You did a very admirable job of trying to distinguish the differences.

As HR strives to "get a seat at the table" with executives/leadership, the profession will likely look even more like OD.

Your description of OD seems to focus especially on the people/soft skills. However, OD can also focus on business skills, such as comprehensive organizational performance model, e.g., Balanced Scorecard, Total Quality Management, etc. (Quality initiatives, such as those, are some of the most comprehensive and powerful models to enhance performance of organizations -- after all, that's what OD is about :-)

3/12/2012 11:47:39 am

Hi Carter and thanks for the encouraging feedback. Yes, I've noticed that OD and HR tend to come closest, in terms of touching on similar interests and concerns, at the highest strategic levels.

I think you make a good point about OD and harder business areas. This is perhaps, where some forms of OD look like management consulting, using models such as the McKinsey 7S framework.

My own OD studies were based on psychodynamics, social psychology and social constructionism. It was definitely a people and culture-centric, humanistic outlook and approach.

Some organisations embrace the harder business aspects by referring to it as organisation-al development or organisational effectiveness, a kind of OD+, depending on your perspective!

With best wishes. Nick

Salil Harve

3/12/2012 11:51:08 am

Wonderful article Nick. Appreciate the learning. Just an additional query. I have always segregated work based on Strategy and Execution from a perspective of the 'Thinking' and the 'Doing'. How do OD practitioners differ from thier HR colleagues on this aspect ? Specifically how much do the OD practitioners 'roll up thier sleeves' and 'Do' in comparison to thier HR practitioners ? No biases here, just seeking clarity as i,having spent a lot of my carrer in L & D, am looking at educating myself in OD.
Cheers.

3/12/2012 12:05:44 pm

Hi Salil and thanks for the note. I think you pose a great question. I've often heard HR practitioners complain that their OD colleagues spend more time thinking than doing. This may be because OD practitioners are often employed in coaching or consulting roles.

I guess it begs the question of what adds value. OD practitioners will often argue that bringing the right questions to the table, framing or reframing conversations to enable effective insight and action, is the most effective and transformative form of 'doing'.

This is not intended to negate the value that HR brings or to assert that HR doesn't involve thought but, rather, to challenge the underlying assumption that activity per se is a more valuable contributor to organisational success than reflection.

You may be interested to have a glance at this article which explores OD in greater depth: http://www.nick-wright.com/a-journey-towards-od.html. It proposes that an effective OD practitioner brings a dynamic combination of person, perspective and practice.

With best wishes. Nick

4/12/2012 12:37:02 am

Dear Nick, This is the most succint piece of literature i have found on OD. Remarkable !! It highlights to me that there are practitioners out there, like you Nick, that have a very practical, simple but humanistic approach to OD. Pardon me for calling it 'simple' - i am its years of work in this field that has given you this insight and maturity. The reason i say this is beause, by far this has been the easiest to understand. Albeit, i need a few more dips into it to fully absorb the content.
I also see that you emphasize 'Competencies'. I have always raised a few eyebrows when i have suggested that all HR, OD, L&D professionals irrespective of thier academic qualifications must have certain competencies such as 'Love for people', ' Ability to reach out to people', cognitive empathy, business accumen, big picture approach, to be successful in this line of work.
I am absolutely certain that i will certainly pursue OD in the way i am knowing it now.

Thank you for these insights Nick and i wish you the best in your very 'special' area of work.

Cheers
Salil

Michael Stratford

3/12/2012 12:53:19 pm

nice clarification on the distinctions....

3/12/2012 12:53:44 pm

Thanks Michael. Nick

Ravi Rao MD PhD

4/12/2012 12:36:10 am

This is really valuable - thanks Nick!

4/12/2012 12:40:41 am

Thanks for the positive feedback, Ravi. Pleased you found it helpful. With best wishes. Nick

Robin Cook

4/12/2012 12:37:41 am

Could be more concise, but you got it exactly right, Nick!

4/12/2012 12:38:42 am

Thnx 4 +ve fbak, R. ;) N

Don McPhee

4/12/2012 03:32:45 am

Nick, I work in OD as part of Plan International's Program Department, not in the HR Department. I prefer the concept of OD because, for me, this implies shared leadership and responsibility for building a dynamic, effective organisation with HR playing a very key role. HR is largely seen as applying to the roles and responsibilities of the HR function in an organisation.

8/12/2012 06:29:15 am

Hi Don and thanks for the note. I have a good friend who works in the strategy department at Plan International. I think you make a good point about the shared nature of OD's work; i.e. collaborative working tends to be one of OD's core values and approaches. I agree that HR can play a key role in building a dynamic, effective organisation. In my experience, the relative roles and contributions of OD and HR and the boundaries between them vary from organisation to organisation. How have you see this work out in Plan International or indeed other organisations? With best wishes. Nick

Evan Roth

4/12/2012 12:11:01 pm

I think it is well done and accurate summary, Nick. Many are now referring as well to Organizational Effectiveness. How do you see OE compared to OD and HR?

8/12/2012 06:21:28 am

Thanks Evan. I think that's a good question. In my experience, OE is an umbrella term encompassing a range of disciplines that may contribute to an organisation's effectiveness, e.g. strategy, OD, business process, programme/project management, HR. It partly depends on how different organisations use this term and what they incoprorate within it. Does that help? With best wishes. Nick

Gabbie Silverio

6/12/2012 06:45:42 am

I'm OD practitioners may come from different fields of study, not necessarily the behavioral sciences. In my previous company, Managers, trainers and even engineers were tapped to do OD work and OD interventions are collaborative and interdisciplinary in nature with the OD practitioner serving as process facilitator instead of subject matter or policy expert. I'm a trainer and learning developer who reported to an HR director and was assigned to perform organizational diagnosis. It was fun, scary and challenging; requiring strategy, analysis and conceptual skills I didn't have before. This article is short, informative and very useful. Thank you for sharing!

8/12/2012 06:46:56 am

Hi Gabbie and thanks for the note. I think you raise a number of interesting points. As far as I understand it, OD as a field of thought and practice emerged from the behavioural sciences. That does not imply, of course, that all OD practitioners have studied in this area. I agree with your view that OD interventions tend to be collaborative and interdisciplinary in nature (partly because practitioners tend to work cross-organisationally and at strategic levels) and that OD practitioners often work as process facilitators. I can certainly identify with how you have felt working in this area ('fun, scary and challenging') and well done for embracing the challenge! One of the books I found most helpful when developing my own OD thinking and practice was Edgar Schein's 'Process Consultation (Vol 1)'. Have you come across it? With best wishes on your OD journey. Nick

Edwin Thwaites

7/12/2012 05:44:39 am

Most people I come across who are working in OD are NOT in fact doing real Organisational Development. They are doing a bit of organisational change wrapped up in a blanket of learning and development. This is not the same thing.

Eeva Pekonen

7/12/2012 07:29:59 am

Agree with Edwin. Learning and development is an important tool for making changes and developing the organisation in various ways. OD is done in many places, at best, the goals are shared throughout the organisation via strategy.

8/12/2012 06:32:51 am

Hi Edwin and thanks for the note. I liked your challenging comment and would be very interested to hear more about what, in your view, constitutes 'real Organisation Development'. With best wishes. Nick

8/12/2012 08:42:33 am

Well Nick, here goes.

The development in most learning and development activities is individual and links more to the area of management development than organisation development. What I understand by organisation development goes beyond this and involves organisational changes to enhance effectiveness. The ideas of Bennis, Beckard and Argyris are to me central here in that OD is a humanistic endeavour involving the development of an effective organisation through and with the development of the personal needs of individuals, including self-worth, growth and satisfaction. So OD involves an organisation wide change programme based upon the best available behavioural scientific knowledge but grounded in the philosophy of open and trusting relationships at work and the acceptance that all staff are valued and respected.

So, not surprisingly, given the poor quality of managers we generally see in most organisations, these kind of interventions are not very common and we get are rather restricted type of OD that clearly is more about aspects of HR than real OD.

8/12/2012 09:08:23 am

Hi Edwin and thanks for such interesting and stimulating comments.

I similarly tend to think of OD in terms such as humanistic, systemic, collaborative and transformational. I agree that much L&D focuses on the individual. This is, perhaps, why L&D sometimes sits within HR since HR tends to focus on the various aspects of an employee lifecycle.

The OD community tends to be divided, in my experience, between those who believe large-scale, organisation-wide, planned, systematic initiatives are desirable and achievable and those who believe in more complexity-based approaches, working with emergence in a more fluid, organic way.

In more recent years, I've noticed OD and HR coming closer together in some organisations, particularly at strategic levels. As a result, something like hybrid OD-HR models appear with HR becoming more systemic and OD becoming more tactical focusing on, say 'talent management'.

Perhaps the latter is partly a pragmatic consequence of business leaders demanding immediate, tangible results. Traditional OD demands patience, working-with and openness to the unexpected. More structured, programmatic approaches can feel safer and more appealing to managers.

You may be interested in an article I wrote on this topic based on a presentation I was invited to give at the UK CIPD Conference last year: http://www.nick-wright.com/a-journey-towards-od.html. There are links to additional resources at the end of the article. I would be interested to hear what you think.

With best wishes. Nick

Sindhu Ramachandran

8/12/2012 10:44:44 pm

In a single sentence, HR is curative, and OD is preventive!

8/12/2012 10:49:00 pm

Hi Sindhu and thanks for the note. I've heard a similar expression along the lines of'OD is developmental, HR is remedial'. It raises interesting challenges for OD. For instance, if OD was more effective, would it result in less incidences of the kind of remedial issues HR practitioners often find themselves dealing with? Also, the best examples I've seen of HR is where it's thinking and practice has been rooted in a developmental ethos. I would be interested to hear what you think and of any examples you may have experienced or encountered. With best wishes. Nick

9/12/2012 02:53:59 am

Partially, I feel.. Let me see if I can explain...The way I see it, the one thing common among HR, OD and everything else, is 'people'.. so OD that focuses on people, and not just processes, may help in making HR more efficient and effective...And this is because, HR has visibly different aspects (process and technology related) that may not be 'directly' affected by OD... For example, a part of an OD design I'd helped on, was a session on 'deep listening' - which was an important thing the HR lacked in being effective.. What do you think?

Ethelle Lord DM

9/12/2012 05:49:22 am

Great distinction opportunity for all coaches, Nick. OD (organizational development) is a much broader spectrum than HR (human resources), often referred to as the weakest link in any organization. My doctorate is in Management in Organizational Leadership and I avoid HR each and every time. HR is the gatekeeper of the organization and typically trained to say "yes" to existing projects and procedures, and "no" to anything new.HR is simply manages employee benefits and behaviors using established rules and regulations. They are not leaders in any sense of the imagination.

Definitions of OD:
OD is defined as a planned process of change in an organization's culture through the utilization of behavioral sciences technology, research, and theory (Warner Burke).
OD refers to a long-range effort to improve an organization's problem-solving capabilities and its ability to cope with changes in its external environment with the help of external or internal behavioral-scientists consultants, or change agents (coaches), as they are sometimes called (Wendell French).
OD is an effort (1) planned, (2) organization-wide, and (3) managed from the top, to (4) increase organizational effectiveness and health through (5) planned interventions in the organization's "processes", using behavioral science knowledge (Richard Beckhard).
OD is a system-wide process of data collection, diagnosis, action planning, intervention, and evaluation aimed at (1) enhancing congruence among organizational structure, process, strategy, people, and culture; (2) developing new an creative organizational solutions, and (3) developing the organization's self-renewing capacity. It occurs through the collaboration of organizational members working with a change agent (consultant or coach) using behavioral science theory, research, and technology (Michael Beer).
OD is based on (1) a set of values, largely humanistic; (2) application of the behavioral sciences; and (3) open systems theory, OD is a system-wide process of planned change aimed toward improving overall organization effectiveness by way of enhanced congruence of such key organization dimensions as external environment, mission, strategy, leadership, culture, structure, information and reward systems, and work policies and procedures (Warner Burke and David Bradford). (In Cummings & Worley)

HR administers policies and procedures that OD would be adopting for the organization. HR is "instrumental and utilitarian in its treatment of the people dimension in organizations" and always for the larger good of the organization (Goldbert & Jules, 2010).

Sources:
Cummings, T.G. & Worley, C.G., (9th Ed). Organization Development & Change
Goldbert, M. & Jules, C. (2010). Organization development and human resources. OD Practitioner, 42(4), 36-39.

~ Ethelle

9/12/2012 06:06:47 am

Hi Ethelle and thanks for posting such an interesting and controversial perspective! I was interested to hear about your studies and noticed that most of the OD quotations were from the OD school that emphasises planned organisation-wide interventions. I wondered if you have also encountered OD schools of thought at the 'complexity theory' end of the spectrum (e.g. Margaret Wheatley) who tend to focus more on emergence and fluid, local interventions that can influence overall change?

It sounds like you haven't had many positive experiences of HR! In my experience HR, like OD, varies from organisation to organisation in terms of its approach, focus and practice. Whilst much HR I have encountered has been fairly bureaucratic and transactional in nature, sometimes inadvertently undermining rather than enabling meaningful change, I've also worked alongside some excellent HR professionals who have added considerable value.

Some of my earliest conflicts with HR were when (a) practitioners tied me in red tape every time I tried to introduce an initiative as leader and (b) when HR automatically supported management perspectives and decisions rather than stepping back to consider the wider interests of the organisation and its stakeholders as a whole. Some of my best experiences have been where we have worked collaboratively on strategic initiatives with common goals.

I would be interested to hear more about your experience in OD, e.g. what the issues were, how you approached them, what happened as a result etc. I would also be interested to hear more about your encounters with HR. Again, what the issues were, how each party viewed and approached them, what happened as a result. With best wishes. Nick

Bonnie Leonard EdD

9/12/2012 06:08:22 am

Thanks, Ethelle! Enjoyed this clearly stated, nicely referenced, and most educational comment.

9/12/2012 12:40:17 pm

Are there any HR professionals in this discussion? I wonder how they'd define their field/profession -- before we OD practitioners get too carried away with our definitions of HR :)

9/12/2012 12:42:16 pm

Thanks Carter - you raise a good point! I would be interested to hear more of how HR professionals view OD too. :) With best wishes. Nick

Marjie Bramham

10/12/2012 02:06:19 am

Hi Nick,

Thanks for sharing your article 'a journey towards OD'. Really interesting, particular the models you use with your clients and the initiatives you refer to for developing and engaging team members.

Kind regards

10/12/2012 12:42:51 pm

Many thanks for your encouraging feedback, Marjie. I would be interested to hear of any experiences, models or approaches you have found helpful in the OD arena too. With best wishes. Nick

10/12/2012 02:07:32 am

The work that I do using the emergence of Alzheimer’s all over the world requires we all take social innovation in the field of healthcare. My mission is to shift from a medical model to a care model by inviting large organizations/facilities such as hospitals, nursing centers, assisted living, and the likes to adopt an Alzheimer’s Friendly Healthcare Workforce™. We do this with our Caregiver Partnership Agreement Program™ and training Care Partners™. As you can imagine, this plays right into OD and more specifically into The Berkana Institute’s definition of lifecycle of emergence which is “how living systems begin as networks, shift to intentional communities of practice, and evolve into powerful systems capable of global influence” (p. 2).

You are correct in assuming I have not had any good experiences with HR. They are truly the gatekeepers of the lowest level when approaching an organization with a concept such as Remembering 4 You is promoting. Alan Weiss has experienced the same and he is the best consultant/coach in the world. According to Weiss, gatekeepers make our job very hard and he identified three options that work well: enlightenment (using moral and rational argument, influence the gatekeeper to open the gate to the real buyers); guile (using flexibility and tenacity, work through other openings in the defenses); and force (overrun the defender using clout, volume, or sheer bravado) ` (p. 17). It is not a secret and if you have good experiences, as you mention above, wonderful for you. You are in the minority for sure. That is just the way HR is designed. Their main role is to keep regulations and employment laws straight. They are not leaders in any way nor are they visionaries. They are diligent individuals and diligents typically do not bring about change, they simply work really hard at what they do
(Seich, 2000).

To quickly address your questions: "what the issues were, how each party viewed and approached them, what happened as a result."

The issues are always the same when you introduce a change in perspective (from medical model to care model). It is extremely hard to convince them to buy into that, especially if there is a cost attached to the program. A change in perspective always requires OD.

Each party views such as shift, especially in hard economic times, as a risk for the entire organization. In healthcare there seems to be even more barriers with the confidentiality and regulatory aspects of that business. Still the State of Maine is endorsing all our programs and that is a BIG shot in the arm, a vote of confidence for organization to jump on board.

Personally, I am a visionary thinker, and therefore know intrinsically that OD is part and parcel of what I do ~ especially at Remembering 4 You. I still avoid HR and start as close to the top as possible. It is much easier to go down the ladder than to crawl up the ladder, right?

Source:
Seich, S. (2000). 3 Sides of You: Unlocking the way you think, work, and love.
Wheatley, M. & Frieze, D. in Using emergence to take social innovation to scale.
Weiss, A. (2003). How to Write a Proposal that's Accepted Every Time.

Andrew Neitlich

10/12/2012 05:40:52 am

Ethelle, Thanks for the well-researched and thoughtful points.

I'm most interested in the parts of OD, OE and HR that should be led by the CEO and executive team, and yet are handed off to administrative roles, consultants, and coaches. I've worked with some great organizations and some poor ones (often in healthcare, to Ethelle's points).

In the best organizations that I've worked with, the executives and managers make developing organizational capacity and leadership a priority, and call in coaches and consultants only as catalysts or as sources of great ideas and methodologies. HR becomes a support function, focused primarily on the transactional elements of HR (benefits, payroll, etc), and on supporting efforts to recruit and develop people -- but administering and not leading those efforts.

In the worst ones, the "leaders" let HR hire out to well-known off-the-shelf leadership programs and force employees to get involved. This is like cramming the round peg into the square hole, and causes employee cynicism and resentment.

So for me the questions is less about HR vs OE vs OD, but about how solid the leaders in the organization are, and how committed they are to recruiting, engaging, and developing top talent for ongoing improvement, customer loyalty, and profitable growth.

10/12/2012 12:33:17 pm

@ Andrew Neitlich ~ You asked "...how solid the leaders in the organization are, and how committed they are to recruiting, engaging, and developing top talent for ongoing improvement, customer loyalty, and profitable growth". Sadly, the number of true leaders can be counted on the fingers of one hand (i.e., Mahatma Gandhi, Larry LaPage at Google, Warren Buffett, to name a few). Most so called leaders in the CEO position are managers.

Managers have employees. Leaders win followers.

Managers react to change. Leaders create change.

Managers have good ideas. Leaders implement them.

Managers communicate. Leaders persuade.

Managers direct groups. Leaders create teams.

Managers try to be heroes. Leaders make heroes of everyone around them.

Managers take credit. Leaders take responsibility.

Managers are focused. Leaders create shared focus.

Managers exercise power over people. Leaders develop power with people.

Tell me where HR fits in the leadership side of this chart? It is easy to see where OD fits.

Source: http://www.marksanborn.com/blog/9-differences-between-managers-and-leaders/

~ Ethelle

10/12/2012 12:34:22 pm

Ethelle,

I disagree that there are only a very few true leaders. Those who follow the right side of your chart aren't looking to be household names or write the next business book bestseller, and so we haven't heard about them. I've been lucky enough to work with many. I also see a trap that we coaches/consultants fall into of calling out people in leadership roles for not being "true" leaders. Then we get into some fuzzy logic about what a leader is and isn't, many of which are not measurable and are subjective at best (like some of the elements on Sandborn's quoted in your recent comment). In the end, this kind of approach gives us a false sense of importance, because we are able to stand above the masses and declare who is and isn't a leader.

I prefer to engage leaders on the type of organization they want to create, their aspirations, the results they want to achieve, and what's standing in the way. Once we know point A (where the leader is) and point B (where the leader wants to be) we can figure out why the gap exists and develop simple but effective strategies to move the leader forward -- without judgment. Or, if the leader simply wants to get better, we can develop a coaching process to help him or her find that one thing that will make the biggest difference in performance.

Some leaders are open to this kind of work, and many are not. It is up to me to be able to communicate my value in a way that gets a leader interested in working with me. Claiming that most people in leadership roles are not true leaders is not going to make much of a difference to anyone, and certainly isn't going to help me build my practice.

10/12/2012 12:35:24 pm

Andrew Neitlich ~ I have to disagree with you. Having studied leadership to the doctorate level, I can attest that natural-born leaders (Visionaries) are extremely rare. We have to train/coach leaders into the leadership role.

Your second paragraph supports my statement here in that coaches close the gap between where the leader is now and where he/she want to be. Thank you for demonstrating this point clearly.

~ Ethelle

10/12/2012 12:36:40 pm

But Andrew makes a courageous point, especially to us external consultants, that we need to always be mindful that we don't inadvertently act as if we're somehow above the "masses," and that only we can declare "true leaders."

There's some idealizing and romanticizing of the role of "leader" lately. It happens especially in times of strong social confusion and stress, e.g., in the late '70s and early '80s.

Anyone can write about leadership lately -- all they have to do is make many assertions about how great true leaders are.

Andrew's right -- we need to be careful that we don't inadvertently castigate managers to utter drudgery, while we describe leaders as the second coming -- the second coming that's going to save us and our organizations.

I hope we know what we're doing.

Deborah Gill Williams

10/12/2012 12:37:18 pm

I am finding these different perspectives interesting. In our organisation OD and L&D are fully integrated with the overall strategic HR function.

10/12/2012 12:53:21 pm

Hi Deborah and thanks for the note. I would be very interested to hear more about how OD and HR work together in an integrated way within the strategic function in your organisation. For example, what does each party lead on, hold responsibility for etc. In my experience, there are often tensions between OD and HR, especially when OD reports into HR. I would be keen to hear from your experience, including how it works in practice, how/if synergies have been achieved, what tensions you may have noticed or experienced, how they have been resolved etc. With best wishes. Nick

10/12/2012 01:31:33 pm

@Ethelle, Andrew and Carter. For a different take on leaders and leadership, I'd be interested to hear your comments on the following blog musings: http://www.nick-wright.com/1/post/2011/02/qualities-of-leadership.html; http://www.nick-wright.com/1/post/2011/02/leadership-as-transformational-dynamic.html; http://www.nick-wright.com/1/post/2011/02/more-leadership-musings.html; http://www.nick-wright.com/1/post/2011/02/and-more-leadership-musings.html. With best wishes. Nick

Dani Hennessy

11/12/2012 10:35:31 am

Nice work Nick.

Really easy to read and informative.

I have worked in an OD / L&D partnership which was one of the best I've ever had

11/12/2012 11:58:01 am

Hi Dani and thanks for your encouraging feedback. I would be very interested to hear more about the partnership you worked in, e.g. what role/field were you in, what made it so successful? With best wishes. Nick

Jytte Lund Larsen

13/12/2012 11:47:49 am

HR come from inside. OD comes from frames outside.

13/12/2012 11:51:25 am

Hi Jytte and thanks for the note. Do you mean HR operates within established frameworks and OD stands outside established frameworks, shaping and reframing them? I would be interested to hear more. With best wishes. Nick

13/12/2012 01:28:04 pm

Hi Nick

I mean that HR also has frames, but if you look at
it from the perspective of a human being/individual perspect - HR is from
inside
and OS is from outside, as an organisation is like a system and changes the
the
system from outside to inside, and HR changes the system from inside. In
psychological perspective the discussion is inside/outside and
versus.

If you go to the rhetoric perspective this is the
background for cogniction and psychology, but also new in the way you
discuss
corporate systems.

I hope that this is understandable?

Best Jytte

13/12/2012 01:33:10 pm

Hi Jytte and thanks for the clarification. It sounds like you are saying HR influences change by working with individuals, and thereby influences change in the organisation too. On the other hand, OD influences change by working with the organisation as a system, and thereby influences change at an individual level too. Have I understood you correctly? Please tell me if I have missed something. I would be interested to hear more from you. With best wishes. Nick

14/12/2012 12:54:58 am

Nick. You have understood. What is interesting is the fact that more studying bringes you to clarification of other things. Language and rhetoric is important to understand the origin of thinking. Aristoteles.

Thank you. Jytte

Yussy Santoso

19/12/2012 12:28:53 pm

od is all about strategi, process, structure, people, reward. this all areas make an organization culture. so OD focusing on development organization and working partnering with hr and process improvement to improve organization.

Roland Sullivan

17/1/2013 12:09:47 am

Your " Spot the difference" work on your web site is excellent. I love the extensive comments.
I just have one point to make. OD is not OD if the focus is not the organization. Team building, coaching, human culture work, strategic planning, inter-group work, leadership development training are nice interventions but are not OD. And OD is clearly not OD if the focus is mainly to deal with people. The business must be central. Wish I had more time to explain.

17/1/2013 12:18:24 am

Hi Roland and thanks for such thought-provoking comments. I would love to hear more if you do find the time! I agree with your focus on the organisation and sometimes think of OD as having (at least) three focus areas: strategic, systemic and psychological. The interventions you listed are, in my view, things that can support OD, depending on how they are framed and embedded in a wider OD strategy. One of the challenges is that there are very different views among OD theorists and practitioners (not to mention HR and organisational leaders and managers) about what OD is or should be. I had a go at tackling this issue at a CIPD conference and in a subsequent article that may be of interest: http://www.nick-wright.com/a-journey-towards-od.html. With best wishes. Nick

Joan Johnson

18/2/2013 11:34:39 pm

Hi Nick - I've come to this discussion late. The discussion on your website is great and worth reading. I'd like to share something.

Years ago, someone mentioned to me an OD framework that made sense, and it's stuck with me even though I don't know the actual source (maybe you've come across it?). I think it speaks to Roland's comment above.

Organisational development is what we all do as we improve the following areas to achieve organisational goals:

1. Vision and strategy - establishing, communicating, staying focused, updating ... this requires scanning the environment for opportunities and risks, strategising, etc. Focusing on the vision and strategy can be done by anyone at any level, but leaders must clearly and consistently communicate the vision and strategy.

2. Systems and processes - making sure these are fit for purpose, aligned with the vision, efficient, understood, etc. Any employee at any level can improve systems and processes. Leaders look at this strategically with an eye toward the horizon. Managers look at this both strategically and practically, with an eye on capacity. Staff look at this practically.

3. Capacity building - making sure we have fit for purpose staffing, technology, product, networks, etc. - sufficient and developing to meet organisational goals. Staff at all levels can participate in capacity building, again with different viewpoints. It's OD when it's strategically focused on how we reach our organisational goals.

4. Modelling - or Walking the Talk - Establish, communicate, stay focused on the vision/strategy ... make sure everyone is using and improving the systems and processes to achieve the vision/strategy ... develop capacity strategically. Staff at all levels can do this.

So if everyone can take part in OD, what's the role of the OD professional? I believe they are strategic thinkers who can identify the pathways to achieve strategic goals, with unique skills to help the people in the organisation to identify and implement the necessary changes. My sense is that OD professionals focus on the people, because people are the common element and the change agents in all of the above.

I'm curious about how many OD professionals are actively asking the hard questions and holding organisations accountable to non-human aspects of the organisation's development. In my experience, OD professionals are not usually technical specialists. They might recommend bringing on a technical specialist for certain aspects of the change work. This is where clearly articulated expectations and agreements between the OD person and the organisation are essential!

18/2/2013 11:44:11 pm

Hi Joan and thanks for adding to the conversation. I haven't seen the specific model you outline before but the dimensions it covers are similar to those in other models I've encountered.

I think you ask a great question, 'if everyone can take part in OD, what's the role of the OD professional?' I posed a similar question in an organisation I worked with, explaining how many different stakeholders play a part in developing the organisation (e.g. leaders, managers, staff, HR, L&D etc). If we take a broader view, we could add technical disciplines too (e.g. IT, Finance, Facilities).

In shorthand, I often think of OD as contributing a combined strategic, systemic and psychological perspective. I made an attempt at addressing this and similar questions at a CIPD conference which was published later as an article by Emerald: http://www.nick-wright.com/a-journey-towards-od.html. Let me know what you think?

With best wishes. Nick

20/2/2013 05:44:27 am

Great article, Nick. What you describe resonates with my experience as an external OD consultant to Oxfam Australia - on retainer for 8 years. This extended time frame is significant, as my work evolved over time - encompassing all of the modes you mention in your article.

I'd like to reflect on your point about OD practitioners bringing their person, perspective and practices to the work. I think my comment above alluded to the perspective and practices, but not the importance of "the OD practitioner's being or presence". You're right, of course - and I realise that I haven't valued this as highly as I should in myself. Years of reflection, meditation, coach training, reading, listening ... all of this creates expanded awareness and perspective that can be extremely valuable to clients when brought into problem-solving situations.

It's an important point for those who are early in their career and considering studying OD. I haven't looked at OD curricula lately, but I would hope they include significant work in the area of personal development. I know that coach training certainly does this. Though we wouldn't want an entire world of navel gazers, it's exciting to watch as expanded emotional and social intelligence filters into our organisations. OD people can take the lead here, while also paying attention to important business objectives - remembering that the business is why we're here.

Thanks, Nick ... really interesting!

21/2/2013 04:37:47 am

Hi Joan. Would love to hear more about your work with Oxfam Australia. Yes, I think the notion of presence is a very important one. Some people describe it as quality of attention, gravitas, personal influence etc. It can feel like an intangible quality that is nevertheless very definitely felt when we experience or encounter it.

I can think back to numerous occasions in recent years where people have commented after events I've facilitated that there was something about 'me' as much as the methods or techniques I have used that make the difference. I believe there can be a spiritual dimension to presence too - being present to the Presence.

I wote a short reflective piece on this in the context of coaching practice:http://www.nick-wright.com/1/post/2011/10/listening-for-a-voice.html. I liked your comments on personal development as part of OD programmes. I have seen it incorporated in some programmes but not others. With best wishes. Nick

22/2/2013 01:34:34 am

Yes, Nick - though I am very low key about bringing Presence to my work, it is recognised and commented upon by both individual and organisational clients.

I'm currently refreshing my coaching skills by doing the program at the Institute of Executive Coaching and Leadership in Australia. Part of what attracted me to the program was that they don't shy away from acknowledging the spiritual dimension of deep transformational coaching, and one of their core models comes from Ken Wilbur. As I spend more time with this group, I'll be interested to see how openly the spiritual dimension discussed, especially within client interactions.

Rapport, as you know, is essential to OD and coaching. Therefore, perhaps Presence will always speak to Presence, even if the language used is technical, operational and focused on the business. Another way to say this may be that we create rapport with our clients on many levels. And we must attend to the mundane if we are to be allowed to bring Presence into the room.

I wonder how other members of this group would respond to this line of thinking - to this articulation of our experience?

22/2/2013 01:56:52 am

Thanks Joan. I think you expressed that very profoundly. I find it a difficult balancing act. Spirituality is so intrinsic to my worldview and 'theory of change' yet I don't want to impose it on others and I'm aware that language of spirituality can be problematic. Different people mean different things by the same language, or different people use different language to mean the same things. Spiritual language and discourse is also heavily connotative and sometimes deeply sensitive, especially in some cultures.

In light of this, it can feel challenging to find shared meanings in order to explore things openly. Sometimes I err by saying too much or in terms that others find unhelpful or misleading, at other times I say too little for fear of causing offence or misunderstanding. I'm interested to hear more about your course and how it incorporates a spiritual dimension. I'd also be interested to hear more about Ken Wilbur's model. I would be fascinated to hear what happens if and when spirituality is discussed in the group.

I did a postgraduate diploma in coaching psychology a couple of years ago and spoke openly about my faith and beliefs in the group. Most people responded openly and some shared their own beliefs, deep questions, hopes, fears etc. too. It felt like an enriching conversation. The module we did on existential coaching brought such issues to the forefront, perhaps understandably so as it touches on such deep issues of life, death, existence, meaning, purpose etc.

I really liked your comment that 'Presence will always speak to Presence'. I was also interested in your comment that 'we must attend to the mundane of we are to be allowed to bring Presence into the room.' It's as if we need to establish rapport, credibility and trust with a client or group before we can openly speak of our own faith and beliefs. That certainly resonates with my own experience and general approach, depending on the cultural environment of the group and conversation.

With thanks again for sharing such thoughful reflections. Nick

Rose Eliud link

7/9/2013 07:23:29 am

Hi Nick, thanks for this clarity. I fully agree with your description.

Geofree

9/9/2013 07:56:56 am

Good orientation for me.Recently had a change a role from HR Business Partner to OD specialist.

Anthony

16/9/2013 10:39:49 am

Thank you Nick for bringing up this topic. Am an OD Doctorate candidate, hopefully graduating April 2014. Am currently working on my dissertation. I've also been involved in a number of OD processes in World Vision Kenya where I work. It's interesting to read the different thoughts and perceptions about OD and I hope the discussion continues. I'll not agree or dispute with anyone's description of OD, I'll however simply state what I've come to understand OD to be. "OD is simply a collaborative planned change process between a practitioner and a client organization focused on improving social and technological systems for continued effectiveness in attainment of goals and purpose".

Kizi link

28/6/2014 10:41:02 am

good article. the content you share is useful, glad I read the article and learn quality. thank you