Program Review
For the
Master of Science in Organization Development
Central Washington University
Prepared by:
Glenn H. Varney Ph.D.
12/20/06
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Short Report 3
Organization Development and Change Background 4
Analysis 5
What’s Working/What’s NOT Working 9
Recommendations 10
Appendix A 11
Appendix B 12
DATA SOURCES
Ø MSOD Program Review (10/17/06)
Ø Survey of Alumni of MSOD (10/30/06)
Ø Central Washington University 2006-2007 Catalog
Ø AOM-ODC Division Report on "Entry Level ODC Competencies" (2000)
Ø Organization Development and Change, Graduate Degree Programs, University of Pennsylvania
Ø Telephone Interview Data
Short Report
The following chart represents a subjective evaluation of the critical points in the MSOD CWU program review. Explanation of each rating is contained in the analysis section (pp. 4).
The results of the review suggest that the MSOD is reasonably healthy. The major problem seems to be finding a home for the program and a person who will champion it in the future (see pp. 9 for recommendations).
Organization Development and Change Background
The term Organization Development (OD) was coined in the early 1960s. In the late 1970s, the Academy of Management OD Division (founded in 1972) changed its name to Organization Development & Change (ODC) to reflect what the field had become – “a profession focused on helping organizations improve their effectiveness and competitive position through the application of behavioral science, research, and inquiry.”
ODC was founded by a distinguished group of applied academics/scholars (i.e. Argyris, Likert, Shepard, French, Huse, Bennis. Etc.) The founders were theory builders and applied researchers.
ODC graduate master level degrees were established in the early 70s at several universities (Case Western Reserve University, Bowling Green State University, American University, Pepperdine, and Benedictine). Today, there are 31 master programs plus six (6) doctorate programs (Pepperdine, Benedictine, Saybrook, University of California, St. Thomas and Case Western Reserve University.)
LOCATION
/ MASTER LEVEL / DOCTORATE LEVELSchool of Professional Studies, Organizational Studies, and Human & OD / 4
Continuing Education/ Graduate Studies / 1
Public Affairs/ Urban Policy / 2
Discipline of Business / 10 / 2
Discipline of Psychology / 4 / 1
Discipline of Education / 5 / 3
Discipline of Technology / 1
Discipline of Arts & Sciences / 3
Interdisciplinary Program / 1
TOTAL / 31 / 6
There are three professional organizations serving ODC:
1) Academy of Management ODC Division (Academic Focus)
2) OD Network (Practitioner Focus)
3) OD Institute (Practitioner Focus)
There are three journals supporting the field of ODC:
1) Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (Research)
2) OD Practitioner (Practitioner)
3) OD Journal (Practitioner)
ODC is going through a transition from a soft/practitioner based field to a Data Based Change Management academic discipline. The Academy of Management ODC Division is leading the change through its conferences, research, and “Building ODC as a Academic Discipline” initiatives.
ODC programs are likewise adjusting their program design and delivery to fit the data based change models of the future.
Analysis
MSOD PROGRAM GOALS
1) MSOD Learning Outcomes and Program Structure /MSOD LEARNING OUTCOMES
The field of Organization Development and Change (ODC) is currently transitioning from a soft/practitioners orientation to a Data Based/Change Management “academic discipline”.The following stated “learning outcomes” for the Central Washington University MSOD are clearly in line with the emerging ODC as an “academic discipline”.
Students will be able to…
· Analyze workplace behavior at the individual, group, and organizational levels
· Diagnose needs and problems that lead to proactive interventions (Change programs)
· Conduct successful interventions that achieve desired outcomes
· Evaluate actual outcomes against the desired outcomes
PROGRAM STRUCTURE/DESIGN
There appears to be no obvious plan or model (road map) that shows students how and when they will acquire the knowledge and skills which will certify that they are graduate level qualified in the four “learning outcomes”:1. Analyze workplace behavior
2. Diagnose needs and problems that lead to change interventions
3. Conduct and Design interventions
4. Evaluate outcomes from interventions
2) Continuous Improvement of MSOD Curriculum
2 (Cont)
Continuous Improvement of MSOD Curriculum / There is little evidence that the MSOD curriculum has been effectively benchmarked against other leading programs, as well as, “competency” studies in ODC. NO faculty are currently members of any of the recognized ODC professional organizations (AOM-ODC, ODN, or ODI)
In general, the MSOD delivers much of the body of knowledge defined by the Academy of Management ODC Division study of Entry Level ODC Competencies (graduate level).
Areas that do not appear to be included are:
Foundation (preparation for CORE ODC knowledge & skills)
1) Organization behavior
2) Comparative cultural perspectives
3) Basic statistics
4) Basic business (Finance, Management, Supply Chain, Etc.) [See Appendix A]
Core
1) Organizational research methods that support data driven organizational change
2) Ethics in organizational change
3) Designing interventions that bring about desired change
4) Evaluating and securing change
There is course content that appears to be overemphasized or not directly related to the MSOD “learning outcomes”:
Questionable Course Content
1) Consulting in organizations (OD 562)
2) Process control methods (OD 575) – (An intervention)
3) OD 590 (Spring 2005) “Supervised field experience” focuses on interpersonal skills not application of theories and concepts as stated in the catalog
4) OD 590 Supervised field experience titled “whole group project” focuses on team building and facilitation not application of theories and concepts (questionable if this is a graduate credit course)
5) OD 598 Special topics focus on “how to” skills in feedback, conflict resolution, observation, cooperation, and team leadership. This type of course is not generally regarded as a graduate credit course offering
3) Continuous Improvement of Student Performance
3 (Cont)
Continuous Improvement of Student Performance Continued / 1) There does not appear to be a comprehensive, integrative course project or thesis. Such a course, like OD 700, should be designed to measure the four learning outcomes – analyzing, diagnosing, conducting interventions, and evaluating outcomes. The one thesis submitted with the self-study demonstrated competency in analyzing and diagnosing, but not in conducting interventions and evaluating outcomes.
2) The survey of alumni does not provide much useful information on how well qualified graduates are to manage change. Recall self assessment against behaviorally undefined topics tends to lack validity. Also confounding the survey results for learning outcomes assessment is the N=96 which includes subjects prior to 2000.
3) Student learning assessment process at the course level (grading) seems to be sound and rigorous except for the following courses:
a. OD 590 (Both courses)
b. OD 570
c. OD 562
4) Faculty / 1) The graduate level qualifications for tenured faculty are high, although their vitas do not reflect their active involvement in the field of Organization Development and Change through their professional affiliations and publications. (Academy of Management ODC Division, JABS, AOM publications, etc.)
2) The adjunct faculty (N=3), by most graduate school standards are underqualified to teach graduate level offerings. They also appear to be consultants with mostly “soft/practitioner orientations.”
5) Applicant Pool and Entrance of Students into the program / The self study described the potential student pool as a mixture of experienced HR and OD practitioners/ individuals seeking “a graduate degree”, “want to be” beginners in the field, etc. A mixed bag of students, at best, and a difficult group to teach Organization Development and Change.
The lack of clear focus on what types of students the MSOD is designed for is and will continue to cause problems in conducting the program.
Although there is a clear description of the admission process, there is NO documentation of the qualifications of the students entering the MSOD.
6) Supportive Environment / 1) Clearly there is currently NO home for the MSOD. The psychology department unanimously wants the programmed transferred or discontinued. Without a champion for the program, it will deteriorate further resulting in its discontinuation. There are individuals within the university who expressed the desire to see the program continue outside of the psychology department.
2) Alumni as identified in the survey, have positive and hopeful feelings about the future of the MSOD.
7) Vision for the MSOD / There is NO clear picture from the faculty, administration, or alumni of a “vision” for the future of the MSOD. The field is in a state of significant transition with all indications that ODC will emerge in the next few years as an academically data based change management discipline. [See Appendix B]
What’s Working/What’s NOT Working
POSITIVE
1) The MSOD has been staffed with competent tenured faculty
2) The program stated “learning outcomes” are “on the mark” for teaching and learning ODC
3) The common body of knowledge is largely covered in the program
4) Alumni, in general, are supportive and satisfied with the direction of the program
5) Several CWU individuals are interested in the continuation of the program
NEGATIVE
1) Psychology department is not interested in being responsible for the program in the future
2) Adjunct faculty are underqualified to teach graduate level courses
3) There is a lack of faculty affiliation with ODC professional organizations (AOM-ODC, ODN, & ODI)
4) There appears to be NO “champion” for the program
5) Apparently there is a small group of dissatisfied MSOD alumni groups (7 or 8 people)
Recommendations *
1) DO NOT discontinue the MSOD program.
2) Remove the program from the psychology department and attach to one of the following in order from most to least favorable:
I. College of Science (ODC is merging as a science)
II. College of Business Administration (Application of ODC requires a business/management basics)
III. Interdisciplinary (Continuing Education, Professional and Organization Studies because the MSOD is an applied behavioral interdisciplinary program)
IV. Education (Education, training, technology)
3) Find a “champion” - an academic knowledgeable in ODC and a person who will spearhead the programs during a rebuilding period.
4) Organize a study and design group to reconstruct the MSOD. This group should be interdisciplinary including Alumni and Psychology Faculty. They should be challenged with building a new and viable MSOD program. Part of their task would focus on:
I. Market – who are your potential students?
II. Redesign the program to fit the current learning outcomes
· Analyze workplace behavior at the individual, group, and organizational levels
· Diagnose needs and problems that lead to proactive interventions (Change programs)
· Conduct successful interventions that achieve desired outcomes
· Evaluate actual outcomes against the desired outcomes
III. Recruit graduate level faculty (Interdisciplinary to CWU and Ph.D. qualified adjuncts)
IV. Design a delivery system to include E-learning, collaborative arrangements with organizations for application and change research, more favorable location, enhanced fee structure, etc.
Successful change is based on:
1) Following the discipline of change management (scientific method)
2) Continuous involvement of stakeholders (generation of ideas, ownership, and commitment)
Appendix A
Dear Colleague,
Our OD work has a strong humanitarian focus. If you’re like me, you may feel some aversion to the “hard” bottom-line focus of many organizations. In many years as an internal and external organization development consultant, I’ve learned that my clients don’t want me to sound “touchy-feely”. They expect me to be a business partner. As one boss once said to me, “We expect you to learn our language and processes. We don’t want to learn what all your words and language really mean.”
Over the years, I’ve learned how to relate OD work to my clients’ bottom line while retaining my core values and skill sets. Now I and a group of seasoned colleagues offering you the benefit of hundreds of years of collective experience in connecting OD work to the strategy and mission of the organizations we serve. The OD Network Business Acumen certificate program consists of seven web-based courses, offered in nine modules, that will give you the ability to talk to clients in language that resonates for the executives and organizations you serve, thus enhancing your creditability in the world of business. When you master these Business Acumen concepts, you’ll be more effective in helping your clients, because they will see you as a true partner in their success.
Robin Reid
OD Network Business Acumen Course Developer
Principal, Robin Reid and Associates
Source: ODN Newsletter, 11/06
Appendix B
Challenges Facing The Field
Of
Organization Development
(An Academic Perspective)
BY:
GLENN H. VARNEY PH.D.
Bowling Green State University (04/05)
For the past several years, professionals, practitioners, and academics have been abuzz with concerns about the life expectancy of Organization Development. Typically, these concerns involve issues like:
ü What is OD?
ü Where is OD going and will it be here in the future in a different form?
ü Is OD just a “fad” on its way out?
ü What qualifications does one need to have to do OD work?
ü Why isn’t there more new research involving change?
ü Why have authors stopped using OD in book titles and are now use “change” instead?
Articles and, indeed entire, issues of some practitioner publications have been devoted to this who are we identity crisis…
These concerns have been expressed by many loyal and devoted professionals in the field, especially by academics who have a strong commitment to the foundations upon, which OD has thrived and grown. These foundations are deeply rooted in academy, where the founders of OD worked and lived. (Shephard, Bennis, Benne, Argyris, Schein, Blake, Mouton, French, Maslow, McGregor, Likert, Herzberg, Zand, etc.)
Indeed, the authors of the now famous Addison Wesley “six pack” (1969) grew up in the academic world. (Bennis, Lawrence & Lorsch, Schein, Blake & Mouton, Walton, and Galbraith) All of the “foundation literature” listed in the 2003 edition of the Bibliography of Organization Development and Change (p. 9-15) was authored by academics. (Argyris, Benne, Bennis, Bradford, Boss, Lippitt, Schein, Chin, Dyer, Galbraith, Herzberg, Katz, Kahn, Lewin, Likert, Lippitt, Watson, Westley, McGregor, Maslow, Roethlisberger, Vaill, Tannenbaum, Weschler, Massarik, Westgaard, and etc.)