1. The Origins of OD in the US and India
Introduction

2. History of OD
The history of organization development can be traced back to four separate but
related behavioral-science applications: Laboratory training, Tavistock method,
Socio-technical Systems, and Survey research and feedback.
1. The laboratory-training sessions were carried out in the 1940s under the leadership of Kurt Lewin. The
concept of T-groups was birthed in 1946. During this time period, small group trainings were initially called
―sensitivity training sessions,‖ since they were designed to sensitize participants to the forces of group
dynamics (like decision making and conflict resolution).
2. A second major precursor to OD was Wilfred Bion‘s Tavistock method. While Lewin was working in
America, Wilfred Bion was working with traumatized and shell-shocked soldiers from the battlefield. He
presented the notion that when the leader fails to take responsibility for the group‘s output, participants will
predictably react to the authority figure with one of three behavioral options – fight, flight, or pairing. When
the leader takes responsibility, the participants are more likely to respond with a fourth option that Bion
called work.
3. The third influence on OD was the emergence of socio-technical systems. The approach pioneered by
Trist and his colleagues is based on the premise that an organization is simultaneously a social and a
technical system. Prior to his contribution, Organization Development paid more emphasis on the social
subsystem (i.e. people who interact) and not on the technological subsystems (those systems that
produce something tangible).
4. Finally, the fourth major contribution was survey research. Much of this work was conducted in the Institute
of Social Research at the University of Michigan under Rensis Likert. He demonstrated how information
can be collected from members of an organization and used as the basis for participative problem solving
and action planning.
2

3. Timeline of Key OD Thinkers
FIRST WAVE SECOND WAVE
1940 - 1959 1960 - 1979 1980 -1999 2000 - Current
Kurt Lewin Eric Trist David
Harrison
Cooperrider
Owen
Appreciative Open
Laboratory Socio-Technical
Inquiry Space
Training Systems
Rensis
Likert
Edgar Schein Marvin Weisbord
Survey Group
The Tavistock Future
Feedback Process
Method Search
Consultation
Wilfred Bion
3

4. Application 1: Laboratory / Sensitivity Training

5. Overview - Laboratory / Sensitivity Training
 The scientific study of the processes that influence individuals in group situations
 Based on Kurt Lewin‘s belief that increased awareness of self and others could be
accomplished through facilitated group dialogue in Training Groups (or T-Groups) that
advocate open-minded appreciation and inclusion of differences
 The initial aim to study the dynamics of groups has undergone a number of transformations
and broadenings over its 70+year history.
 Current common scientific goal: to explain particular aspects of the complex dynamic
interdependence between the psychological life of an individual and the social system in
which that person exists.
 Methodology of group learning by experience rather than lecture
5

6. History of Laboratory / Sensitivity Training (ST)
1947 1979
Research Center Indian Society for 1996
1945 for Group Individual and Social Sumedhas – The Academy of
Research Center Dynamics (RCGD) Development (ISISD) was Human Context was founded by
for Group relocated to 1957 founded by Pulin Garg and a group of people who were
Dynamics Michigan in 1948 Rolf Lynton others at ISABS who concerned with the dynamic
(RCGD) with Dorwin conducted the first believed that Sensitivity interplay of multiple contexts in
established by Cartwright as the T-group in India training in its western form which the individual is located.
Kurt Lewin at the first director applied directly to India The pull in this approach is more
Massachusetts would reduce its efficacy. towards the freedom of action
Institute of A new form of ST formed and movement rather than on
Technology in India which integrated redoing and understanding the
Indian mythology and past.
philosophy with the
1949 Western ST philosophies. http://www. sumedhas.org
1946
The United States Office of Naval RCGD joined with the
Research and the National Survey Research Center
Education Association (NEA) to establish the Institute 1996
funded a planning group named for Social Research at After almost two decades of
the National Training Laboratory Michigan. intense involvement with ISISD,
for Group Development (which some members felt the need for a
was later changed to NTL http://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu creative departure, a need to
Institute for Applied Behavioral 1971 synthesize the learning's from
Science) with the vision of Kurt Indian Society for ISISD with others concern they
Lewin. Applied Behavioral held in Education and in
Science (ISABS) was Organization Development. A
http://www.ntl.org formed new institution called Aastha
was formed to bring ST to
educators through a holistic
www.isabs.org educational paradigm.
http://www.aasthafoundation.org
Parikh I. J., Jeyavelu, S. (2002). New trends in sensitivity training in organizations. Vikalpa, The Journal of Decision Makers, Vol. 7. No. 4.
6

7. Different Forms of Laboratory/Sensitivity Training
Laboratory Training Different Forms
Unstructured Sensitivity Training Labs  Personal growth labs
 Explorations in roles and identity
 Interpersonal labs
Semi-structured labs  Interface labs
 Leadership labs
 Self-renewal labs
 Visioning
 Co-creating labs
Structured workshops  Managerial and leadership roles
 Team building
 Building a cross-functional team
 Integrating Emotional Intelligence across multiple
roles & system
 Managing cross-cultural diversity
 Interpersonal and group dynamics
 Dynamic equilibrium between personal and
professional lives
Parikh I. J., Jeyavelu, S. (2002). New trends in sensitivity training in organizations. Vikalpa, The Journal of Decision Makers, Vol. 7. No. 4.
7

8. Comparative Analysis – The Concept
Even though the Indian perspective was based on the NTL philosophy, the evolution of a unique Indian
perspective started as early as the seventies.
Western Perspective Indian Perspective
(Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Effectiveness) (Role and Identity Approach)
• Conceptual understanding and Experiential learning  Experiential learning, Self-reflectivity, and Awareness
• Emphasis on gaining skills and competencies  Emphasis on unfolding of inherent potential
Focus on: Focus on:
 Individual growth and development  Individual growth and development
 Team working and role taking  Role creation and enactment
 Leadership  Collective leadership
 Work climate / culture  Co-creation of Organizational reality
 Resistance to change and Mindset change  Self and Professional renewal – individual, teams,
and organizations
 Balancing individual and organizational goals  Aligning simultaneous and multiple individual and
organization goals
• Interventions to solve problems  Interventions to change the working
paradigm/perspective
• To achieve organizational objectives  To Co-create organizational reality and future
Parikh I. J., Jeyavelu, S. (2002). New trends in sensitivity training in organizations. Vikalpa, The Journal of Decision Makers, Vol. 7. No. 4.
8

9. Comparative Analysis – The Process
Western Perspective Indian Perspective
(Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Effectiveness) (Role and Identity Approach)
Focus on: Focus on:
 Individual  Individual and Collectivity
 Psychological Processes  Cognitive and Emotive Processes
 Individual and Interpersonal processes  Role and Identity
 Individual as a Psychological and Social Being  Individual as a Member of Collectivity, Co-creator
of Identify and Role taker
 Repeating patterns in Relationships  Repeating patterns in roles
 Understanding of the Impact of Past on  Cognition of the Given and the Co-created Identity,
repeating patters and Action choices
• Socio-cultural context is considered to be of lower  Socio-cultural context as shaper of meaning given to:
importance to intra-personal and interpersonal  Roles and Relationships
processes  Self, Identity, and Growth
 Meaning of Existence
 Purpose of Life
 Individual
 Collectivities
Orientation is to achieve: Orientation is to achieve:
 Immediate action choices  Increased self-reflectivity
 Change  Acceptance of Emotive and Cognitive
Simultaneity
 Acceptance of self‘s role in Co-creating identity
and roles
• Objective is Awareness of Self, Repeating Intra and  Objective is Well-being and Acceptance of Humanness
Interpersonal patterns, and change for increased of Self, Others, and the System
Effectiveness
9

10. Nature and Processes / Underlying Assumptions
Personal Growth Labs
Process Statements Explanation
Invitation versus Compulsion to explore  The role of the facilitator is to open the space and invite the participants
without any compulsion
 The only pressure is internal and the individual is either ready or not ready
The Lab space in time and movement  The lab space is a shared space amongst the participants and the
versus Concept of ownership facilitator in order to being the self for sharing and reflection
 The space has no ownership but only to the coordinates of time and
structure linked to the external interface of the system, institution where the
lab is held, and an invitation
Role of the participants and the role of  The lab space is a sacred and shared space. Each individual offers what
the facilitator he/she wishes to offer
 The facilitator reflects like a mirror what he/she sees, hears, touches, and
feels. Je/she goes behind the events, encounters, and experiences, and
articulates the processes of the identity and the being of the person
 The participants are not clear about the lab space and their roles in the lab
Directionality versus Specificity  The facilitator does not provide specific solutions to specific problems of
the participants. Instead, he/she states the direction from which the
participant can make his/her choices.
Unfolding the Person versus  The lab space is an invitation to review and reflect upon life and to walk the
Boundaries of Growth path of self-discovery
 It is up to the individual to define the boundaries of exploration by
overcoming the fears and anxieties associated with unfolding
Parikh I. J., Jeyavelu, S. (2002). New trends in sensitivity training in organizations. Vikalpa, The Journal of Decision Makers, Vol. 7. No. 4.
10

11. Application 2: Tavistock /
Group Relations Conference

12. Overview – The Tavistock Method
• Based on Wilfred Bion‘s series of small study groups at London's Tavistock Institute of
Human Relations in the late 1940s and A. Kenneth Rice‘s work (chairman of Tavistock's
Centre for the Applied Social Research) that individuals cannot be understood, or changed,
outside the context of the groups in which they live.
• Essential to the Tavistock approach is the belief that when an aggregate becomes a group,
the group behaves as a system—an entity or organism that is in some respects greater than
the sum of its parts—and that the primary task of the group is survival.
• Although this primary task is frequently disguised or masked, survival as a group becomes
the primary preoccupation and latent motivating force for all group members. This emphasis
on survival provides the framework for the exploration of group behavior and all the overt
and covert manifestations of the primary task.
Group Relations Conferences (GRC‘s, also known as Working Conferences) are temporary educational
institutions for learning from ‗here and now‘ experience. By ‗here and now‘, one means working with
experiences that are readily available to all the participants (both members and staff) within the conference.
To that end they provide opportunities for the participants to explore their experience in the GRC as it takes
place in different events – experiences that are both conscious and unconscious. A GRC usually runs for 5 to
14 days and several events are built into it.
12

13. The Role of the Consultant
• The task of the consultant in a group relations conference is to fulfill a carefully defined role
function. The consultant consults only to the group, not to individual members of the group,
and only within the time boundaries prescribed. Frequently, the consultant's role is a subject
of much consternation among members.
• The consultant behaves as he does in the interest of assisting members to pursue the task
of the event in which they are involved. His objective is to facilitate the group's task to the
exclusion of all other concerns.
• The consultant does not engage in social amenities, advice-giving, parental nurturance, or
direction.
• The consultant performs his task by providing interventions for the group's consideration. In
a theoretical sense, the consultant "takes" the group by attending to its basic assumption
functioning and then reports his observations back to the group.
• As Rice (1965) describes it, the consultant's job is "to confront the group, without affronting
its members; to draw attention to group behavior and not to individual behavior, to point out
how the group uses individuals to express its own emotions, how it exploits some members
so that others can absolve themselves from the responsibility for such expression" (p. 102).
13

14. History of Group Relations
1965
The ideas of the A. K.
Rice Institute originated 2000
when Margaret Rioch Human and Institutional
collaborated with Development Forum (HIDF)
Kenneth Rice to formed to enhance human and
organize the first group institutional capacities in
relations conference development organizations and 2011
held in North America. individuals through a process of 4th Group Relations Conference
continuous learning, democratic held in India
functioning and contributing to
change in power relations
1969
The A. K. Rice Institute was founded http://www.hidforum.org/
by Margaret Rioch to create a U.S.
organization to manage and promote
group relations conferences using the
methodology developed by A.
Kenneth Rice in his work at the
U.K.-based Tavistock Institute.
http://akriceinstitute.org
14

15. Section 3: Socio-Technical Systems (STS)

16. Overview
• Originally developed at the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London, this approach to
designing work has spread to most industrialized nations in a relatively short period of time. In
the USA, STS theory has become the major underpinning of efforts involving work design.
Cincinnati Milacron, Amoco, USAA, Stanley Works, General Electric, and Caterpillar are among
many organizations using STS theory to design work.
• Socio-technical system design is based on the premise that an organization or a work unit is a
combination of social and technical parts and that it is open to its environment. Because the
social and technical elements must work together to accomplish tasks, work systems produce
both physical products and social/psychological outcomes.
• The key issue is to design work so that the two parts yield positive outcomes; this is called joint
optimization. This method contrasts with traditional methods that first design the technical
component and then fit people to it. The traditional methods often lead to mediocre performance
at high social costs. In addition to joint optimization, STS design is also concerned with the work
system and its environment. This involves boundary management, which is a process of
protecting the work system from external disruptions and facilitating the exchange of necessary
resources and information.
• Over 30 years ago, the early contributions to socio-technical theory by Emery and Trist included
approaches to design jobs and work systems. More recently, there seems to be frequent
reference to STS, given the inevitable infiltration of technology into organizations in all industries.
Appelbaum S. H. (1997). Socio-technical systems theory: an intervention strategy for organizational development. Management Decision. 35/6.
16

17. Application 4: Survey Research and
Feedback

18. Overview – Survey Research and Feedback
Rensis Likert developed a widely used approach to action research using a scale of responses,
allowing people to indicate how strongly they held a particular position on some item of
organizational concern.
Survey feedback, although used by industrial psychologists, has been part of the OD field and
widely used, not only with teams but also in assessing entire organizations. There are surveys
that look at employee morale, perceptions of leadership, clarity about mission and strategy, and
so on.
A number of different types of surveys are used to gather data feedback, both from the
managers and from their subordinates and peers, often including something on their managerial
style. This feedback was then used to provide training and development in the necessary skills.
Data feedback surveys like LIFO, DISC, and MBTI are used for self-assessment. Other
feedback surveys such as 360-degree feedback are developed to provide data from multiple
sources on how their behavior was perceived.
18

19. History of Surveys
1946
Survey Research Center
was founded by Rensis 1949 1970s
Likert The Institute of Social Research Survey feedback enters
(ISR) was created as an umbrella Corporate India
organization for both centers. The
ISR has contributed powerfully to the
body of knowledge about human http://www.empiindia.com Current
behavior and social interaction
Survey feedback extensively
used in various capacities:
1948 • As a sensing instrument
Research Center for Group Dynamics • For organizational
(RCGD) was founded improvements
• For strategic shifts in
structure, styles &
personnel policiees
• For team building
• For initiating cultural
changes
• For developing motivating
climate
Rao, T V;Vijayalakshmi, M. (2000). Organization development in India. Organization Development Journal.
19