Research insights: Part 2, What the early research findings told us about OD in the sector
A short overview of the user research insights that fed into the overall design of the Open OD principles.
As we explored in Research insights Part 1, Open OD is what M Aiken helpfully referred to from his research as a ‘chaotic concept’. A bit like love, it means many things to many people, to the extent that it has become difficult for people to define or draw meaningful boundaries around.
That’s partly why this Open OD project is so important — through our research and in part through the process of bringing people together to unpick what organisational development (OD) is all about, we’ve begun to build some consensus around the most critical basic principles that apply to any individual, organisation, or even sector, around how to develop organisations to achieve positive change.
We are now in the final stages of producing and publishing the principles, which are intended as a starting point for more conversations about this important field of practice. We hope to continue learning, iterating, enriching the work to maximise their value for people.
But before our colleagues at Shift share these principles, I wanted to take a moment to look at the insights that led to this point.
Exploring the triggers and barriers to organisation development
What were the main ‘problems’ OD is trying to solve?
The themes here were largely about OD helping organisations to be mission-focused; to build capacity for change; to build resilience; to create learning cultures, and creating organisations that help people to be more effective.
What did people say were the main triggers?
Outgrowing current structures; a desire to formalise development; a desire to fix issues caused by a crisis or shock; the influx of new leadership or investment; a desire to better meet organisational missions; a desire to bring in fresh thinking; seeing strong practice elsewhere, in other organisations/sectors; a need to adapt and change.
What sorts of barriers are limiting good OD practice?
People find it hard to point to examples and case studies for good OD practice; there tends to be lack of buy in across the organisation/amongst decision makers that matter; conflicting/competitive approaches and styles of learning; it can feel like a slow process and often jargon ridden; perverse incentives and disincentives from funders create risk aversion and a reluctance to invest in OD; a lack of clarity over the need or reason for doing OD; sparsity of OD mindsets, or aversion to change.
Eight main themes
From August to December we explored interpretations of ‘effective OD’ via 30 interviews and 3 co-design workshops. From these, eight main themes emerged, on what OD needs to encompass in order to work well.
Effective OD is…
Driven by mission and values: geared towards positive impact and rooted in user needs.
An organic process: it is iterative, with space for reflection and processing of learning and is treated as a fluid process with space to be creative & innovative.
Practical & pragmatic: is evidence and research led with solutions or frameworks and tools that are simple to use, adapt and adopt.
Proportionate/responsive to needs: the stage of the impact/growth lifecycle of an organisation is taken into account; it builds on the assets and strengths within and around an organisation.
Grounded in cultures: every decision is made with a justice and equity lens. Communities and users are actively involved in decisions that affect them.
Owned by all: there is buy in across the organisation/ecosystem, at all levels.
Based on trusting relationships: organisations are met where they are, on their terms. Motives are understood and consultants act as coaches/critical friends with longer term engagement.
People & systems focused: Leaders are supported and people are empowered to develop their skills, agency & autonomy. There is space to understand the roles played and inherent power dynamics.
Evolving to principles
These early themes were rough and ready. Since then, we’ve spoken with over 100 non profits, OD experts and funders in further co-design workshops and interviews. As well as stress tested various iterations of the principles in different forums including with our advisory group, the Pilotlight Network, Dark Matter Labs, the Small Charities Coalition network and others.
The principles today are an evolution of these early themes. They intend to create a meaningful framing that resonates and helps people to structure their thinking on what OD means for them and their organisations. We hope they will begin a fresh set of conversations about what could make them better and more useful in future.
We’re continuing to explore the question of ‘what next’ and would love to hear from you with your opinions, feedback, suggestions do get in touch.
Edited on 26 March: We realised it was another team member who had discovered the reference to OD as a chaotic concept which Tayo Medupin then likened to love. It comes from the philosopher/sociologist in Lancaster, Andrew Sayer and builds on the idea developed 30/40 or so years earlier about the ‘category error’ by Gilbert Ryle.
