Dialogic Organization Development Research Articles

A conceptual framework for practicing inclusive dialogic organization development in times of uncertainty and complexity

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to propose a conceptual framework for practicing inclusive dialogic organization development (OD).Design/methodology/approachThis paper reviews and presents Robert Kegan’s theory and practice of deliberately developmental organization as an exemplary model for dialogic OD.FindingsThe paper suggests three conditions to make the constantly emerging organizational reality socially just, equitable and inclusive – whole self, psychological safety and leader vulnerability.Originality/valueThe originality of this paper lies in making explicit issues of power in dialogic OD literature and providing implications for human resource development on how to lead and develop organizations inclusively in times of uncertainty and complexity.

Mindsets for Change Leaders: Exploring Priming Approaches for Leadership Development

ABSTRACT Diagnostic and dialogic organization development present two contrasting change practices that are frequently discussed in tandem. Yet, an increasing body of evidence shows they are co-applied in practice. For those involved in leadership of these practices, co-application means switching their engagement, such as commencing with a diagnostic analysis to determine the goals of change, then switching to dialogic processes to foster the emergence of new ways of working. However, theoretical descriptions of these two practices remain bifurcated and, as such, overlook leadership development approaches that help leaders switch between engagement styles. Addressing this problem, this paper explores a leadership development approach that focusses on mindsets. We propose six mindsets from psychology settings that are relevant for leadership of diagnostic and dialogic practices. A key contribution of this work is a new perspective on leadership development. Extending psychology-derived knowledge on how to activate mindsets provides leaders of change practices with a means to increase awareness of, and take control of, their mindset, helping them to adjust their engagement as change contexts dictate. MAD statement This paper seeks to Make a Difference (MAD) by offering a practical means to develop change leaders. Far too often, change practice literature has studied successful leaders with the aim to identify what they do, while at the same time overlooking the mechanics that develop these same actions and behaviours. The paper addresses this oversight with a focus on mindsets. It puts forward a means for leaders to increase awareness of, and take control of, their activated mindset and, in doing so, align what they do to change leadership contexts.

Of Definitions, Demarcation, and Disaggregation: Some Comments on the Dynamic Application of Diagnostic and Dialogic Organization Development

Of Definitions, Demarcation, and Disaggregation: Some Comments on the Dynamic Application of Diagnostic and Dialogic Organization Development

A Compelling Beginning and More to Uncover

The article by Hastings and Schwarz, Leading Change Processes for Success: A Dynamic Application of Diagnostic and Dialogic Organization Development (OD), deserves close review by scholars and practitioners. Their research supports arguments that OD approaches can be meaningfully categorized as diagnostic or dialogic and that differences in those approaches have significant implications for organizational change success rates. Concerns about how one assesses a leader's mindset and counterpoints to the conclusion that oscillation between diagnostic and dialogic approaches is always associated with higher success rates are presented.

Developing Teams in a Virtual Environment: A Generative Approach

At the beginning of 2020, the operations of the Finance Hub of the Americas (FHoA) at pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) were suddenly forced to shift entirely from face-to-face to remote work. To handle this challenge, an FHoA team started a team development process aimed at strengthening teamwork in virtual environments. The intervention was grounded in the principles of generative leadership and dialogic organization development. Through a scholar-practitioner collaboration that focused on identifying the drivers of the successful transition to remote work, we build a three-step process of team development using the metaphor of organic growth: (1) sowing, (2) nurturing, and (3) flourishing. Using GSK's example, we illustrate how this process became a simple but powerful strategy to help teams thrive in a virtual environment. The core of the process uses generative questions to configure a structured but adaptable process that can be easily implemented in different contexts and situations.

The Generative Change Model: Creating the Agile Organization While Dealing With a Complex Problem

The generative change model identifies the underlying process that has produced success in a variety of Dialogic Organization Development (OD) and large group intervention cases. It works with widespread stakeholder engagement and self-organizing properties of human systems, to create rapid, transformational change. It appears better suited to managing complex, adaptive challenges than traditional planned change. The paper briefly describes the model and explains one aspect of it in more depth, the use of purpose, instead of vision, to guide the change process.

Leading Change Processes for Success: A Dynamic Application of Diagnostic and Dialogic Organization Development

Change processes, the activities that enable change, and change leadership, meaning how to lead change processes, both influence the success of change. However, a surprising omission from this knowledge is: how do leaders choose between change processes? This article explores leaders’ choices between two orientations of change processes—illustrated by dialogic and diagnostic organizational development—in 79 cases of organizational change. It identifies that change is successful when leaders choose to oscillate between these two processes as change unfolds. Developing a model that explains this evolution, the article describes how the change leadership practice of concurrent inquiry interacts with the two representations of knowledge described by diagnostic and dialogic theories to inform a choice to oscillate. For scholars, this model further integrates the theoretical perspectives of dialogic and diagnostic theories. For practitioners, it provides a means to navigate between extant theories and, as such, ameliorate outcomes.

Diagnostic and Dialogic Organization Development: Competitive or Collaborative Focuses of Inquiry?

It is well documented that most organizational change initiatives following prescriptive or planned practices are unsuccessful. Although less discussed, there is evidence that the adoption of emerg...

Dialogic Organization Development and Subject–Object Dualism: A Social Constructionist Perspective on Dialogic Methods in an Organizational Context

This research explores the meanings that facilitators and sponsors working with Dialogic Organization Development (Dialogic OD) in the Brazilian context assign to their practices, using a social constructionist approach. Findings support the premise that Dialogic OD means more than just the application of methods and includes central metaphors used by participants to describe their practices. These metaphors suggest that “taken for granted” assumptions associated with a subject–object dualism may lead practitioners to reproduce nondialogical relations; however, when such assumptions are cast into doubt, Dialogic OD can stimulate the creation of new realities. The contrasts revealed by subject–object dualism suggest that the emergent field of Dialogic OD has been developing in tensional ways. Recommendations to practitioners include the acknowledgment of these tensions and “taken for granted” assumptions in a way that enables them to engage in more reflexive practices. Otherwise, Dialogic OD could become a new management fad.

Open Strategy-Making at the Wikimedia Foundation: A Dialogic Perspective

Dialogue is essential to open strategy processes, yet these processes have not been researched from a dialogic perspective. We therefore ask the question: What is the role of dialogue in open strategy processes? Our study of the development of Wikimedia’s 5-year strategy plan through an open strategy process reveals the endemic nature of tensions occasioned by the intersection of dialogue as an emergent, nonhierarchical practice, and strategy, as a practice that requires direction, focus, and alignment. Furthermore, our study suggests that context matters to both dialogic and open strategy processes and challenges universalist features of dialogue. Specifically, dialogic organization development and large group interventions perspectives can offer useful lenses to incorporate contextual features. Finally, our implications for practice suggest that particular organizing principles of open strategy processes can foster a healthy dialogic process in terms of enabling ongoing, diverse, and substantive interactions and inputs by stakeholders.

Shifting the paradigm: reevaluating resistance to organizational change

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to challenge the existing paradigm of resistance to organizational change by offering a novel, interdisciplinary perspective. More specifically, this paper seeks to detach from traditional formulations of resistance to change and introduce a new paradigm, reevaluating resistance through the Good Lives Model (GLM) and the concept of Primary Human Goods (PHG). Design/methodology/approach This conceptual paper uses contemporary literature on resistance to organizational change to make the case that the existing paradigm is one of negativity and deficiency. The authors define resistance, as currently formulated, subsequently offering a new perspective through the GLM. The etiological underpinnings of the model are provided and the concept of PHG is defined to illustrate relevance in reevaluating resistance to change. Findings The paper illustrates that resistance behaviors are not individual problems of employees, which must be overcome for successful change. Rather, resistance behaviors are the manifestation of disruptions to the achievement of PHG. Moreover, the paper demonstrates the pursuit of PHG is an innately positive, human activity that change strategies should take into account. The Dialogic Organization Development approach is also integrated as a means to uncover priority goods and disruptions that may impact them. Originality/value The paper provides a novel reevaluation of resistance to change through the interdisciplinary application of the GLM and PHG. Further, the paper uses the model to integrate several fundamental theories of human motivation into one cohesive, consistent framework.

Dialogic Organization Development: The Theory and Practice of Transformational ChangeDialogic Organization Development: The Theory and Practice of Transformational Change, edited by BusheGervase R. and MarshakRobert J.. 2015. 436 pages, hardback. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler

Dialogic Organization Development: The Theory and Practice of Transformational ChangeDialogic Organization Development: The Theory and Practice of Transformational Change, edited by BusheGervase R. and MarshakRobert J.. 2015. 436 pages, hardback. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler

Leadership Team Tool for better meaning making

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to present a Leadership Team Tool for developing reflexivity in the context of leadership teams.Design/methodology/approach– The Leadership Team Tool is based on the theoretical premises of seeing communication as meaning making, and therefore placing discourse and conversation in the center of developing leadership teams.Findings– The paper illustrates how reflexivity can be facilitated through a structured process of using the Leadership Team Tool. An empirical investigation of using the tool in an authentic leadership team setting is warranted to further develop the Leadership Team Tool.Originality/value– The paper makes a practical contribution to several fields of studies, such as team communication and reflexivity, leadership team research and dialogic organization development. The paper addresses the need to develop solutions to enhance reflexivity, as prior research has not established the best ways to foster reflexivity.

Beyond Lewin: Toward a Temporal Approximation of Organization Development and Change

We describe the new dialogic organization development (OD) fleshed out by Bushe & Marshak (2009) . In comparing this approach with the old diagnostic OD, we explore the limitations of Lewin’s (1947) unfreeze-change-freeze model for depicting organizational change over time. We develop an approach that more fully approximates an adequate temporal model of change by incorporating attention to sequence, timing, pacing, rhythm, and polyphonic dimensions present in change. We use this approach to explore longitudinally how the new OD came to be, as well as how it is now entrained with the old OD, and show that our approach reveals a number of dimensions of change that are masked by Lewin’s model. We illustrate the use of our approach beyond OD to depict the temporal dimensions of Tushman & Romanelli’s (1985) model of convergence and reorientation. Finally, we suggest next steps for theory, research, and practice.

Appreciating Organization Development: A Comparative Essay on Divergent Perspectives

Organization development (OD) applies social science knowledge to help organizations change and improve themselves. From its beginnings over 70 years ago in group dynamics, action research, and humanistic psychology, the field has expanded enormously to include a diversity of theories and practices aimed at developing organizations at different levels, from jobs, teams, and organizations to interorganization alliances and societal change. Along with this expansive evolution, however, has come increasing confusion and disagreement in defining the field's conceptual boundaries, change interventions, and underlying values. This raises fundamental questions about the nature and consequences of OD, which can impede the field's further progress conceptually, empirically, and practically. We clarify some of the major ambiguities and differences in the field today and suggest solutions for moving forward by comparing four pairs of divergent perspectives: (a) development versus change, (b) episodic versus continuous change, (c) planned versus emergent change, and (d) diagnostic versus dialogic OD. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.