lynham (2004) selecting od theory

10.1177/1534484304265484 ARTICLEHuman Resource Development Review / June 2004Lynham et al. / SELECTING OD THEORY FROM AN HRD PERSPECTIVE

Selecting Organization DevelopmentTheory From an HRD Perspective

SUSAN A. LYNHAMTexas A & M University

THOMAS J. CHERMACKUniversity of Minnesota

MELISSA A. NOGGLETexas A & M University

As is true for human resource development (HRD), the field of organiza-tion development (OD) draws from numerous disciplines to inform its the-ory base. However, the identification and selection of theory to informimproved practice remains a challenge and begs the question of what canbe used to inform and guide one in the identification and selection ofpractice-informing theory. This article considers the topic of OD for per-formance improvement and proposes that the selection of OD theory rele-vant to the topic can be informed from two perspectives: the theoreticalfoundations of HRD and multiple domains of performance improvement.When integrated, these two views inform the development of a heuristicand theory-for-practice (TFP) matrix useful to researchers and practitio-ners. The synthesis of this heuristic is presented, discussed, and applied tothe topic of OD for performance improvement. Implications of the TFPmatrix for further research and improved practice are briefly noted.

Keywords: OD theory; foundations of HRD; performance improvement,theory-for-practice

Currently, the knowledge and theory base from which practitioners andscholars in organization development (OD) may draw is immense andmultidisciplinary (T. G. Cummings & Worley, 2001; French & Bell, 1999;Rothwell, Sullivan, & McLean, 1995). Because the theoretical landscape ofOD is so vast, choosing OD theories that inform practice can be an over-whelming task. In addition, there are many approaches and views regardingthe nature of OD theory (L. L. Cummings & Staw, 1985; T. G. Cummings &Worley, 2001; French & Bell, 1999; Rothwell et al., 1995; Van Eynde, Hoy,& Van Eynde, 1997; Woodman & Pasmore, 1987).

Human Resource Development Review Vol. 3, No. 2 June 2004 151-172DOI: 10.1177/1534484304265484© 2004 Sage Publications

Foundations of HRD

Using the theoretical foundations of human resource development(HRD) would provide OD professionals with a useful means of examiningand selecting sound theory for OD practice. Housed within HRD (McLagan,1989), OD, and therefore OD theory, can be considered and informed by thetheoretical foundations of HRD. For the purposes of this article, the mini-mum theoretical foundations of HRD will be taken to include economics,psychology, and systems theory (Holton, 1999; Passmore, 1997; Swanson,1999; Swanson & Holton, 2001; Torraco, 1997). These three theoreticalfoundations of HRD emphasize an integrated and consistent approach toHRD, with performance improvement as an essential, but not necessarilysufficient, outcome of HRD practice (Holton, 1999, Passmore, 1997;Swanson, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999; Swanson & Holton, 2001). This inte-grated theoretical perspective, when coupled with the emphasis on perfor-mance improvement, can provide a useful means for identifying andselecting OD theories that inform practice.

An emphasis on performance improvement is critical to the crediblepractice and development of the field of OD because, as Swanson (1999)noted, there is increasing demand in organizations for high performance.This increasing demand for performance outcomes requires that areas ofpractice such as HRD and OD develop principles and models based on per-formance to prevent continuous trial-and-error application (Swanson,1999).

The alternative to having foundational theories is a discipline in whichpractitioners are free to include any theories they may choose. This arbi-trariness can be problematic when practitioners attempt to replicate results.It can also be problematic in that the theories selected may not be verified forthe context of application, nor may they be trustworthy in informing thedesired outcomes (Christensen & Raynor, 2003). Micklethwait andWoolridge (1996) described the current state of random reengineering as anexample of how damaging atheoretical ventures can be. Swanson (1998)suggested that to focus on long-term results, develop the ability to replicatethem, and acquire a deep understanding of a discipline requires a logical andcoherent set of foundational theories.

As is the case with HRD, many definitions can be found for OD. Egan’s(2002) study, for example, collected 27 definitions of OD and made use of apanel of seven experts to highlight the dependent variables in each defini-tion. Furthermore, a separate panel of accomplished OD practitioners andscholars examined the resulting dependent variables and grouped them intocategories. Although a new, integrative definition of OD is not offered inthis definitional synthesis, expert sorting and grouping resulted in the iden-tification of 10 categories of dependent, or outcome, variables embedded inthe OD definitions considered. These outcome variables include to (a)advance organizational renewal, (b) engage organization culture change, (c)

152 Human Resource Development Review / June 2004

enhance profitability and competitiveness, (d) ensure health and well-beingof organizations and employees, (e) facilitate learning and development, (f)improve problem solving, (g) increase effectiveness, (h) initiate and/ormanage change, (i) strengthen system and process improvement, and (j)support adaptation to change (pp. 62-67). It seems that a comprehensivedefinition of OD would contain something from each of these key catego-ries, although, curiously, none explicitly states performance improvementis a primary outcome variable of OD.

Given performance as a key outcome emphasis of HRD, and if consider-ing OD as a component of HRD (McLagan, 1989), it seems likely that thisperformance improvement perspective, when combined with that of an inte-grated foundational theory perspective offered by HRD, might make somevaluable contributions to the theory and practice of OD (Kimberley & Niel-sen, 1975; March & Sutton, 1997; Nicholas, 1982). It is therefore the task ofthis article to develop a heuristic and theory-for-practice (TFP) frameworkin the form of an integrative matrix that can provide a useful and groundedmeans for both researchers and practitioners to identify and select theoriesof OD for improved performance. The development and application of TFPmatrix to the topic of OD for performance improvement are explicated in thenext five sections of this article. The first considers the driving problemstatement, guiding research questions, and methodology used to developthe TFP matrix and its application to the topic of OD for performanceimprovement. The second section presents a brief overview of related litera-ture used to inform the need for and development of the TFP matrix, and thethird highlights the guiding definitional and ultimately heuristic compo-nents of the TFP matrix. The fourth section demonstrates how the TFPmatrix can be used to inform the identification and selection of, in the caseof this article, theories to inform OD practice aimed at performanceimprovement. Finally, the fifth section offers some concluding commentsand suggestions for possible future research.

Problem Statement, Research Questions,and Methodology

The word foundation is derived from the Latin word fundare, meaning “to laythe bottom [the base, of] . . . to establish” (Barnhart, 1995, p. 298) and isdescribed in the Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary (Soukhanov,1994, p. 501) as “the basis on which a thing stands, is founded, or is supported.”Without foundational theories and an informed means for selecting them, HRDpractitioners are less likely to be able to replicate results or develop a deepunderstanding of results achieved through OD interventions (Swanson, 1999).The heuristic provided in this article, in the form of a TFP matrix, is intended tohelp address these concerns for identifying, selecting, and continuously devel-

Lynham et al. / SELECTING OD THEORY FROM AN HRD PERSPECTIVE 153

oping foundational theory. The resulting heuristic is informed by Swanson’s(1998, 1999) three theoretical foundations of HRD and Holton’s (1999) fourdomains of performance improvement and can be used by HRD and OD practi-tioners to select OD theories for improved practice. We would like to acknowl-edge that this theoretical-foundations-of-HRD: four-domains-of-performanceperspective provides one view of identifying and selecting OD theory. However,the resulting heuristic does suggest the usefulness of the integration of these the-oretical foundations and performance domains in guiding informed OD practiceaimed at performance improvement. The following questions serve as the basisfor the task of this article:

1. From an HRD theoretical foundations and performance improvement perspective,what would constitute foundational OD theory?

2. Within the HRD theoretical foundation and performance improvement perspec-tive, what would constitute foundational OD theory?

The method used to address these two guiding questions included a concep-tual review, critical analysis, and synthesis of related scholarly literature.This approach helped to use the current state of the body of knowledge on ODfor performance improvement theory to inform the need for and developmentof the heuristic and to provide a theoretically grounded means for identifyingand selecting OD theories for the purpose of performance improvement (seeFigure 1).

An important assertion of this article is that performance improvement isa desirable business outcome of OD interventions (Beer, Eisenstat, &Spector, 1990; Sashkin & Burke, 1987; Swanson & Holton, 2001). A secondassertion is that existing and emerging OD theory can be used to informbetter OD practice aimed at performance improvement (Armenakis &Bedeian, 1999; Bazigos & Burke, 1997; Lynham, 2002; Torraco, 1999). Afurther assertion is that viewing OD theory from an integrative perspectiveof the theoretical foundations of HRD as well as performance improvementcan be used to inform the synthesis and development of a heuristic frame-work for, in the case of the focus of this article, the identification and selec-tion of theories foundational to the practice of OD for performanceimprovement. A brief overview of related literature is presented in thesection following and lends credence to these assertions.

Theoretical Framework

OD is critical to the performance of any organization because it bringskey skills and perspectives that effectively facilitate changes in culture andshifts in strategy to address the complex challenges facing organizations(Jelinek & Litterer, 1988; March & Sutton, 1997; Nicholas, 1982). Unfortu-nately, OD theory has not been sufficiently connected to performance


improvement, and this inadequacy impedes the field’s research capabilityand inhibits the effective practice and the evaluation of OD interventions(Beer & Walton, 1987; Burke & Litwin, 1992; Christensen & Raynor, 2003;Porras & Robertson, 1987; Weick & Quinn, 1999; Woodman, 1989). Thisinadequate theory-practice link speaks to the need to contextualize existingOD theory within an integrated framework of foundational theory aimed atperformance improvement through purposeful and planned changeinterventions.

OD has grown up with an underlying philosophy of improving processeswithin environments that, in turn, foster effective organizations that balancethe needs of the individual with those of the organization (Bazigos & Burke,1997; Church, Burke, & Van Eynde, 1994; Sashkin & Burke, 1987; VanEynde, Church, Hurley, & Burke, 1992). As the environment in which orga-nizations operate has become more competitive, the need for OD to embracephilosophical frameworks that integrate the concept of performanceimprovement into the outcome equation of OD practice has increased(Nicholas, 1982; Sashkin & Burke, 1987). As noted by Jelinek and Litterer(1988), it is no longer acceptable to treat performance improvement as ahopeful by-product of OD interventions. The field, they say, has to “recog-nize real and urgent pressures for performance and take into account chang-ing strategic goals” (p. 136). Without integrating OD theory and interven-


HRD: “A process for developing and/or unleashing human expertise through Training and Development and Organization Development for the purpose of improving performance” (U of MN, 1994).

OD: “A process of implementing systematic change in organizations for the purpose of improving performance” (U of MN, 1994).

Theoretical Foundations of HRD Psychology, Economics, and Systems Theory

Four Domains of Performance Improvement Individual, Group, Process, and Organizational

Perspectives for Considering OD Theory

+

FIGURE 1: A Graphic Model of an HRD Perspective for Considering OD Theory

tions with specific impact on performance improvement and increasedproduction and financial performance, the field of OD will likely becomeless relevant to organizations seeking performance improvement throughdeliberate and planned change interventions (Beer et al., 1990). Also notedis the importance for scholars and practitioners alike to appreciate the busi-ness, intervention, and change process perspectives in their inquiry andpractice of OD (Armenakis, Harris, & Field, 1999; Garud & Van de Ven,2000; Stevenson & Greenberg, 1998; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995).

Noted in the literature are two commonly accepted, general categories ofOD theory—namely, implementation theory and change process theory(Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Bazigos & Burke, 1997). The first of thesecategories, that of implementation theory, is described by Bennis (1966) asthe theory of changing and includes theory focused on the activities or spe-cific actions associated with the successful implementation of change(Porras & Robertson, 1987). This category can be further separated intothose theories that inform strategy and procedure and that establish ODimplementation techniques such as diagnosis, planning, intervention, andevaluation (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Porras & Robertson, 1987).

In contrast, the second category of theories, namely change process theo-ries, explain the variables, outcomes, and causal relationships related to theprocess of change itself—that is, how change itself happens (Bennis, 1966;Garud & Van de Ven, 2000; Porras & Robertson, 1987). These two catego-ries of theory together form an essential knowledge base for successful ODintervention and provide a theoretical foundation for the practice of organi-zation development (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Porras & Robertson, 1987;Woodman, 1989). Together, these two categories of theory guide and informthe OD practitioner as to both how the change process works (change pro-cess theory) and how to implement change successfully (implementationtheory). It is important to note that to effectively influence change in anorganization and to understand the impact of OD on performance improve-ment, both theoretical perspectives need to be employed in a mutuallyinforming manner by the OD practitioner (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Porras &Robertson, 1987; Woodman, 1989).

Porras and Robertson (1987), among others, have cautioned that OD the-ories, whether of an implementation or change process nature, are not nec-essarily well formulated and must be understood within their intended con-text to be informative and effective. Further noted is that the development ofOD theory does not reflect a tendency to build on previous theory(Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Bazigos & Burke, 1997). This suggests a pro-pensity to invent new explanations of OD phenomena rather than usingexisting intervention and change knowledge to continuously confirm andrefine OD theory, a necessary requirement for trustworthy theory in multi-


ple contexts of application (Christensen & Raynor, 2003; Lynham, 2002;March & Sutton, 1997).

A recent article in the September 2003 issue of the Harvard BusinessReview highlighted the relevance of theory for improved practice. In thisarticle, Christensen and Raynor (2003) noted the importance of continu-ously building on and improving theory. Rather than relying on theories ofcorrelation alone, the authors emphasize the importance of continuous the-ory development toward a state of causal explanation. In other words, theystrongly advocate the need for theory that “can predict more accurately howthe phenomenon should work in a wider range of circumstances” (p. 68).Christensen and Raynor further noted the “circumstance contingent” (p. 90)nature of theory, the importance of asking “when doesn’t it (the theory)work?” (p. 91), and how continuous development and refinement of theoryleads to more widely applicable and therefore more widely useful theory.

Bazigos and Burke (1997) lent support to the above theory-related pointshighlighted by Christensen and Raynor (2003). In a study of what theoriesguide OD practitioners in their practice, Bazigos and Burke found that ODpractitioners do not seem to act from a uniform theory base. Rather, theirfindings suggest that OD practitioners tend to act from predominantlyhumanistic values, a resulting predisposition toward supporting psycholog-ical theories, a tendency to practice aimed at individual and group perfor-mance, and the display of an “insufficient appreciation of systems-levelissues” (p. 403). They further report that OD practitioners more often thannot ignore “change levers significant to today’s environment” and the “needto be multitheoretical and multidimensional” in their thought and practice(p. 403). These authors note that “a greater appreciation of OD’s theoreticalunderpinnings has the potential for providing clients with a higher likeli-hood that comprehensive diagnosis will be matched to appropriateintervention plans” (p. 404).

The literature appears to support the three assertions integral to the pro-posed TFP matrix that is the focus of this article: namely, that performanceimprovement in multiple domains of performance is a desirable outcome ofOD practice; that the identification and selection of theory foundational toOD practice, in this case OD for performance improvement, is important forimproved OD practice; and that an integrated, systemic perspective of suchfoundational theory is a sought-after perspective to inform a multidimen-sional, multitheoretical approach to OD practice. It is the intent of the TFPmatrix to address these current theory-to-practice limitations evident in therelated OD for performance improvement literature. The resulting TFPmatrix, presented in the following section, provides HRD professionalswith an integrated heuristic by which related OD for performance improve-ment theory can be identified and selected to inform improved practice.


The TFP Matrix: A Definitional Description

For the proposed heuristic to be useful for the task of identifying andselecting theory foundational to OD for performance improvement, it ishelpful to provide a contextual definitional description of the TFP matrix.First defined are the constructs of HRD and OD. Second, the components ofthe two axes of the matrix: namely, the theoretical foundations of HRD (psy-chology, systems and economic) and the domains of performance (individ-ual, group/social, process, and organization) in the context of OD for perfor-mance improvement are defined and presented in Table 1. Finally, anintegrated definition of each of the theoretical foundations of HRD at eachdomain of performance improvement, and in the context of OD for perfor-mance improvement, is provided in Table 2. The definitions presented areimportant in that they are of a heuristic nature and are later used to guide andinform the TFP matrix in action, that is, in identifying and selecting theoriesfoundational to OD for performance improvement.

For the intent of this article, HRD and OD are defined as follows:

• HRD is a process of developing and/or unleashing human expertise through person-nel training and development (T&D) and OD for the purpose of improving perfor-mance (University of Minnesota, 1994).

• OD is the process of implementing systematic change in organizations for the pur-pose of improving performance (University of Minnesota, 1994).

Having presented the definitions for the eight components of the two axes ofthe TFP matrix, Table 2 presents an integrative and purposive definition for each12 component cells within the matrix. It should be noted that these definitionshave been compiled within the context of OD for performance improvement andthat it is these integrative and purposive definitions that inform the later selectionof theories foundational to OD for performance improvement, highlighted andbriefly discussed in the next section of this article.

Application of the TFP Matrix to ODfor Performance Improvement

By combining the theoretical foundations of HRD (Swanson, 1999)with the whole-system performance domain perspective (Holton, 1999), aunique, 12-cell matrix of OD theory for performance improvement canbe provided (see Table 3). The TFP matrix further sets up criteria for identi-fying and selecting OD theories in each matrix cell. For example, psycho-logical theory at the individual domain of performance must satisfy the inte-grative definition and purpose of psychological theory that can be usedto inform individual performance improvement (see correspondingpsychology-individual performance matrix cell in Table 2).



TABLE 1: The Theory-for-Practice (TFP) Matrix: Definition of the Two Axes

Domains of PerformanceImprovement Theoretical Foundations of HRD

Psychological the-ory: A descriptionand explanation ofbehavior and men-tal processes ofhumans and theireffect on humansand human systemperformance(Passmore,1997).

Systems theory:A description andexplanation ofhow the allocationof scarceresources among avariety of humanwants affects indi-vidual, group, pro-cess, and/or wholesystem perfor-mance (Randall,1987; Torraco,1999).

Economic theory:A description andexplanation ofhow the allocationof scarceresources among avariety of humanwants affects indi-vidual, group, pro-cess and/or wholesystem perfor-mance (Randall,1987; Torraco,1999).

Individual performance: “Technologiesand processes designed to optimise theperformance of the individual within thecontext of the organization” (Lynham,2000, p. 21). The purpose of thisdomain of performance is to separateand identify technologies and processescritical to leveraging individual perfor-mance in a performance system.

Group/social performance: “An internalsubsystem for which performance goalshave been set that are derived from andcontribute to the mission of the overallsystem” (Holton, 1999, p. 31). The pur-pose of this domain of performance is toseparate and identify internal subsys-tems with set goals that contribute to theoverall mission in a performancesystem.

Process performance: “A series of stepsdesigned to produce a product or ser-vice” (Rummler & Brache, 1995, p. 45).The purpose of this domain of perfor-mance is to separate and identify theprocesses and steps that cut across sub-systems and produce products and/orservices for identifying leverage areasfor performance improvement in a per-formance whole.

(continued)

The OD theories selected below meet the respective definitional criteriaindicated in Table 2. Following Table 3 is a brief discussion of each theoryselected, using the TFP matrix, and how it informs OD professionals aboutpractice for improving performance.

Foundational Theories That Can Be Used to InformOD for Performance Improvement

The TFP matrix referenced in Table 3 highlights OD theories from thefoundational perspectives of psychology, systems, and economics relativeto each of the individual, group/social, process, and organization domainsof performance. The sections following briefly describe the essence of eachtheory highlighted, together with how the respective theories inform OD forperformance improvement at each of the respective domains ofperformance.

Foundational Theories That Inform IndividualPerformance Improvement

Three theories that can be used to inform change interventions aimed atimproving individual performance include Bridges’ (1980) transition the-ory, Vroom’s (1964) expectancy theory, and Locke’s theory of task motiva-tion and incentives (Knight, Durham, & Locke, 2001). These theories sat-isfy the selection criteria set up by the TFP matrix and provided by theintegrative, purposive definitions described, respectively, in the first row ofthe matrix (please refer to Table 2—individual performance and psycholog-ical, systems, and economic theory).


Domains of PerformanceImprovement Theoretical Foundations of HRD

Organizational performance: “The per-formance systems mission, and thegoals derived from it, that specify theexpected outcomes of the performancesystem” (Holton, 1999, p. 29). The pur-pose of this domain of performance is toseparate and identify the mission, goals,and relationship with the external envi-ronment to identify leverage areas forperformance improvement of the overallperformance system.

TABLE 1 Continued


TABLE 2: The TFP Matrix: Integrated Definitions

Theoretical Foundations

PerformanceDomains Psychological Theory Systems Theory Economic Theory

IndividualPerformance

Psychological theory at theindividual performancedomainDefinition: A descriptionand explanation of how thebehaviors and mental pro-cesses of humans affecttechnologies and processesdesigned to optimize indi-vidual performance in theorganizational context. Pur-pose: To provide useful andrelevant knowledge andmethods for understandingand affecting human behav-ior and mental processesand how they affect tech-nologies and processes crit-ical to leveraging individualperformance in a perfor-mance system.

Systems theory at the indi-vidual domain performanceDefinition: A generaldescription and explanationof how the interrelation-ships among inputs, pro-cesses, outputs, and feed-back affect technologiesand processes designed tooptimize individual perfor-mance in the organizationalcontext. Purpose: To pro-vide useful and relevantknowledge and methods forunderstanding and affectingthe interrelationshipsamong inputs, processes,outputs, and feedback andhow the interrelationshipsaffect processes critical toleveraging individual per-formance in a performancesystem.

Economic theory at theindividual performancedomainDefinition: A descriptionand explanation of how theallocation of scarceresources among a varietyof human wants affectstechnologies and processesdesigned to optimize indi-vidual performance in theorganizational context. Pur-pose: To provide useful andrelevant knowledge andmethods for understandingand managing how the allo-cation of scarce resourcesaffects technologies andprocesses critical to lever-aging individual perfor-mance in the organizationalcontext.

Group/socialperformance

Psychological theory at thegroup/social performancedomainDefinition: A descriptionand explanation of how thebehaviors and mental pro-cesses of humans affectinternal subsystems forwhich performance goalshave been set that derivefrom and contribute to themission of the overall sys-tem. Purpose: To provideuseful and relevant knowl-edge and methods abouthow human behaviors andmental processes affectinternal subsystems withestablished goals that con-tribute to the overall mis-sion in a performancesystem.

Systems theory at thegroup/social performancedomainDefinition: A descriptionand explanation of how theinterrelationships amonginputs, processes, outputs,and feedback affect internalsubsystems with set goalsderived from and that con-tribute to the mission of theoverall system. Purpose: Toprovide useful and relevantknowledge and methods forunderstanding and affectinghow the interrelationshipsamong inputs, processes,outputs, and feedback affectinternal subsystems with setgoals that contribute to theoverall mission in a perfor-mance system.

Economic theory at thegroup/social performancedomainDefinition: A descriptionand explanation of how theallocation of scarceresources among a varietyof human wants affectsinternal subsystems with setgoals that are derived fromand contribute to the overallsystem. Purpose: To pro-vide useful and relevantknowledge and methods forunderstanding and manag-ing how the allocation ofscarce resources affectsinternal subsystems with setperformance goals that arederived from and contributeto the mission of the overallsystem.

(continued)


TABLE 2 Continued

Theoretical Foundations

PerformanceDomains Psychological Theory Systems Theory Economic Theory

Processperformance

Psychological theory at theprocess performancedomainDefinition: A descriptionand explanation of howhuman behavior and mentalprocesses affect any seriesof steps designed to pro-duce a product or service.Purpose: To provide usefuland relevant knowledge andmethods for understandingand managing how humanbehavior and mental pro-cesses affect steps or pro-cesses that cut across sub-systems and produceproducts or services in aperformance whole.

Systems theory at the pro-cess performance domainDefinition: A descriptionand explanation of the howthe interrelationshipsamong inputs, processes,outputs, and feedbackaffects any series of stepsdesigned to produce a prod-uct or service. Purpose: Toprovide useful and relevantknowledge and methods forunderstanding and affectinghow the interrelationshipsamong inputs, processes,outputs, and feedback affectthe processes and steps thatcut across subsystems toproduce a product or ser-vice in a performancewhole.

Economic theory at the pro-cess performance domainDefinition: A descriptionand explanation of how theallocation of scarceresources among a varietyof human wants affects anyseries of steps designed toproduce a product or ser-vice. Purpose: To provideuseful and relevant knowl-edge and methods forunderstanding and manag-ing how the allocation ofscarce resources affectsprocesses and steps that cutacross subsystems and pro-duce products or services ina performance whole.

Organizationperformance

Psychological theory at theorganization performancedomainDefinition: A descriptionand explanation of howhuman behavior and mentalprocesses affect the perfor-mance system’s missionand goals that specifyexpected outcomes. Pur-pose: To provide useful andrelevant knowledge andmethods for understandingand affecting how humanbehavior and mental pro-cesses affect the organiza-tion’s mission, goals, andrelationship with the exter-nal environment.

Systems theory at the orga-nization performancedomainDefinition: A descriptionand explanation of how theinterrelationships amonginputs, processes, outputs,and feedback affect the per-formance system’s mission,goals that specify expectedoutcomes. Purpose: To pro-vide useful and relevantknowledge and methods forunderstanding and affectinghow the interrelationshipsamong inputs, processes,outputs, and feedback affectthe organization’s mission,goals, and relationship withthe external environment.

Economic theory at theorganization performancedomainDefinition: A descriptionand explanation of how theallocation of scarceresources among a varietyof human wants affects theperformance system’s mis-sion and goals that specifyexpected outcomes. Pur-pose: To provide useful andrelevant knowledge andmethods for understandingand managing how the allo-cation of scarce resourcesamong a variety of humanwants affects the organiza-tion’s mission, goals, andrelationship with the exter-nal environment.

Bridges’ Transition Theory

Bridges (1980) defined three zones of personal transition—an ending, aneutral, and a new beginning—as necessary for successful individual per-formance through change. According to Bridges, each phase must be com-pleted before an individual can successfully begin the next. Bridges’ theoryinforms HRD professionals about how individuals cope with change.Understanding how individuals cope with change may explain why, afterchange interventions, individual performance often decreases before itimproves (T. G. Cummings & Worley, 2001).

Expectancy Theory

Vroom (1964) and Atkinson and Birch (1970) separately adaptedBernoulli’s expectancy theory, originally applied to economics, to explainindividual motivation in the context of the system within which they oper-ate. The theory informs HRD professionals of the importance of the valuethat individuals assign to organizational decisions based on potential indi-vidual outcomes and helps to articulate the impact that perceived equity canhave on individual and ultimately organizational effectiveness.


TABLE 3: The TFP Matrix in Action: Identifying and Selecting Theories Founda-tional to OD for Performance Improvement

Foundational Theories

Performance System Psychological EconomicDomains Theory Theory Theory

Individual Transition theory(Bridges, 1980)

Expectancy theory(Atkinson, 1964; Vroom,1964)

Theory of task motiva-tion and incentives(Knight et al., 2001;Locke, 1968)

Group/social Johari window theory ofcommunication (Luft,1961)

Group process consulta-tion theory (Cummings& Worley, 2001; Schein,1969, 1987)

Team-building theory(Cummings & Worley,2001; Dyer, 1987; French& Bell, 1999)

Process Positive reinforcementtheory (Bazigos &Burke, 1997; Skinner,1953, 1971)

T-C-P theory of align-ment (Tichy, 1983)

Game theory (Chermack& Swanson, 2002; VonNeumann &Morgenstern, 1947)

Organization Organization learningtheory (Argyris &Schon, 1978)

Open systems theory(Katz & Kahn, 1978)

Human capital theory(Becker, 1993; Schultz,1960)

Locke’s Theory of Task Motivation and Incentives

Locke’s (1968) theory of task motivation and incentives asserts that con-scious goals and incentives have a direct impact on performance improve-ment (Knight et al., 2001). The theory therefore highlights goal setting as anintegral part of individual performance improvement. Highly confirmed byresearch, this theory informs the OD professional about how goal setting,task motivation, and the impact of associated incentives can be used formore effective intervention outcomes, particularly those aimed at increasedindividual effectiveness.

Foundational Theories That Inform GroupPerformance Improvement

Highlighted in the second row of the TFP matrix (see Table 3), the Johariwindow and theory of communication offered by Luft (1961), process con-sultation theory proposed by Schein (1969) and described in T. G.Cummings and Worley (2001), and team building theory proposed by Dyer(1987) and described by French and Bell (1999) can be used to inform ODpractice aimed at performance improvement at the group/social level. Thesethree theoretical frameworks satisfy the selection criteria set up by the TFPmatrix and provided by the integrative, purposive definitions described,respectively, in the second row of the matrix (please refer Table 2—group/social performance and psychological, systems, and economic theory).

Johari Window and Theory of Communication

Luft (1961) developed a four-cell matrix to explain communication withhidden levels within groups. Cell 1 is composed of issues that are perceivedby both the individual and others, cell 2 describes issues that the individualis aware of but conceals from others, cell 3 contains personal issues that areunknown to the individual but are communicated clearly to the others, and,finally, cell 4 consists of issues that are hidden from both the individual andothers. An understanding of the Johari window and supporting communica-tion theory can inform OD professionals about the dynamics of group com-munication as it is influenced by the communication abilities and methodsof the individual.

Group Process Consultation

Schein (1987) defined process consultation as “a set of activities on thepart of the consultant that helps the client to perceive, understand, and actupon the process events that occur in the client’s environment” (p. 34). Pro-cess consultation theory informs group process consultation, which deals


primarily with five interrelated processes: communications, group memberroles, group problem solving and decision making, the development andgrowth of group norms, and the use of leadership (T. G. Cummings &Worley, 2001). Process consultation is an interpersonal, group process the-ory that is helpful to OD practitioners in understanding the interpersonal,process, and systemic nature of groups and group relations. It also informssuch practitioners of how pivotal a unit groups are within the organizationalwhole and explains how good group process performance is ultimatelycritical to organizational performance (Schein, 1969; Schrage, 1990).

Team-Building Theory

Team-building theory can be considered a general cluster of theories thatdescribe and explain a range of activities that help groups to improve howthey accomplish tasks and make decisions (Dyer, 1987; Katzenbach &Smith, 1993). Tuckman’s theory of stages of group development is a goodexample of such theory, for example. Team building helps problem-solvinggroups maximize the use of resources and contributions that eventuallyaffect the economic performance of the organization (T. G. Cummings &Worley, 2001; Dyer, 1987). According to French and Bell (1999), teambuilding can focus on task accomplishment, relationships, processes, roleanalysis, and role negotiation. Team-building theory thus informs OD pro-fessionals about how to improve and increase the effectiveness of teamswithin the organization, which can translate directly to the economic benefitof the whole (Schrage, 1990).

Foundational Theories That Inform ProcessPerformance Improvement

The third row of the TFP matrix highlights three theories useful ininforming OD practice aimed at improving process performance (see row 3of Table 3). These theories span the theoretical foundations of psychology,systems, and economics, demonstrating how the OD professional can usethe theories selected to inform process improvement. The three theoriesselected include Skinner’s (1953, 1971) positive reinforcement theory,Tichy’s (1983) T-C-P theory, and Von Neumann and Morgenstern’s (1947)game theory, respectively. Each is briefly considered below.

Skinner’s Positive Reinforcement Theory

Skinner (1953, 1971), a behaviorist, proposed a theory of positive rein-forcement based on the premise of operant behavior: that is, spontaneousresponse or behavior encouraged through positive or negative reinforce-ment. With performance as its ultimate goal, positive reinforcement theory


informs such OD-type interventions as incentive system design and “pro-grammed learning techniques for training employees” (Bazigos & Burke,1997). The theory underscores the importance of attending how such sys-tems and techniques should be designed and structured to produce thedesired behavioral outcomes.

T-C-P Theory of Alignment

Tichy’s (1983) T-C-P theory offers a nine-cell matrix for ensuring align-ment among organizational components. The focus of T-C-P theory is oneof evaluating and integrating the organization from three internal perspec-tives: technical, cultural, and political. The three internal perspectives arealigned and then evaluated against the economic, political, and culturalforces in the external environment. Tichy’s T-C-P theory informs HRD pro-fessionals about the nature of alignment in internal processes and how given“steps” in a process are linked not only to each other but also to the internaleconomic, political, and cultural forces within the organization.

Game Theory

Game theory, a theory of economic origin, and popularized beyond thebounds of economics by Von Neumann and Morgenstern (1947), describesand explains decision-making processes that involve multiple people interms of social interaction (Chermack & Swanson, 2002). The applicationof game theory enables the OD professional to comprehend the indepen-dence and interaction of individuals or processes. The theory also informsthe ability to assess potential outcomes (of decisions and actions) through adeliberate, interdisciplinary approach to alternative decisions and actions.

Foundational Theories That Inform OrganizationPerformance Improvement

Application of the final row of the TFP matrix enables the identificationand selection of theories informed by psychology, systems, and economicsthat specifically inform organization performance. The three theories high-lighted and discussed in this row of the matrix satisfy the criteria of defini-tion and purpose presented in row 4 of Table 2 and include Argyris andSchon’s (1978) organization learning theory, Katz and Kahn’s (1978) opensystems theory, and Schultz (1960) and Becker’s (1993) human capitaltheory (see Table 3).


Organization Learning Theory

Exploring the link between espoused and practiced values (Bazigos &Burke, 1997), Argyris and Schon (1978) described and explained howlearning was inextricably connected to the discrepancies between what peo-ple say and what those same people do (Argyris, 1997). The usefulness oforganization learning theory to the OD professional is that it explains howpeople and organizations learn to learn, how learning can be improved, andhow that learning can be enacted for improved performance of the wholesystem.

Open Systems Theory

“OD maintains that the organization is an open system, that it interactswith its environment to maintain a state of fit between internal arrangementsand the environment” (Beer & Walton, 1987, p. 349). Open systems theoryassumes that individuals and their organizations cannot operate in a vac-uum; therefore, we must consider systems situational and contingency ori-ented (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Klein, Snell, & Wexley, 1987). This theoryinforms OD and HRD by cautioning practitioners and scholars alike toattend to the systematic properties of an organization. This approach high-lights the need to separate incremental change from modification of organi-zational variables (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Worren, Ruddle, & Moore, 1999).An additional benefit of this theory to OD is that the insight gained fromopen system theory can be extended to all four domains of performanceimprovement.

Human Capital Theory (HCT)

Originated by Schultz (1960) and popularized by Becker (1964, 1993),HCT suggests that employee education, training, and health care, amongother expenditures, should be considered as investments by organizations.De Geus’s (1997) statement that “the ability to learn faster than your com-petitors may be the only competitive advantage” (p. 21) lends further weightto the importance of this theory to sustainable organization performance.HCT thus informs OD professionals that economic organizational perfor-mance involves much more than sound processes and goals. Organizationalperformance requires that organization members are seen as a major sourceof potential competitive advantage and recognized as the foundation of thebusiness itself (De Geus, 1997).

The 12 theories identified and discussed above demonstrate how the TFPmatrix, derived from an integration of the theoretical foundations work ofSwanson (1999) and the performance domains of Holton (1999), can beused to guide and inform OD practice specifically aimed at performance


improvement and to do so to ensure more theoretically sound and reinforcedpractice. It should be noted that it is not the intent of the authors to suggestthat the theories selected make up the core of theory in OD but rather thatthey are an example of the TFP matrix in action and can be used to informmore theoretically sound OD for performance improvement practice.

Conclusions and Suggestions for Future Research

In this article, a TFP matrix has been developed and applied to the chal-lenge of OD theories for informed practice—more particularly, OD for per-formance improvement. This matrix integrates the theoretical foundationsof HRD (psychology, systems, and economics) with that of multiple domainperformance improvement, thus informing the selection of OD theory froman HRD perspective. The application of this TFP matrix for the purpose ofselecting OD theory that can be used to inform OD interventions directed atperformance improvement has been used to demonstrate the TFP matrix inaction. On reflection, a number of potential benefits to considering OD the-ories from the proposed integrated perspective of the theoretical founda-tions of HRD and performance improvement (PI) are evident. First, thisintegrated HRD/PI perspective provides a theoretically informed and richmeans for selecting OD theories for improved practice. Second, as OD iscommonly considered a key component of HRD and performance a desir-able outcome of HRD, the TFP matrix offers an HRD-specific perspectiveand theoretical anchor for selecting OD theories for improved practice.Finally, the theoretical alignment of OD theory to that of the theoreticalfoundations of HRD and the outcome of performance improvement canassist in the development and credibility of both HRD research and practiceby providing a means for the development of a more unifying theory basefrom which OD interventions can be researched and approached.

This article provides a view of OD theory-to-practice that is aligned withthat of HRD. More important, it suggests a selection tool for this purpose, aTFP tool that is both theoretically informed and practical. Viewing OD fromthe theoretical foundations of HRD and performance improvement hasenabled the synthesis of such a means for selecting OD theory for specific,circumstance-bound practice and does so using an HRD informed andgrounded logic.

In the pursuit of value-added OD practice that is based on trustworthyand transferable theory, HRD professionals increasingly need theoreticallyinformed means for selecting theories for improved practice. The TFPmatrix presented in this article provides an informed means for use and pos-sible verification by HRD professionals, be they researchers, practitioners,or both.


Currently, theory in OD stretches across multiple disciplines. The varietyof theories for OD professionals to choose from is overwhelming. As hasbeen cautioned by the likes of Bazigos and Burke (1997), Swanson (1999),and Christensen and Raynor (2003), without logical or common theoreticalfoundations, OD practitioners will find it difficult to replicate results ordevelop a deeper understanding of the discipline (Swanson, 1999). The TFPmatrix presented is intended to be useful in linking sound theory with prac-tice. Furthermore, the heuristic framework encapsulated in the TFP matrixcan be used to examine the applicability, trustworthiness, and degree oftransferability of the specific OD (and potentially other) theories offered inthis article as examples of the matrix in action. In addition, the article sug-gests definitional, purposive, and potentially verifiable criteria by whichHRD professionals can assess theory and determine appropriateness of thattheory to inform, guide, and evaluate particular instances of application. Forexample: Does the theory speak to the organization or just the individualperformance domain? Does the theory inform the profession about perfor-mance improvement from a human, process, and performance perspectiveor a combination of each? A series of case studies that test the TFP matrix inaction, as well as studies aimed at identifying and verifying common, trust-worthy OD theories for improved practice through application of thematrix, could be useful next steps in this exploration for theories that trulyinform improved HRD practice.

References

Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and researchin the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293-327.

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Field, H. S. (1999). Making change permanent: A model for insti-tutionalizing change interventions. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 12,97-128.

Argyris, C. (1997). Initiating change that perseveres. American Behavior Scientist, 40(3), 299-309.Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Read-

ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.Atkinson, J. W., & Birch, D. (1970). The dynamics of action. New York: John Wiley.Barnhart, R. K. (Ed.). (1995). The Barnhart concise dictionary of etymology. New York:

HarperCollins.Bazigos, M. N., & Burke, W. W. (1997, September). Theory orientations of organization develop-

ment (OD) practitioners. Group & Organization Management, 22(3), 384-408.Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital. New York: Columbia University Press.Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to

education (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990). Why change programs don’t produce change. Har-

vard Business Review, 68(6), 158-166.Beer, M., & Walton, A. E. (1987). Organization change and development. Annual Review of Psychol-

ogy, 38, 339-367.Bennis, W. G. (1966). Changing organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.


Bridges, W. (1980). Transitions: Strategies for coping with the difficult, painful, and confusing timesin your life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change.Journal of Management, 18(3), 523-545.

Chermack, T. J., & Swanson, R. A. (2002). Game theory methodology in HRD. In T. M. Egan & S. A.Lynham (Eds.), Academy of Human Resources Annual Conference Proceedings (pp. 584-591).Baton Rouge, LA: AHRD.

Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). Why hard-nosed executives should care about manage-ment theory. Harvard Business Review, 81(9), 66-74.

Church, A. H., Burke, W. W., & Van Eynde, D. (1994). Values, motives, and interventions of organi-zational development practitioners. Group & Change Management, 19, 5-50.

Cummings, L. L., & Staw, B. M. (Eds.). (1985). Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7). Green-wich, CT: JAI.

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2001). Organization development and change (6th ed.).Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College.

De Geus, A. (1997). The living company. Boston: Harvard University Press.Dyer, W. (1987). Team building: Issues and alternatives (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Egan, T. M. (2002). Organization development: An examination of definitions and dependent vari-

ables. Organization Development Journal, 20(2), 59-70.French, W. L., & Bell, C. H., Jr. (1999). Organization development: Behavioral science interventions

for organization improvement (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice Hall.Garud, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2000). Strategic change processes. In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, &

R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of strategy and management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Holton, E. F., III. (1999). Performance domains and their boundaries. Advances in Developing

Human Resources, 1, 26-46.Jelinek, M., & Litterer, J. (1988). Why OD must become strategic. In W. A. Pasmore & R. Woodman

(Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 2, pp. 153-162). Greenwich,CT: JAI.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: JohnWiley.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performanceorganization. New York: HarperCollins.

Kimberley, J. R., & Nielsen, W. R. (1975). Organization development and change in organizationalperformance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 191-205.

Klein, H. J., Snell, S. A., & Wexley, K. N. (1987). Systems model of the performance appraisal inter-view process. Industrial Relations, 26(3), 267-280.

Knight, D., Durham, C. C., & Locke, E. A. (2001). The relationship of team goals, incentives, andefficacy to strategic risk, tactical implementation, and performance. Academy of ManagementJournal, 44(2), 326-338.

Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behaviorand Human Performance, 60(1), 122-124.

Luft, J. (1961). The Johari window. Human Relations Training News, 5, 6-7.Lynham, S. A. (2000). The development of a theory of responsible leadership for performance.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.Lynham, S. A. (2002). The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines.

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 221-241.March, J. G., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Organizational performance as a dependent variable. Organiza-

tional Science, 8(6), 698-706.McLagan, P. (1989). Models for HRD practice. Alexandria, VA: ASTD.Micklethwait, J., & Woolridge, A. (1996). The witch doctors: What the management gurus are say-

ing, why it matters, and how to make sense of it. New York: Times Books.


Nicholas, J. M. (1982). The comparative impact of organization development interventions on hardcriteria measures. Academy of Management Review, 7(4), 531-542.

Passmore, D. L. (1997). Ways of seeing: Disciplinary bases of research in HRD. In R. A. Swanson &E. F. Holton, III (Eds.), Human resource development research handbook (pp. 114-137). SanFrancisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Porras, J. I., & Robertson, P. J. (1987). Organizational development theory: A typology and evalua-tion. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and devel-opment (Vol. 1, pp. 1-57). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Randall, W. L. (1987). Resource economics: An economic approach to natural resource and environ-mental policy (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.

Rothwell, W. J., Sullivan, R., & McLean, G. N. (1995). Practicing organization development: Aguide for consultants. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1995). Improving performance: How to manage the white space onthe organization chart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sashkin, M., & Burke, W. W. (1987). Organizational development. Journal of Management, 13(2),393-417.

Schein, E. (1969). Process consultation: Its role in organization development. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Schein, E. (1987). Process consultation volume II: Lessons for managers and consultants. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.

Schrage, M. (1990). No more teams! Mastering the dynamics of creative collaboration. New York:Doubleday.

Schultz, T. (1960). Capital formation by education. Journal of Political Economy, 68(6), 571-583.Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.Soukhanov, A. H. (Ed.). (1994). Webster’s II new Riverside university dictionary. Boston: Riverside

Publishing Company.Stevenson, W. B., & Greenberg, D. N. (1998, November-December). The formal analysis of narra-

tives in organizational change. Journal of Management, 24(6), 741-765.Swanson, R. A. (1995). Human resource development: Performance is key. Human Resource Devel-

opment Quarterly, 6(2), 207-213.Swanson, R. A. (1996). Performance-learning-satisfaction evaluation system. St. Paul: University

of Minnesota.Swanson, R. A. (1998). The discipline of human resource development. In R. J. Torraco (Ed.), Acad-

emy of Human Resource Development Conference Proceedings (pp. 878-886). Baton Rouge,LA: AHRD.

Swanson, R. A. (1999). The foundations of performance improvement and implications for practice.Advances in Developing Human Resources, 1, 1-25.

Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F., III. (2001). Foundations of human resource development. San Fran-cisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Tichy, N. (1983). Managing strategic change: Technical, political, and cultural dynamics. NewYork: John Wiley.

Torraco, R. J. (1997). Theory building research methods. In R. Swanson & E. Holton, III (Eds.),Human resource development research handbook (pp. 114-137). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Torraco, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Performance improvement theory and practice. Advances in DevelopingHuman Resources, 1, 95-111.

University of Minnesota AE/HRD Faculty. (1994). HRD definition. Unpublished definitional state-ment, University of Minnesota, Department of Work, Community, and Family Education, St.Paul.

Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations.Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510-540.


Van Eynde, D. F., Church, A., Hurley, R. F., & Burke, W. W. (1992). What OD practitioners believe.Training & Development, 46(4), 41-46.

Van Eynde, D. F., Hoy, J. C., & Van Eynde, D. C. (Eds.). (1997). Organization development classics:the practice and theory of change-the best of the OD practitioner (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley.Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of

Psychology, 1, 361-392.Woodman, R. W. (1989). Organizational change and development: New arenas for inquiry and

action. Journal of Management, 15(2), 205-228.Woodman, R. W., & Pasmore, W. A. (Eds.). (1987). Research in organizational change and develop-

ment (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Worren, N. A. M., Ruddle, K., & Moore, K. (1999). From organizational development to change

management: The emergence of a new profession. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(3),273-286.

Susan A. Lynham is an assistant professor in human resource development(HRD) at Texas A & M University. She has 18-plus years of experience as anHRD professional in culture change, strategic planning, merger and acquisitionfacilitation, performance management, quality improvement, organizationdevelopment, and leadership development in South Africa and the United States.Her research focuses on strategic HRD and theory building in applied disci-plines. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in 2000.

Thomas J. Chermack holds a Ph.D. with a specialization in human resourcedevelopment (HRD) from the University of Minnesota. His research focuses onscenario planning and the strategic roles of HRD. He has worked with such com-panies as Personnel Decisions International, Key Investment, and Viacom andhas studied as an HRD graduate student at both Louisiana State University andTexas A & M University.

Melissa A. Noggle is currently a Ph.D. student at Texas A & M University and hasher B.S. in industrial engineering from the University of Alabama. She has 17-plus years of experience as a manager and engineer working in the areas of pro-cess improvement, training, program/product management, performance man-agement, and re-engineering. She has worked with organizations in both the pub-lic and private sector.


lynham (2004) selecting od theory

Documents

od practice

field of od

organization development

od professionals

selection of theory

theory base

sound theory

heuristicand theory