Overview of organization development(OD)

Written by James W. Falcon 3.24.2024, edited by ChatGPT, Open AI on 11.16.2025, 9:55am, EST.

A 12-minute read.

Overview of Organization Development

The origin of Organization Development (OD) is, in this student’s opinion, at least somewhat murky and at best nebulous. Torraco (2016) explains that, as a term and concept, OD is credited to Richard Beckhard and Robert Tannenbaum, who reasoned that if human growth and change are considered individual development, then the large-scale systems of social interaction within organizations—and the growth, development, and change of those organizations—should logically be considered organization (not organizational) development (Torraco, 2016). Regarding the field’s scientific origin, Torraco (2016) asserts that OD’s genesis is inseparable from the contributions of Kurt Lewin in the areas of group and organizational dynamics. Torraco (2016) further refers to Lewin as the “intellectual father” of modern theories of action research and planned change (p. 6).

Additionally, Torraco (2016) notes that 1946 marked a turning point in OD history. That year, Lewin was asked to conduct workshops to help Connecticut community leaders address interracial tensions. These workshops became known as sensitivity training, one of the earliest practical applications of OD principles. Through both historical and applied lenses, OD may therefore be understood as an approach that examines the whole of organizational systems to promote change and efficiency, drawing heavily from the behavioral sciences (George, 2011). According to Nguyen (2016), OD concerns itself primarily with the functional nuances of organizational systems and supports development efforts at multiple levels—teams, departments, whole organizations, and even larger systemic structures (McNamara, n.d.; Nguyen, 2016). Simply put, OD is a field concerned with what George (2011) describes as the “softer humanistic issues” of organizational existence (p. 18). It is not “Organizational Development,” as it is often misnamed (Nguyen, 2016).

Having provided an overview of OD, the next section examines several disciplines closely associated with OD and highlights opportunities for collaboration.

OD, Associated Fields, and Collaborative Possibilities

Walden University (n.d.) identifies at least ten associated fields that aim to improve organizational effectiveness. This section highlights three of these fields—Industrial/Organizational (I/O) psychology, Change Management, and Human Resource Management (HRM)—to demonstrate both the distinctiveness of OD and its collaborative potential.

OD, I/O Psychology, and Change Management

First, it is important to articulate how I/O psychology, Change Management, and OD align. I/O psychology may be understood as the umbrella discipline: it examines people and their behavior at work to understand how behavior can be modified for the benefit of employees and organizations (Nguyen, 2016). OD is considered a subdivision of I/O psychology, focused more narrowly on planned change within organizations.

By contrast, Nguyen (2016) describes Change Management as a people-focused discipline that examines changes in behavior, strategy, function, and habits, and the effects of those shifts on organizational performance. Accordingly, Change Management can be viewed as a subdivision of OD (Nguyen, 2016). While the two are closely associated, Nguyen (2016) makes an unequivocal assertion: OD is not Change Management. They share an interest in the operationalization of change and in leadership’s influence on change, but they differ in emphasis. Change Management prioritizes monetary valuations, quality, and timing, while OD relies heavily on behavioral knowledge to drive both short-term and long-term change processes.

OD is big-picture in orientation, focusing on organizational-level initiatives, and is especially concerned with operational efficiency.

-Nguyen, 2016

Nguyen (2016) further notes that OD is big-picture in orientation, focusing on organizational-level initiatives, and is especially concerned with operational efficiency. Having examined these relationships, the next section explores specific collaborative possibilities between OD and associated disciplines.

OD and Human Resource Management (HRM)

Follis (2001) describes HRM’s purpose as fostering the evolution of both people and organizations in ways that support organizational outcomes. Collaboration between OD and HRM can strengthen organizational performance and yield more effective solutions to personnel challenges (Follis, 2001). Such collaborative efforts deepen insight into how organizations develop in structure, function, and workforce expansion (Follis, 2001).

…Environmental changes have increasingly prompted organizational change. As a consequence, OD professionals and practitioners in associated disciplines have infused new approaches into OD to help the field address the needs of emerging organizational forms.

-George 2011

OD and Organization Design

According to George (2011), environmental changes have increasingly prompted organizational change. As a consequence, OD professionals and practitioners in associated disciplines have infused new approaches into OD to help the field address the needs of emerging organizational forms. George (2011) notes there was a period when both organizations and consultants had lost confidence in OD as an effective intervention model due to a series of intervention failures. This created a vacuum that needed to be filled.

In response, practitioners began combining OD and organizational design (“Design”) as a tool for managing change. Organizational design is the ongoing process of aligning skills, jobs, and people with goals, roles, and organizational structure (George, 2011). If OD addressed the “soft” elements (people), then Design addressed the “hard” elements (strategy). George (2011) investigated the effectiveness of this combined approach and found strong support for its value: 12 of 18 participants recommended combining OD and Design for system alignment during change interventions, and 9 suggested using the combination to make systemic alignment the primary goal of change efforts. These findings underscore the practical benefits of integrating OD with an associated discipline such as Design.

Summary and Final Thoughts

This post began with a multifaceted aim: to present an in-depth overview of OD, explore its associated disciplines, and highlight collaborative possibilities. The overview traced OD’s historical roots, including the influence and impact of Kurt Lewin (Torraco, 2016). Next, insight into associated fields was offered, referencing Walden University’s (n.d.) list of ten related disciplines. Four of these—Industrial/Organizational psychology, Change Management, Human Resource Management, and Organizational Design—were explored in detail, along with their collaborative intersections with OD. The post also incorporated a discussion of OD’s past challenges and its demonstrated effectiveness in modern practice.

While OD has experienced periods of reduced confidence among practitioners and organizations (George, 2011), it has shown remarkable resilience. In this student’s view, OD’s flexibility—particularly its responsiveness to the volatility of modern organizational environments—continues to give the discipline a competitive edge. OD may have had a colorful past, but the evidence suggests it also has a promising and productive future.

References

Burke, W. W. (2018). The rise and fall of the growth of organization development: What now? Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 70(3), 186–206.

Follis, E. (2001). Organization development & human resources: Planning for the future. Organization Development Journal, 19(2), 37–46. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/organization-development-amp-human-resources/docview/197999224/se-2

George, G. (2011). Combining organization development (OD) and organization design: An investigation based on the perspectives of OD and change management consultants (Doctoral dissertation). Capella University.

McNamara, C. (n.d.). Overview of the field of organization development. Free Management Library. http://managementhelp.org/organizationdevelopment

Nguyen, S. (2016, May 9). The link between industrial/organizational psychology, organization development, and change management. Workplace Psychology. https://workplacepsychology.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/the-link-between-industrial-organizational-psychology-organization-development-and-change-management/

Torraco, R. J. (2016). Early history of the fields of practice of training and development and organization development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(4), 439–453.

Walden University. (n.d.). [Course material citation if needed].

Bro, if you want:

✅ An APA-formatted title page

✅ A matching in-text citation check

✅ A short-form version for your blog

✅ A more readable, public-facing version for your coaching audience

I can rip each of those out too.

HH&H5’s! of Organization Development

(APA-7 Edited & Polished Version)

The origin of Organization Development (OD) is, in this student’s opinion, at least somewhat murky and at best nebulous. Torraco (2016) explains that, as a term and concept, OD is credited to Richard Beckhard and Robert Tannenbaum, who reasoned that if human growth and change are considered individual development, then the large-scale systems of social interaction within organizations—and the growth, development, and change of those organizations—should logically be considered organization (not organizational) development (Torraco, 2016). Regarding the field’s scientific origin, Torraco (2016) asserts that OD’s genesis is inseparable from the contributions of Kurt Lewin in the areas of group and organizational dynamics. Torraco (2016) further refers to Lewin as the “intellectual father” of modern theories of action research and planned change (p. 6).

Additionally, Torraco (2016) notes that 1946 marked a turning point in OD history. That year, Lewin was asked to conduct workshops to help Connecticut community leaders address interracial tensions. These workshops became known as sensitivity training, one of the earliest practical applications of OD principles. Through both historical and applied lenses, OD may therefore be understood as an approach that examines the whole of organizational systems to promote change and efficiency, drawing heavily from the behavioral sciences (George, 2011). According to Nguyen (2016), OD concerns itself primarily with the functional nuances of organizational systems and supports development efforts at multiple levels—teams, departments, whole organizations, and even larger systemic structures (McNamara, n.d.; Nguyen, 2016). Simply put, OD is a field concerned with what George (2011) describes as the “softer humanistic issues” of organizational existence (p. 18). It is not “Organizational Development,” as it is often misnamed (Nguyen, 2016).

Having provided an overview of OD, the next section examines several disciplines closely associated with OD and highlights opportunities for collaboration.

OD, Associated Fields, and Collaborative Possibilities

Walden University (n.d.) identifies at least ten associated fields that aim to improve organizational effectiveness. This section highlights three of these fields—Industrial/Organizational (I/O) psychology, Change Management, and Human Resource Management (HRM)—to demonstrate both the distinctiveness of OD and its collaborative potential.

OD, I/O Psychology, and Change Management

First, it is important to articulate how I/O psychology, Change Management, and OD align. I/O psychology may be understood as the umbrella discipline: it examines people and their behavior at work to understand how behavior can be modified for the benefit of employees and organizations (Nguyen, 2016). OD is considered a subdivision of I/O psychology, focused more narrowly on planned change within organizations.

By contrast, Nguyen (2016) describes Change Management as a people-focused discipline that examines changes in behavior, strategy, function, and habits, and the effects of those shifts on organizational performance. Accordingly, Change Management can be viewed as a subdivision of OD (Nguyen, 2016). While the two are closely associated, Nguyen (2016) makes an unequivocal assertion: OD is not Change Management. They share an interest in the operationalization of change and in leadership’s influence on change, but they differ in emphasis. Change Management prioritizes monetary valuations, quality, and timing, while OD relies heavily on behavioral knowledge to drive both short-term and long-term change processes.

Nguyen (2016) further notes that OD is big-picture in orientation, focusing on organizational-level initiatives, and is especially concerned with operational efficiency. Having examined these relationships, the next section explores specific collaborative possibilities between OD and associated disciplines.

OD and Human Resource Management (HRM)

Follis (2001) describes HRM’s purpose as fostering the evolution of both people and organizations in ways that support organizational outcomes. Collaboration between OD and HRM can strengthen organizational performance and yield more effective solutions to personnel challenges (Follis, 2001). Such collaborative efforts deepen insight into how organizations develop in structure, function, and workforce expansion (Follis, 2001).

OD and Organization Design

According to George (2011), environmental changes have increasingly prompted organizational change. As a consequence, OD professionals and practitioners in associated disciplines have infused new approaches into OD to help the field address the needs of emerging organizational forms. George (2011) notes there was a period when both organizations and consultants had lost confidence in OD as an effective intervention model due to a series of intervention failures. This created a vacuum that needed to be filled.

In response, practitioners began combining OD and organizational design (“Design”) as a tool for managing change. Organizational design is the ongoing process of aligning skills, jobs, and people with goals, roles, and organizational structure (George, 2011). If OD addressed the “soft” elements (people), then Design addressed the “hard” elements (strategy). George (2011) investigated the effectiveness of this combined approach and found strong support for its value: 12 of 18 participants recommended combining OD and Design for system alignment during change interventions, and 9 suggested using the combination to make systemic alignment the primary goal of change efforts. These findings underscore the practical benefits of integrating OD with an associated discipline such as Design.

Summary and Final Thoughts

This post began with a multifaceted aim: to present an in-depth overview of OD, explore its associated disciplines, and highlight collaborative possibilities. The overview traced OD’s historical roots, including the influence and impact of Kurt Lewin (Torraco, 2016). Next, insight into associated fields was offered, referencing Walden University’s (n.d.) list of ten related disciplines. Four of these—Industrial/Organizational psychology, Change Management, Human Resource Management, and Organizational Design—were explored in detail, along with their collaborative intersections with OD. The post also incorporated a discussion of OD’s past challenges and its demonstrated effectiveness in modern practice.

While OD has experienced periods of reduced confidence among practitioners and organizations (George, 2011), it has shown remarkable resilience. In this student’s view, OD’s flexibility—particularly its responsiveness to the volatility of modern organizational environments—continues to give the discipline a competitive edge. OD may have had a colorful past, but the evidence suggests it also has a promising and productive future.

References

Burke, W. W. (2018). The rise and fall of the growth of organization development: What now? Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 70(3), 186–206.

Follis, E. (2001). Organization development & human resources: Planning for the future. Organization Development Journal, 19(2), 37–46. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/organization-development-amp-human-resources/docview/197999224/se-2

George, G. (2011). Combining organization development (OD) and organization design: An investigation based on the perspectives of OD and change management consultants (Doctoral dissertation). Capella University.

McNamara, C. (n.d.). Overview of the field of organization development. Free Management Library. http://managementhelp.org/organizationdevelopment

Nguyen, S. (2016, May 9). The link between industrial/organizational psychology, organization development, and change management. Workplace Psychology. https://workplacepsychology.wordpress.com/2016/05/09/the-link-between-industrial-organizational-psychology-organization-development-and-change-management/

Torraco, R. J. (2016). Early history of the fields of practice of training and development and organization development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(4), 439–453.

Walden University. (n.d.). [Course material citation if needed].

Bro, if you want:

✅ An APA-formatted title page

✅ A matching in-text citation check

✅ A short-form version for your blog

✅ A more readable, public-facing version for your coaching audience

I can rip each of those out too.

HH&H5’s!