Dialogic and diagnostic organizational development

Organizational innovations are coordinated efforts in an enterprise that are managed from the top and seek to improve wellness and efficacy through a planned initiative based on behavioral science expertise. They are important because they are involved in increasing an organization’s competitiveness and production. According to Anderson (2016), the dialogic approach provides a vocabulary for describing a particular quality of interaction, allowing a person to become familiar with the role it may play and later advocate for it regardless of whether the context is formal or informal. A diagnostic approach occurs when information is gathered to compare a performance of an organization about the prescriptive model. Similarly, dialogic organizational development assumes that the process of change is a continuous and unpredictable process, which is made of organizational agreement and disagreements to the changing environment (Bushe and Marshak, 2009). This essay will compare and contrast diagnostic and dialogic forms of organizational developments.

Historical Overview of OD

Organizational developments were started in the early 1980`s by people such as Mark Frankel and Bill Gellermann. It was an involving process that was supported by so many people and organizations and is currently still being used in many ethical industries. Ostensibly, the two gentlemen`s efforts were aimed at facilitating the processes at which human systems and beings operate together for the mutual well-being and benefit (Bushe and Marshak, 2009). Apparently, classic organizational developments originated in 19870`s whereas other forms of OD such as dialogic and diagnostic OD emerged in early 1990`s. The main characteristics of dialogic OD are; it focuses on the changing behavior as well as what people do, it is opportunity centered, and it pays attention to more of creating opportunities. Similarly, the main characteristics of diagnostic OD are that it is problem-centered, which makes organizations resistant to change(Kovach, 2010). Also, it pays more attention to gathering information to rate an organization, and it is viewed as a human system instead of a biological system. Notably, diagnostic organizational development assumes that there are objectives viewed as genuine and can be examined to provide information that is valid as well as data that can give rise to change (Bushe and Marshak, 2009). Thereby, the assumption that there are objective data provides an aspect of the adjustment in diagnostic organizational development. Another assumption made is that the behavior of organization originates from objectives that are underlying, which later results in the present realities.

Diagnostic OD

The diagnostic approach involves that process of gathering information to rate an organization with a set of prescriptions with the assumption that the information may be used in the process of subsequent and diagnosis intervention. Regarding the approaches to change, the diagnostic approach has goals that are tightly defined and a leadership command approach, which is entailed at achieving change quickly (Bushe and Marshak, 2009). Moreover, a diagnostic entails a problem-centered approach, where there is an assumption that the organization is experiencing some difficulties and in turn needs to be fixed up. The assumption makes the members of an organization wary as well as resistant to change.

The diagnostic OD model involves the tools that allow the identification of data that help clients in understanding the strength, weakness, and opportunities for an organization to enhance improvement. The approach targets on improving organizational performance and development of a group. The approach involves an organic process that targets the organization and its structures as well as change progress. In diagnostic OD new plans for change are identified and prioritized. The approach is known for keeping the developmental process alive and aligns it with organizational operations (Piip, 2011). The diagnostic OD pay much attention to the new and attractive aspects based on the activities carried on within an organization. However, the approach is significant since it enables individuals to bring themselves back to the primary basis. The diagnostic OD has been playing a vital role in healthcare facilities in ensuring the provision of valued services to the clients, rather than aiming for more profits.

Notably, although diagnostic organizational development aims at altering the actions as well as the consequences of the actions, its assumptions seek to change the behavior directly. However, diagnostic OD assumes that for change to take place there must be a participation of members of the system who will analyze and later propose a system that will increase the effectiveness of the organization (Shani, and Noumair, 2017). In diagnostic approach, there is a process of discovery where the members of the organization are aware that the process of fostering awareness in an organization is not similar to data collection or facilitated by an external advisor.

In essence, in diagnostic approach, the detractors argue and later on ignore the function of the consultant in the process of defining an ever-changing reality. The approach uses a process of discovery that takes on an inquiry that is shared in that the organizational members bring to light the information (Bushe and Marshak, 2009). The mindset of the diagnostic OD is associated with practices that are in the social psychology, and its behavior is shaped by forces that exist at equilibrium. Apparently, the forces are as a result of the equilibrium brought about by the groups that people belong to (Poell et al., 2014). Research has shown that advising a client without performing diagnosis is an offense by the mindset of diagnostic OD.

Ostensibly, in both diagnostic and dialogic organization development, there is a similarity where there is sharing of a common element to democratic and humanistic values in that there are encouragement and facilitation of self-awareness. Moreover, in diagnostic organizational development, there is a high participation as well as efforts to avoid the interests of power for the interests found in an organization to balance (Bushe and Marshak, 2009). Additionally, the consultants in diagnostic OD have a similarity in expertise by offering a change in the process of decision making, which activates elements that support the goals of the organization.

Apparently, the process of change in both OD give rise to new images and realities that are constructed socially and affect how people reason and behave (Shani and Noumair, 2017). Notably, in all forms of organizational developments, there is embracing of democratic and humanistic values where bedrock values are holding together in diagnostic Organizational Developments. The consultants in diagnostic OD are involved in developing the capacity of the client system rather than mounting the dependency of clients on consultation.

Dialogic OD

Dialogic organizational development pays attention to multiple perspectives and experiences within a given organization as well as the need to creating opportunities which are conversational to build new opportunities. The dialogic approach uses a guided change where explorative and collaborative expertise where the creativity of the members of the organization evolves. Also, another way that dialogic differ from diagnostic OD is that dialogic is perceived as the human system instead of an open or biological system. The biological component makes people perceive an organization as a collection of processes that are adapting to formulations that are complex (Poell, Rocco, and Roth, 2014). Contrary to diagnostic, dialogic OD is an opportunity- centered that allows the members in an organization share visions and thereby make the changes more appealing.

Dialogic OD incorporates a problem-centric approach that plays a significant role in the action research that utilizes the assumption that an organization is destroyed and need to be fixed. The above argument wary the organizational members and become more resistant to the suggested transformation (Bushe and Marshak, 2009). The approach of dialogic OD begins from common aspirations with shared goals that make the implementation of change process more appealing to the organizational members. Based on dialogic OD approach it is sensible to collect data as well as diagnose through different formal steps if there is there is something tangible that does not depend on the meaning-making process in diagnosis.

The Dialogic OD does not seek at changing the behavior directly as seen in diagnostic OD. However, dialogic OD aims at altering the basis which controls the way people reason and says (Kovach, 2010). It assumes that individuals do not resist change but rather resist being changed. In essence, instead of emphasizing interventions that lead to change in norms, it emphasizes the framework that influences behavioral processes (Guo et al., 2010). Another phenomenon that differs from the two OD is that dialogic assumes that adjustment in the widespread and embraced system originates from stakeholders who bring up new ideas, theories, metaphors, and models. The dialogic approach is not associated with any specific method due to the availability of many methods that can be associated with it (Schein, 2015). It assumes that it is the mindset that controls how an individual thinks and reacts to a particular matter.

Similar to diagnostic, dialogic OD incorporates recognition of the need of a process of recognition where members of an organization assembled to enhance awareness among themselves as well as the organization as a whole. Another aspect is that dialogic OD is a consistency in the role of consultation, which enables other members of the organization to provide an expert advice (Anderson, 2016). In dialogic OD, the process of change is consistent traditional values of organizational developments, which are free, capacity building to the clients and are of informed choice (Bushe and Marshak, 2009). Dialogic OD is an opportunity- centered that allows the members in an organization share visions and thereby make the changes more appealing.

Additionally, both dialogic organizational developments have ideas and values, which increase the level of awareness for a system to be subjected to change. Also, in dialogic organizational development, the consultants stay out of focus and content while members of the organization take care of the content (Bushe and Marshak, 2014). The dialogic is similar to diagnostic OD in the models of development at different levels such as individual level, organizational level, and inter-organizational levels, which share similar elements to what forms a state that is more developed (Jones and Brazzel, 2012). The objective of the consultant is creating connections for the interests and characteristics of the OD. Although dialogic OD is more concerned with the development of groups and organizations that are more effective, it shares essential theories of how systems that are developed resemble like. Also, in dialogic OD, there is the use of traditional values of OD by the consultants whereby there is a mutual relationship between the consultant and the client.

Conclusion

Regardless of dialogic and diagnostic organizational developments sharing common similarities, they also have differences. Some of the similarities shared include common element to democratic and humanistic values in that there are encouragement and facilitation of self-awareness. There is recognition of the need for a process of recognition where members of an organization assemble together to enhance awareness among themselves, there is a high participation as well as effort to avoid the interests of power in order for different interests found in an organization to balance as well as a consistency in the role of consultation, which enables other members of the organization to provide an expert advice. The differences between the two OD include Dialogic organizational development pays attention to multiple perspectives and experiences within a given organization as well as the need to creating opportunities which are conversational in order to build new opportunities. On the other hand, diagnostic approach is entailed in a way that gathers information in order to rate an organization with a set of prescriptions with the assumption that the information may be used in the process of subsequent and diagnosis intervention. Also, diagnostic entails a problem-centered approach, where there is an assumption that the organization is experiencing some difficulties and in turn needs to be fixed up. The assumption makes the members of an organization wary as well as resistant to change.

Bibliography

Anderson, D.L., 2016. Organization development: The process of leading organizational change. Sage Publications.

Bushe, G.R., and Marshak, R.J., 2009. Revisioning organization development: Diagnostic and dialogic premises and patterns of practice. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(3), pp.348-368.

Bushe, G.R., and Marshak, R.J., 2014. Dialogic organization development. The NTL Handbook of organization development and change, pp.193-211.

Guo, J., Lieven, E., Budwig, N., Ervin-Tripp, S., Nakamura, K. and Ozcaliskan, S. eds., 2010. Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin. Psychology Press.

Jones, B.B. and Brazzel, M. eds., 2012. The NTL Handbook of organization development and change: Principles, practices, and perspectives. John Wiley & Sons.

Kovach, M., 2010. Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press.

Piip, J., 2011. Implementing a critical approach to organizational development. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 51(1), pp.185-189.

Poell, R.F., Rocco, T.S. and Roth, G.L. eds., 2014. The Routledge companion to human resource development.Routledge.

Schein, E.H., 2015. Dialogic organization development: The theory and practice of transformational change. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Shani, A.B.R., and Noumair, D.A. eds., 2017. Research in organizational change and development.Emerald Group Publishing.