Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information on Marketing Management

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Group & Organization Management
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bazigos, M. N.
Right arrow Articles by Burke, W. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Theory Orientations of Organization Development (OD) Practitioners

Michael N. Bazigos

Price Waterhouse LLP, Michael_Bazigos{at}notes.pw.com

W. Warner Burke

Teachers College, Columbia University

Although an emerging literature reports on the values, motives, competence, and activities of organization development (OD) practitioners, little is known about the explicit or implicit theories they bring to their client settings. This study attempts to shed light on OD practitioners' theoretical choices while bringing conceptual clarity and empirical refinement to an existing instrument. Practicing OD professionals responded to a theory orientation questionnaire. Data reveal practitioner preferences for humanistic theory sets (e.g., Herzberg and Maslow) and aversions to theory sets with a system-level focus (e.g., Likert, Lawrence and Lorsch, Levinson). Four meaningful factors proved more reliable and parsimonious an explanation of response patterns. The derived Components—Psychodynamics, Structure, Incentives, and Conflict—were conceptualized as practitioners' implicit model of organization. Limitations of this implicit model drive the authors' suggestion that a uniform, core knowledge base inform OD practice. Future uses of the reformulated scale are discussed.

Group & Organization Management, Vol. 22, No. 3, 384-408 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/1059601197223005


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Management & Organizational HistoryHome page
T. Weatherbee, K. Dye, and A. J. Mills
There's nothing as good as a practical theory: The paradox of management education
Management & Organizational History, May 1, 2008; 3(2): 147 - 160.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Human Resource Development ReviewHome page
S. A. Lynham, T. J. Chermack, and M. A. Noggle
Selecting Organization Development Theory From an HRD Perspective
Human Resource Development Review, June 1, 2004; 3(2): 151 - 172.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
OrganizationHome page
L. S. Jacques
Saving the `Subject' in HRM: Suggesting an Interdependent Relationship between Theorist and Practitioner
Organization, May 1, 1999; 6(2): 265 - 276.
[PDF]