A Trusted Source
Validity Matters
Assessments like the M.O.S.T. are only as good as the research that guides their development. If you are new to the world of assessment research, validity calls for an exhaustive process that checks to make sure something works properly. On the other hand, reliability is tested to make sure an assessment measures skills or characteristics consistently so that you can depend on it, just like a trusty alarm clock. In this section we provide an overview of the multifaceted, peer-reviewed research findings that support the validity and reliability of the M.O.S.T.
The first step was to make sure that this assessment aligns well with our original vision, developed by Dr. Bill Brendel: to produce an assessment that helps people identify and develop their OD career in the most personally meaningful, practical, economical manner. This would require an evidence-based assessment capable of determining how an individual's strengths and interests align with actual careers and other aspects that define the field of OD including education models, and research.
Organization Development is a dynamic field of practice that uses caring and collaborative change frameworks and interventions to generate sustainable and flexible improvements to well-being, performance, and prosperity in human systems.
Comparative Analysis
What is an "OD Career?" To answer this question, Dr. Brendel first engaged in a two-year study that included a comparative analysis of over 500 OD job descriptions, an examination of course offerings at 144 OD and OD-related graduate schools, an evaluation of 40 operational definitions of OD, and an assessment of 31 OD competency study publications. His research, which culminated in an article titled Charting a Meaningful OD Career Course was only the first step in a greater research effort to ensure that his assessment would suitable for OD educators, practitioners, and departments.
This first step in defining the field earned him two awards by his peers at the OD Network: the 2021 Evolving the Field of OD Award and the 2023 Article of the Year Award. Later he would use this knowledge to produce The History and Evolution of OD, a book focused on the way this field evolved through the lens of articles published in the OD Review. From this knowledge, Dr. Brendel created a universal career definition of Organization Development. Organization Development is a dynamic field of practice that uses caring and collaborative change frameworks and interventions to generate sustainable and flexible improvements to well-being, performance, and prosperity in human systems.
Evolution of OD Models
Before introducing a standard assessment to the field of OD, we would need to take a closer look at all previously published OD competency models to answer a few critical questions. First, would we have to create an entirely new OD competency model, or could we simply save time and build an assessment off of an existing competency model?
To answer this question, we would first need to understand how well existing competency models align with each other, identifying patterns including similarities and gaps. We would also need to understand how well these models stand up to discoveries made in our comparative analysis. For instance, do these models adequately take into account how widely actual OD careers vary in terms of career identity, impact, approach, and mastery? Finally, how rigorously were these models tested?
Figure 1. A Few OD Competency Models
Click on image to enlarge
Figure 2. OD Competency Research (1979 - 2022)
Click on image to enlarge
Competency Research
Early interest in the development of OD competency models aligned with research and practice pertaining to organizational behavior, group dynamics, process consultation, organizational design, and consulting activities including Action Learning, data-based interventions, and continuous improvement (Warwick & Donovan, 1979; Varney, 1980; Cullen et al., 1981; Shepard & Raia 1981; Carey & Varney 1983; Spehn 1985). Building upon these earlier models, OD competency studies in the 1990’s added characteristics of practice that aimed to improve organizational culture, diversity, equity, ethics, and change management (Eisen et al. 1990; Bushe & Gibbs, 1990; Marshall & Eubanks, 1990; Eubanks et al., 1990; McLean & Sullivan 1992; O’Driscoll et al. 1993; Worley & Varney, 1998).
Throughout the 2000’s competency models increasingly focused on DE&I as well as the facilitation of learning and development through dialogic processes (Sullivan et al., 2001; Worley & Feyerherm, 2003; Jamieson & Worley, 2008; Worley et al., 2010; Eggers & Church; 2015; Minahan, 2018; Cheung-Judge, 2020; Brendel, 2022). Consistent throughout the evolution of these competency models is the concept of Use of Self or the intentional alignment and embodiment of one’s core values as its own OD intervention in client systems.
A Deeper look at the GCF & OD App
Two of the more recent models (Minahan, 2018; Cheung-Judge, 2020), draw substantially from earlier models, with the exception of competencies focused on Meaningful Work, Developing Balanced Performance Measures, and in the case of the OD Global Competency Framework (Minahan, 2018), Designing and Facilitating Learning. To assist with a deeper analysis of whether these two models might suffice for a new assessment, we drew from Cady & Shoup (2015) who call for a more comprehensive approach to crafting effective competency statements that clearly distinguish the OD profession, which are ostensibly absent from these two models. Well-crafted competencies should include a theoretically grounded and cohesive description of specific knowledge, skills and abilities including related actions, targets, performance indicators, and timing if possible (Cady & Shoup, 2015).
Extended Analysis
The OD Network Global Competency Framework (GCF) organizes its competency statements into five different capability areas: Systems Change Expert, Efficient Designer, Business Advisor, Credible Strategist, and Informed Consultant. On first inspection, many of the competencies listed in these areas reflect the nature of OD activity, however, rather than integrating 16 different common OD practices across theoretical dimensions of these five areas, the GFC simply lists them within a single competency statement under the label, “Lifelong Learner and Practitioner” under the Informed Consultant label as follows: Appropriately applies knowledge of both classic and emerging theories of OD to Appreciative inquiry, Change and transformation, Conflict management, Culture change Equity, diversity and inclusion, Mergers and acquisitions, Motivation theory, Organization behavior, Organization design, Process consulting, Science of decision-making, Strategic planning and execution, Systems theory, Talent management, and Team development. (https://www.odnetwork.org/page/informed-consultant)
Although this is both a valuable and useful contribution to the field of OD, by Cady and Shoup’s (2015) standards, this single competency statement appears too broad, because each of the 16 different practices therein contain their own unique set of competencies. Though likely not the intention of its creators, the wording of this competency also implies that an OD practitioner must master all or most of these areas. Cheung-Judge (2020) rectifies this in her model by categorizing many of the same practices as “Specializations”, however they too appear as a non-descriptive list, lacking specificity called for Cady and Shoup (2016). Both models also list knowledge of OD theory separately from OD skills and abilities. This too is problematic because without understanding the OD theories that skills and abilities are anchored to, it is difficult to claim that one is practicing OD as a fully integrated profession. For instance, in the GCF, Strategic Planning practice is not theoretically integrated with the “Credible Strategist” capability area. The same is true for the separation of Systems Thinking, which is listed separately from the “Systems Change Expert” capability area. The theory to practice bridge is also critical in understanding how these practices relate to each other, which as our analysis shows is critical to distinguishing OD practice from other practices such as management consulting practices, business analyst practices, and I/O psychology practices.
Brendel’s (2022) model rectifies each of these issues by both fully describing these specialization areas and integrating them within their respective Sociotechnical Theory domains (Social, Technical, and Influence) discussed in detail in the following section. The SCM also includes full descriptions of competencies brought forth in earlier models but are missing from the GCF (2016) and Cheung-Judge’s (2020) models. Brendel (2022) also directly states that to be considered an OD practitioner, an individual is not required to master all skills, but rather may choose to master one or multiple practices; however, to present oneself as a bona fide OD professional, an individual must master at least one practice or application in all three domains (Social, Technical, and Influence) and recognize their theoretical ties. This is critical because, for instance if an individual were to simply practice Strategic Planning and Execution (Technical Domain) without integrating practices or applications from Social and Influence domains, they are ostensibly not practicing OD. Unless an individual integrates at least one Social competency (e.g., DE&I) and one Influence competency (e.g., Dialogic Inquiry), they are simply performing a management function. Failing to link OD theory with practice stands to confuse emerging practitioners who compare OD to adjacent professions, many of which now include OD as a sub-competency, including the Society for Human Resource Management (2022), the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (see website, 2017), and the Association for Talent Development (see website, 2020).
Theoretical Confirmation
The next step was to conduct an extensive review of theory informing OD practice, to ensure that applications listed in a new competency model align with the theoretical origins of OD. As illustrated in this figure, each competency category in the MOST assessment bridges theory with practice. This analysis supports Dr. Brendel's (2022) theoretical assertion that nine competency categories may be most succinctly categorized through Sociotechnical Systems Theory (Cherns, 1976; Emery, 1959; Emery, Foster, & Woollard, 1978; Parker &Wall, 1998; Trist & Bamforth, 1951).
Critical themes emerged, confirming what OD theorists as early as Kurt Lewin, have suggested for some time: the healthy development of organizations takes place at the intersection of social systems and technical systems. For instance, by facilitating dialogue, an OD practitioner can influence dynamics at the intersection of an organization's strategy (technical), and culture (social). Dr. Brendel proposed that as long as a practitioner is engaging in a combination of all three domains (social, technical, and influence) in line with the career definition above, they may be said to be practicing OD.
Figure 3. Theoretical Confirmation of OD Practice
Click on image to enlarge
A New OD Competency Framework
To produce a competency model that is grounded in theory, practice, inclusive of all previous competency models, and easy to use, the MOST uses three competency domains (Social, Technical, and Influence) with three competency clusters per domain. However, OD is not being practiced unless one category in all three domains is being utilized.
This appeared to solve a problem the field of OD has struggled with for a long time and most competency models failed to address adequately: OD is not a one size fits all practice. If you've been around the field long enough, you know their are a wide variety of ways to practice. Dr. Brendel's model not only makes it possible to understand how OD is currently practiced and taught, but also imagine new combinations to OD practice.
Within each competency category, three competency clusters exist, describing actual OD practices including context, behaviors, conditions, and outcomes.
Figure 4. MOST Competency Domains & Categories
Hover over image to enlarge
4-Phase Validation Study
Figure 5. Study Phases, Purposes, Methods, and Samples
Click on image to enlarge
This exciting development still required validation by current experts in the field. Dr. Brendel recruited Dr. Yu-Ling Chang to help lead a 4 phase validation process. This involved a multi-phases and mixed-methods process guided by the American Psychological Association (APA) Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures (Tippins et al., 2018) and a collection of scholarly literature for the development, evaluation, and use of psychological measures in organizational research (Cole et al., 2012; Ellen et al., 2022; Hinkin, 1998; Porath et al., 2012; Shockley et al., 2016; Wright et al., 2017). Following those guidelines, the study involved four distinct phases with mixed research methods outlined in Figure 5.
Phase 1: Item Creation & Content Validity
The first phase of validation concentrated on validating assessment items created by Dr. Brendel. For an independent critique of these items, 8 renowned OD subject matter experts - many of whom are OD Network lifetime achievement award winners - where invited to examine each item in relationship with their respective competency categories.
We first asked the 8 participants to answer the content validity survey in which they evaluated how well the 45 items reflected the definitions of their correspondent measuring constructs on the scale from 1 to 5 (1 = Needs Improvement; 2 = Fair; 3 = Good; 4 = Very Good; 5 = Excellent) and provided suggestions for item improvement in open-ended questions. After reviewing the survey responses, we then interviewed the participants for further clarifications and discussed the best practices for item refinement.
Figure 6. Pilot study statistics, Cronbach’s Alphas, and Correlations (N = 28)
Click on image to enlarge
Phase 2: Pilot Study & Item Refinement
To further evaluate the items for potential improvements, we piloted the assessment after the initial items were developed and conducted exploratory data analysis as well as reliability test. The participants in the pilot study were 28 individuals recruited from OpenSourceOD.com website (Sample 2). The sample size that fell within 20 to 65 was considered adequate for a pilot study as recommended by Hinkin (1998).
The participants in the pilot study were approximately 71% female, and approximately 29% were between 25-34 years old, and 25% were between 35-44 years old. Regarding the participants’ profession, 18% were Internal OD Consultant, 14% were External OD Consultant, General Management, and OD Professor/Researcher. Other participants’ professions include Talent Development (11%), Human Resource Generalist (7%), Management Consultant (7%), Executive Coaching (4%). Nevertheless, 43% respondents’ tenure were less than 4 years and 21% had no training or education in OD. As for the perceived familiarity with OD, only 11% claimed that they were unfamiliar with OD. Others were somewhat familiar, familiar, or very familiar with OD.
Phase 3: Nomological Validity
Nomological validity is a concept that might sound complex at first glance, but it can be broken down into simpler, everyday language to make it more understandable. At its core, nomological validity refers to the degree to which a concept fits within a larger theoretical framework or system of relationships. Think of it as checking if a new piece fits perfectly into an already existing puzzle. The "puzzle" in this case is a network of theories and relationships that have been previously established through research and observation.
To determine nomological validity, we followed these steps:
-
Identify a Theoretical Framework: First, we pinpointed the broader theory and set of relationships that their or our measure is supposed to fit into. This is like picking out the puzzle you are trying to complete.
-
Specify Expected Relationships: We then clearly defined how we expected concepts to relate to other concepts within the SCM framework. This is akin to studying the picture on the puzzle box to understand where the new piece should go and how it should connect with the pieces already in place.
-
Empirical Testing: Next, we collected data and used statistical methods to test whether the expected relationships actually hold true. This is similar to trying to fit the puzzle piece into its expected spot and seeing if it connects as anticipated.
-
Evaluate Fit: Finally, we assessed how well our concept integrates with the existing theoretical framework based on the empirical evidence. This is like stepping back and looking at the puzzle to see if the new piece contributes to the overall picture as intended.
We found that the Cronbach alpha values, which measure how well our items worked together, were between .71 and .81. This is a good sign, showing that our scales are reliable after we made some tweaks.
Figure 7. Single-factor and Second-order Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Results with Sample 3 (N = 1,104)
Click on image to enlarge
Our study looks at the SCM model, which covers a broad range of skills in three main areas: Social, Technical, and Influence. Within these areas, we explore nine specific skills: Culture, Psychology, Humanity, Strategy, Design, Performance, Leading & Managing Change, Consulting & Partnering, and Facilitating Learning & Innovation. To see if our model makes sense and fits well with these skills, we used a statistical method called confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We did this CFA in two steps: first, we looked at each of the nine skills separately, and then we looked at how they grouped under the three main areas.
Figure 7 shows the results of these CFAs. The numbers we got (like CFI and RMSEA) meet the standards experts suggest for a good model fit, which means our model lines up well with the real-world data. This supports our idea that the SCM model accurately represents the skills in the areas of Social, Technical, and Influence.
Lastly, when we talk about "factor loadings," we're saying that each skill area significantly explains the items or questions we designed to measure it. This is another good sign that our model is on the right track. In summary, our analysis shows that our SCM model is both reliable and valid for measuring the skills it's supposed to, according to the guidelines set by experts in the field.
Phase 4: Convergent & Discriminant Validity
Convergent Validity
Think of convergent validity as the process of checking if two different tests that are supposed to measure the same thing actually end up giving you similar results. Imagine you have two different kitchen scales at home. You're skeptical about whether they're accurate, so you decide to test them by weighing a bag of flour on both.
If both scales give you a similar reading, you'd say they have good convergent validity because they converge, or agree, on the measurement of the weight of the flour. In research, when two different methods or tests measure the same concept (like intelligence or satisfaction) and produce similar results, they are considered to have high convergent validity. It's like saying, "Yes, these two tools are indeed measuring the same thing because they're giving us similar answers."
We discovered significant positive correlations, which demonstrate that skills within each set really do move together, indicating good convergent validity. It means our theory that these skills should be related is supported by the data.
Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity, on the other hand, is about showing that two tools that are supposed to measure different things actually do produce different results. Going back to our kitchen analogy, imagine now you have a thermometer and a kitchen scale. You wouldn't use a thermometer to weigh your flour, nor would you use a scale to measure the temperature of your oven. If you conducted a test to see if these two tools gave you different kinds of measurements (one for temperature and one for weight), and they did, you'd say they have good discriminant validity. They discriminate, or differentiate, between two distinct concepts. In research terms, if you have two measures that are supposed to assess different traits (like happiness and intelligence), and the results show that they indeed capture different constructs, they are said to have high discriminant validity. It's a way of confirming that "Yes, these tools are not mistakenly measuring the same thing; they're accurately capturing different concepts."
Addressing Limitations
Of course, no study is perfect. One of the big challenges with the M.O.S.T. assessment is keeping it up to date. OD is a field that's always changing, so the competencies that are important today might evolve. To stay relevant, we'll need to regularly update the assessment based on feedback from people in the field and new research.
Practical & Theoretical Significance
The M.O.S.T. Assessment fills a very big gap in Organizational Development (OD) as it is the first of its kind to offer an evidence based and scientifically backed approach to understanding and developing OD competencies in line with real careers. This assessment is a big step forward because it's based on solid research and theory, and it looks at the field of OD through a an easy to understand framework, including three key competency domains: Social, Technical, and Influence skills. Here's how the M.O.S.T. assessment is already changing things up in the field of OD.
What It Means for OD Practice
The M.O.S.T. assessment is a game-changer for people working in OD. It's different from older models because it can be customized based on what an organization needs. This means:
-
Organizations can use it to see how their current skills match up with where they want to be in the future. This helps them figure out what kind of training or development their employees need to get there.
-
OD departments can use it to create job descriptions that attract the right kind of talent, matching people's strengths and interests with the organization's needs.
-
Graduate programs in OD can use the assessment to show off what makes their courses special and to make smart decisions about marketing and curriculum design. They can also tailor their programs to help students build valuable skills through team projects and discussions.
-
It's also great for setting up credentialing programs and matching new OD professionals with experienced mentors.
Advancing OD Theory
The M.O.S.T. assessment isn't just a practical tool; it also pushes forward the theory behind OD competencies. By basing the assessment on sociotechnical systems theory, it helps us understand the complex and changing nature of OD work today. This could lead to new insights into how different skills (like Social, Technical, and Influence) work together in different settings.
Future Research Opportunities
The M.O.S.T. Assessment also opens up a lot of new paths for research in OD. It introduces a validated way to measure career competencies, which is a big deal. Researchers can use this as a starting point to look into how OD skills change over time or differ across industries and cultures. They can also use it to test the assessment further. Basically, there's a lot more to learn about OD competencies, and the M.O.S.T. assessment gives researchers a solid foundation to build on.
References
Anderson, D. L. (2009). Organization development: The process of leading organizational change. Sage Publications.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, C. (1961). Explorations in consulting-client relationships. Human Organization, 20(3), 121-133. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.20.3.62kj82j7u834tk40
Argyris, C. (1973). Intervention theory and method. Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, C. (1991). Managing anxiety: The role of the consultant. Harvard Business Review, 69(5), 100-109. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930290406
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3), 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.3.515
Association for Talent Development (2022, July 21). ATD Capability Model. Retrieved from https://content.td.org/r/108141?_gl=1*ocs7go*_ga*ODk0OTk0NjYwLjE2NjE5NTQ1MDU.*_ga_7K8E29WLBJ*MTY2MTk1NDUwNC4xLjAuMTY2MTk1NDUwNC42MC4wLjA.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90035-7
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. T. (1987). Organizational transitions: Managing complex change. Addison-Wesley.
Beckhard, R. (1969). Organization development: Strategies and models. Addison-Wesley.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge. Harper & Row.
Bennis, W.G. (1969). Organization development. Addison-Wesley.
Beugré, C. D. (2011). Strategic planning and organizational culture: A theoretical and empirical investigation. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 12(5), 20-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/15587731111167415
Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in groups and other papers. Tavistock.
Block, P. (2023). Flawless consulting: A guide to getting your expertise used (4thed.). Jossey-Bass.
Bourgeois, L. J., & Brodwin, D. R. (1984). Strategic implementation: Five approaches to an elusive phenomenon. Journal of Management Studies, 21(3), 395-409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1984.tb00235.x
Brendel, W. (2022). Charting a meaningful OD career: A novel framework and assessment for aspiring practitioners, Organization Development Review, 4(4), 53-67.
Bridges, W. (1991). Managing transitions: Making the most of change. Da Capo Press.
Burke, W. W. (1982). OD and strategic organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18(2), 125-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/002188638201800202
Burns, J.M. (1978) Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Bushe, G. R., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). Predicting organization development consulting competence from the Myers-Briggs type indicator and stage of ego development. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26(3), 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886390263008
Bushe, G. R., & Marshak, R. J. (2015). Promoting dialogue and participation: Theoretical foundations of the dialogic organization development approach. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51(2), 158-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886315573449
Bushe, G. R. (2015). Generative consulting: A radical shift in consulting practice. OD Practitioner, 47(2), 2-8.
Cady, S. H., & Shoup, Z. D. (2015). Competencies for success. In Rothwell, W. J., Stavros, J. M., & Sullivan, R. L. (Eds.), Practicing organization development: Leading transformation and change (pp. 117-134). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119176626.ch7
Cameron, E., & Green, M. (2015). Making sense of change management: A complete guide to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change (4th ed.). Kogan Page.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 859–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.859
Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither industrial and organizational psychology in a changing world of work? American Psychologist, 50(11), 928–939. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.11.928
Cherns, A. (1976). The principles of sociotechnical design. Human Relations, 29(8), 783–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872677602900806
Cheung-Judge, M. Y. (2020). Organisation development: Core principles, competency, and the way forward. Organization Development Review, 52(3), 11-24.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2016). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (pp. 187–203). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-012
Cole, M. S., Bruch, H., & Vogel, B. (2012). Energy at work: A measurement validation and linkage to unit effectiveness. Journal of organizational Behavior, 33(4), 445-467. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.759
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1996). Building your company's vision. Harvard Business Review, 74(5), 65-77. https://hbr.org/1996/09/building-your-companys-vision
Cooperrider, D.L. & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In W. Pasmore & R.W. Woodman (Eds), Research in organizational change and development. JAI Press. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1475-9152(2013)0000004001
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological bulletin, 52(4), 281-302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2015). Organization development and change. Cengage Learning.
Dawson, P., & Andriopoulos, C. (2014). Managing change, creativity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(5), 787-809. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-08-2013-0150
Dawson, P. (2014). Understanding organizational change: The contemporary experience of people at work. Sage. http://digital.casalini.it/9781412931793
De Caluwé, L., & Vermaak, H. (2004). Change paradigms: An overview. Organization Development Journal, 22(4), 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.od.20004
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
Deal, T. E., Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Basic Books.
Denison, D. R. (1997). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. United States: Denison Consulting.
Diamond, M. A. (1996). Attachment, aversion, and managerial responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 733-752. https://doi.org/10.5465/256735
Durkheim, É. (1982). Preface to the Second Edition. In S. Lukes (Ed.), The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology and its Method (pp. 34–47). The Free Press.
Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. (2003). The power of high-quality connections. In K. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 263-278). Berrett-Koehler.
Dyer, W. G. (1986). Preparing a new consultant. Consultation: An International Journal, 5(4), 278-283.
Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Developing a culture of safety: The role of trust and employee voice in speaking up against errors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 413-434. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1909
Eisen, S., Steele, H., & Cherbeneau, J. (1990). Developing OD competencies for the 90s and beyond: Conclusions from a Delphi conference. OD Practitioner, 22(2), 1-4.
Ellen III, B. P., Ferris, G. R., & Buckley, M. R. (2022). Toward a more political perspective of leader effectiveness: Leader political support construct validation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(4), 744-762. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2586
Emery, F.E. (1959). Characteristics of sociotechnical systems. Tavistock Institute.
Emery, F.E., Foster, M., & Woollard, W. (1978). Analytical model for socio-technical systems (address to International Conference on Sociotechnical Systems). In F.E. Emery (Ed.), The emergence of a new paradigm of work (pp. 95-112). Centre for Continuing Education, Australian National University.
Ferguson, C. K. (1968). Concerning the nature of human systems and the consultant's role. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 4(2), 179-193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886368004002
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Standford University Press https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503620766
French, W. L., Bell, C. H., & Zawacki, R. A. (2011). Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for organization improvement. Prentice Hall.
French, J., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In Studies in social power (pp. 150−167). Institute for Social Research.
French, W. L., Bell, C. H., & Zawacki, R. A. (2011). Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for organization improvement. Prentice Hall.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 693-727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.001
Galbraith, J. R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books.
Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M. (2004). Attachment theory and organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(2), 131-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886304263356
Gersick, C. J. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9-41. https://doi.org/10.5465/256496
Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003). Right from wrong: The influence of spirituality on perceptions of unethical business activities. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 85-97. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040624
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
Guo, C., & Sanchez, R. J. (2019). Does organizational culture matter? The impact of organizational culture on employee work-life balance outcomes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 32(5), 466-479. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-08-2018-0368
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7
Henderson, K. E., & Cooperrider, D. L. (2013). The handbook of large group methods: Creating systemic change in organizations and communities. John Wiley & Sons.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational research methods, 1(1), 104-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2001). Strategic management: Competitiveness and globalization. South-Western College Pub.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage.
Hunsaker, P.L. (1985). Strategies for organizational change: Role of the inside change agent. In D.D. Warrick (Ed.), Contemporary organization development (pp.123-137). Addison-Wesley.
Huselid, M. A., & Becker, B. E. (1997). The impact of high performance work systems, implementation effectiveness, and alignment with strategy on shareholder wealth. In Academy of Management Proceedings, 1997(1), 144–148. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.1997.4981101
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638
Joo, B. K., & Park, S. Y. (2010). Relationship between organizational culture, leadership behavior and job satisfaction. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21(1), 41-56. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20031
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287
Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 309-327). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45(4), 321-349. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204500402
Kanfer, R., & Chen, G. (2016). Motivation in organizational behavior: History, advances and prospects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.002
Kanter, R. M. (1979). Power failure in management circuits. Harvard Business Review, 57(4), 65-75. https://hbr.org/1979/07/power-failure-in-management-circuits
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1995). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 71-79. https://ds.amu.edu.et/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/9040/%5BHarvard%20Business%20Review%20-%20January-February%201992%5D%20-%20Kaplan%20%26.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Karpak, B., & Topaloglu, M. (2018). Impact of strategic planning on organizational culture: Empirical evidence from Turkey. Journal of Applied Management and Investments, 7(4), 229-236. https://doi.org/10.32513/jami.2018.7.4.229
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Kessler, E. H. (1993). The function of anxiety in the practice of management. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29(3), 367-381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886393293007
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Eds.). (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. Jossey-Bass.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 5(3), 15-28. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534819210014504
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business Press.
Landsheer, J. A., & Boeije, H. R. (2010). In search of content validity: Facet analysis as a qualitative method to improve questionnaire design. Quality & Quantity, 44(1), 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-008-9179-6
Landy, F. J. (2008). Psychology of work behavior (5th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 485–516. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142105
Lawler III, E. E., & Worley, C. G. (2011). Management reset: Organizing for sustainable effectiveness. John Wiley & Sons.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1-47. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391211
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology, 28(4), 563-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Jackson, C. L., Mathieu, J. E., & Saul, J. R. (2008). A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Tests of a multidimensional model and relationships with team effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 273-307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00114.x
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human relations, 1(1), 5-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100103
Lippitt, R., Watson, J., & Westley, B. (1958). The dynamics of planned change. Harcourt, Brace & World.
Lundberg, C.C. (1989). On organizational learning: Implications and opportunities for expanding organizational development. In R.W. Woodman & W.A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 3, pp. 61-82). JAI Press.
Margulies, N., & Raia, A.P. (1978). Conceptual foundations of organization development. McGraw-Hill.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4845785
Marshall, J., and J. Eubanks. (1990). Establishing a competency model for OD practitioner. OD Practitioner, 2(22), 8-9.
Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1993). Sculpting the learning organization: Lessons in the art and science of systemic change. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 4(1), 39-53. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.3920040105
Masten, A. S., & Reed, M.-G. J. (2002). Resilience in development. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 74–88). Oxford University Press.
McClelland, D. C. (1987). Human motivation. Cambridge University Press.
McLean, G. N., & Sullivan, R. L. (1990). Essential competencies for internal and external OD consultants. In Handbook of Organizational Consultation, Second Edition (pp. 749-753). Routledge.
McLean, G. N., & Sullivan, R. L. (2000). Essential Competencies for Internal and External OD Consultants. In R. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Consultation, Second Edition (pp. 749-753). Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/upenn-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3059137.
Meek, V. L. (1988). Organizational culture: Origins and weaknesses. Organization studies, 9(4), 453-473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840688009004
Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231556
Minahan (2018). Finally! global OD competencies. OD Practitioner. 50(3), 19-22.
Mintzberg, H. (1985). The organization as political arena. Journal of Management Studies, 22(2), 133-154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1985.tb00069.x
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning: Reconceiving roles for planning, plans, planners. Free Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700106
Mitroff, I. I., & Denton, E. A. (1999). A study of spirituality in the workplace. Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 83-92. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4134674
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1989). Organizational frame bending: Principles for managing reorientation. Academy of Management Perspectives, 3(3), 194–204. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1989.4274738
Nadler, D. A., Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, M. B. (1997). Competing by design. The power of organizational architecture. Oxford University Press.
O'Driscoll, M. P., & Eubanks, J. L. (1993). Behavioral competencies, goal setting, and OD practitioner effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 18(3), 308-327. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960119318300
O'Reilly III, C. A., Chatman, J. A., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487-516. https://doi.org/10.2307/256404
Parker, S., & Wall, T. (1998). Job and work design: organizing work to promote well-being and effectiveness. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231518
Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2011). Crucial conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high. McGraw-Hill.
Petchsawang, P., & Duchon, D. (2009). Work spirituality and organizational citizenship behavior: A conceptual framework. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15(1), 37-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051808326515
Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On Studying Organizational Cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 570-581. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392363
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford University Press.
Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the work force. Harvard Business School Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestion for future research. Human Performance, 10(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_5
Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F. G. (2012). Thriving at work: Toward its measurement, construct validation, and theoretical refinement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 250-275. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.756
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-91. https://hbr.org/1990/05/the-core-competence-of-the-corporation
Reitz, M. L., & Higgins, J. M. (2016). Safe to speak? An investigation of voice, speaking up, and silence in psychological safety. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(2), 333-348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2639-0
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. Praeger Publishers.
Rosso, B. D., & Lips-Wiersma, M. (2014). Meaningful work: Challenges and directions for future research and practice. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2), 187-193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9310-y
Rothwell, W. J., & Sullivan, R. L. (Eds.). (2005). Practicing organization development: A guide for consultants. John Wiley & Sons.
Rothwell, W. J., Stavros, J., & Sullivan, R. L. (Eds.). (2015). Practicing Organization Development. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119176626
Rumelt, R. P. (1991). How much does industry matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12(3), 167-185. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120302
Rutherford, M. P., & Kim, K. (2020). The role of diversity and inclusion in shaping organizational culture. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9553-4
Schein, E. H. (1983). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture. Organizational Dynamics, 12(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(83)90023-2
Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Organization Science, 9(6), 702-722. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.2.125
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. Group & Organization Management, 35(2), 149-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601110362540
Schein, E. H. (2016). Organizational culture and leadership revisited. Group & Organization Management, 41(3), 151-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601116650296
Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., & Wienk, J. A. (2013). Diversity and team outcomes: The moderating effects of outcome interdependence and group longevity and the mediating effect of communication. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(3), 251-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9282-y
Schwarz, R. (2002). The skilled facilitator: A comprehensive resource for consultants, facilitators, managers, trainers, and coaches. John Wiley & Sons.
Senge, P. M., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., Smith, B. J., & Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. Currency Doubleday.
Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1999). The dance of change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations. Doubleday.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Crown Business.
Shockley, K. M., Ureksoy, H., Rodopman, O. B., Poteat, L. F., & Dullaghan, T. R. (2016). Development of a new scale to measure subjective career success: A mixed‐methods study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(1), 128-153. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2046
Sims, R. R., & Brinkmann, J. (2003). Enron ethics (or: Culture matters more than codes). Journal of Business Ethics, 45(3), 243-256. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022942311435
Singh, A. P., & Gupta, J. (2019). The impact of diversity and inclusion on organizational culture: An empirical study of top-ranked multinational corporations. Journal of Global Information Management, 27(3), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.4018/jgim.2019070101
Sitkin, S. B., & Weingart, L. R. (1995). Determinants of risky decision-making behavior: A test of the mediating role of risk perceptions and propensity. Academy of Management Journal, 38(6), 1573-1592. https://doi.org/10.5465/256844
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), 339. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392246
Sørensen, J. B. (2002). The strength of corporate culture and the reliability of firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 70–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094891
Society for Human Resource Management (2022, June 20). SHRM Competency Model. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/learningandcareer/career/pages/shrm-competency-model.aspx
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. (2016). Guidelines for education and training in industrial-organizational psychology. Bowling Green, OH. Prepared by the Education and Training Committee. Retrieved from
https://www.siop.org/Portals/84/Educators/SIOP_ET_Guidelines_2017.pdf
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465. https://doi.org/10.5465/256865
Spreitzer, G. M., & Porath, C. L. (2012). Creating sustainable performance. Harvard Business Review, 90(1), 92-99. https://gr8synergy.com/nimpathways/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Creating-Sustainable-Performance.pdf
Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The work and meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711436160
Sullivan, R., Rothwell, W., & Worley, C. (2001). 20th edition of the organization change and development competency effort. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.odnetwork.org/resource/resmgr/docs/od_competencies.pdf
Tippins, N., Sackett, P., & Oswald, F. (2018). Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 11(S1), 1-97. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.195
Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2003). Managing ethics in organizations: An integrative framework. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 971-986. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2003.1093311
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Organization Science, 4(2), 240-261. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.2.240
Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal-Getting. Human Relations, 4(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675100400101
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–29. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852
Ulrich, D., & Lake, D. G. (1991). Organizational capability: Competing from the inside out. John Wiley & Sons.
Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 801-814. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1986.4307873
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.
Weisbord, M. R. (2012). Productive workplaces: Dignity, meaning, and community in the 21st century. Wiley.
West, M. A. (2012). Effective teamwork: Practical lessons from organizational research (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119943242
Worley, C. G., & Mohrman, S. A. (2014). Is change management obsolete? Organizational Dynamics, 43(3), 214–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2014.08.008
Worley, C., W. Rothwell, and R. Sullivan. (2010). Competencies of OD practitioners. In Rothwell, W. J., Stavros, J. M., Sullivan, R. L., & Sullivan, A. (Eds.), Practicing Organization Development: A Guide for Leading Change, 3rd ed. (pp. 107–135). John Wiley & Sons.
Wright, T. A., Quick, J. C., Hannah, S. T., & Blake Hargrove, M. (2017). Best practice recommendations for scale construction in organizational research: The development and initial validation of the Character Strength Inventory (CSI). Journal of organizational Behavior, 38(5), 615-628. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2180
Zedeck, S., & Cascio, W. F. (2008). Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10481-000