In this lesson, you will attend to the skills and knowledge that can contribute to effective OD practice, and the ethical considerations of practice You will also look at the relationship between your practice, the organization in which you conduct that practice, and your intention as practitioners. That is, who do you want to be as a practitioner in the field of organization development and change?
By the time you successfully complete this lesson, the readings, and the assignments, you should be able to
By the end of this lesson, make sure you have completed the readings and activities found in the Lesson 2 Course Schedule.
David Sims (2004) suggests that, initially, loving your organization is problematic in a variety of ways. He is reasonable in his arguments, and also sees the contrary point of view. We can consider that it is equally possible to argue that not loving your organization is also problematic. Love carries with it a sort of optimism, a belief that the focus of our love has possibilities, that there is a way in which the subject of our love matters. Loving our organizations means that we will approach changing them with an appropriate level of care. It also means that we must be optimistic about what we can create collaboratively.
This can be challenging. As change agents, we often come into organizations when they are seriously damaged and in need of repair. The culture may be dysfunctional and the structure may be full of inhibitors. Employees may be disenfranchised and leadership may be ineffectual or despotic. The list could go on. It is hard to love the damaged organization, but by loving it, we can more easily recognize its potential. It is this potential that we can nurture as part of the change process.
Further, loving our organizations means that we will likely approach the change process with an ethos of care. As the changes progress, do not judge harshly or make rash decisions. We will not blindly follow our plan for change, but notice where an approach needs more nuance. Protect and preserve that which is good about the organization, and that which you can use in the future. Actually listen to the ideas of incumbent employees rather than dismissing their ideas as “old school” or as “simply” resistance. Just as with a spouse, we cannot separate the attributes that attract us from those which may irritate us; so too must we accept the organization as whole cloth. Unlike a prospective spouse, with an organization, we can likely have some degree of confidence that we can actively change those attributes that act to hold the organization back form its full potential.
Look around your organization. Do you love it? Could you love it? What is there that attracts you to it? What is it about the organization that matters enough for you to grow to love it into a more productive, harmonious, effective, sustainable, life?
Sims, D. (2004). The velveteen rabbit and passionate feelings for organizations. In Y. Gabriel (Ed.), Myths, stories, and organizations: Premodern narratives for our times (pp. 209–222). Oxford University Press.
Now that you understand the importance of working with an ethos of care, consider the more concrete knowledge and skill requirements of OD practitioners. Consider the following questions:
You may want to make a note of your answers and try to connect your course work to these areas. Use this relatively low-risk environment to expand your comfort zone. Experiment with new content areas in the project work and new roles in your collaborative group.
“In the typical case, the OD practitioner’s role can be described in relation to its position: internal to the organization, external to it, or in a team comprising both internal and external consultants.”
(Cummings & Worley, 2025, p. 10)
The good news about the work of organization development and change is that you typically do not do it alone. You are not like Sisyphus pushing the rock up the side of the mountain, alone, only to see it roll back down when you near the top. By definition, OD work is collaborative. If you don’t have collaborators, you need to find some. They might come from your own function or, even better in many cases, be people in other functions who believe in your work and support your efforts.
OD depends on relationships that are fostered by good, frequent, honest communication and solidified by reliable follow-through. Knowledge and skills can be acquired, and your colleagues can supplement your weaknesses, complement your strengths. So imagine you’re looking at a list of skills and knowledge and thinking, “Wow, how will I ever know all this? How will I ever have enough capability?” Well, take heart—you don’t have to do it alone.
But you do need collaborators who can supplement your skills and knowledge, and who care sufficiently about your goals to work alongside you. The most essential skills may well be those that help to build and sustain solid relationships with your stakeholders and constituents. After all, whether your practice is situated internally in an organization or you are coming in to aid from the outside, as an OD practitioner you are still a consultant, and in the world of consultants, there are always options. People don’t have to come to you with their needs. They can struggle on their own, or go elsewhere for help. So, you want everyone to know who you are, what you stand for, your way of working, and the underpinning values that inform your practice.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2025). Organization development & change (12th ed.). Cengage Learning, Inc.
This brings us to the notions of ethics. OD is not a “neutral zone” by any means. Our work is unavoidably affected by our values. It may be helpful to remember that when you are making changes in an organization, you are altering work that is often tied to people’s identities, their sense of who they are, and why their contributions matter. Although some people embrace change, for others, being asked to change their relationship with their work can feel enormously challenging. How we treat individuals, groups, and the organizational system itself often comes down to an equation as simple as it is complex—a mix of our values and our ethics.
“Values and ethics play a central part in guiding OD practice. They ensure practitioners behave responsibly with clients in a legitimate and genuine helping relationship.”
(Cummings & Worley, 2025, p. 12)
One of the most powerful ways to work through (or even avoid) ethical dilemmas in OD work is communication. The more transparent you are about the changes—up front and as they unfold, the more complete your communication throughout the change process, the more honest and forthright you are, the more you listen to the perspectives and concerns of others, the less chance there is of ethical misconduct. Good two-way communication throughout the change process will help to ensure ethical behavior—on your part and by others—such as misrepresentation of your solutions, manipulation of data in an attempt to skew public opinion or hide problems, covering up skill and knowledge deficits, coercing people into making changes about which they have legitimate concerns, etc.
And always remember, if the change challenge is beyond your capabilities, the most ethical thing you can do is to admit this. This does not have to mean that you make yourself entirely vulnerable by confessing weakness, but it does mean that you need to be sufficiently candid about the limitations of your strengths to be able to build that team of complementary supporters who can help to ensure that you are successful. And if you are an outside consultant, it can mean that when all the pieces are not in place and you cannot negotiate them, you may have to walk away. It will be difficult, but it is an issue of integrity—yours. Your reputation will always be worth more than a single job where you are asked to compromise your ethics.
So the upshot of all this is, what are your ethical positions when it comes to this OD work? You may know some of the answers to this question now, but as we work through the course, remember to notice where you “draw the line in the sand” with regard to your ethical decision making.
“To reduce the possibility of ethical dilemmas, OD practitioners need to be clear about their own motivations and competencies, what diagnostic data are to be collected and how they will be used, the goals of the intervention and its relevance to the client system, how it will be implemented, and members’ choice to participate.”
(Cummings & Worley, 2025, p. 12)
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2025). Organization development & change (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.
GTSI Corporation is your case study simulation that you will use through out the semester. Feel free to read Horniman and Yemen's "GTSI Corporation: Mission Impossible? (A)" (2009) twice—once for the “plot” and then, once more. In the second reading, focus on becoming familiar with those involved and the circumstances at the time the case was written.
GTSI is a real corporation that was based in Chantilly VA at the time the case study was written. The people named in the case are real people who worked at GTSI, and for our purposes in this course, they will be your clients. As you read through the case, imagine that you are sought out by Bridget to as a potential vendor to support GTSI from an OD perspective as they attempt to turn the business around.
Reflect back on Chapter 2 of the textbook. As you think of the process of planned change, keep the challenges facing Bridget in mind. Knowing what you know from reading the case, what would you want to learn more about in the early phases? Who would you most want to talk with about the questions you have? When you connect with your case study partner(s), once you’ve gotten to know each other a bit, spend a little time brainstorming what, from an OD perspective, the key issues might be. This will get the gears turning, a warm-up for what’s to come, so that next week you’re not starting from scratch!
Horniman, A., & Yemen, G. (2009). GTSI Corporation: Mission Impossible? (A). Darden School of Business.
This course aims to help develop your your sensibilities and skills as scholar-practitioners in the OD field. The readings have been chosen to support your critical thinking about organizational development and change.
This discussion of readings encourage you to reflect your understanding of OD and your own practice and intention as an OD practitioner.
This is a group discussion. For each group discussion, your team needs to identify the team roles: one group member who will act as summarizer, one member as researcher, and one member as facilitator. The remainder of team will be participants in the discussion. Each of you will need to act as a facilitator, summarizer, and researcher at least once during the semester.
For each discussion assignment, you should try a different role, keeping in mind that it's okay to have more than one participant on a team. No matter what role you are, you are expected to also participate in the discussion.
Participate in the group discussion according to your particular role as facilitator (posing questions about the readings for the team to discuss), summarizer (writing a summary of the team’s discussion and submitting it via the Summary Submission assignment), researcher (obtaining related materials like articles and posts), or participant (participating in the discussion).
Please read Sims' “The velveteen rabbit and passionate feelings for organizations.”
Consider and respond to the following prompts:
Also, you can include your responses to the following questions:
After everyone has participated, in the next lesson, the summarizer will post a brief (one page) summary of your discussion to the discussion, and after the team agrees with the summary, the summarizer will submit it for the instructor's review and grading.
See the “Discussions of Readings” below for more information on the requirements and some pointers for a good discussion.
Sims, D. (2004). The velveteen rabbit and passionate feelings for organizations. In Y. Gabriel (Ed.), Myths, stories, and organizations: Premodern narratives for our times (pp. 209–222). Oxford University Press.
In order to continue developing your sensibilities and skills as scholar-practitioners in our field, this course has assigned required readings, which include our textbook and a variety of scholarly articles from well-respected journals. The readings have been chosen to support your critical thinking about organizational development and change. Reading the commentary for each lesson prior to doing the other reading assignments can give you a boost in terms of understanding and interpreting them.
For several of the readings, you will engage in discussions, which represent an opportunity to learn from each other’s perspectives on these texts. Please engage fully in the discussions.
Here are the processes:
The instructor will be grading your participation based on the grading rubrics (see below; grades are determined on individual basis—not everyone will receive the same grade).
In your discussions, you should post the following things:
Also, you can include your responses to the following questions:
| Assignment Components | Yes, perfect | Yes, very good | Yes, good | Not there yet | Unacceptable |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Timelines | Posted the assignment before the due date | Posted the assignment by the due date | Missed the due date by no more than one day | Missed the due date by two days | Any performance below the C level will not be accepted. |
| Content | Completed all components of the assignment and added something extra in the way of critical thought, resources, and examples | Completed all components of the assignment | Missed no more than one component of the assignment | Missed two assignment components | Any performance below the C level will not be accepted. |
| Communication | Communication style was highly engaging, respectful, and helpful; comments and questions drew others in and motivated them to respond | Communication was highly respectful at all times; some evidence of engaging dialogue and motivating questions | Communication was highly respectful at all times, but little or no evidence of engagement or motivation | Failed to follow common-sense rules of etiquette | Any performance below the C level will not be accepted. |
| Dialogue | Created extensive dialogue by asking questions and offering ideas; highly responsive to others by checking back often (three or more times each week) to answer questions and keep the discussion moving forward | Created dialogue by asking questions and offering ideas; responded to the questions of others; checked forums at least two or three times each week | Created minimal dialogue—asked a question or two; responded in a rudimentary manner to the questions of others—answered the questions but did little to keep dialogue going | Did not create dialogue and/or did not respond to the posts of others | Any performance below the C level will not be accepted. |
In Discussion 6, you can contribute interesting and relevant readings or links to provocative sites that you come across in order to expand our conversation by introducing new ideas and perspectives. Simply drop the class a note to say that you have added something new to the discussion for our consideration.
What can we learn from forum stars? You know who they are—those people who post often and well. They share knowledge, new ideas, opinions, and experiences with their classmates. They actually read your posts and ask questions that make you think. By the time the class ends, you feel like you know them. Their input makes the class come alive. So how do they do it?
The discussions are a wonderful way to extend your learning. Please take advantage of all they have to offer by getting involved early and often.