The Field is Dead; Long Live the Field!

I have been hearing about the impending death of Organization Development since I first came to the field five years ago, and OD has been “dying” for a lot longer than that. Why is it that a field so young, so inherently interdisciplinary, has been facing its own demise for so long?  The December 2017 OD Gathering in Baltimore answered this poignant question, showing me that what I had conceptualized as a solid field of study and practice was in fact illusory. The sense of belonging to something larger than me, to the world of OD, crumbled on the first day. Instead of a large, solid field at the end of its life, I saw fragments of practice, theory, and use of self combining and recombining to form little pockets of emergent possibility. Death was not the proper metaphor. There had never been a field as I had imagined it, so it could not be dying. Over those three days I came instead to see OD as a source of power, energy, and nurturance spreading itself, in millions of fragmentations, as widely as it could. This new experience of OD showed me that our driving question should not be one of “saving” OD, as there is nothing solid to save, but rather one of helping what is transition to a new, unknown, and ultimately uncontrollable existence.

If we think of the field as a system, we can see the ways in which OD has adapted to its internal and external environments over the years, responding to shifts in work culture, sociopolitical forces, academia, and spirituality. Rather than taking on new and clearly distinguishable forms, however, the field is becoming increasingly diffuse, fragmented, and interwoven with the larger “non-OD” world.  This is a good sign. It means the field is growing, maturing, and reaching further. It also means that our time thinking about OD as a single field is nearing its end. The OD Gathering in Baltimore revealed that the deep tribal affinity that has bound us is no longer our core connector; our lineage, once so precious, is waning in importance; and OD’s core values are deeply debated. OD as we know it has broken open, entering a powerfully generative space of emergent possibility beyond our control.

The OD Gathering in Baltimore revealed that the deep tribal affinity that has bound us is no longer our core connector; our lineage, once so precious, is waning in importance; and OD’s core values are deeply debated. OD as we know it has broken open, entering a powerfully generative space of emergent possibility beyond our control.

There are three key changes in OD that have led to this state: its professionalization, popularization, and commodification.  The original guild system of developing OD practitioners has professionalized with the advent of the information age.  OD training used to emphasize the direct transmission from master to apprentice, centralizing “true” OD in the hands of a few and erecting rather lofty barriers to entry. Now, training has democratized, moving to graduate institutions and self-study, thus leading to the current debate about the necessity of developing a single OD competency assessment or certification.   The professionalization of OD has led to a focus on breadth of knowledge rather than depth of skill. While mentorship remains a key part of OD training, the guild model no longer applies, and OD is available to more people than ever before. 

This increased availability, combined with OD’s success over the years, has led to significant growth in the field’s popularity.  What started as a fringe practice is now deeply embedded in the essential workings of organizations around the world. Like a drop of food coloring in a glass of water, however, OD has diluted as it has spread. The “true” OD of the guild system no longer exists, replaced instead with countless interpretations and reinterpretations, coupled with new approaches, tools, methodologies, and technologies.  While some of these have been summative, others have led to a fragmentation of the field. Though we stand together on the shoulders of giants, our focus has moved toward our individual fiefdoms.

This shifting focus, the result of the field’s popularization and accompanying dilution, has led to its commodification.  As practitioners have looked for ways to differentiate themselves in an increasingly crowded marketplace, many have chosen to align with specific methodologies, tools, or technologies. This has deemphasized OD’s holistic nature, replacing it with a balkanized approach to service delivery.  As brand recognition has become increasingly important, OD has missed its opportunity to brand holistically, going from being a values-based practice to a series of techniques. The focus on individual approaches and interventions has weakened OD’s conception of itself, the public’s conception of the field, and called into question our identity as OD practitioners. 

As the field responds to changes in its internal and external environments, moving through professionalization, popularization, and commodification, it is important that we practitioners acknowledge our individual relationships to the field and work from there. Rather than fighting the field’s natural progression, we can work with the feelings of loss, disappointment, and fear that these changes raise. We do not have to be so scared of OD dying. We can attend to the end of what we have known and loved, enter the groundless space of not knowing where we are headed, and help the powerful energy of OD transition to its next manifestation. We can rest in the in-between place where we are not quite sure who we are and who we are going to be, if anyone.  It is necessary to focus on our own experiences of change and work with our emotions. There is nothing to save; what we called a field is not a solid entity, but the richness of our collective experience. Moving forward means turning outward and sharing that richness while letting go of any particular outcome. 

Published in the OD Practitioner, Vol. 50, No. 3 Summer 2018 pp. 4-5.