Behavioral Science—Organizational Development: What's in a Name?

In the foreword to an article on organizational development written by two highly respected psychologists, Edgar F. Huse (of Boston College) and Michael Beer (of Corning Glass), the statement is made that “some of the most exciting management methods during the past 20 years have been those going under the label of ‘organizational development' ” (Huse, E. F., M. Beer. 1971. Eclectic approach to organizational development. Harvard Bus. Rev. (September–October) 103–12.). I would add that some of the most depressing methods have been going under that label as well. Huse and Beer go on to suggest an eclectic approach, one appropriate to a particular environment and set of goals, as opposed to a narrow definition of “O.D.” In this column, I would like to strengthen their suggestion by pointing out that O.D. should go far beyond the limited techniques used by some well-known practitioners of the field (i.e., the sensitivity trainers or the “T-groupers”), and thus could be defined as the constant application of all behavioral change theory to an operating organization's problems.