Foundations of HRD

10.1177/1534484304265484 Human Lynham Resource et al. / SELECTING Development OD Review THEORY / June FROM 2004 AN HRD PERSPECTIVE

ARTICLE

Selecting Organization Development Theory From an HRD Perspective

SUSAN A. LYNHAM Texas A & M University THOMAS J. CHERMACK University of Minnesota MELISSA A. NOGGLE Texas A & M University
As is true for human resource development (HRD), the field of organization development (OD) draws from numerous disciplines to inform its theory base. However, the identification and selection of theory to inform improved practice remains a challenge and begs the question of what can be used to inform and guide one in the identification and selection of practice-informing theory. This article considers the topic of OD for performance improvement and proposes that the selection of OD theory relevant to the topic can be informed from two perspectives: the theoretical foundations of HRD and multiple domains of performance improvement. When integrated, these two views inform the development of a heuristic and theory-for-practice (TFP) matrix useful to researchers and practitioners. The synthesis of this heuristic is presented, discussed, and applied to the topic of OD for performance improvement. Implications of the TFP matrix for further research and improved practice are briefly noted. Keywords: OD theory; foundations of HRD; performance improvement, theory-for-practice

Currently, the knowledge and theory base from which practitioners and scholars in organization development (OD) may draw is immense and multidisciplinary (T. G. Cummings & Worley, 2001; French & Bell, 1999; Rothwell, Sullivan, & McLean, 1995). Because the theoretical landscape of OD is so vast, choosing OD theories that inform practice can be an overwhelming task. In addition, there are many approaches and views regarding the nature of OD theory (L. L. Cummings & Staw, 1985; T. G. Cummings & Worley, 2001; French & Bell, 1999; Rothwell et al., 1995; Van Eynde, Hoy, & Van Eynde, 1997; Woodman & Pasmore, 1987).

Human Resource Development Review Vol. 3, No. 2 June 2004 151-172 DOI: 10.1177/1534484304265484 2004 Sage Publications

152

Human Resource Development Review / June 2004

Using the theoretical foundations of human resource development (HRD) would provide OD professionals with a useful means of examining and selecting sound theory for OD practice. Housed within HRD (McLagan, 1989), OD, and therefore OD theory, can be considered and informed by the theoretical foundations of HRD. For the purposes of this article, the minimum theoretical foundations of HRD will be taken to include economics, psychology, and systems theory (Holton, 1999; Passmore, 1997; Swanson, 1999; Swanson & Holton, 2001; Torraco, 1997). These three theoretical foundations of HRD emphasize an integrated and consistent approach to HRD, with performance improvement as an essential, but not necessarily sufficient, outcome of HRD practice (Holton, 1999, Passmore, 1997; Swanson, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999; Swanson & Holton, 2001). This integrated theoretical perspective, when coupled with the emphasis on performance improvement, can provide a useful means for identifying and selecting OD theories that inform practice. An emphasis on performance improvement is critical to the credible practice and development of the field of OD because, as Swanson (1999) noted, there is increasing demand in organizations for high performance. This increasing demand for performance outcomes requires that areas of practice such as HRD and OD develop principles and models based on performance to prevent continuous trial-and-error application (Swanson, 1999). The alternative to having foundational theories is a discipline in which practitioners are free to include any theories they may choose. This arbitrariness can be problematic when practitioners attempt to replicate results. It can also be problematic in that the theories selected may not be verified for the context of application, nor may they be trustworthy in informing the desired outcomes (Christensen & Raynor, 2003). Micklethwait and Woolridge (1996) described the current state of random reengineering as an example of how damaging atheoretical ventures can be. Swanson (1998) suggested that to focus on long-term results, develop the ability to replicate them, and acquire a deep understanding of a discipline requires a logical and coherent set of foundational theories. As is the case with HRD, many definitions can be found for OD. Egans (2002) study, for example, collected 27 definitions of OD and made use of a panel of seven experts to highlight the dependent variables in each definition. Furthermore, a separate panel of accomplished OD practitioners and scholars examined the resulting dependent variables and grouped them into categories. Although a new, integrative definition of OD is not offered in this definitional synthesis, expert sorting and grouping resulted in the identification of 10 categories of dependent, or outcome, variables embedded in the OD definitions considered. These outcome variables include to (a) advance organizational renewal, (b) engage organization culture change, (c)

Lynham et al. / SELECTING OD THEORY FROM AN HRD PERSPECTIVE

153

enhance profitability and competitiveness, (d) ensure health and well-being of organizations and employees, (e) facilitate learning and development, (f) improve problem solving, (g) increase effectiveness, (h) initiate and/or manage change, (i) strengthen system and process improvement, and (j) support adaptation to change (pp. 62-67). It seems that a comprehensive definition of OD would contain something from each of these key categories, although, curiously, none explicitly states performance improvement is a primary outcome variable of OD. Given performance as a key outcome emphasis of HRD, and if considering OD as a component of HRD (McLagan, 1989), it seems likely that this performance improvement perspective, when combined with that of an integrated foundational theory perspective offered by HRD, might make some valuable contributions to the theory and practice of OD (Kimberley & Nielsen, 1975; March & Sutton, 1997; Nicholas, 1982). It is therefore the task of this article to develop a heuristic and theory-for-practice (TFP) framework in the form of an integrative matrix that can provide a useful and grounded means for both researchers and practitioners to identify and select theories of OD for improved performance. The development and application of TFP matrix to the topic of OD for performance improvement are explicated in the next five sections of this article. The first considers the driving problem statement, guiding research questions, and methodology used to develop the TFP matrix and its application to the topic of OD for performance improvement. The second section presents a brief overview of related literature used to inform the need for and development of the TFP matrix, and the third highlights the guiding definitional and ultimately heuristic components of the TFP matrix. The fourth section demonstrates how the TFP matrix can be used to inform the identification and selection of, in the case of this article, theories to inform OD practice aimed at performance improvement. Finally, the fifth section offers some concluding comments and suggestions for possible future research.

Problem Statement, Research Questions, and Methodology

The word foundation is derived from the Latin word fundare, meaning to lay the bottom [the base, of] . . . to establish (Barnhart, 1995, p. 298) and is described in the Websters II New Riverside University Dictionary (Soukhanov, 1994, p. 501) as the basis on which a thing stands, is founded, or is supported. Without foundational theories and an informed means for selecting them, HRD practitioners are less likely to be able to replicate results or develop a deep understanding of results achieved through OD interventions (Swanson, 1999). The heuristic provided in this article, in the form of a TFP matrix, is intended to help address these concerns for identifying, selecting, and continuously devel-

154

Human Resource Development Review / June 2004

oping foundational theory. The resulting heuristic is informed by Swansons (1998, 1999) three theoretical foundations of HRD and Holtons (1999) four domains of performance improvement and can be used by HRD and OD practitioners to select OD theories for improved practice. We would like to acknowledge that this theoretical-foundations-of-HRD: four-domains-of-performance perspective provides one view of identifying and selecting OD theory. However, the resulting heuristic does suggest the usefulness of the integration of these theoretical foundations and performance domains in guiding informed OD practice aimed at performance improvement. The following questions serve as the basis for the task of this article:
1. From an HRD theoretical foundations and performance improvement perspective, what would constitute foundational OD theory? 2. Within the HRD theoretical foundation and performance improvement perspective, what would constitute foundational OD theory?

The method used to address these two guiding questions included a conceptual review, critical analysis, and synthesis of related scholarly literature. This approach helped to use the current state of the body of knowledge on OD for performance improvement theory to inform the need for and development of the heuristic and to provide a theoretically grounded means for identifying and selecting OD theories for the purpose of performance improvement (see Figure 1). An important assertion of this article is that performance improvement is a desirable business outcome of OD interventions (Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector, 1990; Sashkin & Burke, 1987; Swanson & Holton, 2001). A second assertion is that existing and emerging OD theory can be used to inform better OD practice aimed at performance improvement (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Bazigos & Burke, 1997; Lynham, 2002; Torraco, 1999). A further assertion is that viewing OD theory from an integrative perspective of the theoretical foundations of HRD as well as performance improvement can be used to inform the synthesis and development of a heuristic framework for, in the case of the focus of this article, the identification and selection of theories foundational to the practice of OD for performance improvement. A brief overview of related literature is presented in the section following and lends credence to these assertions.

Theoretical Framework
OD is critical to the performance of any organization because it brings key skills and perspectives that effectively facilitate changes in culture and shifts in strategy to address the complex challenges facing organizations (Jelinek & Litterer, 1988; March & Sutton, 1997; Nicholas, 1982). Unfortunately, OD theory has not been sufficiently connected to performance

Lynham et al. / SELECTING OD THEORY FROM AN HRD PERSPECTIVE

155

HRD: A process for developing and/or unleashing human expertise through Training and Development and Organization Development for the purpose of improving performance (U of MN, 1994).

OD: A process of implementing systematic change in organizations for the purpose of improving performance (U of MN, 1994).

Theoretical Foundations of HRD Psychology, Economics, and Systems Theory

Four Domains of Performance Improvement Individual, Group, Process, and Organizational

Perspectives for Considering OD Theory

FIGURE 1:

A Graphic Model of an HRD Perspective for Considering OD Theory

improvement, and this inadequacy impedes the fields research capability and inhibits the effective practice and the evaluation of OD interventions (Beer & Walton, 1987; Burke & Litwin, 1992; Christensen & Raynor, 2003; Porras & Robertson, 1987; Weick & Quinn, 1999; Woodman, 1989). This inadequate theory-practice link speaks to the need to contextualize existing OD theory within an integrated framework of foundational theory aimed at performance improvement through purposeful and planned change interventions. OD has grown up with an underlying philosophy of improving processes within environments that, in turn, foster effective organizations that balance the needs of the individual with those of the organization (Bazigos & Burke, 1997; Church, Burke, & Van Eynde, 1994; Sashkin & Burke, 1987; Van Eynde, Church, Hurley, & Burke, 1992). As the environment in which organizations operate has become more competitive, the need for OD to embrace philosophical frameworks that integrate the concept of performance improvement into the outcome equation of OD practice has increased (Nicholas, 1982; Sashkin & Burke, 1987). As noted by Jelinek and Litterer (1988), it is no longer acceptable to treat performance improvement as a hopeful by-product of OD interventions. The field, they say, has to recognize real and urgent pressures for performance and take into account changing strategic goals (p. 136). Without integrating OD theory and interven-

156

Human Resource Development Review / June 2004

tions with specific impact on performance improvement and increased production and financial performance, the field of OD will likely become less relevant to organizations seeking performance improvement through deliberate and planned change interventions (Beer et al., 1990). Also noted is the importance for scholars and practitioners alike to appreciate the business, intervention, and change process perspectives in their inquiry and practice of OD (Armenakis, Harris, & Field, 1999; Garud & Van de Ven, 2000; Stevenson & Greenberg, 1998; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Noted in the literature are two commonly accepted, general categories of OD theorynamely, implementation theory and change process theory (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Bazigos & Burke, 1997). The first of these categories, that of implementation theory, is described by Bennis (1966) as the theory of changing and includes theory focused on the activities or specific actions associated with the successful implementation of change (Porras & Robertson, 1987). This category can be further separated into those theories that inform strategy and procedure and that establish OD implementation techniques such as diagnosis, planning, intervention, and evaluation (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Porras & Robertson, 1987). In contrast, the second category of theories, namely change process theories, explain the variables, outcomes, and causal relationships related to the process of change itselfthat is, how change itself happens (Bennis, 1966; Garud & Van de Ven, 2000; Porras & Robertson, 1987). These two categories of theory together form an essential knowledge base for successful OD intervention and provide a theoretical foundation for the practice of organization development (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Porras & Robertson, 1987; Woodman, 1989). Together, these two categories of theory guide and inform the OD practitioner as to both how the change process works (change process theory) and how to implement change successfully (implementation theory). It is important to note that to effectively influence change in an organization and to understand the impact of OD on performance improvement, both theoretical perspectives need to be employed in a mutually informing manner by the OD practitioner (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Porras & Robertson, 1987; Woodman, 1989). Porras and Robertson (1987), among others, have cautioned that OD theories, whether of an implementation or change process nature, are not necessarily well formulated and must be understood within their intended context to be informative and effective. Further noted is that the development of OD theory does not reflect a tendency to build on previous theory (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999; Bazigos & Burke, 1997). This suggests a propensity to invent new explanations of OD phenomena rather than using existing intervention and change knowledge to continuously confirm and refine OD theory, a necessary requirement for trustworthy theory in multi-

Lynham et al. / SELECTING OD THEORY FROM AN HRD PERSPECTIVE

157

ple contexts of application (Christensen & Raynor, 2003; Lynham, 2002; March & Sutton, 1997). A recent article in the September 2003 issue of the Harvard Business Review highlighted the relevance of theory for improved practice. In this article, Christensen and Raynor (2003) noted the importance of continuously building on and improving theory. Rather than relying on theories of correlation alone, the authors emphasize the importance of continuous theory development toward a state of causal explanation. In other words, they strongly advocate the need for theory that can predict more accurately how the phenomenon should work in a wider range of circumstances (p. 68). Christensen and Raynor further noted the circumstance contingent (p. 90) nature of theory, the importance of asking when doesnt it (the theory) work? (p. 91), and how continuous development and refinement of theory leads to more widely applicable and therefore more widely useful theory. Bazigos and Burke (1997) lent support to the above theory-related points highlighted by Christensen and Raynor (2003). In a study of what theories guide OD practitioners in their practice, Bazigos and Burke found that OD practitioners do not seem to act from a uniform theory base. Rather, their findings suggest that OD practitioners tend to act from predominantly humanistic values, a resulting predisposition toward supporting psychological theories, a tendency to practice aimed at individual and group performance, and the display of an insufficient appreciation of systems-level issues (p. 403). They further report that OD practitioners more often than not ignore change levers significant to todays environment and the need to be multitheoretical and multidimensional in their thought and practice (p. 403). These authors note that a greater appreciation of ODs theoretical underpinnings has the potential for providing clients with a higher likelihood that comprehensive diagnosis will be matched to appropriate intervention plans (p. 404). The literature appears to support the three assertions integral to the proposed TFP matrix that is the focus of this article: namely, that performance improvement in multiple domains of performance is a desirable outcome of OD practice; that the identification and selection of theory foundational to OD practice, in this case OD for performance improvement, is important for improved OD practice; and that an integrated, systemic perspective of such foundational theory is a sought-after perspective to inform a multidimensional, multitheoretical approach to OD practice. It is the intent of the TFP matrix to address these current theory-to-practice limitations evident in the related OD for performance improvement literature. The resulting TFP matrix, presented in the following section, provides HRD professionals with an integrated heuristic by which related OD for performance improvement theory can be identified and selected to inform improved practice.

158

Human Resource Development Review / June 2004

The TFP Matrix: A Definitional Description

For the proposed heuristic to be useful for the task of identifying and selecting theory foundational to OD for performance improvement, it is helpful to provide a contextual definitional description of the TFP matrix. First defined are the constructs of HRD and OD. Second, the components of the two axes of the matrix: namely, the theoretical foundations of HRD (psychology, systems and economic) and the domains of performance (individual, group/social, process, and organization) in the context of OD for performance improvement are defined and presented in Table 1. Finally, an integrated definition of each of the theoretical foundations of HRD at each domain of performance improvement, and in the context of OD for performance improvement, is provided in Table 2. The definitions presented are important in that they are of a heuristic nature and are later used to guide and inform the TFP matrix in action, that is, in identifying and selecting theories foundational to OD for performance improvement. For the intent of this article, HRD and OD are defined as follows:
HRD is a process of developing and/or unleashing human expertise through person-

nel training and development (T&D) and OD for the purpose of improving performance (University of Minnesota, 1994). OD is the process of implementing systematic change in organizations for the purpose of improving performance (University of Minnesota, 1994).

Having presented the definitions for the eight components of the two axes of the TFP matrix, Table 2 presents an integrative and purposive definition for each 12 component cells within the matrix. It should be noted that these definitions have been compiled within the context of OD for performance improvement and that it is these integrative and purposive definitions that inform the later selection of theories foundational to OD for performance improvement, highlighted and briefly discussed in the next section of this article.

Application of the TFP Matrix to OD for Performance Improvement

By combining the theoretical foundations of HRD (Swanson, 1999) with the whole-system performance domain perspective (Holton, 1999), a unique, 12-cell matrix of OD theory for performance improvement can be provided (see Table 3). The TFP matrix further sets up criteria for identifying and selecting OD theories in each matrix cell. For example, psychological theory at the individual domain of performance must satisfy the integrative definition and purpose of psychological theory that can be used to inform individual performance improvement (see corresponding psychology-individual performance matrix cell in Table 2).

Lynham et al. / SELECTING OD THEORY FROM AN HRD PERSPECTIVE

TABLE 1: The Theory-for-Practice (TFP) Matrix: Definition of the Two Axes

159

Domains of Performance Improvement

Theoretical Foundations of HRD Psychological theory: A description and explanation of behavior and mental processes of humans and their effect on humans and human system performance (Passmore, 1997). Systems theory: Economic theory: A description and A description and explanation of explanation of how the allocation how the allocation of scarce of scarce resources among a resources among a variety of human variety of human wants affects indi- wants affects individual, group, pro- vidual, group, process, and/or whole cess and/or whole system perforsystem performance (Randall, mance (Randall, 1987; Torraco, 1987; Torraco, 1999). 1999).

Individual performance: Technologies and processes designed to optimise the performance of the individual within the context of the organization (Lynham, 2000, p. 21). The purpose of this domain of performance is to separate and identify technologies and processes critical to leveraging individual performance in a performance system. Group/social performance: An internal subsystem for which performance goals have been set that are derived from and contribute to the mission of the overall system (Holton, 1999, p. 31). The purpose of this domain of performance is to separate and identify internal subsystems with set goals that contribute to the overall mission in a performance system. Process performance: A series of steps designed to produce a product or service (Rummler & Brache, 1995, p. 45). The purpose of this domain of performance is to separate and identify the processes and steps that cut across subsystems and produce products and/or services for identifying leverage areas for performance improvement in a performance whole. (continued)

160
TABLE 1

Human Resource Development Review / June 2004

Continued

Domains of Performance Improvement Organizational performance: The performance systems mission, and the goals derived from it, that specify the expected outcomes of the performance system (Holton, 1999, p. 29). The purpose of this domain of performance is to separate and identify the mission, goals, and relationship with the external environment to identify leverage areas for performance improvement of the overall performance system.

Theoretical Foundations of HRD

The OD theories selected below meet the respective definitional criteria indicated in Table 2. Following Table 3 is a brief discussion of each theory selected, using the TFP matrix, and how it informs OD professionals about practice for improving performance.

Foundational Theories That Can Be Used to Inform OD for Performance Improvement

The TFP matrix referenced in Table 3 highlights OD theories from the foundational perspectives of psychology, systems, and economics relative to each of the individual, group/social, process, and organization domains of performance. The sections following briefly describe the essence of each theory highlighted, together with how the respective theories inform OD for performance improvement at each of the respective domains of performance.

Foundational Theories That Inform Individual Performance Improvement

Three theories that can be used to inform change interventions aimed at improving individual performance include Bridges (1980) transition theory, Vrooms (1964) expectancy theory, and Lockes theory of task motivation and incentives (Knight, Durham, & Locke, 2001). These theories satisfy the selection criteria set up by the TFP matrix and provided by the integrative, purposive definitions described, respectively, in the first row of the matrix (please refer to Table 2 individual performance and psychological, systems, and economic theory).

Lynham et al. / SELECTING OD THEORY FROM AN HRD PERSPECTIVE

TABLE 2: The TFP Matrix: Integrated Definitions Theoretical Foundations Performance Domains

161

Psychological Theory

Systems Theory Systems theory at the individual domain performance Definition: A general description and explanation of how the interrelationships among inputs, processes, outputs, and feedback affect technologies and processes designed to optimize individual performance in the organizational context. Purpose: To provide useful and relevant knowledge and methods for understanding and affecting the interrelationships among inputs, processes, outputs, and feedback and how the interrelationships affect processes critical to leveraging individual performance in a performance system. Systems theory at the group/social performance domain Definition: A description and explanation of how the interrelationships among inputs, processes, outputs, and feedback affect internal subsystems with set goals derived from and that contribute to the mission of the overall system. Purpose: To provide useful and relevant knowledge and methods for understanding and affecting how the interrelationships among inputs, processes, outputs, and feedback affect internal subsystems with set goals that contribute to the overall mission in a performance system.

Economic Theory Economic theory at the individual performance domain Definition: A description and explanation of how the allocation of scarce resources among a variety of human wants affects technologies and processes designed to optimize individual performance in the organizational context. Purpose: To provide useful and relevant knowledge and methods for understanding and managing how the allocation of scarce resources affects technologies and processes critical to leveraging individual performance in the organizational context. Economic theory at the group/social performance domain Definition: A description and explanation of how the allocation of scarce resources among a variety of human wants affects internal subsystems with set goals that are derived from and contribute to the overall system. Purpose: To provide useful and relevant knowledge and methods for understanding and managing how the allocation of scarce resources affects internal subsystems with set performance goals that are derived from and contribute to the mission of the overall system. (continued)

Individual Psychological theory at the Performance individual performance domain Definition: A description and explanation of how the behaviors and mental processes of humans affect technologies and processes designed to optimize individual performance in the organizational context. Purpose: To provide useful and relevant knowledge and methods for understanding and affecting human behavior and mental processes and how they affect technologies and processes critical to leveraging individual performance in a performance system.

Group/social Psychological theory at the performance group/social performance domain Definition: A description and explanation of how the behaviors and mental processes of humans affect internal subsystems for which performance goals have been set that derive from and contribute to the mission of the overall system. Purpose: To provide useful and relevant knowledge and methods about how human behaviors and mental processes affect internal subsystems with established goals that contribute to the overall mission in a performance system.

162
TABLE 2

Human Resource Development Review / June 2004

Continued Theoretical Foundations

Performance Domains

Psychological Theory

Systems Theory Systems theory at the process performance domain Definition: A description and explanation of the how the interrelationships among inputs, processes, outputs, and feedback affects any series of steps designed to produce a product or service. Purpose: To provide useful and relevant knowledge and methods for understanding and affecting how the interrelationships among inputs, processes, outputs, and feedback affect the processes and steps that cut across subsystems to produce a product or service in a performance whole. Systems theory at the organization performance domain Definition: A description and explanation of how the interrelationships among inputs, processes, outputs, and feedback affect the performance systems mission, goals that specify expected outcomes. Purpose: To provide useful and relevant knowledge and methods for understanding and affecting how the interrelationships among inputs, processes, outputs, and feedback affect the organizations mission, goals, and relationship with the external environment.

Economic Theory Economic theory at the process performance domain Definition: A description and explanation of how the allocation of scarce resources among a variety of human wants affects any series of steps designed to produce a product or service. Purpose: To provide useful and relevant knowledge and methods for understanding and managing how the allocation of scarce resources affects processes and steps that cut across subsystems and produce products or services in a performance whole.

Process Psychological theory at the performance process performance domain Definition: A description and explanation of how human behavior and mental processes affect any series of steps designed to produce a product or service. Purpose: To provide useful and relevant knowledge and methods for understanding and managing how human behavior and mental processes affect steps or processes that cut across subsystems and produce products or services in a performance whole.

Organization Psychological theory at the performance organization performance domain Definition: A description and explanation of how human behavior and mental processes affect the performance systems mission and goals that specify expected outcomes. Purpose: To provide useful and relevant knowledge and methods for understanding and affecting how human behavior and mental processes affect the organizations mission, goals, and relationship with the external environment.

Economic theory at the organization performance domain Definition: A description and explanation of how the allocation of scarce resources among a variety of human wants affects the performance systems mission and goals that specify expected outcomes. Purpose: To provide useful and relevant knowledge and methods for understanding and managing how the allocation of scarce resources among a variety of human wants affects the organizations mission, goals, and relationship with the external environment.

Lynham et al. / SELECTING OD THEORY FROM AN HRD PERSPECTIVE

TABLE 3:

163

The TFP Matrix in Action: Identifying and Selecting Theories Foundational to OD for Performance Improvement Foundational Theories

Performance Domains Individual

System Theory Transition theory (Bridges, 1980)

Psychological Theory

Economic Theory

Theory of task motivaExpectancy theory (Atkinson, 1964; Vroom, tion and incentives 1964) (Knight et al., 2001; Locke, 1968) Group process consultation theory (Cummings & Worley, 2001; Schein, 1969, 1987) T-C-P theory of alignment (Tichy, 1983) Team-building theory (Cummings & Worley, 2001; Dyer, 1987; French & Bell, 1999) Game theory (Chermack & Swanson, 2002; Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1947) Human capital theory (Becker, 1993; Schultz, 1960)

Group/social Johari window theory of communication (Luft, 1961) Process Positive reinforcement theory (Bazigos & Burke, 1997; Skinner, 1953, 1971)

Organization Organization learning theory (Argyris & Schon, 1978)

Open systems theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978)

Bridges Transition Theory Bridges (1980) defined three zones of personal transitionan ending, a neutral, and a new beginningas necessary for successful individual performance through change. According to Bridges, each phase must be completed before an individual can successfully begin the next. Bridges theory informs HRD professionals about how individuals cope with change. Understanding how individuals cope with change may explain why, after change interventions, individual performance often decreases before it improves (T. G. Cummings & Worley, 2001). Expectancy Theory Vroom (1964) and Atkinson and Birch (1970) separately adapted Bernoullis expectancy theory, originally applied to economics, to explain individual motivation in the context of the system within which they operate. The theory informs HRD professionals of the importance of the value that individuals assign to organizational decisions based on potential individual outcomes and helps to articulate the impact that perceived equity can have on individual and ultimately organizational effectiveness.

164

Human Resource Development Review / June 2004

Lockes Theory of Task Motivation and Incentives Lockes (1968) theory of task motivation and incentives asserts that conscious goals and incentives have a direct impact on performance improvement (Knight et al., 2001). The theory therefore highlights goal setting as an integral part of individual performance improvement. Highly confirmed by research, this theory informs the OD professional about how goal setting, task motivation, and the impact of associated incentives can be used for more effective intervention outcomes, particularly those aimed at increased individual effectiveness.

Foundational Theories That Inform Group Performance Improvement

Highlighted in the second row of the TFP matrix (see Table 3), the Johari window and theory of communication offered by Luft (1961), process consultation theory proposed by Schein (1969) and described in T. G. Cummings and Worley (2001), and team building theory proposed by Dyer (1987) and described by French and Bell (1999) can be used to inform OD practice aimed at performance improvement at the group/social level. These three theoretical frameworks satisfy the selection criteria set up by the TFP matrix and provided by the integrative, purposive definitions described, respectively, in the second row of the matrix (please refer Table 2 group/ social performance and psychological, systems, and economic theory). Johari Window and Theory of Communication Luft (1961) developed a four-cell matrix to explain communication with hidden levels within groups. Cell 1 is composed of issues that are perceived by both the individual and others, cell 2 describes issues that the individual is aware of but conceals from others, cell 3 contains personal issues that are unknown to the individual but are communicated clearly to the others, and, finally, cell 4 consists of issues that are hidden from both the individual and others. An understanding of the Johari window and supporting communication theory can inform OD professionals about the dynamics of group communication as it is influenced by the communication abilities and methods of the individual. Group Process Consultation Schein (1987) defined process consultation as a set of activities on the part of the consultant that helps the client to perceive, understand, and act upon the process events that occur in the clients environment (p. 34). Process consultation theory informs group process consultation, which deals

Lynham et al. / SELECTING OD THEORY FROM AN HRD PERSPECTIVE

165

primarily with five interrelated processes: communications, group member roles, group problem solving and decision making, the development and growth of group norms, and the use of leadership (T. G. Cummings & Worley, 2001). Process consultation is an interpersonal, group process theory that is helpful to OD practitioners in understanding the interpersonal, process, and systemic nature of groups and group relations. It also informs such practitioners of how pivotal a unit groups are within the organizational whole and explains how good group process performance is ultimately critical to organizational performance (Schein, 1969; Schrage, 1990). Team-Building Theory Team-building theory can be considered a general cluster of theories that describe and explain a range of activities that help groups to improve how they accomplish tasks and make decisions (Dyer, 1987; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). Tuckmans theory of stages of group development is a good example of such theory, for example. Team building helps problem-solving groups maximize the use of resources and contributions that eventually affect the economic performance of the organization (T. G. Cummings & Worley, 2001; Dyer, 1987). According to French and Bell (1999), team building can focus on task accomplishment, relationships, processes, role analysis, and role negotiation. Team-building theory thus informs OD professionals about how to improve and increase the effectiveness of teams within the organization, which can translate directly to the economic benefit of the whole (Schrage, 1990).

Foundational Theories That Inform Process Performance Improvement

The third row of the TFP matrix highlights three theories useful in informing OD practice aimed at improving process performance (see row 3 of Table 3). These theories span the theoretical foundations of psychology, systems, and economics, demonstrating how the OD professional can use the theories selected to inform process improvement. The three theories selected include Skinners (1953, 1971) positive reinforcement theory, Tichys (1983) T-C-P theory, and Von Neumann and Morgensterns (1947) game theory, respectively. Each is briefly considered below. Skinners Positive Reinforcement Theory Skinner (1953, 1971), a behaviorist, proposed a theory of positive reinforcement based on the premise of operant behavior: that is, spontaneous response or behavior encouraged through positive or negative reinforcement. With performance as its ultimate goal, positive reinforcement theory

166

Human Resource Development Review / June 2004

informs such OD-type interventions as incentive system design and programmed learning techniques for training employees (Bazigos & Burke, 1997). The theory underscores the importance of attending how such systems and techniques should be designed and structured to produce the desired behavioral outcomes. T -C-P Theory of Alignment Tichys (1983) T-C-P theory offers a nine-cell matrix for ensuring alignment among organizational components. The focus of T-C-P theory is one of evaluating and integrating the organization from three internal perspectives: technical, cultural, and political. The three internal perspectives are aligned and then evaluated against the economic, political, and cultural forces in the external environment. Tichys T-C-P theory informs HRD professionals about the nature of alignment in internal processes and how given steps in a process are linked not only to each other but also to the internal economic, political, and cultural forces within the organization. Game Theory Game theory, a theory of economic origin, and popularized beyond the bounds of economics by Von Neumann and Morgenstern (1947), describes and explains decision-making processes that involve multiple people in terms of social interaction (Chermack & Swanson, 2002). The application of game theory enables the OD professional to comprehend the independence and interaction of individuals or processes. The theory also informs the ability to assess potential outcomes (of decisions and actions) through a deliberate, interdisciplinary approach to alternative decisions and actions.

Foundational Theories That Inform Organization Performance Improvement

Application of the final row of the TFP matrix enables the identification and selection of theories informed by psychology, systems, and economics that specifically inform organization performance. The three theories highlighted and discussed in this row of the matrix satisfy the criteria of definition and purpose presented in row 4 of Table 2 and include Argyris and Schons (1978) organization learning theory, Katz and Kahns (1978) open systems theory, and Schultz (1960) and Beckers (1993) human capital theory (see Table 3).

Lynham et al. / SELECTING OD THEORY FROM AN HRD PERSPECTIVE

167

Organization Learning Theory Exploring the link between espoused and practiced values (Bazigos & Burke, 1997), Argyris and Schon (1978) described and explained how learning was inextricably connected to the discrepancies between what people say and what those same people do (Argyris, 1997). The usefulness of organization learning theory to the OD professional is that it explains how people and organizations learn to learn, how learning can be improved, and how that learning can be enacted for improved performance of the whole system. Open Systems Theory OD maintains that the organization is an open system, that it interacts with its environment to maintain a state of fit between internal arrangements and the environment (Beer & Walton, 1987, p. 349). Open systems theory assumes that individuals and their organizations cannot operate in a vacuum; therefore, we must consider systems situational and contingency oriented (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Klein, Snell, & Wexley, 1987). This theory informs OD and HRD by cautioning practitioners and scholars alike to attend to the systematic properties of an organization. This approach highlights the need to separate incremental change from modification of organizational variables (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Worren, Ruddle, & Moore, 1999). An additional benefit of this theory to OD is that the insight gained from open system theory can be extended to all four domains of performance improvement. Human Capital Theory (HCT) Originated by Schultz (1960) and popularized by Becker (1964, 1993), HCT suggests that employee education, training, and health care, among other expenditures, should be considered as investments by organizations. De Geuss (1997) statement that the ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only competitive advantage (p. 21) lends further weight to the importance of this theory to sustainable organization performance. HCT thus informs OD professionals that economic organizational performance involves much more than sound processes and goals. Organizational performance requires that organization members are seen as a major source of potential competitive advantage and recognized as the foundation of the business itself (De Geus, 1997). The 12 theories identified and discussed above demonstrate how the TFP matrix, derived from an integration of the theoretical foundations work of Swanson (1999) and the performance domains of Holton (1999), can be used to guide and inform OD practice specifically aimed at performance

168

Human Resource Development Review / June 2004

improvement and to do so to ensure more theoretically sound and reinforced practice. It should be noted that it is not the intent of the authors to suggest that the theories selected make up the core of theory in OD but rather that they are an example of the TFP matrix in action and can be used to inform more theoretically sound OD for performance improvement practice.

Conclusions and Suggestions for Future Research

In this article, a TFP matrix has been developed and applied to the challenge of OD theories for informed practicemore particularly, OD for performance improvement. This matrix integrates the theoretical foundations of HRD (psychology, systems, and economics) with that of multiple domain performance improvement, thus informing the selection of OD theory from an HRD perspective. The application of this TFP matrix for the purpose of selecting OD theory that can be used to inform OD interventions directed at performance improvement has been used to demonstrate the TFP matrix in action. On reflection, a number of potential benefits to considering OD theories from the proposed integrated perspective of the theoretical foundations of HRD and performance improvement (PI) are evident. First, this integrated HRD/PI perspective provides a theoretically informed and rich means for selecting OD theories for improved practice. Second, as OD is commonly considered a key component of HRD and performance a desirable outcome of HRD, the TFP matrix offers an HRD-specific perspective and theoretical anchor for selecting OD theories for improved practice. Finally, the theoretical alignment of OD theory to that of the theoretical foundations of HRD and the outcome of performance improvement can assist in the development and credibility of both HRD research and practice by providing a means for the development of a more unifying theory base from which OD interventions can be researched and approached. This article provides a view of OD theory-to-practice that is aligned with that of HRD. More important, it suggests a selection tool for this purpose, a TFP tool that is both theoretically informed and practical. Viewing OD from the theoretical foundations of HRD and performance improvement has enabled the synthesis of such a means for selecting OD theory for specific, circumstance-bound practice and does so using an HRD informed and grounded logic. In the pursuit of value-added OD practice that is based on trustworthy and transferable theory, HRD professionals increasingly need theoretically informed means for selecting theories for improved practice. The TFP matrix presented in this article provides an informed means for use and possible verification by HRD professionals, be they researchers, practitioners, or both.

Lynham et al. / SELECTING OD THEORY FROM AN HRD PERSPECTIVE

169

Currently, theory in OD stretches across multiple disciplines. The variety of theories for OD professionals to choose from is overwhelming. As has been cautioned by the likes of Bazigos and Burke (1997), Swanson (1999), and Christensen and Raynor (2003), without logical or common theoretical foundations, OD practitioners will find it difficult to replicate results or develop a deeper understanding of the discipline (Swanson, 1999). The TFP matrix presented is intended to be useful in linking sound theory with practice. Furthermore, the heuristic framework encapsulated in the TFP matrix can be used to examine the applicability, trustworthiness, and degree of transferability of the specific OD (and potentially other) theories offered in this article as examples of the matrix in action. In addition, the article suggests definitional, purposive, and potentially verifiable criteria by which HRD professionals can assess theory and determine appropriateness of that theory to inform, guide, and evaluate particular instances of application. For example: Does the theory speak to the organization or just the individual performance domain? Does the theory inform the profession about performance improvement from a human, process, and performance perspective or a combination of each? A series of case studies that test the TFP matrix in action, as well as studies aimed at identifying and verifying common, trustworthy OD theories for improved practice through application of the matrix, could be useful next steps in this exploration for theories that truly inform improved HRD practice.

References
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293-327. Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Field, H. S. (1999). Making change permanent: A model for institutionalizing change interventions. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 12, 97-128. Argyris, C. (1997). Initiating change that perseveres. American Behavior Scientist, 40(3), 299-309. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Atkinson, J. W., & Birch, D. (1970). The dynamics of action. New York: John Wiley. Barnhart, R. K. (Ed.). (1995). The Barnhart concise dictionary of etymology. New York: HarperCollins. Bazigos, M. N., & Burke, W. W. (1997, September). Theory orientations of organization development (OD) practitioners. Group & Organization Management, 22(3), 384-408. Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital. New York: Columbia University Press. Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990). Why change programs dont produce change. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 158-166. Beer, M., & Walton, A. E. (1987). Organization change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 339-367. Bennis, W. G. (1966). Changing organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

170

Human Resource Development Review / June 2004

Bridges, W. (1980). Transitions: Strategies for coping with the difficult, painful, and confusing times in your life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523-545. Chermack, T. J., & Swanson, R. A. (2002). Game theory methodology in HRD. In T. M. Egan & S. A. Lynham (Eds.), Academy of Human Resources Annual Conference Proceedings (pp. 584-591). Baton Rouge, LA: AHRD. Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. E. (2003). Why hard-nosed executives should care about management theory. Harvard Business Review, 81(9), 66-74. Church, A. H., Burke, W. W., & Van Eynde, D. (1994). Values, motives, and interventions of organizational development practitioners. Group & Change Management, 19, 5-50. Cummings, L. L., & Staw, B. M. (Eds.). (1985). Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2001). Organization development and change (6th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College. De Geus, A. (1997). The living company. Boston: Harvard University Press. Dyer, W. (1987). Team building: Issues and alternatives (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Egan, T. M. (2002). Organization development: An examination of definitions and dependent variables. Organization Development Journal, 20(2), 59-70. French, W. L., & Bell, C. H., Jr. (1999). Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for organization improvement (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice Hall. Garud, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2000). Strategic change processes. In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of strategy and management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Holton, E. F., III. (1999). Performance domains and their boundaries. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 1, 26-46. Jelinek, M., & Litterer, J. (1988). Why OD must become strategic. In W. A. Pasmore & R. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 2, pp. 153-162). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. New York: HarperCollins. Kimberley, J. R., & Nielsen, W. R. (1975). Organization development and change in organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 191-205. Klein, H. J., Snell, S. A., & Wexley, K. N. (1987). Systems model of the performance appraisal interview process. Industrial Relations, 26(3), 267-280. Knight, D., Durham, C. C., & Locke, E. A. (2001). The relationship of team goals, incentives, and efficacy to strategic risk, tactical implementation, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 326-338. Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 60(1), 122-124. Luft, J. (1961). The Johari window. Human Relations Training News, 5, 6-7. Lynham, S. A. (2000). The development of a theory of responsible leadership for performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Lynham, S. A. (2002). The general method of theory-building research in applied disciplines. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 221-241. March, J. G., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Organizational performance as a dependent variable. Organizational Science, 8(6), 698-706. McLagan, P. (1989). Models for HRD practice. Alexandria, VA: ASTD. Micklethwait, J., & Woolridge, A. (1996). The witch doctors: What the management gurus are saying, why it matters, and how to make sense of it. New York: Times Books.

Lynham et al. / SELECTING OD THEORY FROM AN HRD PERSPECTIVE

171

Nicholas, J. M. (1982). The comparative impact of organization development interventions on hard criteria measures. Academy of Management Review, 7(4), 531-542. Passmore, D. L. (1997). Ways of seeing: Disciplinary bases of research in HRD. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton, III (Eds.), Human resource development research handbook (pp. 114-137). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Porras, J. I., & Robertson, P. J. (1987). Organizational development theory: A typology and evaluation. In W. A. Pasmore & R. W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 1, pp. 1-57). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Randall, W. L. (1987). Resource economics: An economic approach to natural resource and environmental policy (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. Rothwell, W. J., Sullivan, R., & McLean, G. N. (1995). Practicing organization development: A guide for consultants. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Rummler, G. A., & Brache, A. P. (1995). Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sashkin, M., & Burke, W. W. (1987). Organizational development. Journal of Management, 13(2), 393-417. Schein, E. (1969). Process consultation: Its role in organization development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Schein, E. (1987). Process consultation volume II: Lessons for managers and consultants. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Schrage, M. (1990). No more teams! Mastering the dynamics of creative collaboration. New York: Doubleday. Schultz, T. (1960). Capital formation by education. Journal of Political Economy, 68(6), 571-583. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan. Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf. Soukhanov, A. H. (Ed.). (1994). Websters II new Riverside university dictionary. Boston: Riverside Publishing Company. Stevenson, W. B., & Greenberg, D. N. (1998, November-December). The formal analysis of narratives in organizational change. Journal of Management, 24(6), 741-765. Swanson, R. A. (1995). Human resource development: Performance is key. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6(2), 207-213. Swanson, R. A. (1996). Performance-learning-satisfaction evaluation system. St. Paul: University of Minnesota. Swanson, R. A. (1998). The discipline of human resource development. In R. J. Torraco (Ed.), Academy of Human Resource Development Conference Proceedings (pp. 878-886). Baton Rouge, LA: AHRD. Swanson, R. A. (1999). The foundations of performance improvement and implications for practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 1, 1-25. Swanson, R. A., & Holton, E. F., III. (2001). Foundations of human resource development. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Tichy, N. (1983). Managing strategic change: Technical, political, and cultural dynamics. New York: John Wiley. Torraco, R. J. (1997). Theory building research methods. In R. Swanson & E. Holton, III (Eds.), Human resource development research handbook (pp. 114-137). San Francisco: BerrettKoehler. Torraco, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Performance improvement theory and practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 1, 95-111. University of Minnesota AE/HRD Faculty. (1994). HRD definition. Unpublished definitional statement, University of Minnesota, Department of Work, Community, and Family Education, St. Paul. Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510-540.

172

Human Resource Development Review / June 2004

Van Eynde, D. F., Church, A., Hurley, R. F., & Burke, W. W. (1992). What OD practitioners believe. Training & Development, 46(4), 41-46. Van Eynde, D. F., Hoy, J. C., & Van Eynde, D. C. (Eds.). (1997). Organization development classics: the practice and theory of change-the best of the OD practitioner (1st ed.). San Francisco: JosseyBass. Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley. Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 1, 361-392. Woodman, R. W. (1989). Organizational change and development: New arenas for inquiry and action. Journal of Management, 15(2), 205-228. Woodman, R. W., & Pasmore, W. A. (Eds.). (1987). Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Worren, N. A. M., Ruddle, K., & Moore, K. (1999). From organizational development to change management: The emergence of a new profession. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(3), 273-286.

Susan A. Lynham is an assistant professor in human resource development (HRD) at Texas A & M University. She has 18-plus years of experience as an HRD professional in culture change, strategic planning, merger and acquisition facilitation, performance management, quality improvement, organization development, and leadership development in South Africa and the United States. Her research focuses on strategic HRD and theory building in applied disciplines. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota in 2000. Thomas J. Chermack holds a Ph.D. with a specialization in human resource development (HRD) from the University of Minnesota. His research focuses on scenario planning and the strategic roles of HRD. He has worked with such companies as Personnel Decisions International, Key Investment, and Viacom and has studied as an HRD graduate student at both Louisiana State University and Texas A & M University. Melissa A. Noggle is currently a Ph.D. student at Texas A & M University and has her B.S. in industrial engineering from the University of Alabama. She has 17plus years of experience as a manager and engineer working in the areas of process improvement, training, program/product management, performance management, and re-engineering. She has worked with organizations in both the public and private sector.