BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION - MAJOR IN HUMAN

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

A Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements in Organizational Development

(HRDM8)
BSBA – HRDM 4B

Submitted by:
Fami, Rommel C.
Mantes, Leo P.

Submitted to:
Mr. Michael L. Protacio, MBE
Subject Professor

A.Y. 2019 – 2020

 CHAPTER 24
Organization Development in Nonindustrial Settings: Health Care, School System, the
Public Sector, and Family-Owned Businesses

Introduction
Organization Development is a system-wide application and transfer behavioral
science knowledge to the planned development, improvement, and reinforcement of the
strategies, structures and process that may lead to organization effectiveness. It may be
practice in both private and public sectors.
This Organization Development are common to private sectors. But in comparison to the
values and structure, Multiplicity of decision makers, and Stakeholders of public sector to
private sector because it functionally and normatively different perception; public sector’s
objectives are to promote transparency, fairness and strict guidelines compare to the private
sector’s values that aims to profit and competition that become their primary drivers. When it
comes to decision making, public sector has multiple decision makers compare ton the
private who has singular decision making. Stakeholder diversity of the public sectors has a
numerous, including various government agencies, elected officials, special interest groups,
unions, safety committees, non-profit partners, etc.
The use of Organization Development in Public Sector extend historically that are more
concerned with fairness than competitiveness. Also known as Merit and Fitness. This chapter
presents the application of OD in nonindustrial settings particularly in Health Care, School
Systems, the Public Sector, and Family-Owned Businesses.

Organization Development in Health Care

According to Sonny Vukic, MBA, PT, OD serves to impact the company’s and the
individual’s performance and development—it propels the organization and its individual
members to be more effective and efficient. OD includes: strategy and planning; leadership
structure; talent development; continuous improvement; operational structure and process
design; performance management; coaching and mentoring; team building; communication
strategy. These are some of the invariable raw ingredients. How they are cooked, however,
varies from one organization to another, and this cooking process is the art behind the
science. It is what gives an organization its own flavor, its own personality and its own
culture. 

Further, OD serves to clarify each member’s role within the organization: what that role is, its
purpose, and how to accomplish it. Armed with this knowledge, each member has the
opportunity to master their role and then expand it: and building on that, have increasing
influence in the organization.
 According to Ingrid Mur-Veeman of International Journal of Integrated Care, to
counterbalance the pantheistic version of OD, saying that anything done to improve the organization
is OD. It identified as “the overarching aim of not only improving organizational performance but also
creating a continually reflexive and learning organization”. This view shows the way to theories of
organizational learning, sense-making, action research, images of organizations and whole systems
thinking. This research discussed about the things needed to build a effective organization
development in Health care whereas: Service improvement, psychodynamic approaches, System
theories and their applications, Emerge and complexity, Structure, Culture, Critical appreciative
inquiry, and Narrative and story-telling in OD.
The topic of OD is relevant for those involved in integrated care (IC), as IC development and
implementation is often a major change process. Whereas in the case of IC it is about cooperation
and thus dealing with complexity, the need of flexibility, the fostering of innovation mindedness and a
culture of trust, respect and critical examination, several OD approaches described here, such as
psychodynamics, the emergent and complexity approach, critical appreciative inquiry and service
improvement and assessment are interesting for IC managers and workers.
According to the study of Health Care Global, OD is the aggregate of an organization’s
knowledge, strategies and practices, and the use of those to foster members’ behaviors and
results. The result is effective change. When it comes to the vital of supply chain especially in
pharma, a vital question, and invariable misstep in health care arena, is how marry the clinical
mindset, the altruistic sole, the caregiver with the business, the logistic, the finance of treating
patients. OD to the health care in the scaffolding that will support OD will include components
that define and illustrate the organization’s design, leadership, strategy, clinical and business
operations, customer service, team development, culture and more.
Health care must have a huge impact in development when it comes to their process,
structures, health procedures, facilities and high technologies. Leading countries like United
States (US) that have used development on their nonindustrial sector like health care have
seen the significant growth and change. Development on Health care is most complex and
factors in economy since it become the second of the most issue must be developed. The
access to the health care and the insurance of cost of care to those are private and public
employee. The government provided the law to secure the patient regardless to ability of
them to pay.
The trends that make the health care more develop is very essential in every hospital and any
other care provider including health insurance and electronic medical record. These trends
affect only the health care but also the whole society.
OD, through a systematic reliance on organizational and operational structure and change
management processes, influences worker behaviors, focus points, and results. It functions to
align the member’s goals and activities with those of the organization so that individual and
organizational efforts complement one another. 

Organization Development in School Systems

 Every industry is unique; every education is unique enough that many resent anyone
who calls it an industry. But across industries and into the world of school, education,
institutions, organizations, and companies are composed of people – people who develop a
culture, with norms and roles, who sometime have the issues communicating, and who can
be more or less effective at their jobs.
The ideas that each occupation requires unique treatment work well – for certain industry
-specific consultant, at least, but the barriers raised by " that does not apply to us” means that
colleges, universities, and school districts are often prime targets for organization
development (OD) and other system change efforts. Indeed, some tools are even more
important in education – such as role mapping. Tradition, shared governance, and natural
crossover can bring some rather blurry power relationships, particularly in higher education.
Clarifying the roles of each group and increasing communication between them can
dramatically improve performance, cutting cost, or raising enrollment. Because of many
factors involved in academic performance, student retention, and other outcomes, it is also
hard to determine a clear cause and effect. This makes it hard to know what is truly effective
without using data to map actions to results. That data is often readily available or easy to
acquire, but not yet analyzed – or the results not have been used yet.
Many colleges must cut cost and increase both enrollment and academic support, even while
they compete with online institutions. New opportunities for saving time and money must be
found while increasing service quality. There are many tools to help; most have been
developed by academics, but have mainly been used in the corporate world.
A process of consultant carefully intervenes in a group or team to help it t accomplish its
goals. Using a process consultant (internal or external) can help to reduce conflict, increase
meeting effectiveness and speed, and increase the satisfaction of everyone involved.

Organization Development in Public Sector

Success of Organizational Development (OD) application in the public sector: Toting
up the score for a decade more or less
According to Robert T Golembiewski, Carl W Proehl, David Sink Public Administration Review
41 (6), 1981, over a decade has passed since a brace of articles first appeared in the Review
urging the usefulness in the public sector of what is usually called organization development
or OD. The first article provided an overall schema of the values and the early technology of
the laboratory approach to change. The second sought to summarize the experiment with
several OD applications at the federal level, with dual emphasis on the need for OD in the
public sector as well as on the special constraints that such applications must take into the
account. No doubt exists that OD grapples with major organizational problems. By the way of
introduction, most observers see OD as on of the major derivatives of the “laboratory
approach” – a major way of learning to learn. Globally, the laboratory approach of the OD has
at least six distinguishing features:

According to Bower, 1977; Rainey, Backoff 6 Levine, 1976; Drucker 1954; Whyte,
1934; Rawls, 1975; Buchanan, 19741, belief that American business is an appropriate
analogy for discussing, evaluating and reforming public management remains very strong.
Politicians and interest groups intent on reforming public management continue to look to
private sector organizations --the world of corporate management-- for “proven” management
practices and techniques. Unfortunately, the urge to reform public management to make
government more businesslike, is sometimes so strong that often insufficient forethought or
preparation goes into the reform effort.

Public administrators rush to introduce the latest fad to emerge from the world of
corporate management with little thought as to whether or not it actually fits the world of public
management. The assumption is made that if it works in business, obviously it will work in
government. Unfortunately, in many instances, the application of the latest business
management practices to public environments proves less than successful. As Uarvin
Bernstein notes, “the history of management improvement in the federal government is too
often a story of inflated rhetoric, shifting emphasis from one fashionable managerial skill to
another, and relatively little in the way of management achievement.”(l) Why haven't the kinds
of management practices that have worked in business been more successfully applied to
public management? In his book entitled, Unaqinq the Public's Business, Laurence Lynn
suggests that failures in the public sector of “proven” management practices borrowed from
the world of corporate management such as management-by objectives (MBO) and zero-
based-budgeting (ZBB), among others, stem from fallacies in the “business analogy,” and
inadequate understanding of the political nature of public management. In their zeal to impose
an orderly, businesslike, approach on federal management, reformers invariably ignore the
imperatives of the political process and the necessity for adapting management practices to it.

The political process of government creates unique managerial problems for public
managers, problems which reform advocates too frequently overlook. Lynn presents a
particularly cynical view of one of the latest “proven” management approaches to emerge
from the world of corporate management--organization development (OD). Despite evidence
to suggest that one of the most important developments in the field of OD has been its rapid
growth in the public sector (Zawacki & Warrick, 1976; Golembiewski, Proehl 6 Sink, 1981;
Burke, 1978; French, Bell 6 Zawacki, 1983) Lynn contends that, although OD has been
written about extensively, It’s applications in the public sector are rare. He suggests that OD
is little understood in the public sector, and that there are few indications that it will be
embraced by senior executives seeking to enhance organizational performance. He sees
failure on the part of its proponents to demonstrate a direct relationship between OD
approaches and actual increased effectiveness or output as a major barrier to its acceptance.
Finally, he suggests that a more fundamental objection to OD and other approaches rooted in
the human relations school is their tendency to overlook the extent to which the bureaucratic
form of organization serves various functional purposes. Other authors in the field of public
administration and in the field of OD, although articulating a far more positive assessment of
public sector OD, nonetheless voice concerns with regard to its practice in public sector
organizations (Burke, 1980). Burke (1980) notes that there are enough failures on record to
“at least give one pause with regard to public sector OD.”

On the other hand, Golembiewski (1977) contends that OD is a significant enough

development to warrant it being viewed as “one of a future family of mini-paradigms in the
conceptual development of the field of public administration. There is clearly a rather wide
range of views with regard to public sector OD. This article examines some of these views,
and reviews and addresses some of the questions that have been raised by Lynn and others
regarding the relevance of OD to public sector organizations.

A review of literature suggests that OD related challenges in public sector are

different from those found in private sector (O’Brien, 2002). Few studies were could be found
in which change was studied in the postal sector. Handrich and Heitzler (2008) explored
postal sector reforms in Ukraine in which they argued for implementing policies that would
pave way for privatizing postal services. Baptiste (2004) studied change management of as
part of the corporatisation of Trinidad and Tobago Post Office. To him, the process of
corporatisation is similar to that of privatization. He discussed the development of change
model which was similar to Lewin’s change model of unfreeze, change, and refreeze.

Baptiste (2004) stated that planners did not use a specific change model, instead a
model 2011 AHRD Americas Conference p. 3580 emerged during the change process which,
based on his suggestions, should be used as a guide in the change process. He also
highlighted that a significant aspect of the change process was the active involvement of
employees who led the change and focused more on efficiency and customer satisfaction than
on political or ideological goals. Also, Baptiste mentioned how the presence of external
change consultants did not contribute to any resistance mainly because consultants from one
of the countries did not seem to be a matter of public concern. Besides, he asked if the
change model that emerged in this process should be used in future by researchers and
administrator. The model used in this study is similar to the one discussed by Baptiste (2004).
O’Brien’s (2002) work focuses on a ‘bottom-up’ approach to change in the public sector.
Also, there is a belief that the traditional model of public sector is not successful at
adopting changes that occur on a regular basis (McNamara, 1995). However, it is also
important to recognize that public sector leaders should adopt changes that are suitable to
systems, process, and people in the public sector environment (O’Brien, 2002).
While there are many approaches to implementing OD interventions, Dunphy and
Stace (1995) argue that there is no single approach to OD that can meet needs and
objectives of all situations. Beer, Eisenstat, and Spector (1990) suggest that change should
occur more as a result of employees’ jobs than management’s views of employees’ values.
Pfeffer (1994) argues that top-down approaches to implementing OD are not successful in the
long-term. Such an approach to change does not incorporate factors related to structure and
attitudes. Ferlie et. al (1996) also suggest that in public sector organizations shift from
maintenance management to management of change is a result of a focus on the humanistic
aspect of OD. While the perspectives of Ferlie et. al (1996) and Pfeffer (1994) are valid, the
reality might be different in public sector organizations in developing countries.

This might be because transformation in public sector organizations involves waves of 2011
AHRD Americas Conference p. 3581change and with change comes transition (Bunker,
Wakefield, Jaehnigen, & Stefl, 2006). Bunker et. al (2006) also highlighted distinguished
between change and transition. To them, anything different or new is change, however, the
psychological and emotional reactions people show in response to change can be referred to
as transition. Leaders and employees might be able to embrace changed, however, they
struggle to deal with transition. In this
regard, Bunker et. al (2006) state that managing change and transition simultaneously is a
higher-order challenge for leaders in public sector organizations.
Moreover, if leaders are unable to pay attention to employees’ emotions during change and
transition the former end up leading insecure, sceptical, and fearful employees. Thus, in order
to lead successfully during change and transition, leaders should lead authentically by moving
from managing structures of change to relating to employees’ emotions and experiences.
Besides, authenticity and trust are two characteristics that have been underscored by Bunker et.
al (2006). It is authenticity which enables leaders to implement change with honesty and
integrity, which then result in generating trust from employees. Bunker et. al (2006) then link
change to learning, which according to them should be tied to an element of surprise and this
element should be experienced by employees or they may not learn.

Organizational Development in Family-Owned Businesses

According to the study of International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Management, Family businesses are essential to the livelihood of 85% of the world’s private
sector employees (Poza, 2008), but, although the importance of family businesses in today’s
economy is clear (Schulze et al., 2001), little attention has been paid to family-owned
businesses in the mainstream organisational and management studies literature (Cassia et
al., 2012). This gap is problematic, as the global economy is struggling, and the pressures for
redesign and change are mounting. The volatility of the global economy, coupled with fast-
paced technological advancement, suggests that the development of new capabilities and
change capabilities are critical for the survival of family-owned businesses. For this type of
enterprise, transformation and the development of transformation capabilities are not an
option but a necessity (Shani et al., 2012) in order to be able to respond to rapidly changing
customer demands without compromising technological excellence and quality (Verganti,
1999).
This is a complex task for family businesses, and requires the development of a variety
of organizational learning mechanisms (Fredberg et al., 2011), and the creation of an ongoing
organizational dialogue and transformation orientation (Beer, 2011).
Family businesses have many features that are common to all enterprises, but the
combination of business and family relationships leads to specific organizational
characteristics and dynamics (Cater and Schwab, 2008). The literature confirms that family
businesses are generally different from non-family enterprises in the way they operate, mainly
due to the presence of a specific family founder spirit, family tradition, family vision, goals, and
values that determine their key general characteristics (Cassia et al., 2012; Cater and
Schwab, 2008). These characteristics flow into the concept of ‘familiness’ (Habbershon et al.,
2003). Organizational and management studies have generated a variety of conceptual
models and theories to capture the essence of organizations. This paper follows the basic
model advanced by Galbraith (2002), or what has become the ‘star model’ of organizations.
At a very basic level, Galbraith argues that different strategies require different organizations,
that organizations consists of business and management processes, rewards systems, and
people practices in addition to structure, and that an effective firm is one that aligns all of the
elements of the star model. A summary of the key features of a family business that can be
found in the literature is set out in Galbraith’s (2002) theoretical framework of organizations.

The complex mixture of family and professional relationships (Cassia et al., 2012) creates the
unique characteristics of family businesses. For the purposes of this paper, these can be
summarized in three key elements. The literature seems to agree that the general orientation
of family businesses appears to be more long-term (Poza, 2008; Zellweger, 2007; Sharma et
al., 2003); this could be risky in turbulent contexts, but it is also a notable quality that can
prevent managerial myopia and tensions towards short-term results, which are not beneficial
to the prosperity of a firm (Le Breton-Miller and Miller, 2006). At the same time, traditions, risk
adversity, strong mental models and strong organizational cultures affected by the values of
dominant family members lead to a general culture that nurtures inertia (Dunn, 1996; Jensen,
2003; Hall et al., 2001). As Dyer (1986) suggests, the culture of a family enterprise should be
viewed as a configuration of the cultural patterns found in the business, in the family, and in
the board of directors.

Finally, family businesses tend to place less emphasis on ongoing innovation and creativity,
which translates into under-utilization of capabilities and missed opportunities for growth and
development (Dyer, 2003; Poza et al., 1998), even though there is a part of the literature
which says that family firms are more inclined to be risk takers. This aspect seems to depend
on the characteristics of the family members in charge (Miller et al., 2003), and on the
propensity to foster entrepreneurial change (Hall et al., 2001). One of the possible cumulative
effects of the family dynamics is that business inertia can easily settle in Poza (2008), and
leaders shoulder the responsibility for addressing the challenges posed by inertia (Battilana et
al., 2010). The transformational process is one in which transformational leaders influence
followers in such a way that the firm can achieve a level of performance that will allow it to
succeed (Bass, 1998; Bass and Avolio, 1990). 2.2 Transformation and transforming
organizations. By its very nature, the term ‘change’ has different meanings and dimensions: a
variety of typologies and clustering of different types of change in a system have been
proposed in the literature (for example, Shani and Stjernberg, 1995; Ackerman, 1986; Jick,
1992). At a more basic level, change tends to be more radical and implies a transformation:
transformation entails a radical shift in the value, culture, structure, and routines of an
organization, and – holistically speaking – how to do business (Beer, 2009). Among the
various labels (such as organizational transformation, corporate transformation, and system-
wide transformation), transformation is always an all-pervading, holistic, and extended
process (Mitki et al., 2008). It may be one that has been thought out in detail from the outset,
but more probably it goes ahead or emerges depending on the impact of earlier measures
taken or on developments in the organization and its context. The complexity of the system
being transformed and that of the transformation process itself are key features of
transformation processes. Transformation is an integral part of any living system.

As Bartunek and Louis (1988), and Beckhard (2006) have pointed out, transformation raises a
major set of challenges for any system. The focus on creating sustainable work systems in
the context of global economic turbulence adds an additional layer of complexity to the
transformation of any social system. It is often argued that the complexity of the contextual
environment seems to be growing in magnitude and intensity.

A rich diversity of theories has been developed in an attempt to understand and explain the
multiple aspects of system transformation, and its context, complexity, 60 F. Canterino et al.
content, processes, and outcomes (Bradford and Burke, 2005; French et al., 2005; Gallos,
2006). Transformation can be triggered by a variety of events that occur in the contextual
mess of the system. Ackoff (1981) coined the term ‘contextual mess’ to describe the
increasing complexity of the business environment. Contextual mess sets in motion the forces
and events that precipitate alternative managerial thinking, managerial action, and new types
of behaviour. Managers need to focus on the study of these triggering events and their impact
as possible new windows of opportunity for company sustainability and future growth and
development. An event is viewed as a triggering event if, due to its magnitude and potential
system impact, it sets in motion a series of mental shifts as individuals seek to understand
and redefine the situation (Nadler, 1998).

Triggering events challenge current thinking, practices, and routines, evoke conscious
thought on the part of the members of the system, and create a dynamic that leads the mind-
set of members of the organization into the arena of transformation.

Conclusion
Organizational Development is very important aspect of growth change in an
organization either it is private or public sector. By the use of its wide-systematic behavioral
knowledge, organization will improve all of the aspect that help the whole organization to
achieve its goals and objectives. Organization Development on nonindustrial settings is very
different to private sectors. Though, the use of organization development is to change the
organization to its best, the goals of the nonindustrial setting very different to private one.
There are many challenges that might be face in making the development in an organization
like in considering the tradition and culture and absorbing new knowledge, process and
strategies of an organization that can lead for more effective and efficient of it. OD practitioner
must seek a balance between responsiveness and relevance while maintaining the
commitment to the core values define in OD.
Building the culture of organization is the essence of developing learning capacity to function
as a professional community. The application of OD helps the nonindustrial/public sector to
become more effective. Government are continue using OD’s intervention to shape and
transform people into productive citizen. Although nonindustrial settings faced difficulty and
challenges, change growth and successes cited in those researches and studies of the
different researchers and professionals. OD is a very useful tools that helping public-sector in
achieving effective, efficient and top-quality services.
Reference
https://www.healthcareglobal.com/supply-chain/benefits-integrating-organizational-
development-your-health-care-practice

https://www.ijic.org/articles/10.5334/ijic.129/

jstor.org

cited by 99 related articles taylorfrancis.com Organizational Development in the Public Sector

Organizational Development in the public sector, D Carnevale - 2018 – taylorfrancis.com

Cited by 94 related articles researchgate.net

PJ Robertson, SJ Seneviratne – Public administration review, 1995 – JSTOR

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01900698708524562

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216437202_Organization_Development_in_Public_
Sector_The_Case_of_Pakistan_Post

https://www.sedlak-partner.com/competences/family-businesses/

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.898.1748&rep=rep1&type=pdf

https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1005&context=honors_management