ORIGINAL DISCUSSION POST-
Phase 1: The Planning Phase (Data Gathering and Analysis)
The initial step of action research is rigorous data collecting to understand the organization’s present situation. This stage is critical since it is the basis for the whole intervention. Various models and techniques, like surveys, interviews, focus groups, and organizational evaluations, might be employed during this phase (Bierema, 2020). Kurt Lewin, who created the notion of unfreezing, moving, and refreezing as a model for change, was a prominent thinker during this time. This phase also corresponds to the diagnostic phase of McKinsey & Company’s 7-S framework, which focuses on examining seven critical components of an organization.
Phase 2: The Doing Phase
The change intervention is implemented in the doing phase. The data-driven plans and actions are implemented here. This phase demands careful planning, strong leadership, good communication, and constant monitoring. It is when John Kotter’s change management methodology creates urgency, assembles a steering coalition, and generates momentum via short-term successes (Werdhiastutie et al., 2020). The Prosci ADKAR model—awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement—can help manage individual changes during this time.
Phase 3: The Checking Stage
The evaluation step is checking. It evaluates intervention success and changes sustainability. This phase demands explicit success criteria and ongoing monitoring to guarantee intended results. In this phase, Robert Kaplan and David Norton’s Balanced Scorecard may measure organizational performance and alignment with primary goals defined during data collecting.
‘
Defending the Importance of the Doing Phase
The doing phase is crucial to the overall success of the change intervention process. Without appropriate execution, the finest strategies and plans developed during the data collection phase will be nothing more than ideas. The doing phase brings these ideas to life and puts them into practice (Anderson, 2019). It serves as a link between analysis and outcomes. It is critical to show the feasibility and efficacy of the suggested improvements during this phase. It is also the stage when opposition to change is at its peak, requiring strong leadership, clear communication, and staff participation.
The doing phase’s quality also affects the checking stage’s success. The review will indicate poor strategy execution and change sustainability, resulting in inferior results. Thus, the doing phase is crucial to organizational development because it links the initial diagnosis to the final evaluation of the change process.
Finally, action research’s methodical methodology is critical to organizational development success. Each step is crucial to meaningful and sustained change, from data gathering and analysis to successful implementation to thorough assessment. OD practitioners can manage the organizational transition, develop flexibility, and push enterprises to growth and success in an ever-changing world by recognizing and embracing these stages.
References
Anderson, D. L. (2019). Organization development: The process of leading organizational change. Sage Publications.
Bierema, B. L. (2020). Organization Development: An Action Research Approach (2nd ed.). Zovio Inc.
Werdhiastutie, A., Suhariadi, F., & Partiwi, S. G. (2020). Achievement motivation as antecedents of quality improvement of organizational human resources. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute-Journal (BIRCI-Journal) Volume, 3, 747-752
Response 1:
Hello Brendon- Thank you for the detailed information on each phase involved in Organizational Development. Your post brings up an excellent point of view by defending the importance of the “doing” phase. I understand the importance of bringing ideas to life and putting them into action; however, without proper planning, the “doing may create more re-work. Although all three phases are fundamental because they rely on each other, the planning process provides the foundation for an organization’s overall development initiative. It sets the goals and strategies for the project, and it can help prevent the subsequent phases from lacking coherence and avoiding negative impact on the project. With proper planning, the “doing” can be manageable, more accessible, and allow the organization to move seamlessly from phase to phase. Great post!
Response 2:
Brandon,
Your breakdown of the Organizational Development phases was insightful. I concur with your emphasis on the “Doing” phase’s centrality, as it’s pivotal in actualizing strategies. However, echoing Johanna, the “Planning” phase remains foundational. While “Doing” brings plans to life, without robust planning, execution can face unforeseen challenges. Each step in the OD process is interdependent, and their collective success determines the efficacy of organizational development initiatives. Well-presented points!
Response 3:
Brendon,
Choosing the doing phase to defend makes sense to me, because without there is no movement in addressing the organizational problem. I chose the planning phase as the most important because I see it as the baseline for establishing the full intervention. Ultimately, I see all phases as equally important and once the last phases finishes, there is always room for improvement and tweaking and therefore start back with phase one.
Lydia