I appreciate the thoughtful and important comments made by Darlyne Bailey & Pranab Chatterjee regarding my article on organization development and community development. I find myself agreeing with them almost totally, and will briefly comment on some of their points to help clarify where we are and may not be in agreement

Packard, Thomas

English

ScholarWorks at WMU

The Journal of Sociology & Social WelfareVolume 19Issue 2 June Article 4May 1992A Response to the Rejoinder by Darlyne Bailey &Pranab ChatterjeeThomas PackardFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jsswPart of the Social Work CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Social Work atScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contactmaira.bundza@wmich.edu.Recommended CitationPackard, Thomas (1992) "A Response to the Rejoinder by Darlyne Bailey & Pranab Chatterjee," The Journal of Sociology & SocialWelfare: Vol. 19 : Iss. 2 , Article 4.Available at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol19/iss2/4A Response to the Rejoinder byDarlyne Bailey & Pranab ChatterjeeBY THOMAS PACKARDI appreciate the thoughtful and important comments madeby Darlyne Bailey & Pranab Chatterjee regarding my article onorganization development and community development. I findmyself agreeing with them almost totally, and will briefly com-ment on some of their points to help clarify where we are andmay not be in agreement.The relationship between the change agent and the powerstructure in OD has received increasing attention in recent years,as OD consultants who as a group have historically been influ-enced by the "truth and love" perspective on change (Bennis,1969, p. 77) have realized the importance of political and powerdynamics (Cobbs & Margulies, 1981). Alinsky's model of so-cial action (Rothman, 1979) clearly supports attention to powerissues, and this perspective must be considered in planning aCD intervention, with or without OD technologies. Because lo-cality development characteristics were dominant in the case Idiscussed, power issues were not paramount, and I chose a col-laborative approach. A contingency perspective should alwaysbe used in assessment and intervention, using locality devel-opment where self help and collaboration are appropriate andsocial action where power relationships and conflict are salient.Another aspect of the power issue is the relationship be-tween the practitioner and the power structure. Even thoughOD consultants say that the whole organization or system istheir client, the reality of contracting leads to top managementbeing the key accountability connection. In one sense this isnecessary, because, as Boss (1979) and others have emphasized,commitment of power people is necessary for success. Boss alsonoted that other power groups such as unions must be commit-ted, and I share this philosophy for practical and ideologicalreasons. Willie Sutton allegedly said he robbed banks because"that's where the money is", and I work with top managementnot only because they contract with me but because, as manyconsultants say, that's where most of the problems are. I agreeJournal of Sociology & Social Welfarewith Bailey and Chatterjee that the responsibility for change isat the system level, but management warrants more attentionusually because management causes most problems or allowsthem to continue. In the past, in a role as a community activist, Ihave played a related role, working with the power structure tochange it, in a social reform mode (Rothman, 1979), representingclient interests and assuming that power is a relevant dynamic.In an oppressive system, OD will not work, with organizationsor communities, and other approaches such as union activismor social action should be used.I still see possible value of OD technologies under power-charged conditions, however. First, OD in some cases partlymerges with quality of working life change approaches (French& Bell, 1990) which place heavy emphasis on power sharingbetween management and labor, and I have done such projects(Packard and Reid, 1990). I have shared power perspectiveswith both management and labor clients (e.g., Olsen, 1981),so they can explicitly deal with these issues. Second, we cansupport those in low power positions by providing them withproven OD technologies. Two of my clients have been laborunions, both of whom, I believe, became more effective in as-sertively representing their members because they had used ODinternally.Trust is a major concern as part of power relationships. Ialways let clients below top management "pat me down fora wire", checking out my biases, values, and trustworthiness.Any ethical OD consultant would terminate a contract beforeviolating a trust relationship regarding sharing or censoring in-formation.I differ with one conclusion of Bailey and Chatterjee: ODin nonbusiness settings is not nonexistent but is underreported(Packard & Reid, 1990), and is a growing area.I agree with their final points regarding adopting OD tech-nologies inappropriately or using them without proper training(I've called this "the sorcerer's apprentice syndrome", remem-bering Mickey Mouse making a mess of things in Fantasia).Perhaps these points warranted more attention in my article,and I appreciate the emphasis by Bailey and Chatterjee.A Response to the Rejoinder 25ReferencesBennis, W. (1969). Organization Development: Its nature, origins, and prospects.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Boss, R. (1979). Essentials for successful organization development efforts.Group and Organization Studies, 4(4), 496-504.Cobb, A. & Margulies, A. (1981). Organization development: A political per-spective. Academy of management review, 6 49-59.French, W. & Bell, C. (1990). Organization Development (4th ed.). (pp. 187-190).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Olsen, D. (1981). Labor's stake in a democratic workplace. Working Papers fora new society, 7(2) 12-17.Packard, T. & Reid, R. (1990). OD in a fire department: Lessons in usingparallel structures and institutionalization, Consultation, Consultation, 9,167-184.Rothman, J. (1979) Three models of community organization practice, theirmixing and phasing in Strategies of Community Organization (3rd ed.).(pp. 25-45). F. Cox, J. Erlich, J. Rothman, & J. Tropman, (Eds.) Itasca,IL: F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.

A Response to the Rejoinder by Darlyne Bailey & Pranab Chatterjee

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2019&amp;context=jssw

A Response to the Rejoinder by Darlyne Bailey & Pranab Chatterjee

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks at WMU