It is natural whenever you come across a definition (on a subject that interests you) to try to put it into your own words. That is how you comprehend, internalise and embed understanding. At a recent Organisational Development (OD) conference a speaker did this to create a very effective, thought-provoking presentation. I am sure he would not object if I continue the discussion in the same way.
The speaker felt uncomfortable with the CIPD definition of OD as “A planned and systematic approach to enabling sustained organisation performance through the involvement of its people” as he felt it over-emphasised the role of people. He thus tabled his own definition: “OD is the means by which an organisation systematically creates and sustains the capability, in all aspects of its operations, to achieve its strategy.” While I don’t have any argument with his broadening the base, I think he destroys the effect by linking it too closely to strategy. Thus my definition would be, “OD is the means by which an organisation continuously and systematically creates, adapts and sustains the capability to keep fulfilling its purpose in an ever-changing world.”
This is not just a matter of semantics. There are two important principles at stake here. Both become immediately apparent when you take a closer look at the word “organisation” which the Oxford Dictionary defines in part as “any unified, consolidated group of elements; systematised whole; especially a body of persons organised for some special purpose.” (My emphasis.)
Firstly, while (arguably) supporting the case about the CIPD definition over-emphasising the people aspect, it simultaneously makes his point about “all aspects of operations” similarly redundant. If you take it literally, “any body of persons” where there are people who are not unified and working to the same purpose, does not warrant the description of organisation.
Secondly, the focus is of the organisation is not the strategy but the purpose. The speaker had cleared the way for this by previously defining strategy as “the means by which an organisation articulates clear and compelling outcomes to their stakeholders (internal and external) so that resources can be directed and aligned to the achievement of those objectives.” This is certainly an improvement on the Kaplan & Norton definition as, “how an organisation intends to create sustained value for its shareholders,” which completely subverts the raison d’etre for any organisation (apart from excluding any organisation that does not have shareholders.) Even so, it perpetuates the precept that strategy is paramount.
This is dangerous because it risks strategy becoming set and increases the likelihood of a failure to respond, adapt and innovate to changing circumstances and situations. In fact strategy is – and always should be – secondary to purpose. It is the focus on purpose that provides the foundation for shared values and creates the sensitivity to change that enables an organisation to respond and adapt.
Thus a more correct definition of strategy would be, “the method of conceiving, planning and executing the means by which an organisation can best fulfil its purpose on an on-going, sustained basis that optimises the use of people and resources with minimum damage to the environment, ecology and economy.”
In any event conceiving, planning and executing are all dependent on people. It is the people and the manner in which they interact – with each other, with the systems and processes and with customers and suppliers – that gives the organisation its capability to fulfil its purpose. Strategy can help or hinder that process, but at the end of the day it’s is all about people. So, if you want you want your organisation to develop, the only way you can ensure that is to ensure that your organisation is a unified, consolidated body of people working together for a common purpose. How well do you think you are doing on that score?