Background Of Organizational Development

Background of Organizational Development

Hernández affirms that "the origin of organizational development is in studies on human behavior and relationships". A large number of scholars on the subject are identified, so mentioning only some could be unfair to others;However, "all of them agree that organizational development focuses on the management of organizations to optimize the company’s health and productivity by applying planned actions and using the experiences of behavior science".

Within the most significant contributions of the great pioneers such as Elton Mayo, Mary Parker Follet, Henry Gantt and Hugo Munsterberg;There is an approach to a vision interested in knowing, understanding and explaining human behavior within the work environment. "They discovered that people perform more in their work when they are satisfied.". In the same way, "Studies of human behavior within the work area took as an object of research the motivations of groups and individual needs and interests, as well as group relationships within organizations".

Under the same order of ideas, Hernández states that experts in the area began to carry out a series of research on the needs of workers and human relationships at work. Questions were raised that had not been identified in the work environment as the following:

• What are the human needs that work must meet or expect it to do so?
• What is the basic force that drives workers to action?
• What are the characteristics that leadership must have to achieve a real contribution of work teams for organizational purposes?
• How to make the worker fully apply his potential?
• How to know and measure the potential of man at work?
• What leads man to be more efficient and productive?
• Why do changes arise and how to face them? (p.

  Wait! Background Of Organizational Development paper is just an example!

  Get an unique paper

  13).

On the other hand, as Audirac et al mentions. "Talking about the birth of organizational development is not easy since its origins are not totally defined, so it is considered more successful to expose what its evolution has been". Organizational development was described as evolutionary and is considered to be still evolving, it can also be said that it had three main precursors: sensitization training, sociotechnical systems and feedback survey.

The prevailing environment that supports the emergence of organizational development is in the first instance, the need for organizations to increase production, services and workforce in the years after World War II. On the other hand, after crossing the war period, people begin to have adaptation problems to existing groups, which is why organizations begin to emerge training workshops that give rise to awareness groups, laboratories oftraining and groups T. This is how organizational and individual changes in organizations begin to look.

Organizational development in Mexico and Latin America

According to Guízar, in the article the state of the art of organizational development in Mexico, by consultant Alejandro Serralde, mentions that Group giving consultants was the first firm in offering services focused on organizational development.

Subsequently, some companies in Mexico carried out organizational development processes such as: Bimbo Industrial Group, Alnea Aluminum, Mexican Insurer, Bacardi and Company, Canon Mills, Celanese Mexicana, Cummins de México, Champion de México, General Motors de México, National Provincial Group, Industries Nacobre, Industrias Resistol, Vinícolas Industrias, Pedro Domecq., Nissan Mexicana, among others.

On the other hand, it is important to identify how organizational development in Mexico evolved over the years. Hernández says:

Due to the influence of the United States of America during 1967 1968, organizational development came to Mexico promoted by the restlessness of several entrepreneurs from the national private initiative who, following the difficulties presented by political and socio -economic changes in the country, neededto bloom towards the new era of development and modernity. No less important is to mention the operational needs that arose from foreign capital companies, especially those of American origin, which began to reproduce innovative technology in relation to administrative structural design and which was apparently generating excellent results.

It was the Institute for Higher Studies of Monterrey who began to carry out advanced seminars in personnel administration, showing trends in Grid Management, Maslow’s theory and McGregor’s theory. During 1969 and 1970 the first organizational development management began to appear, laboratories and seminars on the most relevant issues were promoted;This gave way to the first consultants in the field arise. During 1971 and 1972 “Companies such as Cydsa Fama Crisa and Gamesa adopted organizational development as a way of being up to date with respect to new administrative theories (…)”, likewise the first research work in a thesis of the Faculty occursof accounting and administration of the UNAM. Between 1973 and 1974, companies Figusa, Hylsa, giving and Serfín are added to the organizational development movement, in addition to initiating training programs with small groups in ITESM by Joe Bentley, Stan Herman and Beckhard. In the year of 1988, the first continental congress of organizational development was held in the city of Monterrey, however for the 80’s, Mexico presented a slow technological development in the field of organizational development, coupled with the little dissemination betweenMexican companies, the results obtained by the practical cases of emerging consultants were not shown, so the evolution of this change strategy was irregular, growing slowly and with a very consistent market presence in the market.

As Ramírez and Rosas mention in the introduction to the first volume of the study called the organizational analysis in Mexico and Latin America: Challenges and perspectives at 20 years of study, published by the Mexican Network of Researchers in Organizational Studies (Sumineo):

In Mexico, until before the mid -1990s, the development of an organizational perspective in the study of organizations was incipient and scarcely worked by researchers interested in administration, economics, psychology, anthropology, sociologyof organizations, history and other fields of social sciences.

In response to the previous paragraph, and as an alternative to accelerate organizational development in Mexico, it was in 1995 when the postgraduate degree in organizational studies at the Metropolitan Autonomous University was created, attending as an object of study organizations and phenomena related to these. Likewise, as of 2012, postgraduate lines adapted as a response to meet the study needs of new organizational realities;It was modified as an alternative that in addition to being interested in understanding reality, could venture into the design and development of solution alternatives and organizational change proposals that contribute to social transformation. These four new lines seek to guide research challenges based on new perspectives:

• Symbolic life in organizations.
• Governance, public interest and complexity in large organizations.
• Modernity and organizational diversity.
• Organizational Intervention (Sumineo, 2015).

The efforts made by companies in conjunction with educational institutions in Mexico are great so that the elements that make up organizational development take strength in all productive sectors as an essential alternative that promotes competitiveness in the country. The benefits are incalculable, barriers are complex, but not impossible to jump.

In the same way as we have analyzed the panorama of organizational development in Mexico, we will address the evolution of this concept in Latin America;Let’s adopt the questioning that guides the subject: “Is there the efficacy of organizational development in Latin America organizations? Will the success that promises be a utopia?"

According to Petit, Abad, López and Romero (2012), a philosophical perspective based on Latin American creative and transformative thinking has implications for the construction of new administrative and management theories in support of the social dynamics that emerge in the continent, such as, for example,The emergence of social movements and organizational alternatives that have come advanced in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

The observed phenomena patently indicate that much of Latin American societies are organized today to promote ways of living different, more associated with the values of equity, peace and sustainability. They must also do so to innovate and achieve prosperity.

Following the above, the authors state a aspect of traditional organizational development:

The organizational development proposal for the Management of Innovation in Latin America (Dogil) just constitutes an approach aimed at change planning based on an open, flexible concept, propitiator of the construction of social innovation in different scenarios, in order to respond toThe complex dynamic of articulating needs and ideas, with the skills and abilities to implement them.

Organizational development represents a quantum leap to advance in situations of complexity, towards the construction of self-organized social systems, from leadership with empowerment as a promoter of innovation capacity. The study prepared by Petit et al.  He concludes that "the consideration of the human and social factor in the construction of a new paradigm to manage innovation constitutes a radical change against traditionally dominant theses and acquires in the content of the thesis raised (…)" 

Therefore, it can be concluded that the progress of programs in organizational development in Latin America, have thrown a positive balance, since it has contained the necessary requirements to support the principles of philosophy.