| La Profesión de Desarrollo Organizacional: Su Ética |
 |
 |
|
Eric Gaynor Butterfield. The Organization Development Institute International, Latinamerica. www.theodinstitute.org La Profesión de Desarrollo Organizacional Gracias a la inspiración del Dr. Donald Cole los esfuerzos de mejora, cambio, y desarrollo para las distintas unidades de análisis en una comunidad, se sentaron las bases para la Profesión de Desarrollo Organizacional. Hasta ese entonces las profesiones que estaban directamente relacionadas con el ámbito organizacional y empresarial tenían preferentemente una visión estática de los fenómenos, y el estado de la ciencia de todas esas disciplinas no podían darnos la respuesta correcta a muchos de los dilemas, cada vez en mayor medida, vivían las empresas y organizaciones. Y en muchos casos ni siquiera eran capaces de formularse la pregunta en forma apropiada. Distintas fuerzas tanto externas a como internas de la empresa, hicieron necesario observar los fenómenos organizacionales desde una distinta perspectiva pero sustentadas dentro de las ciencias del comportamiento. El Dr. Cole fue pionero y en dicha calidad fundó The O. D. Institute en el año 1968, sentando las bases para que Desarrollo Organizacional fuera una Profesión. Dicha Profesión tenía que tener como mínimo estándares para el ejercicio de la profesión que encuentran su fundamento más sólido en el desarrollo de las Competencias requeridas para D. O. Gracias al trabajo inspirador del Dr. Donald W. Cole y el de su equipo de colaboradores hoy tenemos un listado de Competencias para cada una de las fases del ciclo completo correspondiente a un esfuerzo de cambio, y además tenemos competencias generales. Contamos además con un Código de Ética puesto que los Valores de las personas están en el corazón mismo de todo esfuerzo de cambio. Se incluye a continuación una descripción realizada por el propio Dr. Cole quien hace una reseña histórica sobre la necesidad de que el cambio y desarrollo organizacional sea una Profesión en sí misma. Gracias, muchas gracias, Dr. Cole !
Eric Gaynor Butterfield
THE ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE (founded by Dr. Donald W. Cole in 1968)
The Organization Development Institute is a nonprofit educational association. It was organized in 1968 to promote a better understanding of and disseminate information about Organization Development. Organization Development is defined as the knowledge and skill necessary to implement a program of planned change using behavioral science concepts for the purpose of building greater organizational effectiveness. A secondary effort of the Institute is to provide an up-to-date listing of resources available in the field of Organization Development. This includes providing information on people working or studying in the field, information on other networks and organizations in the field and information on educational programs. In addition to publishing a monthly newsletter, Organizations and Change, a quarterly journal, The Organization Development Journal, and The International Registry of Organizations Development Professionals and Organization Development Handbook annually, we meet two or three times a year to upgrade our knowledge and skill by sharing information that has been found helpful. We want to build the field of O. D. into a highly respected profession by : . Developing and promoting The International O. D. Code of Ethics . Defining the knowledge and skill necessary for competence in O.D. . Publishing a highly respected O.D. Journal and a monthly newsletter for the sharing of new information .Developing minimum standards for OD / OB practitioners . Developing minimum standards for OD / OB programs . Publishing significant O.D. research and O.D. books . Marketing the field of O.D. and what O.D. professionals can do
We invite your membership. There are no requirements for becoming a regular member of The O.D. Institute : Dr. Donald W. Cole RODC, President The Organization Development Institute 11234 Walnut Ridge Road – Chesterland, Ohio, 44026, USA- (440) 729-7419 Fax : (440) 729-9319 Homepage: http://members.aol.com/odinst (0or) www.odinstitute.org
In Latinamerica : Eric Gaynor Butterfield RODP, President The Organization Development Institute International, Latinamerica Florida 141, Piso 2 (1005) – Buenos Aires, Argentina (54 11) 4334-3341/ 4334-3345/ 4342-3023/4343-2930 Fax : (54 11) 4334-3341/4334-3345 Esta dirección electrónica esta protegida contra spambots. Es necesario activar Javascript para visualizarla ; Esta dirección electrónica esta protegida contra spambots. Es necesario activar Javascript para visualizarla Homepage : www.theodinstitute.org
Qué ES lo que caracteriza a la Profesión de Desarrollo Organizacional Además de todas las competencias necesarias para cada una de las fases del ciclo completo de un esfuerzo de cambio y desarrollo organizacional como también las competencias generales, el consultor en D. O. debe tener muy en cuenta los aspectos relacionados con los Valores y la Ética. Y esto es consecuencia del hecho que el Cambio – razón misma de la existencia de la Profesión de Desarrollo Organizacional – para las distintas unidades de análisis (el individuo, el grupo y la organización) representa en alguna medida una “intrusión” en el “otro” que puede llegar a atentar con el ejercicio de un “actuar libremente” por parte e un tercero. Todas las personas creemos que somos realmente creativas e innovadoras y que estamos orientados hacia el cambio, pero la evidencia muestra que la mayor parte de nuestras acciones diarias obedecen a comportamientos “automáticos” a los cuales seguimos acudiendo y que en general no deseamos modificar (Eric Gaynor Butterfield, 2003: “Congreso e Desarrollo Organizacional”, Buenos Aires). También somos proclives a pensar que nosotros incluso ayudamos e impulsamos a otros a cambiar y que ese cambio los ha de beneficiar, mientras que por otro lado estamos convencidos que otras personas no desean ayudarnos e impulsarnos a cambiar para mejorar nuestra situación (Eric Gaynor Butterfield, 1997 : Workshop “El Cambio en la Empresa – Implementación de Mejoras y Recomendaciones”). Por lo tanto a la distorsión existente respecto de nuestro mundo interno y el mundo externo también debemos agregar una orientación natural donde las personas nos predisponemos a comportarnos en gran medida de una manera automática, lo que hace que cualquier modificación sea considerada “una intrusión no deseada” o por lo menos “una intrusión poco deseada”. El consultor que no tiene en cuenta que es un intruso – aunque lo haga de una manera cordial, amena, y abierta – es posible que encuentre fuertes resistencias en el Cliente. Eric Gaynor Butterfield ha encontrado evidencia donde muestra que las organizaciones mal denominadas pequeñas y medianas “cambian mucho más de lo que los profesionales y consultoras tienen en sus cabezas”. De modo que cuando el consultor en cambio organizacional le “habla” al Cliente de la necesidad de cambio, este lo puede observar perplejo ya que el emprendedor sabe que su vida es muy parecida a lo que dicho Armstrong cuando un periodista que lo entrevistaba le sugería que empezaba una etapa nueva donde él corría con ventaja. La respuesta de Armstrong fue que : “En esta nueva etapa muchos de los que estaban en los primeros puestos hasta ahora quizás no puedan mantenerse en esta etapa que habría de comenzar pero estaba seguro que algunos ciclistas que en la anterior etapa estaban al fondo del pelotón, estarían dispuestos en ésta etapa a jugarse la vida por llegar primeros.” El empresario y emprendedor vive este tipo de situaciones y dentro de las culturas latinoamericanas, que un consultor le participe a un Cliente que existe turbulencia en el mercado se asemeja a hablarle de una “ola” que se produce en el inodoro cuando el empresario vive día a día con olas que se asemejan a Las que se producen como resultado de la confluencia de las aguas del Océano Pacífico con las del Océano Atlántico. Por lo tanto el respeto de los Valores del “otro” es de vital importancia. Además si la organización bajo estudio por el consultor tiene varios años de existencia, quiere decir que han hecho muchas cosas bien durante mucho tiempo. La inicial apreciación de un consultor a ver “problemas” en el Cliente y las implicancias de que este tenga que cambiar necesariamente en éste momento y en una dirección predeterminada bajo una metodología particular (que el consultor tiene solamente en su propia cabeza) solamente es consecuencia de la vanidad del consultor o agente de cambio. Afortunadamente ya tenemos una metodología como “Appreciative Inquiry” desarrollada por David Cooperrider que muestra las debilidades del enfoque tradicional donde el consultor pone foco en los problemas y en lo que no-funciona. Debe quedarle claro al consultor que el ejercicio de la Profesión de Desarrollo Organizacional está directamente relacionada con el cambio de Personas y que éstas tienen algo sumamente valioso que es su Libertad de Elegir. Si ésta Libertad de Elegir que tiene el “otro” ha de estar sujeta a modificación de parte del agente de cambio sin la participación del incumbente no ha de ser nada raro que el consultor defina el problema – bajo un esquema simple – de que el “otro se resiste al cambio”. Eric Gaynor Butterfield, 1997 (Congreso de Desarrollo Organizacional, Argentina) muestra evidencia que las personas no nos resistimos a cambiar sino que sí lo hacemos cuando “no sabemos cuales son las reales consecuencias que se han de derivar como consecuencia de la implementación del cambio”. Por lo tanto el consultor durante todas las fases del ciclo de cambio debe adoptar posiciones en relación con distintas opciones donde los Valores tienen una fuerte implicancia. A este tipo de situaciones lo denominamos “Dilemas Éticos”. S. H. DeVogel (1992) desarrolló un trabajo de investigación con el propósito de conocer cuáles eran los dilemas éticos más frecuentes que confrontaba un consultor durante un esfuerzo de cambio. Trece de ellos surgieron como los más importantes y en orden de importancia son citados a continuación, literalmente y en inglés (en Susan H. DeVogel, Roland Sullivan, Gary N. McLean, & William J. Rothwell, 1995):
“Employees are given the illusion of participatory decision making when management´s mind is already made up.” Seventy-one percent of respondents reported that they face this dilemma at least occasionally. The most common methods of handling it are confronting the client (44 percent) and negotiating an alternative approach (18 percent). Few respondents refused to cooperate or terminated the consulting relationship based on this client behavior.
“I am asked to skip a needs assessment or diagnosis and just do an intervention (for example training, or team building).”
Sixty-five percent of respondent s reported that they face this dilemma at least occasionally. The most common methods of handling it are negotiating an alternative approach (35 percent) and confronting the client (25 percent). Eight percent of the respondents refuse to comply. None reported terminating the consulting relationship.
“I am asked to conduct an OD intervention (for example, team building) which I think is inappropriate for the organization.”
Sixty-one percent report this dilemma as occurring at least occasionally. Negotiation (32 percent), action research (30 percent), and confrontation (28 percent) are the most common methods of handling it. Few respondents refused to comply; none reported terminating a consulting relationship.
"I try a new intervention with a client that might stretch beyond my competency or skill.” Fifty-eight percent of respondents face this situation at least occasionally. The most common methods of handling it include action research (43 percent) and taking independent action (24 percent). Some respondents (17 percent) report that they do not consider this to be a problem. Very few (14 percent) discussed it with their clients.
“Employees are forced to participate in an intervention against their will.” Fifty-seven percent of respondents report confronting this dilemma at least occasionally. The most common methods of handling it are to negotiate (37 percent), confront the problem (23 percent), or gather more information using action research (23 percent). None of the respondents refused to cooperate or terminated the consulting relationship.
“I find my behavior shaped by the internal policies of the client organization.” This dilemma is reported by 57 percent of the respondents occurring at least occasionally. There is little consensus on how to deal with this problem. The most frequent approaches used by respondents are applying action research (23 percent) and taking independent action ( 23 percent). Others negotiated (18 percent), responded indirectly (17 percent), or simply do not consider it to be a problem (15 percent).
“Employees are drawn into an organization without really knowing what they are getting into.” Fifty-six percent of respondents report that this occurs at least occasionally. They deal with this problem through negotiation (34 percent), action research (21 percent), independent action (18 percent); or confrontation (18 percent). None of the respondents reported refusing to cooperate or leaving the consulting relationship. Five percent do not consider this to be a problem.
“I discover that the client has misled me about the nature of the problems in the organization or his or her willingness to cooperate.” Fifty-four percent of respondents report that this occurs at least occasionally. The most common methods of handling this problem are confrontation (46 percent) and action research (25 percent). Few respondents terminated their consulting relationships with clients because of this problem.
“A manager asks me for information with the intent to use that information for administrative purposes (for example promotions, dismissals). Fifty percent of respondents report that this occurs at least occasionally. There is no clear consensus on how to approach this dilemma. The most frequent response is to refuse flatly (23 percent). Other respondents will negotiate an alternative approach (17 percent), confront the problem (15 percent), or conduct action research (13 percent). Fifteen percent did not consider this to be a problem.
“A manager asks me to divulge information that I have explicitly promised not to share with others ( for example, what happened in a team-building session). This is at least occasionally a problem for 47 percent of the respondents. Of that group, 47 percent handle it by refusing to comply, and an additional 29 percent confront the problem by saying they did not like it (without necessarily refusing).
“I struggle with whose interests should take precedence: management´s or employee´s”. Forty-six percent of the respondents report that this occurs at least occasionally. The most common methods of handling this problem are action research (40 percent) and negotiation (26 percent).
“I get caught between my view of the consultant´s role and the expectations the client has about what my role should be.” This dilemma is experienced at least occasionally by 44 percent of the respondents. Negotiation (38 percent) and confrontation (31 percent) are the most typical methods of handling the problem.
“I disagree with a co-consultant about what to do with the client.” This dilemma is reported as occurring at least occasionally by 43 percent of respondents. They are most likely to negotiate (44 percent), conduct action research (27 percent), or confront the problem (22 percent) in order to resolve the dilemma.”
En su trabajo los autores (Susan H. DeVogel, Roland Sullivan, Gary N. McLean, & William J. Rothwell, 1995) incluyen el trabajo de Bayles (1981) con relación a los distintos tipos de normas éticas, siendo ellos:
- Estándares, que describen las calificaciones y valores de las personas; - Principios, que describen las responsabilidades individuales, dejando cierto grado de latitud sujeto a la interpretación del individuo; y - Reglas, que describen fielmente cuales son los deberes y obligaciones. El consultor tiene a su disposición distintos instrumentos para auto-apreciarse en relación a los “Valores”. Para clarificar los mismos los autores sugieren observar un instrumento desarrollado por Susan H. DeVogel que se orienta a evaluar en qué grado los Valores son “claros” (Values-Clarification Instrument). El mismo se reproduce, literalmente y en inglés:
OD Values-Clarification Instrument “Instructions: This instrument consists of pairs of statements related to OD values. Read each pair. For each pair, indicate how important each statement is to you by rating the statements according to their relative values. You must allocate a total of three points to each pair of statements, but the points may be distributed however you like. For example, you may give all three points to one statement if you think the other is completely unimportant or if you like both statements, you might allocate two points to the statement you prefer and allocate one point to the other. Although there will be some repetition of ideas throughout the instrument, treat each pair of statements independently. Do not struggle long over any decision; go with your initial instinct. If you are bothered by the strength of any statement, mentally add the words “generally” or “usually” to it. Example: It is important to me that … a. I can go to the beach during the summer: 3 b. I have fresh vegetables: 0 or
It is important to me that:
1a the client decides how far the OD process should be pushed through the organization ---- 1b all participants understand why an intervention is being conducted 2a I abide by a client´s preference for a certain intervention, whether or not a diagnosis has indicated that it is needed 2b when I have reached the limits of my ability to serve a client, I discuss the situation with the client and offer options 3a when I am asked to give advice about an organizational problem, I assist the client in exploring the problem further rather than offering my opinion 3b I try to remain neutral when I encounter a client system´s politics 4a I refuse to share what went on during an intervention with people who were not present in the group 4b if I have doubts about the effectiveness of a requested or proposed intervention, I share those doubts with the client 5a I am willing to discuss my professional ethical dilemmas with colleagues 5b I do not remain silent when I see evidence of gender discrimination or sexual harassment in a client organization 6a all participants in an intervention should be there willingly 6b when a manager asks me for feedback about his or her personal effectiveness, I give my honest views 7a I try to remain neutral when I have friends within an organization 7b I serve as a mentor to somebody who wishes to enter the field of OD or who is less experienced. 8a I trust the client´s judgment when the client believes that an OD process has proceeded far enough 8b I give recommendations rather than instructions about how the OD process should proceed 9a when alternative interventions seem to be equally beneficial, I let the client choose the intervention 9b I refuse to share what went on during an intervention with people who were not present in the group 10a when a manager asks me for feedback about his or her personal effectiveness, I give my honest views 10b I do not participate in organizational processes that will result in people losing their jobs 11a I do not work for a client whose product or service conflicts with my personal values 11b I keep clear boundaries between my personal and professional relationships 12a all participants understand how an intervention will proceed before we begin 12b I view myself as a facilitator rather than as an expert 13a I do not downplay the estimated time or cost when preparing an intervention proposal 13b I attend as many meetings of professional organizations as I can 14a I insist that the organization confront difficult issues when I believe that the client prefers to avoid them 14b I do not reveal the names of my clients to others without the express permission of my client 15a before I try a new intervention, I study the theory behind it 15b I try to be aware of the biases I bring to any interaction, including my own cultural and gender biases. 16a the client should determine what interventions are appropriate for the organization 16b I insist that the organization confront difficult issues when I believe that the client prefers to avoid them 17a I do not share personal information that I know about an employee, regardless of how I gained it 17b I do not take on consulting projects in areas in which I have little knowledge or experience 18a when alternative interventions seem to be equally beneficial, I let the client choose the intervention 18b I do not work for a client whose product or service conflicts with my personal values 19a the client should determine which interventions are appropriate for the organization 19b I am willing to discuss my difficult cases with colleagues 20a all participants understand why an intervention is being conducted 20b U try to remain neutral when I get caught between conflicting emotional needs of organizational members 21a I insist on raising difficult issues, even if I know that doing so might jeopardize my contract or job 21b I am honest with a client about the extent of the potential benefits that might be expected from an intervention 22a I view myself as a facilitator rather than as an expert 22b I do not take on consulting projects in areas in which I have little knowledge or experience 23a employees have the right to decide how much of their personal opinions to disclose to others during an OD intervention 23b I never share information if I have promised to keep it confidential 24a I try to remain neutral when I have friends within an organization 24b I only take on as many clients as I have time to serve well 25a if a manager asks me to gather information to help fire somebody, I refuse 25b before I try a new intervention, I study the theory behind it 26a I abide by a client´s preference for a certain intervention, whether or not a diagnosis has indicated that it is needed 26b I refuse to give recommendations about who should be laid off, based on information I have gained during an OD intervention 27a when I am asked to give advice about an organizational problem, I assist the client in exploring the problem further rather than offering my opinion 27b If I have doubts about the effectiveness of a requested or proposed intervention, I share those doubts with the client 28a when asked by a client about a specific intervention, I am truthful about whether or not I have ever tried it 28b I keep clear boundaries between my personal and professional relationships 29a employees should not be forced by their supervisor or manager to participate in an OD activity 29b I do not remain silent when I see evidence of discrimination against persons with differing abilities in a client organization 30a I trust the group to find the answers to organizational problems 30b I am willing to discuss my difficult cases with colleagues 31a I usually refuse to share what went on during an intervention with people who were not present in the group 31b I do not remain silent when I see evidence of gender discrimination or sexual harassment in a client organization 32a I allow the client to determine the pace and direction of the consulting relationship 32b I disclose the risks of an intervention, even if I believe the potential benefits greatly outweigh the risks 33a I try to remain neutral when I get caught between conflicting emotional needs of organizational members 33b I do not keep silent when I see evidence of racism in a client organization 34a all participants in an intervention should be there willingly 34b before I try a new intervention, I study the theory behind it 35a I allow the client to determine the pace and direction of the consulting relationship 35b I do not participate in organizational processes that will result in people losing their jobs 36a all participants understand how an intervention will proceed before we begin 36b I keep clear boundaries between my personal and professional relationships
OD Values Scoring I Instructions: Transfer your scores from the instrument to this scoring form. Note that the items are not listed sequentially. When you have filled in all the blanks, total each of the nine columns. Client Autonomy: 1a 2a 8a 16a 19a 26a 32a 35a Total Informed Consent: 1b 6a 12a 20a 23a 29a 34a 36a Total Collaboration: 3a 8b 9a 12b 18a 2a 27a 30a Total Objectivity & Independence: 3b 7a 14a 16b 20b 21a 24a 33a Total Confidentiality: 4a 9b 14b 17a 23b 25a 26b 31a Total Truth telling: 4b 6b 10a 13a 21b 27b 28a 32b Total Professional Development: 5a 7b 13b 15a 19b 25b 30b 34b Total Social Justice: 5b 10b 11a 18b 29b 31b 33b 35b Total Recognizing Limits: 2b 11b 15b 17b 22b 24b 28b 36b Total
OD Values Scoring II Instructions: Transfer your total score for each of the nine values on the scoring form to the chart below:
OD Value Score Client Autonomy ….. Informed Consent ….. Collaboration .…. Objectivity and Independence .…. Confidentiality ….. Truth Telling ….. Professional Development ….. Social Justice ….. Recognizing Limits ….. The higher your total score for a particular value, the more important that value is to you. On the lines provided, rank order each value according to the score you have accumulated for each. The resulting list may help you gain insight into how you resolve ethical conflicts, particularly when you must choose between two values that are both important to you. Value preferences:
Para mayor información puede acercarse a |