Much has been made in the past 15 years of the importance of Organisation Development. In that time, we have seen a plethora of 'OD specialists', along with endless debates about the role of OD within the Human Resources (HR) function. A whole terminology that wasn't there before is now present. Anyone heard of systemic change? Systems thinking? The idea is that, if we want change in organisations, be it cultural, structural, or just a change in direction, then adopting a systemic approach is vital if change is to take root successfully. A whole academic strata has emerged to develop the OD proposition and its transformative qualities.

As a result, it has become trendy to promote organisation wide interventions, organisation development, and organisational consulting, or whatever label is preferred. At the same time, the idea of personal development has been denigrated, or at least demoted. After all, what's the point of developing a few people when it's the organisation, stupid!

Got that? Okay. Now I'm going to challenge the whole basis of OD. I believe that OD is NOT the way to build transformational change in organisations, or at the very least is wildly overrated. Investing in personal development, in comparison, is much more productive. The aim of this paper is to convince you of this case. Of course, an army of OD specialists and consultants will argue the opposite. But they would, wouldn't they. As you read this article, bear in mind that I am a consultant, and much of my career has been in OD. It's just that I've seen a light, and opted to take some notice of it. Are you ready? Then here goes....let's debunk some modern myths......

How organisation culture evolves

Before you can change something, there has to be something there in the first place. During my career, I have observed, been part of, and played an active role in, attempts to change some aspect or other of organisation culture. It might be about empowering people, holding more rigorous performance conversations, encouraging people to be more creative and innovative, or whatever.

But how did that organisation's culture get to where it did in the first place? Usually, the answer included the following:

• People in key positions during history behaved in certain ways, or did certain things, and that hugely impacted on culture, or 'the way we do things around here'. Look no further than the likes of Henry Ford, Bill Gates, or Sir Fred Goodwin. For good, ill, or somewhere in between, the cultures of Fords, Microsoft and RBS were heavily impacted by these people and the way they behaved.
• 'Stories' and 'legends' that are told by people, again and again. These stories are of deeds done and things said in the past, at key moments in the organisation's history. They shaped what happened, and impacted on culture. Courageous actions, decisions to take the business in a different direction, and the like were pivotal moments, and the way the story is told down the line makes their impact even greater. The dragon may have been a 4 foot midget when it was faced down at the time, but with time and embellishment it soon becomes a 20-foot fire breather.

What this says is that culture primarily is the result of individual actions. Indeed, organisational change takes place at a fundamental level due to the actions of key individuals, and not as a result of any planned organisational development intervention.

Gandhi, a key leader of one of the largest organisations in history (India), once said that you should "be the change you want to see in the world". He recognised that you could say anything you wanted, and nothing would change. It's what you did that mattered much, much more. He was right then, and those words are still right. There is no better demonstration of the impact of one person on changing an organisation than the appointment of Sir Fred Goodwin at RBS. His personal hubris translated into organisational hubris with disastrous results. No planned organisational intervention achieved this (thankfully!).

Sub cultures

It's another neat myth that there is only one organisational culture anyway. Go to any hotel chain, banking chain or any company with several locations and you find differences. Usually, those differences are down to the personality or operating style of whoever is in charge, plus one or two other key people. Show me a hotel manager who's disorganised, and that hotel will probably be the same.

Think too about the impact one new person can have on a team. Have you ever seen a team that would be great performing and happy were it not for one person, who undermines it. The result? Factions, back-biting, underperforming behaviour, avoidance, underhand conflict, gossip. All of this is culture, and much of it is the result of one person. Change that person and the culture will change overnight.

The myth of structured organisational intervention

Let's be honest. The OD lobby will have you believe that, for transformational change to take place, interventions need to be planned, systematic, coordinated, with consistent messages, probably lots of facilitated training & development activity, and a coordinated project plan with evaluation measures agreed up front.
Now all this is good, as far as it goes. The trouble is none of this activity will result in transformational change. More likely, my experience suggests that incremental change is the best you can hope for. Experience in the public sector, financial services, manufacturing, small and large organisations, hotels, and in both unionised and non-unionised environments have been the same.

Many change efforts are simply well (or not so well) disguised attempts to get rid of one or some people, for whatever reason. But rather than tackle that issue head on by confronting the manager directly, the powers that be conclude that a project plan, some rationale for changing the structure, and a spurious selection process that removes the offending manager, is a better use of scarce organisational resources. With my background in HR, I've lost count of the number of restructurings that were essentially about getting rid of certain people - even where the cover story was of 'customer focus',' organisational redesign' or 'culture change'. The cost to the organisation of taking this approach is enormous.

So what does make change transformational?

Studies into successful change usually conclude that the key is to have the sponsors on board, and change 'champions' in place. In other words, the success depends on a handful of people backing the change, perhaps as few as 1 - 6 people across an entire organisation. What's more, backing the change with their actions and deeds, not just their words. Without this, it matters not one jot what else is done - be it organisational studies, slick presentations, consultation processes, facilitated development, or roll out programmes over a 2-3 year period. (Why does crucial change usually take 2-3 years to complete? If it was crucial, it would be done faster than that). Change at best will be incremental, and not transformational without this one ingredient.

Let's face it, how many change initiatives fail because of the opposition or indifference of key individuals?

So the success or failure of change depends on the individual actions of key people, and not on any system wide organisational approach. Identifying, influencing and developing these key people is going to have a much greater chance of kick starting transformational change. Systemic OD interventions at best will have an incremental effect. Never in the field of human history has revolutionary change happened by committee - and systemic OD intervention is one great way of building a huge committee!

That is why personal development is more transformational than organisational development. Real change happens from within when we become the change we want to see. Changing key individuals within is key to transformation without, and OD does not see it this way.