Tag Archives: HR

3 lessons which taught me why traditional OD is not appropriate in non Western and global organizations

Posted on by
13

As I mentioned in a previous post, I came from a very traditional Organization Development background. Over the years, I became convinced that OD`s western ethnocentric bias negatively impacts its effectiveness in a non western and global organizational configuration.

The `wake up call`I got about traditional OD was not gradual. Three events really shook me up, accelerating my thought process about  the need for a global version of OD.

I shall share them with you in this post.

1) In a group discussion with security personnel in the Mid East, I ask a question. The participants clarified  among themselves (in Arabic, which I speak) who is the oldest participant. He answered my question first; all other participants aligned with what he said.

2) In  Beijing, I ask a question and the managing director gives an inaccurate answer. I then solicit other answers, which are better than the answer that the MD gave me. I congratulate the person who gave me the `best“ answer. I lost the MD`s trust for a long time.

3) I facilitated a “lessons learned“  between Dutch management and Japanese customer service folks about a major crash at a client site. The level of emotion was very high, since a lot of business had been lost because of this incident. I laid out `ground rules“ for the discussion which included: No Defensive Behaviour. Once I showed that bullet, the Japanese did not trust me.

A facilitator with a global orientation will ask less questions because of the complexity inserted by honorific based issues; furthermore, the consultant will accept that only via a lot of defensive and opaque communication can issues be ferreted out.

Share Button

OD preaches change, but refuses to change

Posted on by
15

A What is this all about?

For almost a decade, I have been harping on the Western bias of Organization Development, and how to align OD with global organizing.

My argument is that OD’s values and tools have a western bias which render OD inappropriate in global organizing. OD should not be the tool to impose western values, but rather the platform which enables various cultures to work together to get things done without cultural imposition of OD’s western ways. To claim that traditional OD has relevance for global organizing is preposterous.

B Where did I start? Where am I now?

I started this line of thought in the Organization Development Journal (Vol 21) in 2003 in my article “Making OD Global”, which was initially ignored and is now often quoted. For years after that, I engaged with junior and senior alike practitioners in the ODNET discussion group about the western boas of OD.

At present, I am engaging people about coming to terms with their Western bias in both LinkedIn Groups, and via this blog which has about 600 hits a day. I recently published an article called “Aligning Organization Development to Global Organizing”.

I am writing an exercise book for managers and consultants to expand their global awareness.

C) Resistance I encounter

A very small population of OD practitioners understands both my strategic direction and the derivative tactical need to cast aside concepts and tools of traditional OD in global organizations.

By and large, I encounter massive resistance to my ideas, and in this post I point out various ways in which my ideas are resisted.

1) There is nothing new except for Allon’s arrogance.

Folks who make this claim appear to understand that my argument, if correct, is very threatening to the status quo. Thus, I become part of the status quo.

2)  “Allon may have a point, I need to acquire some intercultural skills”.

Folks who make this claim conveniently ignore the point that a global  practitioner does not need some cultural understanding, but rather the ability NOT to act with a western bias.

3) “Allon exaggerates a bit”.

Folks who make this claim prefer to believe that “in the end, people are all the same; they want to be “open”, face saving does not apply to the young, and no one really wants to defer to authority”. OD is a process which will “enlighten” the East lies at the heart of this claim.

4) Some folks find my ideas so repulsive that I get hate mail.

5) Some folks agree that what I claim is true, but only in the global organization.

I find the word “only” pretty shocking, because everyone is obsessing about the future of OD, and global organizations is where the world is going.

D) Let’s not go on pretending

I waging this campaign, driven by an overwhelming feeling that OD can have universal application only if its key values/concepts and derivative tools are revised and adapted to global reality. Because OD does not “get” global organizing right.

In the past, I was a main line, traditional  ODer, with a Tavistock background.I was a career officer for many years in the IDF, and that sure pushed me to conform.I graduated from Montreal’s McGill University and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, neither of which promoted too much intellectual innovation.

I will continue this campaign of mine, despite the very limited impact I am having on the way mainstream OD practitioners think about and “do” OD. I will do so because it needs to be done.

 

Share Button

8 indicators that you have a western bias as a consultant (revised yet again 2026)

Posted on by
23

By far, this is the most widely read post on my blog, with 40,098 people having read it recently.

I have made some minor changes as well as additions- and thus re-publishing. I must admit that it is a great source of pride that people are least getting exposed to this message.

OD consultants still haggle with my claim that OD values and tools are culturally tainted! When OD consultants own their western bias, there is a lot of “unlearning” to do, and new skills need to be acquired in order to support multicultural organizations. That’s a high price to pay!

IF (a big IF perhaps) you would like to know about the degree of your western bias, answer these questions with a yes or no.

1) Is having an ongoing candid dialogue at work more effective than ignoring differences and pretending that they do not exist?

2) If someone misrepresents key facts in a meeting on purpose, are they lying?

3) Do people all over the world think that teamwork means collaboration with their peers?

4) Is being mildly authentic at work generally preferable to showing rigid emotional restraint?

5) Does honest feedback generally motivate all staff, world wide, regardless of culture?

6) If staff participates in decision making, do they trust their leader more than if he decides alone?

7) “Instead of dividing up the cake, let’s bake a bigger cake”. Is this mode of thinking universally applicable to better educated people?

8) When referring to “showing respect to one another”, do we all mean the same thing?

If you answered YES for all 8 questions, I would suggest that you try to better understand your biases, and start unlearning the universality of your beliefs.. Otherwise forget about being effective in the global workplace.

I spend tens of hours each month with managers, consultants and investors to help them rid themselves of these biases in order to improve their effectiveness. The hardest bias to work on is #2. And that’s the truth! 😉

For those interested in reading about how western cultural bias also  impacts  so-called women’s’ rights, I recommend the work of Prof Lila Abu-Lughod, especially her work on Bedouin women in Egypt.

For those interested on how western biases impact how disease is diagnosed, read Crazy Like Us.

For those interested about the validity of the western principle of “maternal instinct”, read Nancy Scheper Hughes masterpiece Death without Weeping.

On other things to think about when choosing a consultant see this.

Finally, there is a western biases at play vis a vis the portrayal of  Palestinian Israeli war in the west. The first bias is to blame Jews, an ancient bias of the west, especially in Europe. This bias has now been adapted by the woke left and the fascist right. The second bias is to push for compromise (half a loaf is better than none).

Although neither side may want a two state solution, a western mind set prefers compromise: “it’s best to achieve a compromise than to fight for what you want.” Thus, the pathetic misunderstanding of those trying to force an agreement on two sides who want to win, not compromise. It’s hard to understand? Really? Try again!

Share Button

Organizational Development needs to be adapted to Global Organizing

Posted on by
3

OD was developed in the West and is compatible with developing organizations with a Western cultural bias. Yet, OD principles as practiced in the Western world are not universally applicable, because Western values are not universal values. And as organizations assume a global configuration, OD core and applications need to be reinvented to support global organizing.

Western OD is based on humanistic values; OD promotes the leveraging the full potential of individuals as a major component in developing organizations, emphasising the individuals needs and desires from the world of work. Western OD proscribes the way people and their leaders should interact. OD also proscribes ways of communicating. Words and concepts like openness, delegation, collaboration, teamwork, and delegation are very frequently used.

Yet, when working in groups which are truly global and encompass a wide range of cultures and very acute diversity, thoughts comes to mind about the relevancy of OD as practiced in the West. In many parts of the world, group identity is far more salient than individual identity. In many parts of the world, conflict is totally avoided. Power is not shared since the ability to influence is safeguarded as an extremely rare resource. Leaders and followers have mutual expectations in their genetic code which are based on obedience, piety, face saving and emotional detachment.

I suggest that the foundations and basic assumptions upon which Western OD is based, are not universally applicable. I claim is that people do not share the same genetic code about organizing. The organizational needs of human beings’ vary all over the world vary dramatically.

1- The gaps between the values of openness as opposed to the value of discretion is huge.

2- Teamwork is not seen universally as “cool”. In many quarters, teamwork is seen as betraying your boss.

3- Win win is not something universally strived for; for many, win-win is stupidity at best and suicide at worst.

3-Empowerment provides an opportunity to develop others in some parts of the world; in other parts of the world, empowerment means giving away the crown jewels of a rare resource.

4-Participatory decision making makes better decisions for some; for many others, top down decisions, sweetened with compassion, is the way to best make decisions.

The role of the OD consultant should be to ensure that one set of values does not over rule the other. Yet today, OD consultants do not even understand the world of organizing outside of what they learned and experienced in the West.

Share Button

Instilling a sense of Urgency, and a case study (revised)

Posted on by
7

Creating a Sense of Urgency – And What Often Gets Overlooked
Originally posted: April 30, 2014 | Revised Edition

One of the most common reasons clients reach out to me is to help instill a greater sense of urgency in their teams. Usually, this happens after leaders have applied increasing pressure—yet the staff continues to operate as though deadlines are optional and time is unlimited.

Clients often complain that employees are “dragging their feet” or, as my late father used to put it, have “lead in their ass.” They describe staff as disconnected from business realities, “living in la-la land.” While this frustration may be valid, the real root of a perceived lack of urgency is often misunderstood.

Let’s look at two examples:

Example 1: Claude’s Development Team

Claude’s manager insisted that Claude and his team of software developers lacked urgency. I flew to France to meet them.

What I found was a team facing completely unrealistic deadlines. The developers knew that even if they worked around the clock from day one, they still wouldn’t hit the delivery date. Their “lack of urgency” wasn’t laziness—it was strategic. They chose to ramp up closer to the (inevitably extended) deadline rather than burn out early. Claude, unwilling to confront upper management or renegotiate a realistic timeline, avoided the issue.

Lesson 1: When you hear “lack of urgency,” first examine whether the deadlines themselves are credible.

Example 2: Dr. Hana’s Research Lab

Dr. Hana leads a team of 14 life scientists working on a long-term asthma treatment—a drug that won’t be market-ready for at least a decade.

Their pace is deliberate, even leisurely. Why? Because with each sign of progress, commercial pressure mounts. Increased visibility could mean acquisition, a change in leadership, and loss of their research-focused culture. So they deliberately slow progress to protect their environment.

Lesson 2: When urgency is lacking, ask yourself: What do employees believe will happen if they act urgently? What are they trying to avoid?

Cultural Considerations

Urgency isn’t universal—it’s cultural. In some places, not replying within an hour is unacceptable; in others, a detailed response within a few days is entirely appropriate.

For example, Israelis and many Asians may respond quickly due to a high value placed on relationships. In contrast, Americans stick to structured plans, while Germans may delay action in pursuit of thorough data and risk mitigation.

Lesson 3: Understand that urgency means different things across cultures—and so does responsiveness.

Key Takeaway

When people don’t display urgency, it’s rarely about laziness or incompetence. More often, it’s a reflection of their motivations, constraints, or cultural context. Rather than pressuring people to “act faster,” invest time in understanding what drives their current behavior—and give them a reason to change.

Share Button

The “wonder consultant” in context

Posted on by
2

In my last post, I wrote about the wonder consultant who appears on the scene spreading false-messianic hope via sloganeering, as well as by charismatically delivered, simplified  bullshit whilst clipping a hefty coupon.

This post will provide a wider context for these wonder consultants, beyond the deep despair and desire for a quick fix I described.

1) The “motivational speaker” market has created a huge need for the wonder consultant. Management believes that motivational speeches motivate (they do not) and the speakers address a market need.

2) As the emphasis of OD switched from effectiveness to what Reddin  called “apparent effectiveness”, lots of events started to “compete” with OD; puppet shows, cooking classes, and what my late mother called “everything and the kitchen sink”. As such, the wonder consultant is an entertainer, and should be evaluated and paid as such.

3) With the trend set by software companies which make promises and “deliver in phases”, it has become almost normative not to fully deliver, except in the world of mindless motivational management tweeters. Thus, who really cares about what the “prophet” said. The question is, was he wow enough?

4) When immediate satisfaction is measured via” likes”, or the rah rahing that goes on during the session, no one gives better results that a charismatic charlatan. The charisma delivers the wow. The charlatan makes it all so easy.

Follow me @AllonShevat

Share Button

Manager as system integrator; employee as subcontractor.

Posted on by
Reply

A system integrator drives independent component subsystems into a coherent and functioning whole. The emphasis here is on the word independent. I posit that in many industries, the art of managing is becoming more like the role of a system integrator working with subcontractors. I believe that this  inevitable trend has long term repercussions about training managers.

Here are two major reasons why managers will become system integrators:

1) The dwindling long term commitment between employer and staff.

Since many organizations can no longer offer their employees any stability nor take care of their staffs’ needs, employees are loyal first and foremost to themselves & their ability to be survive economically, wherever they work-with no specific loyalty to anything except their ability to make a living.

2) The political zoo that develops when jobs are scarce.

The work place has become a political zoo because of the scarcity of jobs. Employees act as sub contractors as opposed to members of a coherent integrated team, to secure their own survival. No one wants to be indispensable.

True, consultants and HR are pushing employee engagement programs; however the prognosis for employees becoming altruistically engaged is low. As employees focus on their own survival, they become less engaged with the company’s survival. They focus on their own personal survival.

Pretending that employee engagement is the issue is dysfunctional.

Developing managers is not about engaging employees as much as how to structure and manage work as a system integrator.

Preparing managers to be effective system integrators is far more effective than traditional managerial training which deals with solving yesterday’s problems.
Here are a few elements which may be included in refocusing the managerial role to that of system integrator
1) More “contract” based interaction and ways of payment
2) Emphasis on very detailed planning
3) Less to no everyday power
4) Contractor can and does choose to cop out so there are “alternative sources”
5) Make and buy decisions.

Follow me @AllonShevat

Share Button

On organizational leniency

Posted on by
3

Case One: Einat comes to work late 15 minutes a day; her lunch break lasts longer than anyone else’s. No one has ever said a word.

Case Two: This month, Ori ordered a $40000 spare part circumventing Supply Chain. He does this from time to time. His boss emails him to “try to avoid” this type of behaviour.

Case Three: Zeev always waits till the very last minute to order his plane tickets, so that he will have a more expensive ticket and thus be eligible for an upgrade. Since Zeev travels a lots, nothing is said.

This post is a short case study on organizational leniency, IE, showing more tolerance than expected when things do not go well.

All government agencies are very lenient towards their employees; unionized shops can breed a type of leniency which leads to decay, and crony capitalism breeds a great deal of leniency which leads to economic catastrophes. In this post, I am NOT referring to the above types of examples.

Rather, I am referring to organizations in the private sector which are not unionized and where there is no crony capitalism, yet nevertheless leniency is displayed in the face of gross malfunction.

The case I will describe is the unique leniency of Israeli organizations.

A-What does this leniency look like?

1-The reticence to fire people unless absolutely necessary. Although this norm has changed since 2008, Israelis hang on to excess people much longer than North American organizations would.
2-“We are all guilty” syndrome. In other words, individual accountability is downplayed and to use an Americanism, it is very rare to “hold someone’s feet to the fire” due to an error. The ownership of malfunctions is very obtuse.
3) Working around a problem instead of fixing it.

B-Reasons for leniency

1) Having been the victim of aggression for so many centuries, there is a tendency internally not to “pin” anything on anyone and scapegoat.
2) There is a deep belief that if an organization is not lenient, creativity and commitment will wane.
3) Because life in Israel is very challenging, there is an expectation not to “throw people to dogs” just because of a work related error.
4) For many centuries while scattered all over the world, we learnt how to learn the system and “work it”. It was not our system. There is still lingering unwillingness to “be the system”.

C-Value of the leniency

1) More risk taking at work
2) Better team work
3) Lots of creativity

D-Damage of the leniency

1) Due to lack of consequence, there is corrosion of responsibility and accountability
2) The development of a “so what” attitude in the case of inappropriate staffing
3) Corrective action takes a long time because things need to get very bad to end the lenience.

Share Button

Organizational Development in Special Situations. #1 New Product Introduction

Posted on by
2

There is an constant and frankly non constructive dialogue that goes on about whether or not OD is passé. 

The answer is that OD is definitely not passé although it is not as widely commissioned as it used to be. While others have cannibalized some of what OD used to do, and people are not as valued as they used to, there are special situations where the added value of OD is outstanding.

In the next three posts, I shall outline 3 special situations where the added value of OD is overwhelming.

The first special situation is New Product Introduction.

1) Typically, a new product goes from R&D to Engineering and then to Process Engineering and Production Engineering, which are in Operations. (There can be lots of variance to this, clearly.)

2) The more complex the product  is, and the faster the organization is moving, the transition as described above is anything but smooth. Operations wants a plug and play product kit, while  R&D wants to wash their hands of the dog food and move onto the next invention, with Operations left to fill in the blanks.

Add to this that  products do not flow smoothly along; they often move one step backs and then two steps forwards etc.,  until problems are defined and solved.

3) Add complexity of different geographies and cultures, this is a perfect cess pool for OD. Smile

4) The most frequently made mistakes that managers and change managers make is to try to define the process more clearly. This attempt to `define away complexity`is what my late Dad used to call pissing into the wind. And I grew up in Quebec where the wind is mighty strong. Mais oui! There is no way that this process can be perfectly defined.

5) Another frequently made mistake is to put too much focus on Gating and Handshakes in the process. It is simply more complicated than setting up a Customs-Douane at every `station“ on the way, especially given the time to market pressure.

6) New Product Introduction is enabled by teamwork, sharing of risks and overlapping responsibility. This is a classic domain where nothing beats the effectiveness of OD. Not even outdoor training or a motivational speaker. Smile

Share Button

The treachery of HR business partnership (updated)

Posted on by
9

In an effort to remain relevant in an economy that steadily devalues human capital, HR adopted the language—and posture—of the so-called “business partner.” In hindsight, both the idea and its execution proved to be a strategic misstep.

The promise of HR business partnership was elevation: a seat at the table, closer alignment with business goals, greater influence. The price, however, was steep. HR quietly relinquished its core mandate—representing the human resource in decision-making—in exchange for becoming the enforcer of “alignment.”

This shift absolved HR of protecting, challenging, and advocating for employees. In effect, HR was co-opted, defanged, and stripped of the credibility required to perform its true role.

Imagine a CFO who misleads the board because he sees himself as the CEO’s “partner.” While such behavior exists, it is not the creed of the finance profession. In HR, however, business partnership institutionalized the abandonment of people in favor of numbers. Skilled HR professionals were gradually replaced by technocrats whose primary expertise was compliance—and sycophancy.

As this partnership model matured, its emptiness became obvious. HR communication devolved into slogans and “wow-wow-ism”—fun initiatives designed to mask deeper dysfunction. The tone became eerily reminiscent of old Soviet propaganda: praising the system while ignoring the breadlines.

Unsurprisingly, HR became one of the most mistrusted functions in the organization.

What followed, eg in Israel, was inevitable. Massive unionization surged across finance, telecom, high tech, insurance—and even large taxi companies. These unions did not emerge by chance; they filled a vacuum. Where HR was perceived as hollow or complicit, unions offered something the workforce craved: representation.

The result? HR was pushed into its weakest position yet—isolated as the CEO’s supposed business partner, while unions became the authentic voice of employees.

CEOs don’t need HR partners who only speak the language of alignment. They need leaders who can talk numbers, sales, marketing—and people. When HR fails to do this, others will.

I’ve long advised clients that it is far better to work with a strong, people-oriented HR leader than to negotiate with a union steward. Few listened. Some learned the hard way.

I first wrote a version of this article in 2014. Today, HR is even more digitalized, sprinkled with remnants of business partnership rhetoric. The unions may be quieter—but they’ve been replaced by something just as corrosive: alienation, transactional work relationships, escalating demands for remote work, and industrial-scale buck-passing enabled by technology and indifference.

The question is no longer whether HR needs to change.
It’s whether HR still remembers who it exists to serve.

Share Button