The limits of “Cure” in Organizational Development

Lately, I’ve been immersed in the work of Philippe Bourgois, particularly his research on homeless heroin addicts. This is a natural continuation of my long-standing sociological and political interest in marginalized groups: the downtrodden, residents of housing projects, street gangs, mobsters, and petty criminals. My journey began years ago with Street Corner Society and Tally’s Corner, and Bourgois’ work is a powerful addition to this lineage.

Bourgois exposes fundamental flaws in public policy regarding the treatment of homeless heroin users. He critiques how the system handles everything from recurring abscesses to the misplaced obsession with preventing bloodborne diseases via shared needle use. His central argument is striking: these individuals need ongoing treatment—not cures.

He illustrates the futility of interventions aimed at ending needle sharing, for example, within a culture where sharing—and betrayal—are deeply intertwined. It’s not just addiction; it’s a social world with its own logic, codes, and contradictions.

In contrast to the profound dysfunction Bourgois describes among homeless heroin users, most organizations are not completely broken. Yes, a few may resemble the “deep pits of hell” he portrays, but most are not entirely dysfunctional. Still, all organizations carry some degree of incurable pathology.

These include chronic political infighting, ceremonial status shaming, bureaucratic numbness, narcissistic leadership, and more. Organizational Development (OD) professionals too often approach these issues with an air of misplaced certainty—as if they can be “cured” with the right tool or framework. This is misguided. Coping better? Yes. Solving or eradicating them? No. These pathologies are, by and large, permanent features of collective human endeavor.

Why? Because organizations are, at their core, groups of people coming together to get something done. This dependency naturally breeds anxiety, which manifests as dysfunction. The messiness—conflicts, inefficiencies, and political undercurrents—is the sawdust of collaboration.

At 76, I doubt many are eager to read long reflections like these—especially in an era of Gemini and ChatGPT, with their sleek, bite-sized wisdom. But if you’ve made it this far, here’s my core message:

Don’t try to “fix” organizational pathology. Focus on mitigating it.

This approach has guided my work for over 45 years and has served clients well. No new fad, framework, or tech revolution changes this truth.

Postscript: How to Apply This in Practice

I’m often asked how to translate this mindset into practical consulting. Here are two examples:

Example 1: The Who-Does-What Dilemma

In many tech organizations, conflict flares between technical presales, sales, R&D, and system architects. “Who does what” is framed as the problem. But this issue is inherently unsolvable—roles blur constantly due to evolving needs and complex tasks.

The OD consultant’s job is not to create rigid role definitions but to strengthen collaboration, case by case. By improving communication, increasing transparency, and clarifying expectations in real time, you mitigate friction rather than eliminate it. The “who does what” debate is often just a smokescreen for underlying power struggles.

Example 2: Hotel Maintenance Priorities

In the hospitality world, night-duty managers, maintenance teams, the rooms division, and F&B managers rarely agree on what needs fixing first. Hotel leadership may call in a consultant to create a standardized, conflict-free process. But again—this problem can’t be “solved.” Priorities shift constantly.

Instead, the consultant should help the parties create a flexible, case-by-case negotiation mechanism. This doesn’t solve the conflict, but it reduces the pain. And that, in this context, is a major win.


Pathologies in organizations are chronic. Accepting this doesn’t mean giving up—it means working smarter. Focus on relief, not cure. That’s the essence of real, effective OD.

Share Button

2 thoughts on “The limits of “Cure” in Organizational Development

  1. Allon –
    I do read what you have to say – always.
    I actually think this piece in particular is brilliant. I was just having this discussion with my daughter and her partner about USAID. Yes, it had many problems – and all large complex programs (especially ones basic on idealogical goals) have problems. One answer of course is to decimate them, completely shut them down – but that creates annother set of problems. Fixing everything however is not realistic either. However it is possible to fix some things, to focus on certain features and accept there will always be problems, disagreements, mistakes etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.