 |
| Via: Venturespring Consultants |
According
to Stolz (2014) the responsibilities for an organisation development (OD)
practitioner is significant in terms of creating and
further implementing growth related strategies to an organisation. Pandey
(2018) on the other hand enhanced the responsibilities for an OD
practitioner in terms of managing human resources of the organisations under
every possible kind of diversity.
However,
there are vast differences in the responsibilities of the external and internal
OD practitioners.
External vs
Internal OD Practitioners
The
advantageous aspect of being external OD practitioners remains less reliant on,
as they are brought from external sources and functions outside the
organisational system. External OD practitioners are independent to perform and
take decisions, though must remain connected to the profitability of the
organisation. Being specialists, these practitioners are basically involved
intrinsically in the field of their specialisation and focus on their domain of
expertise. There is the scope to remain and interpret organisational approached
in an objective manner. The objective comments by these practitioners are also
highly valued by the top management and there is always room for offering
positive influence in the organisational structure (Pandey,
2018).
At the same time they can refrain themselves from being detached from any kind
of politics. In a way, the external OD practitioners are more independent in
taking risks and perform more innovatively.
On
the other hand, the internal OD practitioners remain closely connected to the
organisational culture and functionalities. These practitioners are thorough
with the organizational structure and know the members of the organisation in a
very professional manner. This connectivity makes the internal practitioners
compile with organisational growth in a very personal way (Odor,
2018).
On
the disadvantageous side of the coin, the external OD practitioners lack skill
over other specialised domains of the organisational structure. There are
possibilities that these practitioners get easily influenced or manipulated by
top management. There is also the possibility that these practitioners are not
offered with much authoritative power in context of the organisation
(Bushe & Marshak, 2009).
Whereas,
the internal OD practitioners might not appear to have authoritative power, yet
they are integral to the process of building the authoritative power of the
organisation. The practitioners who are from different zone might get treated
as an outsider in the organisational structure, yet as soon as the unfamiliarity
gets brushed away, there is always room to become part of the organisational
culture, practices and professional norms of the organisation. The instances of
discrimination is liable to be faced by the internal practitioners (Odor,
2018).
The might face hurdles in terms of obtaining data from the reliable sources or
informal networks, in a new place.
 |
| Via: Ecocrowd |
Categorical
Differences
Mode of Communication:
Being familiar with the internal structure of the organisation, the internal
practitioner attains the privilege to lead any kind of organisational
communicative venture. This can be both internal meetings and addressing public
for promotion. As these practitioners are closely connected to all the
organisational communication channels, they get the leverage to present their
ideas and presentations in a more effective manner than the external
practitioners. It is here that the relevance of communication starts acting as a
pressure on an internal practitioners. The internal practitioners are hence,
must remain more conscious about their presentations and need to double check
before delivery. On the other hand, the external practitioners never have such
pressure, yet they are also made to remain dependent on contemporary internal practitioners
for gaining insight into the organisational structure, and gain appropriate
format of effective communication within the organisation (Cheung-Judgeand
Holbeche, 2015).
Collection of Data: In
the process of collecting data, there are some obvious differences between the
external and the internal OD practitioners. The difference lies in getting
necessary time for preparation. For the internal practitioner there is the edge
of familiarity within the organizational set up and hence the approach get very
convenient. They can not only have the facility to get authentic data, but also
are subject to get the same faster than the external practitioners (Anderson, 2016).
The status of the external practitioner in the process of collecting data slow
and there is also the need to spend time in checking over the reliability and
authenticity of the data collected for organisational growth oriented projects.
In general they usually Engagement
of the Stakeholder: In case of making the
stakeholders a part of the organisational set up, the role of internal
practitioners remains very vital since, the internal practitioners are well
acquainted with the internal structure of the organisation, they are effective
in engaging stakeholders in the process of organisational development. Issues
related to investment remains significant in these frontier. However, the role
of the external practitioners though might not appear much significant at the first
go, but it is necessary to note that it is their interest in the organisation
that attracts more and more stakeholders to the organisation. It is the
reputation of being the specialist that can support the stakeholders in getting
closer to the organisation (Cheung-Judge and Holbeche, 2015).
get
facilitated to learn in an organisation under the supervision of senior
practitioners.
Essence of Credibility:
There are possibilities that the internal practitioner might face challenges in
gaining credibility over specialised issues. The declarations made by the
internal practitioners about specific subject definitely gets approval, yet it
is the point of views of the external practitioners that adds credibility to respective
subject matter.
The
internal practitioners are usually treated as part of the organisational
family, whereas the external practitioners are noted to specialists from the
outside the organisational structure. It is the sense of responsibility that
gains more value and credibility in the internal practitioners as against their
counterparts.
Time Management: in
reference to manage time and offering more in-depth contributions to specific
field, the external practitioners in general excels the internal practitioners.
The reason is that as the external practitioners are only engaged with their fields
alone, they are equipped with adequate amount of time in terms of offering in-depth
services. On the other hand the internal practitioner remain engaged in various
multi-faceted responsibilities within the organisation, and hence, management
of time is a real challenge for them. Internal practitioners remain typically engaged
and continuously challenged by diversified conflicting concerns within the
organisation.
Levels of Developmental Competencies:
When it comes to exposure to operational development, the performances of the internal
practitioner can appear to be at lesser level than the external practitioners.
The level of competency gets constantly challenged in case of internal
practitioners as they are in general remain confined to the organisational
walls. The limitation to initiate any experiment or develop innovative project
is a risk factor for the internal practitioners. On the other hand, the
external practitioners has the independence for experimental or innovative
projects (Anderson, 2016).
Eventually,
it can be marked that there are vast differences among the external and the
internal OD practitioners. As the external practitioner gets independence to
create innovative projects, the internal practitioners remain close connected
to the organisational structure. There are many pros and cons in both. However,
for a real development, an organisation must make well distribution responsibilities
between the external and the internal OD practitioners. It is the
responsibility of the top management to place the external and the internal OD
practitioners in their justified positions with adequate job profile. Thus, to meet the competitive edge in the
market and to attain sustainability & growth, it is necessary that both
external and internal OD practitioners perform in collaboration with each
other.
References
Anderson, D. L. (2016) Organization Development: The Process of Leading Organizational Change.
SAGE Publications
Bushe, G. R., & Marshak, R. J. (2009). Revisioning
organisation development: Diagnostic and dialogic premises and patterns of
practice. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 45(3), 112-127.
Cheung-Judge, M. and Holbeche, L. (2015) Organization Development: A Practitioner's
Guide for OD and HR. Kogan Page Publishers
Odor, H. O. (2018) Organisational Change and Development.
European Journal of Business and
Management. Vol.10, No.7, pp. 58-66
Pandey, S. (2018) Diversity Intelligence: Integrating
Diversity Intelligence Alongside Intellectual, Emotional and Cultural Intelligence
for Leadership and Career Development. European Journal of Training and Development,
Vol. 42 Issue: 5/6, pp.362-364
Stolz, I. (2014) The role of OD practitioners in
developing corporations’ capacity to practice corporate citizenship: A
sociomaterial case study. European
Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 38 Issue: 5, pp.436-455
Bibliography
Cummings, T.G. & Worley, C.G. (2009) Organization
Development and Change (9th Ed). New
York: West Publishing Company
Sturdy, A. and Wright, C. (2011). The active client: The
boundary-spanning roles of internal consultants as gatekeepers, brokers and
partners of their external counterparts. Management Learning.
No comments:
Post a Comment