Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Human Relations
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Armenakis, A. A.
Right arrow Articles by Holley, W. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Guidelines for Overcoming Empirically Identified Evaluation Problems of Organizational Development Change Agents

Achilles A. Armenakis

Department of Management, School of Business, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36830

Hubert S. Feild

William H. Holley

Auburn University

Several authors have written about the problems of conducting organizational development (OD) evaluations, but two inadequacies still remain. First, many of these problems are quite likely indigenous to the situations experienced by the writer in his evaluations, and they may not be widely applicable or generalizable to a large number of practitioners. Thus, one may be concerned as to whether these are the problems that OD practitioners can expect to experience in their OD evaluations. The second inadequacy is that the problems reportedly experienced by OD practitioners are rarely found in the literature on OD evaluations. In fact, only one or two problems are generally discussed, and these problems have been experienced by the researcher in a specific evaluation. Due to these inadequacies, a survey questionnaire, the OD Survey Questionnaire, was developed to ascertain the evaluative problems of OD practitioners. With the members of the OD Network serving as the survey population, questionnaires were mailed to 269 members. We classified 101 of the returned questionnaires from change agents as usable responses because the respondents indicated that they had previously conducted OD efforts. A total of 107 evaluative problems were identified and subsequently clustered into three problem categories, i.e., methodological, administrative, and miscellaneous problems. Subproblems of each category are discussed and some guidance for dealing with each problem is offered for those practitioners concerned with OD evaluation.

Human Relations, Vol. 29, No. 12, 1147-1161 (1976)
DOI: 10.1177/001872677602901204


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of ManagementHome page
A. A. Armenakis and H. B. Burdg
Consultation Research: Contributions to Practice and Directions for Improvement
Journal of Management, June 1, 1988; 14(2): 339 - 365.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Asia Pacific Journal of Human ResourcesHome page
J. Onto
OD Evaluation-- The State of the Art
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, December 1, 1981; 19(2): 24 - 36.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Applied Behavioral ScienceHome page
J. L. Koch and S. R. Rhodes
Problems with Reactive Instruments in Field Research
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, October 1, 1979; 15(4): 485 - 506.
[Abstract] [PDF]