Integrative OAD: De-neutralizing the Organizational Assessment Canon to Advance Humanistic Change

Within the field of organization development (OD), organizational assessment and diagnosis (OAD) is a well-established area of practice understood to be fundamental to advancing change in organizations. Decades of rigorous research have produced a rich collection of diagnostic models and countless adaptations thereof. The use of these models and the practitioners who apply them have the ability to influence how change strategies are developed and organizations engage in a change-making process. With increasing frequency, OD and OCM consultants are being called upon to use their diagnostic skill sets to assess or “audit” the state of affairs related to issues of identity, power, and organizational culture regarding equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). This work has a deep history in the United States stemming from the civil rights movement and progressing toward addressing issues of power inequity in organizations pertaining to identity. Nevertheless, EDI has consistently been marginalized as a sub-genre or niche area of study and practice in the field of OD. As models emerge to aid in the work of “auditing” organizations regarding EDI, canonical OAD models continue to be treated as power-neutral, and EDI as a separate realm within the diagnosis of organizational dynamics. Organizational goals around EDI require deep and transparent investigation of power dynamics; however, the models that are most commonly used for OD and OCM rarely, if at all, acknowledge their assumed neutrality around contextual influences like the personal and social identities of organizational staff and leaders, the cultural (religious, political, heritage, ethnic) differences, tensions, and similarities between stakeholders, and how white patriarchal, heteronormative ideals play out in power dynamics, decision-making and leadership behaviors. To meet the needs of organizations today and ensure meaningful impact, OD practitioners must incorporate anti-oppressive praxis into their approaches to OAD. The authors take up a review of canonical OAD literature and models, detailing a richness of resources whose relevance to today’s organizations is limited only by the assumptions of power neutrality within the dominant culture. Applying core concepts from positionality theory, which is informed by critical race and feminist theory, the authors then propose an Integrative OAD model for the OD Practitioner to expand upon the utility of diagnostic models to dismantle systemic inequality in organizations.Finally, the authors extend the imperative that practitioners engage in reflective practice as a means to explore identity and power and enhance individual capabilities essential to advancing humanistic change.