OD vs. Training – Or Is It?
I’ve watched over the years as various fields and professions form firm interpretations of others. For example, many Organization Development practitioners almost look down on training as scoped to working only with individuals and not the broader context of organizations as does OD (by the way, we OD’rs prefer that you capitalize the name of our field 🙂
Yet when asked for definitions of OD, they seem loathe to scope the role of OD at all. If definitions of OD are offered, they usually assert that OD is based on changing systems, especially through use of systems principles. They’ll even assert that OD can include training, as well as many other “interventions,” such as coaching and facilitating.
Coaching vs. Consulting – Or Is It?
Similarly, many coaches see consulting as being limited to giving advice. When asked for definitions of coaching, they assert that coaching is always being other-directed and based primarily on questioning. They might add, “So coaching is not consulting. It’s coming from people, rather than at them.”
Do We Tend to Glamorize Our Own Work?
Yet trainers are some of the most systems-based people I know – those skills aren’t limited to OD. Effective trainers in a group setting can transform a group of people. So, if the trainer is especially effective, is the trainer now an OD practitioner? Also, OD can include training, but does that mean the practitioner is no longer doing OD when he/she is merely “training”?
Similarly, an effective consultant can have a big bag of tools, just like an effective coach. A consultant can use questioning (“coaching”?) and advice (“consulting”?), depending on the needs of the client and the context of the project at the time.
I’m not claiming we always have the wrong definitions of these fields. I think the ongoing exploration of each field is to advantage of ourselves and our clients.
However, I am suggesting that we be as fair when describing other fields as when describing our own.
What do you think?
—————————
For more resources, see the Library topics Consulting and Organizational Development.
———————————————————————————
Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD – Authenticity Consulting, LLC – 800-971-2250
Read my weekly blogs: Boards, Consulting and OD, Nonprofits and Strategic Planning.
I happen to be one of those “ODer’s” and I think that’s why I find this article so great! I started in the training realm and developed to where I am today, and now my only aversion to training is that I feel as though organizations don’t conduct a thorough enough performance assessment (if any!) initially to determine that training really is the correct solution. Many times what is referred to as a “training thing” really should be something handled through a change in the communications infrastructures (i.e. just-in-time communications to the appropriate people as defined by the organization, to help them in the successful execution of their job), a shift in the corporate culture (accountability, values, etc.), or any number of other solutions. That’s not to say that training may not be one tool, but I don’t think it is the end-all-beat-all solution.
As with anything, respect is key, and I’m glad to see it talked about in this context. I have a great respect for those that specialize in training and adult education and don’t consider them any less than myself. The same goes for being a coach vs a consultant: one in the same.
I think the “coaching is not consulting” meme was part of an early, and somewhat misguided attempt to define and differentiate coaching as a new profession. As one who comes from a long line of teachers, I have another perspective: remove the idea that teaching is what happens to (with?) children in a school, and teaching encompasses most of these other professions. Group instruction, training, facilitation, and coaching are modes of teaching. Teachers counsel to the extent that the counseling supports the learning goals. When teachers do in their roles as advisors – analyze problems from an expert perspective and give guidance – they consult.
It also seems to me that whether this falls into the realm of “organizational development” (and institutional purposes) or “human development” (as in individual entrepreneurial or career situations) is a separate issue from what the mode is.
I understand the need for these labels to communicate a profile that listeners expect. I don’t think the differences are ultimately real.