The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science

A sampling of fifty years of articles published in the Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences highlights the integration of theory and practice from JABS’ founding years to the mid-1980s, then a steady shift toward scholarship on “change knowing” and away from “change doing”. This review anchors JABS in the development of the applied behavioral sciences and organization development (OD) and reports on the author’s personal experiences as a budding practical scholar. JABS turn away from application is traced to the normalization of scientific progress in this arena and routinization of practice as change management. The paper then takes up the long-debated question “Is OD dead?” and considers how “something more”—concepts extending beyond conventional behavioral science—has led to revolutionary advances in the practice of change these past two decades. It then highlights how ideas from the arts, spirituality, and chaos-and-complexity sciences have added new dimensions to scholarly practice for the field (and for me) and today beckon sharper theorizing. JABS has of late stretched into these subjects but could do more so. The paper concludes with a call for more artsy, spiritual, and/or off-the-wall publications in JABS’ next fifty years.

At the time the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (JABS) began publishing 50 years ago, much social science scholarship took the form of basic research, with relatively little attention to practice. Thanks to the impetus of Kurt Lewin and the National Training Laboratories, the focus of JABS was much more on relationships between theory and practice than was most other scholarship; the expectation was that JABS would focus on scholarly knowledge that would also inform practice. Over the course of the past half century, however, there has taken place some separation of academic scholarship and practice with regard to organization development. During this same time period there have been several developments in other areas of management inquiry in which academic–practitioner links have been fostered. In this article, I will explore the patterns that have occurred, indicate some questions they raise for JABS going forward, and suggest some possible implications for publishing practice in JABS. These implications include both communication issues with regard to publishing and substantive issues regarding what “counts” as organization development.

In addition to comparing and contrasting loosely coupled systems with tightly coupled systems the purpose of this article is to explore the complexities of attempting to change loosely coupled systems. The change process is often in the direction of tightening a loosely coupled system but not always. Thus the intent is more exploratory than necessarily directional. Social network analysis is a popular and useful tool for understanding a loosely coupled system and serves the consulting process both diagnostically and as an intervention. A network is a common example of a loosely coupled system. There are two primary forms of network—external and internal. External networks are typically stand-alone organizations such as the Organization Development Network and internal networks are best understood as the informal organization within a large and probably highly bureaucratic system. Regarding change the objectives are different depending on which kind of network is being addressed. Other interventions that are appropriate for consulting with a loosely coupled system include large group, for example, search conference and the parallel organization. Using Weick’s processes as a guide for changing a loosely coupled system suggestions for how to conduct such consultation are provided. Conclusions include a brief exploration on power and an admonition to redress the imbalance between what we know about changing tightly coupled systems and what we do not know about changing loosely coupled systems.

For 50 years, JABS has played a significant role in making available new knowledge about organizational change. In the last decade, JABS has once again been at the forefront of introducing a new approach to organizational change, namely, positive organizational scholarship and positive organizational change. This article summarizes some of the findings that have emerged from this new approach to change, and its most important attributes are identified.

As a field of applied behavioral science, organizational change and development has characteristics of both science and art. I will explore four areas where the science of organizational change and the art of changing organizations are often in tension creating paradoxes that must be resolved or at least “held,” misunderstandings, occasional dysfunction, and insight and value. I will argue that the coexistence of science and art can be found specifically in theory creation and utilization, the evaluation of organizational change, the act of organizational diagnosis, and the study of organizational creativity. The advancement of theory, research, and practice in organization development depends, to a very real extent, on the ability to appreciate and to balance science and art in each of these domains.

Recently, at an Academy of Management meeting workshop, reflecting on the field, Warner Burke asked “where are the new models and theories of change?” This provocative question has been pondered within organization studies and specifically on organization theory for several decades. And yet it persists. Borrowing this debate, in this essay we reverse the question to consider whether theory might be the problem in change research. Specifically, we argue that theory has become a (figurative) straightjacket. Far from advancing debate as significantly as has regularly been assumed, an obsession with theory and a narrow understanding of what constitutes a contribution could be hampering the development of knowledge about change. The criteria for publishing organizational research are increasingly focused on adding to specific and already existing theory. As a challenge to the restrictions that have become convention, we decode what this theoretical straightjacket looks like, and query why change researchers have willingly gone down this path, shutting down other promising opportunities. In response, we present phenomenon-driven research as a possible solution. It is time for change researchers to reclaim our heritage and take off the theoretical straightjacket.