Jean E. Neumann: The Consultant’s Consultant, Working Through OD&C Complexity

Living reference work entry

Later version available View entry history

First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Jean Neumann is senior fellow in scholarly practice at The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (TIHR), London. She works as both a practitioner and academic in the field of organizational change and development and provides professional advice and development to managers, leaders, consultants, and other organizational change practitioners. Her work is focused on integrating theory and practice to develop more realistic and sensible approaches to the organizational change. While the academy is still accustomed to split theory and practice, research, and action, Jean Neumann’s contribution stresses the intimate and profound connection between them; as she demonstrates through her consultancy practice, it is not enough to try to explain things (as the traditional research methods do); the challenge is also to try to change them within a process of understanding and inquiry that involves all members of a given social system. In this sense, her (systemic) consultancy model for organizational change and development offers a learning architecture for a change process that challenges complex issues and supports participative solutions to entrenched problems enabling people to work with uncertainty.

Keywords

Action research Organizational change and development Consultancy relationship Scholarly practice Stakeholders involvement 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention theory and method: A behavioural science view. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  2. Bennis, W. G., et al. (1985). The planning of change (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  3. Chin, R., & Benne, K. D. (1969). General strategies for effecting change in human systems. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, & R. Chin (Eds.), The planning of change (4th ed., pp. 22–45). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  4. Kolb, D. A., & Frohman, A. L. (1970). An organisation approach to consulting. Sloan Management Review, 12(1), 51–65.Google Scholar
  5. Neumann, J. E. (1989). Why people don’t participate in organisational change. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organisational change and development (Vol. 3, pp. 181–212). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  6. Neumann, J. E. (1994). Difficult beginnings: Confrontation between client and consultant. In G. D. Casemore, A. Eden, K. Kellner, J. McAuley, & S. Moss (Eds.), What makes consultancy work – Understanding the dynamics (pp. 3–47). London: South Bank University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Neumann, J. E. (1997). Negotiating entry and contracting. In J. E. Neumann, K. Kellner, & A. Dawson-Shephers (Eds.), Developing organisational consultancy (pp. 7–31). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Neumann, J. E. (2000). Managerial and employee involvement in design processes. In D. Clements-Croome (Ed.), Creating the productive workplace (pp. 310–322). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  9. Neumann, J. E. (2007). Becoming better consultants through varieties of experiential learning. In M. Reynolds & R. Vince (Eds.), The handbook of experiential learning in management education (pp. 258–273). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Neumann, J. E. (2011a). Kurt Lewin – ‘Dynamic approach rule’. Lectures & Presentations. http://www.tavinstitute.org/projects/kurt-lewin-dynamic-approach-rule-2/
  11. Neumann, J. E. (2011b). Kurt Lewin – ‘Field theory rule’. Lectures & Presentations. http://www.tavinstitute.org/projects/field-theory-rule/
  12. Neumann, J. E. (2012). Kurt Lewin – ‘Contemporaneity rule’. Lectures & Presentations. http://www.tavinstitute.org/projects/kurt-lewin-contemporaneity/
  13. Neumann, J. E. (2013a). Kurt Lewin – ‘Constructive method rule’. Lectures & Presentations. http://www.tavinstitute.org/projects/kurt-lewin-constructive-method-rule/
  14. Neumann, J. E. (2013b). Action research and four practical principles selected and interpreted from Kurt Lewin. Paper presented at the “Learning to Change: Capacity Building for Action Research” workshop, held on 7–10 May 2013, Lamezia Terme.Google Scholar
  15. Neumann, J. E. (2013c). Action research and a cycle for planned change. Paper presented at the “Learning to Change: Capacity Building for Action Research” workshop, held on 7–10 May 2013, Lamezia Terme.Google Scholar
  16. Neumann, J. E. (2016). From consulting technique to methodology to scholarly practice. In B. Burnes & J. Randall (Eds.), Perspective on change: What academics, consultants and managers really think about change (pp. 109–127). London: Routledge. [Kindle version]. Retrieved from amazon.com
  17. Neumann, J. E., Miller, E. J., & Holti, R. (1999). Three contemporary challenges for OD practitioners. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20(4), 216–221. doi: 10.1108/01437739910277028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Bion, W. (1961). Experiences in groups. London: Tavistock Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Block, P. (1981). Flawless consulting: A guide to getting you expertise used. Austin: Learning Concepts.Google Scholar
  3. Bullock, R., & Batten, D. (1985). It’s just a phase we’re going through: A review and synthesis of OD phase analysis. Group & Organization Management, 10(4), 383–412. doi: 10.1177/105960118501000403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burnes, B. (1996). Managing change: A strategic approach to organisational dynamics (2nd ed.). London: Pitman Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 977–1002. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00463.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnes, B. (2009). Managing change: A strategic approach to organisational dynamics (5th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
  7. Coghlan, D., & Jacobs, C. (2005). Kurt Lewin on reeducation. Foundations for action research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(4), 444–457. doi: 10.1177/0021886305277275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gold, M. (1992). Metatheory and field theory in social psychology: Relevance or elegance? Journal of Social Issues, 1(2), 67–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1992.tb00884.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1984). The neurotic organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publisher.Google Scholar
  10. Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality – Selected papers. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lewin, K. (1943). Forces behind food habits and methods of change. In The problem of changing food habits. Report of the committee on food habits (pp. 35–65). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. https://www.nap.edu/read/9566/chapter/8
  13. Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 34–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1946.tb02295.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lewin, K. (1997). Constructs in field theory. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social science & selected theoretical papers (pp. 191–199). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (Original work published 1944).Google Scholar
  15. Lippitt, R., Watson, J., & Westley, B. (1958). The dynamics of planned change. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
  16. Menzies Lyth, I. (1960). A case-study in the functioning of social systems as a defence against anxiety. A report on a study of the nursing service of a general hospital. Human Relation, 13(2), 95–121. doi: 10.1177/001872676001300201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Menzies Lyth, I. (1988). Containing anxiety in institutions. Selected essays (Vol. 1). London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  18. Menzies Lyth, I. (1989). The dynamics of the social. Selected essays (Vol. 2). London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  19. Neumann, J. E. (2005). Kurt lewin at the Tavistock institute. Educational Action Research, 13(1), 119–135. doi: 10.1080/09650790500200271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Neumann, J. E. (2010). How integrating organisational theory with system psychodynamics can matter in practice: A commentary on critical challenges and dynamics in multiparty collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46(3), 313–321. doi: 10.1177/0021886310373464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Neumann, J. E., & Hirschhorn, L. (1999). The challenge of integrating psychodynamic and organizational theory. Human Relations, 52(6), 683–695. doi: 10.1177/001872679905200601.Google Scholar
  22. Neumann, J. E., & Sama, A. (2009). Beyond the top slice: discovering how to enable integrated health and social services through a network of providers, workforce, cares and people who use services. Paper presented at the STS round-table annual meeting, Chicago.Google Scholar
  23. Peters, E., & Robinson, V. (1984). Origin and status of action research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20(2), 113–124. doi: 10.1177/002188638402000203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rummel, R. J. (1975). Psychological field theories. In Understanding conflict and war, volume 1, the dynamic psychological field. Beverly Hills: Sage. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DPF.CHAP3.HTM#*
  25. Schein, E. (1964). The mechanism of change. In B. Burke, D. Lake, & J. W. Paine (Eds.), Organization change. A comprehensive reader (pp. 78–88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (2009).Google Scholar
  26. Schein, E. (1969). Process consultation: Its role in organization development (Vol. 1). Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  27. Steele, F. (1975). Consulting for organizational change. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political and Social SciencesUniversity of CalabriaArcavacata di RendeItaly

Personalised recommendations