See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329905659

Evaluation and Sustainability in Organization Development

Chapter · November 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 2,536

2 authors:

Emerald Jay D. Ilac Nico Canoy

Ateneo de Manila University Ateneo de Manila University
15 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   58 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Post-disaster community resiliency intervention View project

Katatagan Kontra Droga sa Komunidad View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Emerald Jay D. Ilac on 25 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 *published in "Organization Development Practice in the Philippines" by E. Franco, M. Teng-Calleja and M.R.
Hechanova (2018, pp. 213-228), printed by the Ateneo de Manila University Press in Quezon City, Philippines

10
CHAPTER

Evaluation and Sustainability

in Organization Development
Emerald Jay D. Ilac and Nico A. Canoy

Previous chapters have discussed the different phases of organization

development including diagnosis as well as designing and carrying out OD
interventions. However, organization development does not end with the
implementation of interventions. Rather, the OD process also includes evaluating the
changes and ensuring the success of interventions.
This chapter explains the rationale behind the evaluation and sustainability of
OD interventions by reviewing both Western and local literature. It then examines
the realities of Philippine organizations and the factors that influence their ability
to evaluate and sustain change. Finally, it suggests ways by which organizations can
develop a culture of evaluation and sustainability.

What is Evaluation in OD?

Evaluation involves providing feedback to practitioners and organization
members about the progress and impact of interventions (Cummings and Worley
2005). More recently, scholars have defined evaluation as an on-going process
(Tsoukas and Chia 2002) to determine the extent to which changes are integrated
with everyday routines within organizations (Nielsen and Abildgaard 2013).
Evaluating existing organizational protocols, activities, and policies entails a process
that provides feedback to stakeholders about how different activities are carried
out, enables the improvement of implementation plans (Stufflebeam and Shinkfield
2007), and helps the organization leaders make relevant decisions regarding on-
going activities (Hashimoto, Pillay, and Hudson 2010).
Recent studies on OD emphasize evaluation practices as valuable learning
mechanisms for organizations (Fetterman 1994). Some of these evaluation practices
are inclusive and “people-centered” such that they enable empowerment (Fetterman

213

OD BOOK CHAPTER 10.indd 213 9/4/2018 3:02:59 PM

 Organizational Development Practice

1994), are participatory, perceived as responsive, and sensitive to the needs of

different stakeholders (Greene 2005; Cousins and Whitmore 1998). Thus, beyond
the results of the evaluation, the consultation process becomes a means to engage
various stakeholders.

Approaches to Evaluation
Organizations can use two modalities in conducting evaluation: formative or
summative. According to Monette and his colleagues (2014), the choice between
these two approaches depends on two basic goals of conducting evaluation research.
First, the goal of formative evaluation is to provide valuable inputs to guide planning,
development and implementation of specific initiatives, policies, or programs. It
primarily focuses on ensuring that programs are well integrated, purposeful, and
strategic in relation to the overall goals of the organization. Formative evaluation can
also be used to assist in policy and management decisions that result in incremental
changes designed to improve existing policies and programs (Wholey 1996). For
example, this type of evaluation is often helpful for pilot projects and new programs,
but can also be used to monitor the progress of ongoing programs.
On the other hand, the goal of summative evaluation is to understand and
measure the impact of programs at the end of an operating cycle. It makes certain
that both effectiveness and efficiency of programs are achieved (Hamilton and
Chervany 1981; Monette et al. 2014). As such, findings are used to help decide
whether a program should be adopted, canceled, continued, or modified for
improvement. This type of evaluation typically is done for large-scale projects that
use various human and material resources to provide a systematic, unbiased, and
holistic picture of the extent and applicability of programs to other contexts or
populations.

Models of Evaluation
Beyond formative and summative approaches, there are other models (Alzahmi,
Rothwell, and Kim 2013) widely used by OD practitioners in evaluation: these are
Kirkpatrick’s levels of evaluation, Holton’s evaluation model, balanced scorecard, and
the appreciative inquiry approach. Beyond, this Logic Models can be used as a tool
for evaluation.
Among the models listed above, the most cited in literature are Kirkpatrick’s
levels of evaluation. Usually applied in the context of training, Donald L. Kirkpatrick
(1996) suggested four increasing levels of evaluation that he referred to as reactions
(level one), learning (level two), behavior (level three), and results (level four)
(Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick 2006). Reactions refer to participants’ feelings
of satisfaction toward the program or intervention. Learning looks at whether
important information is remembered and understood by the participants. Thirdly,

214

OD BOOK CHAPTER 10.indd 214 9/4/2018 3:02:59 PM

 Evaluation and Sustainability in Organization Development

the behavioral level validates actual learning and application of knowledge by the
participants in their job. Lastly, results (“bottom-line” or organizational impact)
refer to improvements in goals or desired business outcomes. This is linked to the
fifth level, ROI or return of investment that measures the cost of the program vis-
à-vis organizational targets (Phillips 1996). The systematic, relatively simple, and
outcome-focused approach to evaluation makes this model popular (Bates 2004).
Despite some criticisms of Kirkpatrick’s model (e.g., lack of empirical validation,
reliance on anecdotal testimony), it remains a useful tool for program facilitators and
OD practitioners.
The Holton Evaluation model (Holton 1996) attempted to improve Kirkpatrick’s
model by accounting for intervening factors like readiness, motivation, design,
and reinforcement on the job. The inclusion of these variables aims to explain the
discrepancy between “positive” outcomes and “absence” of real on-the-job behaviors
(Donovan, Hannigan, and Crowe 2001). On the other hand, Kauffman and Keller
(1996) and Kauffman, Keller, and Watkins (1996) explicitly expanded the scope and
usefulness of Kirkpatrick’s original model to include the individual (micro-level),
organization (macro-level), and external clients as well as society at large (mega-
level).
Both Kirkpatrick and Holton’s models emerged from training interventions. In
contrast, the balanced scorecard is a strategic planning and performance evaluation
management system. It is used extensively in various industries to align business
activities to the vision and strategy of the organization, improve internal and external
communications, and monitor organization performance against strategic goals. It
originated from Robert Kaplan and David Norton as a performance measurement
framework that added strategic non-financial performance measures alongside
traditional financial metrics to maximize “intangible” assets such as employee skills
or customer satisfaction with the goal of enhancing value creation and organizational
performance (Kaplan and Norton 1992; Kaplan 2010). Key elements of the balanced
scorecard are strategy maps, strategic objectives, initiatives, and criteria measures.
In addition, the balanced scorecard system provides multi-level communication
channels for discussions in evaluating the processes of an organization (Cooper
n.d.). Perhaps the reason this approach has been so popular in evaluation is that it
appears to be strategic and focuses on the bottom line (McLean 2005), and this is
found helpful in reviewing interventions and how they affect the financial aspect of
the organization. However, the balanced scorecard has also been criticized because:
1) the system focuses only on the most easily measured outcomes, 2) it is perceived
as an overly simplistic strategic model, and 3) the goals in the scorecard can become
obsolete quickly unless there is consistent effort to keep them up to date (McLean
2005). As such, most organizations will use the balanced score card in evaluating, but
will not rely completely on this framework.

215

OD BOOK CHAPTER 10.indd 215 9/4/2018 3:02:59 PM

 Organizational Development Practice

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is an approach to organizational change that focuses

on strengths rather than on weaknesses—quite different from many approaches
to evaluation that focus on deficits and problems. It is about the “co-evolutionary
search for the best in people, organizations, and the relevant world around them. AI
involves, in a central way, the art and practice of asking questions that strengthen
a system’s capacity to apprehend, anticipate, and heighten positive potential”
(Cooperrider and Whitney 2005, 3). It is a process that inquires into, identifies,
and further develops the best of “what is” in organizations in order to create a
better future. Often used in the organization development field as an approach to
large-scale change, it is a means for “addressing the issues, challenges, changes,
and concerns of an organization in ways that builds on the successful, effective and
energizing experiences of its members” Preskill and Catsambas 2006, 2). It uses
the 4D framework of Discover, Dream, Design, and Destiny. Evaluation scholars
have recommended that evaluation be more democratic, pluralistic, deliberative,
empowering, and enlightening (Coghlan et al. 2003). One study (Preskill and
Caracelli 1997) that sought evaluators’ feedback using a survey reported an
increasing interest in including stakeholders in evaluation. By involving stakeholders
in the evaluation process, evaluators increase the validity of the evaluation data and
the use of findings, building evaluation capacity, empowering individuals and groups
to effect social change, as well as making evaluation more democratic (Coghlan et al.
2003). Appreciative Inquiry in evaluation practice emphasizes social constructivism—
where sense making is achieved through dialogue and interaction. It views inquiry
as ongoing, iterative, and integrated into organization and community life, which
in turn reflects a systems orientation inclusive of a structured and planned set
of processes. Lastly, Appreciative Inquiry is participatory, and stresses the use of
findings for decision-making and action (ibid.).
Logic models are visual frameworks to describe what and how programs should
work (Monette et al 2014; McLaughlin and Jordan 1999). Using logic models
effectively can enable program managers and evaluators to make sense of the
underlying rationale of the program (Renger and Titcomb 2002). As a framework
for program evaluation, the process begins with identifying a problem that the
program intends to address. At this stage, practitioners or researchers need to clarify
the overall purpose of the evaluation in relation to its end users. This is followed
by mapping of elements such as possible program inputs or resources (i.e., human
and financial) and program activities or interventions (i.e., action steps necessary to
produce outputs). In turn, these program elements contribute or lead to intended
outcomes or outputs (i.e., program goals). For example, outcomes may refer to
changes in employees’ mindset or routinized practices, whereas outputs may refer
to concrete manifestations of what a program does, such as number and types of
services provided. Once achieved, program goals may yield short, immediate or long-
term effects such as changes in the broader systems or communities (McLaughlin

216

OD BOOK CHAPTER 10.indd 216 9/4/2018 3:02:59 PM

 Evaluation and Sustainability in Organization Development

and Jordan 2010). The logic model for a program identifies the desired outcomes,
while evaluation revolves around the extent to which these outcomes are met.

Evaluation Methods
Evaluation requires the systematic collection of information about an
intervention’s activities, characteristics, and program outcomes; what is imperative is
that all this collection of information is anchored to the goals of the intervention.
From here, one can make sound judgment about the merits of a program, its
effectiveness and future programming (Thomas, Corso and Pietz 2013). Evaluations
can use surveys, interviews, group discussions, pre- and post-tests, or observations.
Evaluations can also elicit both quantitative and qualitative data. For instance,
training programs may have survey evaluations at the end to see the value of the
program to its participants in terms of program management, facilitators, and venue.
Conducting a focus group discussion after a team-building exercise may help gather
in-depth information on the effect of the intervention on team dynamics. Another
common technique is to collect survey or narrative information (“success stories”)
as a part of program follow-up, to find out if longer-term outcomes like behavior
change were realized among participants. A challenge in selecting tools and methods
for program evaluation are various trade-offs in decisions related to using pre-
existing measurement tools or creating ones that are unique to a specific program.
Other decisions about tools for program evaluation efforts include what types of
software to use for data analysis and the use of online data collectors and mobile
device survey designs (Extension.org 2015).

Sustainability in OD
The next logical step after evaluation is sustainability or institutionalization
of changes. This involves ensuring that the changes persist in the organization
(Cummings and Worley 2005). Thus, sustainability requires continued resolve to
ensure that the interventions continue to work and constantly produce the desired
results for the betterment of the institution.
Rogers and Hudson (2011) suggest that one of the centripetal issues
concerning sustainability is the need for changes in thinking and practices at every
level—individual, group, and organization. Although OD interventions maybe
spearheaded by a few people at the start, sustainability requires participation of
the entire organization, so that each member propels and manifests the needed
changes. By allowing all members of the organization to join in sustaining the
change momentum, the sustained change becomes the new normal. Sustainable
change endures and becomes strategic when it is not dependent on just one person
but exists within the culture, embedded in the mindset, activities and systems of

217

OD BOOK CHAPTER 10.indd 217 9/4/2018 3:02:59 PM

 Organizational Development Practice

the organization (Cummings and Worley 2005). Thus, sustainability needs to be

viewed as a continuum of activities: the continuous improvement of work methods
and organizational systems and the consistent achievement of performance targets
(Buchanan et al. 2003).

Studies on Sustainability in the West

As early as 1947, Kurt Lewin highlighted the importance of institutionalizing
change in his three-step change management model, which consists of unfreezing-
change-freezing (Lewin 1947). Specifically, the freezing stage of the model implies
that once the organizational changes have been created, structures that will support
it need to be installed and efforts must be taken to ensure that the changes become
the new status quo. Lewin even said that the “permanency of the new level, or
permanency for a desired period, should be included in the change objective,”
allowing the changes to become embedded in the system (ibid.).
Lewin’s framework was built on by other theorists such as Lippitt, Watson, and
Wesley (1958). Their seven-step method emphasizes that change must be sustained,
and that communication, feedback, and group coordination are essential elements
to do this. Communication and feedback allow the processes involved in the change
to be clarified, enabling group coordination and involving each member of the
organization in the transformation.
Additionally, Goodman and Dean (1982) presented an institutionalization
framework that describe how the organization and intervention characteristics
influence sustainability. Organization characteristics refer to a sense of alignment
of management philosophy and values with that of the employees’ values and skills.
These represent the social context where change is introduced and evolves. On
the other hand, intervention characteristics refer to the broadness or specificity
of intervention goals, the mechanisms of change design, the level of change (ex.
organization-wide or within a department), the type of consultants, and sponsorship
of the change coming from top management. Important to change implementation
are the structural aspects of change, such as the goals of the change intervention
and the critical roles (i.e. teambuilding, work groups) included in the features of
the change. The interaction of these structural aspects influence sustaining change
within organizations.
Kotter, on the other hand, in his seminar article “Leading Change: Why
Transformation Efforts Fail,” (1995) states that change sticks when it becomes “the
way we do things around here,” or when it is embedded into the corporate mindset.
He identifies two factors that are essential in enculturating change: 1) a conscious
attempt to show members of the organization that the new systems and structures
helped improve performance, and that 2) the next generation of top management
personifies the new systems and structures.

218

OD BOOK CHAPTER 10.indd 218 9/4/2018 3:02:59 PM

 Evaluation and Sustainability in Organization Development

Other Western studies have identified possible hindrances to enculturating

change in organizations. A study found that organizations will resist pressures for
change inconsistent with their organizational identity and image (Fox-Wolfgramm,
Boal, and Hunt 1998). Senge and colleagues suggest that challenges to sustainability
are fear and anxiety among members of the organization, lack of assessment of the
results of the change, as well as having members that are non-flexible nor non-
adaptive, not open to growth, and that have a closed mentality to improvement
(Senge et al. 1999).
By the turn of the millennium, more studies identified factors influencing
sustainability. Buchanan et al. (2003) for instance described facets that contribute
to sustainability such as political factors (ex. internal and external stakeholder
influence), and coalitions and power structures within the organization that decide
cliques and small group interactions. Individual employee factors such as levels
of commitment, together with competencies, enables sustaining change. Lastly,
leadership actions such as setting the vision and organization goals, clarifying
the purpose of actions, challenging members of the organization to be better, and
demonstrating values that the organization embodies were found relevant to
sustainability.
Cummings and Worley (2005) described a five-step process in sustaining change.
These processes are: 1) socialization, which is concerned with the transmission
and exchange of information about beliefs, preferences, norms and values among
members of the organization; 2) commitment to the initial changes as well as
recommitment over time; 3) giving intrinsic and extrinsic rewards to behaviors that
ensure the continuance of the intervention; 4) diffusion of the interventions from
one system to another that facilitates wider reach of the organizational change;
and 5) sensing and calibration that involves detecting deviations from the desired
continued changes and taking corrective action against these destabilizing forces.

Local Studies on Evaluation and Sustainability

In contrast to robust Western literature, local research on OD evaluation and
sustainability practices in the Philippines is sparse. The few researches sought to
evaluate programs and OD interventions in different settings both in private and
public organizations. Most of these researches were done at the graduate school
level, such as those done by Llaguno (1998), Morato (2004), and Nabatar (2011).
Due to this scarcity of research in contextualizing evaluation and sustainability in
the Philippines, concrete ways to institutionalize and continuously implement OD
practices remain a challenge. The next section discusses the drivers of, and some
challenges to, the sustainability of OD interventions in the Philippines.

219

OD BOOK CHAPTER 10.indd 219 9/4/2018 3:02:59 PM

 Organizational Development Practice

Drivers
A study on OD in NGOs and POs found that a major factor in increasing
sustainability of OD interventions is creating a mindset and culture of readiness for
change (De Dios and Reyes 2005). This requires creating a culture of learning and
continuous improvement to allow organizations to prosper. Such culture necessitates
the creation of spaces within the organization where individual members, leaders,
and managers build their capacity to learn for continuous development. Senge (1990)
defines sustainability as an organization’s capacity to continually expand its ability to
create its future. As such, OD processes move towards bringing out a more reflexive
organization capable of adapting and managing changes and complexities.
In a similar study, Cawrse and Walsh (2005) developed a framework based on
communities of practice in the Department of Education (DepEd) across three
regions in Mindanao (Regions XI, XII, and ARMM). They found that a key aspect of
strategic resource for building capacity and improving organizational performance is
Stewardship, which entails sustaining momentum through natural shifts in practice,
members, and technology. In Stewardship, conferences and concurrent sessions were
done to share information, knowledge, achievements, and best practices, as well
as insights to allow the changes inculcated to continue within DepEd. From this
point, each member considers how to sustain the momentum of change, how the
practice can be extended beyond organizational boundaries, and how they can use
the information they shared. This promoted a sense of ownership and confidence
in enacting the change. This offered DepEd the promise of sustaining improved
organizational performance, and for Mindanao a promise of greater social and
economic development.
Among cooperatives in the Philippines, Salvosa (2007) found that the operational
framework to assess governance performance in this type of organization, is
anchored on the universal principles of cooperatives and elements of good
governance. Management and other members of the organization used these
principles and elements as benchmarks to monitor, evaluate, and decide whether the
cooperative is moving close towards optimal performance. She recommends that key
aspects of governance are anchored to developing a systems approach. Furthermore,
these are also anchored to allowing everyone in the organization to partake in and
become accountable for the change. Meaningful and sustainable changes, however,
will take time and would require not only internal reforms, but also reinforcing the
value of these reforms within the wider environment outside the organization.
A survey on evaluating and sustaining OD interventions conducted by the
authors among 24 OD practitioners from various corporate and non-profit industries
found that recognizing human capital as valuable in the organization is central to
evaluation processes. In addition, training on how to evaluate was deemed important
by respondents. The respondents also shared the importance of the following:

220

OD BOOK CHAPTER 10.indd 220 9/4/2018 3:02:59 PM

 Evaluation and Sustainability in Organization Development

1) a determined and committed top management endorsing efforts in OD by

ensuring long-term change, 2) having continuity of programs aimed to improve the
organization, and 3) upskilling practitioners and HR representatives.

Challenges
Despite the drivers of evaluation and sustainability, there are challenges that
beset these two OD facets. In various multi-country studies, Hofstede et al. (2010)
found that having a long-term orientation helps people prepare for the future.
Unfortunately, the Philippines scored low on this dimension, which suggests that
Filipinos prefer short-term solutions and fail to sustain these solutions for the long
term. This makes OD processes difficult because of the resistance to change, and
makes sustainability of change doubly problematic because of the Filipino’s short-
term perspective. This was echoed in a local leadership study where Filipinos ranked
lower compared to other global leaders in terms of strategic judgment, persistence,
planning, and analytical thinking (Lanuza and Wells 2005). It was further reflected
in a model for leading organization transformation in the Philippines created by the
Ateneo Center for Organization Research and Development in 2012 (Hechanova
and Franco 2012). The short-term orientation of Philippine organizations makes it
difficult to create long-term and systematic transformation that is vision-driven.
A study by de Dios and Reyes on non-government organizations (NGOs) and
people’s organizations (POs) in 2005 analyzed factors influencing intervention
efforts. Findings showed that factors detrimental to sustainability include increasing
the number of development agents, decreasing funding assistance, perceived
diminishing impact of the interventions, fragmented civil society, and the diversity of
development ideologies (De Dios and Reyes 2005).
Moreover, results of this chapter author’s survey highlight the challenges related
to these two functions. Of those surveyed, 64 percent claim to have not done any
evaluation efforts of their OD interventions. The most common rationale offered by
the respondents was the lack of perceived value for conducting an evaluation. Having
this mindset created deficiency in creating systems or having dedicated people in-
charge of assessing the usefulness of the interventions. People were also unfamiliar
with how evaluation should be correctly done and did not have the necessary
competencies to do so. Some respondents mentioned OD was not appreciated
by organization leaders. Respondents report that support from top management
was important to promote evaluation. Without the support, evaluation cannot be
accomplished.
In regard to sustainability efforts in the context of organization development,
71 percent of the respondents claimed that their organizations do not focus on the
sustainability of OD intervention efforts. Reasons mentioned include lack of interest
by upper management, absence of culture of sustaining efforts, lack of appreciation

221

OD BOOK CHAPTER 10.indd 221 9/4/2018 3:02:59 PM

 Organizational Development Practice

of OD, and shortage of dedicated OD-skilled people. Continuous change in

organizational directions may also result in difficulty in ensuring sustainability of
efforts.

Enablers Using the Ateneo CORD Model

Based on stories of organizations that successfully transformed, the Ateneo
Center for Organization Research and Development (2012) created a model to
show factors that enable organization transformation and sustainability of change in
Philippine organizations (Hechanova and Franco 2012). These drivers are: 1) change
management practices, 2) organization culture, and 3) leadership.
Change management practices require leaders to provide clear directions
and have the political will and plans to see the change through. Employees must
also be included in the change effort. Regular consultation and communication
strategies that are sensitive to the nuances of the Filipino culture are vital in allowing
employees to communicate their thoughts and share knowledge that might drive and
sustain changes.
Aligning organization culture to the change initiative can help shape people’s
attitude towards change. For instance, when employees know, understand, and
accept the vision, they have a better appreciation of change decisions. Thus, having
good quality relationships between management and their employees can aid in
developing this appreciation towards change. Employee and unit goals that are
aligned with larger organizational goals produce accountability and will work well
if rewards are given. Furthermore, an organization culture of creativity empowers
people and allows them to engage with the generation of ideas. In turn, this
generation promotes continued implementation of the changes.
Finally, leaders are critical in safeguarding sustainability. Critical leadership
behaviors and competencies in sustaining change pertain to role modeling desired
behaviors promoting the change, having courage and resilience, creating trust,
sensitivity to people, flexibility in judgments, and monitoring to ensure progress.
Heifetz echoes these competencies in his call for “adaptive leadership” (Heifetz,
Grashow and Linsky 2009) that involves the ability to continuously diagnose the
organization and its context. It also involves the ability to encourage re-thinking and
working towards solutions to promote learning.
To provide an example on how sustainability is enabled, this chapter presents
the story of how the Ateneo de Manila University ensured the institutionalization
of its change initiatives. By working with its partner stakeholders, creating social
development and role modelling the desired change, Ateneo’s efforts to continually
improve are not only set into motion but are also embedded into the school system.

222

OD BOOK CHAPTER 10.indd 222 9/4/2018 3:02:59 PM

 Evaluation and Sustainability in Organization Development

Sustainability in Social Change Initiatives of the Ateneo de Manila University

by Anne Margaret A. Jordan

As a Filipino educational institution, Ateneo de Manila University aims to

contribute to the development goals of the Philippines through the formation of the
youth into leaders for service. Specifically, the university envisions to address the
poverty gap in the country by forming men and women who can bring about social
change. However, the university understood that social change is a painstaking
process. Thus, it is important to ensure the sustainability of initiatives.
Three elements can be considered as foundation to the University’s efforts
at sustaining its initiatives: partnerships, institutionalization, and role modeling.
Ateneo identified communities and NGOs to partner with, in order to ensure that its
initiatives are focused and need-driven. These partners are also important resources
for providing students opportunities for exposure, immersion, and service.
Within the academic units of Ateneo, the vision of enacting social change
was institutionalized by integrating the university’s scholastic and humanistic
traditions with social development. The Office for Social Concern and Involvement
(OSCI), through its Integrated Non-Academic Formation program, promotes social
awareness among faculty and students by linking initiatives done by Ateneo units
to service learning and student-led activities. Programs are designed to engage
students throughout their entire stay in the university, from their freshman year to
their senior year. These experiences are integrated in certain courses. For example,
the Theology Immersion and Praxis Program exposes fourth-year students to
marginalized communities that are also served by the different Ateneo units.
Through this program, students are able to apply the skills and knowledge that
they have acquired from their Theology classes in serving these communities. In
addition, service-oriented organizations allow students to have a more hands-on
role in organizing community enrichment programs for impoverished communities
and the disadvantaged. By institutionalizing service learning into the academic
curriculum, students and faculty are given the opportunity to contribute to social
development initiatives.
Another key element in sustainability is role modeling. The University highlights
exemplar alumni who engage in nation building such as those who serve in
government or establish social enterprises. These examples inspire students to plan
future initiatives for social change, thereby sustaining the university’s vision for
future generations.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter brings to light two essential post-intervention processes
in organizational development: evaluation and sustainability. These two are
fundamental aspects of the OD process. However, most organizations fail to see the
importance of these two processes. When organizations forget these two aspects,

223

OD BOOK CHAPTER 10.indd 223 9/4/2018 3:03:00 PM

 Organizational Development Practice

they fail to ensure project continuity, maintain long-term changes, and continue
institutional development. Evaluation and sustainability practices are basic and
fundamental components of OD practice, requiring top management support and a
paradigm change for the entire institution.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What are the factors to be considered in ensuring the sustainability of any OD
intervention?
2. How can leaders affect the sustainability efforts of an organization?
3. What would hamper the evaluation of OD interventions in the following
sectors: the academe? Non-profit organizations? The government?
4. As heavily influenced by interpersonal relationships, what are the drivers and
challenges of evaluation and sustainability for the Filipino?

REFERENCES
Alzahmi, Rashed, William Rothwell, and Woocheoi Kim. 2013. “A Practical
Evaluation Approach for OD Interventions.” International Journal of Research in
Management, Economics, and Commerce 3, no. 3: 43– 65.
Bates, Reid. 2004. “A Critical Analysis of Evaluation Practice: The Kirkpatrick
Model and the Principle of Beneficence.” Evaluation and Program Planning 27:
341–47.
Buchanan, David, Dianne Ketley, Rose Gollop, Jane Louise Jones, Sharon Saint
Lamont, Annette Neath, and Elaine Whitby. 2003. “No Going Back: A Review
of the Literature on Sustaining Strategic Change.” Research into Practice series:
NHS Modernisation Agency.
Cawrse, Scott and Ian D’Arcy Walsh. 2005. “Cultivating Communities of Practice
to Build Organisational Capacity: A Case Study of the Philippines-Australia
Basic Education Assistance for Mindanao (BEAM) Project.” Evaluation Journal of
Australasia 1–2: 22–26.
Coghlan, Anne, Hallie Preskill, Tessie Catsambas. 2003. “An Overview of
Appreciative Inquiry in Evaluation.” New Directions for Evaluation 100: 5–22.
Cooper, Elizabeth. n.d. “The Road to ERM: Using the Balanced Scorecard to Implement
Enterprise Risk Management.” White Paper, Balanced Scorecard Institute.
Cooperrider, David and Diana Whitney. 2005. Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive
Revolution in Change. USA: Berrett-Koehler.

224

OD BOOK CHAPTER 10.indd 224 9/4/2018 3:03:00 PM

 Evaluation and Sustainability in Organization Development

Cousins, J. Bradley and Elizabeth Whitmore. 1998. “Framing Participatory

Evaluation.” New Directions for Evaluation 80: 87–105.
Cummings, Thomas G. and Christopher G. Worley. 2005. Organization Development
and Change. 8th ed. Mason, USA: South-Western.
De Dios, Honorio and Leonard Reyes. 2005. Sustaining Organizational Empowerment:
Exploring Opportunities for Organization Development Theory and Practice Building
in the Philippines. Quezon City: CBCRM Resource Center.
Donovan, Paul, Kevin Hannigan, and Deirdre Crowe. 2001. “The Learning Transfer
System Approach to Estimating the Benefits of Training: Empirical Evidence.”
Journal of European Industrial Training 25, no. 2: 221–28.
Extension.org. 2015. “Tools and Methods of Program Evaluation.” http://articles.
extension.org/pages/68357/tools-methods-of-program-evaluation.
Fetterman, David. 1994. “Empowerment Evaluation.” Evaluation Practice 15: 1–15.
Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan, Kimberly Boal, and James Hunt. 1998. “Organizational
Adaptation to Institutional Change: A Comparative Study of First-Order Change
in Prospector and Defender Banks.” Administrative Science Quarterly 43: 87–126.
Goodman, Paul and James W. Dean. 1982. “Creating Long-Term Organizational
Change.” In Change in Organizations, edited by Paul Goodman, 226–79. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Greene, Jennifer. 2005. “A Value-Engaged Approach for Evaluating the Bunche-Da
Vinci Learning Academy.” New Directions in Evaluation 106: 27–45.
Hamilton, Scott and Chervany, Norman L. 1981. “Evaluating Information System
Effectiveness - Part I: Comparing Evaluation Approaches.” MIS Quarterly 5, no.
3: 55–69.
Hashimoto, Kazuaki, Hitendra Pillay, and Peter Hudson. 2010. “An Evaluation
Framework for Sustaining the Impact of Educational Development.” Studies in
Educational Evaluation 36, no. 3: 101–10.
Hechanova, Ma. Regina and Edna Franco. 2012. Rebirth and Reinvention:
Transforming Philippine Organizations. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University
Press.
Heifetz, Ronald, Alexander Grashow, and Marty Linsky. 2009. The Practice of
Adaptive Leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2009.
Hofstede, Geert, Gert Jan Hofstede, and Michael Minkov. 2010. Cultures and
Organizations: Software of the Mind. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Holton III, Elwood. 1996. “The Flawed Four-Level Evaluation Model.” Human
Resource Development Quarterly 7: 5–21.

225

OD BOOK CHAPTER 10.indd 225 9/4/2018 3:03:00 PM

 Organizational Development Practice

Kaplan, Robert S. and David P. Norton. 1992. “The Balanced Scorecard: Measures
that Drive Performance.” Harvard Business Review (January–February): 71–79.
Kaplan, Robert S. 2010. “March Conceptual Foundations of the Balanced
Scorecard.” Working Paper. http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/conceptual-foundations-
of-the-balanced-scorecard.
Kaufman, Roger and John Keller. 1996. “Levels of Evaluation: Beyond Kirkpatrick.”
Human Resource Development Quarterly 5, no. 4: 371–80.
Kaufman, Roger, John Keller, and Ryan Watkins. 1996. “What Works and What
Doesn't: Evaluation beyond Kirkpatrick.” Performance+Instruction 35, no. 2: 8–12.
Kirkpatrick, Donald. 1996. “Great Ideas Revisited: Techniques for Evaluating
Training Programs.” Training and Development 50, no. 1.
Kirkpatrick, Donald and James Kirkpatrick. 2006. Evaluating Training Programs: The
Four Levels. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Kotter, John. 1995. “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail.” Harvard
Business Review 73, no. 2: 59–67.
Lanuza, Godofredo and Yvette Wells. 2005. “The Paradoxes of Leadership: A Profile
of Successful Filipino Business Leaders.” In The Way We Work: Research and Best
Practices in Philippine Organizations, edited by Ma. Regina Hechanova and Edna
Franco, 86–106. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Lewin, Kurt. 1947. “Frontiers in Group Dynamics.” Human Relations 1: 5–41.
Lippitt, Ronald, Jeanne Watson, and Bruce Westley. 1958. The Dynamics of Planned
Change. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
Llaguno, Jennifer. 1998. “Organizational Factors in Implementing Gender and
Development: Focus on the Community Based Forest Management Program.”
Master’s thesis. University of the Philippines.
McLaughlin, J. A. and GB Jordan. 1999. “Logic Models: A Tool for Telling Your
Programs Performance Story.” Evaluation and Program Planning 22, no. 1: 65–72.
———. 2010. “Using Logic Models.” In Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation,
edited by Joseph Wholey, Harry Hatry, and Kathryn Newcomer, 55–80. 3rd ed.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McLean, Gary N. 2005. “Examining Approaches to HR Evaluation.” Strategic HR
Review 4, no. 2: 24–27.
Monette, Duane, Thomas Sullivan, Cornell DeJong, and Timothy Hilton. 2014.
Applied Social Research: A Tool for the Human Services. 9th ed. USA: Cengage
Learning.

226

OD BOOK CHAPTER 10.indd 226 9/4/2018 3:03:00 PM

 Evaluation and Sustainability in Organization Development

Morato Jr, Eduardo. 2004. “Policies and Strategies for Promoting Entrepreneurship
and the Enterprise of Development.” Doctoral dissertation. University of the
Philippines.
Nabatar, Ma. Theresa. 2011. “Leadership Succession and Organizational
Development in Technical Vocational Education Organizations.” Master’s thesis.
University of the Philippines.
Nielsen, Karina and Johan Abildgaard. 2013. “Organizational Interventions: A
Research-Based Framework for the Evaluation of Both Process and Effects.”
Work & Stress 27, no. 3: 278–97.
Phillips, Jack. 1996. “Measuring ROI: The Fifth Level of Evaluation.” Technical &
Skills Training 7, no. 3: 10–13.
Preskill, Hallie and Valerie Caracelli. 1997. “Current and Developing Conceptions
of Use: Evaluation Use TIG Survey Results.” Evaluation Practice 18, no. 3: 209–
25.
Preskill, Hallie and Tessie Catsambas. 2006. Reframing Evaluation through
Appreciative Inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Preskill, Hallie and Rosalie Torres. 1999. “The Role of Evaluative Enquiry in
Creating Learning Organizations.” In Organizational Learning and the Learning
Organization: Developments in Theory and Practice, edited by Mark Easterby-
Smith, John Burgoyne, and Luis Araujo, 92–114. London: SAGE Publications.
Renger, Ralph and Allison Titcomb. 2002. “A Three-Step Approach to Teaching
Logic Models.” American Journal of Evaluation 23, no. 4: 493–503.
Rogers, Katrina and Barclay Hudson. 2011. “The Triple Bottom Line: The
Synergies of Transformative Perceptions and Practices for Sustainability.” OD
Practitioner 43, no. 4: 3–9.
Salvosa, Cristina. 2007. “Assessing Governance Performance of Selected Primary
Cooperatives in the Philippines.” Doctoral dissertation. University of the
Philippines.
Senge, Peter. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Senge, Peter, Art Kleiner, Charlotte Roberts, Richard Ross, George Roth, Bryan
Smith, and Elizabeth Guman. 1999. The Dance of Change: The Challenges of
Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Stufflebeam, Daniel and Anthony Shinkfield. 2007. Evaluation Theory, Models and
Applications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

227

OD BOOK CHAPTER 10.indd 227 9/4/2018 3:03:00 PM

 Organizational Development Practice

Taplin, Jessica, Dianne Dredge, and Pascal Scherrer. 2014. “Monitoring and
Evaluating Volunteer Tourism: A Review and Analytical Framework.” Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 22, no. 6: 874–97.
Taras, Maddalena. 2005. “Assessment—Summative and Formative—Some
Theoretical Reflections.” British Journal of Educational Studies 53, no. 4: 466–78.
Thomas, Craig, Liza Corso, and Harald Pietz. 2013. “Evaluation, Performance
Management, and Quality Improvement: Understanding the Role They Play
to Improve Public Health.” Division of Public Health Performance Improvement.
Office for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support: Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
Tsoukas, Haridimos and Robert Chia. 2002. “On Organizational Becoming:
Rethinking Organizational Change.” Organization Science 13: 567–82.
Wholey, Joseph S. 1996. “Formative and Summative Evaluation: Related Issues in
Performance Management.” Evaluation Practice 17, no. 2: 145–49.

228

OD BOOK CHAPTER
View publication stats 10.indd 228 9/4/2018 3:03:00 PM