In spite of an expanding focus, however, OBM can still benefit from making contact with the OD literature. A rich source of research ideas can be gleaned from the effort. For example, Kurt Lewin’s work was not cited by Skinner, perhaps due to Lewin’s incompatibility with the Baconian orientation that drove Skinner’s work (Smith, 1992). Yet it is clear that many of the ideas behind Lewin’s action research paradigm are proving beneficial to the advancement of behavioral approaches to community development (cf. Fawcett, 1991). Action research is a basic paradigm for the OD field and it is not incompatible with a rigorous, empirical approach.

Many of the research ideas that emerge from a perusal of the OD literature by OBM practitioners will probably be centered on pinpointing the complex social and verbal contingencies that prevail in organizations, contingencies that are currently lumped together under the generic notion of organizational culture (cf. Agnew and Redmon, 1992; Eubanks and Lloyd, 1992; Malott, 1992; Malott, Shimamune, and Malott, 1992). It is not clear at this juncture, however, under what metacontingencies either OBM or OD are effective. As Mawhinney (1992) suggests, even the best-developed organizations may not survive under conditions of chaotic change or a punctuation in some critical aspect of the environment. As contingency theorists, OBM practitioners have much opportunity awaiting them in determining the metacontingencies of organizational survival and in continuing to demonstrate the utility of behavior analysis in solving crucial problems for organizations. There is much work to be done and behavior analysts are well equipped to do it.