In the organization development (OD) literature, organizational diagnosis is often described as a process that assists organizations in augmenting their capacity not only in evaluating and changing dysfunctional elements of their culture and patterns of behaviour to develop greater effectiveness and ensure continuous improvement (Beer & Spector, 1993) but also in promoting increased understanding of the system by its members (Alderfer, 1980). The current paper assesses the benefits of using two models of organizational diagnosis, namely action research diagnostic approach, and systems approach, to spearhead OD. Additionally, the paper looks into some of the documented consequences of undertaking OD activities without first conducting a meticulous diagnosis of the existing situation. Upon synthesizing the various definitions of OD, Waclawski and Church (2002) acknowledge that OD is essentially a data-driven process in that “diagnosis and intervention are based on some form of behaviorally relevant data (such as observations, assessments, and surveys) collected through a process known as action research” (p. 9). Similarly, as suggested by these authors, “the OD model represents a total systems approach to organizational change in which this change is a formal and planned response to targeted organization-wide issues, problems, and challenges” (p. 9). From these descriptions, it is evident that both action research diagnostic approaches and systems approach are fundamental in guiding OD processes and activities. Conceptualized by Kurt Lewin in 1946, the concept of action research in OD domain involves systematically collecting qualitative or quantitative data on the issue or problem of interest, assessing and analyzing the collected data to develop fundamental themes and patterns regarding the issue or problem of interest, feeding back or synthesizing a synopsis and analysis of the data in some participative form and, eventually, deciding on what action to take based on the critical analysis of the data as well as the ensuing diagnosis of the situation (Waclawski & Church, 2002). The first benefit, therefore, is grounded on the fact that “the process of collecting data during organizational diagnosis can serve to motivate organizational members to learn about and participate in the change process” (Leadersphere, 2008 p. 2). This is made possible because action research is essentially a participatory process. The second benefit is grounded on the premise that the systematic collection and analysis of data conducted in the action research diagnostic approach enables diagnosticians to determine gaps between current effectively and desired organizational performance and to develop strategies on how the desired objectives could be achieved (Hassin, 2010). Lastly, this approach allows diagnosticians to identify and deal with restraining forces to facilitate organizational change efforts (Alderfer, 1980). In the systems approach, an “organization is conceptualized as a system or series of interdependent subsystems and individual components, such as people, technology, or processes, that operates as a collective entity in response to changes in and pressures from the e