organisational development
organisational development
Organisational Development and the NPO leader: Part 4 - Programme Implementation
From the process we have explored so far in the first three parts of this article series, you should have an idea of what organisational development (OD) is, what its purpose and principles are, the process of OD diagnosis, and the key points of choosing and planning an intervention. However, many OD programmes do not fail in these earlier stages, but rather in the actual implementation of the programme and its interventions. Common causes of failure include the inability to maintain stakeholder support, loss of interest by the leadership team because of other ‘crises’, losing perspective of interventions versus programmes (interventions are prioritised over the overall process, eg training is no longer a tool in the process but becomes the goal), poorly managed consultants, and leaders who hijack the process.
Gaining support and commitment
One of the most important ideas to consider is that OD is something we should ideally do with others, not to them. If we bring a sense of superiority to the OD process, we are going to alienate others. Communication, participation, involvement, feedback and empowerment are vital in gaining support and commitment. By making others part of the process, we help them to own the outcomes. It is not uncommon to hear employees refer to a particular OD programme as the ‘leader’s’ - “The restructuring of the teams is Joe’s project, he doesn’t tell us anything”. This can even happen between a managing director and the board. The more the leader hoards the project, the less others engage and express what they really think and feel.
Remember that OD has a systemic focus, which means we are trying to change large parts or the whole organisation. OD often wholly or partly targets social systems and patterns of behaviour. Hence, if we do not engage and involve others in the OD programme, they will not go through the process of changing their mind and their behaviour and the ultimate goal of the OD programme will not be achieved. Objectivity and some distance from an OD process is one of the advantages of having an external facilitator or consultant, but a leader who knows how to maintain objectivity and become a facilitator of the process can usually make a good OD programme leader too. The trick here is to see OD as a people process to be facilitated and not a series of objectives to be completed.
Ensuring a positive approach
One of the most innovative and interesting developments in OD in the last 25 years has been the Appreciative Enquiry (usually abbreviated as AI because of the American version Appreciative Inquiry) approach. As opposed to the more common approach to OD which follows a typical problem-solving cycle of looking for problems, looking for solutions and implementing them, the AI approach rather says: “Let’s look for examples of success and where things are working well in the organisation and then we can study those examples and see how we can spread that success more broadly”. The advantages of the home-grown nature of solutions and positive-psychology approach of AI are obvious. Keeping things positive is much more beneficial than problem-driven OD processes that make people feel insecure in their jobs, have the tone of a witch-hunt, or that fail to celebrate success and acknowledge the good in people and the past. You do not need to adopt the AI approach, but any OD process needs to balance its focus on results with an encouraging, appreciative approach.
Clarify goals of the OD process
Employees and stakeholders need to know, at the onset of implementing an OD process, what the objectives of the OD programmes are and how these goals will be achieved. Honesty and transparency about the programme are vital in minimising suspicion, anxiety and resistance. People cope better with change if it is not unexpected and confusing, and it helps if they know what their roles might be and what may be expected of them during the OD process. Uncertainty and a sense of being out of control are exaggerated when there is a lack of clarity and information – this is what makes the difference between doing things with people versus doing things to people.
Communication is key
You cannot communicate enough in OD. If you want to make an OD process work, you need real, two-way communication on an ongoing basis. Really listening to your staff and asking questions so that you can understand where they are coming from and how they see a situation is just as important as giving a great presentation to staff at the beginning of a new OD programme. For example, after an opening presentation to your staff, do not just wrap up the presentation with the standard “Any questions?” Rather break them into small groups and ask them to discuss aspects of the programme, such as the need for the programme, the choice of interventions, and concerns or suggestions they have. Small groups may encourage staff to open up, see that others have questions and concerns too, and help them process the information better. Communication and OD are not events, they are processes. It is good practice to have follow-ups a few days later to discuss more detail, or address questions and concerns that may arise over time. Further updates on the progress and discussion sessions will be needed throughout the programme. In addition, you may consider having anonymous surveys, focus groups or interviews facilitated by a neutral third party or a questions box that allow people to express themselves anonymously.
Communicate on progress
Review your progress on the OD programme regularly and update your staff on this progress too. Be honest and open and celebrate milestones often. A post-intervention and programme review is also a good idea to ensure learning from interventions/programmes, to measure success, and to identify ways to continually reinforce the new outcomes of the programme. Do not forget to provide your board and other stakeholders with regular feedback. Funders who have a vested long-term interest in your NPOs success will be more likely to assist with funding for a particular OD project (eg upskilling, leadership development) if you give them regular feedback on how the interventions are resulting in greater organisational effectiveness.
Ensure ownership of the OD process
If the OD programme is purely the brainchild of an external consultant or wholly under the control of a consultant, the OD process will not result in expanded ownership for your organisation and a truly developmental experience for you and other staff and stakeholders. A good consultant will manage their own involvement to allow for ownership by the organisation, by taking the role of facilitator rather than ‘boss’. Furthermore, if the programme is in the organisation’s control, then any consultant who is not making the grade can be replaced without derailing the entire programme. Ownership by the organisation will ensure a sustained change.
This article series on OD has attempted to get you thinking about your organisation’s needs and possible development areas that might necessitate an OD programme. OD programmes are not just for failing organisations, but are critical to all organisations in order to be revived, redirected, and developed on an ongoing basis to survive and thrive. Remember that the goal is organisational effectiveness, which is an elusive and can-always-be-better ambition.
- Dr Stuart Allen works at the Nyack College, SBL.Author(s):Stuart AllenOrganisational Development and the NPO leader- Part 3: Planning OD Interventions
Planning organisational development (OD) interventions has two key aspects: intervention choice and planning for the execution of the intervention. OD interventions fail for many reasons, but common ones include bad choice of intervention or poor implementation. The choice of intervention should, as the previous articles in this series have emphasised, be guided by the initial diagnosis. If you know what is wrong, then you can choose a suitable remedy. Starting with the choice of remedy makes little sense. Equally, do not always expect there to be one thing wrong. Organisations, like people, are complex and tend to have a mix of issues, some related and others not. For example, an organisation that has unhappy employees often has other issues, because employees sometimes focus on their salaries more than they normally would when there are problems with things like job satisfaction, leadership, meaningful work, or other factors. So you might have to deal with problems in a few areas, before the unhappiness alleviates.
Remember that OD interventions typically address problems that are long-term in nature: a dishonest manager who needs to be terminated is not an OD issue, unless the organisation has a tendency toward poor hiring practice or broad ethical issues. With problems that are complex and have taken a while to develop, the solution usually takes a while to implement. For example, even an NPO that was caught off guard by sudden withdrawal of a funder needs to consider that while there is a short-term solution (find another funder), there is probably a need for a long-term and more complex solution in terms of creating a greater strategic focus on funding (to prevent future crises), improving fundraising skills in the organisation, and better strategic planning by the leadership. There are a few exceptions with OD that can or must be quickly implemented, but this is usually limited to situations where rapid change is needed for survival, such as restructuring of organisations.
In addition to needing to focus on the long-term in OD, leaders also need to remember that OD is usually programmatic. This simply means that OD does not usually refer to a single intervention, but rather a series of interventions over time. The term ‘programme ‘serves as an umbrella for a number of interventions over years that collectively aim to resolve an organisation’s problem/s or strengthen the organisation. It is useful to see OD as a programme because it needs to be managed as such – it usually needs a champion (leader) or task team who will oversee the process to ensure it does not get dropped, sidelined or neglected, and that it is progressing and achieving its aims. For example, an OD programme designed to reduce silos between departments or teams is usually a multipart intervention over a few months or years that requires the involvement and support of the whole management team and ultimately the whole organisation. Some organisations even choose to brand their OD programmes, so that employees can see something new and special is happening. This also helps to maintain accountability, encapsulate changes and interventions under a single brand, and can enhance the therapeutic value of the interventions.
It is also valuable to mention that there are different levels of intervention. Interventions can take place at the individual, dyadic (pair of individuals), team/departmental, interdepartmental, organisational, inter-organisational, or even industry level. The choice of level is again determined by the diagnosis. OD programmes often include multi-level interventions. For example, an NPO wanting to reduce bureaucracy may introduce a series of bureaucracy-bashing interventions:
a) at the individual level (employees requested to report back by a specific date on how they could reduce the complexity and paperwork required in their jobs);
b) at the interdepartmental level (workshops to discuss how procedures can be dovetailed and duplication of work across departments can be reduced);
c) at the organisational level (strategic planning sessions within leadership to identify ways to instil new priorities, measures and values away from the bureaucratic focus that developed); and
d) at the and inter-organisational level (workshops with funders and government departments to discuss reporting and paperwork requirements with a focus on rationalising documentation while still meeting requirements).
Part of planning any intervention also needs to consider the management of the intervention. This would include managing the change (people-focused) and project-managing the interventions (task focused). Project managing the interventions looks largely at breaking down interventions into their component parts, setting dates, setting responsibilities, identifying resources and creating mechanisms for monitoring progress. Change management would look at how to ensure the intervention is well-received by staff and might include communication of the why, what, who, how and when of interventions, creating opportunities for feedback, consultation and two-way communication before, during and after interventions, as well as ensuring opportunities for staff involvement, celebration of success and other means of helping others through the journey of change.
A discussion on the actual choice of intervention, and information on tried-and-trusted and cutting-edge OD interventions could easily fill a book on its own. In all likelihood, unless the problem is simple and the solution obvious, you may need some input from a professional here. As a leader, it is important to at least be able to understand the principles of OD and be able to be involved in and oversee what happens. If you have followed a good process, you should be able to spot someone trying to sell you their favourite solution or who does not have the expertise and experience to identify the right solution. Also remember that most serious problems are systemic, which means interventions will need to occur and be sustained at many levels.
Nonetheless, some classic interventions that may be implemented in organisations at various levels include:- individual (eg coaching, mentoring, counselling, training, career planning, work/job design, feedback);
- dyads (eg conflict resolution, role negotiation, coaching);
- teams/departments (eg team coaching, process revision or work redesign, role negotiation, self-managed teams, quality circles, team-building, education and training, interdependency training, vision setting, and appreciative enquiry);
- interdepartmental (eg process and task design, survey/intergroup feedback, conflict resolution, partnering, interdependency training);
- organisational (eg vision setting, survey feedback, strategic planning, appreciative enquiry, future search conferences, culture analysis, total quality management, business process redesign); and
- inter-organisational (eg partnering, process consultation, conflict resolution, interdependency exercises, information sharing).
Remember that with solutions, every organisation is unique. What works for one organisation, often has no impact for another organisation. So do not pick your interventions because ‘it worked at ABC organisation’. Consider a pilot intervention (where possible) to see if there is a good fit with the organisation. Be bold in asking questions about potential interventions. Study the information carefully before choosing. Lastly, find a balance between trusting your intuition as a leader about what will work and being stubborn or dependent. In Part 4, we will look at how a leader can contribute toward effective and efficient implementation of interventions and successful OD results.
- Dr Stuart Allen works at the Nyack College, SBL.Author(s):Stuart AllenOrganisational Development and the NPO leader: Part 2 - The OD Diagnostic Process
‘One-size fits all’ solutions are common today. Thousands of self-help and business books published each year make the assumption that ‘what has worked for me will work for you’. Often the solutions touted by supposed ‘gurus’ seem to make sense and even apply to our situations. However, people and organisations continue to have problems – evidence that self-help books are yet to provide the perfect cure.
Professor Dail Fields’ (Regent University, USA) writing on organisational diagnosis raises the modern occurrence of ‘solutions looking for a problem’. This simply means that we find a tool or idea that sounds great and proceed to implement the idea, which potentially distracts from or avoids the real problem and its causes. Illustratively: if you went to a mechanic and before you could explain your car’s problem they told you they would replace the radiator and everything will be fine, you would be pretty suspicious. However, if the mechanic spent some time test-driving your car, looking under the car and at the engine, and asking you questions about your experience of driving the car, you would be a lot more open to the list of suggested remedies. Organisations are no different - the new ideas, tools, strategies and methods (which often have clever names like ‘3rd-wave dynamics’) suggested by ‘gurus’ for improving some aspect of your organisation rarely address the unique situation, problems and environment of your organisation. What is more often required is a unique solution or an old solution customised in a unique way.
In Part 1 of this article series, diagnosis was named as the starting point of the organisational development (OD) process. This means isolating problems, figuring out what the causes are and preparing to look for solutions. For the NPO leader, I’d strongly recommend working with your management team, your board, an assembled task team, or all three, in starting the diagnostic process. Usually an OD process is started because of an awareness that ‘things aren’t as they should be’, but even if you are not overtly aware of major problems, you can engage this process as a means to give your organisation a health-check or to identify things that could be improved on.
Extending the mechanic metaphor, the next step in the process of diagnosis involves looking under the hood of the car to get more information. Now it is very easy for us, as the leader, to assume we know what the problem is, but our own relationships, personality biases and history, position in the organisation, and personal theories about the organisation may blind us from the real problem. Organisations can be like holograms – your position / perspective in an organisation is a major influence on how you understand or interpret a situation or problem. To avoid confusing symptoms and causes, focusing on the wrong problem or cause, as well as a myriad of other OD maladies, we need to follow an objective process that gives us perspective on the situation. Following a logical method helps us avoid these pitfalls. The diagnostic process involves a few steps:
a) determine your focal areas;
b) hypothesise about the possible causes of the problems;
c) gather data; and
d) analyse the data objectively to see if your hypothesis is supported.
Determining the focal areas of your diagnostic enquiry is essentially about identifying your key problems. It is like recording a list of a patient’s symptoms and trying to summarise them. Added to this, you should discuss these problems with different stakeholders (eg employees, board etc) to see if there is general agreement about the problems, symptoms and potential causes. This prevents you from falling into the trap of assuming you know what the causes and solutions are, and allows you to discover new and diverse information. The aim in discussing problems with others is to listen and ask questions – not to convince them of your views or theories.
The next step is to hypothesise on the cause of a particular problem. Now you probably already have a few hypotheses, but the idea is not to simply take a few wild stabs at what you think the issues might be. Rather, there are some well developed guidelines (based upon organisational theory) which help to explain the majority of organisational problems. The challenge is to figure out which one is relevant to a particular situation. Below are some questions that can guide us toward a hypothesis about the causes of a problem:
- Is it a conflict / tension between management and employees?
- Are employees’ needs not being met by the employer? (financial and others eg need for achievement or support)
- Is employees’ work appropriately designed with clear roles, expectations and measurable goals? (although a mechanistic view, a lack of management control can be a cause of problems in organisations)
- Is the organisation rationally designed (with clear authorities, administrative policies and procedures and required levels of competence at each level) or does the organisation rely purely on the charisma of its managers and leaders? Organisations cannot avoid all bureaucracy as control and freedom need to be balanced
- Is the organisation structured in a way where it can be responsive to its environment? Rapidly changing environments often require smaller autonomous teams that can quickly make decisions and adapt to needs
- Is the organisation reliant or dependent on any specific limited resource (eg personnel, funds, expertise, suppliers)? As soon as there is a resource dependency, people in organisations often compete for that resource or fight to reduce their dependence on it
- Is the organisation excessively institutionalised by its need for legitimacy? Most NPOs need to comply with numerous laws and expectations. The organisation can lose its identity and uniqueness in this context. Is a better balance needed?
- Beyond the formal hierarchy in the organisation, organisations become a bit like families with their informal webs of relationships. Is the informal organisation aligned with the formal organisation?
The next step is to objectively confirm what is hypothesised or suspected by gathering real data and interpreting it. This step may involve interviews, surveys, examination of organisational records, work group observations, or focus groups. In many cases you need someone with technical expertise and objectivity in data collection, to help you collect accurate data and interpret it. The important thing is to let problems and causes emerge from the data, and not impose our favoured theory or explanation.
What I hope you would have gathered from this short introduction to the OD diagnostic process is the importance of following a logical sequence in identifying a focal problem, exploring a set of probable causes (with less focus on our own personal biases, assumptions and views), gathering data to see if we have the right problem and causes (a bit like a doctor doing blood tests to confirm their initial diagnosis based upon symptoms), and finally making judgements of the data to determine if, on balance of probability, you have isolated problems and causes that need to be worked upon to improve organisational effectiveness. The trick here is that you do not need to be the expert in diagnosis (hire/consult an expert if needed), but rather you need to ensure a proper diagnosis is completed to prevent you and your organisation from being peddled ‘a solution looking for a problem’ or missing the real problem. In Part 3 of this series, I will focus on planning your OD intervention.
- Dr Stuart Allen works at the Nyack College, SBL.Author(s):Stuart AllenOrganisational Development and the NPO Leader: Part 1 - What is OD?
Organisational Development (OD) is the systematic practice of improving an organisation’s effectiveness. Every leader, NPO/NGO or otherwise, would love to see their organisation become more effective. OD is therefore something that all leaders need to understand and be able to get involved in. Putting OD in the domain of only HR people and consultants is a mistake that many organisations have made. There are some OD processes which are more complex, risky or time consuming, which could motivate a leader to look for an OD practitioner, but even in these circumstances, understanding OD, its principles and aims, will ensure that the leader does not get mislead and can maintain oversight of the OD process.
A lot of people like to label all kinds of practices and processes ‘OD’, for example team building is often seen as OD. Team-building can be a form of OD, but calling team-building OD is like equating town planning to bricklaying. In truth, real OD follows a specific set of guidelines in how it is motivated, planned and executed. The aim of this article will be to help you, the NPO/NGO leader understand what OD is and what should guide its use (Parts 2-4 of this series of articles will explore the practical process of OD in more detail). Organisational effectiveness can mean many things, such as better structures, smoother service delivery, better stakeholder engagement, or a better organisational ‘mood’. One way of understanding organisational effectiveness, which I have borrowed from Edgar Schein (one of the major pioneers of organisational theory and research) is to divide organisational effectiveness into internal integration and external adaption.
Essentially internal integration covers all matters related to getting the members (or departments/teams) within an organisation working together well. This covers issues such as conflict, communication, alignment of different units, organisational culture, climate, leadership, integration of technology, communication and implementation of strategy, trust, decision-making, change, and a whole lot more. Internal integration is about getting the ‘insides’ of the organisation working well to ensure the organisation can focus on and achieve its mission or purpose.
External adaption, on the other hand, is all about getting the organisation aligned with its environment. This includes variables like stakeholder relations, aligning the organisation to funders, aligning the organisation to social needs to ensure relevance, compliance to the law and regulations (including employment equity or affirmative action), relationships with other NPO/NGOs, and identifying and developing strategy. Having an organisation that works well, but is poorly aligned to its environment (eg meeting needs that are not key to society or inability to gain funding), typically results in as many problems as an organisation that is well aligned to its environment but has internal integration issues (eg torn apart internally by politics).
Like people, organisations are never in perfect shape (or at least not for long) before a new challenge comes along and begins to create problems. So do not expect your organisation not to have issues. The key for the leader is to recognise which issues are paramount, in terms of internal integration and external adaptation, and drive those issues as long as necessary or until a greater issue comes along. In general, OD does not refer to short-term, minor interventions (eg painting the office) but focuses on long-term adaptive processes (eg trying to get an organisation to become more responsive to its clients or beneficiaries, or building a stronger, sustainable leadership structure). Such long-term, complex problems may take months and years to overcome. In other words, OD does not follow a ‘problem’ or ‘flavour’ of the month approach, but is usually far more big-picture and strategic in the issues that it focuses on. It is a systematic effort to change the organisation in deeper ways such as with culture, strategy, structure or capacity.
OD typically follows a cycle of diagnosis, planning and intervention. Diagnosis is the process of identifying what the issues are and what is causing them. Without an understanding of what the issues or problems are, we are unable to prioritise or choose interventions. This is the topic of Part 2 in the article series and will help leaders understand how to go about the process of diagnosing problems. Suffice it to say that we are usually aware of the symptoms (eg clients, funders or employees complaining), but we are not always able to see the underlying problems or their causes.
Once we have established the problems and their causes, we are in a position to beginning planning interventions and changes to overcome the problems (Part 3 in the series). This stage is all about exploring options, problem solving and thinking through plans to make a change. When actual intervention implementation (Part 4 in the series) begins, it needs to be executed in a systematic and well-thought out manner to ensure that needed changes take root.
OD is often programmatic, meaning it often involves a series or collection of interventions rather than just one intervention. For example, a large organisation wanting to develop its culture will not achieve this with one intervention (eg a series of workshops on the ‘new’ culture’ over a month), but will more likely require a series of interventions (eg workshops, training, communication campaigns, motivational realignment, updating of rituals and symbols) over a number of months or even years in order to see real improvement. Failure in diagnosis (eg focusing on the wrong problem), planning (eg choosing the wrong intervention) or intervention (eg running the intervention in a disorganised or unprofessional manner), will allow the initial problems to persist.
Significant changes to an organisation’s effectiveness are rarely achieved by haphazard or accidental interventions or processes. They are also rarely achieved by lone individuals or leaders. Hence, in most organisations an OD programme requires a team of committed individuals (including significant representation from the leadership of the organisation) to guide and oversee OD programmes. In some large organisations this will result in an entire OD department dedicated to this purpose. Regardless of who is doing the work, OD is so important to the organisation that the leader has to be present and committed to aid, guide and oversee the OD process. Leaders should never relegate themselves to the periphery of OD by abdicating the organisation’s whole OD programme to others (eg HR or consultants), and significant involvement (at least in terms of awareness and support) of the board is critical. Equally, leaders may lose perspective of their organisation and problems that occur, and it is even possible that the leader becomes part of the problem. In this case, having an independent and experienced outsider to aid the OD process is critical. Aspects or tasks in the OD process can be delegated, but the overall direction and championing of the OD programme requires a passionate, involved and humble leader.
I hope what you have seen thus far is that OD is relevant to every organisational leader. Within NPOs, as well as corporate environments, there is little forgiveness for organisational ineffectiveness, and organisations disappear every year. Equally I hope you will see that OD follows a logical and systematic sequence. It is not haphazard and does not rely on (much) guess-work. Rather it is a step-by-step process of identifying problems or needed changes, planning those changes, and implementing the changes (through interventions) in an orderly and thoughtful manner. This should make sense to most committed and experienced leaders who will know that it usually takes persistence and long-term effort to achieve anything of real value.
Dr Stuart Allen works at the Nyack College, SBL
Author(s):Stuart Allen
Printer-friendly version
Vacancies
-
09/02/2012
-
09/02/2012
-
09/02/2012
-
10/02/2012
Events
-
Monday, February 13, 2012
-
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
-
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Opportunities
-
10/02/2012
-
10/02/2012
-
13/02/2012
-
14/02/2012
-
15/02/2012
