First draft of the first paper ever written by Gavin on Unbounded
Organisation (1999)
Unbounded Organisation
Gavin Andersson,
Development Resources Centre, South Africa
As the phenomenon of globalisation starts to affect all aspects of life in the
South, increased attention is paid to the role of civil society organisations in
social development. On the one hand they are seen as a means to counter
excesses of the state as also the whim of the market and the power of private
shareholders.1 On the other hand development NGOs (NGDOs) are recognised as
key players in efforts to improve the quality of life. Many of these organisations
move away from the decades-old practice of purely ‘project-based’ development
intervention, towards more systemic efforts to combat poverty and inequality,
combining local level work with advocacy for pro-poor macro-economic and social
policies.
It starts to be asserted that significant NGDO impact derives from the discrete
contributions of individual NGDOs only to the extent that these lead to catalysis
of or participation in large-scale organisation, often involving co-operation by a
range of actors. It has indeed been argued2 that ‘scaling up’ is not only about
strengthening individual NGOs and influencing the broader policy environment.
Instead participatory advocacy is seen as the first set of activities in a process
of social mobilisation, where this is understood as bringing together all feasible
inter-sectoral social allies to raise people’s awareness of and demand for a
particular development programme, to assist in the delivery of resources and
services and to strengthen community participation for sustainability and selfreliance3. In essence effectiveness starts to be understood in terms of
contribution towards broader social organisation processes than were
traditionally contemplated by most NGDOs. There is a new awareness of the
need for cross-sectoral collaboration, local and national partnerships, global
alliances and knowledge sharing, value or issue-based coalitions and networks,
alignment of multiple organisational initiatives and the stimulation of a critical
discourse throughout society around development.
1
See Response to President Mandela: Civil Society, Politics and Development Organisation (Pearce,
Andersson & Moholo, SANGOCO, Johannesburg. January 1998)
2
An African Advocacy Approach, Dangor et al, SANGOCO, Johannesburg (forthcoming.)
3
This conceptualisation of social mobilisation draws on UNICEF’s work, and specifically the
contributions of Neill McKee.(See Social Mobilisation and Social Marketing in Developing
Communities N.McKee , Southbound, Penang, 1992)
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
1
Following Blauert’s definition4 organisations can be understood as rules governing
bounded sets of social relationships. The relationships and interactions between
these organisations, or formal and informal social relationships outside the
boundaries or ‘skin’ of these organisations, are held here to constitute the terrain
of unbounded organisation.
There is obvious merit in reviewing the ways in which NGDOs in different
situations have tackled ‘boundary management’ or ‘interface management’ in
networks or coalitions, and insights derived from these and other forms of
unbounded organisation. It is also worthwhile to reflect on the problems arising
when the dynamic of unbounded organisation is not recognised: when all
organisation is assumed to be bounded, or when methods derived from bounded
organisation are applied to the unbounded reality. Finally it may be interesting to
examine some instances where there have been attempts at innovation, to
increase the impact of various kinds of partnerships, or to seek method that
orientates organisations towards increased levels of unbounded activity. This
paper will touch briefly on all of these areas, as they relate to Popular
Development Organisations (see below). Through all this reflection runs a
question: what theoretical lessons can be learnt from this experience; is there a
theory guiding the seemingly complex and even chaotic terrain of unbounded
organisation?
(Individual) Organisation Theory
There is little experience to guide most development practitioners as they
embrace these more complex and diffuse modes of organisation, and little is
understood about the appropriate linkages between intra-organisational processes
and the effective governance of various forms of partnership. This is as true for
intermediary NGOs as it is for Popular Development Organisations5, accountable
to a local constituency and intent on building enduring capacity to initiate and
support action and learning for social development. Most Organisation
Development (OD) literature is of limited help with respect to partnership
building.6 Organisational theory invariably, and naturally, focuses more on
individual enterprises than the relationships between them and the possibilities
for synergetic action. Interactions that take place outside the ‘skin’ of the
organisation are usually viewed in the light of the organisation’s own programme
imperatives, or as part of its ‘marketing’ or ‘public relations’ drive.
This is not to demean the body of theory that informs OD practice. Any fully
competent OD practitioner would seek to assist a client enterprise to clarify and
4
Jutta Blauert Creating Space for Participation: Networks and Rule Formation: The case of UNITAS
in Bolivia, (New Economics Foundation Working Paper, London 1995)
5
See Not NGOs or CBOs, but Popular Development Organisations by G. Andersson in Agishanang,
journal of the CBDP, December 1993.
6
Alan Fowler provides by far the most comprehensive treatment of these issues in a chapter about
making relationships effective in Striking a Balance (Earthscan, London, 1997).
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
2
respond to the macro-management challenges of positioning the organisation with
respect to its eco-system. 7 This will mean helping an organisation to focus not
only on its internal management processes, but also the multiple relationships and
associations to be formed with other organisations to achieve optimal impact.
Each ‘internal’ element of organisation can in this light be seen to have a
corresponding external aspect. Thus identity (mission, role, basic values etc) is
influenced by the organisation’s position in the wider context, the way it is seen
and the levels of dependency on certain actors. Each policy and strategy choice
implies assessment of principles for dealing with other organisations, the
strategic alliances and other relationships needed to strengthen impact or
decrease difficulties, and logically even the appropriate division of labour
between organisations.
The problem of the dominant theory and practice is thus not that it totally
ignores the outside world (it would be totally ineffective if this was the case).
The nature of the conceptual constraint it imposes is rather subtle. The
approach is auto-centric, situating the organisation at the centre of the
organising universe. Rather than seeing itself in perspective as one element of a
system or family of organisations contributing towards a certain social practice, it
is encouraged to look for its unique competence and competitive advantage
through which it would make its individual way through the world. (It is no wonder
then that sustainability is so formidably linked to finance in many people’s eyes,
whereas it can be argued that its most important element is the value attached to
the organisation by a range of social actors and partners in development….)
Strategic thinking in this paradigm implies in the first place understanding the
special role of the organisation within its social context and given its capabilities.
If in this process it is recognised that other tasks need to be taken up (which are
outside the organisation’s capacity), there is no responsibility, and certainly no
encouragement from the theory, to think through the mechanism by which
another organisation or grouping of organisations can take up this challenge. If
the epithet ‘individualistic’ can be applied to organisations, then the dominant OD
practice is individualistic rather than social. At its worst this can lead to a kind of
organisational autism, with a corresponding loss of contact with reality and the
urgency of the tasks facing society. There may also, as consequence of this
‘individualistic’ practice be many gaps in understanding, influence and coverage by
the NGO sector in the struggles for social development, and the sector may then
be correspondingly hampered in taking leadership on critical issues.
Working across Boundaries: Problems for consultants
Capacity building support inexorably follows the guiding organisation theory. It is
no accident then that the strategic management approach that derives from such
exercises sets great store in identity maintenance, coherence of mission and
7
Grateful acknowledgement to Fritz Glasl, CDRA Consultants Seminar, Cape Town, March 1993.
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
3
individual impact assessment while there has been minimal work around alignment
with diverse initiatives or the synergetic impact of partners in a network. As
somewhat more pathological consequence, destructive competition amongst social
development organisations, and NGDO programming in isolation from CBO and
constituency contributions, are accepted (though regretted) as commonplace,
rather than being seen as abhorrent and bizarre practices.
Even where consultants are aware of the problems described above, and seek to
pay conscientious attention to issues of macro-management or the positioning of
the organisation within a system of organisations, they may find that it is
difficult to win permission to pay adequate attention to these questions. Their
importance is invariably undervalued. Terms of reference for a consultancy will
usually be weighted towards intra-organisational concerns rather than issues of
interdependence; there may well be some reference to interaction with a range of
stakeholders but the organisation’s established orientation is paramount in this
investigation. Differences in funding sources (in a climate where OD support is
often the result of an agreement with a donor), and the jealous safeguarding of
organisational identity mean that there is seldom a joint exploration with
potential partner organisations about appropriate roles and working arrangements.
In one example, the author consulted over a period of years with NGOs that had
emerged in Grenada in the period following the implosion of the New Jewel
Movement revolution and the subsequent American invasion. While the values and
experiences of the social movement had contributed to the emergence of each
one of these organisations, the ‘individual’ orientation of each OD exercise meant
that there was little possibility for joint exploration of niche roles, potential
synergies and broader social mobilisation strategies. Dialogue between these
‘partner organisations’ in the course of the consultancy merely served to refine
their everyday attitudes to each other. Thus even in a situation where there is
most coherent long term alignment of organisations, the design and
conceptualisation of capacity building exercises tends to reduce joint strategizing
to informal chats between individuals. Over time the individual organisational
structures may indeed become blocks to exploration of unbounded organisation.
Unless an OD methodology is employed that directly challenges the ‘individual’
and bounded orientation of NGO practice, there appears little chance of any
dramatic shifts to improve the situation. NGOs may well lag behind other
sectors in devising systems and modes of organisation that are consistent with
the information age, and rather cling to the power and control models of closed
organisations. This is ironic for a sector noted for its versatility, innovation and
commitment to process rather than power. It is as if the methods we have come
to use have reduced rather than expanded our capacities for creative organising
responses to new situations. More exactly we are not helped to think about the
ways in which the issues can be taken up across many organisations, and move to
a truly social scale. There is a habit of organising in certain ways (and the only
reason that this paper lays so much stress on its negative effects is that this is
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
4
not really accepted as a problem by most people in the sector). Secondly there
tends to be real fear and scepticism about any proposal to seek a new practice,
across and between the boundaries of our organisations.
The terrain outside the boundary of an organisation (the organising space which
is only tangentially affected by its governance systems or internal ‘rules’) where
there is an explicit or implicit undertaking to collaborate with others towards a
(sometimes vaguely) specified end, is largely uncharted territory. Where there
is no possibility of tight contracts, and direct control or supervision of
objectives-oriented plans and activities, then most NGO management personnel
seem to hold that the situation is too unpredictable, or random, or complex, to
merit serious attention. Alternatively it is understood that even if there were
such attention it would not be possible to bring much influence to bear on the
situation. At the same time ex post facto analysis of certain achievements in
the field of development and social change shows that they were possible only
because of the alignment of the organising energies of many different
organisations!8 Similarly while there is retrospective fascination with the
emergence of social movements, the imagination about contributing towards such
phenomena is relentlessly constrained by the continuing patterns of organisation
within enterprise boundaries.
The problem is obviously worse where consultants are completely indifferent or
insensitive to learning about unbounded organisation. A consultant operating
within the paradigms and archetypes of classical OD theory may characterise a
range of interactions with other organisations as ‘networking’ without
investigating the subtle differences in the character, purpose and process of
each interaction or interface with another organising reality. This leads
inexorably to a diagnosis that the organisation is ‘over-networked’ and hence
diverting time and energy away from its core work. The obvious solution is then
to limit these interactions. Another consultant, viewing the same interactions
from a meta-organisation perspective, might ask what purpose is being
accomplished in each interaction, and then ask whether there is a way to learn
from it, or influence its process, that would not be so debilitating in time and
energy.
Networks and coalitions: maintaining balances
Networks and coalitions have provided a mode of organisation through which
NGOs can address concerns that their members are unable to take up individually.
They are the most familiar way for the NGDO sector, or sections of the sector,
to advocate for policy shifts, campaign around specific issues or develop
methodological coherence within a certain shared field of activity. The many
8
A notable example of this was the concerted (yet unco-ordinated) action of Botswana civil society
organisations over a period of several months in forcing Government to restore three farms to the San
(Bushmen) in Gantsi District.
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
5
experiences of networking have resulted in much learning and although this paper
does not seek to provide a comprehensive ‘theory of networks’ any discussion of
unbounded organisation certainly needs to touch on some of the insights derived
from these experiences. Apart from anything else, this may serve to illustrate
how differently they behave from the ‘bounded’ organisations that are so huge in
our imagination and theory.
Experience suggests9 that for continuing usefulness and vitality of a memberbased network or coalition, it needs to maintain at least four ‘balances’ (or hold a
creative tension along four sets of polarities).
In terms of governance there needs to be a balance between being structuredriven and members’ activity-driven. In order to find a mechanism for facilitation
of any network it is common to establish a secretariat or staff team, and a
governance structure. These provide leadership and maintain the focus and
organizing coherence of the network. When the secretariat and/or leadership
takes increasing responsibility for strategizing on behalf of the network, and
carrying out its tasks, there is often a corresponding move away from involving its
members and being sensitive to their ideas and proposals. If this drift were to
be left unchecked the secretariat would in essence become a new organization,
evolving its own rules and dynamics and separate from the members even in their
own imagination. Of course the network/coalition could drift in the other
direction too, becoming completely driven by the activities of individual members,
and hence carrying out their agendas. In this case too it may lose its usefulness
and role in fostering a new practice that the members alone are unable to achieve;
there is continual need for structure and leadership across the network.
The second tension, around programming, is between service to members and
synergetic impact. If a network does not provide a certain amount of benefits or
service to individual members, but always looks to them to engage in work towards
the network’s ends (which by definition brings possibilities for impact –and usually
increased complexity – in excess of that which members would otherwise enjoy;
otherwise there would have been no need to form a network), then over time
members will grow exhausted by the network demands. On the other hand if the
network takes responsibility for spearheading advocacy actions or other activities
without member contribution there will be little strategic impact, and sometimes
not even ownership of the position.
The third creative tension, around issues of outlook and attitude, is the tension
between working towards a converging perspective (with its implicit demands for
shifts in program focus and management) and the need for organizational space,
identity and development by each member. If members feel forced to act in
terms of the insights coming from the network they will pull away over time. On
9
Acknowledgement to F. Stephen of SEARCH (India). IPD Seminar, November 1996 and to partners
in the Leadership Regional Network (1999-2000)
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
6
the other hand advocacy and other joint action depends on there being a similar
understanding of issues amongst members. The challenge is to facilitate
converging perspectives while allowing full freedom to organize.
The final tension relates to the network’s own boundary management, as it
relates to other networks and coalitions – or similar initiatives across society.
It is the tension between solidarity and maintaining own organizational identity
and space. A few issues require the building of platforms across different
networks, and any network will ‘duck’ involvement at the risk of lessening its own
credibility as a thinking social actor (and hence its future ability to mobilize
alliances). On the other hand a continuing need is to maintain and manage over
the long term the specific identity and perspective of the network, and so there
can only be very selective and limited engagement
in campaigns initiated by
SPECIFIC
others.
IDENTITY
Holding a creative tension between these four sets of polarities does not mean
veering from one pole to another at periodic intervals. It means maintaining
awareness of each pole, and positioning practice along the continuum between
them.
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
7
SERVICE TO
MEMBERS
STRUCTURE LED
PROGRAMMES
CONVERGING
PERSPECTIVE
OUTLOOK
STRATEGIC
AUTONOMY
BOUNDARY MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIC
AUTONOMY
NETWORK
STRATEGY
SOLIDARITY
Networks: Maintaining Balances
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
8
GOVERNANCE
ACTIVITY LED
The bound imagination: clinging to inappropriate structures
One of Clodomir S. de Morais’ helpful observations in his Theory of Organisation10
relates to the way that experience of organisation (especially production
organisation) shapes psychological reflection and cognitive development. He
draws the link between certain kinds of behaviour (and specifically the patterns
of organisation opted for), and knowledge production arising from prior
organisational experience. Put in different language, the mental models that are
cognitive product of an experience of organisation powerfully influence
subsequent planning and action. When this happens across several generations of
a people, then there is obviously a most powerful leaning towards a particular
mode of interaction and organisation.
South African civil society played an absolutely crucial role in the period of mass
mobilisation against Apartheid. The Mass Democratic Movement brought
together church groups, trade unions, political parties, civic organisations, sports
bodies, youth and women’s groups and even social clubs. Over a period of close to
a decade this broad social movement succeeded in ‘rendering the country
ungovernable’ (from above!) and establishing rudimentary democratic governance
structures in many communities.
This experience and the creation of broad-based knowledge about ‘how
organisation works’ affects all organisation for development in the post-Apartheid
era. It has been assumed that the level of mobilisation achieved in the past will
be a profound advantage in the epoch of reconstruction and development, and
there are indeed strengths that derive from the vibrancy of Civil Society over a
long and difficult period of time. Unfortunately, organisation against Apartheid
was principally in the mode of bounded organisation: trade unions, youth
organisations, civics and political parties invariably organised strict
representative hierarchies, with rigorous systems of mandate and democratic
accountability. Once policy was agreed upon it was enforced at all levels of the
organisation, and new ideas and proposals were tested in debate before they
could be acted upon. Those who rose to leadership positions usually took their
responsibilities seriously, and ensured the maintenance of discipline and the
spread of information through the organisation.
The absolute unity of purpose provided by opposition to Apartheid meant that in
the only area of ‘unbounded organisation’, namely the interaction between the
various organisational formations, there was never any difficulty in finding
coherence of vision. This was also true for co-ordination of activities. In workanalysis terms there was a relatively simple process to co-ordinate. Tasks were
10
See The Organisational Workshop on Theory of Organisation. Collection of Papers by Isabel and
Ivan Labra, Communication Link Trust, Harare, 1997. Also Organisation Workshops in Botswana
Andersson et al CORDE, Gaborone, 1989
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
9
largely shared amongst notional equals rather than there being a division of labour
based on specific (and different) competencies, orientations and skills. The
similarity of patterns of organisation, or to use the jargon of the time, “the
structures” of each of the major actors within the Mass Democratic Movement,
meant that there was ready understanding of potential problems or of organising
possibilities and method by other members of the movement. There were
therefore very few constraints in the realm of unbounded organisation.
Participation of ordinary people through their own (bounded) ‘structures’ was
rather the driving organisational challenge of the epoch, and it is the learning
about bounded representative organisation that persists today.
After South Africa’s first democratic elections a burst of energy went into the
creation of “development forums”. Almost inevitably, given de Morais’ insight,
these forums reproduced the ‘bounded’ organising patterns and rules of the
previous epoch. Conceptually they too created a system of hierarchical
representative organisation: from CBOs to community development forums to
local development forums to provincial development forums, and finally a link was
proposed to the National Economic Development and Labour Advisory Council.
This schema created a mirror, in civil society, of the way that Government is
organised. It also meant that the strongest leadership figures were ‘skimmed off’
to higher representative levels. All local organisation was deemed to ‘fall under’
or be represented by the relevant development forum, and it was imagined that
this body would mediate funding, technical support or policy reform. The principal
activity of development thus became negotiation and discussion. The imagination
that the way for civil society to speak to Government was through representative
forums conferred a double penalty. Not only was it necessary for society to
maintain two sets of representative organisation (and of course it is only
Government that can be deemed genuinely representative, following formal
elections). There is a further disempowering effect in that the idea of advocacy
campaigns taken up at local level and impacting on all levels of Government
becomes suspect, and counter to the intuitive ‘rules’ of the hierarchy of
development forums. At the local level of course there are also problems:
individual or group initiative is stifled by the bureaucratic process of approval by
the forum, or is constrained by the level of organisational competence of these
representatives. The mediation role envisaged for the forum is flawed in that it
leads to the phenomenon of ‘gatekeeping’ by a local ‘organisational elite’, skilled in
working within ‘the structures’. It is hardly surprising that the development
forum approach has been a failure. What is disturbing is that the habit of
bounded organisation persists, almost five years into the new democracy: where
forums have been replaced by tri-sectoral Social Compacts there is still
instinctive creation of a governance structure ‘representing’ all stakeholders, and
in several instances this has given rise to power struggles around who controls an
aspect of planning or implementation. The quest to hold on to power is of course a
core reason for the unwillingness of individuals in any context to contemplate the
softening or ‘making-permeable’ of organisational boundaries. Since many previous
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
10
leaders of the anti-Apartheid democratic formations have moved on to occupy
important positions in post-Apartheid Government or Business, there is an added
incentive for their ‘successors’ to maintain the bounded patterns established by
the practice of a previous epoch.
While organisation for development uses the same language of social mobilisation
as was applied to the period of the liberation struggle, the mode of organisation
now needs to be completely different, while it is also infinitely more complex.
There is no longer one clear unifying goal: development, or an improvement in the
quality of life, means different things to different people. It is difficult enough
to establish priorities for action from a multiplicity of needs requiring
satisfaction, and rather more challenging to find creative ways of organising to
address them. The tasks to be accomplished may often require specialist
technical support, and this raises very directly the experience of knowledge
transfer influencing, and often distorting, the organisational process. A range of
partners may engage in the process, from different sectors and with subtly
different motives and approaches. It is certainly no longer appropriate to
envisage one national movement made up of strong bounded organisations: if
democracy means letting a thousand flowers bloom, then equitable social
development must require a veritable rain forest! At the local level many smaller
bounded organisations will seek to interact within new bi-sectoral or tri-sectoral
partnership arrangements. (Critical learning from these partnerships can then
influence the patterns of unbounded organisation in other places.) All of this
constitutes a complete paradigm shift from the previous epoch, and some vital
learning for years to come will surely be in the dynamics of this unbounded
organisation.
Examples from other countries
The tendency towards the establishment of pyramidal representative structures
mirroring government as the way towards development partnership was so
strong at one stage in South Africa that it was asserted to constitute the only
possible model. It became clear that alternative experiences needed to be
documented and communicated to shift the conceptual block. A search for
models of partnership led us to seek international examples involving
collaboration, at the direction of local communities, between local government,
community organisations and technical support personnel. Three of these are
presented below, and it is interesting to note that while there may in each case
be a co-ordinating structure to initiate and reflect on overall progress, this was
never constituted to control or supervise the activities of the smaller bounded
groups. (This search did not unearth examples of private sector involvement in
local development, and this is of course urgently needed)
Community Organisation in the United Kingdom
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
11
Ken Livingstone's Greater London Council (GLC) in the 1970s provided the
conditions for effective community organisation in several communities. Black
activists in Lewisham took advantage of this to stimulate wide-ranging community
organisation. The local authority set aside a small budget for a Voluntary Action
Group to come together. All community work initiatives linked in the Voluntary
Action Group, which provided a governance body overseeing the broad direction
of work and ensuring that initiatives were facilitated wherever possible.
It also employed a small technical support team that stimulated community
initiative, on the one hand, while responding to requests and supporting emerging
organisation, on the other. This technical support team also performed the
function of networking the Voluntary Action Group with initiatives in other
communities, and helped to initiate fundraising campaigns.
On a range of issues, the Voluntary Action Group linked with local government to
form a Joint Working Party. This was an especially appropriate forum for issues
where local government had a role to play anyway e.g., education, health care, and
infrastructure development. This body could initiate studies, or form task teams
to take forward organisation within the community and outside it. The Joint
Working Party would assist local government to establish priorities in its planning
processes, and ensure that local government drives were in co-ordination with
community organisation.
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
12
Lewisham Community Organisation
(Under the GLC in 1970s)
Prov ides a skeleton budget
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
VOLUNTARY ACTION GROUP
(Communtiy Action
Group)
JOINT WORKING PARTY
(more than 1 can be f ormed)
Sector Reps
+ Local Government representative
+ Line Ministry technical staff
Help LG planning to
reflect community
needs
Technical Support Team
Supports initiatives
and broadens them.
Stimulates organisation
and community
initiative.
Helps raise money.
Initiate particular
research &
feasibility studies
Forms task teams
with participation
from different
community work
initiative
These make action proposals
All community work initiatives are
linked to this group, and elect its
governance body.
The Community Animation Programme in Dominica, 1994
This successful model was first tested in Petit Savanne in Dominica by the Small
Projects Assistance Team (SPAT), in response to conditions where local
government had very little resources. In this case, an external NGO provided the
skeletal budget necessary for community mobilisation. Perhaps, because of this,
there was much more formal organisation of external agencies working in the
community.
These agencies formed themselves into a Facilitating Committee, which placed
itself at the direction of the Community Animation Committee (CAC),
representing all community organisation, and at the same time stimulated
continued mobilisation to strengthen this body. The CAC was formed, initially, by
representatives of different zones i.e., geographical areas. Very soon this was
augmented by representation from sub-committees formed to address various
needs. Participation in the various sub-committees allowed a far greater range of
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
13
community members to participate in the general development effort than would
have been possible under a single organising group.
Every six weeks representatives from the CAC joined a smaller representative
group from the Facilitation Team in a meeting with representatives of
government, in a forum called "the Overview Committee". In practice,
government plays a very small role in local development, although the CAC has
managed to get government support that led to roads being built and land being
set aside for a community centre.
Dominican Community Action Programme
Commonwealth of Dominica, 1994
Formed initially
out of Zone
Committee reps
"OVERVIEW COMMITTEE"
- Gov ernment Reps
- CAC reps
- FC reps
Community
Animation
Committee
(CAC)
Facilitating Committee (FC)
Subcommittees
Stimulates community
initiatives
Finance and
Fundraising
Responds to CAC direction
Education
Helps access resources
and strengthen advocacy
campaigns
Sports
Youth
Representativ es of all "outside"
dev elopment organisations working in
communities + reps f rom CAC
Small enterprise
Agriculture
etc.
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
14
The Tripartite Partnership for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
(TriPARRD) in the Philippines
The Philippines offers an example of development collaboration known as the
TriPARRD approach. When the Agrarian Reform Program did not gain much ground
by mid-1989, an NGO, PhilDHRRA (The Philippines Partnership for the
Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas) started consulting NGOs and
POs on strategies to accelerate agrarian reform. The consultations and debates
led to the idea that NGOs and POs, themselves, should actually facilitate land
transfers and support service delivery in co-ordination with government. This
approach brought together government, NGOs and People's Organisations (POs).
POs in the Philippines consist of producer co-operatives, landless farmers,
homeless people, and so on.
The structure of the partnerships was crucial to its success. At the village level
there was a field Implementation team (FIT) which consisted of a local
government official tasked with facilitating land transfers, a Community
Organiser and a local PO leader.
The provincial and regional level structure included NGO leaders, provincial
Agrarian Reform Programme officials, and officials from affected government
departments. This cut red tape in decision-making and tended to co-ordinate
strategies and policies. Provincial PO leaders were obviously active participants at
this level, as well.
The partnerships forced government officials to be more accountable for their
performance; and NGOs and POs became more aware of the limitations and
potentials of the government bureaucracy.
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
15
TriPARRD in the Philippines
Agricultural Reform Programme, 1989
Gov ernment
Organisations
(GOs)
People's
Organisations
(POs)
NGOs
The GO-NGO-PO
Partnership make
- GOs more
accountable f or
perf ormance
- POs more aware of
limitations and
potentials of
bureaucracy
- NGOs f acilitate
linkages between
lev els and of f er
technical support
Field Implementation Team
- Government Land Transfer Official
- PO leader
- Community Organiser
Prov incial or Regional Structure
Field Implementation
Teams work at v illage
lev el to f acilitate land
transf ers to landless
f armers, cooperativ e
groups and the homeless
- Agrarian Reform Programme Officals
- PO leaders
- NGO leaders
- Government Officials from Departments
- Trade and Industry
- Agriculture
- Land Bank of the Philippines
- Environment and Public Works
- Registrar of Deeds
Prov incial or Regional
Structures coordinate
strategies and
policies, cut red tape
and ensure support to
new f arming
enterprises
etc.
The TriPARRD model is based on a practical task-orientated partnership with
each partner having complementary tasks, determined by their distinctive
capacities, to do within a specific time frame. In the Philippines, NGOs with the
capacity for training and provision of Community Organisers were significant
players in the Land Reform Programme.
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
16
Celebrating the unbounded; new approaches and working methods
In recent years there have been a number of interesting attempts to devise
methods of strategic thinking and organisational learning that depart from the
‘auto-centric’ paradigms referred to earlier. These share the premise that an
organisation is one element of a system of organisations, or one actor, with
distinct capabilities and constraints, amongst an array of actors who could engage
in a joint enterprise towards transformation of society. In each case the
“unbounded terrain” is viewed as the area about which there needs to be
continuing learning and participative strategic thinking (indeed learning is held as
a core goal of organisation, with all actors being seen as learners). In each case
there is high level of commitment to transparency, accountability and information
flow to optimise learning from experience. In each case primacy is given to
maintenance of an ethical and moral framework.
Participatory Strategic Planning
Participatory Strategic Planning (PSP) was first initiated by the Association of
Development Agencies of Bangladesh (ADAB) in 1994, and has since that time
been adopted by a range of Asian networks and large organisations, and more
recently a few organisations in South Africa. There were two kinds of motivation
behind the initial search for a new planning method.11
On the one hand there was a virulent rejection of the dominant strategic planning
model which, it was felt, was being foisted on southern NGOs by northern donors.
This was experienced to be an expert or management led process, marginalising
many of the people who should be the subjects of the activity. It appeared to
take scant notice of the historical roots of issues in their political, spiritual,
cultural and economic aspects, focusing primarily on the present and the future.
The tools used moreover seemed designed to restrict choices, with a resultant
standardisation of development options. The integration of objectives-oriented
planning with its linear cause and effect logic into the method further alienated
many activists. At the deepest level it was felt that there was a ‘paradigm gap’
between this “neo-positivist methodology” and the critical theory espoused by the
Asian NGOs, with its emphasis on process and continuing learning, and an explicit
value bias towards social transformation in favour of the poor. Crucially
“Strategic Planning puts the organisation at the centre of all analysis.”12
On the other hand there was a genuine desire to find tools and methods that
were consonant with the Asian activists’ value-base and understanding of the
11
This summary of the genesis of PSP, and the reasons for rejection of the more well known (Harvard
School) strategic planning process, is drawn from documents of several Asian NGOs and networks
including ACHAN, SPAR, ANITRA and ACFOD. I am also indebted to TCOE, a South African
NGO, and Dr Badal Sen Gupta for providing access to their own writings on the subject.
12
Quote from the report of a workshop organised by ACHAN and SPAR in August 1996.
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
17
development process. First, they noted the incongruity of separating or
“isolating” the planning process at the people’s level (with its associated methods
including PAR, PRA, PPPA) from the planning process at the NGO level (with its
associated methods including strategic planning, various OD exercises, and the
objectives-oriented Logical Framework Approach). Although it was deemed
desirable that the autonomy of each of these processes should be maintained, it
was also felt to be appropriate that they should be interlinked and ultimately
converged into an integrated effort. At any rate it was regarded as absolutely
essential for NGO planning that there should be transparency and accountability
to the community and throughout the organisation.
Second it was felt necessary to find a method that did “not place the planning
organisation first”, and which would “hold in tension the context, mission and
organisational capacity at all times”. The depth of regard for context, it should
be stressed, goes far beyond that contemplated in ‘western’ Strategic Planning
context analysis: historical, political, culturo-spritual and economic dimensions of
an issue are examined critically. There is moreover specific orientation towards
transformation, people-centred and pro-poor practice. An explicit value
framework is set out, as a ‘backdrop’ for exploration of each bounded
organisation’s mission, role, strategy and programme. This includes justice,
equality, holism, feminisation, harmony with nature, localisation and sustainability.
Exploration of “Context” and its areas of overlap with the two other analytical
categories viz. organisational capacity and mission, is thus a formidable exercise.
Finally, it was seen as necessary to involve all stakeholders in the planning
process, not only to ensure that it benefited from their rich store of insights,
skills, knowledge and vision. It was recognised that doing this would also
contribute to the capacity building process within these other organisations.
Crucially, there would be far greater chance to avoid destructive conflict
between different organisations and instead to build on their unique competencies
towards synergy and hence greater transformative effect. Ultimately there is a
move toward co-planning across many different organisations (large networks
using the method found strategic direction as a product of a six-month long PSP
exercise involving several hundred member organisations!)
Just on four years after its inception, PSP has been demonstrated to be a viable
and extraordinarily useful method for NGO planning, and particularly the planning
processes of networks. Organisations that have used it include NGOs with
several hundred staff, spread across several districts of a country. In each case
by-products of the planning process have been revitalisation of the organisation
concerned, the rapid development of human potential in these organisations and
the building of strong working alliances with other local and international
organisations. It can be fairly said that PSP is still in its developmental stages;
there are possibilities to enhance and refine the method as new learning accrues
through practice.
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
18
In the most recent exercise in South Africa, the practice of Social Audit was
integrated into the PSP. Rather than consultation with the various stakeholders
of an organisation occurring only at the initial planning stage, it is now understood
that it is possible to go a little further. Indicators of accomplishment can be set
forward in the dialogic interaction around planning, as each stakeholder grouping
examines how it would measure progress in light of the organisation’s mission. At
regular intervals each stakeholder group will thus be able to comment on the
degree of achievement from its perspective, and make suggestions for
adjustment of the action plan. These views, published and communicated to all
involved in the PSP process, would not only bring understanding to the
organisation about its perceived impact and the ways in which there should be
improvement in performance and alterations to operational plans. This is in itself
is invaluable of course. Perhaps more importantly, it also ensures meaningful
accountability by the organisation, to its key stakeholders and its own mission.
The social audit thus contributes formidably towards the governance system of
the organisation. Whereas governance structures are often unable to
comprehend the shifts and adaptations suggested by practice, and may even
become a drag on the organisation, it can be imagined that a mechanism like this
has potential to dynamize these bodies.
Strategic evaluation and critical systems methodology
The strategic evaluation approach promoted by Richard Bawden13, like the PSP
approach pioneered in Asia, strives to overcome the limitations of the positivist
paradigm of science as it is applied to development. It focuses on the degree of
preparedness of an organisation to create its own future, in concert with its
various environments, to which it needs to be coupled. The approach recognises
that orthodox enquiry methods are designed to deal with discrete and relatively
linear problems, whereas developmental issues are complex, “messy and valueladen”. It combines critical discourse theory with soft systems methodology to
simultaneously find out about the world and take action for adaptive change.14
13
The Bawden Report, concerning transformation of the University of Natal, is one of several
documents I have had the privilege of reading. Prof Bawden has published extensively – the
bibliography attached to this paper sets out some relevant texts.
14
Critical discourse is geared to multi-dimensional learning - about the issues at hand, about the
process of learning about these issues, and about the nature of knowledge as the philosophical
framework of any process of learning. Soft systems methodology evolved from hard systems research.
Here issues under review are complex, but the purposes of the systems quite straightforward and so it is
possible to learn about a particular system. The soft systems approach by contrast seeks to look at
situations that are loaded with many different purposes. Rather than trying to understand the system,
the approach focuses on particular systems of learning (i.e. the purposefulness of the enquirer!).
Differences in perceptions and beliefs are made explicit and roughly mapped. Going deeper it becomes
possible to examine the differences of interpretations of issues and scale of concern and worldview. A
critical discourse between different people moves through a facilitated and very detailed process of
convergence and accommodation until there is an agreement about the new future scenario each will
try to work towards (where previously their positions had been seen to be mutually negating.
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
19
This paper will not set out the theoretical framework behind the approach in
detail.
In practice the method holds that the key to strategic development of an
organisation is the quality of its learning – believing that it must learn its way into
its own futures. Evaluation then is a process of facilitation of learning so that
experiences (and future imagination) can be transformed into knowledge for
action. It views all those involved or affected by an institution as coupled to it,
and co-learning with it. There is thus a critical discourse (a set of critical
conversations) between the consultant and people from a wide range of
constituencies concerned with the organisation. They are helped to be able to act
to change the nature of the organisation that they are seen to be part of. This
collaboration to learn a way into the future is repeated over the years, (since the
strategic evaluation also establishes the sub-system through which this can
happen) so that over time there is an increasingly interactive role of mutual
influence between the organisation and the society around it.
The approach sketched above has been tested in the transformation processes of
universities on three continents and in each case has provoked remarkable
institutional shifts, continuing interaction with a range of stakeholders, and their
commitment to helping the institution consistently renew itself. The brief
discussion above may make the methodology seem more complicated than it might
appear in real life. There is nevertheless a clear case for experimenting with the
approach at the level of NGOs and popular development organisations.
The IPD Resource Team
The Initiative for Participatory Development (IPD) is a South African network
whose members set out to explore together what participatory development
means in practice, at three levels of work (programming with a development
constituency, in managing the organisation itself, and in influencing the policy and
organising environment). The thirty- five members of the network share very
similar value bases. As a result it has become feasible to explore an alternative
approach to capacitation of each organisation.
It is recognised that while many member organisations have areas of real
strength, they may also have areas of comparative weakness, to the detriment of
their overall effectiveness. Thus one organisation might be limping along because
it has weak financial management systems despite being exceptionally competent
in facilitation of participatory planning at the local level. Another may have
absolutely reliable financial management systems but be failing in its programming
at local level. Normally each organisation would look to an external consulting
agency (who might not share the value base and premises of the organisation) to
diagnose the problems and help to design an approach to overcome them. The IPD
has instead adopted a Resource team strategy, which seeks to make strengths
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
20
available at one part of the network available to other organisations. Those
organisations that have strong capacity in a certain area are then asked to assess
the amount of time individual staff might be able to give, paid at an agreed rate,
to working with other organisations. (And they may also seek to be assisted in
some respect). The staff who get nominated to spend a certain number of days a
year in working with other organisations are then helped to gain expertise in
working with another organisation. A ‘grassroots consultants’ training course is
organised (dealing with the knowledge and skills areas where they will be
intervening, as well as the act of consulting itself). Each is also provided with a
mentor, a skilled OD practitioner, so as to be able to talk through the issues that
arise when working in another organisation. A very small team of experienced OD
practitioner is thus able to support ongoing capacitation processes across a
relatively large number of organisations.
The strategy has been in place for only three years so it might be too early to
assess its long term effects. Nevertheless there are some notable achievements
already. In the first place there is now a far greater understanding across the
network about each of the three levels alluded to above, and there starts to be a
shared theoretical perspective. Practitioners who had never seen themselves as
capable of working outside their bounded organisations have meanwhile gained
experience and confidence in doing just that. Moreover there appears to be a
corresponding heightening of appreciation of the meta-organisational issues that
are ignored by many NGOs. An unanticipated effect of the strategy is that a few
organisations are considering a merger, whereas they had spent years working in
the same district in self-imposed isolation from each other, with very little
impact, and each gradually declining for different internal reasons. Whereas
before it was a characteristic of most organisations to maintain a facade of
strength, and avoid discussion of areas of weakness, a culture now develops where
it is not difficult to share concerns and problems. The processes of capacitybuilding are no longer understood to be expert-led, and it is perhaps because of
this that there is great willingness to implement suggestions, drawing on the real
experience of a partner organisation.
There is obvious value in a strategy that increases access to capacity-building
support at low cost. This paradigm is markedly different from the conventional
approach where highly skilled OD consultants are required to help organisations.
It is possible only because of a willingness to go past the boundaries of individual
organisations and explore innovative approaches.
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
21
Implications for theory?
This brief exploration does not set out to invalidate the NGO management and
OD theory that has been built up over many years. It does seek to draw
attention to some of the worrying aspects about its auto-centric orientation, to
sketch the lacunae in our theory, and to make a plea for ‘situated capacity
building’. NGOs have arguably carried weight in influencing public policy and
practice up until now that is far greater than their size would suggest. If they
are to continue to do so, there is certainly a requirement that they are not
seduced by a theory and capacity-building practice that narrows visions and turns
each one into a carefully bounded enterprise competent to earn its way in its
chosen niche role. One challenge is to find methods that help to bring awareness
of the range of organisational interactions that are needed to achieve optimal
impact, and the various ways to maintain and enhance these interactions; through
them the bounded organisation can potentially effect an “extension” of its own
programming.
One similarity of all the examples drawn on in the preceding section is the
recognition that relationships, and the context more broadly, are at the core of
what an organisation needs to be and do. There needs to be method to open our
organisations to gain perspective and information from actors who are
traditionally seen as being outside their boundaries. Just as these insights enrich
the understanding of the bounded organisation, so too can it be said that an
indicator of real success is an alignment or organising orientation with its vision
by broad swathes of social actors. Since there are so many kinds of engagement
with stakeholders of differing value bases it is moreover essential to pay
meticulous attention to the clarity of vision and philosophy of the organisation,
and a consistent ethical and moral stance. This is a condition for coherence in the
social orientation of the organisation, and decreases the chance of being seen as
colluding with negative aspects of any particular stakeholder’s practice. [There
may be situations where it is prudent, necessary and practical to work with an
organisation that is viewed with reserve by another set of stakeholders.
Alternatively some parts of another organisation’s practice might merit the
forging of bonds whereas there are aspects of its behaviour deemed
unacceptable. Clarity in the value framework behind all interactions and
communication of vision are the only real safeguards against misunderstandings
arising].
If we see each area of work as an ‘interaction node’ with a range of other
stakeholders, then there is obvious implication for the patterns of work of our
bounded organisations. It is for instance necessary to devolve the authority to
act decisively in ‘external policy’ to each team member, rather than following the
practice adopted in so many organisations where this is the prerogative of a few
people ‘at the top’. The confidence to act in this way can only derive from
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
22
thorough understanding of the philosophy and orientation of the organisation.
This merely underlines the point already made about clarity of vision.
As a last point it is perhaps worthwhile to restate a point made implicitly in the
previous section, which reviewed emerging methods of work. A block to finding
the most useful arrangements for organising complex interactions is the inability
to visualise what this ‘system of organisation’ should look like - and indeed the
differing fantasies about what it could look like amongst various stakeholders.
This is a problem because we have been habituated to base our practice on an
analysis, or breakdown into individual elements or sub-systems, of a working
system – and when we do not have a ‘model’ of this system there is tendency to do
the impossible and describe one. The approach taken by critical soft systems
theory is to focus on learning from orientation of the enquiry in order to find
agreement on systems of activity that can be undertaken, so that new learning will
emerge about appropriate direction. This accords with insights emerging from de
Morais and Vygotsky, who argue that activity influences consciousness. Put
another way, instead of trying to set up structures for organisation, we should
focus on understanding the activities and processes that need to be established.
-------------------
Unbounded Organisation
G. Andersson 12 January 1999
23