UN-NGLS Publications: Development Dossier

If you look toward the bottom of the hierarchy of features outlined above you will see those things which are quantifiable, measurable, elements of organisational life which can be easily grasped and worked with. Material and financial resources, skills, organisational structures and procedures-all these are easily assessed and quantifiable. In a word, they belong to the realm of material things; they belong to the realm of the visible. If however, we turn our attention to the top of the hierarchy, we enter immediately an entirely different realm, the realm of the invisible. Of course, organisations may have written statements of vision, of strategy and of value, but these written statements do not in any sense indicate whether an organisation has a working understanding of its world, they do not indicate the extent to which an organisation feels responsible for its circumstances or capable of having an effect on them. They do not indicate the extent to which an organisation is really striving to become a learning organisation, to what extent it is developing its staff or manifesting a team spirit or endeavour. They do not indicate the extent to which an organisation is reflective, non-defensive and self-critical. In short, the elements at the top of the hierarchy of elements of organisational life are ephemeral, transitory, not easily assessed or weighed. They are to a large extent invisible: invisible both to the organisation itself as well as to those managers and practitioners who would intervene to build organisational capacity.

Thus the most important elements in organisational life, those which largely determine the functioning of an organisation, are the elements which lie at the top of the hierarchy, not those which lie at the bottom. It is the less tangible, more invisible aspects of organisational life which largely determine organisational functioning, yet it is on the more tangible, material aspects that most (incapacitated) organisations focus. Redesigning structures, building skills or securing resources are secondary to conceptual clarity, focused vision, coherent strategy and enabling culture.

Organisational thinking which begins with structure, skills or resources will leave the organisation confused and incapacitated. The way to process organisational transitions is to gain clarity with respect to understanding and purpose, develop resultant strategy, and become aware of debilitating cultural patterns. Only then, and in response to these things, can questions of structure and skills and resources be adequately addressed. The organisation which begins at the bottom of the hierarchy will always remain reactive; for an organisation to become proactive-to have capacity-it must think things through from the top.

We are saying, then, that the most important elements in organisational life, those which largely determine the functioning of the organisation, are of a nature which make them more or less impervious to conventional approaches to capacity building. Consider this from two angles.

First, from the point of view of the organisation itself. If you interview organisations which suffer from a lack of capacity, you will find that they complain readily about lack of resources, lack of skills, inappropriate structures, an unfavourable history or an impossible context. In other words, they place the blame for their circumstances "out there", on others or on a situation which is beyond their control, and specifically on those visible elements which lie at the bottom of the hierarchy. But interview organisations which have developed a certain strength, robustness or resilience, and you will discover that they generally take responsibility for their lack of capacity, that they attribute it to their own struggles with organisational culture and values, with lack of vision, lack of leadership and management, and so on. Put another way, they manifest self-understanding. Capacitated organisations will manifest both stronger invisible elements as well as an ability to reflect on these elements-which is itself a feature of these stronger invisible elements situated at the top of the hierarchy.

Second, from the point of view of the capacity builder. If we examine honestly the kinds of interventions we perform, either as development practitioners or as donors, we have to recognise that most of these concentrate on the lower end of the hierarchy. Mainly, our efforts consist in providing resources or training courses. These are sometimes accompanied by, or preceded by, "needs assessments", or even "audits", which themselves concentrate on the visible, more tangible, elements which have little impact where the top elements of the hierarchy are undeveloped. We advise organisations to make changes which we think will be good for them, which in itself can diminish the robustness of those elements at the top, rather than strengthen them through a form of facilitation which enables organisations to come to grips with their own issues, thus developing those top elements. Finally, and more recently, we have begun to help organisations with "strategic planning". This in itself would be a step in the right direction were we to include the conceptual construction of the organisation's world, as well as forays into organisational culture, in the process. Unfortunately many strategic planning exercises consist of piecemeal attempts (that is, unrelated to other elements) which comprise the setting of goals and objectives, the "material aspects" of planning, and which leave the organisation pretty much as incapacitated as before, with a "plan of action" but without the ability to innovate, reflect on and adapt the plan as circumstances and time progress-the abilities that really constitute capacity. Why then do we not shift the focus of our interventions?

The answer is as obvious as the dilemma itself. Because we do not see-have not been trained or conditioned to see-things in this way. Because it presents a radical challenge to our customary ways of seeing the world. Because our conventional packages and products, our short-term ad hoc responses and interventions are what we have, are what we use, and we will resist the move away from them for as long as possible. Because we take comfort in what we can provide rather than in what may be really necessary. Because these kinds of interventions are sanctioned by donors. Because organisations have learned to ask for them. Because they are tangible and quantifiable. Because they can be delivered. Because their delivery and assessment can be easily managed and monitored. Because "development" practitioners can be (relatively easily) trained to deliver them. Because they are hard-edged, unambiguous and certain. Because they do not embroil us in the hazy shifting sands, in the uncertain worlds of fog and mirages which characterise the reality of organisational change processes. Because they do not challenge our certainties with the hazardous obstacles of organisational contradiction. Because they do not fundamentally challenge us.

Organisations, and organisational change processes, are contradictory, ambiguous and obtuse. They are long-term and not easily observed. Rising to the challenge means learning to observe differently, and to see different things. While we have described the elements at the top of the hierarchy as invisible, this does not mean that we cannot comprehend them. We can learn to see them, to apprehend them, and part of the work of capacity building lies in enabling the organisation itself to apprehend them. But this requires a new way of seeing.