UN-NGLS Publications: Development Dossier

Although, as noted earlier, all the elements in a system interweave and interact with each other, affect and are affected by each other, nonetheless it is possible to separate these elements out, for the purpose of understanding and analysis. Not only this, but although all elements are important in their effect on the whole, we nevertheless believe that it is possible to describe a hierarchy of elements. (We briefly described this hierarchy earlier in the text; here we will elaborate upon this description.) Some elements are more complex and significant than others, and need to be in place before others, for capacity to be built; the others are put in place within the sphere of influence of those which come before them in the hierarchy. The following is an attempt to list the salient features of organisational life as a hierarchy of complexity.

The first requirement for an organisation with capacity, the "prerequisite" on which all other capacity is built, is the development of a conceptual framework which reflects the organisation's understanding of its world. This is a coherent frame of reference, a set of concepts which allows the organisation to make sense of the world around it, to locate itself within that world, and to make decisions in relation to it. This framework is not a particular ideology or theory, it is not necessarily correct, and it is not impervious to critique and change. It is not a precious, fragile thing, but a robust attempt to keep pace conceptually with the (organisational and contextual) developments and challenges facing the organisation. The organisation which does not have a competent working understanding of its world can be said to be incapacitated, regardless of how many other skills and competencies it may have.

Together with an understanding of its context-which also implies having sufficient information regarding that context-goes a particular organisational "attitude" towards that context. An organisation needs to build its confidence to act in and on the world in a way that it believes can be effective and have an impact. Put another way, it has to shift from "playing the victim" to exerting some control, to believing in its own capacity to affect its circumstances. Another aspect of "attitude" is accepting responsibility for the social and physical conditions "out there", in spite of whatever the organisation faces in the world. This implies a shift from a demand or blame-focused mentality to a more inclusive acceptance of the responsibilities which go with the recognition of human rights.

Whatever the history of oppression, marginalisation or simply nasty circumstances which an individual or organisation has had to suffer, these "attitudes" are the basis for effective action in the world. This is not a question of morality, of fairness or justice; it is simply the way things work.

With clarity of understanding and a sense of confidence and responsibility comes the possibility of developing organisational vision. Understanding and responsibility lead to a sense of purpose in which the organisation does not lurch from one problem to the next, but manages to plan and implement a programme of action, and is able to adapt the programme in a rational and considered manner.

Organisational vision is developed, really, through an interplay between internal and external constraints and possibilities. There is a reality out there which must be responded to, and there is an inner inspiration which must be harnessed and focused. No two organisations will choose to respond to the same external situation in the same way; every organisation must get in touch with its own driving force, must identify its own particular abilities and strengths, in order to be most effective. It must focus on the possibilities of its unique contribution. At the same time, every organisation will be in a unique relationship with its context, thus no two contexts will ever be quite the same. This interaction between understanding of particular context and appreciation of particular responsibility yields organisational vision.

Organisational vision yields an understanding of what the organisation intends to do; strategy is a translation into how the organisation intends to realise its vision. Strategy entails the development of particular methodologies of practice, coupled with the adaptation of those methodologies to particular circumstances. Strategic thinking gives effect to vision; it operationalises a general direction. It involves choosing, prioritising certain activities and approaches over others. It involves marshalling and coordinating scarce resources in the service of its chosen priorities. It involves differentiating between disparate activities, deciding which are primary and which are designed to support others. It involves the building of a coherent methodology of practice, and designing the organisation around that methodology.

The development and refinement of strategy is achieved through the constant interplay between doing, planning and evaluation. The organisation has to act, has to go beyond whatever is given, has to try new ways of giving effect to its vision, of impacting on its context. It has to monitor its actions, learn from its successes and failures, even learn what it means by success and failure-these things are not given at the outset. It has both to see what works and what does not work as well as to reflect in depth about what it means by its discernible impact, and what-perhaps unforeseen-consequences this impact releases. Given such evaluation, it has to rethink, replan, restrategise; improve and adapt its methodology as well as its understanding of its context, its vision, and its relationships with others.

We mentioned before the concept of organisational attitude. An important dimension of organisational attitude is that of organisational culture. By culture we understand the norms and values which are practised in an organisation; the way of life in the organisation; the way things are done in the organisation. Without changing the culture of an organisation, any other changes are likely to be short-lived and ineffectual. Many of the cultural aspects of organisations exist and operate unconsciously: what people say they value and believe in and what is practised in the organisation are often very different. Trying to make the culture of an organisation conscious for itself is very important if that organisation is going to be in a position to make conscious choices about how it wishes to operate in the future.

Over time every organisation will develop particular ways of doing things-habits, norms, routines, mindsets. These things will begin to "go without saying", they become natural grooves within which organisational thinking and practice begins to revolve. They become unconscious in the sense that the organisation loses awareness of them; and they begin to exert a tremendous power and force over the functioning of the organisation precisely because they are hidden and unobserved. They are the aspects of organisational functioning which are not spoken of but which therefore exert much more power than the more readily observable realities of structure and procedure, of resources and skills.

The organisation's culture is a reservoir of incredible power and consequence. Unobserved, it holds the organisation checked, within its grasp. The organisation which makes it conscious however, which becomes aware of its own dynamics, and makes its values transparent and collective, is able to use that power as a source of liberation, creativity and energy.

Although these elements are not gained entirely sequentially, we may say that once organisational aims, strategy and culture are clear it becomes possible to structure the organisation in such a way that roles and functions are clearly defined and differentiated, lines of communication and accountability untangled, and decision-making procedures transparent and functional. Put slightly differently, "form follows function"-if one tries to do this the other way around the organisation becomes incapacitated.

This is a point which is almost invariably misunderstood. Too many attempts to intervene in organisational functioning take structure and procedure as their starting point, partly because this element is easily observable, partly because it can be more directly accessed and manipulated, and partly because it seems to be the cause of so much malfunctioning. And often it is. But simple realignment of such structures and procedures is not the ready answer which it presents itself as, for if purpose, strategy and culture are impaired, then tampering with structure will not grant the organisation a reprieve with respect to its lack of capacity. More than this, in the capacitated organisation structures are put in place to protect, to support, to enable chosen vision, strategy and culture. They cannot replace them, but they can either protect or confuse them.

When structural thinking becomes paramount in an organisation, or in an organisational intervention, then the organisation becomes bureaucratic in a very particular sense. It becomes informed by a structural perspective-the need to accommodate the organisation to its own internal anomalies-rather than by a strategic perspective, which would be governed by a focused intention to impact on its context in an effective and purposeful fashion. The departure point then will not have been an attempt to understand and act on the needs and opportunities presented by its context, but will instead have been a reactive organisational stance intended to comply with internal organisational pressures as seamlessly as possible. The capacitated organisation understands what it is about, and structures itself accordingly; it does not begin by looking to its structure, but structures itself by looking to its purpose and strategy, and attempting to enable these to be managed.

The next step in the march towards organisational capacity, in terms of priority and sequence, is the growth and extension of individual skills, abilities and competencies-the traditional terrain of training courses. Of course skills feature earlier; they can, in and of themselves, generate confidence and a sense of control. Development cannot be viewed simplistically; these phases overlap. Yet what emerges clearly from extensive experience is that there is a sequence, a hierarchy, an order. Unless organisational capacity has been developed sufficiently to harness training and the acquisition of new skills, training courses do not "take", and skills do not adhere. The organisation which does not know where it is going and why; which has a poorly developed sense of responsibility for itself; and which is inadequately structured, cannot make use of training courses and skills acquisition.

Finally, an organisation needs material resources: finances, equipment, office space, and so on. Without an appropriate level of these, the organisation will always remain, in an important sense, incapacitated. However, the effects of resource deprivation can be countered through appropriate organisational "attitude". That is, where resources are lacking, their judicious utilisation becomes capacitating, while simple lament becomes profoundly incapacitating. Once again it is worthwhile to note the common misunderstanding displayed by incapacitated organisations-the thought that they would become capacitated if only they had access to sufficient material resources. Yet experience has shown that, by and large, those organisations which complain about their lack of material resources, which attribute their failures to this organisational feature, lack the ability to counter these problems, while those organisations which accept their own incapacities and attempt to remedy them gain the ability to overcome or compensate for outer constraints.

This perspective on what constitutes a capacitated organisation yields some important insights. These go beyond simply having a list of indicators which we can use as a framework for understanding capacity. They go, indeed, beyond the parts to the whole. If we look at these elements of organisational life in terms of the meaning they have for the whole, if we begin to apprehend them through their relationships to one another, and if we allow the organisation as such to quite literally emerge from such an appreciation, then some quite new and perhaps radical insights arise concerning capacity and capacity-building interventions. Because these insights are a necessary prerequisite for fully understanding the potential and practice of capacity building, we explore them below.