Document(s) 3 of 13

One might wonder why, over the past 22 years, six Nobel prizes have been awarded to scholars who specialized in delving into the world of institutions and organizations. What is so special about institutions and organizations to garner this kind of attention and accolades? Are they the key determinants of economic, social and political progress? We believe they are that—and more. In fact, we believe that the inability of development agencies to understand and change the performance of the organizations and institutions with which they interact has significantly impeded progress in many developing countries.

Healthy and vibrant organizations are an essential ingredient for a nation’s development. All nations have a dizzying array of large, small, powerful, onerous, disciplined, flexible and competitive political and economic organizations. Some perform well, others less well, and some fail altogether.

Organizations vary in a number of ways (Aldrich, 1999). Legislative chambers, political parties, government agencies, the judiciary, private firms, trade unions, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), schools and parent-teacher associations— all are “organizations.” An organization is made up of people working together toward a shared goal. Organizational goals differentiate organizations from other social collectives such as families. Although organizations have goals, however, their members might feel indifferent toward the goals, or may be alienated from them. Because organizations are made up of people, many of their activities are designed within the limits of the organizational members.

One of the frustrations of organizations is the inability to match existing membership with the activities the organization knows it should be carrying out. Also, organizations have distinct boundaries. People know who is inside and who is outside the organization. Membership has privileges. Organizations attempt to specify rights and responsibilities, codes of behavior, value systems, rituals, power and power relationships, and leadership. Organizational rules and their enforcement govern organizations and create the organizational “culture.” Organizations and the societies within which they operate both create rules and are governed by these rules. Finally, organizations are socially constructed, and their success or failure is governed by this interaction.

Overall, organizations are important social units of many shapes and sizes that play an integral role in our day-to-day lives. These social units have evolved from small families and gatherings of people, to large government entities (communities, states, nations, the United Nations) and private enterprises (small and medium-sized businesses, national and global enterprises). Civil society agencies are also evolving from local community groups into global agencies. Today, a wide range of organizations is required to carry out increasingly complex and adaptive tasks that, in turn, respond to an increasingly complex environment.

As organizations evolve and try to succeed, they adapt to their environment and to technical developments. This often leads to increased specializations of functions, people and infrastructure. As organizations specialize their functions and the infrastructure required to maintain and carry out those functions, they require greater interdependence with the various work groups. In other words, specialization increases complexity.

Organizations are not only composed of individuals, but also interdependent groups with different immediate goals (derived from specialization), different ways of working, different formal training, and even different personality types. People who work in accounting departments often have very different personalities, goals, training and styles of work and socialization than do people who work in advertising or marketing departments (Meyers and Briggs, 1980).

Different departments also have their own work processes and flow. Each organizational unit has its way of carrying out work based on its goals and understanding of the appropriate technology required to meet its goals. Over the past two decades, computers have dramatically changed how many organizational groups carry out their functions and coordinate with other groups.

The way an organization transforms its resources into results through work processes is what people call “systems.” These systems are subject to all sorts of influence from within and outside the organization. Today’s organizations are “open systems”—that is, they are constantly both influenced by and trying to influence external forces.

In this dynamic context—the institutional environment—organizations and the groups that comprise them are constantly trying to adapt, survive, perform and influence. Sometimes they succeed, and sometimes they do not. The question then becomes, how can organizations better understand what to change and influence to improve their ability to perform? Systematic diagnosis is an important part of this process, and there are many ways to conduct such an organizational examination. The purpose of this book is to provide development practitioners with a systematic framework or approach to better understand organizational performance and to pinpoint the elements that significantly affect that performance.

Over the last ten years, we developed a framework of institutional and organizational assessment that culminated in the book entitled Institutional Assessment: A Framework for Strengthening Organizational Capacity (Lusthaus, Anderson and Murphy, 1995). The book is also available in French, Évaluation Institutionelle: Cadre pour le renforcement des organisations partenaires du CRDI (Adrien, Anderson, Lusthaus and Murphy, 1996). We tested the use of the framework in a range of organizations in the developing world, which resulted in a second book entitled Enhancing Organizational Performance: A Toolbox for Self-Assessment (Lusthaus, Adrien, Anderson and Carden, 1999). We found that a systematic framework provides a common language, and is helpful to better understand how and where to intervene to improve performance (Lusthaus, Adrien and Perstinger, 1999).

As the framework evolved, it gave us a basis for discussion and comparison across regions and organizations and development problems (Lusthaus, Anderson and Adrien, 1997). The framework presented in this book supports an organizational diagnosis. It is an update of our earlier work that focused primarily on research institutions. More recently, we began to work with international executing agencies involved in seeking loans from international financial institutions (IFIs). These agencies are trying to use bank loans as investments to improve their ability to serve their countries and constituencies.

Over the years, the framework became a tool in its own evolution as it helped us to continually refine our thinking and to continue learning. In other words, the framework is not a finished product, nor do we want it to be. This approach to assessment is flexible enough to be valuable to a wide range of practitioners in a wide range of environments.

PURPOSE

We had three goals in mind when we began to write this text. First, we wanted to write about organizations and their importance to development discourse. Unlike

our first edition, we wanted to write about a wide variety of organizational types, rather than just research centers or organizations involved in development research. Organizations are fascinating to us—they come in all sizes and shapes. Yet, development theorists seriously overlook them. We have tried to provide a wide assortment of organizational examples. The framework is put forth as generic, useful to all organizations and individuals interested in organizational diagnosis.

Second, we wanted to update our earlier work. While our framework is still basically the same, there are several important new areas that were changed or adapted. For example, we expanded our idea of performance to include a factor called financial viability. We did this because of our experiences with both governmental and nongovernmental agencies that were increasingly being asked to compete in market-like conditions. In other words, for the first time, these organizations needed to build their capacity to raise funds. In the section on performance, we also added information about balancing the various performance factors. Again, this insight is drawn from both the theoretical work of the “balance scorecard” (Kaplan and Norton, 1996), as well as the practical realization that organizations need to constantly satisfy competing performance expectations.

Third, we wanted to make the topic of organizational assessment accessible to practitioners. Over the past five years, we worked with a wide assortment of organizational practitioners interested in both organizational and social change. They know that while money helps change, it is how the money is used that makes a difference. And they recognize that financing directed toward strengthening the capacity of organizations is good for development. Furthermore, practitioners realize that they need to better understand the forces that affect the ability of organizations to persist in efforts that may lead to a change in performance. An increasing number of practitioners need to learn more about organizations and how to change the level of their performance.

OVERVIEW

Early management theories assumed that organizations existed to serve a purpose (Etzioni, 1964), and that the role of management was to support this purpose by strategically gathering and applying resources in an efficient manner. However, experience showed that organizations did not serve a singular goal, but rather had multiple goals and sub-goals (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983). Some of these supported the original organizational purpose, while others did not.

Furthermore, in practice, an organization’s goals were constantly and easily displaced (Selznick, 1957). Time changed people’s perceptions of the goals, leaders altered the goals, and organizational events caused a shift in priorities or even systems. Structures sometimes inadvertently acted as a counter-productive force, and inhibited the achievement of objectives. Given this complexity, how were organizations and their constituents to know if they were moving in the right direction? How were they to measure performance and the factors associated with good performance?

Caplow (1976) argued that “every organization has work to do in the real world and some way of measuring how well that work is done.” His conception of organizational performance was based on common sense, and on the notion that organizations need a way to concretely identify their purpose and assess how well they are doing in relation to it. This constituted an organization’s institutional definition of its own purpose.

Since it was clear that organizations that did not make money went out of business, private firms used the common sense concept of profit as a way to judge their performance. Thus, at the simplest level, measuring financial growth was a way of assessing how “well” work was being done. Profit is indeed a significant and valid aspect of good performance, and many managers in the private sector used profitability as a complete metaphor for understanding organizational performance, and began to define their purpose, above all, in terms of monetary gain. In government and non-profit organizations, however, ideas about what constitutes good performance were not as clear. Schools help children learn and power companies supply electricity, but whether a root concept such as profit is an appropriate way to define good performance by those institutions was uncertain.

The adoption of profitability as a primary objective in the private sector was congruent with prevailing ideologies shaping management practices at the time. Management theorists in the early part of the century focused on devising scientific or engineering methods to increase financial gain (Taylor, 1947). In support of such management objectives, organizational assessment focused on identifying ways to improve the efficiency of workers. By “engineering” optimal ways for people to behave in specific organizational production systems, managers aimed to produce more goods for less money, thereby increasing profits.

Starting in the 1940s, more abstract and generic conceptions of performance began to emerge in the discourse on organizational performance (Likert, 1957). Gradually, concepts such as effectiveness, efficiency and employee morale gained ground in the management literature and, by the 1960s, were considered major components of performance (Campbell, 1970). Managers understood an organization to

be performing well if it achieved its intended goals (effectiveness) and used relatively few resources in doing so (efficiency)¹ In this context, profit became just one of several indicators of performance. The implicit goal shaping most definitions of organizational performance was the ability to survive. From this perspective, an effective yet inefficient organization would not survive any better than an efficient organization that was not achieving its stated goals. Thus, prevailing organizational theories expected performing organizations to both meet their goals and to do so within reasonable resource parameters (Campbell, 1970).

Gradually, it became clear that organizational assessment and diagnosis needed to go beyond the scientific measurement of work and work methods (Levinson, 1972). The presence and contribution of those doing the work—people—emerged as yet another important organizational component to be factored into the performance equation. The conceptualization of people as an organizational resource gained ground as well. As a result, approaches appeared that aimed at shedding light on the potential impact of human resources on organizational performance.

For example, Rensis Likert pioneered the use of survey methods to diagnose organizations. Likert’s theory assumes that participatory management practices lead to higher organizational performance. In this context, surveys were used to capture data on employee perceptions of a variety of organizational management practices such as leadership, communication and decision-making.

During the 1950s and early 1960s, the search for a significant variable that would lend diagnostic insight into the functioning of organizations led to the analysis of organizational structure as well. At the time, some believed that the most efficient organizational form was bureaucracy (Weber, 1947), and that consequently, organizations needed to diagnose how bureaucratic they were. The assumption was that the more bureaucratic the organization, the better performing and efficient it would be. Managers started describing government and private sector organizations in terms that operationalized Weber’s criteria for bureaucracy—specialization, formalization and hierarchy—and emphasized bureaucratic components when diagnosing organizations (Blau and Scott, 1962; Hickson and Pugh, 1995).

Until then, organizational assessments had focused primarily on work, people (and their processes), and organizational structure. However, by the mid-1960s and into the 1970s, organizations in the public, for-profit and non-profit sector began to

__________

¹ At the time, “morale” was still considered to be a component of broader efficiency indicators.

explore new ways to understand their performance. A range of alternative means of gauging performance emerged as a result (Steers, 1975). The assumption that there were only a limited number of standards of measurement (e.g., profits) was dismissed as more multivariate approaches were taken. New attempts were made to identify and examine the factors associated with high levels of performance. Organizational assessment was gradually becoming more complex and holistic, attempting to integrate as many aspects of an organization as possible (Levinson, 1972).

In the process of looking for better ways to understand and assess organizations, business and systems analysts created a variety of concrete cost accounting tools and techniques for helping managers understand financial performance. These included planning program budgeting systems and zero-based budgeting. Similarly, social scientists began to explore the different human and interpersonal factors that can influence organizational performance, such as problem solving, teamwork, morale, communication, innovation and adaptation.

As a result of these evolving efforts to analyze organizational success, several core practices to enhance performance emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In turn, these gave rise to further approaches to diagnosing organizations (Kilmann and Kilmann, 1989). By exploring organizational aspects other than effectiveness and efficiency, practitioners began to recognize the importance of stakeholders— clients, staff, customers and suppliers—in the performance equation (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Walton, 1986). By the 1990s, ways to describe organizational performance and the factors associated with it in the governmental, private and non-profit sectors were clearly more holistic and comprehensive (Harrison, 1987; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992; Scott and Meyer, 1994). Today, as the 21st century begins, there is renewed interest in the role of social capital in terms of organizations and organizing (UBC, 1998). A few years into the new century, once again we find that “organizations do matter” (Savedoff, 1998).

EVOLUTION OF THE FRAMEWORK

At the start of our discussions on the framework, one of the important issues needing clarification was the definition of the unit of analysis. In the past, most assessment models focused on projects supported by organizations that either funded or made loans to developing countries or their agencies. Our interests were not project-oriented. Rather, we were interested in organizations and the institutional environment in which they operate (see Chapter Two). On the whole, the framework

reflected a change in focus from how well the organization did its programming work, to how well it was performing as an organization within its particular institutional environment.

As we reflected on our experience, developed our ideas, and reviewed the literature, we concluded that the framework needed to be organizationally based (the unit of analysis) and focused on a systematic review of the factors that affect organizational performance. There was a massive amount of literature² and a wide assortment of ideas and concepts regarding the fields of management, organizational assessment and change. We felt that our framework needed to be broad enough to include many of the ideas from these fields.

Four insights guided the development and evolution of the framework. First, we recognized the complexity of the concept of organizational performance. After conducting more than 100 organizational studies and reviewing analyses done for the International Development Research Centre and the Inter-American Development Bank, we were struck by the small number of studies that actually described how well organizations supported by funding or loan granting agencies were doing “ organizationally.” Our colleagues in the private sector clearly have paid more attention to this issue, and use a wide range of measures to assess organizational performance (Kaplan and Norton, 1996). While this is changing some organizations,³ diagnostic work carried out by development agencies and development banks does not produce data bases that would help benchmark organizational performance within key functional organizational groups across the world.

The second insight came as a result of the work of institutional economists (North, 1994). While our previous work included a review of the organizational context or environment, this review was mostly descriptive, geared primarily to providing background or contextual information. North’s work, among others, provided a theoretical perspective for understanding the organization’s environment. From our perspective, an important insight is that organizations both influence and are influenced by their environment. Government agencies and ministries make the formal rules, and are influenced as well by both formal and informal rules. They also enforce or do not enforce the rules. We are increasingly incorporating ideas related to both formal and informal “rules of the game” into the framework. Rules and their enforce-

__________

² See our jointly sponsored Web site on organizational self-assessment that includes a searchable bibliography of over 2,000 citations. This can be accessed at www.Universalia.com.

³ For example, our work with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities includes using benchmarked performance indicators to assess municipal performance.

ment play a critical role in the success or failure of organizations. In response, the organizational assessment framework places more emphasis than previously on assessing the environment.

The third insight emerged from admitting that it was often baffling why some organizations did so well despite operating under harsh conditions, with few resources and poor management systems. Such constraints notwithstanding, such organizations seem to use their resources wisely, accomplish a lot of work, and exhibit a relatively high level of organizational performance. We noticed that the staff and all those working with such organizations (clients, members, etc.) were remarkably motivated and greatly committed. Despite poor systems and conditions, they clearly believed in what they were doing, used all their ingenuity to create positive results, and were able to grow, prosper and learn how to adapt to changing circumstances. It thus became evident that organizational motivation was a factor worth exploring when doing an assessment. Yet, very few organizations actually understand this issue.

Finally, our framework was influenced by the work of those trying to understand organizational capacity development.

These insights, along with the experience gained during our previous work assessing organizational systems and capacity, helped shape the framework. In brief, the framework encompasses the following areas:

• Measuring organizational performance
• Understanding the organization’s external environment
• Determining organizational motivation
• Examining organizational capacity

The schematic representation of the framework defines performance in terms of effectiveness (mission fulfillment), efficiency, and ongoing relevance (the extent to which the organization adapts to changing conditions in its environment). The framework implies that certain contextual forces drive performance: organizational capacity, forces in its external environment, and internal motivation. A brief explanation of the framework follows.

Organizational Performance

Three ideas capture the performance of most of the organizations with which we worked. First, most non-profit organizations view their performance in terms of how

well they meet the mandates of their stated mission, purpose or goals. For example, a university is considered effective to the extent that it provides teaching, engages in research, and offers a service to the community. Nevertheless, universities, like other organizations, need to carry out their activities within some resource parameters.

To perform well, even educational organizations must operate efficiently, as measured, for example, by the cost per university graduate. As mentioned earlier, effectiveness and efficiency were at one time the standard concepts used for determining organizational performance. However, since the 1970s, many other variables associated with organizational performance have emerged, including morale, innovation, turnover, adaptability and orientation to change. Many new ideas are in circulation, and it is clear that different stakeholders want different types of organizational performance. Many of these ideas relate to ensuring that the organization is able to survive over time. This can be referred to as the “ongoing relevance to stake-

holders.”Our framework defines an organization as a good performer when it balance effectiveness, efficiency and relevance while being financially viable.

Organizational Capacity

Organizational capacity is the ability of an organization to use its resources to perform. If the organization itself is the unit of analysis, all of the resources, systems and processes that organizations develop to support them in their work can be assessed. An examination of the systems and management practices associated with human, financial and infrastructure resources helps provide insight into the use of organizational resources.

Within our framework, strategic leadership involves the strategies and niche management by the leaders that set the direction for the organization. Program management looks at the ability of the organization to carry out its institutional role, while process management examines the way the organization manages its human relations and work-related interactions. Structure identifies the links between how an organization is governed and its mission, as well as the roles that human resources and finance play in the organization’s day-to-day activities. Finally, the framework describes the ability of the organization to manage its external relationships as “inter-institutional linkages.”

Organizational Motivation

As stated earlier, we were inspired by several organizations that performed well despite having few resources and relatively undeveloped organizational capacities. Organizational motivation represents the underlying personality of the organization. It is what drives the members of the organization to perform. In our framework, we assess organizational motivation by analyzing a number of organizational dimensions.

One dimension we examine is organizational evolution and history—that is, how and why the organization got started, what its milestones are, and so forth. In a similar way, the assessment framework explores the organization’s mission, values and vision in order to understand the driving forces behind it. The culture operating within an organization, and the incentives it offers, contribute to organizational motivation. Taken together, these factors give the organization its personality and affect its performance and quality of work.

External Environment

Organizations are open systems, and the external environment in which they operate is very important. Organizations need support from their environment if they are to survive and perform well. The environment is the key factor in determining the level of available resources and the ease with which an organization can carry out its activities. For example, poor macroeconomic policies lead to high interest rates, fluctuating currencies, and a host of conditions that make it difficult for some organizations to perform well.

The characteristics and quality of the environment—such as poor infrastructure in terms of roads, electricity and phone lines—can also hinder performance. Thus, in assessing an organization, attention must be paid to economic, political, socio-cultural, environmental, demographic and technological conditions.

DEFINITIONS

The worlds of organizational and institutional theory, like any discipline, have their own language. We have put together a small glossary at the end of this book for those not familiar with this language. However, immediate clarification is needed for a few terms that are used here rather frequently and whose meanings are often confused.

Sector – An area under analysis, such as health, education, manufacturing, households or business. Sectors are made up of institutions and organizations.

Institution – The formal and informal rules by which system actors interact. Institutions involve a range of areas such as normative structures, culture, legal frameworks, policies and trends.

Organization – Formalized entities that involve a cluster of people who are brought together for a common purpose. Organizations both conform to and influence institutions. They include a wide spectrum of human activity and can be categorized as private or public, for-profit or non-profit, governmental or nongovernmental, and so forth.

Project – A planned undertaking designed to achieve certain specific objectives within a given budget and a specified period of time.

Program – A group of related projects, services and activities directed to the achievement of specific goals.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK

This book has seven chapters, each dealing with a particular aspect of organizational assessment. This first chapter has highlighted the changes that have occurred in development assistance, one of which is the requirement for aid agencies to compete in market-like conditions. In addition, it has provided a brief historical overview of how thinking has evolved as regards organizations and their performance. There has been a shift from focusing primarily on work, people and organizational structure to recognizing the importance of staff, customers, stakeholders and clients. In sum, today there is a more holistic approach to assessing organizational performance.

Chapter Two places the organization within its context, that is, its environment. There is an inextricable link between an organization and its surrounding environment, which in turn affects how the organization performs, what it produces, and how it operates. The chapter provides a detailed review of the impact of formal rules, institutional ethos (informal rules), and capabilities.

Chapter Three deals with the eight components of organizational capacity. These include the various organizational and technical abilities that allow the organization as well as groups and individuals at any level to carry out functions and thereby achieve their development objectives. The chapter explores such issues as leadership, infrastructure, human resources and process management.

Chapter Four deals with the rather enigmatic aspect of organizations—that is, the forces that drive them to excel, commonly referred to as motivation. What factors explain the zeal with which some people do their work? The chapter explores four manifestations of organizational motivation: history, mission, culture and incentive/reward systems. It also looks at how these forces may be at work at different points of an organization’s history.

Chapter Five deals with perhaps the most fundamental component of the organizational assessment process: performance. Traditionally, performance was defined by evaluating only an organization’s effectiveness and efficiency, but this has shifted to include ongoing relevance to stakeholders as well as financial viability. The organization and its leaders must have good data on organizational performance and be able to understand the performance tradeoffs required.

Chapter Six explores methodological issues involved in carrying out organizational assessments, and emphasizes the importance of assessment to an organization and to those who have stakes in it. The chapter is not a prescription but rather an orientation as to what needs to be considered for effective organizational assessment.

The final chapter delves into the issues surrounding implementation of organizational assessment. These include ownership, ceremonial assessments, logic models and project traps. It also looks at how lessons learned can lead to improved organizational performance.

Document(s) 3 of 13