The future of global civil society: change has changed
In this article Kate Gilmore shares her headline thoughts on the high level challenges facing charities, INGOs and other civil society actors. Kate Gilmore is the Principal Management Consultant at The Management Centre (=mc). She was previously Executive Deputy Secretary General at Amnesty International for 10 years. She was responsible, with Irene Khan, Secretary General, for a range of transformational changes to the work and business model of Amnesty globally.
Change has changed
Not so long ago organisational change was an exceptional process and change management was "just" bridge building – bridging the current situation to an alternative more desired future state. Change was a choice, not an inevitability. Its imperative was improved future performance while the organisation's overall form was treated as a constant. But change is no longer "just" a matter of realigning the organisation's status quo. Today and tomorrow the challenge of change is the challenge of continuous, ongoing adaptation.
For international NGOs, the implications are profound. It means rethinking and maturing their working approach to change leadership. However, more than this, it means confronting the transformed and transformative nature of change itself. Finance; technology; climate; people movement; the contest for resources; communications; public accountability; regulation; the size, professionalisation, governance and consumption of the NGO sector; the relationship between the public and the private sectors; global political and economic power; the West's moral authority; the global South's frustration: none of these dynamics is or will be as it was a mere decade ago. Yet, each is a volatile and potent force acting in concert or separately, directly and indirectly, on the best (and the worst) endeavors of charities and INGOs.
In the face of this "changing change", the concepts and methods of civil society itself must evolve. Sitting at the heart of managing this "change to change" lies a deep challenge that few management guides prepare them for. Organisations must re-consider the value they assign to their "original position" or "genesis moment". Conventional wisdom holds that a first principle of effective organisational change management is to: renew your mission; renew your vision; clarify your values then change your structure. But many organisations undertake these processes by primarily building on the past. They look back to their own founding or genesis to renew these elements in a linear way and, sometimes fatally, give far less weight to that which lies outside and to that which lies ahead. They find themselves drawn inwards and backwards just when they need to be externally oriented and forward looking. They become memory-led when actually, they need to be future-led.
Understanding the history and internal realities of an organisation, engaging internal audiences, these things are important. But first, organisations need to focus not only on the external environment in which they act but also on the basis of their claim to be entitled to act. We cannot and must no longer allow organisations to confuse doing good with feeling good. The effectiveness and sustainability of their external impact – measured by the lived experience of their beneficiaries – must drive their decision-making, their priority setting and their resource allocation.
In short, an organisation's loyalty to the future and to the future outcomes of their work should be stronger than any loyalty to their past. History did not end with the first years of an organisation's establishment. An openness to moving beyond its founding heritage is essential. In the interests of future relevance and effectiveness, organisations must ensure that their legacy is stripped of any "sacred cow" status. The option of radically re-working, if not abandoning it, must be clearly placed on the table.
Very practical implications emerge if civil society leaders are willing to disturb conventional thinking about organisational change and its leadership. For example, in the long-term interests of a coherent, inclusive and effective civil society, perhaps they should be looking for their organisation's collaborative rather than its competitive advantage. Transforming their approach to accountability into a dynamic relationship with organisational strategy can leverage their effectiveness. But it may also require them to relate very differently to their principal beneficiaries.
Understanding the pace and breadth of change and its dynamics can help leaders move beyond static organisational models. They might transform the range of competencies they ask of their staff and reshape the mandate they give to them through their job descriptions: spotlighting, for example, the skills and behaviours of adaptation rather than replication. Are they really thinking about the competencies that enable people to work effectively in the face of rapid change?
Focussing on the dynamic external environment may uncover core issues about an organisation's underlying strategy and operating methods. Does their theory of social change, upon which their strategy depends, actually work as they claim? This probing enables leaders to expose their organisation's cherished assumptions and then subject them more transparently to the intellectual scrutiny they deserve.
The leaders of charities, civil society organisations and international NGOs in particular, are not just responsible for securing the endurability of their organisation and its approaches to social change. They have a deeper responsibility, which is to the just endurability and sustainability of the world they serve. Leaders must be willing to contemplate the heresy that social change and social justice may be far better served if they did not work as they do, if they were not formed as were, if they did not take what they take, did not act as they had: if they did not exist in the way they do.
A searching, even courageous, humility is the perhaps the best companion for the strident well-meaning leaders in global philanthropy. Their quest must be an ethical answer to "what does the world need from us?" rather than only a firm answer to "what do we want to give the world?"
Find out more
If you're interested in hearing Kate Gilmore and a few other sector leaders talk about Change in the not-for-profit sector, then join our Thought Leadership Change seminar on Tuesday 23rd March. Find out more
Read Kate Gilmore's biography.
You can contact Kate by calling the office on +44 (0) 20 7978 1516 or alternatively, send her an email.
Downloads
Comments
Kate Gilmore on 25 March 2010 at 12:27pmJohn's reflections on the issues I touched on in the "Change is Changing" article are very helpful. John, I think you have isolated out some of the most challenging aspects of the changed and changing environment in which we are claiming the space and authority to "be" civil society. Highlighting collaboration over competition reminds us that as NGOs we are in a different kind of business. And although we need to be "business-like" (in the best sense of the term) in key aspects of our operations, our end-game is fundamentally different to solely profit oriented endeavours. Further the space we occupy and the resources we command are far from proportionate to the needs we are trying to meet. In our sector, competition alone will not and does not ensure the best use of our scarce resources: and even if - by measure of competition - we believe we are flourishing as organisations, the real test of our success is surely with our beneficiaries - those who we seek to serve. This links well to your emphasis on adaptation: Charles Darwin has been wrongly quoted as having identified that species longevity is about "survival of the fittest". Actually he attributed species survival to the capacity to adapt to surrounding environments. Building adaptive capacity (in our people, our systems, our priorities, our processes) is essential if civl society actors are to strengthen effectiveness. As to the balance and relative contributions of INGOs versus local NGOS - well that's whole other (but related) ballgame and a fabulous topic for another article :) Thanks for raising this issues John, best wishes Kate =mc
Kate Gilmore on 25 March 2010 at 11:24amJohn's reflections on the issues I touched on in the "Change is Changing" article are very helpful. John, I think you have isolated out some of the most challenging aspects of the changed and changing environment in which we are claiming the space and authority to "be" civil society. Highlighting collaboration over competition reminds us that as NGOs we are in a different kind of business. And although we need to be "business-like" (in the best sense of the term) in key aspects of our operations, our end-game is fundamentally different to solely profit oriented endeavours. Further the space we occupy and the resources we command are far from proportionate to the needs we are trying to meet. In our sector, competition alone will not and does not ensure the best use of our scarce resources: and even if - by measure of competition - we believe we are flourishing as organisations, the real test of our success is surely with our beneficiaries - those who we seek to serve. This links well to your emphasis on adaptation: Charles Darwin has been wrongly quoted as having identified that species longevity is about "survival of the fittest". Actually he attributed species survival to the capacity to adapt to surrounding environments. Building adaptive capacity (in our people, our systems, our priorities, our processes) is essential if civl society actors are to strengthen effectiveness. As to the balance and relative contributions of INGOs versus local NGOS - well that's whole other (but related) ballgame and a fabulous topic for another article :) Thanks for raising this issues John, best wishes Kate =mc
John Batten on 16 March 2010 at 12:13pmI warm to the notions of 'collaborative advantage' rather than 'competitive advantage' and the perspective of 'what this world needs from us' rather than 'what should I do for the world.'
I am interested in the concept of 'adaptation' existing with and thriving on 'continuous change' whereas 'change is geared to managing episodic events.
One does wonder about the shape of charitable organisations in the future? For me it is important for the bridges between developing finance and the peoples institutions that require it to be as effective and efficient as possible. In Africa far too many donors and INGOs are occupying the space local Civil Society requires to manage its own development. JB, PEN
