OD TOOLKIT

Solution 1 B: Reorientation of mission.

Some problems in the functioning of an organisation can only be tackled if the organisation starts to reflect on its mission.

We cannot list all problems that should be immediate cause for a reorientation, but we sum up some:

the feeling exists that the organisation wants too much
the goals are too vague or diverse
there is no actual relationship of the NGO with problems in society
people come to solve personal problems instead of working on the goals of the organisation.
the NGO plays no role in the development of civil society
the atmosphere stuck to the nineties
people do not share because of a non-intervention principle
the external; environment has changed
the client system has changed
other competitors do better

What could a NGO do to reflect on its mission?

The NGO should rethink the problem, the context and its own possibilities, as if a new organisation would be founded.

In the following a sequence of steps will be described. For the sake of clarity they are described as if it are separated steps. But in reality the steps are phases which take place more or less as parallel processes.

Those who want to know more about the process of reflection upon the positioning of the own organisation in a changing world:

1. Establishing the problem in society (the legitimacy for the existence of the NGO).

One of the reasons the NGO was founded was to contribute to the solution of a problem in society.

(Sometimes a NGO was founded 'from behind the writing desk', without examining the real problem in the community. In such a case the absence of a real relationship between the NGO and the people for whom the NGO has decided to work for, is the core problem. Maybe the NGO could start again?)

The first step in reorientation on mission should be to redefine the actual problem.

What is the actual problem in society that legitimated the existence of the NGO?

(For some NGO's this question will lead to the confrontation with the fact that the problem has changed, is partly resolved or has disappeared. Or the population suffering from this problem has changed. Maybe the NGO could shift its purpose? Or maybe it is better to reconcile oneself with the idea of closing down the organisation?)

2. Analysing the problem.

Some work has to be done in order to grasp the factors which have led to the problem, which maintain or even feed the problem, or factors which led to diminishing it. Only when such an analysis is made, the next question: what are we going to do, can be answered. The community, target group, clients, or other involved parties should take part in this analysis phase.

Those who analyse the problem will make a natural use of their own frame of reference, including own opinions, visions, ideology etc. The use of a variety of thinking-lines will offer a variety of possible causes, underlying mechanisms, structural obstacles and so on. Do not try to reduce the number of angles, nor fight other visions or opinions. A rich and divers harvest can help to define later on what could be the most desirable points of impact. Later on the members of the NGO will have to agree on the main characteristics of the problem and its dynamic factors.

(For some NGO's this analysis phase will unveil the moment of truth. Maybe the problem will be differently analysed, depending on the actual frame of reference of those who join the analysis. Maybe a dividing line shows up, between those who still stick to their original ideology related analysis and those who developed their vision, or those who more or less 'fresh' use different approaches to understand and explain the existence of the problem. If the NGO will continue its work on the problem, such differences have to be sorted out, because really divergent analyses will lead to divergent approaches. If not, a process of splitting up is one of the possibilities.)

3. Reading the context.

The next step is carefully drawing up an inventory of the actual context in which the problem exists. Who is already working on the problem? Are there other NGO's, competitors, or peer organisations, GO's or commercial initiatives, involved in alleviating the problem? Do have people themselves reached a certain level of self organisation?

(One of the main objectives of NGO's is sometimes to influence the regular institutions, GO's for instance, to improve their poor services. If reading the context makes clear that other organisations successfully have been mobilised to take part in the solution of the problem, the question: what makes the own NGO distinctive? becomes pregnant. Maybe the NGO wants to go on its own distinctive way? Maybe it wants to change its purpose? Or if success is obtained, it wants to be closed down?)

4. (Re)formulating the goals

Having examined the actual problem and its context, the next question is: what is needed at this moment? The NGO should redefine its goals. Take into account that goals should be inspiring, concrete, measurable and feasible.

(At this moment a NGO might discover, or might be confronted with the fact that its goals were too big (in built failure), too small (in built disappointment), too vague (impossible to measure success), too global (not leading to logic strategies) or too less inspiring (thereby not able to evoke extra energy and enthusiasm). Readjustment is necessary).

5. (Re)defining the core competence of the NGO.

Thinking about goals goes parallel with thinking about the NGO's main competence. If the action power is overwhelming then action goals will come to mind. If the members of the NGO are professionals, then other goals, which may offer the possibility to contribute to their realisation by using their expertise, will come to mind. We can make a rough distinction between

political action, aimed at reforming public service policies and at restructuring political economy: policy advocacy, lobbying, public awareness, public education or public mobilisation, monitoring compliance, reconciliation, mediation and
hands on goals, aimed at empowerment of communities, strengthening local institutions and sustained improvements in physical well being: delivering material services, social or health services, financial services, capacity building, process facilitation, fostering linkages, reconciliation, mediation. The first ones, the political goals, can ultimately lead to institutional reforms and good governance, the second ones to mobilising and strengthening civil society itself. Most NGO's will link their activities at both levels.

(Point 4 and 5 are probably the phases in the reorientation process in which division lines between the parties involved will become clear. The founders and old activists want to continue the political work, while some of the professionals want to concentrate on delivering services. The desired situation is to combine both. Read: the fan of mainstreaming. If an agreement is not reached, the NGO should think of splitting up. Look at solution 7.)

6. Inventory of resources needed to realise the goals.

Once the goals are set, (and in reality occurring in a parallel process) the NGO should think about the resources needed to realise the goals. How many people do we need to do the job, what kind of people are we looking for in terms of expertise.

(Some NGO's will recognise at this moment the need for further professionalisation. Especially when they have to come to the recognition that the work to be done -often service delivery and influencing regular institutions-- needs more than only good ideas and good intentions. This moment of truth is sometimes painful for the founders of the organisation, who often still think that the right ideology and the right attitude will suffice. Look at solution 2.)

Other questions are: what kind of material resources do we need (housing, office, telephone, computers etc.) and what kind of budgets do we need. If budgets are available they can be used of course. But in the process of reorientation funding shouldn't be considered to be conditional. Ideally the job has to be done without any external subsidy. Volunteering is the best base to start the work. If the group succeeds, a next phase could be mobilising for financial resources to spread and consolidate the work.

(NGO's used to be subsidized will find this phase the most difficult one. It demands courage to reconsider the own work and to make a restart without funding. It is especially difficult if people in the meantime became dependent upon the paid jobs. But nevertheless, if earlier funding has stopped, and it seems impossible to find new sustainable financial resources, reconsidering the work on a voluntary base is the only way in which the necessity to go on with the work can become clear.

If the organisation decides upon going on in a different way, maybe the organisational culture should be reconsidered.)

7. Deciding if and how the NGO will start or continue.

Depending on the results of the discussions in the former phase, the NGO has to decide on its future.

The options are:

growing from pioneer to professional (look at solution 2)
back to the status of being an action group (look at solution 3)
diversification of activities (look at solution 4)
sizing down the organisation (look at solution 5)
combining action and services (look at solution 6 and read: the fan of mainstreaming)
splitting up the organisation (look at solution 7)
changing the organisational culture (look at solution 8)
merging with another organisation (look at solution 9)
closing the organisation (look at solution 10)

Another option is to look for further professional OD help. (look at solution 1A)