Thriving or languishing NGOs? – Alan Greig

What characteristics distinguish a ‘high performance’ social service organization (one producing excellence in service delivery and superb results) from merely a good one? Join the discussion.

Purpose

This discussion paper has been provided by Alan Greig, Social Enterprise Technologies with the interest in stimulating a debate on the communitybuilders.nsw discussion forum.

Background

The report “Why do some towns thrive while others languish?” which appears at another place on this web-site is extremely interesting for, to quote, “the surprising answers” it comes up with. It reminded me of some work done some years ago along similar lines on identifying “high performance” NGOs, but which could equally well have been called “Why do some NGOs thrive while others languish?” Many of the same elements seen in those “successful towns” can be seen in successful organisations.

Most NGOs seem to be more active and enterprising about growth and new business opportunities these days. They tend to be more conscious of cost and effectiveness issues. Some are becoming more innovative on matters of ownership and governance structures. Some are investigating options for generating “trading income” rather than just “fundraising”. More thought, originality and inspiration is going into their management. This is not always the case though. I think there is certainly a link between capacity building in communities and the way NGOs are managed in those communities.

Management Culture of NGOs

There has been recent debate (including in this forum) as to whether NGO “management culture” is up to the demands of modern social institutions for innovation and steady quality and efficiency improvements.

It seems clear from the report mentioned above that the capacity building process is more than just having organisations discuss how they are performing, where they are heading and how they intend getting there.  The “management culture” in NGOs also needs to be one of continual learning, renewal and transformation. They need to be continually challenging values, outlooks and mind-sets, as well as their own behaviours, decision-making and how they use their time. It appears that investing in such “culture change” could not only be the key to substantial capacity building in communities overall but also improved organisational performance, particularly in terms of service delivery.  

Why do some organisations do better than others?

To facilitate this, I think it would be helpful to try to identify what it is in the “make up” of an NGO that will see it performing well in service delivery, community relations, employee satisfaction etc. Why do some organizations do better than others in these areas? Is “lack of funding” too ready an excuse?

The grid below was developed in 2000/2001 by a small “quality circle” of like minded people in government and NGOs in NSW who were considering the question “what characteristics distinguish a ‘high performance’ social service organization (one producing excellence in service delivery and superb results) from merely a good one”. It was thought advanced management cultures generate the skilled leadership and good governance which were the inputs that were seen as mattering most, though these were not the only important characteristics. 

The grid details some of these characteristics in columns headed “past” and “future” to give some sense that improvements can take some time. In a sense, past is “worst case” and future “best case”, though it is unlikely for all elements to be so evidently operating in any organization.

Management Culture and High Performance Social Service Organisations

Some comments have been made in using this grid in the past that are of interest. These include:

• The grid can be equally applied to the management of government agencies.
• ‘High performance’ organizations not only demonstrate their performance better, they also tend to “attract” more of the required inputs to do so.
• You do not have to be a big organization to have formal quality improvement processes
• You can’t always assume that every organization is aiming to make the best use of the capital, financial resources, labour skills and management talent it has available.
• The “ethos” in the sector is not always conducive to rapid advances in performance management.
• Nurturing good relationships and broad communications is important to NGO culture, but not necessarily the only predictor of excellence in service delivery.
• The demands of equity and efficiency are not necessarily irreconcilable. The most efficient and effective organization might also be the one that is most “fair”.
• Investments in knowledge, skill and professional development are made in the NGO sector, but too little emphasis is placed on ‘change management’ skills - an essential requirement when ‘old guard’ attitudes within an organization can stifle new directions/initiatives.
• Funders expect NGOs to know everything about everything in their business, when this is not the case in the private sector, where businesses rely heavily on advisors and business support services. Yet these support services are not always evident in the NGO sector.

The grid should be seen as nothing more than a useful guide. It may not be the complete picture or even a certain predictor of success.  It is provided as it has served a useful “discussion starter” in smaller forums in the past.  

Related Reading: ‘How thriving are NGOs?’ on the communitybuilders.nsw Discussion Forum (this topic is now closed).

Follow this link to “Why do some towns thrive while others languish?”

For further information

Contact	:	Alan Greig, Social Enterprise Technologies (SENTECH)
Email	:	ahgreig@bigpond.com