Looking for a Change Management Tool for Your Not-for-Profit? Try Action Learning – It Really Does Work

The humanistic attributes of the Organisational Development link to Action Learning, have been identified as potentially the most important for the purposes of changing the cultural attributes of organizations and it is this element that makes it so applicable to the not-for-profit sector as a direct reflection of the characteristics attributed to staff within this sector. In this context, Action Learning is viewed as a multi-faceted, structured, experiential process that impacts an informed group of individuals in an organisational context, focusing on the proactive elements of the organisation as distinct from the more reactive elements

Whilst it has a defined starting point, being the resolution of some form of strategic or operational issue with no clear immediate or identifiable outcome, its end point is less defined as it relies not only on the identification of the solution or solutions, but also its implementation over time with constant feedback and input. Thus, an unending cycle of action, reflection and understanding underpins the base of an Action Learning approach. Hence it is an iterative process that rolls on until the end ‘target’ is achieved – that end target being the resolution of an organisational challenge.

It therefore relies heavily on successful workings of an open systems methodology that underpins the learning processes that makes Action Learning applicable. This is supported by the collaborative approach to problem solving as well as the learning that underpins the successful Action Learning outcome. Contextually, participants are the experts and these experts develop the solutions, implement the solutions, monitor the success and learn from the process, enabling the application of similar processes to future organisational and human development issues

Two fundamental elements of Action Learning are described in the name itself. The Action element refers to the underlying need to resolve issues at various levels. These could be personnel developmental issues that underpin personal performance or they could be organisational issues that underpin organisational performance. It is clear from a practical perspective that, implementing the outcomes of the participants within the Action Learning groups, empowers them and underpins the full learning experience which also underpins change outcomes.

The Learning element refers to the ability of the members to clearly identify the path that has been taken to derive the end outcomes and to inculcate this path development into future projects, irrespective of the nature of the project itself. Moreover it enables the participating individuals to become aware of, and further develop their own, functional attributes, both from an individual and group perspective. Thus, the Learning component of Action Learning enables participants to identify, develop and improve their utility from a personal and organisational perspective. Skill enhancement and development, therefore, becomes a fundamental by-product of the process. The extent to which such learning is focused entirely at the management level should be questioned, as a strong case can be made to elicit Action Learning as a process of engagement and development across the broader organisational hierarchy, further inculcating change processes in support of potential institutionalisation of the change outcomes.

OPTIMUM NFP has designed and developed Action Learning programs at numerous not-for-profit organizations with excellent results having been achieved both organisationally as well as from the perspective of personnel development.

Contact David Rosenbaum of OPTIMUM NFP to further discuss your requirements in this area. I would be more than happy to introduce Action Learning to you in an attempt to determine the extent to which it fits your organisational requirements.

Community Engagement and Volunteerism

Community Engagement and Volunteerism  

The Australian Not-for-Profit sector would never be able to achieve what it has, and continues to achieve, without heavy reliance on volunteers sourced from a very broad spectrum of society.  

The 2010 Productivity Commission report identified that some “4.6 million volunteers work with NFPs with a wage equivalent of $15 billion.” This report further identified that whilst most areas have seen a decline in volunteering hours over the 7 year period to 2006-07, cultural and recreation based organisations had seen strong growth during this period. This quantitative finding underscores the relative importance of this sector and therefore the need to encourage further involvement in this sector – with volunteers being an obvious resource, both intellectually and numerically. The centrality of this sector has been further reinforced by such writers as the American author Jon Van Til, writing in his 2008 publication entitled ‘Growing Civil Society’ wherein he suggested that “From a society-wide perspective, the role of the third sector is not only important because it concerns individuals, it is also important because the third sector has become a major player in modern institutional life.” This holds true in Australia as much as it has in the United States.

Brisbane based Colin Ball in his 2011 book entitled ‘It’s the Community Stupid!’ raised the question as to “What is it that influences people insofar as community awareness is concerned, and how do we encourage, enable and foster such awareness?”

IT is clear that society generally needs a NFP sector that is vibrant, resourced, and driven, in order to ensure that wherever possible, societal needs are being addressed and service provision gaps that result from transient, and sometimes politically driven government policies, are being met. The alternatives should be undesirable for us all.

Australian NFPs should consider the more efficient use of professional volunteers, outside those involved at the board level, as a source of vast experience that can contribute to organisational well-being. Bob Norbie, President and CEO, Special Olympics Montana USA, suggested that “If we wish to be all that we can be, we must forever learn better ways to service our mission through volunteers. When it works, it is extraordinary.”

The effective engagement and management of volunteers by NFP organisations can only be undertaken though the development and deployment of a clear and precise organisational policy framework which seeks to address a range of issues including:

·         Volunteer engagement strategies

·         Funding volunteer involvement

·         Management of volunteers

·         Integration strategies

·         Legal compliance issues, and

·         Monitoring and evaluating volunteers

Another avenue for volunteering at the ‘professional level’, is provided by the tertiary education sector through the formal placement of business school students into this sector to gain first hand understanding of the needs of these organisations and the needs of people who are serviced by them.

As many of you know, I am associated in a number of capacities, with the Australian Catholic University (ACU) in its North Sydney campus where I am involved as a sessional lecturer at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels, and where I am also undertaking my PhD research into change management in the NFP sector. ACU’s involvement in the NFP sector is strongly in keeping with its own value proposition and clear societal goals, one of the reasons for my involvement with this university.

The Business School at ACU is extremely active in this area. One of their key programs is the Professional Experience Programme. Contextually, all second-year undergraduate students undertake the Community Engagement unit which is now part of ACU’s core Curriculum. The unit develops an awareness and understanding of individual and social responsibility, with students volunteering 105 hours at a not-for-profit organisation and directly assisting the people accessing the service's support. This enhances the students' interpersonal, business-communication and teamwork skills, and encourages them to embrace community involvement and ethical and social responsibilities.

Third-year Bachelor of Marketing and Bachelor of Human Resource Management students complete a Professional Placement as a core unit of their course. In applying theory to a real business environment, they develop industry-specific competencies, career opportunities, best business practices and professionalism.

In terms of accessing ‘professional’ resources, this could be beneficial to your NFP organisation in the context of your broader volunteer engagement strategy and in the context of specific projects that you may be currently running or are considering.

OPTIMUM NFP can assist in developing your NFP organisation's Volunteer Management Framework as well as putting your NFP in contact with the appropriate representative at ACU

Having difficulties with the Australian public hospital system? Try dealing with a public medical specialist unit – that’ll make you sick!

I always thought that to get a picture of the general ‘health’ of a society, one of the many indicators could well be the state of its public health system, with regards both the skills and quality of its technical expertise, how that expertise is applied in the delivery of the services for which it exists, and of course the technology and facilities that it provides.

If this is a measure, then Australia is starting to fail. Perhaps this decline has been far more advanced than I have noticed in the past. In fact, maybe the only reason I have started to notice, is the fact that I recently had to put my faith in this system owing to a medical complaint that was not straight forward and remains undiagnosed – not for want of me trying to get a diagnosis, but rather, the communication and operational inabilities of a certain, and nameless, public specialist unit attached to a major Sydney based public hospital.

Without labouring too much on the details, as these do not really add much to the overall points that I raise, the problems could best be sequentially highlighted as follows:

• Not being able to make direct contact with a living human being in the Unit, irrespective of the perceived urgency of the problem. The only contact numbers that are provided to the patient, or in fact, the patient’s General Practitioner for that matter, is an answering machine.

• Discovery that the answering machine is not checked regularly. In fact my personal experiences were that the answering machine appears not to be checked for days on end. In one case I was told that was due to the staff member being away ill, which begs the question as to due processes within the Unit. Are there only certain staff that are able to work an answering machine? Or are staff so scarce that this is a superficial function that can be overlooked?  In the second instance, there was no reason given other than to change the subject during the course of the conversation.

• Being exposed, as a patient, to potential internal political machinations within the Specialist Unit. At one point I was advised verbally by the particular person I was speaking to, who was medically qualified but not a doctor, that he/she was unsure of the “current internal politics that resulted in the doctor not making contact with you regarding your status despite me having advising him via email on two occasions to do so.” As the patient, I am not sure if I really want to, or in fact need to know, what is going on within the unit or not. Just provide the service! Remember – I am the one with the condition that they appear not to have the answer to at this stage. Do I really care what’s going on between the doctors, the nurses and the administration? Call me naive, but somehow I don’t believe this knowledge will result in an improvement to my condition.

• Being offered a suggested but unconfirmed diagnosis by a senior nurse of the Specialist Unit without hearing from the doctor – something that I actually thought was illegal?

• Not being in receipt, as at the date of this blog entry, of test results which were called for by the doctor and therefore remaining in the dark as the diagnosis. I should also add at this point, that the senior nurse provided her unconfirmed diagnosis despite her not having access to the test results either! My General Practitioner has not been informed of anything by the Specialist Unit, other than of course that I was scheduled to have some tests. (You know – the ones that no-one can give me the results of!)

As an endnote to this saga, I can now unfortunately confirm the following:

• It has been slightly in excess of three weeks from the time of completing a certain test and for which no results have been forthcoming. Frustrating, considering that I was advised that results would be available for the specialist to interpret within 72 hours.

• I have since been overseas attending a conference in the United States. During my last conversation with the aforementioned senior nurse, I indicated that I would be flying overseas and expressed concern as to precautions that I may need to take should an episode occur whilst overseas. She indicated that she would ensure the doctor would get back to me before I left. (I await this event, and am now back in Sydney).

• My blood pressure remains in normal range, something I am quite impressed with, considering the pressure of not knowing places on you – but then again I am only the patient and I am convinced that not all doctors recognise the importance of keeping this poor sucker up-to-date with their condition. Bedside 101 may not have been on all doctor’s university experiences.

Readers of this blog can let me know if I am overreacting to these set of circumstances or have they experienced this sort of sub-standard patient care in the Australian public health system – the one that is meant to be one of the best in the world and yet seems to want to vie with some of the more poorer performing systems in the western world.

Conclusion at this point – fantastic system – as long as you don’t need to interact with it. Good luck as we all get older. And I pity those elderly who can’t advocate for themselves.

Changing Your Organisation – The Australian Charities Not-for-profits Commission

The upcoming ‘launch’ of the CNC will present a substantive challenge to many organizations within this sector. These challenges will directly impact on how such organisations adapt their existing internal and external reporting frameworks, which, in many circumstances, impacts not only the management of these organizations but also their boards.

The reasons publicly given for the major reforms are well known. The economic impact of the sector alone, dictates that change must occur. The relative size of the sector in the context of the Australian economy is, as I have written in the past, somewhat out of kilter with comparative Western economies in the context of the sheer number of NFPs on a per capita basis. The long term sustainability of many within this sector continues to challenge their ability to match values and mission with operational capacity. Not to mention of course the contextual problems associated with ongoing donor fatigue and the well publicized, poor, philanthropic leanings of the Australian population, again, when compared to other wealthy Western economies.

When considered in this light, the changes coming down the pipeline are both potentially complex but needed. The question of whether the CNC in its current proposed form and in the political context of an unpopular minority government facing an election in the near term, and a political environment that appears to deny the application of real social ‘vision’, on a range of fronts, can deliver, is not the issue that requires the attention of those trying to implement a tough course of action that may have far reaching consequences. At the end of the day, this sector needs to address these challenges and start looking at itself with some effective navel gazing and consider how they, individually, can achieve what they need to achieve in order to serve those that they serve in the broader community.

So the questions that each NFP, its executive, its board, needs to consider, is what can we do to ensure that our organisations can adapt to this changing landscape over the course of the next few years.

The impetus for change, in this context is clear. Given that one of the key reasons that change efforts in many organisations, irrespective of whether they are in the NFP or the for-profit sector, fail, is due to the lack of an appropriate cause-and-effect relationship. In essence, there must be a sound reason for wanting to change. As has been well recognized in much of the change literature, the simpler and clearer the basic goal of the change management process is, the more likely it will be to take hold within the organisation, largely related to the ability for change communication to be far more easily applied and understood. This also opens up the ability for a larger representation of involvement from within the organisation, thereby encouraging involvement, participation and potentially acceptance.

As many in the NFP sector attest, the range of changes that may be proposed over the course of the next few years will challenge many organisations. To what extent is your organisation ready to not only adapt to the myriad of changes in a reactive manner, but also to what extent is your organisation ready to embrace change in a proactive manner, seeking to bring change to your organisation with the aim of ensuring your ongoing provision of services to the communities that you seek to currently serve as well as those that you wish to serve in the future?

OPTIMUM NFP works within the field of change management and has been doing so within the NFP sector successfully over a number of years developing change processes and frameworks that enable such organisations to bring their strengths into the management of change.

Strategic Alliances - How Does Your Organisation Proceed?

Strategic Alliances  - How Does Your Organisation Proceed?

As highlighted in the 2010 Productivity Commission report, Australia is home to approximately 600,000 not-for-profit organisations. Based on the 2010 census, this represents 1 not-for-profit organisation for every 37 Australians.  Comparative figures for the United States in 2005, identifies 1,400,000 not-for-profits covering a total population of 294,000,000 which represents 1 not-for-profit organisation for every 210 Americans.

Australia seems overly endowed with not-for-profit organisations. The question must be asked – to what extent is the current structural attributes of the Australian not-for-profit sector sustainable in the medium to long-term, and if lingering doubts remain regarding this question, then what could the future look like for this sector that in 2007 employed 8% of the Australian workforce, contributed $43 billion to Australia’s GDP and attracted 4.6 million volunteers? 

Whilst I don’t have the answer to the bigger question, I do suggest that some degree of rationalization may be on the cards at some time in the future. Perhaps the creation of The Australian Charities and Not-for-Profit Commission may be the precursor to such rationalisation – but then again that may just be the pessimist in me!

Whatever the outcome and whatever the process, I think it fair and reasonable to suggest that a range of market related factors may put pressure on a number of players within this sector, to address the ever growing challenges that lay ahead. These include:

• Organizational identity where numerous NFPs represent common causes that confuse the market place in terms of who is delivering what;

• Donor fatigue where a constant stream of NFPs chase a limited number of available and willing donors;

• Competitive employment environment, where an expanded skills framework is needed to cement NFPs activities, especially so in the current changing environment of the NSW Disability Services Sector. This is a direct result of the changes to the sector resulting from the introduction of Person Centered Planning, and the funding, marketing and competitive issues that ensue.

So where to from here?

In response to these market-related environmental challenges, it would be considered prudent for not-for-profit organisations to realistically consider the pros and cons of developing appropriate strategic alliances that are predominantly aimed at improving their service levels, as measured by the outcomes being achieved in the supply of these services to their target customer groups. This includes their ability to source donor and other funding for existing and future programs.

To plan and execute effective strategic relationships, consideration must be given to the following processes in order to maximise the benefit of such relationships:

1. Be careful who you align your organisation with. At the end of the day your prime consideration should be the people that you serve; 
2. Make sure you really appreciate and fully understand your own strengths and weaknesses – you need to be brutally honest about these; 
3. Your organisation has values by which you gauge yourself – make sure that your intended counterparty shares these values, as a minimum; 
4. Executives and management from both organisations must be mindful and respectful of the relationship being entered into; 
5. Ensure that any such strategic arrangements are routinely monitored and assessed to ensure that they continue to add value to BOTH organisations; 
6. Remain flexible enough to recognise when terminating the relationship is in the interest of both organisations; 
7. Plan to involve and include a wide cross section of staff from across both organisations; 
8. Develop formal communication and structural frameworks to accommodate the relationship – don’t leave things to chance and definitely don’t rely on serendipity to  see you through the relationship, and finally, 
9. See this as a cultural change to both organisations and deal with it accordingly.

David Rosenbaum of OPTIMUM NFP has sourced and developed many strategic partnerships across many organisations and sectors over the past 30 years or so and as an active organisational change enabler can assist not-for-profit sector organisations in developing the appropriate frameworks to get the most out of such relationships.

Post your comments on this Blog if you would like to further discuss how such strategic relationships may benefit your organsiation.

Culture of Change Readiness - Best way to overcome resistance to change

Making Changes within your Organisation? – Maybe you need to assess the extent to which your organization is ready.

Organisational sustainability and change go hand-in-hand. Many organisations introduce change, or initiate and plan for change, in response to a wide range of internal and external triggers. For some it could be the result of key staff departures providing the opportunity to review and potentially refresh the organizational structure. For others it could be the result of difficulties with the external environment necessitating changes to long standing business models that have not been previously challenged.

Such changes can be viewed in many different ways by the staff within the organisation. Some will view these potential changes as opportunities by virtue of embracing the unknown whilst improving whatever the shortcomings of the existing position may have been.  Others will view them as threats by virtue of being uncomfortable with the unknown and the sense of possible loss of position, control, influence or power.

Research in this field of change management and specifically in the area of “organizational readiness for change” has been extensive over the years. Some have contested that the lack of change readiness may be a key reason for organisations failing in their attempts to manage the changes that are introduced. Others have suggested that organisations that display high levels of internal flexibility and a change ready culture are far better able to adapt and absorb changes as they come up.

A further approach has been to suggest that the management of change may in fact be more successful if continuous change is the norm within the organisation, rather than focusing on specific changes at particular moments in time. This implies a more fluid approach to change rather than an ‘episodic’ approach characterised by piecemeal changes as and when they are perceived as being needed.

Alongside this recognition regarding the readiness for change, is the associated research regarding change resistance, which in many ways represents the two sides of the one coin, in that the more ready the organisation is to actively and positively work with change, the less change resistance and therefore the more likelihood of successful change outcomes.

Currently, my own PhD research being undertaken in the Not-for-Profit hospital sector reinforces this duality of change readiness and change resistance and highlights a broad range of characteristics which shape change readiness. Whilst skill and care may be applied to change management via effective project management, this latter activity does not recognize the emotional aspects of change as felt by those that are experiencing the change.  As such, good project management does not equate to good change outcomes. Understanding your staff responses to change must represent the other side of the ‘mechanistic’ aspects of change.

In response to this research, OPTIMUM NFP has developed the ‘CARC Program (Cultural Assessment for Readiness for Change)’, a process for evaluating change readiness within your organisation, using a range of qualitative research techniques to assess your organisations readiness to work with, and absorb, proposed changes. Information gleaned from this process can then be incorporated into the change program to effectively reinforce the process and achieve better change outcomes.

Happy to hear from organisational managers wishing to further discuss the process by which this research at your organisation can deliver positive outcomes witih regard future change management outcomes. Contact David Rosenbaum at OPTIMUM NFP for a no obligation discussion on how the CARC Program can be economically applied to your organisation – before the next change!

Risk Management Frameworks – How Does Your NFP Compare?

Standards Australia has been quite active in its delivery of resources to the Not-for-profit sector, regarding the management and communication of risk. 2010 saw the release of HB 266:2010 entitled “Guide for managing risk in not-for-profit organizations”. This was supported by HB 327:2010 entitled “Communicating and consulting about risk”. Both publications came off the back of AS/NZS ISO 3100:2009 entitled “Risk management - Principles and guidelines”.

Together, these publications focused on the core application areas of risk management, namely the principles for managing risks, the framework within which these operated, and the process that underpinned them. Communication was recognised as the key to successfully implementing a risk aware culture within the organisation, as part of the delivery of an effective risk management framework.

The message in these pronouncements is quite clear. There are a broad range of risk principles that your organisation needs to consider in order for risk to be understood in the broadest possible way. These principles need to be contextualised within a consolidated framework that must be well considered, well developed, and well understood. In order for such a framework to be effective, it must be supported by a process that caters for the identification, assessment, and treatment of risk. Finally, this process must be supported by an effective and consistent communication methodology.

This integrated approach to risk management should be the focus for your not-for-profit when considering and assessing risk.

In the context of not-for-profit organisations, a wide range of risk categories combine to form an overall picture of the risk environment within which not-for-profits operate. These can best be summarised in the following manner:

• Asset risk – which relates to the ongoing management and maintenance of the organisation’s physical assets including buildings and equipment used by employees, volunteers, contractors, and clients;

• Compliance risk – which relates to the external regulatory framework that the organisation operates within as well as the internal policies and procedures that are in place to govern behaviours of its internal stakeholders;

•  Environment risk – which relates to the management and sustainability of the built and natural environment that the organisation works within, and, from which services are delivered;

•  Financial risk – which relates to the operation, management and development of the financial frameworks within which the organisation operates in, and supported by its internal financial policies and procedures;

•  Liability risk – which relates to the organisation’s services, products, information or behaviours that results in legal action against the organisation or its officers;

•  Personnel risk – which relates to the safety, occupational health or well being of the organisation’s staff;

• Service delivery risk – which relates to failures in the provision of its services and how these may impact the organisation, and finally

• Technology risk – which relates to the security, safety, function and management of the organisation’s technology systems and processes.

OPTIMUM NFP has worked with numerous Not-for-Profits in designing and successfully implementing risk management frameworks. As a member of the  Risk Management Institution of Australasia, and an experienced Not-for-Profit consultant, David Rosenbaum of OPTIMUM NFP is well placed to respond to the risk requirements of Australian Not-for-Profits.