So it’s the annual conference day and first off is the
keynote speech by Dawn Austwick, 7 weeks into her new job as CEO of the Big
Lottery Fund.
She said she likes,
"Grantees with attitude". It’s important for
funders to tell funders what they need or want. Good point and note to all
applicants! She also said Social investment; needs to be driven by mission. Not
money. Mission driven social investment will trade returns for mission. I think
this is a lesson for Big Society Capital who really do need to think more about
the value they put on unsecured lending.
That is what the sector needs. Not too many fancy new finance
instruments, just straight forward loans.
But the morning was probably stolen by Sandra Schrembri, St
Barnabas house who talked of the trials of her transformation of a hostel in
Soho Square into a members club for social leaders who will finance the work they
do with the unemployed. ACEVO members can join at discount. And you should. It’s
a great place (http://hosb.org.uk/).
Perhaps the most challenging and thought provoking was
Matthew Taylor. I reproduce his
Blog here. Well worth thinking about.
...However, I find myself booked in tomorrow to do two talks
about leadership and change with the expectation that I use the RSA
as some kind of case study.
It is gratifying that Action for Children and
ACEVO
think there is a success to be described (it may just be they’ve heard I am
cheap and do jokes), but I will be admitting from the outset that my seven
years here provide as many stories about what can go wrong and of how hard
change can be as it is does exemplars of best practice. Nevertheless I am going
to try out one way of conceptualising change, not so much as a description of
what we have been doing here but more as a guide which might have helped me do
things better had I used it from the start.
My suggestion is that purposive organisational change can be
seen to have four stages: ‘basic inquiry’, ‘conventional alignment’,
‘existential inquiry’ and ‘transformational alignment’. As this implies,
the four stages comprise two pairs at lower and higher orders of ambition.
‘Basic inquiry’ describes the stage – often following the
appointment of a new leader – when essential questions are asked about the
organisation’s purpose, performance and fitness for purpose. This stage
precedes change and so there is in our accelerating world a tendency for
leaders to do it too quickly or superficially or to treat it as a process of
confirming initial prejudices. Patience and humility are useful attributes if
the leader is really to understand why it that certain patterns of thinking,
acting and performing have become embedded: things which look functional may
reveal themselves to be less so and things which seem otiose might on closer
inspection have a deeper purpose which needs to be appreciated even if not
preserved. It’s probably best not to emulate my first RSA staff meeting in
which I said in nearly so many words ‘you’re all a bit rubbish but don’t worry
I’m here to save you!’.
‘Conventional alignment’ describes the process whereby the
leader tries to bring some clarity to the organisation’s purpose and aims and
then seeks to align the organisation with those objectives. This is partly
about desisting from things which don’t align and enhancing those which do, but
also about capacities and competencies. An example of this for the RSA was the
processes of engagement, conflict, investment and trial and error which
followed the insight that the RSA Fellowship wanted to shift from being largely
a social and recreational club to an integral part of delivering our charitable
mission.
This stage will tend to lead to a substantial turnover of
staff, indeed it is often what people think of when they talk about
organisational change. It can be slow and difficult and when it has been at
least partially accomplished there is an entirely understandable tendency to
feel the job is done.
‘Existential inquiry’ describes the point at which an
apparently well-functioning organisation comes to see that it is not in fact
standing for or achieving the change (relevant to its mission) it most wants to
see in the world. This is a deeper moment of reflection and calls for leaders
to identify a profound challenge even though the rest of the organisation feels
it has only just gone through a painful process of becoming fit for purpose.
‘But’ the leader says ‘for what purpose’?
An example here might be the head teacher of a school which
has gone through basic inquiry, found out why it is not ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’
and has done the tough things in the conventional alignment stage necessary to
achieve that status. But then, after a summer break in which staff members have
celebrated reaching the harbour of OFSTED approval, they return to a head who
asks ‘we may have the seal of approval, but can we really say that we are
transforming the life chances of pupils and inculcating a deep love of
learning?’ At issue here is not just what the organisation does but its
culture, ethic and imagination.
The RSA is in this stage right now as it undertakes a
strategic review based on the conviction that we must see success in terms not
of outputs or organisational health (in which terms we now do well) but
substantive real world change.
‘Transformational alignment’ is a stage to which I aspire
but which I can’t say I have ever managed to attain. It is the point at which
the organisation does not need to be changed, nor much led in the conventional
sense, because its culture is profoundly attuned with a powerful sense of
purpose, one which not only drives high performance but creates an
organisation-wide process of continuous self-improvement (which will, by the
way, involve the ‘clumsy’ coming together of hierarchical, solidaristic and
individualistic power). This stage should be what leaders aspire to. If
they achieve it they should enjoy it to the full if only because changes in
context or fortune or the complacency and overreach promoted by success mean
that sooner or later it will end.
The obvious questions posed by this schema are (and having
written a thousand words I suspect I am by now talking to myself): why is it
necessary to go through two loops, can’t one go straight to ‘existential
inquiry’; and, how can I reasonably encourage leaders to pursue a state of
‘transformational alignment’ when I can’t actually say I have created or
experienced it myself?
In reply to the first, existential inquiry is too profound
and difficult to be accomplished while an organisation is failing to deliver on
its narrower output goals. Indeed existential questioning may be a bad idea
when the often thankless heavy lifting of ‘conventional alignment’ is under
way.
The second question is harder: all I can say is that I have
had from time to time had that sense of deep conviction of purpose combined
with an openness to continuous inquiry and improvement, but it has been around
one off projects or particular moments not at the level of a whole
organisation. Anyway, to get through the hard graft of organisational change
don’t we need to believe there might be something rather wonderful –albeit only
temporary – at the end of it?
And let me leave you with a charming photo of me, William
Shawcross and my Chair Lesley-Anne. Caption competition anyone?
