These days, I have the luxury of existing somewhat apart from an organizational culture. As a consultant, I get to swoop in, sometimes, knowing that my mere presence will shake things up for the organization’s traditional way of operating, and that, within that dynamic, there are new opportunities for change.
I also get to observe different organizational cultures, which is a very valuable experience. I can often get a quick ‘feel’ that a particular organization is, for example, particularly receptive to an advocacy orientation, or especially concerned about appearances and protocol. In one organization I’ve done some work with, they even started a Transformation Council, to specifically look at how the organization itself needs to change, in order to more fully live its mission. The formation of that council, in turn, has created momentum for change, which is embedding itself now within the organization’s culture (in a way that openness to change begets more openness to change).
Since much of my work involves helping nonprofit social service organizations integrate advocacy and social change work into their direct service provision, I’ve been thinking about the role of organizational culture in helping institutions make this shift, and about how to use organizational culture as a lever for the kinds of alignments and redirections necessary for the organization to take on this advocacy function as a complement to their services.
As quoted in Switch, “organizational culture isn’t just part of the game; it is the game”, and I find that that’s no where more true than in trying to get an entrenched organization, and, more importantly, the stakeholders who are entrenched within it, to embrace a new way of seeing those they serve (as co-creators of social change), their services (as bridges to fundamental social transformation), their staff (as catalysts for empowering advocacy), and their organizations (as resources to be leveraged in pursuit of social justice).
Review of case studies of organizations that successfully tackle change find an important practice in common: the existence of small-scale gatherings where like-minded individuals can exchange ideas without surveillance from opposition, including internal opposition. These gatherings allow people to gain strength in unity, somewhat set apart, until they are ready to engage more openly. Applying what social workers know about groups, that’s how cohesion, and the norms that accompany it, set in, so that, in this case, before there is an effort to unleash the new ideas on the larger entity–the organization–they have rooted themselves within a part of it, demonstrating, of course, in the process, that the sky will not fall down.
Understanding the critical role of these ‘free spaces’ within organizations, and the role they play in successful organizational culture shifts, doesn’t necessarily tell us how to build them. Or, perhaps more accurately, how to permit them to grow, since there’s a certainly organic element implied. They are in some ways like the learning circles used in the Building Movement Project’s model, except that, here, there’s a greater willingness to let only those staff members enthused about social change cluster together initially. In some ways, because of the appearance of distance from the rest of the organizational apparatus, they have a sort of ‘cell’ quality, which means that organizations, and these actors within them, will have to get at least a little comfortable with tolerating some dissent and division on the road to a larger purpose.
Have you been part of a ‘free space’ within an organization? What did it look like and how did it function? Organizational leaders, what do you do to cultivate this learning circle approach, and what within your organizational culture supports or resists those efforts? And social service agency change agents, when have you attempted organizational transformation without the benefit of this ‘incubator’? How do you think it might have made a difference?
I’ve not seen a free spaces in the orgs that I have worked in. Probably the closest thing that I have seen, is a group (hand-picked by upper administration) that discusses change in the organization. But in the end the group answers to those in upper management. So not a free thinking group but a problem solving group to implement change.
But I agree this is how change can occur. It is definitely more reassuring to be part of a group where new ideas are shared and supported before introducing to the larger organzation. When a new idea is supported by a number of people, others will see that idea as possible.
However, how many organizations would embrace a free space group that could possibly create uncomfortable change? I wonder. It would be an interesting area to research.
I’m actually working with an organization right now that has something close to a free space–they call it a ‘transformation council’, and it’s a self-selected (and fairly organic) group of staff who come together to work on various system-wide issues. You’re absolutely right that the culture makes all the difference, because it could definitely turn out to be an entity to which the organization only pays lip service, but, from what I’ve seen, the leadership seems to give them quite a bit of free reign to tackle tough issues and advance them. The more I work with different organizations, the more convinced I am that this concept of ‘leadership capacity’ makes a huge impact.
Hi Melinda – I’ve been a little MIA – Missed reading you.
In my experiences (from several different jobs i’ve had), upper management has prided themselves in thinking that they wanted change – and they have even said they wanted to “hear from” others in the agency. But it always felt like they wanted to hear what THEY WANTED TO HEAR. They always seemed to politely listen to the comments and recommendations, but in the end tossed out anything that didn’t go along with the preconcieved notion that had already been put in place from above – whether it be from the board of directors, county commissioners, school board, or administration of any of the programs for which I’ve worked. It’s rare, in my experience, to have change truly come from ideas from the front line. The front line is expected to make the changes – for sure – but it seldom seems to be their ideas that are cultivated or grasped. I’m not saying that’s not necessarily wrong – but it is what I’ve seen. And to be fair, the front line recommendations, when not cultivated properly, tend to be short-sighted and not necessarily keeping in mind the whole-agency-view.
Great to hear from you, Audra! Very good points–we need to be careful not to romanticize frontline views as being inherently more authentic than other perspectives, and about the importance of actual voice rather than symbolic gestures. I was just working with an organization that has a Transformation Council that functions in much this way. I’m excited to see more about how it works, and hopefully I’ll have some insights to share!
The internal capacity of the organization is indeed, the culture. It determines whether employees, stakeholders, & primary users are able to express important ideas and propose changes in a supportive atmosphere. When encouraged, these organizations carry the powers of inclusivity and sustainability. And thus, value clients’ participation in the delivery of services. Such collaborative ownership undoubtedly provides multiple benefits, perhaps to the same degree as the Heath Brothers suggest in describing the intrinsic motivations that cause us to act on an issue for social benefit. Having said that, the ability to implement this is, in large part, dependent upon the organizational structure itself. And, since a significant number of social workers are employed in macro practice by government or contract for-profits organizations, in what ways is there capacity to engage in free spaces at this level of institutionalization for the purpose of building cultural integrity?