In previous sections we have explored the need for organizations to stand back and reflect on their own reality, observe themselves as part of the ‘whole’, and create ideas and perspectives which avoid relying on ‘old frameworks and established ways of seeing’24. We have also noted that organizations can be seen as dynamic human systems which are part of, and interact with, the wider social, cultural, economic and political context. The complexity of these systems can make change, whether internal or external to the organization, difficult to predict with any certainty. However, this paper suggests that in order to be successful and effective, organizations not only need the capacity to analyses complexity but also to identify when unpredictable events and patterns might require actions to be adapted. Such responses should be guided by a clear vision and mission which can be lacking in CSOs25.
Sensing Emerging Events
There is a tension between encouraging CSOs to define a clear focus, objectives and intended results for their work, but yet be flexible enough to respond to the dynamic nature of change in human systems and the environment in which they operate.
Gaining an understanding of the environment or context has always been an integral part of strategic planning. However, the environment was often perceived as stable and predictable. More recently, the inherently unpredictable nature of the aid environment has been recognised, moving strategic planning away from ‘forecasting and plotting straight courses to a far more participative process which stresses internal factors such as values, consensus and collaboration’26. It is also clear that no easily understandable model can hope to capture the complexity of human change, since change takes place within a tangled web of relationships in which a number of different actors are the subjects of change at the same time. Change does not usually occur in convenient, sequential, logical steps, but is more characterised by meanderings back and forward between steps. Sometimes change is radical and other times more incremental. Different levels of change can also cause different levels of discomfort27. The secret of an effective strategy may therefore be to respond to the complexities of change without meandering too far from the main objective.
Change does not usually occur in convenient, sequential, logical steps, but is more characterised by meanderings back and forward.
Mintzberg uses the concept of emergence to make an enlightening differentiation between planned and emergent strategies. Change brought about through emergence is not predictable because it is derived from the consequences of the tangled web of interactions that take place continuously within a system. Mintzberg recognises that, as a result, those strategies which are actually realised (implemented) by an organisation are rarely exactly what was originally intended (planned)28. Some elements of strategy emerge in response to the opportunities and threats that an organisation faces as it carries out its work. Some may even remain unrealised for whatever reason. These emergent properties do not respond to detailed plans, targeting or timetables because they arise from the dynamism of the interrelationships within the system, not from the nature of its constituent parts
29.
The distinction between these different types of strategy can be useful because it obliges organisations to identify, and reflect upon, the various elements of emergent strategy (i.e. unplanned but implemented), deliberate strategy (i.e. planned and implemented) and unrealised strategy (i.e. planned but not implemented). The process of planned and emergent strategy development is illustrated in the figure below:
Planned and Emergent Strategy30
