winter 2007:layout 1.qxd - jeana wirtenberg

PUBLISHERDr. Donald Cole, RODCOrganizational Development Institute11234 Walnut Ridge RoadChesterland, OH 44026 [email protected]

EDITORThiet K. [email protected]

MANAGING EDITORElaine [email protected]

PEER REVIEW EDITOR Dianne Clarke-Kudless, PsyD, [email protected]

ASSOCIATE PEER REVIEW EDITOR (REGULAR EDITION)Virginia Bianco-Mathis, [email protected]

COPY EDITORHania [email protected]

TECHNICAL EDITORLucille Maddalena, [email protected]

STAFF EDITORSSandy [email protected]

Andrew Cohn, [email protected]

Elena [email protected]

Linda Myers, EdD, SPRH, [email protected]

GUEST EDITORSharon [email protected]

GRAPHIC DESIGNRita Witherly, MBB, [email protected]

Don [email protected]

ASSISTANT EDITORGail [email protected]

Copyright © 2007 by theOrganization Development InstituteISSN Number 0889-6402:The Library of Congress

The Organization Development Journal is an international peer reviewed journal published quarterly and is abstracted in Psychologizal Abstracts, PsychINFO, PsychAlert, Psylit, Institute for Scientific Information and Anbar Management Publication databases. The Organization Development Journal enhances the capacity for practitioner-scholar dialogue and promotes principles and practices of organizational development and change.

Submissions to the journal are encouraged on an ongoing basis. Manuscript submission information can be found in this issue. Authors who are not already receiving the OD Journal, will receive one compli-mentary copy of the journal in which their article appears. Articles should be submitted to Wei Huang, PhD, Managing Editor (Regular Edition), at [email protected].

Copies of the journal are provided as part of membership in the OD Institute. Information on becoming a member can be found in this issue. A subscription is US $100 per year for four copies. Single issues are available at US$25; however, pre-publication orders are suggested since quantities are often limited. Undeliverable copies due to address change normally will not be replaced. People who receive the OD Journal should notify the Post Office to guarantee forwarding to your new ad-dress. Reprints can be requested at ProQuest, PO Box 1346, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346, tel: 800-521-0600; homepage: www.il.proquest.com.

Advertising information and rates for the journal can be obtained by writing to Dr. Donald Cole, at [email protected].

Reprint Permission is granted to university or college faculty member for reprinting single articles for in-classroom use if proper citation accompanies each copy. All other reprint requests must be made in writing to the Publisher.

ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERSDr. Terry Armstrong, RODC, (Former Editor)Dr. Joseph Cangemi, RODP (Former Editor, Western Kentucky UniversityDr. Allan H. Church, RODC (Former Editor), Pepsico, Inc.Dr. Donald W. Cole, RODC (Publisher), Organization Development InstituteDr. Robert T. Golembiewski, RODC, University of GeorgiaDr. Marilyn Laiken, RODC, University of TorontoDr. Jeanne Maes, RODP, University of South AlabamaDr. Kenneth L. Murrell, University of West FloridaDr. Peter F. Sorenson, Jr., RODC, Benedictine UniversityThiet K. Nguyen (Editor), Johnson & Johnson

Table of Contents

From the Editor

Best Global Practices in Internal Organization Development ........................................................................... 3Thiet (Ted) Nguyen, Johnson & Johnson

Articles

CHANGE MANAGEMENT AND CULTURAL INTERVENTION

Collaborate for Growth: Deepening Involvement through Hope ...................................................................... 13Mike Markovits, IBM Kristin von Donop, Cambridge Leadership Associates

Developing the Performance Culture .......................................................................................................... 19Ellen Raynor, MMckesson Medical-Surgical

Employees CAN Make a Difference! Involving Employees in Change at Allstate Insurance ....................................... 27Elizabeth Vales, Allstate Insurance Company

Instilling a Spirit of Winning at American Express........................................................................................... 33Gabriella Giglio, American ExpressSilvia Michalcova, American ExpressChris Yates, American Express

People and Error: “Human Factor” Principles in Safety Critical Industries ......................................................... 39John Anfield, Rolls-Royce

Personal Transformation as a Leverage for Organizational Transformation:The TEA Program as a facilitator of cultural change management .................................................................... 49

Melina Gretel Münner, Petrobas, ArgentinaResults Matter: Unlocking Value through Avaya’s Business Transformation ....................................................... 55

Doug Reinstein, Avaya Inc.Safety at the Center: A Model that Accelerates Learning ................................................................................ 63

Elizabeth Hostetler, Ph.D., University of Maryland Medical CenterWhen Opportunity Knocks: OD’s Response to Takeover in the Acquired Company ................................................ 67

James Shillaber, PsyD., Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals

LEADERSHIP AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT

Ensuring Enterprise Success Through a Systemic Approach to Leadership Development ...................................... 77Jeri Darling, BAE Systems

Enterprise Leadership ............................................................................................................................ 83Brent deMoville, Allergan Inc.

Evaluating a Leadership Development Program ........................................................................................... 89Judith Hayes, Manitoba Lotteries Corporation

Getting Results from a Systemic Front Line Leader Development Program at Raytheon ........................................ 95Greg Till, Raytheon

KNOWLEDGE / TALENT MANAGEMENT

Action Learning Accelerates Innovation: Cisco’s Action Learning Forum ........................................................... 107Annmarie Neal, Psy.D., Cisco Systems, Inc.Lisa Cavallaro, Cisco Systems, Inc.

O R G A N I Z A T I O N D E V E L O P M E N T J O U R N A L

VOLUME 25 � NUMBER 4 � WINTER 2007 P1

3

13

19

27

33

39

49

55

63

67

77

83

89

95

107

Analyzing Critical Positions for Talent Needs ............................................................................................. 115 Mike Barron, Whirlpool

ORGANIZATIONAL CAPABILITY / EFFECTIVENESS

Creating a Strategy to Help Others Better Understand the Value of Organization Development ..............................121Rose Katz, Aramark Healthcare

Developing the Capability to Be Agile ........................................................................................................ 127V P Kochikar, Infosys TechnologiesM P Ravindra, Infosys Technologies

Electric Utility Achieves Business Results through Organizational Development ................................................... 135Ross Schifo, Central Vermont Public Service

Elements of Partnership Between HR and Learning and Development: Create a Win/Win ...................................... 141Sue Kirkland, American Cancer Society, Eastern Division

Globalizing the OD Function – Meeting Global and Regional Needs ................................................................... 145Jackie Alcalde Marr, Oracle Corporation

Organizational Development - From Public Relations Nightmare to Competitive Edge ........................................... 151Sandra Torres, Aramark Healthcare

ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN / TRANSFORMATION

Speak-Up All You Whistle-blowers: An OD Perspective on the Impact of Employee Hotlines on Organizational Culture.. 161Allan Church, Pepsi Co Inc.Jessica A. Gallus, University of ConnecticutErica I. Desrosiers, PepsiCo, Inc.Janine Waclawski, Pepsi-Cola North America

Strategic Intent: A Key to Business Strategy Development and Culture Change .................................................. 169Jim W. Ice, Respironics, Inc.

FUTURE OF OD

The Future of Organizational Development in the Nonprofit Sector ................................................................... 179Jeana Wirtenburg,Ph.D., Jeana Wirtenberg & Associates, LLC Thomas E. Backer, Ph.D.,Human Interacion Research Institute

Wendy Chang, Dwight Stuart Youth FoundationTim Lannan, MSOD, Tim Lannon ConsultingBeth Applegate, MSOD, Applegate Consulting GroupMalcolm Conway, IBM Global Business ServicesLilian Abrams, Ph.D.,Abrams & AssociatesJoan Slepian, Ph.D., Silberman College of Business

ACADEMIC IMPLICATIONS

Curriculum Implications Based on Analysis of Internal Consulting Best Practices ................................................ 197Miriam Y. Lacey, Ph.D., Graziadio School of Business and Management, Pepperdine UniversityTeri C. Tompkins, Ph.D., Graziadio School of Business and Management, Pepperdine UniversityTerri D. Egan, Ph.D., Graziadio School of Business and Management, Pepperdine University

OD Special Team Bios .............................................................................................................................. 211

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS

Calendar of Events .................................................................................................................................. 232In Appreciation ..................................................................................................................................... 233Call for Presentations ............................................................................................................................ 234Subscription Information ....................................................................................................................... 237Advertising Guidelines for OD Journal ....................................................................................................... 237

VOLUME 25 � NUMBER 4 � WINTER 2007P2

115

121

127

135

141

145

151

159

169

179

199

213

234235236237238

VOLUME 25 � NUMBER 4 � WINTER 2007

Le�er from the Editor:

Best Global Practices in Internal Organization Development

By Thiet (Ted) K. Nguyen, Johnson & Johnson

I write this le�er to conclude the third and final volume of the special global edition of the OD Journal from thecity of Dubai, United Arab Emirates, one of the fastest growing business centers in the Middle East.

Yesterday, as I was waiting to board my plane from JFK airport, I had a chance to relax in the Emirates lounge.There, I saw an entourage of Middle Eastern dignitaries (with an even larger number of American bodyguards) –presumably heading home on the same flight. With an hour to spare before departure to Dubai, I picked up theFinancial Times and read a headline that revealed Warner Bros, the largest Hollywood Studio, has made AbuDhabi, the capital city of this country, its entertainment hub. With an unprecedented investment in the breadthand scope of activities, Warner Brothers expects to create a 6,000-acre theme park, movie studio, hotel, multiplexcinemas, videogames, and infrastructure for Abu Dhabi’s digital transformation. Abu Dhabi will contribute $500million to co-finance Warner films, a 50-50 joint venture on broad-appeal films. Together, Warner Bros and AbuDhabi are exploring opportunities in additional areas such as production facilities, digital content distribution,and retail opportunities in the Gulf region. I boarded the plane smiling to myself as I considered the phenomenalgrowth opportunities in the Middle East.

When I finally arrived here in Dubai 14 hours later, I took a short tour of the city. Knowing that I had arrived dur-ing the observance of the Holy month of Ramadan, a Moslem religious tradition where people fast from sunriseto sunset, I was fascinated to see that the Mall of Emirates was full of people enjoying fun activities, like snow ski-ing inside – in an environment controlled at 2 degrees C while the outside temperature was 40 degrees C. Thehotel I am staying is directly across from the large American Hospital (actual name of the hospital), and a five-minute drive to Healthcare City, where I am scheduled to meet with senior Johnson & Johnson business leadersfrom the Pharmaceuticals, Medical Devices and Diagnostics, and Consumer sectors. Our meetings are scheduledfor Sunday, which is the first workday of the week here.

This morning, as I enjoyed breakfast and read the Gulf News, a local newspaper, I saw a headline in the Businesssection that read “India Now Outsources Outsourcing.” The article described how India is now outsourcing out-sourcing in this global economy, now that its own wages are rising and demands for its services are increasing.India is facing competition from newly developing countries seeking to emulate its success in back office supportto wealthier nations. This is driving leading Indian companies to establish their operations in those competingcountries in order to outsource work to them. Infosys Technologies described its outsourcing strategy this way:“to take the work from any part of the world and do it in any part of the world.” (Gulf News, p. 30, September 29,2007)

P3

VOLUME 25 � NUMBER 4 � WINTER 2007

To me, the interesting part of this outsourcing article was not about how Infosys Technologies is becoming aglobal matchmaker by outsourcing its work to low wage countries, such as China, Czech Republic, Philippines,Poland, Mexico, and Thailand. It is about how it and other Indian companies are outsourcing its work to low-costregions of the United States. Americans from US universities accepted a novel assignment from Infosys to cometo India to learn computer programming so they can return to the US to work on back-office assignments. A ris-ing number of Indian companies are opening back offices in Boise, Phoenix and Atlanta, where wages are rela-tively lower than other parts of the US. Wipro is opening a so�ware development center in Atlanta and will hire500 programmers during the next three years. Wipro’s Chairman informed Wall Street analysts that “he was con-sidering hubs in Idaho and Virginia, in addition to Georgia, to take advantage of ‘states which are less devel-oped.’” (Gulf News, p. 30, September 29, 2007)

The world has changed and will continue to change at exponential rates. The marketplace is already global.Many US corporations are experiencing faster international growth rates than domestic, and they continue to in-vest heavily in emerging markets including Russia, India, China, and Brazil. Companies in emerging markets arefacing rising competition from lower wage markets and are beginning to invest in those markets and in clientcountries. Yesterday there was serious concern that the US had lost a lot of jobs due to outsourcing. Today, it ap-pears that the US is beginning to gain new jobs from a number of countries to which it has outsourced, like Indiaand China. What will the world look like tomorrow?

I passionately believe that we, as OD practitioners, can shape and influence tomorrow by leveraging our corecompetencies in change management, organizational design, and leadership development. We can shape the ex-ternal environment through our work in developing future leaders and guiding companies through change. I be-lieve we must continually upgrade our skills and reinvent our knowledge to be effective in guiding our clients.By publishing this global Special Edition, we expect to achieve our goal to help drive change and grow our pro-fession.

This Special Edition will benefit the HR/OD community in several ways:� Academic community – The academic community will find the content of these contributions of value to

raise the awareness of current best internal practices with specific applications. Program directors can be informed and encouraged to strengthen their curriculums and research directions. Graduate students may use this edition to leverage their classroom experience, as they prepare to enter the OD profession and compete for opportunities in the global marketplace.

� Current practitioners – Both internal and external practitioners can use this knowledge to guide and grow their practice areas, enhance their skills, and strengthen their core competencies, by learning from other OD professionals.

� Our clients and business partners – Potential and existing clients can be be�er informed of the capabilities OD professionals can bring to enhance employee engagement and organizational growth and vitality.

Content like this has never been captured or disseminated because internal practitioners do not have the luxuryof time to write. This is the first time many of these authors took the time to document their work, secure the sup-port of their companies to release the information, and share their internal efforts with all who are interested. Weapplaud all our authors for their trust in us, and their willingness to provide working papers without the benefitof professional editors. In this global Special Edition, readers will experience truly authentic voices of internalpractitioners worldwide who share their stories from a place of caring and eagerness to advance the field of or-ganization development.

While this series is titled a best internal OD practice edition, no one associated with its production has judged orevaluated “a best global practice.” Rather, authors were encouraged to share what they perceived to be a best

P4

• Refine the definition and distinction of the OD field of practice

• Enhance the quality control of practitioner skills• Increase opportunities for OD practitioners to

enhance their business acumen including the ability to accurately identify and meet customer needs

• Measure and communicate the return on investment (ROI) and /or the perceived value of OD work to the business.

We believe that there is no doubt OD practitioners can,and do make contributions within and across thesebroad areas of challenges. However, in this Phase 2study, we sought to explore and define in greater de-tail the relative importance of specific challenges asso-ciated with each of the Key Integrated Themes (KIT’s)as well as the extent of the performance gaps associ-ated with these challenges, from the perspective ofthe nonprofit leaders, rather than the OrganizationalDevelopment practitioners who were our primaryfocus in Phase 1 of our study. In this way, we hoped tofind specific value-added domains for OD practition-ers to close these gaps, and in so doing, add morevalue in those areas that Nonprofit Leaders want andneed most.

Research Methodology

Survey Design and Distribution

The Internet-based survey of for profit business lead-ers was designed and piloted with GCFOD Communi-ties of Practice (COP’s) between mid-December 2004and early January 2005. A�er the for profit version ofthe survey was finalized (Wirtenberg, Lipsky, et al.,2007), the Nonprofit Team of the GCFOD worked withthe Research Team to modify the questions and re-sponse categories to apply to and use the language ofthe nonprofit sector (focusing, for example, on missionrather than financial goals in question 1 and on mis-sion effectiveness rather than competitive advantage inquestion 9). While recognizing that not all questionscould be perfectly adapted for a nonprofit in doingthis, all agreed on the importance of developing paral-lel surveys to facilitate a comparative analysis betweenthe for profit and nonprofit sectors.

The survey vendor, Quantiso�, conducted a beta testof the instrument to ensure that there were no techno-logical barriers to its administration and to data cap-ture of the responses. Data from the pilot test and betatest were summarized, analyzed and reviewed and ap-propriate enhancements were made to the dra� ques-

tionnaire to produce the final version for web adminis-tration. To ensure anonymity, the survey responseswere stripped of any personally identifying informa-tion and returned to Quantiso� for processing. Thesurvey was administered between May 15 and August15, 2005, by the third-party survey vendor, Quantiso�.

Survey Distribution

A networking strategy targeted at executive directorsof national, local, and regional nonprofit organizationswas used to distribute the questionnaire to leaders inthe nonprofit sector. Information about the question-naire and links to the survey were sent through listserves, email, and electronic newsle�ers. Membershipassociations asked to participate in this effort includedthe Alliance for Nonprofit Management, NationalCouncil of Nonprofit Associations, Association ofFundraising Professionals, Aspen Institute, ARNOVA,Charity Channel, and national nonprofit organizationsincluding Girl Scouts, Planned Parenthood, and theUrban Institute. Members of the Global Commi�ee’sNonprofit Sector Team also forwarded survey links totheir actual or potential clients, and submi�ed namesanonymously to supplement these distributions. Inaddition, newsle�ers of five sponsoring organizations,GCFOD newsle�ers and notices, and emails and let-ters to Advisory Board members and others includednotices with connecting links, numerous announce-ments were made at various meetings and confer-ences, and recipients of the survey were encouraged toforward the survey to their personal networks.

In total, the for profit survey was administered via theInternet to a large volunteer (non-probability) sampleof Fortune 1000 business leaders (approximately16,500) and the nonprofit survey to approximately5,000 nonprofit senior executives. Of the 235 total re-spondents, 120 were from the for profit sector and 115from the nonprofit sector. We report the nonprofit re-sults here and the for profit results were previously re-ported (Wirtenberg, Lipsky, et al, 2007) in theOrganization Development Journal. Respondents wererepresentative of the targeted demographic profile inall dimensions: size, function, level of management,age, gender, and dispersion across the nonprofit sector(Exhibit 1).

P181PVOLUME 25 � NUMBER 4 � WINTER 2007

Exhibit 1. Demographics and Key Sample Characteristics of Nonprofit Respondents

Respondent Sample (N) 115

GenderFemale N = 64 (57%)Male N = 49 (43%)

Age60 or over N = 17 (15%)50 – 59 N = 51 (45%)40 – 49 N = 31 (27%)30 – 39 N = 11 (10%)20 – 29 N = 3 (3%)

CountryUnited States N =108 (94%)Outside the US N = 7 (6%)

Primary Focus1

Arts, culture, humanities N = 3 (2.5%)Education N = 11 (10%)Environmental and animal protection N = 3 (2.5%)Health N = 20 (17%)Human services N = 26 (23%)Public and societal benefit N = 14 (12%)Religious and spiritual N = 2 (2%)Other N = 28 (24%)No answer N = 8 (7%)

Functional AreasGeneral Management N = 71 (62%)HR/Personnel N = 7 (6%)Training/Education N = 5 (4%)Program N = 4 (3%)Research & Development N = 3 (2.5%)Marketing N = 2 (2%)Legal N = 2 (2%)Finance/Planning N = 2 (2%)Other N = 12 (10.5%)No answer N = 7 (6%)

Footnotes

1 The survey included eight possible categories (including “other”), which were distilled by the Center of Philanthropyat Indiana University from NTEE codes (National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities, which was developed by the NationalCenter for Charitable Statistics). NTEE codes provide for 26 primary classifications and many secondary classificationsunder each primary category.

P182P VOLUME 25 � NUMBER 4 � WINTER 2007

Level of Management:Executive N = 78 (68%)Middle N = 27 (24%)Other N = 4 (3%)No Answer N = 6 (5%)

Annual BudgetLess than $500,000 N = 24 (21%)$500,000 – $999,999 N = 14 (12%)$1,000,000 – $1,999,999 N = 20 (17%)$2,000,000 – $4,999,999 N = 17 (15%)$5,000,000 – $9,999,999 N = 10 (9%)$10,000,000 or more N = 24 (21%)No answer N = 6 (5%)

Number of EmployeesUnder 50 N = 69 (60%)50 – 249 N = 18 (16%)250 – 499 N = 5 (4%)500 – 999 N = 6 (5%)1000 or more N = 14 (12%)No answer N = 3 (3%)

Company Life Cycle 2

New Venture N = 4 (3%)Expansion N = 29 (25%)Prime N = 34 (30%)Early Bureaucracy N = 13 (11%)Declining N = 8 (7%)Revitalization N = 25 (22%)No Answer N = 2 (2%)

Footnotes

2 Company Life Cycles were defined in response categories as follows:• New Venture (developing and implementing a business plan, building commitment, highly flexible)• Expansion (rapidly growing, developing systems and processes, highly flexible)• Prime (sustaining growth and profitability, balancing flexibility with control systems, corporate culture drives

creativity and innovation)• Early Bureaucracy (stable, strong financial position, searching for next growth opportunity/diversification; has lost

the creativity, innovation and flexibility that took it to Prime)• Declining (organization has lost flexibility and is bureaucratic; reduced demand for traditional products/services;

considering strategies such as downsizing or mergers to ensure organization survival)• Revitalization (organization engages in change initiatives to restore flexibility and reduce bureaucracy that is

limiting competitiveness; change initiatives result in a return to the Prime stage)


The pa�erns and trends reported here are internallyconsistent and indicative of the perceptions of 115nonprofit leaders who represent a broad spectrum ofnonprofits across the United States.

Caveats and Limitations

As actionable research, the survey producedconsistent data trends that support actions that can betaken to improve leadership in the 21st century in thecontent areas of the survey. However, certain limitations should be noted:• Sampling – Self-selection (many people sending

from many directions, including newsle�ers, emails, list serves); the lack of fool-proof methods for certifying that targeted nonprofit leaders actually completed the survey and did not dele-gate its completion to someone else, and the demographically skewed population favoring middle-aged women in civil sector leadership

positions may have individually or collectively affected the sample.

• Necessity of non-probability sample vs. probabilitysample –The GCFOD is a voluntary organization without the name recognition and branding ofestablished firms that conduct surveys in the nonprofit sector and was not able to obtain a complete sampling frame of nonprofit leaders. This reality necessitated the use of a non-probability sample – in this case the sample was a convenience (voluntary) sample. Convenience sampling (sometimes called grab or opportunity sampling) is the method of choosing items (respondent targets) in an unstructured manner from the frame. It is the method most commonly employed in many practical situations.

• Resource limitations prevented telephone follow-up – If the voluntary GCFOD organization had sufficient resources, follow-up interviews would have been included in the survey project plan so

P184

Exhibit 2. Areas of Potential Support by Organization Development Practitioners

1. Aligning and executing strategies in a way that advances the mission and is consistent with core

values

2. Effectively addressing organizational culture for collaboration and strategic alliances

3. Effectively applying organizational change principles

4. Aligning strategies, people, systems and processes organization-wide to enhance productivity and

sustainability

5. Developing and maintaining the commitment of staff and volunteers to the goals of the

organization for better overall performance

6. Clarifying purpose and mission to inspire and engage staff and volunteers

7. Attracting and retaining top talent

8. Leveraging and aligning existing information technology with business and people strategies

9. Facilitating adoption and use of new information technologies for mission effectiveness

10.Using information technology to support learning and innovation

11. Enhancing reputation among communities where we work, and with clients, employees and

donors/funders

12.Enhancing employees’ commitment by focusing on service and contributions in the community

13.Ensuring accountability for values and ethics among employees and volunteers

14.Building leadership capacity for now and the future

15.Solving organizational problems systemically as opposed to solving them on a piecemeal basis

16.Establishing collaborative relationships and partnerships among public, private and nonprofit

sectors

17. Increasing speed of response to emerging client and stakeholder needs through shared

commitments and organizational values

P VOLUME 25 � NUMBER 4 � WINTER 2007

that further probing could be conducted. Such in-depth probes could have produced additional insights about issues facing nonprofit leaders, the sources they turn to for help, and their plans to commit resources in the future for OD.

• Nonprofit associations and organizations that participated in efforts to distribute information about the survey are predominantly more progressive, social justice organizations, which may have skewed the population.

Nonprofit Leaders’ Greatest Challenges and Opportunities

The first section of the survey of nonprofit leaders fo-cused on seventeen statements (Exhibit 2) thatstemmed from the six key integrated themes. For eachof the statements, leaders were asked to rate the impor-tance to their organization of this key area as well asthe effectiveness of their organization’s performance init. The survey validated the six key themes, sincescores on all 17 items were rated above 4 on a five-point scale for importance.

The effectiveness scores were consistently lower thanimportance (ranging from 3.24 to 4.04, with only twoitems scoring above 4.0). Respondents indicated thatnonprofit leaders were not very satisfied with their or-ganization’s performance in most of the areas cited.By arraying all seventeen items on an Importance by

Effectiveness 2x2 matrix (Exhibit 3), it is easy to seewhich constitute the most urgent and the highest pri-orities for nonprofit leaders, as well as particularweaknesses that must be addressed.

Urgent Opportunities

Items identified as urgent consisted of those itemshigh in Importance (mean of 4.45 or greater), but rela-tively low in Effectiveness (mean = 3.7 or less). Forthis group as a whole, five items surfaced as needingurgent a�ention, all of which had a gap of 1.0 orhigher between importance and effectiveness.

1. Building leadership capacity (Item #14 – Importance = 4.75, Effectiveness = 3.30, Gap= 1.44 (p<.001))

The organization success factor with the largest gapbetween the importance and effectiveness (1.44) wasbuilding leadership capacity for now and the future.Nonprofit leaders, like their for profit counterparts,identified the development and management ofemerging leadership as the most neglected critical ac-tivity in their organizations. Twelve respondentsspecifically mentioned limited resources, especiallyfunding and their organization’s small size, as respon-sible for the difficulties in developing leadership ca-pacity. On a positive note, six respondentscommented that their organizations were addressing

P185

Exhibit 3. Key Findings on Importance and Effectiveness

PVOLUME 25 � NUMBER 4 � WINTER 2007

Urgent

HighPriority

Effectiveness

leadership development despite the lack of formal re-sources. As one noted, “This (activity) is critical forboth paid staff and volunteer leadership. With a smallstaff, the internal leadership opportunities are fairlylimited; so we work hard to offer external leadershipopportunities for personal growth.” Six respondentsindicated that a lack of resources (e.g., staff, money,advancement opportunities) prevented them fromleadership development, while three respondents saidthat their constituent communities, boards and othernonprofit leadership did not see this item as a priority.

2. Solving organization problems systemically as opposed to solving them on a piecemeal basis (Item #15 – Importance = 4.58, Effectiveness = 3.24, Gap = 1.33 (p<.001))

Although two respondents said that they “do not havethe time (or) necessity for this approach to all prob-lems,” most commented that systemic problem-solv-ing was necessary, though obstacles in the wayincluded a tendency towards “fire-fighting” (n=3); theneed for more money and resources (n=1); andturnover in leadership (n=1).

3. Aligning strategies, people, systems and processes organization-wide to enhanceproductivity and sustainability (Item #4 – Importance = 4.74, Effectiveness = 3.49, Gap = 1.25 (p<.001))

Wri�en comments from five respondents indicatedthat they are actively engaged in developing new sys-tems and strategies, but four others said that day-to-day service needs and priorities take precedence overthe development of new systems, processes, andstrategic priorities. On a separate note, three respon-dents indicated ambivalence regarding the meaningand value of “alignment” with one noting: “I do notbelieve it is always healthy to always be aligned. Vari-ety and novelty can be driven out.”

4. Effectively applying organizational change principles (Item #3 – Importance = 4.51, Effectiveness = 3.28, Gap = 1.24 (p<.001))

Five respondents mentioned that nonprofits must con-tinually change to sustain and achieve their mission.One suggested that effective change entails: “Deter-mining (and) communicating vision, observing othersin the system as they a�empt to translate vision intoaction, coaching for action, educating to overcome re-sistance, identifying the important dissatisfactions,(providing) reasons for the change – and providing

ongoing communication about those dissatisfactions.”Four respondents noted that change is particularlychallenging for nonprofits given their “be nice” cul-ture; one said that “Intentional improvements, andeven unexpected changes brought about by externalfactors, have seemed very disruptive to staff. The or-ganization's staff is relatively inexperienced, and fund-ing challenges make it difficult to hire and maintainmore experienced folks.”

5. Effectively addressing organizational culture for collaboration and strategic alliances (Item #2 – Importance = 4.60, Effectiveness = 3.59, Gap = 1.01 (p<.001))

While six respondents indicated that collaboration isvaluable, they noted that it is o�en neglected or ig-nored. Perhaps because “there are so many details thatwe a�end to, o�en our collaborations and alliances areput on the back burners, even though they can be verybeneficial to our overall mission.” Another six com-ments indicated that it is a challenge to create a collab-orative and trusting culture, with one noting, “Ourservice units are o�en at odds, pulling for their owncause, not the bigger picture.”

High Priority Items

Items identified as High Priority were rated high inImportance (mean of 4.45 or greater) and somewhatlower in Effectiveness (mean = 3.7 or higher). Sevenitems surfaced as high priority, all of which had gapsbetween 0.65 and 0.99. While these High Priorityitems were not rated as relatively low in Effectivenessas the Urgent items, given their relatively high Impor-tance scores, leaders could profitably focus a�entionand resources on these seven areas.

Mission and Values. Most high priority itemsaddress what nonprofit leaders indicated should be acore competency of nonprofit organizations – linkingtheir mission and values to the work of their organiza-tions. Four high-priority items (Item #s 1, 5, 6, & 13)concern advancing mission and direction in ways thatare consistent with core values.

Respondents agreed that item 1 is critical (Aligning andexecuting strategies in a way that advances the mission andis consistent with core values: Importance = 4.90, Effective-ness = 3.99, Gap = 0.91 (p<.001)). Five noted that the de-tails of the work and the passion and interests of thestaff and board members o�en make it difficult tomaintain strategic focus. Sample comments include:


“where we get less effective is due to occasional mis-sion creep, driven by the passions and commitment offield staff,” and “Nonprofits depend on boards thatare voluntary and based on affinity to a cause (which)is not enough to achieve an organization's mission.”Six said that external factors such as funding mandatesand clients’ emerging needs o�en complicate thisprocess, yet are critical for success: “Mandates of cur-rent funding sources impact daily actions….”

Item 5 (Developing and maintaining the commitment ofstaff and volunteers to the goals of the organization: Impor-tance = 4.88, Effectiveness = 3.88, Gap = 0.99 (p<.001)) hadthe highest gap among high-priority items. Com-ments reinforced the importance of this item, whilerecognizing the difficulty in maintaining goal commit-ment due to differing priorities between staff and vol-unteers.

About Item 6 (Clarifying purpose and mission to inspireand engage staff and volunteers: Importance = 4.70, Effec-tiveness = 3.90, Gap = 0.79 (p<.001)), three respondentscommented that “inspiring and engaging the entirecommunity is central and critical.” While one added,“we work hard at insuring that our purpose and mis-sion resonate with everyone involved in driving theorganization,” three others noted that “mission state-ments are o�en problematic in focusing shared com-mitment and action.”

For Item 13 (Ensuring accountability for values and ethicsamong all employees and volunteers: Importance = 4.72, Ef-fectiveness = 3.99, Gap = 0.75 (p<.001)), nine respondentsindicated sensitivity and progress in their organiza-tions in this area, with one noting “My experience isthat people a�racted to nonprofits that benefit societyare more aware than other workers about values andethics.” Four respondents indicated that nonprofitsneed to do more work in this area: as one said, “Manynonprofit leaders and their followers get bogged[down] in the pool of what's right and wrong, and bywhose standards.” Three commented that “Nonprof-its … need to balance ethics and values with accounta-bility.”

People. Two of the high-priority items above(5 and 6) – focus on the link between mission and val-ues and people – staff and volunteers – as does Item 7(A�racting and retaining top talent: Importance = 4.83, Ef-fectiveness = 3.91, Gap =: 0.90 (p<.001)). Themes here in-cluded five respondents’ comments about funding andsalary constraints making it difficult to a�ract and re-tain top talent (e.g., “‘you are working for a charity’ soyou can't have be�er pay is the sector's overall a�i-tude”); four peoples’ comments about the need for

non-monetary compensation (e.g., meaningful work,recognition, education, quality of life); and five re-spondents’ comments about the challenge of assessingand identifying “top talent,” cost-effectiveness ofusing external consultants (outsourcing), and succes-sion planning, when appropriate.

Community Connection. The two items (16and 11) concern links to the larger community. Ninerespondents commented on item 11 (Enhancing reputa-tion among communities where we work, and with clients,employees and donors/funders: Importance = 4.85, Effective-ness = 4.04, Gap = 0.81 (p<.001)), including five saying“We need be�er staff/more $/focus on this area to ac-complish this goal” and three noting, “This is criticalto ge�ing our work done and sustainability.” Item 16(Establishing collaborative relationships and partnershipsamong public, private, and nonprofit sectors: Importance =4.64, Effectiveness = 4.00, Gap = 0.64 (p<.001)) resonatedwith several respondents, with two noting that “(Thisis the) key to sustainability in the 21st century.”

Sources of Expertise and Support: To Whom do Non-profit Leaders Turn to for Support?

For each specific item related to the six key integratedthemes, nonprofit leaders were asked, “To whom doyou/would you most likely turn for support?” For nine ofthe 16 items, nonprofit leaders turn to internal man-agement first, and to their internal OD Departmentsecond. This is true for the three items related to creat-ing a performance culture (Enhancing workplace, pro-ductivity and performance culture; Fosteringemployee engagement and commitment; and Buildingskills for innovation and flexibility in the workforce),for the three items related to building leadership andorganizational capabilities (Identifying, a�racting, de-veloping and retaining leadership talent; Fosteringleadership courage, decision making and problemsolving (e.g. doing what is right and making hard de-cisions); and Managing and resolving conflict), and forboth items related to social responsibility (Developingskills and competencies in supporting socially respon-sible business practices, ethics, and governance; andEmbedding socially responsible values and results incorporate drivers and key metrics), although nonprofitleaders also rely significantly on outside expertise inthese areas. The ninth item, “Fostering continuouslearning and knowledge sharing in organizations” is asubset of “Leveraging and Integrating Technology, thesecond item of which, “Helping people and organiza-tions adapt to changes and be more resilient as theyintegrate new technologies,” breaks that pa�ern andshows that leaders depend primarily on outside ex-pertise for support in this area, when consulting firms,


nonprofit management support centers, external OD,and other are combined.

For issues dealing with globalization, multi-cultural,and whole system perspective, nonprofit leaders turnto line management first, others second, and internalOD third for support with “Positioning collaborationand strategic alliances for success from a cultural per-spective” and “Successfully working in a global, multi-cultural environment.” For the third area in thiscategory, “Building skills and competencies in multi-cultural sensitivity and diversity,” there is no clear pre-ferred source of support, although nonprofit leadersdo look to internal OD slightly more o�en than theylook to the other five possible sources of supportlisted.

While continuing to turn to line management for sup-port for issues related to “Regulatory Environmentand New Organizational Forms,” nonprofit leaders dodepend significantly on HR for support in this area. Incontrast, for help “Building new models in public-pri-vate partnerships” and “Supporting collaborative part-nerships across organizational boundaries (i.e.organizations, sectors, industries),” nonprofit leadersdepend heavily on outside experts. The only timenonprofit leaders turn first to outside experts (externalconsultants) for support and second to internal man-agement, however, is to “Stimulate awareness aboutalternative organizational forms (e.g. networked, vir-tual, matrix.)” Overall, nonprofit leaders depend heav-ily on internal resources and most significantly oninternal management first for support, listing them asthe first recourse in all but two of the 16 areas.

OD Investment Intentions: Plans to Grow Organization Development

Fi�een percent of nonprofit respondents had a distinctOD department; among those who did, it most o�enreported to HR. Despite – or possibly because of –their dissatisfaction with the current effectiveness, al-most 58% of nonprofit respondents said they were ei-ther very likely or somewhat likely to invest in ODover the next three years. Over 90% said they plannedto invest more or about the same as in 2004.

Creating a Strategic Grantmaking Initiative at DwightStuart Youth Foundation:

The Contribution of Organization Development

This case study expands on results from the NonprofitLeader Survey, by demonstrating how an external ODpractitioner can help a nonprofit address challengesand opportunities important to their success. In thisparticular case, the challenge and the opportunity wasto help the Dwight Stuart Youth Foundation movefrom “responsive” to “strategic” grantmaking, a majorchange in its “business strategy” as a nonprofit foun-dation making grants to support other nonprofits. TheFoundation’s consultant, as suggested by the Surveyfindings, began by focusing on the client’s needs andon the larger environment through which the clientwants to affect change, and then helped the organiza-tion move forward.

Context: Foundations in the Nonprofit Sector

Foundations are an important part of the nonprofitsector in the United States. A�er an initial wave ofprofessionalization and enormous growth beginningin the 1980s, these institutions are now much more vis-ible to researchers, consultants (there’s now a profes-sional organization for foundation consultants, theNational Network of Consultants to Grantmakers),legislators and the general public. In 2006, the morethan 71,000 American foundations gave $40.7 billion tothe nonprofit sector (Foundation Center, 2007). Deanof American philanthropy studies Joel Fleishman, inhis book The Foundation, argues for the importance of“specific decision-making processes and progress-checking systems that foundations need to employ ifthey wish to increase the impact of their charitablemoney” (2007, p. xv).

One of the significant “business model” decisions afoundation can make is to move from responsivegrantmaking, where nonprofits apply for fundingbased on their self-determined needs and some gen-eral guidelines from the funder, to strategic grantmak-ing. In the la�er, the foundation determines muchmore specifically what kinds of projects it will supportand from whom. O�en the grantmaking is focused ona particular group of nonprofits through a carefully-planned “initiative.”

This case study tells the story of how one foundationcreated such an initiative – and how it used outsideconsultation based in an organization developmentperspective to do so. While the case study is told in


the specific terms of one very specialized kind of non-profit, a grantmaking foundation, the lessons from thisexperience are relevant to any nonprofit organizationwanting to “change its business model,” or make othersignificant changes.

About the Dwight Stuart Youth Foundation

The Dwight Stuart Youth Foundation is a family foun-dation, a particular type of American foundation inwhich the governing body of trustees are all familymembers. It was endowed in the late 1990s by the lateDwight Stuart, former CEO of the Carnation Companyand grandson of the company’s founder.

Now in its sixth year of grantmaking, the Foundationhas total assets of more than $80 million, and givesgrants totaling more than $4 million a year to non-profit organizations in Southern California that servedisadvantaged and underserved children and youth.Its grantmaking has four areas of emphasis – educa-tion enrichment, mentoring, leadership and commu-nity service, and school readiness. The Foundation’sBoard of Trustees is composed of Mr. Stuart’s four sonsand his sister. It has a professional staff of two, and isheadquartered in Beverly Hills, California.

Deciding to Change

Until 2007, the Foundation was largely a responsivegrantmaker, as defined earlier. But in 2005, theTrustees began to consider moving to a more strategicstyle, hoping for more direct and measurable impact.Internal discussions with staff identified a possibletopic for a strategic grantmaking initiative: capacitybuilding for Southern California youth-serving non-profits, especially those to which the Foundation al-ready have given grants to support services.

Capacity building involves training, technical assis-tance and other ways to strengthen nonprofits so theybe�er achieve their missions. Examples include pay-ing for training programs for staff or board; or provid-ing financial support for enhancing facilities,technology or other aspects of the nonprofit’s infra-structure. This is an arena in which many foundationshave been active over the last 15 years (Backer & Bare,2000).

As a first step, the Foundation retained the services ofa consultant (the second author) to help them thinkabout whether such a move would be desirable andfeasible. During 2005, the consultant met regularly

with the Trustees and staff, reviewed grantmakingdocuments and conducted interviews with Founda-tion grantees and thought leaders in the community.

The consultant had worked in the OD field both in thepublic and private sector since the early 1970s, hadstudied and consulted in philanthropy for nearly 20years, and had conducted extensive research on non-profit capacity building. This background provided aunique perspective to a consulting relationship that al-lowed the Foundation to weigh its options fairly thor-oughly without any significant financial commitments.It also opened the door to using an OD approach, eventhough this was not overtly the reason for engagingthe consultant.

Role of the OD Consultant

Like many family foundations, Dwight Stuart YouthFoundation has a small staff, so hiring a consultant re-flected concerns by the Board of Trustees that consid-ering this new initiative not take away too much staffor Board energy from the main grantmaking role. Theconsultant and the Foundation’s program director (thethird author) had worked together previously in thefield of capacity building, so there was a natural fit.

There was immediate interest by the Foundation inbe�er aligning people, systems and processes focusedon nonprofit capacity building, not only within theirorganization but also in the environment in which itoperates. This would enhance productivity by increas-ing the impact of grants made to youth-serving non-profits. Helping the Foundation’s Trustees learn aboutcapacity building as a subject area would help buildtheir leadership skills for the future, and increase com-munity leadership by connecting them more with thecommunity. And moving to a strategic grantmakingapproach would help the organization engage in itscore “business” of grantmaking in a more systemicway. The process of internal education and debate,and gathering significant data from the community, re-flected shared values of the Foundation and its con-sultant about the importance of building a platform ofcommunity involvement and participation for any in-vestment the Foundation would make in future grant-making.

Building the Initiative

A�er the initial consultation, the Foundation decidedto move forward in 2006, and awarded a pilot studygrant to the consultant’s organization (the nonprofit


Human Interaction Research Institute, which has stud-ied innovation and change in the nonprofit sector since1961, www.humaninteract.org). The initiative to becreated could later be adopted or not, as the Founda-tion saw fit. The following activities were undertaken:1. The Foundation’s previous grantmaking was

analyzed by the consultant, and six focus groups were conducted. Four were with Foundation grantees, and two with Southern California foundations (one group of foundations that fund nonprofit capacity building, the other a group that fund services for children and youth). Their input helped assure that nonprofits really wanted funds made available for capacity building, and build understanding from other grantmakers about how to do this. In particular, the grantee focus groups helped convince the Foundation that there was significant readiness among youth-serving nonprofits for this type of activity.

2. A brainstorming session then was conducted with the Trustees, presenting findings from the focus groups and grantmaking analysis, and exploring best practices in nonprofit capacity building. Both the consultant and the Foundation’s program director used stories from their past experiences with nonprofit capacity building to help the Trustees understand be�er both the opportunities and costs associated with grantmaking of this type. Out of this session came an “options report” discussing major choices the Foundation could consider (in addition to grantmaking, they included providing information and self-assessment resources for local youth-serving agencies on the Foundation’s website).

3. Two community convenings later were held, bringing together grantees and funders to review what was learned from the focus groups, and to provide further input. Then the Foundation’s Trustees met to approve a dra� initiative.

4. Beginning in January 2007, the Foundation has implemented this initiative, with support through a three-year grant to the Human Interaction Research Institute. The initiative includes direct grantmaking to Southern California youth-serving nonprofits, opportunities for them to network with each other and with funders, information resources offered on the Foundation’s website, and evaluation to help improve the initiative as it moves along.

Lessons Learned

Over the last three years, the Dwight Stuart YouthFoundation’s development of a capacity-buildinggrantmaking initiative has put it into a new position ofleadership in Southern California. The lessons learnedfrom this experience are relevant to what nonprofitleaders see as among their most “urgent opportuni-ties”:

1. Building leadership capacity

The first step in this multi-part intervention was to ed-ucate the Foundation’s Trustees about capacity build-ing, and about strategic philanthropy. The consultant’snational research background in capacity building,and work with other foundations supported this edu-cation process, as did the expertise of the Foundation’sprogram director (who had developed a similar initia-tive for another foundation). Trustee education alsocame from data gathered in the Foundation’s own op-erations, and from the community of grantees andfunders to which it relates.

2. Solving organizational problems systemically

The intervention strategy, with a strong OD flavor asdiscussed here, moved from an extended managementconsultation, to a pilot study, to full implementation ofa detailed, wri�en plan that had been commented onnot only by the Foundation’s Trustees and staff, butalso by a large cadre of community leaders. At eachstage, the Foundation could review the opportunitiesoffered and decide whether to commit resources tocontinuing.

3. Aligning strategies, people, systems and processesorganization-wide

The Trustees, program staff, grantmaking procedures,and even the website of the Foundation all werealigned carefully to support the new initiative, as partof the developmental process outlined above. This in-volved changing both grantmaking procedures andthe internal communication style of the Foundation,increasing the level of intentionality in what was al-ready a well-organized institution.

4. Effectively applying organizational change principles

Though it was never identified specifically as such, theconsultant from the beginning took an OD perspectiveon this work, because it represented significant changefor the Foundation from its previous operations and


values. Four principles well-known to OD consultantswere followed: (a) the involvement of decision-mak-ers (the Trustees) was enhanced by taking a “step-by-step” approach that reduced anxieties about theirmaking an investment in a field they didn’t initiallyknow well, and by providing examples of successfrom peers; (b) involvement of community stakehold-ers was used in developing the change strategy, bothto win their support and to get their ideas for improv-ing it (Backer, Smith & Barbell, 2005); (c) peer learningwas used to increase both the quality of the changestrategy and the acceptance of it by leadership (Backer,in press); and (d) a “learning strategy” was created forthe Foundation, to weave together internal and exter-nal input in a more planful way (Backer, 2005).

5. Effectively addressing organizational culture for collaborations and strategic alliances

Peer learning groups of Southern California founda-tions interested in youth-serving nonprofits created bythe Foundation have resulted in ongoing networkingrelationships. Opportunities for additional collabora-tions and strategic alliances are already being ex-plored. These will be refined as the peer networkoriginally created for the 2006 pilot study is expandedthrough regular convenings.

As of this writing, le�ers of inquiry from local youth-serving agencies have been coming in for capacity-building support under the new initiative, and theFoundation is nominating some nonprofits for specialinvited grants. In 2008, the Foundation will begin itsannual convening of funders and nonprofits, as part ofthe initiative’s effort to benefit the entire Southern Cal-ifornia community. And evaluation findings will helpre-shape the initiative as it moves along.

If evaluation shows that results are positive and non-profits continue to apply for funding under this initia-tive, more resources may be added in the future. Thenatural evolution of the Foundation over the last sixyears has been to nurture long-term relationships witha “family” of grantees. This new initiative, guided bythe OD-style intervention described here, is likely toincrease both the quality of the first grants to be made,and the strength of these relationships – plus thosewith the larger community of nonprofits and grant-makers in Southern California.

Discussion and Implications

Nonprofit leaders see increasing opportunity for ODrelated work that is critical to the future of civil society.

Overall there is more agreement than disagreementabout what’s important and where they most need as-sistance. There are clear trends about their “painpoints” and opportunities. Both the nonprofit leadersurvey results and the Dwight Stuart Youth Founda-tion case study pointed to five areas where there aresignificant opportunities for contributions by OD prac-titioners: building leadership capacity; solving organi-zational problems systemically; aligning strategies,people, systems and processes organization-wide; ef-fectively applying organizational change principles;and effectively addressing organizational culture forcollaborations and strategic alliances.

Even though it is widely recognized that “organiza-tions that invest adequately in their infrastructure andlong-term planning are the ones that will survive andcontinue to serve” (Light, 2004, inside cover), nonprof-its are challenged as never before by the paucity of re-sources available for organization development andcapacity building.

As respondents’ comments indicated, scarcity of fund-ing and resources among nonprofits necessitates fo-cusing on the immediate and urgent, which precludesinvesting in longer-term priorities, including people,leadership development, and infrastructure that couldsupport the efficacy and sustainability of the organiza-tion. As Clara Miller (2005), president and CEO ofNonprofit Finance Fund, notes,

The nonprofit rules of business largely prohibit investment needed to increase efficiency as growth occurs…. Funds to defray costs that all of us – nonprofit or for-profit – consider a regular, sensible cost of business and a desirable investment in greater efficiency are frequently unavailable, ill-timed, and considered a cost “above and beyond” the real cost of providing services…. The inability of nonprofits to invest in more efficient management systems, higher skilled managers, training, and program development over time means that as promising programs grow, they are going to be hollowed out, resulting in burned out staff, under-maintained buildings, out of date services, and many other symptoms of inadequately funded ’overhead’. (pp. 52-54)

Further complicating the task of building effectivenonprofits is that critical differences between the non-profit and for profit sectors are not fully understoodby the increasing number of business executives enter-ing board and staff leadership positions, who o�en un-derestimate the complexities of leading a nonprofit(Silverman & Taliento, 2006). In this context, nonprofit


leaders are being asked to address seemingly in-tractable social problems and provide solutions, serv-ices and products that contribute to a more just,equitable and sustainable society.

OD professionals, regardless of whether they are inter-nal or external, can be helpful to nonprofit leaders asthey try to step up to these formidable challenges. ODprofessionals can ensure that foundations, nonprofitboards, and staff encourage investments that build or-ganizational capacity and leadership competencies. Atthe same time, as the design of the Dwight StuartYouth Foundation project illustrates, OD practitionerscan help nonprofit leaders recognize the interconnect-edness of the individual, the organization, the commu-nities it serves, and society and support nonprofitleaders in evaluating whether the espoused values arecongruent with the behavior and actions of the organi-zation as a whole.

Successful organizations prepare and plan for long-term change, even as they operate in the present.Again, a scarcity of funding and scale of nonprofit op-erations o�en necessitates that the focus is on the im-mediate and urgent -- therefore nonprofitorganizations too o�en do not make time to pause foran in-depth examination of the organization, its envi-ronment, its future, or for a searching look at organiza-tional effectiveness. The inability to hire outsideexpertise may further hinder effectiveness, efficiency,growth, and ability to advance mission.

A clear strength of OD is its whole systems perspec-tive, and there are numerous possibilities for OD pro-fessionals to contribute and add value in the nonprofitsector. OD professionals can leverage this strength bysupporting board and staff leadership in becoming“whole system thinkers” and helping them to under-stand that every organization, no ma�er how large orhow small, is a system. Organizational problems arelinked together, and change in one area o�en affectsother areas of the whole system. Discovering the linksand how they fit together and affect each other is thefoundation of holding a whole systems orientation.

OD practitioners can also identify and utilize sector-appropriate best practices and formulate processes forstrategic thinking about the future, so that even in themidst of change there is a focus on direction and im-pact. Furthermore, OD practitioners can facilitateprocesses to ensure that nonprofits clearly define theirmission, vision and core values, and adopt ambitiousbut realistic strategic objectives and organizationalgoals along with ongoing planning and evaluationmechanisms that ensure timely and effective imple-

mentation and oversight. Finally, OD practitioners canhelp to build skills and competencies in cultural com-petency and foster inter-organizational collaborationsand relationships across sector boundaries.

Conclusions

Civil society faces challenges as never before. Non-profit leaders need real time practical help and sup-port. There is considerable room for improvement inareas that leaders consider important. This articlehighlights specific areas of urgency and high priorityin the nonprofit sector and points the way for practi-tioners (OD, internal staff, and external consultants) toadd value where it is needed the most. Currently, it isimportant to note that OD as a distinct field or func-tion is barely even on the radar screen. Much of thework that OD could and should be helping with is justnot ge�ing done. Our view is that OD needs to workclosely with nonprofit leaders to support them, trans-fer knowledge, and exhibit the utmost degree of flexi-bility to make it happen (including le�ing go of theterm OD altogether if that is appropriate to get the jobdone).

These findings call for further inquiry as to OD’s fun-damental identity, marketing, branding, and position-ing with nonprofit leaders. Our intention is to usethese findings as we have been doing to engage in dis-cussions with OD practitioners, nonprofit leaders, pro-fessional organizations, academic institutions, andother key stakeholders to help set new priorities thatincrease the ability of more nonprofits to advance theirmissions effectively and efficiently.

Summary

In summary, we believe that OD practitioners need towork closely with nonprofit leaders to understand thechallenges and opportunities they are facing, andcome to agreement on how OD tools and practices canenable the entire organization to acquire the confi-dence and competence it will need to capitalize onchallenges and opportunities and manage – on its own– similar and even greater challenges in the future. Byadding their unique values-driven contributionsaround vision, leadership, change, systems theory, cul-ture, coaching, learning, development, and so forth,Organization Development practitioners can help cre-ate a more purposeful, life-giving, humane, productiveand sustainable civil sector.


Addendum: A Comparison of For Profit andNonprofit Results

A comparative analysis of for the profit results (previ-ously reported in Volume 25, No. 2, 2007) issue of theOrganization Development Journal and the nonprofit re-sults reported in this journal, yielded some interestingfindings, which are briefly described here.2 Both non-profit and for-profit surveys validated all six of the keyintegrated themes. For profits ranked 15 out of the 17above 4 on a 5-point scale, and nonprofits ranked all17 items above 4 on a 5-point scale.

For both nonprofits and for profits the effectivenessscales were consistently lower (2.92 to 4.18 for-profitand 3.24 to 4.04 nonprofit) than importance with onlyone item ranked above 4 for the for-profit and twoitems ranked above 4 in the nonprofit results. Forprofits ranked two items as Urgent (high in impor-tance/low in effectiveness) while nonprofits rankedfive items as Urgent.

It is significant to note that the most urgent areas (withthe largest gaps) in both sectors are: “Building leader-ship capacity for now and the future” and “Effectively ad-dressing organizational culture … during organizationalrealignments, industry consolidations, and M&A’s” (forprofit), … “for collaboration and strategic alliances” (non-profit). Both sectors identified lack of time and re-sources and the for-profit respondents also notedconflicting philosophies regarding talent recognitionand problems defining, recognizing and rewardingleadership competencies. The nonprofit sector respon-dents noted the lack of advancement opportunitiesand the size of the organization as barriers to buildingleadership. [Notably, for this study small nonprofitswere defined as those with annual budgets of less than$500,000 while small for profits had annual budgetsunder $25 million; and large nonprofits had annualbudgets of $10 million or more while large for profitshad annual budgets of $25 billion or more.]

The second item ranked as Urgent by the for-profit re-spondents was effectively addressing organizational cul-ture, and it was also among the five Urgent itemsranked by nonprofit respondents. Both sector respon-dents indicated that the role of culture is neglected orignored.

The second item ranked by nonprofit respondents asUrgent was solving organization problems systemically asopposed to solving them on a piecemeal basis, and it wasranked as the number one weakness and received thelowest effectiveness rating among the for-profit re-spondents. The items addressing the use and leverag-

ing of information and technology received the lowesteffectiveness rating among the nonprofit respondents.

Interestingly, nonprofits rated every item higher inimportance than for profits (except for Item # 13 (en-suring ethics), which was for profit respondents ratedat 4.82 in importance and nonprofit at 4.72), with threestatistically significant differences (p <.05) including:Establishing collaborative relationships and partnershipsamong public, private and nonprofit sectors (4.6 nonprofitvs. 3.9 for profit); Enhancing reputation among stakehold-ers (4.9 nonprofit vs. 4.4 for profit); and Effectively ap-plying organizational change principles (4.5 nonprofit vs.4.1 for profit).

Overall, nonprofits rated most items higher in effec-tiveness than for profits with six statistically signifi-cant differences (p<.05) including: Establishingcollaborative relationships (4.0 nonprofit vs. 3.4 forprofit); A�racting and retaining top talent (3.9 nonprofitvs. 3.5 for profit); Clarifying purpose and mission to in-spire and engage … (3.9 nonprofit vs. 3.5 for profit); Ef-fectively addressing organizational culture (3.6 nonprofitvs. 3.2 for profit); Enhancing reputation among stakehold-ers (4.0 nonprofit vs. 3.7 for profit); and Solving organi-zational problems systemically as opposed to solving themon a piecemeal basis (3.2 nonprofit vs. 2.9 for profit).

Endnotes

1. This work has been supported by the Global Commi�ee on the Future of Organization Development (GCFOD), a virtual community of over 300 OD practitioners from every sector, and was co-sponsored by the Organization Development Network, The Organization Development Institute, The International Organization Development Association (IODA), and the Institute for Sustainable Enterprise (ISE) at Fairleigh Dickinson University. The web survey design and administration was generously supported by Quantiso�, LLC. The survey design and analysis was also supported by the Research Team of the GCFOD.

2. Complete Results for the For Profit and Nonprofit Sectors are available at www.whenitallcomestogether.com. For further information on the Nonprofit sector, contact Beth Applegate at [email protected]; or Tim Lannan at [email protected].


Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge significant contri-butions and support from the Research team of theGlobal Commi�ee on the Future of OD: HowardDeutsch, CEO, Quantiso�, LLC; Ellio� Greene, Quan-tiso�, LLC; Survey Team Leader, Malcolm Conway,IBM Business Consulting; Lilian Abrams, Ph.D.; JoanSlepian, Ph.D., Silberman College of Business, Fair-leigh Dickinson University; Joel Harmon, Ph.D., Sil-berman College of Business, Fairleigh DickinsonUniversity; Tom Rich, Vice President, Member Serv-ices, TPSA; Jeff Wides, Ph.D., and Research TeamLeader, Jeana Wirtenberg, Ph.D., Director, Institute forSustainable Enterprise; the Global Commi�ee on theFuture of Organizational Development; and the Insti-tute for Sustainable Enterprise, Silberman College ofBusiness, Fairleigh Dickinson University.

References

Applegate B. (2002). Allies for democracy. OD Practitioner, 34 (4), 25-27.

Backer, T.E. (In press). Peer networking and community change: Experiences of the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Encino, CA: Human Interaction Research Institute.

Backer, T.E. (2005). Overview of foundation learning approaches. Encino, CA: Human Interaction Research Institute.

Backer, T.E. & Bare, J. (2000). Going to the next level. Foundation News and Commentary, September/October, 38-40.

Backer, T.E., Smith, R. & Barbell, I. (2005). Who comes to the table? Stakeholder interactions in philanthropy. In D. Eilinghoff (Ed.), Rethinking philanthropic effectiveness. Gutersloh, Germany: Verlag Bertelsmann Sti�ung.

Bradford, D.L., & Burke, W.W. (2004). Introduction: Is OD in crisis? The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 40(4), 369-373.

Fleishman, J.L. (2007). The foundation. New York: Public Affairs.

Foundation Center. (2007). Foundation growth and giving estimates: Current outlook. New York: Author.

Hubbard, B. (2006). Investing in leadership: Volume 1 & 2. Washington, DC: Grantmakers for Effective Organizations.

Light, P. (2004). Sustaining nonprofit performance: The case for capacity building and the evidence to support it. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.

London School of Economics. (2004). What is Civil Society? [On-line]. Available: h�p://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/what_is_civil_society.htm

Marshak, R.J. (2006). Organization Development as a profession and a field. In B. B. Jones & M. Brazzel (Eds.), The NTL handbook of organization development and change: Principles, practices, and perspectives (pp. xvii – xxiv). San Francisco: NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science; Pfeiffer Publishing.

Miller, C. (2005). The looking-glass world of nonprofit money: Managing in for-profits’ shadow universe. The Nonprofit Quarterly, 12(1), 48-55.

Seashore, E.W., & Seashore, C. (2006). Forward. In B. B. Jones & M. Brazzel (Eds.), The NTL handbook of organization development and change: Principles, practices, and perspectives (pp. xvii – xxiv). San Francisco: NTL Institute for Applied Behavioral Science; Pfeiffer Publishing.

Silverman, L., & Taliento, L. (2006). What business execs don't know – but should – about nonprofits. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 4(2), 37-49.

The Urban Institute (2002). The new nonprofit almanac and desk reference: The essential facts and figures for managers, researchers and volunteers. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Wirtenberg, J., Abrams, L., & O�, C., (2004). Assessing the field of organization development. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(4), 465-479.

Wirtenberg, J., Lipsky, D., Abrams, L., Conway, M., and Slepian, J. (2007). The future of organization development: Enabling sustainable business performance through people. Organization Development Journal, 25(2), 11-22. .


P195VOLUME 25 � NUMBER 4 � WINTER 2007

Biographies

Jeana Wirtenberg, Ph.D, President of Jeana Wirten-berg & Associates, LLC, focuses on building the sus-tainable enterprise, with particular emphasis onLeadership Development, Organization Effectiveness,and Learning (www.whenitallcomestogether.com).She is a Director and co-founder of The Institute forSustainable Enterprise at Fairleigh Dickinson Univer-sity (www.fdu.edu/ise), which helps people learn howto develop and lead thriving, sustainable enterprisesthat are ‘in and for the world.’ Formerly, Jeana heldleadership positions at PSEG, AT&T, the National In-stitute of Education, and the U.S. Commission on CivilRights. She has a Ph.D. in Psychology from UCLAEmail: [email protected]

Thomas E. Backer, PhD is President, Human Interac-tion Research Institute and Associate Clinical Profes-sor of Medical Psychology at UCLA Medical School.He has conducted research on innovation and changein the nonprofit sector for more than 35 years, and hasworked as an OD consultant with major corporations,nonprofit organizations and foundations. He has pub-lished extensively in the OD field, and is a Past Presi-dent of the Division of Consulting Psychology,American Psychological Association. He holds a doc-torate in psychology from UCLA. Email:[email protected]

Wendy Chang is Program Director of the Dwight Stu-art Youth Foundation. She has over 15 years of non-profit and foundation experience, including priorpositions at Whitecap Foundation, Public Corporationfor the Arts, California Association of Nonprofits, andCompassPoint Nonprofit Services Silicon Valley. Sheis a graduate of University of California at Santa Cruzwith majors in business economics and computer sci-ence. Email: [email protected]

Tim Lannan, M.S.O.D., R.O.D.C., is an organizationaldevelopment consultant with more than 25 years’ ex-perience in all aspects of not-for-profit managementand governance, including eight years as a senior exec-utive at Planned Parenthood Federation of America.Tim helps nonprofit organizations discover and un-leash their unique potential for positive change, work-ing with a broad range of clients in social services, thearts, advocacy, and other spheres. He received hisMaster of Science degree in Organization Develop-ment from American University/NTL. (www.timlan-nan.com). Email: [email protected]

Beth Applegate, M.S.O.D., has provided consultingservices for over 15 years to nonprofit organizations,governmental agencies and socially responsible for-profit corporations. She brings a rich and diverse port-folio of experience and a solid grounding in theorypertaining to organizational behavior, management,political science and grassroots organizing. Whileworking with each client system, Beth supports theclient in evaluating whether the espoused core val-ues—those deeply held views we hold as a compassfor ourselves, regardless of whether or not we are re-warded—are congruent with the behavior and actionsof the organization as a whole. (www.applegateon-line.com). [email protected]

Malcolm Conway is an IBM-certified business trans-formation Managing Consultant with IBM’s PublicSector Human Capital Management practice. His Or-ganization Development specialization expertise is inimproving and measuring organizational, team, andindividual performance to achieve business results.Email: [email protected]

Dr. Lilian Abrams actively consults on OE/OD, leader-ship development, executive coaching, training, andapplied research. Past roles include senior OE/OD andresearch consultant at Towers Perrin, Watson Wya�,and Nabisco. She teaches graduate leadership and re-search courses at NYU. Her Ph.D. (Organizational Be-havior) and M.B.A. are from The Claremont GraduateUniversity, and her BA from UCLA. Email:[email protected]

Joan Slepian, Ph.D. is an applied behavioral scientist,teacher, and OD consultant. She is Assistant Professorof Management at Silberman College of Business, Fair-leigh Dickinson University. Her international ODwork includes in-country experience in the U.K.,Netherlands, Spain, Hungary, India, Turkey, Mozam-bique, Namibia, Botswana, Zambia, Kenya, and Sene-gal. She holds a Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior fromYale University. Email: [email protected]

winter 2007:layout 1.qxd - jeana wirtenberg

Documents