Individual Project Letter to Client the Consulting

Individual Project

Letter to Client

The consulting project was a tremendous success, and it was wonderful working with you. I can only hope that you are continuing with the great work that we started. This report will discuss the project from my perspective, and provide you with valuable insights and context into the work that we have done over the past several months.

The first section of the report describes the company and the sector in which it operates. The second section describes how I entered into the project and conveys my opening impressions and the information that I was able to gather through our initial discussions. This information was essential to framing the project.

The next section is about the diagnosis and the objectives. This section describes the grand objective that we talked about, the sub-objectives, as well as the structure of the multiple iterations.

After a note about human subject protection, I describe the action phase of the project. In this section I walk you through the different iterations and the progress that we made towards the organizational change process. In particular, there is a focus on how the different things that we did lead the organization towards its grand objective.

The next section is the facilitation and reflection phase. In this phase, I discuss my thoughts on the project, in particular how the project fits with my research on bringing about organizational change in not-for-profit organizations. I note in particular the differences between my experiences working with your organization and what I had expected from my review of the prevailing literature. The biggest difference was that there were no entrenched interests, and that the biggest source of motivation within the organization was positivity. This contrasts with the normal corporate experience of change as a top-down process where significant attention is paid to overcoming resistance. I then conclude the study by noting a few findings that can be used as the basis for future research.

Executive Summary

This paper is about organizational change in not-for-profit organizations. The research was conducted in the style of action research, where the researcher worked with the organization in a consulting role, and there was mutual influence between the researcher and the organization. The organization had grown stale, and its volunteers expressed that the organization lacked a true mission, and fundraising efforts had become hampered as a result. The change process was renew and revitalize the organization, and it would set new goals with respect to finding a new mission and with respect to improving its fundraising.

The action research process allowed the researcher to work through multiple iterations, making a change or two each time, and then returning the following week in order to evaluate the outcomes of those changes and determine what changes could be made the following week.

The findings of the study were different from what was expected. There is not much literature on this subject, and most Organizational Change literature is on corporations. A prevailing narrative in that literature is of resistance to change, and how to overcome it. This project saw little resistance -- there were no vested interests, just passionate volunteers. So there were many aspects of appreciative inquiry in this action research. I concluded that appreciative inquiry is a powerful tool when working with not-for-profit entities, because motivations of employees are different. Further, I found that organizational change can be effective in not-for-profits as a collaborative process, rather than a top-down process. These findings can serve as the basis for future research exploring the topic of organizational change in the not-for-profit sector.

Introduction

My company was in the not-for-profit sector. The resources on which this sector runs are generally the result of donations, either financial or in-kind, and volunteer labor. The rate at which donations are acquired is related to two major factors -- the marketing that the organization does to solicit donations and the work that the organization does. Through a combination of less aggressive marketing and a decline in the need for the work that my organization does, it found that in recent years it had seen a decline in donations. On top of this, the organization identified to me that it lacked a sense of purpose, that there was a certain inertia that had set into the organization. Most of the volunteers and leaders within the organization have been with it for a long time, and they generally felt that they were, collectively, devoid of ideas to bring about organizational renewal. They did not even have objectives or a vision of what that "renewal" might mean. So my task with the company was to take them from that point to a point where they had a vision, objectives, and had a pathway for reaching those objectives. My role as a consultant was to help them to help themselves.

The idea for the project originated with the fact that the literature was lacking in the area of research on organizational change in not-for-profit entities. The canon of research on not-for-profit entities is generally smaller than for corporations. This is the case with the literature on organizational change. A key issue is resistance to change, as identified in the literature of organizational change management. There is, however, not a lot of research about organizational change in not-for-profit entities. Not-for-profit entities are different from corporations in that many times they depend on volunteer staff. Such staff do not technically need to stay with the organization if they are unhappy -- they will leave if they are unhappy or unmotivated because they do not rely on the organization for their paychecks. Thus, there is, or at least there should be, a difference in the motivation level for dealing with organizational change.

Entry and Informal Data Collection

For the project I first approached a couple of different organizations, but the not-for-profit entity proved to be the most suitable and the most viable for this project. I felt from the beginning that it was important to establish the contract between myself and the client. In my culture, building relationships is always important, and especially in business. Thus, it seemed quite natural that it would not only be impossible to define the relationship strictly in terms of things you can write in a contract, but it would be silly to do so.

Right from the outset, I took the time to sit down with the client and walk them through the process, and my perspective on the process. I felt that this was necessary. I was never going to waltz in and bluster about my credentials and fill them with expectations of things that may or may not happen. Instead, I was very up front with the client about who I am, and what I bring to the table. I told them what the project was, and what was my interest in the project, and why their organization was perfect for this project. I also explained what the project was going to look like from my side, which is quite a bit different from how it looks from their side.

Further to this, I felt like it was important to listen as well. The project is ultimately designed to help the organization, so I needed to hear from the organization what their expectations were, what their objectives were, and what they expected to see from myself and from the project. Listening is a very important skill, rather than simply coming into the organization, proclaiming my systems to be excellent, and acting like a dictator. Indeed, I do not think that this project would have gone all that smoothly had I not taken the time to build trust with the client right away. So this has been an ongoing process, of talking to the client, and taking time periodically to explain where the project is, and walking them through it. Overall, I feel that this has been effective. Even when things maybe have not been perfect, there is a high level of transparency that makes everybody involved feel comfortable with the process.

For me, the relationship with the client is an ongoing thing. You start by listening to their needs and interests, and make sure that they understand yours. Then, you are both on the same page with respect to expectations for each other. That's important. But you also have to realize that the relationship is going to evolve over time, so it is vital that the lines of communication remain open. Even when you are working solo, never forget that the cooperation of the client is essential, so you have to ensure that the client remains committed to the process the entire way throughout.

The client's reaction was positive. I think there was probably some trepidation, given that this organization was fairly closed for so long, with not a lot in the way of fresh faces and fresh ideas. So it was important to be very transparent and explain to the client how I could help them. The client has remained generally quite positive, and I would say that there has probably been less conflict or disagreement than maybe I had originally anticipated.

The initial communications of course played the role of gathering information in an informal way. The discussions were not structured -- I did not want to lead the client, but rather to let them tell me what they felt their issues and opportunities were. I wanted to know the degree to which they had thought about this before. I had these introductory conversations with many of the leaders within the organization. Some I only met in a group setting, but others I was able to speak to one-on-one. Thus, the informal data collection was fairly comprehensive, and while it lacked the structure that might have made it better, the open-ended nature of the inquiry served me well, and just as important it allowed the people within the organization to lower their guard and open up to me. So the information data collection process was a critical element to building the relationships as well.

Diagnosis and Objectives

For this project, I allowed the initial rounds of informal communication to guide both myself and the organization to conclusions about what the organization's objectives should be. One of the critical defining elements of action research is that the researcher and the organization should work closely together on the project, in a complementary fashion, with the researcher merely influencing the actions undertaken by the organization, rather than dictating. I had expected a certain amount of resistance from at least some members of the organization -- in many organizations it is normal to experience resistance to organizational change -- but I feel that one of the most significant benefits of action research is that because it has a high level of involvement at the organizational level there is greater likelihood of buy-in.

Eventually, myself and the leaders of the organization were able to come to some conclusions with respect to objectives. Objectives should begin with a grand objective, and this is then followed by sub-objectives, each of which contributing to the achievement of the grand objective.. Through my consultations with the client, the grand objective was chosen as raising more money for the organization. They set a target to return to 2008 (i.e. pre-recession) levels within two years, and grow at 5% after that. It was determined that achieving this would be difficult, and many different sub-objectives would be needed in order to contribute to this grand objective.

The first sub-objective was to find a new role for the organization. It was felt that its current role was less relevant today, and eventually the organization needed to undergo a transition and re-invent itself. So finding a new mission was part of the objectives. A second sub-objective was to create a list of different sources of financing, as it was believed that with a new, refreshed, mandate that the organization would be a better position to find new sources of financing. These were the only two sub-objectives. There are two reasons for this. First, it was determined that the client wanted to leave the project open-ended, and focused on the future and positivity. Working to resuscitate the organization with the same work it had done in the past was thought to be a non-starter by some in the organization, who were more eager for change than I had envisioned. Second, these two sub-objectives can be operationalized as many different tactics, which could be broken out into weekly tasks. So at the end of the objective-setting, the organization has specific financial goals, and they had a commitment to do a lot of research on identifying areas where the skill sets of their volunteers and the current level of financial resources could do some good for society.

One of the first tactics was that the organization wanted to set for itself a new mission and vision statement. They have two this point gone through a few different iterations, but are wary of finalizing one until they have fully fleshed-out the future vision for the organization. This illustrates the iterative process of action research, where I have learned from them a lot of things about the organizational change process, and they have learned some things about the process from me as well.

Human Subject Protection

The protection of human subjects is critical to maintaining the integrity of research. The first step was to identify potential risks. Certainly, there will be some perceived risks from some of the people within these organizations, as they may be asked to change their roles to some degree. But in terms of physical risks, it was not believed that there would be any and there was little preparation for that as a result.

Informed consent is one of the key issues with action research. All of the people involved in the project need to know about the project. Participants were all informed of the project, and the leadership team expressly signed off on their participation, something that allowed the researcher the opportunity to cover some of the other risks and privacy issues with these individuals. The research was explained thoroughly, including some of the theories on which the research was going to be based, including things like open systems theory and the concept of action research was also presented to the people within the organization.

Privacy issues were also discussed. The people who were involved in this project at the client level were informed about their right to privacy, and the different steps that were going to be undertaken. Real names of individuals will not be used, and nor will the real names of the organizations in question be used. This is to maintain utmost privacy of individuals who will be involved over the course of this action research. They signed waivers stating that they understand how the researcher will protect them from harm and maintain their privacy, in addition to outlining their own rights and responsibilities with respect to these issues.

Each of the key personnel who will be at the heart of the research were given one-on-one meetings and had to sign waivers explaining that they knew about the project, and understood the nature of the research, what risks they might face, and what the researcher was going to do to eliminate any physical risk and minimize other forms of risk. In addition, the researcher explained how the privacy of the individuals involved was going to be protected.

Action Phase

From among a number of options for qualitative research, I chose action research, for a couple of good reasons. I had looked at action research, appreciative inquiry and process consultation. Action research is, in essence, research undertaken in order to solve a problem. Kurt Lewin developed the concept of action research over several years by observing groups of people, his observations were the source of the modern study of action research but it existed long before the process was expressly understood in the modern research context. The consulting situation is a perfect example of action research. Each organization has a problem, and the consulting challenge is to identify the problem(s), its root cause(s) and then devise solutions (O'Brien, 1998). Action research is an iterative process, specifically because these organizations are complex systems and it takes time to understand which responses are driven by external forces and which are driven by the system itself

Process consultation is similar, but there is more client control over the process. Where action research seeks to create situation where the researcher and the organization learn from each other, process consultation, the client should never be dependent on the consultant -- Schein (1995) defines process consultation as when the consultant works with the client, but the client is essentially in control over the situation. This was rejected as a methodology because the client expressed during the initial qualitative information gathering process that its leadership had no real ideas, and needed a lot of help from the consultant. The consultant, they felt, should drive the process.

The third option presented was appreciative inquiry. Appreciative inquiry is defined as "the co-evolutionary search for the best in people, their organizations and the relevant world around them (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2014). This approach has been specifically characterized as positive, essentially solving problems by looking at what is going right and focusing on how to build that elsewhere in the organization (Hill, 2014), and can be applied in a consultative situation where the consultant is specifically seeking to maximize the outcomes for the people and the organization. This option had an appeal, but was ultimately rejected because it was felt that it unduly ruled out any negative feedback or critique.

So the original plan for the action phase was to focus entirely on action research. The actual outcome was quite different from that. While process consultation was still not used, because the client lacked the comfort level to truly guide the consultation process, appreciative inquiry was used much more than expected. The overarching structure of the action phase was definitely oriented towards action research, but the organization very quickly took the research in a different direction. The people within the organization started to want to avoid discussing what had gone wrong for the organization in the past few years, and shift focus towards what the organization could and should do in the future. The project was always future-oriented, so in that sense there was an inherent logic to this shift in outlook. But this shift in outlook took the project much closer to the parameters of appreciative inquiry, for example focusing on identifying and reallocating the critical skills and resources within the organization.

Thus, appreciative inquiry was worked into the methodology. There was an upbeat view of the future presented, and the organization found it was more creative with respect to brainstorming when their positive attributes were the focal point of discussion. Sometimes, a consultant must address weaknesses before an organization can move forward but this was an organization that shied away from such discussion and really thrived on talk about its positive attributes and the different skill sets within the organization and how those could be utilized.

One of the key elements of action research is iteration. This was used extensively in this project. Action research works when it is conducted over a long period of time. Essentially, the consultant works with the company, meeting regularly to make changes and evaluate the impact of those changes. The tactic for the week would be determined, and then implemented -- little tasks that would over time guide the company towards its objective. The research would examine how the organizational change process functioned. Each week was a new iteration, where last week's tactics were tested, feedback given and a new tactic for the coming week could be determined. So the iterative process that is so central to action research was used in this project in order to tighten the time frames sometimes are quite long when making organizational changes. With weekly iterations and a lot of hands-on management of the process, the action research seemed to be effective.

Facilitation of the Reflection Phase

There was a lot learned during this consulting process. While the action research delivered a lot of knowledge, it is worth considering the value of the appreciative inquiry component. Appreciative inquiry played an unexpected role in the success of this project. It was found that the people within the organization responded very well to the positivity inherent in appreciative inquiry. Initially, this seemed surprising, but upon reflection it reveals something very important about the commitment level of people who make long-term commitments to volunteering at not-for-profit entities. It was hypothesized that such individuals would have some different psychological/behavioral characteristics compared with people working in corporations, but this difference was not anticipated. The people who are volunteering at not-for-profits have a high commitment level. They are passionate about the organization, and feel a strong sense of ownership over it. Thus, instead of this causing them to dig in and resist change as expected, the project revealed basically the opposite. The individuals within the organization commit themselves to this work in part because they feel good about it. They want to make a positive contribution. As a consequence, they respond well to positive reinforcement of their decision, and in that they have shown to have a high energy level when appreciative inquiry is used as a motivating factor during the consulting process.

Appreciative inquiry succeeds especially in spurring creativity. The people within the organization initially were slow to contribute to meetings, unless prompted, but by the end they were volunteering information, and had prepared ideas for the meeting. Their engagement level in the action research actually increased. As such, the appreciative inquiry had a very positive, unexpected effect.

The action research itself was valuable. It seemed, from the different conversations with people in the organization, that having a tight time schedule for the iterations really helped to motivate people. They saw results almost right away. At one meeting, it was determined that some brainstorming was needed, and the people were meeting among the themselves two days later to get all of their ideas on the table. By enforcing a high energy schedule, the organization seemed to work at a very high pace, as reported by the people within the organization. They appreciated having so many tries to make little improvements.

This research also revealed some things about the grand objective as well. The organization had set a grand objective that it felt would not be reached for a couple of years. It was found that this grand objective was insufficient motivation, and that many people within the organization were going to be motivated by smaller objectives that they felt were more tangible. If there was any resistance, it was right at the beginning of the process where there was concern that faraway goals were not good enough. When those were replaced by shorter, more manageable goals that reduced the resistance from within the organization.

Framed in the model of "What? So what? Now what?" The project began with an investigation into what assets that the organization had, and trying to get buy-in for change. This was important because the original condition of the organization was viewed by those within the organization as relatively poor. The buy-in was easy to achieve -- as noted easier than expected -- which was a positive sign. The "now what?" was that once everybody was on the same page and had laid out the grand objective and the sub-objectives, the project was not over. This is the core of action research -- the consultant and the organization work together to go through multiple iterations of this line of inquiry.