Organizational development : Essential Readings

  • Ingrid Richter (2010) Organization development as a source: riding the pendulum between clocks and clouds - the history of organizational development in its relation to capacity development, in: Ubels, J., N. Acquaye-Baddoo and A. Fowler (eds) 'Capacity Development in Practice', Earthscan, pp. 101-115

    Ingrid Richter describes the various schools of thought on organizational development since the 1920s. All these schools of thought straddle between “clocklike” and “cloudlike” thinking. Clocklike thinking is based on the assumption that organisational change can be planned and implemented through controlled interventions leading to clear pre-set results that are achieved. Cloudlike thinking sees organizations as complex systems with many interlinkages between elements within the organisation as the wider society. As a consequence change is a chaotic process that does not follow a clear strategic path. 

  • Alan Kaplan (1999) The Development of Capacity, NGLS Development Dossier No.10 Non-Governmental Liaison Service, United Nations Geneva

    Kaplan makes distinction between two notions of organizational capacity development: the Northern donor/NGO perspective whereby capacity is seen as the ability to absorp donor funding and be accountable for its use and manage donor funded projects, versus the Southern perspective whereby Southern organizations “”view themselves as important and viable "organs of civil society", players whose role is to work towards social transformation, towards redress, towards a better deal for the marginalised, towards poverty alleviation and towards parity with respect to the dynamics of power.” Elaborating on the latter, preferred, perspective Kaplan distinguishes six key elements of organizational capacity: Vision, Strategy, Culture, Structure, Skills and Material resources. It is a challenge for the practitioner to recognize the tangible as well as the intangible elements, the complexity of the interlinkages between these elements and inter-linkages with contextual influences.

  • Engel, P., N. Keijzer and T. Land (2007) A balanced approach to monitoring and evaluating capacity and performance: A proposal for a framework, ECDPM Discussion Paper 58E

    A similar distinction as Kaplan makes, but not exclusively focused on organizations but human systems in general) is made by in the 5Cs model whereby distinction is made between five capabilities (1. to act and self organise, 2. to generate development results, , 3. to relate 4. to adapt and self renew and 5. to achieve coherence. Based on case studies the authors conclude that current monitoring and evaluating (M&E) practices do not fully recognise the combination of ‘ hard’ and ‘soft’ characteristics that make up effective capacity. It is a challenge for the practit6ioners to keep a balanced view on all of these.

  • Gareth Morgan (2006, updated edition) Images of Organisation, Sage Publications

    A classic text still highly relevant and widely read today. According to Morgan all theories of organization and management are based on implicit images or metaphors. These metaphors make us see, understand, and manage organizations in particular ways each with its own advantages and limitations. Examples are metaphor such as the organisations as a machine, as a living system, as a brain, as a culture, or as a political system.  NB: This book is not available for download but may be purchased via the link above.