A PRACTITIONER'S PERSPECTIVE: SECOND INSTALMENT

By Ingrid Richter
odbits@istar.ca

In the last issue of Esprit d'ACCORD, Ingrid wrote about what it's been like for her to work on intercultural teams in the many international projects she's worked on as a change consultant. Here she discusses the consulting perspectives and questions that are required in such cross-cultural contexts, as well as the similarities and differences between the fields of organization development and participatory community development.

What to pack in the consulting "toolbox"?

In many places outsiders are viewed as experts-it is disrespectful to confront or question them. The enthusiasm about the North American/European "expertise" you bring is very seductive, and occasionally I have started to believe it about myself (big mistake!). I have also learned to urge local practitioners and clients to critically review and question all the ideas and methods I bring along. Working with this "nothing is perfect" assumption means taking a lot of extra time to adapt and culturally "translate" some of the approaches and tools we very commonly use here: What ice-breaker will work in this culture/setting? What kinds of personal disclosure is safe/not safe in some tribes/cultures? How influential is a large differential in social status when designing rapport-building activities? How can we communicate the idea of a "vision" or "mission" in a language which doesn't have these words? Working through these questions is time well-spent, and much appreciated by the local clients.

Looking beyond the "change management" field can be fruitful.

It is worth remembering that what is known as organization development (OD) has largely been developed in America and in Northern Europe. Much of applied psychology and organization development has primarily focused on promoting the interests of these highly industrialized societies.

It is also worth noting that there is a wealth of knowledge and experience in the field of participatory community development out there. While this field shares its value base with OD, much of the work is grounded in the radical participative tradition (e.g. Friere, 1972) of working against existing power structures. Organization Development approaches, though also grounded in principles of "systems change," have a different focus and some differing assumptions. Our ends tend to be focused on balancing the priorities of the enterprise with the needs of the workers; participatory development work is focused on larger social and institutional transformation.

The two fields also define system boundaries very differently. Most change practitioners in this part of the planet focus on relatively

well-defined "organizations" as the primary context. We don't typically seek to "overthrow" or radically change the institutions and traditions of the client organization or its broader environment. Our approaches to change management work largely ignores the social and political history of this country (Pettigrew, 1985). Our community development "cousins" are much more mindful of their/our society's history, politics, and social practices. Their frames of reference are much larger and more complex. In development work, large-scale institutional change, (e.g., establishing rights for women, land ownership reform, fostering democratic forms of government) is the goal. According to Cooke (1997), the relationship between development and OD is patchy. I agree that we have much to learn from one another.

The cross-cultural projects I have been involved in tend to blend OD with community development. I often help local consultants who have a variety of professional backgrounds learn how to apply OD approaches in their strategies to support their agencies' larger goals such as poverty alleviation, restructuring governance, and bringing about societal change. The contracting issues these practitioners face, especially about who is the real client, would make Peter Block's head spin. Whose priorities and game plans are paramount - the overseas funders and donors? the local organizations they contribute to? the local "recipients" of this support? the workers who are delivering the programs and services? This type of work is not for those who need clarity; it is for those who have a lot of optimism and strongly held values-characteristics that are already alive among both community development workers, and OD practitioners .

Conclusion

Many of the issues in this cross-cultural work are identical to what we face in our local OD work, but they are greatly exaggerated and distorted by distance, history, politics, social and linguistic barriers. The work is truly vast, complex and fascinating. One thing is clear: there is a lot more for us to talk about and for everyone to learn. Learning it in the company of our friends, clients and colleagues from other cultures will help us make more positive change happen more successfully. If you're interested, get involved in reaching across this frontier.

Ingrid Richter is a Toronto-based free-lance OD practitioner and academic, and a past member of the ACCORD board of directors. She is currently delving into the subjects of societal learning, and communities of practice. Ingrid has actively encouraged the establishment of international communities of practice between OD practitioners in Canada and Africa, but the connections are difficult to sustain. Those who might be interested in learning more about the topic of cross-cultural change and OD should look into the following two associations:

The O.D. Institute http://members.aol.com/odinst/
The International Organization Development Association (IODA) www.ioda.cl

References:
Cooke, B. (1997). Participation, 'Process' and management: Lessons for development in the history of organization development. Journal of International Development: vol. 10, (1) 35-54.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Pettigrew, A. (1985). The Awakening Giant: Continuity and Change at ICI. Oxford: Blackwell.
Schein, E. H. (1961). Coercive Persuasion, New York: Norton.