APPLYING DUALITY ON ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIC PLANNING: A CASE OF TWO NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS By: Dr Loretta Mkhonta Overview Orgtology is practically applied through three factors namely: organizational design, strategy planning and executive coaching. Organizational design ensures organizational performance. Strategy ensures organizational relevance and executive coaching ensures empowered leadership. Therefore, this essay will apply hypothesis 2X and duality on strategy planning. Hypothesis 2X is the core or guiding principle of Orgtology and it emphasizes that organizations exist through the dual interactions and relationships of the receptive and projective activities within the organization. The essay will illustrate with two child-focused international NGOs operating in the same landscape, with similar economic, social and cultural dynamics, but have had very different outcomes in terms of relevance and sustainability. They both promote and implement children’s access to basic services like education, health care and psychosocial support. NGO A is thriving and over the years has a presence in all the regions of the country. It was previously based only in rural areas but has now extended its reach to include urban poverty. NGO B has remained in a few target areas. It recently made a public announcement that it is closing its operations in the country, after more than three decades. The reason cited is loss of donor funds for the work that it does because all donors have now channelled their funds towards other services for vulnerable children. NGOs largely depend on external donor funds. Until recently, most international NGOs tended not to have their own country-relevant strategies but inherited the international strategies for their organizations. The different countries would be allowed very little room for contextualization, but the strategic objectives remained similar across all contexts. They also inherited the internal operational policies like HR policies from the organizations’ international offices. They applied a one-size-fits all approach which does not consider different contextual factors. However, in the last decade, NGO A changed its strategy and enabled all its country offices across the globe to develop country-specific strategies, while NGO B remained in the past. Orgtology says that an organization is sustainable when it can remain relevant to the needs of its environment and continues to serve the purpose for which it was set up. It serves its purpose when it meets its intent. It performs through its receptive elements like the systems and processes. It becomes relevant through its projective elements like its strategy and strategic projects. This is called duality in orgtology. The Hypothesis The hypothesis is that if organisational strategy planning is a critical component that aligns with the environment and sets priorities, resources, and ensures all stakeholders work towards a common goal, then the lack of strategy will doom an organization to failure because it would imply a lack of foresight of the present and the future. The assignment In this essay, I will use orgamatics to give brief descriptions of the two NGOs A and B mentioned above. I will apply hypothesis 2X in the context of the two NGOs. I will illustrate duality in the strategy planning of the two NGOs. I will also illustrate how NGO A is a Relevant and Performing Organisation (RPO), which NGO B is not. Orgotology studies the duality of the receptive and projective elements in organizations. The receptive are the everyday, predictable processes and procedures and the projective elements relate to strategy and leadership. It says organizations need both elements to co-exist and be in equilibrium. Organizations need the duality or balance of the everyday processes as well as the unpredictable elements like the strategic projects that implement the organization’s intent within its environment. These are the projective elements that set the organization apart from its competitors and its environment. The projective takes the organization to where it wants to be. Hypothesis 2X explains this duality or the interaction that gives us an idea of how the organization allows the interaction of the receptive and projective elements. Where there are no receptive processes in place, there is no efficiency of the business. Where there is no strategy or projective elements in place, there are no relevant outputs and therefore, no effectiveness of the strategy. Orgamatics I have used orgamatics to give a background of both NGOs. Orgamatics is influenced by hypothesis 2X and it gives us a holistic picture of an organization and an understanding of what makes it tick. We understand the duality of the organization through orgamatics. Through the use of Orgamatics, we understand the intelligence of the organization, we know how it ensures performance through efficient use of its internal processes. We also understand how it uses strategic projects to make an impact and stay relevant. If organizational performance and relevance are not aligned, then that organization is doomed to collapse. In the case of the two NGOs, by changing and enabling country-specific strategy planning, NGO A applied duality. It allowed efficiency through internal processes, relevant policies and procedures to exist alongside a relevant strategy that was developed to align with the country's environment, and this ensured the effectiveness of its strategy. NGO B on the other hand, may have processes for efficiency and performance, however, these are pointless if there is a lack of relevant and effective strategy in place. Where the receptive elements are not connected with the projective elements or where one outweighs the other, the organization may fail as is the case on NGO B. The duality applies to the receptive and projective activities in organisations finding the right balance between the receptive and project elements. The organization needs the right strategy, linked with the environment and this will be making use of the receptive processes. Based on the example of the two NGOs, NGO A has a clear time-bound strategy in place. It remains in touch with its core mandate which is orphaned and vulnerable children. In addition, it also remains aligned with the evolving needs and environment of its mandate. Generally, organizations cannot exist in silos. They cannot exist without an in-depth understanding of their environment. That way they give to the environment and receive inputs from it. Where the give-and-take activities do not co-exist, an organization loses its main purpose or function. Organizations must be willing to change. This means that at times organizations must kill certain ways of thinking, and must kill certain projects, processes and structures to survive. They must do what NGO A did and still focus on children but understand that the needs of children and young people evolve. NGO A understood that its critical stakeholders (donors) need value for their money and will not support interventions that are no longer sustainable. On the other hand, NGO B became too comfortable with the status quo. It did not understand its environment. Its strategy was not related to the environment. Hypothesis 2X was not applied. The organization had the same processes over and over. They focused on ensuring structure (repeatedly doing the same things) with no duality between their processes and strategy. They had no strategy for remaining sustainable and relevant. They were a predictable organization. They had a purpose but without an intent. They had nothing that marks them as a differentiator from like-minded NGOs and did not contribute to making the organization impactful. That made their donors leave them. In addition, NGO B never manages its risks. Risk management relies on everyday receptive procedures to mitigate risks but projective sustained actions like policies ensure that risks never happen. It is a disaster that the NGO had to close its operation, yet disasters are managed through everyday planned and practised procedures, but long-term strategies prevent disasters. NGO A as a Relevant and Performing Organization (RPO) NGO A is what we call a Relevant and Performing Organization (RPO). An organization needs strategy planning, linked with the environment. It also needs to make use of the receptive processes. Both must be in the right balance. An RPO is defined by its ability to be efficient and perform and stay relevant at the same time. This performance is linked to the purpose of the organization. The higher the performance the higher its outputs will be. We see this in NGO A whose outputs have considerably increased as it has increased its strategic initiatives to include youth empowerment; it has increased its reach and target areas. Duality aims to ensure equilibrium between the different receptive and projective elements. For example, in NGO B there was no equilibrium between the two. It was being run to keep it operational over the years, with no clear sustainable strategic projects. It probably produced good performance and financial reports that showed donors that it was functional. However, it eventually failed to show donors that it has relevance. NGO A created relevance. It performed and still ensured that it remains relevant. This is a Relevant and Performing organization (RPO). The idea of RPOs comes from the duality of intelligence in organizations. In terms of human resources, RPOs like NGO A can keep reskilling people in line with changes in their three-year strategies. Constant change, restructuring and constant upskilling to get the most relevant skills in people made NGO A an RPO. The organization’s human resources must be in duality with its environment. They carry the vision of the organization. People learn to function within that organization’s processes adapt to the purpose of the organization and implement the intent and strategy of the organization. That is how organizations utilize their X factor, and we see that in NGO A. The X Factor In Orgtology we study organizations scientifically. The projective requires relevant people who use abstract thinking and bring their creativity and X Factor. There are abstract unpredictable elements of organizations that we put in like the vision, the ideas, creativity, innovation etc. This is where the human factor or X Factor comes in. This is where leadership comes in. In NGO B we see a leader who has overstayed over twenty years in one organization. He no longer brings creativity and vision. He can no longer inspire his team, yet the X Factor is brought by people into an organization. This is through their work experience, skill set, individuality and personalities, leadership styles and capabilities, their ability to adapt and create change and use their leadership capabilities, inter, intrapersonal skills, creativity, and innovation to perform to their optimal in the organization. Since strategy is executed through strategic projects, everyone brings their unique capabilities, applies abstract thinking, and brings their personality into these projects. It is leadership that creates and promotes change. A static leader like in NGO B cannot bring change. Over the years he was merely running the organization and not changing it or making it stay relevant. Running an organization requires processes and an understanding of standard operating procedures. That way the organization remains efficient. On the other hand, changing an organization requires both the understanding of everyday processes to ensure that productivity is sustained as well as strategy to make it effective. Everyday processes do not change an organization. Change requires projective strategic projects, upskilled people who bring in their X factor and sustained relationships. With none of these factors, NGO B was doomed to fail. Conclusion In summary, changing an organization requires both the duality of the organization’s receptive and projective elements. Both are needed to be in duality or balance and co-existence. The lack of strategy planning killed NGO B because the organization functioned on the receptive processes alone. Processes create structure in the organization, but projective strategic projects bring about long-term change and relevance for the organization. References Hendrikz, D (2020). “What is Orgtology?”, The International Orgtology Institute, 12 April. Available at: https://orgtology.org/index.php/2015-06-10-09-45-25/orgtology-blog/68-what-is-orgtology - accessed on 22 July 2021. Hendrikz, D (2020). ‘Hypothesis 2X – the Foundation of Orgtology’, The International Orgtology Institute, 04 April. Available at: https//orgtology.org/index.pnp/2025-06-01-09-45-25/orgtology-blog/69-hypothesis-2X-orgtology - accessed on 10 May 2020. By: Dr Loretta Mkhonta
