Crafting Compromises in a Strategising Process: A Case Study of an International Development Organisation

• Published date: 01 May 2017
• Author: Matthew Hall
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12119
• Date: 01 May 2017

Financial Accountability & Management, 33(2), May 2017, 0267-4424

Crafting Compromises in a

Strategising Process: A Case Study

of an International Development

Organisation

MATTHEW HALL∗

Abstract: This paper focuses on how organisational members in non-governmental

organisations (NGO) can develop credible and legitimate strategic plans and

positions out of diverse and conflicting perspectives. Using empirical data

drawn from a strategic planning episode in an international development

NGO, the study examines the process of ‘crafting compromises’ whereby organisa-

tional members make mutual adjustments and concessions to reach consensus on new

strategic plans and positions. The analysis shows that two processes facilitate crafting

compromises in strategising; being adaptive and responsive to critique as strategic

positions are developed, and an ability to forge relevant connections between new

strategic proposals and past strategic positions.

Keywords: strategising, strategy, compromise, international development, non-

government organisation, case study

INTRODUCTION

The potential for conflicting and contradictory missions, philosophies and

rationalities is a key feature of non-government organisations (NGOs) and a

core challenge in their operation and management. For example, practitioners

need to negotiate and balance between social goals and economic imperatives

(Jager and Bayes, 2010; Jegers and Lapsley, 2003; Parker, 2007a), or between

service delivery projects and advocacy activities (Molenaers et al., 2011). This

can arise because the social goals addressed by NGOs are subject to strong

value-based conflicts, often derived from different conceptions of progress and

∗The author is from the Department of Accounting, Monash University, Australia.

Address for correspondence: Matthew Hall, Department of Accounting, Monash University,

900 Dandenong Rd, Caulfield East VIC 3145, Australia.

e-mail: matthew.hall2@monash.edu

C

2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 171

172 HALL

development (Thomas, 1996). In this way, NGOs can be sites of contestation

between competing ideologies and identities (Mowles, 2010), where juggling

and balancing divergent needs is a strong feature (Myers and Sacks, 2003;

Parker, 2003). What is less clear, however, is how such juggling and balancing

is performed and what practices make it more or less effective. That is, how do

actors in NGOs develop credible and legitimate strategic plans and positions

out of diverse and often conflicting perspectives?

To study this question a single strategic episode at a large, UK-based

international development NGO was examined using data collected from a

variety of sources (extensive documentary evidence, an ‘on-line community’, and

a formal evaluation). The analysis focuses on how the process of making mutual

adjustments to reach consensus can be critical to the development of strategic

plans and positions that are considered acceptable and legitimate; a process that

is termed ‘crafting compromises.’ The word ‘crafting’ is used to emphasise both

its processual nature (the ‘ing’) and that it is a skillful activity engaged in by

organisational members. The word ‘compromise’ is used in a positive manner to

reflect the process of making mutual adjustment and concessions to reach agree-

ment, rather than its (often) pejorative meaning of expediently accepting lower

standards than are desirable. The analysis indicates that two processes facilitate

crafting compromises in strategising: being adaptive and responsive to feedback

and critique as strategic plans are developed, and an ability to forge relevant

connections between new strategic proposals and past strategic positions.

This focus on crafting compromises contributes to research examining the

way in which strategies get taken up in particular contexts with actors

engaged in political contestations about how to move ahead (Mowles, 2010).

It indicates that approaches seeking to implement grand plans by aligning

individual interests to overall goals are unfeasible, and focuses on how plans

are developed in a context where the influence of even senior managers is

limited and intentions and positions need to evolve in order to garner support

and agreement (Mowles, 2010). This process also highlights how a tolerance

for ambiguity and disagreement appears essential for the success of strategic

planning efforts in NGOs (Myers and Sacks, 2003; Harris et al., 2009). A

focus on compromise as a positive force in organisations is consistent with

recent research emphasising the way in which actors can cooperate despite

potentially divergent values and the potential for tensions that arise during

compromise to be productive (Denis et al., 2007; Chenhall et al., 2013).

The study also contributes to research on the use of business practices by

NGOs, reinforcing the argument that practices like strategic planning require

sensitivity to the motivations and values of actors in NGOs (Jegers and Lapsley,

2003; Lewis, 2007). A final contribution of the study is to take a closer look

at the ‘black box’ of the workings of NGOs (Lewis, 2007; Bebbington et al.,

2007), with a particular focus on how strategic processes take place in these

organisations (Jager and Bayes, 2010; Helmig et al., 2004; McCourt and

Gulrajani, 2010).

C

2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd