Business Continuity as a form of OD
 |
| Is Business Continuity a form of OD? |
Take for instance the field of
Business Continuity.
Business Continuity (BC) or Business Continuity
Management (BCM) is the process, procedure, decisions and activities carried
out to ensure that an organisation can continue to function through an
operational interruption (British Continuity Institute (2001); Patel (1999),
Shaw and Harald (2004)). It is a systemic process, in as much as BC activities apply
across the full scope of organisational activities. Business continuity
management, at its highest level, is about keeping resilient organisations
operating at their maximum capability (Shaw and Harald, 2004) and for UK public
sector organisations is a mandatory obligation. This is achieved through a
balance of risk assessments, impact analyses and the formulation of continuity
plans which are then tested using exercises as part of an iterative and
embedded cycle, as shown in the diagram.
To what extent can
Business Continuity Management (BCM) be considered a form of Organisational
Development?
The connectivity between BC and OD
is strong but not often stated. The two areas of work exist alongside each
other and yet are organised as separate disciplines within organisations. I
have reflected on the linkages between OD and BCM, and the ways the various
definitions may help to understand the connection. To serve as an example of
the link I have chosen to compare how BCM can be assessed against an accepted
definition of OD proposed by Richard Beckhard. Beckhard founded the OD Network
in the US in the late sixties and provided a definition of OD that is still
relevant today, stating five key defining characteristics, which, by way of
comparing and contrasting the two disciplines, I have considered against the
characteristics of BCM: - Role in the Change Process: Beckhard suggested OD is a planned change effort. So is BCM. Change is at the heart of both disciplines. BCM facilitators (who term themselves ‘continuity managers’) utilise change management skills to ensure that the organisation encourages a culture where all employees are sufficiently aware of everyday risks and their individual responsibility to report, manage and mitigate them.
- System perspectives: OD involves the total system. So does BCM. Both are systemic : ie they are ‘whole system’ disciplines taking in the entire organisation. BCM is also overtly outward focused in as much as it comprises constant ‘horizon scanning’ for potential threats to the organisation. As such ‘systemic’ can be considered to include the wider environment within which the organisation exists. With respect to Beckhard, I think modern OD shares this outward perspective.
- Management and Delivery: OD is managed from the top but delivered at the most appropriate level. BCM is an iterative and structured process involving planning, risk identification and management. Whilst it is managed and instigated from the top for resilience to occur the intervention must come at the right point, that position where the resilience is most needed. OD interventions can happen at the organisational, group or system level (Cheung Judge 2011).
- Aims and Values: OD is designed to increase organisational effectiveness and health. BCM aims to preserve the same during crisis times. Organisational effectiveness is influenced by what Schein (2006) terms the ‘adaptive coping cycle’. What he means by this is that the ability of an organisation to survive and thrive is determined by its ability to adapt and cope with the changes in its environment. It is not too great an extrapolation to apply the concept of change with the traumatic events that might be associated with an incident that threatens business continuity.
- Goals: OD achieves its goals through planned interventions using behavioural science knowledge. BCM achieves its goals through the development of robust and well tested plans that are embedded into organisational culture and which form part of the cycle of BCM. The British Standards diagram aboveplaces a significant emphasis on BCM as an aspect of organisational culture, showing the key processes of BCM as on-going within this cultural boundary. A testing protocol and plan is considered to be a key part of the overall BCM activity.
The work of American organisational theorist Karl Weick provides a robust and high quality link between the worlds of OD and BCP. Weick, whose work includes theories on concepts around ‘mindfulness’ and ‘sensemaking’ introduces the concept of what he calls Highly Resilient Organisations (HROs). Writing in concert with Kathleen Sutcliffe (Weick and Sutcliffe 2001), Weick argues that we live in a world where unexpected events impact on organisational ability to continue to operate. He argues that expectations are built into organisational roles and routines creating a sense of orderliness within the organisation. However, in a changing environment this orderliness also creates blind spots that can conceal errors. This is central to the concept of mindfulness;
"Sometimes", Weick says, “expected events don’t materialise, sometimes unexpected events do materialise and sometimes that unimaginable appears like a bolt out of the blue” (Weick & Sutcliffe 2001, Pg. 24).
To cope with this, organisations must develop strategies to cope with risk and uncertainty, and be prepared for crisis situations:
“The essence of resilience is therefore the intrinsic ability of
an organisation to maintain or regain a dynamically stable state which allows
it to continue operations after a major mishap and/or in the presence of
continuous stress”
Weick,
K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001).
Other writers active in the field
of BCM such as Pauchant (Pauchant and Mitroff 1992) and Mitroff (1988, 1992)
and Elliot, Swartz, and Herbane (2009)
seem to accept the supposition that whilst some organisations are prone to
crises, others are more resilient to incidents. It is argued that the manner in
which the organisation is able to cope with the incident will be influenced by
the core organisational beliefs and assumptions that are embedded within the
organisational culture. In this concept of organisation, resilience may be developed through the identification
and examination of potential failures. Simulations provide a perfect method for testing responses, both in sense of the plans produced and the people who will need to put them into effect. The learning these events offer is deep and long lasting. In short, they form a great avenue not just for BCM testing but also for personal and orgnaisational development, involving a process of
organisational and personal reflection, review and learning to allow
reiterations of approach to develop a more effective response. Such processes
are not restricted to BCM. They are also at the core of OD. yet BC has been arguably more successful at convincing leaders of the value of simulations as tools of development, and this is a key area that OD needs to understand.Vive la difference?
Given the obvious similarities and shared goas of the two disciplines I find it curious that there remains a professional segregation between BC and OD that practitioners of both seem keen to maintain. My own experience is that OD is seen as a much softer skill set more akin to L&D and the HR function than to the apparently more 'hard skilled' and technical focus of BC with all it's failover plans and continuity documents. I really am not convinced. For me the differences are raher fabricated, both disciplines falling victim of their own stereotype. These are two disciplines that share the same overall objectives and at times even the same tools. Why not the same faces?
I don't think we can say that BC = OD in all situations, but I am convinced that BC remains a valid channel not just for the pursuit of it's own aims, but also as an established channel, with management buy-in, through which OD interventions and strategies may be deployed.
In a later blog entry we’ll be looking at why BCM often appears to have more buy-in than OD.
Comments
Post a Comment