PERSPECTIVE
5.5 EVOLVING PERCEPTIONS OF STRATEGY CONCEPTS
5.5.1 Mission
Schein (1992) terms 'mission' as being what is considered by the people in an organization as the fundamental reason for that organization's existence and their role in the bigger picture. A question to ponder here relates to what was considered to be the mission of the NPB at the time of its formation and during the respective leadership reigns. Also, what strategic decisions did each of the leaders take to realize their respective version of the mission?
The mission of the NPB under Vincent was to strategically combat species loss from poaching and unregulated use. Enforcement and protected areas were designated as the mechanisms to fight poaching and unregulated use. Scientific knowledge was later recognized as a cornerstone for effective conservation, hence Vincent's introduction of scientists into the NPB. However, the mission showed some variance with time and with this variance came different interpretations of the mission. Initial signs of varying interpretations and what was to others, a 'weakening' mission arose during the Geddes- Page era in the late 1960s and most of the 1970s with the emphasis that was put on
recreation and tourism - something 'hardcore' conservationists in the organization had for long treated as an adjunct of the core function of conserving wildlife.
During Vincent's reign, mainstreaming of tourism and recreation was evident, both manifestly and symbolically. Manifestly, it included the acquisition of dams and investing in their operations, for example. Symbolically, it was shown by Geddes-Page's support for tourism and recreation, for organizational policies supportive of tourism and recreation and the appointment of personnel at various levels (including at Director's level) for tourism and recreation. This served to send one message: that conservation was no longer to be the only pre-eminent activity of the NPB. In many ways, tourism and recreation were for the first time positioned as a 'twin activity' as opposed to being an adjunct, a situation that inevitably polarised the organization in subsequent years (Potter pers. comm.).
Attention devoted to tourism and recreation unleashed unparalleled tensions in the organization in years to come. Resultant tensions were hardly conducive to efficiency, neither in the sense of stability nor in the sense of flexibility. Consequently, there was a change in terms of the previous values founded on a shared and commonly understood mission. This change arose due to a complex set of interactions of organizational factors, including personal, professional and ideological characteristics of the organizational members at all levels of the hierarchy. Fears that conservation was getting a 'raw deal' under Geddes-Page grew in certain circles within the organization and even outside.
These views were largely propagated by those who regarded Geddes-Page as an 'outsider' essentially because he did not start his career in the 'bush' or reserves.
Two main pressures, which were both largely externally driven, and a manifestation of a fast-changing external environment, shook the foundations of the mission in the 1980s.
First was the changing conservation industry paradigm which favoured the recognition of the need to integrate conservation with development. A peculiar strand of the ICDP paradigm was the imperative for providing for inclusiveness. By underscoring inclusiveness, the new paradigm challenged the old approach by providing for
meaningful participation founded on real and genuine communication as a platform for integrated conservation and development processes. Integrated conservation and development and related pressures heightened when the DNC, under Steele began its operations in the early 1980s emphasizing the need to work with local communities. This development represented a significant departure from the traditional conservation paradigm to which the NPB very much (Hughes 2001). Operating in essentially the same geographical region, the DNC created a kind of pressure which the NPB needed to respond to partly because of the realization that protection and management of protected areas were no longer sufficient tools to sustain conservation. A long history of treating communities as adversaries, however, could not just fade in a short time and organizational stereotypes of the communities were very much entrenched within the NPB.
The second pressure arose as a result of the NPB's past history of guaranteed funding.
Despite a slow and difficult start, high levels of guaranteed income were at one time a reality for conservation in KZN:
Gradually, however, the money came; the Provincial Administration regularly and generously increased its annual grant, the authorities generally became better disposed towards the conservation organization [NPB], and the estimates which I drew up each year for Board approval invariably were passed without query (Vincent 1989: 213)
The above was especially true in the time of Vincent, and for the larger part true for the Geddes-Page era. During much of the 60s and the 70s under Geddes-Page, the budget grew considerably and the organization flourished. The pace of growth of the organization was rapid; whatever the demands for resources that were made, they were met. The organization grew to employ over 2000 people. Management was by and large responsible for this large appetite for resources. The organization was hardly successful, however, in building up internal systems for internal planning and control. Nor did the leadership devote much time to creating flexible organizational structures and processes.
This was the scenario that Hughes inherited when he came to manage the NPB in 1988.
The succeeding period under Hughes saw efforts to rationalise the conservation agency, to cut down what was thought of as wasteful spending. The agency had grown to a point
that, even internally, the lack of efficiency was felt. And externally, the conservation agency was looked upon as part of the government sector that was at this time subject to severe treatment in the form of audits and budget cuts. Hughes called in a group of consultants, with experience from cost cutting and with competence in developing and implementing management control systems. The success of this effort was far from obvious. Of the targeted savings, hardly anything remained a few years later especially when the NPB was finally amalgamated with the DNC, with salaries taking up nearly 90% of the budget (EKZNW 2001). Organizational independence51 was now threatened in other ways compared to during previous periods - via financial pressure and harsh criticism of the efficiency of the organization from many outside constituencies.
The foregoing discussion illustrates shifts in the understanding of the mission. Overall, the mission expanded between the Vincent and Hughes eras from just focusing on species conservation, to incorporate tourism and recreation, community and stakeholder interests and finally to recognize the need for financial viability. Each leader introduced strategic emphases based on a particular interpretation of the environment. Vincent himself perhaps best summarizes this shift.
I suppose conservation bodies are like museums; those of their departments which form the main hobby or interest of the man in charge are emphasized, whilst other branches, beyond a few exceptional cases, are to some extent ignored (Vincent 1989: 204).
To summarize, the mission did not stay the same in all aspects over time. Each leader, based on his priorities and interpretation of threats and opportunities imposed by the external environment, devised what he deemed to be niche strategic directions to follow.
However, one thing remained clear: conservation values and faith remained dominant over time. Subsequent additions to the mission took as their departure point, some level or version of interpretation of the mission premised on conservation values and faith.
This made conservation a common denominator, except different emphases were developed in respective leaderships.
51 Independence of the agency was historically based and it was part of the justification of establishing the NPB as a parastatal (See Vincent 1989 and Hughes 2001). Thus, independence was a property the NPB wanted to retain as exhibited by the 'touchiness' of all the leaders in responding to critique about the organization's operations - especially sentiments that suggested reduction in funding.