To change management

Russell Lewis | 08 November 2011

Imagine this: you are working in your office and the boss comes in with a stranger, someone who is obviously not from your country or culture and says “This is Some Unusual Name. He (or she) is going to teach you how to do your job. Make sure you do as you’re told.” How would you feel?

Sound familiar? I’ll bet it does – because if you’re in international development, chances are that has happened - except that you were the stranger from another country with the unusual name.

How do you handle that? More to the point, how does the person (your counterpart) feel about all this? Have they been told that you were coming? Have they ever been told in the past that they weren’t doing their job properly?

Although debate and discussion about the merits of using a combination of change management and capacity building techniques to improve systems and processes has been occurring infrequently over the past decade or so, there seems to have been little change in intervention methodologies in the international development sector.

The UNDP paper “Institutional Reform and Change Management: Managing Change in Public Sector Organisations” (2006) identified that public sector organisations are often seen as resisting change and that many public sector organisations seek capacity but not change. It further identified that for many development practitioners, change and capacity are distinct, even though the evidence suggests that they are intertwined. This may well be because many if notmost development practitioners are more technically oriented than people oriented.

A useful definition of change management is: “the coordination of a structured period of transition from situation A to situation B in order to achieve lasting change within an organization”. The OECD said (2003) that there is no difference between change management in developed or developing countries.

It could be argued then that capacity building and institutional strengthening also occur in a process of “transition from situation A to situation B in order to achievelasting change within an organization.” After all is it not the goal of capacity building and institutional strengthening to be sustainable?

It seems logical that capacity building and institutional strengthening in developing countries should follow the same processes as change management in the developed world. Unfortunately anecdotal evidence suggests that this is not the case.

In the developed world, change management is about people and working with people to prepare, involve, consult and generally build their capacity to deal with change before introducing the change itself.

In the developing world, the first time most members know about the change process is when the boss walks in with the technical advisor. Unfortunately the technical advisor is probably not going to spend sufficient time on the people skills so essentialto sustainable capacity building and change management.

Perhaps it is time for aid agencies and donor organisations to look at the essential nature of their programs and projects and adopt a change management philosophy which involves and empowers people to move forward in a common purpose to achieve the Millenium Development Goals.

Photo credit main picture: Photo by Mangee

Comments

Impossible...but doable

Capacity building is an odd word that has no meaning in itself. You can support existing capacities to develop and deepen their capabilities to have an impact. However, question remains: what impact is envisaged? In other words: How does the context co-determine the capacity requirements? And what kind of capacity therefore needs strengthening according to whose agenda?

These merely political questions should precede the technical path of capacity building (whether institutional or individual). It is here where the political and management orientations in the development world meet as also researched by a Dutch scholar Willem Elbers who will defend his thesis on the 19th of this month discussing the seemingly impossible marriage of political engagement with managerial requirements (as also shortly discussed in Dutch at the Vice Versa website http://www.viceversaonline.nl/201...principes-ontwikkelingsorganisaties/ )

However, in my view, it is not an either/or issue. Both aspects of capacity development are to be considered. There is a political dimension to capacity building that has to be dealt with if the 'do-no-harm' principle of international humanitarian action is to be respected.

Once the political landscape has been analysed and political choices have been made there are definately management issues involved to address legitimate effectiveness and efficiency concerns. The latter mostly has to with the intervening party itself. It should raise the question: given the situation, and given the institutional landscape, am I best suited to provide support here or are others better positioned to take up this role or will maximum added value be reached in building a political alliance or an implementation consortium.

The necessity to support local capacities only follows after a thorough political analysis of power imbalances and processes of exploitation. This analysis may also potentially reveal the need to (temporary) inject 'foreign' capacities to support change processes. However, these should be brought in clearly on demand of local marginalized communities and in tune with existing local capacities that will need this foreign support to generate space for change.

I hope this discussion at the Broker will bring us a bit further on this difficult path of marrying the political with the managerial (or the preparation with the action). As famous and long retired actor Sean Connery challenged his female mate-in-crime in the movie Entrapment reflecting on the task ahead: 'That is impossible!!.....' and only after she agreed to a 50/50 share of the crime dividend he added: '..but doable'.

Reinier van Hoffen | January 16, 2012 | Respond

Changing with the times

I think that it is unfortunate that some organisations and even some people can be resentful towards the idea of change when confronted by an 'outsider'. Sometimes the outsider does not always come from outside, but anyone who is not from the work group or unit is seen as an outsider irrespective of name or gender.

A colleague of mine works in a sensitive area in a remote location. When initially contracted to conduct a number of workshops regarding change and communication, the advice provided on how he would 'fit' in was substantially different to what happened.

As he told me, the process of engaging with the participants was a learning experience in itself. The lesson that came from the process was that sometimes it is necessary to engage in a long period of informal communication so that both parties can get to know the finer details of culture and the ways things are done around here.

Establishing the ground work is so important if long term capacity building is to happen. Even in traditional male dominated paramilitary type organisations, going from one way of doing things to another iks fraught with risk if the basics are not addressed. Imposed change in my view just does not seem to work as effectively as change that occurs when there is ownership created by involvement, trust and understanding. It generally won't happen well if an ousider walks in and is perceived to 'throwing their weight around'.

Bernie Althofer | November 15, 2011 | Respond

changing paradigm of development work

The “expertise infusion” development model is indeed being transformed before our eyes. We can no longer be sectorally-focused. We cannot look for accountability only on paper. We must first and foremost look for it in the relationship of the "implementing partners" to those they (excuse me, we) serve. This requires the time and skill to see what is living in organizations and communities that is authentic, that has potential, accompanied by a deep respect for what is local and indigenous and a subtlety of practice to give thoughtful and careful support where it is needed, which is indeed difficult within the project cycles that currently dictate our day-to-day work in the aid industry.

The aid agency of the future focuses on building its own skills to accompany and support local groups, community leaders, and grassroots initiatives, rather than overpower or co-opt them. The aid agency of the future is able to restructure and revise their accountability requirements to focus on the minimum structure and financial controls necessary, rather than asking local implementing "partners" to change. The aid agency of the future is lowering the “glass ceiling” for local groups to participate in decision-making about aid resources, is bucking the paradigm of development without local sovereignty, and is demonstrably serious about downward accountability.
It is in encouraging and supporting these qualities and processes that we may find the real challenges of change management for donors and NGOs. Development practitioners, including donors, must pay more attention to the concept of organization itself and the practice of facilitating the development of authentic and sovereign local organization and social movements.

Jennifer Lentfer | November 11, 2011 | Respond

The impetus for change

Hi Jennifer - The aid agency of the future will by necessity be totally different to today's model. I find that the type of totally engaged bottom-up model is largely confined to the NGO/NFP sector - particularly those single purpose NGOs which do so much good work at the community level.

The larger country and IGO donors are increasingly talking about engagement but are yet to implement the necessary changes across their programs. While this may have much to do with their need to show returns on their investment - I think real change from these donors is still some way off.

Jennifer | January 16, 2012 |