ChangingOrganisations forSustainableLivelihoods:a map to guide change

Kath Pasteur

Les

son

s fo

rch

an

ge

Background

Researchers and practitioners

concerned with sustainable livelihoods

have identified the need both for

greater understanding of how

government organisations impact on

sustainable livelihoods and also for

guidelines on how to influence the

organisational environment to achieve

favourable outcomes.

This paper responds to these needs.

Lessons and experiences are distilled

from case studies in order to illustrate

processes and suggest entry points for

organisational change. Research with

the Department of Rural Development

in Andhra Pradesh, India and the

Department of Agricultural Extension in

Bangladesh forms the basis of two

supplementary case study booklets.

Other case study material is drawn

from the literature.

Case studies drawn on in this booklet:

Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE),

Bangladesh

Changes include institutionalising grassroots

farmer-led extension, integrating a range of

sector extension programmes and moving

towards a sector wide approach. Change is

promoted through grassroots level training, pilot

programmes, thematic working groups and

cross-sectoral committees. Support is provided

by the DFID funded Agricultural Services

Innovation and Reform Project (ASIRP).

Department of Rural Development,

Andhra Pradesh, India

The 1995 watershed development policy

involves working in partnership with NGOs,

community self-organisation and participatory

planning. Change is promoted through training

and partnerships. Support has been provided

via the DFID funded Andhra Pradesh Rural

Livelihoods Project (APRLP).

Department of Livestock Extension, Indonesia.

Focus has been on moving towards more

participatory and client-oriented approaches to

livestock service provision and management.

Support has come from the DFID funded

Decentralised Livestock Services in the Eastern

Regions of Indonesia (DELIVERI) project.

Documented at www.deliveri.org.

National Irrigation Authority, Philippines

The change process has emphasised

participation and community self-organisation,

using a working group as a catalyst.

Documented by Korten and Siy (1988).

Department of Agricultural and Technical

Extension Services (AGRITEX), Zimbabwe.

Towards more client-oriented agricultural

extension by means of piloting participatory

approaches at the field level and convincing

policy makers. Documented by Hagmann, et al

(1997).

Changing Organisations for SustainableLivelihoods:a map to guide change

This booklet is addressed to staff of DFID and

of other development and partner agencies.

It sets out to:

Describe directions for change that

enable and support sustainable

livelihoods.

Identify the different dimensions of

change.

Map a process of change, illustrated with

entry-point activities.

Explore problems associated with

change.

Consider how to monitor and evaluate

change.

Reflect on the need for change in

development agencies.

Kath Pasteur Acknowledgements

This report is based on fieldwork in India and

Bangladesh.Thanks to the many people who

provided input, support and assistance during

the preparation of these case studies.

Thanks also to those who gave advice and

comments on drafts of this work, in particular

James Keeley and Ian Scoones.

3

Les

son

s fo

rch

an

ge

in p

oli

cy &

org

anis

atio

ns

Citation:

Pasteur, K (2001)

Changing Organisations for Sustainable Livelihoods: a map to guide change

Lessons for Change in Policy & Organisations, No. 1.

Brighton: Institute of Development Studies

4

Government organisations shape the

livelihoods of the poor. They can

improve poor people’s livelihoods by

providing readily accessible services of good

quality.Through the policies they make and

implement, they can increase poor people’s

access to, and management of, the assets that

are needed to secure sustainable livelihood

strategies.

Government organisations that are “good” for

development are those that “have the capacity

to make policy and deliver services in an

efficient, effective and accountable manner”

(DFID, 2000).The Sustainable Livelihoods

approach highlights the challenge of putting

poor peoples’ priorities first, of making links

across sectors and from macro level to micro

and of strengthening ownership and capacity to

ensure sustainability.

This booklet is about the journey of change.

Drawing lessons from experiences of

implementing change in government

organisations, it offers a ‘roadmap’, a guide for

other organisations undertaking similar

transformations. Recognising that all

organisations are different, it offers no blueprint

of what the destination might look like.

It suggests directions for change based on the

sustainable livelihoods framework and

principles.

This booklet illustrates:

1. Directions for change:

What outcomes does change for

sustainable livelihoods aim to achieve?

2.Why change happens:

Why do organisations embark on a

journey of change?

3. Dimensions of change:

Who should change?

Where does change occur?

4.The change process:

What paths to take during a process

of change?

5.Tracking change:

Are we getting to where we

want to go?

A map doesn’t tell you your destination.

It shows options and signposts to get to

where you need to go.When you get lost it

helps you get back on track.

5

A map to guide change

How can organisations support

sustainable livelihoods? If

governments are to improve the

resilience of poor people’s livelihoods what

paths should they follow?

Government organisations vary according to

their roles and functions.They may be service

providers (health or education departments),

managers or protectors of resources such as

forest and water or protectors of rights and

liberties (police, women’s affairs).They may

provide such services alone or in partnership

with the private and NGO sectors.They may

simply regulate private sector provision. Amidst

this diversity, it is inevitable that organisations

will have sets of particularly strengths, needs

and constraints which cannot be

accommodated in a simplistic blueprint vision of

a sustainable livelihoods-friendly organisation.

Alternatively, the sustainable livelihoods

principles offer signposts to guide organisations

along the path of transformation.These point us

towards building organisations which are

people-centred and participatory; take a holistic

perspective; work in cross-sectoral ways; build

on strengths; link macro and micro level

activities; and are sustainable.While the

principles of the sustainable livelihoods

approach are valuable, challenges abound.

Government organisations that aim to support

sustainable livelihoods must, above all else, be

both people centred and participatory.The

needs of clients, particularly the poor and

vulnerable, should be the focus of their

activities. Clients should have some voice in

prioritising needs. Addressing the needs of the

poorest has often posed a challenge to

government organisations.This is not only

because wealthy elites are more successful at

capturing funds, but also because the poorest

groups are often the hardest to identify and

target. Improving participatory procedures and

attitudes requires a huge cultural shift for many

government organisations with a traditional

mind-set of control and authority and for

individuals used to imposing standardised

projects and dominating decision-making

processes. Shifting ingrained individual and

organisational values and practices is inevitably a

slow and challenging process.

People adopt multiple strategies to secure

livelihoods. Government organisations need

holistic perspectives to address the wide-

ranging needs of poor people, implying multiple

entry-points and cross-sectoral collaboration.

However, tackling several entry points together

can become overly complex and potentially

result in reduced effectiveness. How to

prioritise and phase entry points is undoubtedly

challenging. Working in a cross-sectoral

manner requires an integrated organisational

approach.This is easier said than done, for

governments are sectorally organised. Diverse

financial management systems and inter-

departmental rivalries constitute formidable

barriers to cross-sectoral collaboration. For

such approaches to succeed, these barriers

must be overcome.

Government organisations need to build on

existing strengths.Working in partnership with

those who can add additional strengths can

help government agencies overcome their own

limitations of geographical spread and lack of

sufficient resources. However, working in

partnership with non-government or

community-based organisations is rarely

trouble-free. Power relationships are unequal.

Antagonisms often arise where partnership

goals have not been decided together but

imposed by the more powerful partner.

6

Directions for changeTowards organisations forsustainable livelihoods

‘Rather than focussing

solely on conventional

interventions (transfer of

technology, skills etc) the

sustainable livelihoods

approach emphasises

getting the institutional and

organisational setting right.’

(Scoones, 1998:14)

Different levels of government need to work

together to bridge the gaps between macro

and micro realities and influences, and to

ensure that their strategies are compatible.

Micro-level realities should also be adequately

represented in policy (which still tends to be

made at the macro-level). Policies in support of

decentralisation and participation offer

possibilities for change, but ensuring that

rhetoric becomes reality is a major challenge. In

many cases, these processes can be captured

and diverted by newly emergent elites, thus

once again excluding the poor.

Development agencies have distinct approaches

to addressing their number-one priority:

poverty reduction. Governments of developing

countries often have different priorities and

approaches towards the goal they profess to

share.Trade-offs in objectives will need to be

negotiated between growth, environmental

protection and poverty reduction. If the

priorities of a sustainable livelihoods approach

are to be successfully negotiated, these need to

be clearly understood and internalised both by

partners and by donor agency staff.

In practical terms, becoming a more livelihoods-

friendly organisation necessitates changes in

organisational structures, culture and

procedures. Structural changes that help

improve responsiveness, build on strengths or

support holistic approaches include

decentralisation, partnership initiatives and

cross-sectoral collaboration. Cultural changes

such as increased transparency and trust, or

more empowering approaches, demonstrate

increased respect for the needs of poor people.

Planning, accountability, management and

monitoring procedures can all be made more

participatory, to improve responsiveness and

promote macro-micro linkages.These are

outlined and illustrated with examples on the

following two pages.

7

8

Structure

Decentralisation

Partnerships

Cross-sectoral work

Size and representation

Culture

Trust & transparency

Learning culture

Empowerment, not authority

Procedures

Participatory procedures

Accountability

Management incentives

Structural change in Department for Agricultural Extension (DAE), Bangladesh

The DAE has typically been characterised as being centralised and hierarchical, lacking staff initiative, working in isolation

from other service providers and failing to properly represent women farmers. It is undertaking the following structural

changes which aim to redress such problems:

Integrated Extension: involves decentralising authority for planning, and better integrated planning with other agricultural

service providers (NGO, private sector and government).

Partnerships Initiative Fund: funds are made available for special partnership initiatives between NGOs and DAE.

Extension Policy Implementation Co-ordination Committee: these committees improve inter-departmental collaboration

between agriculture, livestock, forestry and fisheries extension at local, district & national levels. NGOs, the public sector and

donors are to be increasingly involved in sector-wide planning.

Gender Working Group: this group is responsible for developing a gender policy, raising awareness of gender issues in

agricultural extension, and increasing womens representation in the organisation.

See also: Case Study booklet on Bangladesh (Pasteur, forthcoming). www.livelihoods.org

Devolution of power and resources to front line staff improves capacity for responsiveness

Decision-makers are closer to local reality, and the needs of the poor

Build on existing local (NGO, community & private sector) organisational strengths and

legitimise their contributions to service delivery.

Help to overcome problems of resource scarcity and geographical spread of service delivery.

Joined-up government more closely reflects poor people’s holistic realities, and makes it easier

for people to engage with government

Women and minorities should be more strongly represented in, and by government.

Appropriate size improves financial sustainability, and reduces resource wastage.

Structure

Decentralisation

Partnerships

Cross-sectoral work

Size and representation

A more livelihoods-friendly

organisation necessitates

changes in organisational

structures, culture and

procedures.

9

Eradicating corruption improves financial sustainability.

Poor people’s vulnerability is reduced through access to relevant information and

ability to demand rights.

Respecting poor people’s knowledge and capacity and prioritising their needs and

perspectives are vital to people-centred development.

Patrimonial, ethnic or political bias, and domination by vested interests inhibit

empowerment of the poor.

Building on existing strengths and successes, and accepting and learning from

mistakes, improves sustainability through timely addressing of problems.

Culture

Trust & transparency

From authority to

empowerment

Learning organisation

Cultural change in the Indian watershed programme

How do we create a people-centred and participatory culture within an organisation that has a tradition of top-down

control and authority, a pervasive climate of corruption and patronage and in which attitudes of superiority in relation to

knowledge, skills and capacity are the norm?

For government staff to facilitate community participation in watershed planning requires respect towards poor people,

trust and transparency regarding responsibility for funds and two-way accountability. How is this culture change supported?

The policy now being articulated has a new direction.Training and field visits have improved staff understanding of the

reality of poor peoples’ lives. Staff are being recruited on the basis of willingness to embrace new styles of working.The

programme is receiving considerable attention and being appreciated. However, stronger rewards for new behaviour would

provide further incentives to change, and old procedures, such as monitoring only completion of works and distribution of

funds, must also be changed.

See also: Case Study booklet on India (Pasteur, forthcoming). www.livelihoods.org

Improved procedures for Philippine irrigation decision-making

While the policy of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) called for local involvement in development and

management of irrigation systems, NIA procedures were not supportive of this change:

� Performance was measured in terms of completion of physical construction.

� Design, construction and operation were based on technical criteria and treated as discrete separate components.

� Design was imposed in a mechanistic and bureaucratic fashion.

In response to these shortcomings, procedural changes were introduced:

� Performance measures were based on clients’ willingness to pay for services.

� Farmers were involved in design, construction and operation, and socio-technical standards were used.

� Decision-making and responsibility were decentralised to provincial engineers.

Source: Korten and Siy (1988).

Procedures

Accountability and M&E

Management

Participatory procedures

More honest upward accountability links the macro to the micro.

Increased downward accountability empowers poor people with knowledge.

Participatory M&E improves understanding of impacts.

A skilled and empowered workforce, particularly front line staff, will be more innovative

and dynamic.

Good management and incentives improve staff motivation.

Participation in policy and planning makes outcomes more relevant to the needs of the poor.

Participatory budgeting means resources are more likely to be used appropriately

Without understanding an

organisation we cannot

understand clearly why change

happens or see the impediments to change.

While the external or internal environment of

the organisation can create pressures for

change, and shape the direction of change, it

can also seriously inhibit change. Developing an

understanding of the internal and external

organisational context and momentum for

change will help to identify spaces for starting

to introduce change, highlight strengths that

can be built on and draw attention to potential

problems that may arise during the change

process.

The external context includes the political,

social, economic and technological environment,

at local, national and international levels.

Questions which need to be addressed include:

how is the organisation perceived by society;

what are the expectations of clients; to what

extent is civil society sufficiently organised to

make demands; is the organisation embedded

in a wider bureaucratic system of inflexible

structures and procedures?

External pressures to change can come from

civil society organisations and users of services

placing demands. Donor agencies exert

significant influence through the types of

activities they fund and the funding conditions

they impose.The political environment of the

organisation might open opportunities for

change (e.g. a more open policy environment),

but can also impose constraints (e.g. politicians

fearful of loss of power can block change efforts).

The internal context includes the history of the

organisation, its culture and values, leadership,

resource availability and the nature of the

services the organisation provides. Key

innovators or leaders have a very important

role to play in pushing for change. A history of

poor performance can also be a strong

incentive. However, there are often stubborn

internal opponents of change as vested

interests endeavour to hold onto power. Fear of

dismissal or loss of status is a powerful

disincentive to staff contemplating taking risks

or challenging the system. It is only human

nature to fear change, the uncertain leap into

the dark with unpredictable personal

implications.

Organisational culture can similarly be a strong

inhibitor of change. A pervasive atmosphere of

authority and control, patronage systems,

arrogance and patronising attitudes block

change. Procedures by which staff are selected,

trained and promoted serve to perpetuate

bureaucratic insularity and conformity.

10

Why change happens

‘One of the most

important weaknesses or

flaws in change models is

the failure to recognise the

context in which such

changes take place.’

(O’ Donovan, 1994:132)

How can development agencies help

drive change?

Development agencies can play a pivotal role as

change facilitators by providing the skills and

capacity to empower organisations to desire,

understand, negotiate and gear up for change.

Donors can provide funds to support training,

experimentation and innovation.

Change can be a fraught and fragile process.

Staff in government organisations are unlikely to

welcome criticism and demands for change.

They may become defensive if they perceive

that external agendas are being foisted upon

them. External agencies need to build strong

relationships with local staff, to work sensitively

and patiently in order to stimulate, support and

sustain change.

Staff from development organisations should

not consider themselves to be neutral agents in

stimulating change. Such a role will naturally

lead to some bias or selectivity, in terms of the

people that are chosen to engage with, the

alliances that are forged, and the wider agendas

that the agency may be pursuing. It is important

that their agenda in supporting change is made

explicit and transparent from the start.The

following pointers offer guidance to help shape

such relationships:

Ensure ownership of the process by the

organisation itself. Locating external project staff

inside government offices and other places of

work increases day-to-day contact and

communication. Building a strong partnership

relationship necessitates willingness to hand

over responsibilities whenever it is feasible.

From the outset, thought must be given to

strengthening individual and organisational

commitment beyond the period of external

project support.

Provide long-term commitment. Committing

adequate resources allows risks to be taken.

External support and maintenance of

enthusiasm that successful change is possible,

even during difficult periods, helps maintain

momentum and optimism. Before external

support is withdrawn efforts must be made to

draw in other support resources.

Avoid a rigid project approach. Change is a

dynamic, lengthy and unpredictable process.

Setting rigid activities and outcomes, with overly

recurrent reviews and evaluations, may create

unnecessary pressures and lead to

defensiveness or apathy.

Recognise that organisations are complex and

political. Organisational change is invariably

controversial. Understanding the priorities and

interests of different players is essential to

successfully locating resistance and resolving

problems.

Consider sustainability and exit strategies.

How long should the agency’s role last? A

balance needs to be found between providing

support and creating dependency. Produce and

hand over documents to guide the organisation

after the project has ended.Train counterpart

staff who will remain.

11

Roles for development agencies driving change

Informant: raising awareness of areas where change may be needed.

Push: asking provocative questions, cajole change.

Finance: permitting risk-taking by government organisations.

Skills: suggesting methods and strategies and building capacity for change.

Persistence: support and patience throughout the process of change.

Conflict resolution: assisting in the management / sidelining of resistance.

Who needs to change?

Change is not just organisational – it should

also be personal.The importance of individual

behavioural change within organisations cannot

be underestimated. Each and every staff

member must be encouraged and supported

to take up the challenges posed by change.

Who to include in the change process is of

vital importance. Change impacts a range of

departments, affecting staff from human

resources, finance, communication and

evaluation in addition to managers and front

line workers. Planning and implementation

should not only involve the enthusiasts. Sceptics

and dissenters cannot be brought on board if

they are excluded from discussions and

activities.

Change should start at home. Development

agencies need to also reflect on the need for

change in their own internal structures, culture

and procedures.They need to constantly

reconsider how they relate with partners. Here,

once more, personal and organisational change

is inextricably combined.

Where is change needed?

A common dilemma when organisational

change is being planned is whether to start at

the macro (ministerial/policy) level, the meso

(middle management) level or the micro (front

line worker) level.Wherever possible, there

should be engagement with all three. An

understanding of the organisation’s internal and

external context will help to identify spaces and

strengths in order to identify the most effective

entry levels.Working at one level, without then

linking to the others, is likely to be neither

productive nor sustainable.

1 Engaging with the policy makers can result in

wider-reaching reforms which go beyond

limited localised initiatives.There is a danger,

however, that if stakeholders from the meso

and micro levels are not involved in decision-

making reforms may be inappropriate and lack

ownership.

2 Initiatives at the meso and micro levels are

often frustrated by a lack of changes in

procedures and relationships at higher levels,

especially if there has been little transfer of

power and responsibility.

3 Change at the micro-level can lead to radical

improvements in relations between front line

staff and those they aim to serve. However,

these impacts are localised and short-lived

unless institutionalised in policy.

Improvements are required in the

relationship between the bureaucracy and

citizens. Opportunities for more equal

encounters at the civil servant/public interface

must be explored. At the same time, within

the bureaucracy there must be complementary

changes in relationships between different levels

of authority, in staffing levels, reporting

procedures and measures to identify and clamp

down on corruption.

12

Other dimensions ofchange

‘Organisational goals

(of the abstract

bureaucracy) and the

goals of an individual trainee

(a concrete bureaucrat)

very often differ.’

(Hirschmann, 2000:291)

Change is a dynamic and non-linear,

often chaotic, process. It is very

difficult to determine the nature and

direction of change: it is not a discrete process

in which an organisation moves neatly from one

stage to another. However, you can try to direct

organisational thinking, and help create space

for change to start, and to evolve. Hence, it is

helpful to break the change process down into

component stages: unfreezing, catalysing,

internalising, institutionalising, and organisational

learning.These stages overlap, start and stop,

creating and enriching the feedback loops

illustrated in the diagram. Learning and

assessment is required at all stages - right from

the start, learning and reflection can be an

important stimulus for change.

This section outlines the different stages in a

process of change. Entry point activities that can

help to initiate or support change at each stage

are described and illustrated with case study

examples.The entry points should not be

viewed as a one-size-fits-all pattern for a

successful change process. Instead, they are

suggestive examples of what has worked in

certain situations. Undoubtedly they will need

to be adapted if they are to work in different

circumstances.

13

The process of change

‘Managing transitions in

modern organisations is

about managing an

unfolding, non-linear,

dynamic process in which

players and actions are

never clearly defined’

(Dawson, 1994:164)

unfreeze catalyse

institutionalise

organisational learning

internalise

Example!

These boxes contain

case study illustration

of issues raised.

Try this!

These boxes describe

methods for implementing

suggested ideas.

Problem?

These boxes highlight or

discuss potential

difficulties.

Unfreezing of attitudes, procedures and

styles of working that are resistant to

change. Challenging those unaware of

the need for change.

Pressure for change can come from a number

of sources, internal or external to the

organisation. Regardless of the where the

pressure originates, prevailing attitudes,

powers, skills and organisational history may

combine to convince staff that change is

neither important nor, perhaps, even possible.

Donors may play a role in teasing out and

highlighting the anti-change forces.

Alternatively, early interventions may involve

supporting the organisation to themselves

learn about the pressures that exist and how

to overcome them.

Identify champions of change

Promoting change is particularly problematic

when there is little support from top and

middle management. Furthermore, people in

favour of change may feel isolated, and be

unaware of others with similar ideas within or

outside the organisation.

Such opportunities as turnover of top-level

staff, policy reviews or media events should be

seized upon as vehicles with which to introduce

new ideas. Strategise to identify and support

key actors (whom it is essential to have on

board) and champions (innovative, charismatic

or dynamic people). Like-minded people will

support, encourage and enthuse one another.

Build alliances, both vertical and horizontal,

between those in favour of change.Working

with groups of allies, try to build an

understanding of the internal and external

context of the organisation and to identify

where spaces and opportunities might exist for

initiating a change strategy.

14

Problem? Difficulties building alliances for change

Individuals with common vision are scattered across or between organisations.

Hierarchical structures make it hard for innovators to coalesce for change.

Top-down authority means change needs support from the top - attempts lower down are risky

and not necessarily rewarded.

Communication on issues of organisational structure and process is not encouraged.

Source: Korten and Siy, 1988

Unfreezing

unfreeze catalyse

institutionalise

organisational learning

internalise

Highlight the need for change.

No organisation likes to be told that it is bad

and needs to change.To bluntly do so will only

create resistance. A subtler and more strategic

approach is to lead those within the

organisation to themselves realise that change

may be needed, to coax them into awareness

of the discrepancies between desired

behaviours or outcomes and those actually

being exhibited.

Encourage internal reflection by organising fora

(formal or informal) for discussion and sharing

of problems, ideas and experiences. Create

opportunities for dialogue between

government officials, donors and civil society

leaders in order to promote sharing of

problems and the search for potential solutions.

Facilitate an organisational analysis of the

strengths and difficulties within the organisation

and ways to exploit or resolve them.

Government organisations tend to be risk

averse.To illustrate that viable alternatives exist,

support NGO or private sector projects that

provide good examples for change.

Government staff should be encouraged to visit

such projects or made aware of them through

documentation and dissemination of ideas and

lessons. If government organisations are

resistant to dialogue on change, an effective

alternative can be to work through civil society

organisations to lobby for change.

15

Example. Where do new ideas come from?

In India the committee entrusted with responsibility for developing the watershed

development policy first travelled widely throughout the country to visit existing

watershed programmes, both NGO and government, to learn from them, and to try to synthesise

their best aspects into one approach.

At the same time an informal group interested in participatory approaches had formed in

Hyderabad.They held breakfast meetings to share and discuss ideas and experiences. Some group

members were also key players in developing the new watershed policy, and helped ensure that

participatory procedures were explicit into the policy guidelines.

These types of networks and linkages, both formal and informal, are important for spreading ideas.

They can be cultivated and expanded as a mechanism to support unfreezing.

See also: Case Study booklet on India (Pasteur, forthcoming). www.livelihoods.org

Try this! Organisational analysis to identify spaces and directions forchange.

Organise one or several workshops with participants from all levels within the

organisation and stakeholders from outside the organisation. Use tools such as SWOT (strengths,

weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis; problem analysis (identify a critical issue and map out

the causes and effects); or stakeholder analysis (identifying the organisation’s key stakeholders, their

concerns and expectations). Get senior bureaucrats from behind their desks and out into the field to

undertake a similar analysis of the situation for front line workers. Stay overnight in communities to

give staff a better understanding of local realities. Use client satisfaction surveys, citizens’ report cards,

and other forms of consultation to reveal organisational problems experienced or perceived by

clients.Visit Livelihoods Connect for other tools for organisational and policy analysis:

www.livelihoods.org/info/info_toolbox.html

Concrete action in support of change

may be catalysed by chance through a

key event, or it may be strategically

planned. In either case, catalysing

involves initiation of a sustained strategy

for change.

Unplanned catalysts of change may include a

financial crisis requiring urgent intervention, a

change in leadership, an innovatory workshop

that inspires action or new policy, or a project

or programme introduced (rather than

planned from within). Conscious strategies for

initiating change involve creating enabling

conditions and capacity, and developing a

vision and commitment.

Organising for change

Strong, dynamic leadership, or champions, are

very important for initiating change. Good

leaders, however, do not grow on trees.Their

emergence cannot always be taken for granted

or predicted, particularly in contexts where

promotion is based not on merit, but on

patronage.Wherever possible, nurture and

support potential leaders and champions.

Bringing about change requires continuity,

capacity, resources and commitment. Creating a

distinct organisational unit for change with

dedicated resources can help to ensure these

characteristics.To focus efforts and skills,

committees or ‘change teams’ can take

responsibility for managing particular aspects of

the change process.

16

Example: Organising for change in DAE, Bangladesh.

The Bangladesh Department for Agricultural Extension (DAE) set up a structure

to support its change programme. It has been bolstered by advice, skills and

encouragement by staff of the DFID funded ASIRP project. Components include:

A Management Committee, comprising the Director General and all the Wing Heads, responsible

for strategic planning and decision-making.

Five Working Groups, each with 10-15 people from a range of Wings, with a remit to lead the

implementation of specific areas of the Strategic Plan: Environment; Human Resource Management;

Impact Assessment; Social Development; Gender and Partnerships; and Revised Extension Approach

Implementation.They meet monthly to discuss plans and progress.

The Change Management Forum (CMF) brings together these five groups under the leadership of

the Management Committee. It meets twice annually to discuss ideas and monitor progress.The

CMF is both a committee-based structure responsible for implementation of the Strategic Plan and

also a facilitator of conferences aimed at adding momentum to the change process (see

Communicating the Vision).

See also: Case Study booklet on Bangladesh (Pasteur, forthcoming). www.livelihoods.org

Catalysing

unfreeze catalyse

institutionalise

organisational learning

internalise

A vision for change

A vision gives direction and focus for change

and improves the likelihood of success. A vision,

value or mission statement expresses the broad

goals and aspirations of the organisation, and is

generally based around a culture change, such

as ‘putting people first’. Formulating and

enshrining a vision helps create a sense of

cohesion and integration, particularly at a time

of change.

Strategic objectives (or a strategic plan) are the

steps to be taken towards achieving the vision

or mission.They require significant inputs of

time, effort and facilitation.These should be

developed in a participatory and inclusive

manner and aim to be SMART, i.e. Specific,

Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-

bound (over a period of some three to five

years).

The vision and strategic objectives should be

viewed as landmarks to aim towards, not as a

constrictive and prescriptive formula. As the

process advances, and lessons are learned,

landmarks may change or be added where

appropriate - always on the basis of wide

consultation.

17

Example: The Mission Statement and Strategic Plan of DAE,

Bangladesh.

A consultation exercise with staff members, formulated around the goal and

eleven principles of the New Agricultural Extension Policy, led the DAE to develop in 1999 a Mission

Statement and a Strategic Plan.

The Mission: “to provide efficient and effective needs based extension services to all categories of

farmer, to enable them to optimise their use of resources, in order to promote sustainable

agriculture and socio-economic development”, is fairly broad.The Strategic Plan has 68 focussed

objectives grouped under six themes: extension approach development; partnership development;

mainstreaming gender; mainstreaming the environment; human resource management; and

information systems development.These are clear and specific.The aim is to achieve them by 2002

and then formulate a new three-year strategy.

See also: Case Study booklet on Bangladesh (Pasteur, forthcoming). www.livelihoods.org

Planning for change

A change strategy can rarely be planned in

detail because the process is complex and

contingent. Nevertheless, it is useful to think

about timing and phasing, working to external

timetables (reviews, elections) and internal

rhythms (planning cycles) and anticipating the

need to sustain momentum, or overcome

resistance.

A change strategy may be centrally designed or

include discretion to allow initiatives developed

at the periphery. In either case, replication of

textbook models should take second place to

formulation of culturally appropriate strategies

based on the distinct values of the organisation

and the society in question (e.g. do people in

the particular society in which we work

respond better to individual incentive or when

they are given collective responsibility?).

Understanding the organisational culture and

politics is essential in order to anticipate

potential areas of resistance and to develop

culturally sensitive organisational structures.

Pilot projects can be used to test out new

ideas and approaches and to support a more

‘bottom-up’ approach. Once proven effective,

pilots can be replicated, scaled up and

institutionalised.

18

Problem: How to plan a dynamic and unpredictable process?

Clearly it is not possible to plan in advance each and every step of the change process. Even

after the goals of change are broadly decided, there may be many paths towards achieving

them. Flexibility is of the essence. It is useful to consider the following types of issues:

Organisational vision and strategy. Will the end goal be planned in advance, or allowed to emerge?

Skills and expertise. Is success more likely by bringing in skilled change management consultant or by

building internal capacity for managing change?

The role of the centre. Will the plan be centrally driven or will it permit an element of discretion to those

at the margins?

Timing and phasing. Should we start by changing structures, or culture, or procedures? Should change be

incremental or transformational? Change is a long-term process so showing short-term results is important.

Managing conflict and opposition. Should we anticipate opposition and try to deny or minimise it or

should we accept the learning opportunities it provides?

Change support processes. How can communication, training and political commitment be employed at

various stages to support change?

Source: Hartley et al., 1995

Example: Piloting participation – a ‘bottom-up’ approach from

Zimbabwe

Should attitudinal change begin with senior management or in the field? Opting for the latter, in 1991

GTZ began pilot testing participatory extension approaches (PEA) with field staff in Masvingo.

In order to encourage cross-agency change, this was followed up by demonstrations and provision of

training for other field and management staff of the Zimbabwean Department of Agricultural,

Technical and Extension Services (AGRITEX). Pilots with four clusters of farmers in three districts

slowly managed to change attitudes and practices of field level extension staff. Action learning

promoted reflection and problem solving.Through exposure visits, reports and workshops top

AGRITEX management were convinced. By 1995 all staff had confirmed their commitment to PEA.

It must be remembered that the short-term ‘show-case’ success of pilots is often the result of high

levels of resources and intensive support. In the long term, broader ownership and internalisation of

new ideas and approaches, requiring systematic training and support, is necessary.This should also be

part of the change plan.

Source: Hagmann, et al., 1997

Understanding the culture and politics

of organisations

Change is a political process, influenced by

both party and organisational politics, as well as

by cultural factors, such as the degree of

openness and trust in organisational

relationships. Organisations are formed of

coalitions of people, who share values and

goals. Such groups will have different interests in

trying to shape the direction and process of

change.The change process is further

influenced by external interest groups, such as

other departments, trade unions, non-

governmental or private sector organisations,

and community organisations.

Different stakeholders, within and outside the

organisation, have different degrees of power

and influence to either promote or obstruct

change, and the complexity and diversity of

their interests and relationships should be

recognised and explored. Stakeholder analysis

can help to understand power relations by

examining different players’ interests in change.

In many cases, working to address power

dynamics and give voice to less powerful groups

will be important, in order to help them to

articulate their vision for change and how they

think it can be achieved. Development agencies

should count themselves among the external

stakeholders with an interest in influencing

change, and examine their role, level of

influence and use of power.

19

Communicating the vision for change

within the organisation and supporting

the changes as they start to take place

in order to maintain momentum, and to

keep them travelling in the right

direction.

An essential precondition is belief in the need

for change.Winning the support and

commitment of staff is vital. Beyond this is the

need to ensure people are given the skills and

resources required to develop the capacity to

change. Finally, people need both incentives to

change and a work environment that

strengthens morale and is supportive of

experimentation and learning. Even if all these

conditions are fulfilled, still be prepared for

resistance!

Communicating the vision

Communication is vital to inform all staff

members of changes in the organisation’s vision

or strategy and the ways in which they will be

impacted. Means of communication should be

diverse (written, visual and oral) and extensive

to ensure that the message is communicated

both to those within the organisation and to its

clients. If the latter are empowered by

knowledge, they can more effectively exert

pressure for agreed-upon changes to be actually

implemented.

Staff will need to understand the implications

of the change process to their own job, and

how they are expected to work differently.

Reformulation and reissue of job descriptions

helps ensure that every staff member is aware

of how changes affect her/him.This may, in

some cases, need to be supplemented by

follow-up re-training.

20

Example: Getting the message across in DAE, Bangladesh.

The DAE’s Mission Statement and Strategic Plan needed to be communicated to

its staff. Published in a colourful booklet, in both Bangla and English, it was distributed to every

member of the department. How many people actually read and understood them? It became

apparent that discussion and debate was needed on the issues it outlined to encourage staff to

internalise and implement the new ideas.

The Change Management Forum (CMF) helped to carry this forward. CMF conferences have grown

exponentially and have got increasing numbers of staff, from all levels of the organisation, involved in

understanding and participating in the change process.

CMF1 – September 1999 – 40 staff: working group (WG) members and management committee (MC)

CMF2 – October 1999 – 80 staff: growing numbers of WG members and MC

CMF3 – May 2000 – 150 staff:WGs, MC and representatives from regional and district offices.

CMF4 – January 2001 – 5 regional conferences with 100 staff at each from all levels of the

organisation.

See also: Case Study booklet on Bangladesh (Pasteur, forthcoming). www.livelihoods.org

Internalising

unfreeze catalyse

institutionalise

organisational learning

internalise

Building capacity

For change to be successful, staff need to have

the skills to be able to work in new ways.

These may entail procedural skills, being able to

use new planning methods, or understanding

new expectations and behaviours required.

Training is therefore of the utmost importance

as is induction of new staff members.

We need to remember that people do not

only learn from training courses. Equally

important events for learning and sharing may

involve informal workshops, visits to observe

new ways of working in action, and retreats to

allow time for reflection. National or

international visits enthuse staff to try out new

ideas, they are motivational, and they raise self-

esteem by making people feel individually

valued.

One of the greatest threats to organisations is

the lack of management competence.This

requires not only acquisition of new skills

(acquired through creative management

training), but being given the space and

responsibility to utilise them.

21

Example:What does effective management training look like?

A three-tier approach in Indonesia.

1. For staff implementing and evaluating pilot projects, training has included:

• General management skills - including participatory approaches, project-cycle management and quality

management.

• Exchange visits to other districts and provinces to expose staff to the new participatory approaches.

• Learning from other projects using client-oriented approaches through study tours.

• A study tour to India for twelve staff to see examples of participatory approaches in government services.

2. For key managers on whom depends the replication and dissemination of successful pilots, training has

included:

• Courses and exchange visits, as described above.

• Working alongside long and short-term consultants on specific project activities.

• Participation in internal project planning, implementation and evaluation meetings.

• Specific in-country or overseas management (and other) training courses.

• A study tour to Taiwan for ten staff to see livestock services provided by farmers’ associations.

3.Training for senior staff in policy development principally involves a study tour to New Zealand to

observe the bold macro-economic, civil service and livestock service sector reforms being undertaken.

Source: www.deliveri.org

Example: Decentralised training for change in Andhra Pradesh

Training formed an important aspect of internalising change in watershed

management programmes in Andhra Pradesh, but early efforts were not successful. An initial four-

week programme was designed for all district staff and used fieldwork and exposure visits to

introduce learning around community mobilisation, PRA, micro planning, demystification of technology

and equity issues. It was found, however, that attending four week courses in Hyderabad posed

difficulties for staff in distant districts with other work commitments and this resulted in non-

attendance or shortening of the duration of courses. More recently, District Capacity Building Centres

have been financed in order that training can be more needs-based, locally accessible and continuous.

As well as providing the necessary skills to work in new ways, the training aims to change the

negative attitudes of many bureaucrats towards the knowledge and capacity of poor people.The

latter is mainly achieved through closer interactions with communities using participatory techniques.

See also: Case Study booklet on India (Pasteur, forthcoming). www.livelihoods.org

Motivating and sustaining change

Getting people ‘on board’ can be achieved

through communication and explanation, but

most importantly, through validation. People

want to be sure that new means better.We

must build on positive experiences and use

successful pilot activities to illustrate the benefits

of change. Maintaining long-term staff

commitment to new organisational goals in the

long term can be a rough ride. Achieving short-

term successes helps staff to feel they are

progressing. Celebrating and publicising

achievements and acknowledging or rewarding

new behaviour acts as incentives to encourage

change.

At whatever level the change process has been

initiated, getting public expression of high level

political support usually becomes necessary in

order to give confidence to all management

staff and to secure genuine commitment to

new objectives.Trade union backing will also

help to secure co-operation by front line

workers.

22

Example: Incentives for change in AGRITEX

Incentives which evolved or were developed in the course of piloting

participatory extension approaches in Zimbabwe encouraged new attitudes and behaviours in extension

staff at a number of levels:

• Incentives towards new behaviour: Management offered performance based incentives to high performers.

• Disincentives towards old behaviour: Farmers became emboldened to demand a better service from

non-performing extension staff.

• External incentives: Client farmers appraised extension staff performance.

• Personal incentives: Working with farmers led to extension staff regaining cultural identity and pride,

thus improving their motivation and dedication.

Demands from different levels (from above and below), and creating both intrinsic and extrinsic

pressures, proved an effective system to motivate extension staff.

Source: Hagmann, et al., 1997

Problem? Getting commitment to decentralisation from all levels of staff

in Bangladesh.

Change is needed among all levels of staff if it is to be effective. In Bangladesh middle

management staff seemed to be causing a blockage in the transfer of power.The Bangladeshi Minister

of Agriculture had made a public statement of commitment to decentralisation and local level

planning in extension services, and to the New Agricultural Extension Policy. Head office staff at DAE

were equally enthused about the changes. At local level, however, staff remained fearful of taking

initiatives not sanctioned by their superiors. Many district staff were reluctant to relinquish their

power and responsibility.

To overcome these problems, district staff were invited to a workshop where they discussed the

implications of decentralisation for their jobs and during which worries were freely aired and

resolved.The Minister was once again invited to make a formal statement reaffirming the importance

of the decentralisation process, thus convincing hitherto nervous staff that change had political

commitment at the highest level.

See also: Case Study booklet on Bangladesh (Pasteur, forthcoming). www.livelihoods.org

Managing conflict and opposition

Resistance to change is to be expected either

from individuals or from groups. It may be

expressed in voice, by action, or by inaction

(indifference, inertia).The reasons for resistance

are manifold: lack of understanding, fear of

losing power, fears of inadequacy, the need for

retraining, the power of ingrained habits,

perceptions that the pace of change is too fast

and/or feelings of exclusion from the change

process.

We must not forget that resistance can be

used positively. Exploring reasons for resistance

can highlight important issues and potential

problems, and bring to the surface cultural

changes not reflected in corresponding changes

in procedures. Simply quashing resistance, or

denying its existence, can convey the false

impression that there are no problems.

Develop openness and trust around the

change process. Make the reasons for change

explicit. Create space for discussion of change

issues. Allow frustrations or doubts to be

expressed. Involve people in resolving the issues

that emerge.

Above all, do not push change too fast!

23

Example: Near failure at St Mary’s Mission Hospital, South Africa

“We had the medical superintendent, the sister superior... and the assistant

nursing services manager... they were absolutely 100% supportive.We approached the Board later,

which was nearly a bit of a train crash, because we had already worked a bit with the senior

management.They felt excluded and threatened. It was a key lesson for us.You’ve got to bring in

your key decision makers early.You have to bring on board those actors who have the ability to

collapse the whole process.The unions are another example... For them to stand outside the

process, as is the tendency, is destructive”

Source: Schreiner, 1998:7

Institutionalisation involves scaling-up

change from micro (e.g. project/region)

to macro (e.g. policy/national) level.

It also includes scaling-out from a single

line department or sector, to catalyse

wider changes in other departments or

ministries.

The effectiveness of changes at a certain level,

or in a certain sector, will be limited as long as

there is no corresponding change in other

systems and procedures that influence or

govern them. It is not effective, or conducive

to genuine scaling-up, to internally agree

procedures for pilot projects if they do not

subsequently become legally constituted in

policy. Room for manoeuvre will be restricted

as long as there are not wider governmental

changes.

There is a synergy between the processes of

internalisation and institutionalisation. Feedback

can often lead to catalysing other aspects of

change. It is important to remember that

change is not linear – once the process has been

catalysed, more and more pathways can be

explored as new directions for change open up.

Scaling up

Once a new approach has been successfully

tested at the district, province or state level,

then the time is ripe for wider replication.

Scaling up can be problematic when successes

have been dependent on local circumstances or

particular personalities, or where pilots have

attracted unusual levels of funding and

attention. An awareness and understanding of

these differences is important, and should be

compensated for.

Institutionalising formal change in policy is

important to ensure the long-term viability of

new approaches. However, the relationship

between policy on paper and policy in practice

is not always direct.We must not perpetuate

the facile assumption that once an agenda has

been passed by parliament that it will

automatically filter down into bureaucratic

practice.

24

Example: From pilot to policy in Indonesia.

The Government of Indonesia (GOI) livestock-related organisations are moving

toward being more client-oriented in their provision of livestock services to smallholder farmers.

Pilot studies have demonstrated the possibilities, but the ultimate aim of securing commitment from

the Department of Livestock Services to new policies and implementing them on a national scale

remains elusive.The strategy for achieving this is to:

• Undertake general organisational and policy studies on improved organisation and management of

livestock services.

• Use structure, conduct and performance studies from field to policy-level of organisations involved in

the pilot projects.

• Lobby decision-makers and provide them with ‘tailor-made’ information materials based on

convincing evidence.

• Organise a series of professionally facilitated workshops for GoI staff.

• Make recommendations to GOI on changes needed to support and operationalise policy objectives;

• Provide support to implement the recommendations.

Source: www.deliveri.org

Institutionalising

unfreeze catalyse

institutionalise

organisational learning

internalise

Scaling out

Changes in the policy and practice of one

department may be severely limited by the

influence of other departments and their

policies. For instance, departments are often

not in control of regulations or procedures for

hiring and promoting staff, and may not have

flexible control over the allocation of their

budgets. In addition, collaboration between

departments within a single sector can be

restricted by their different structures and styles

of working, or by inter-departmental rivalry.This

can limit their capacity or desire to move

towards more holistic or sector wide

approaches.

Sharing ideas and lessons with other

departments in order to change wider practices

will therefore be necessary.This is likely to

require high-level support, and dialogue at the

ministerial level. Support documentation and

sharing of experiences. Changes in the livestock

department in Indonesia, for example, have

been well documented on their web-site

(www.deliveri.org).

25

Example: Institutionalising change across the agriculture sector in

Bangladesh

Changes in DAE are limited if they are not also institutionalised more widely in other extension

departments of the agriculture sector such as livestock, fisheries and forestry, or within research and

marketing niches of the agriculture sector as a whole.Thus changes towards integrated extension and

extension policy adoption are being supported in the other extension departments through a system

of extension policy implementation co-ordination committees (from national to district level), and

through integrated extension pilots in 12 districts. Improved integration and strategic planning within

the agriculture sector as a whole is being supported through creating fora for discussing sector wide

approaches. An inter-departmental committee dedicated to explore options for moving in this

direction has been created.

See also: Case Study booklet on Bangladesh (Pasteur, forthcoming). www.livelihoods.org

Problem: Holistic approaches can be hindered.

There are a number of factors that can seriously hamper moves towards holistic and

cross-sectoral approaches in government organisations.These must be resolved

through discussion, negotiation and often compromise.

• Financial management issues: budgets are usually sectorally allocated. Even within departments,

they are often project specific.Working together raises problems of sharing finances and budget

management. Resolving this may require changes in government finance departments.

• Historical rivalries: inter-departmental rivalries may have arisen from conflicting political allegiances,

disparities in resource allocations or be a product of personal animosity.They discourage

collaboration but can be overcome through discussion and resolution around common goals.

• Disparities in size and capacity: differences can lead to domination by one sector or department

over another, resulting in lack of voice by the weaker party and hence dissatisfaction. Independent

parties (e.g. donors) can help create opportunities for negotiation on more equal terms.

• Different priorities and approaches: even poverty-focussed goals are not uniform: debate ranges

around growth versus distribution or working with the poorest versus the middle-poor.

Development frameworks and approaches abound. If differences are neither integrated nor accepted

collaboration cannot succeed.

Learning is vital at all stages of a change

process. It can help to unfreeze

attitudes and keep a change process on

track. A learning-oriented strategy can

produce a ‘virtuous reinforcing cycle’,

and hence change becomes a self-

perpetuating process.

Change driven by reflection and learning, ie.

organisational self-analysis and problem

diagnosis, is more powerful than change

informed by advice from outsiders. Internal

commitment can be built through involving a

range of actors in analysis, planning and

implementation of change, allowing them to

experiment and pilot new ideas, and

encourage them to learn from success and

failure.An organisation that works in this way

will be more responsive to new demands, and

will continually be able to catalyse, internalise

and institutionalise the changes required to

implement new ideas.

An environment and culture of learning

Organisational learning requires a positive and

supportive environment for experimentation

and critical reflection.The structure of the

organisation, and the relationships between

different groupings within it, have important

implications for the ways in which individuals,

teams and the organisation as a whole learn

and act. Incentives and encouragement are

important in building a culture of learning.

Space and opportunities for reflection and

sharing, such as team retreats, establishing

learning groups, or going on exchange visits can

also be highly supportive of learning about

change. Finally, regular documentation and

communication are essential for building

organisational memory.

26

‘A learning organisation is

skilled at creating,

acquiring, and transferring

knowledge, and at

modifying its behaviour to

reflect new knowledge

and insights.’

(Garvin, 1993)

Try this! How to become a learning organisation.

CARE Zambia list the following as the building blocks for a learning organisation, and

the types of ways managers can strengthen them:

• Thrive on change – show a positive attitude to change.

• Encourage experimentation – give employees opportunities and confidence to take risks.

• Communicate success and failure – accept mistakes as lessons. Share them as you do successes.

• Facilitate learning from the surrounding environment – listen to a range of stakeholders.

• Facilitate learning from staff through training and group learning.

• Reward learning – celebrate initiative and achievements.

• Promote a sense of caring – show trust, encourage personal growth.

Source:Ward, 1997

Example: A learning group approach in Andhra Pradesh, India.

A learning group was formed as part of an internationally funded research

project on institutionalising participation (IDS/IIED) which has succeeded in creating an environment

for critical reflection and learning.The group is formed of senior staff of the Department of Rural

Development, NGOs involved in implementing the watershed policy in partnership with the

department and the staff of research and training organisations.The group has carried out research

and organised experience-sharing workshops.Their findings have contributed to some changes to

policy implementation at the state level.

See also: www.iied.org/agri/ipa.html

Building a learningorganisation

unfreeze catalyse

institutionalise

organisational learning

internalise

Monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation is an important

aspect of learning about the successes and

problems experienced in projects, programmes

and strategies. Understanding the impacts of

particular service provision interventions, as

well as the organisation’s overall strategy, is vital

in order that the vision, structures and

procedures can be reoriented and adapted to

improve effectiveness and efficiency. Build

capacity for monitoring and evaluation. Always

ensure that time and resources are available

and that methods used are appropriate to the

new styles of working.

27

Example: Participatory evaluations help to convince policy makers

in Indonesia

Pilot activities of the Indonesia livestock department were evaluated by senior and middle

management trained in participatory methods of monitoring and evaluation.These evaluations

provided evidence of the effectiveness of the pilot projects and of participatory, client-oriented

approaches to livestock service provision.They also had the additional benefit of helping to secure the

commitment of senior policymakers to the adoption of the approaches, thereby contributing further

to institutional change objectives.

Source: www.deliveri.org

Problem: No change to monitoring procedures hinders change in India

In the Andhra Pradesh watershed programme, monitoring methods involved

measurement of physical outputs (e.g. number of soil and water conservation structures

built) on a frequent basis.This was despite the fact that the new policy required staff to focus on

organisational capacity building and participatory planning over the long term.This type of monitoring

discouraged staff from investing sufficient time in the participatory processes, as they were not the

most efficient means of achieving the outputs being monitored.The monitoring was not effective in

ensuring that participatory planning and capacity building took place, or in eliciting lessons from the

new approach.

Improved monitoring should not be aimed at policing (asking whether staff are producing outputs

regardless of the process underway) but at learning about how and why (or not) the outcomes are

being achieved. Do communities feel they are being empowered? What are the problems? Honest

reflection should be encouraged on the part of staff and clients. Monitoring process and impact, as

well as outputs, will improve the motivation of staff to invest in the participatory process.

See also: Case Study booklet on India (Pasteur, forthcoming). www.livelihoods.org

Monitoring and evaluation of change

helps to ensure that the change

strategy (process) is staying ‘on

track’, and also assists assessment of whether

the intended outcomes and impacts of the

change process are being achieved.This can

ensure the early identification of potential

problems permitting timely necessary

adjustments to the process. Lessons learned can

be fed into future planning of similar activities.

Since the goals and objectives are likely to

change over the course of time, measuring and

evaluating an iterative and dynamic process is

not without difficulties. It should thus be seen as

a learning process, rather than a ‘checking’ or

‘policing’ activity.

When thinking about evaluating change, it is

important to consider changes in structure,

culture and procedures, both at national and

local levels, and to try and understand the links

between them.

Consider both short-term and long-term

outcomes and impacts (while being mindful that

attributing causality between activities and long-

term impacts - such as reduction in poverty or

vulnerability - is notoriously difficult). Both

intangible changes (such as increase in trust) as

well as tangible changes should be explored

and valued. Be open to the unexpected as well

as the expected outcomes and impacts of

change initiatives.

Differentiate between different stakeholder

groups and how they are effected.These

include internal stakeholders within the

organisation and external stakeholders (clients

and partner organisation, etc). Conducting

baseline surveys (where possible) allows

comparison before and after initiatives. Use

qualitative (interview, PRA type) methods and

not only quantitative (surveys, questionnaires)

methodologies.

28

Tracking change

Is the change strategy appropriate, effective and well managed? Do people know about the

new vision statement or strategic plan? Do they feel part of the process?

Are the activities having the desired effect within the organisation? Is training actually resulting

in positive changes in staff skills and behaviour?

Are changes within the organisation achieving the wider organisational goal? Are they having an

impact on improved service delivery? Are they ensuring greater gender representation?

Process

Outcome

Impact

Example. Measuring organisational change in Indonesia

Overall institutional change in the livestock department in Indonesia was

measured by a baseline survey and subsequent follow-up studies towards the end of the project cycle.

The follow-up study relied on formal questionnaires given to staff, guided focus group discussions and

customer satisfaction surveys.The surveys consisted of individual interviews and focus-group

discussions with farmers.They measured the importance of the services provided and the providers’

performance in supplying them.

Source: www.deliveri.org

This booklet has illustrated that

there are many ways in which

organisations may wish, or may

need to change.We have seen that

there are multiple strategies and entry

points for supporting processes of

change.

The capacity to effectively support change in

government organisations is often limited by

the structure, culture and procedures of

development agencies themselves. As agencies

move towards tackling such ‘upstream’ issues as

organisational and policy change, they will

increasingly need to develop innovative ways of

working: new types of relationships and

partnerships, new skills requirements and novel

ways of using power and influence.These all

imply structural, cultural and procedural

changes, both personal and organisational, at a

range of levels (from HQ to country and within

project offices).The following are some of the

important organisational questions that may

highlight areas where change is needed.

• Are present styles of project planning and

review appropriate to understanding

processes of change? Do they allow for

flexibility and change?

• Are advisory staff equipped with the

necessary skills for working on organisational

change issues? Is further training required?

• Do the appropriate staff have the power

and capacity to engage in such highly

politicised activities?

• Will the general shift of emphasis towards

governance and development policy issues put

excessive pressure on governance advisors?

• Do staff have sufficient time to both reflect

on, and effectively communicate, their

experiences of supporting organisational

change? What mechanisms exist for learning

and sharing?

• Are time-consuming activities such as

building relationships of trust with

government staff sufficiently valued and

rewarded?

• Are agency staff equally trusting and

transparent towards partners, for example in

relation to budgets, as they expect partners to

be towards them?

However large, bureaucratic and ossified

they may be, organisations can change.

Identifying that there is a need for

change is a first step. Reflection and

learning will identify strategies for

change.

29

Reflecting on change

30

Pasteur, K. (forthcoming)

Strategies for Change: Changing

Organisations for Agricultural Extension

in Bangladesh

Schreiner, G. (1998)

Transforming a Bureaucracy Into….

OD Debate 5:3:3-7. South Africa.

Scoones, I (1998)

Sustainable Rural Livelihoods:

A Framework for Analysis.

IDS Working Paper 72. Brighton: IDS

Ward (1997)

Getting the right end of the stick:

participatory monitoring and evaluation

experiences in rural Zambia.

Paper presented at Participatory monitoring

and Evaluation Workshop, Cavite,

Philippines, Nov 1997.

Key texts:

Sustainable Livelihoods

Ashley, C. and D. Carney (1999)

Sustainable Livelihoods: Lessons from

Early Experience.

London: DFID.

Carney, D. (ed) (1998)

Sustainable Rural Livelihoods.

What Contribution Can we Make?

London: DFID.

Chambers, R. (1991)

In Search of Professionalism,

Bureaucracy and Sustainable Livelihoods

for the 21st Century.

IDS Bulletin 22:4:5-11

DFID (1999)

Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets

London: DFID

www.livelihoods.org/

info/info_guidancesheets.html

DFID/FAO (2000)

Interagency Experiences and Lessons.

From the Forum on Operationalising

Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches.

Rome: FAO.

Goldman, I., J. Carnegie, M. Marumo, et al

(2000)

Institutional Support for Sustainable

Rural Livelihoods in Southern Africa:

Results from Zimbabwe, Zambia and

South Africa.

Natural Resources Perspectives No. 50.

London: ODI.

Understanding bureaucracies

Chambers, R. (1992)

The Self-Deceiving State.

IDS Bulletin 23:4: 31-42

Olive Publications (1998)

Walking the Paths of History –

Untangling Some Paradigms.

Ideas for a Change Overview:

Ways of Seeing Organisations.

Durban: Olive Publications.

Turner, M. and Hulme, D. (1997)

Governance,Administration and

Development: Making the State Work.

London: Macmillan.

Wade, R. (1992)

How to Make ‘Street Level’

Bureaucracies Work Better:

India and Korea.

IDS Bulletin 23:4:51-54

Wilson, J. (1989)

Bureaucracy:What Government

Agencies Do and Why they Do it.

New York: Basic Books.

Understanding change

Bass, S, P. Balogun, J. Mayers et al (1998)

Institutional Change in Public Sector

Forestry:A Review of the Issues.

IIED Forestry and Land Use Series No. 12.

London: IIED.

Cummings,T. and Worley, C. (1993)

Organisation Development and Change.

5th Edition.

New York:West Publishing Company.

Dawson, P (1994)

Organisational Change:

A Processual Approach.

London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Information section

References in the text:

Dawson, P (1994)

Organisational Change:

A Processual Approach.

London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Deliveri Delivering Quality Services.

Online at www.deliveri.org.

DFID (2000)

Strategies for Achieving the International

Development Targets: Making

Government Work for People.

DFID Plans, Consultation Document.

London: DFID

Garvin, D (1993)

Building a Learning Organisation.

In Harvard Business Review July/Aug.

Hagmann, J, Chuma, E, et al (1997)

Propelling Change from the Bottom-Up:

Institutional Reform in Zimbabwe.

IIED Gatekeeper Series No 71.

London: IIED.

Hartley, J, P. Cordingley, and J. Benington

(1995)

Managing Organisational and Cultural

Change.

Local Government Management Board

Research Report.

Hirschmann, D. (2000)

Development Management Versus Third

World Bureaucracies:A Brief History of

Conflicting Interests.

Development And Change, 30:2:287-305.

Korten, F. and Siy, R. (eds) (1988)

Transforming a Bureaucracy:The

Experience of The Philippine National

Irrigation Administration.

West Hartford: Kumarian Press.

O’Donovan, I. (1994)

Organisational Behaviour in Local

Government.

Essex: Longman

Pasteur, K. (forthcoming)

From Policy to Practice: Changing

Organisations for Watershed

Management in India.

31

Hartley, J. (1996)

Organisational Change.

In P.Warr (ed) Psychology at Work.

London: Penguin.

Hobley, M. (2000)

Organisational Change and Sustainable

Livelihoods:What is the Relevance?

Working Draft.

Kotter (1995)

Leading change:

Why Transformation Efforts Fail.

Harvard Business Review.

Thompson, J. (1995)

Participatory Approaches in Government

Bureaucracies: Facilitating the Process of

Institutional Change.

World Development 23:9:1521-1554

Examples of bureaucratic change

Bainbridge,V, S. Foerster, et al. (2000)

Transforming Bureaucracies:

Institutionalising Participation and People

Centred Processes in Natural Resource

Management – An Annotated

Bibliography.

London: IIED/IDS.

www.iied.org/agri/bibliographycontents.html

Blackburn, J and J. Holland (1998)

Who Changes: Institutionalising

Participation in Development.

London: IT Publications.

Farrington, J., C.Turton and A. James

(1999)

Participatory Watershed Development:

Challenges for the Twenty-first Century.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goetz, A. and Gaventa, J. (2001)

Bringing Citizen Voice and Client Focus

into Service Delivery.

IDS Working Paper No 138.

Brighton: IDS.

(www.ids.ac.uk/ids/publicat/wp/wp138.pdf)

Hartley, J, P. Cordingley, and J. Benington

(1995)

Managing Organisational and Cultural

Change.

Local Government Management Board

Research Report.

Hobley, M. (2000)

The Reality of Trying to Transform

Structures and Processes.

ODI Working Paper 132.

London: ODI.

(www.odi.org.uk/publications/wp132.pdf )

Tendler, J. (1997)

Good Government in the Tropics.

Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Uphoff, N. with P. Ramamurthy and Roy

Steiner (1991)

Managing Irrigation.Analysing and

Improving the Performance of

Bureaucracies.

London: Sage Publications

Tools for organisational analysis

Gubbels, P. and C. Koss (2000)

From the Roots Up: Strengthening

Organisational Capacity Through Guided

Self-Assessment.

Oklahoma:World Neighbors.

Olive Publications (1997)

How are you Managing Organisational

Change? Ideas for a Change Part 1:

Strategic Processes.

Durban: Olive Publications

Olive Publications (1997)

How Well do you Read your

Organisation? Ideas for a Change Part 2:

Organisation Diagnosis.

Durban: Olive Publications.

Organisational learning

Askvik, S. (1993)

Institution Building and Planned

Organisational Change in Development

Assistance.

Forum for Development Studies 2:

149-163. Norwegian Institute of

International Affairs.

Garvin, D. (1993)

Building a Learning Organisation.

In Harvard Business Review July/Aug.

Ward (1997)

Getting the Right End of the Stick:

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation

Experiences in Rural Zambia.

Paper presented at Participatory monitoring

and Evaluation Workshop, Cavite, Philippines,

Nov 1997.

Senge, P. (1990)

The Fifth Discipline.The Art and Practice

of the Learning Organisation.

London: Random House.

Web sources

www.livelihoods.org

Provides information to support the

Sustainable Livelihoods approach including

guidance sheets, distance learning

materials and key documents. Contains a

sub-site dedicated to policy and

institutional issues relating to SL (PIP

homepage).

www.undp.org/sl/index.htm

Provides general information about the

sustainable livelihoods approach, UNDP

and other programmes using it, and links

to related sites.

www.deliveri.org

Describes experiences of the

Decentralised Livestock Services in

Indonesia (DELIVERI) Project which

developed and tested a range of

improved, more client-oriented

approaches to livestock service provision

and management at field, district and

national level.

www.odi.org.uk/rpeg/srls.html Outlines

the work and publications of the Rural

Policy and Environment Group in a

number of areas relating to Sustainable

Livelihoods.

www.iied.org/agri/ipa.html Describes the

research project ‘Institutionalising

Participatory Approaches and Processes

for Natural Resource Management’

managed by the IIED Rural Livelihoods

and Environment Group.

Lessons

This booklet highlights several important

lessons for project and programme staff

involved in supporting change in government

organisations:

This booklet cites many successful examples

of change under a range of different

circumstances, and with different degrees of

external influence.

Learn from the experiences of others and

adapt approaches to local cultural settings.

New approaches are needed that reflect the

dynamic nature of change processes.

The new organisational structures, culture and

procedures that result form change should be

appropriate to the local societal values.

There will be opposition – recognise it, don’t

ignore it, try to use it positively.

Build internal ownership and skills, and keep

exit and sustainability in mind.

Change can continue indefinitely as

organisations respond to other new changes

and challenges.

ChangingOrganisations forSustainableLivelihoods:a map to guidechange

Kath Pasteur

Change can happen!

Effective entry points exist.

Change is a process,

not a project.

Don’t impose.

Change is political.

Dependence can be

dangerous.

The change process does

not have a final destination.

Des

ign:

Mic

hael

Mun

day

0127

3 48

3560

ISBN: 185643961