Thomas Kerscher Capacity Building Specialist

Resistance can take many shapes. Leaders and consultants engaged in a capacity development effort must analyse the type of resistance in order to work with it, reduce it, and secure the needed commitment from the resisting party. A useful formula for thinking about resistance in a capacity development initiative is:

CD = D x V x P x C^[1]

CD is the likelihood of success of the capacity development effort. That is, the likelihood that the implementation of the capacity development plan will improve the client’s capacity to deliver on its mission.

D is the level of dissatisfaction of stakeholders with the current level of capacity. In organisations, people often avoid expressing dissatisfaction. It is important that leaders and consultants enable organisation members and stakeholders to appreciate that dissatisfaction is essential for creating the motives for change.

V is the vision or desirability of the proposed future capacity. This is the extent to which leaders, members and stakeholders share a common vision of the future capacity.^[2] A joint vision allows aligning all organisational energies with the goal of the capacity development effort.

P is the practicability of the capacity development effort. This is the degree to which the capacity development plan can be implemented flexibly. Changing any social organisation involves unforeseeable risk. Perfectionism therefore can be counterproductive. The plan must allow those responsible to make the first steps, and to change the plan when necessary.

C is the level of confidence members have that the capacity development effort will be successful. Members of most organisations have experienced that past capacity development efforts did not yield the results and improvements that were advertised by leaders and consultants. Such experience often leads to cynicism in the face of new initiatives, and subsequent abstention from or delays in making the contributions that are required to lead the programme to success.

 If the value for any of the variables D, V, P or C approximates zero, the capacity development effort will fail:

1. Zero Dissatisfaction. If those parties who need to support the capacity development effort are not explicitly unhappy with the status quo, they will likely adopt one of the following courses of action: pretend to be loyal but defend the status quo behind the scenes; refuse to participate in and contribute to the effort; sabotage the effort; keep their heads down and hope for the enthusiasm to fade or, leave the organisation. Leaders and consultants should be able to facilitate processes in which participants weigh the advantages and disadvantages of each of their options – and then assist them with making informed consensual decisions.
2. Zero Vision. Without a joint vision, an organisation’s leaders and members cannot effectively coordinate their activities in the capacity development effort, but will pursue individual purposes at the expense of the organisation. Consultants should be prepared to facilitate building common ground among a critical number of stakeholders, e.g. through strategic planning exercises, or visioning or “Future Search”^[3].
3. Zero Practicability. Stakeholders are skeptical about making significant contributions unless they have credible and realistic plans to follow. Leader and consultants must find out what is credible and realistic to people, and what is unacceptable to the parties concerned. Key to commitment is the involvement of a critical mass of stakeholders in the planning process.
4. Zero Confidence. Many of the targets of capacity development are cynical about its potential value. This may be due to the fact that previous capacity development efforts have failed, or a lack of information about the purpose, need, and goals of the efforts. Members must not have any doubts that their leaders will persevere and that the capacity development effort will produce meaningful results. Development agency staff and consultants might need to invest substantial time into coaching leaders to move beyond their comfort zones and take some risks in communicating the changes envisioned.