Thomas Kerscher Capacity Building Specialist

It is realistic to assume that a capacity development initiative will constitute a formidable threat to some members of the client organisation. Some individuals or groups may see their privileges, prestige and prerogatives in danger, and feel compelled to protect themselves. The greatest challenges, however, may come from the organisational context, i.e. the organisational culture and climate. The fact that organisations have survived in the past has helped to institutionalise their historical assumptions, belief systems, and norms for acceptable behaviour, which are displayed in myths, stories, practices, taboos, etc. These cultural variables may be even more developed in crisis or post-crisis situations, where the experience of survival is still part of the collective memory.

Where sluggishness, complacency, bureaucracy and unresponsive behaviour in the face of volatile and unpredictable changes has helped survival in the past, an organisation is likely to assume that what has worked in the past will also work in the future. Leaders of organisations that are in the greatest need for capacity development thus tend to be the most reluctant to support initiatives aiming at capacity development.

On the other hand, if there is an issue they can no longer ignore, they will be inclined to seek a technical or procedural “quick fix” that does not disrupt their traditional habits. This explains the demand in many organisations for technical experts providing distinct technical solutions. However, according to the capacity development paradox mentioned in section 3, it is far more costly to fix things after they are broken than to prevent them from breaking in the first place.

Leaders may be reluctant to admit that there are serious issues within their areas of responsibility. They may fear that such an admission will be seen as a sign of weakness, and thus hide their presumed weakness from their supervisors, peers and subordinates (suppression), and frequently from themselves (repression). The difficulty in admitting problems also has also far reaching consequences for the relationship between the development agency staff or consultant, and the client (see Chapter 5 for further details).

The following questions can help assess the capacity of a system to respond appropriately to the changes in its environment:

• To what extent are managers rewarded and recognised for quick solutions to critical issues – in contrast to the systematic prevention of such issues?
• To what extent is the system focusing on improving the efficiency of its traditional business instead of preparing for a discontinuous future?
• Is there an effective mechanism in place for actively scanning and assessing the system’s internal and external environment in order to respond to emerging issues before they become critical?
• Is it safe enough in the system for its leaders and members to talk about sensitive issues?

Assessing Commitment

Capacity development – like any change – will not just happen. It normally requires intense attention and commitment, and visible involvement of leaders to support change initiatives. Leaders must understand that the cost of launching a capacity development initiative half-heartedly can be far greater than maintaining the status quo. If the capacity development effort involves relocating or demoting reluctant or incapable managers, they must be ready to take such dramatic actions. They must be clear that whatever they do will be carefully observed by the organisation and its stakeholders, and interpreted accordingly.

For a capacity development initiative to be successful, there must be a critical mass of individuals or groups whose commitment is necessary to provide the energy required to make change happen. The following four questions need to be addressed:

• Which are the individuals and groups whose commitment is needed?
• What is the critical mass needed to ensure the capacity development effort to be effective?
• Which steps need to be taken to get the commitment of the critical mass?
• How can progress in getting the commitment be monitored?

These questions can be addressed in a commitment plan. Commitment charting can be used to draw up such a plan to enable leaders to determine the extent to which each of them is committed to the capacity development effort. This technique works on the assumption that for each member or group in the critical mass it is necessary to get some degree of commitment. The level of commitment need not be that same for everyone. The rating can involve three levels:

• Let it happen
• Help it happen
• Make it happen

For each member of the critical mass a rating of their present and required commitment will be entered in a chart. An O is entered for the minimum commitment required, while an X represent the present degree of commitment.         

Where the chart shows a lack of commitment, the ensuing question is how the level can be raised. If the level of commitment is not sufficient, there will likely be resistance to the initiative. Resistance is a normal part of the capacity development process (see Chapter 8). The often quoted statement that commitment is a “prerequisite” for capacity development is therefore misleading. On the contrary, capacity development without resistance will be the exception.