Management Reading

While organizations aiming to devise good practices, organisational learning has emerged as one way to live up to expectations and needs. Although much of the writing and thinking on learning organisations has come out of the private sector, but public and development practitioners will equally benefit from group learning practices. Individuals are considered to be the main topic of management studies since they are the agent of changes that are to be organized and regulated. Sensible suggestions and skills in managing agent of changes as representatives of group dynamics leads the organization or the system toward intended outcomes. As it is suggested we are creatures not of habit, but of context. Therefore optimizing behaviour and relation has to come along with contextual improvement. In general, group is the immediate reflection of changes that individuals are about to exert.

Family, classmate, or intentionally organised group they all project changes of behaviour based on group reactions. Group reactions in their turn are strongly influenced by some members of the groups that sometime take the role of gatekeepers. However studies show that intended changes are facilitated to make their ways in small discussion groups by building consensus rather than one member preaching for the rest. The method was widely used to change the behaviour of alcoholics, productive industrial workers, elevate skills and encourage trends and ultimately changing individual’s characteristics.

There are significant factors that need to be regulated in dynamics of group formation in order to sustain intended changes. It is important that members of the group have strong sense of belonging to the group. The scale of attraction and sense of belonging is motivating factor for the group to influence its members. Individuals with higher influence are often those positioned in higher status. But in the process of making changes initiatives in a group discussion the ethics of tactics that raise emotions must be questioned. The creation of a hostile, emotionally charged atmosphere infringes on the right of members to obtain information and make their own decisions.

Organizations are clear about wanting staff to feel they are respected and supported, finance and processes well managed, and wanting to get things done more quickly, simply and effectively. This will require everyone looking at how they do things and a serious effort to reduce bureaucracy. Finally, and above all we want everyone who come in contact with the organisation to be inspired to do more (Oxfam GB, 2006). Setting goals for the efficiency, effectiveness and equity of organisation is a legitimate focus for policy making. In order for managers to meet these goals methods must be developed to set realistic achievement targets, to measure progress towards these targets and, ultimately, for managers to be held accountable for their actions in achieving targets.
Nevertheless, as with any measure of progress, judgment plays a role in interpreting the indicators, and supplemental, qualitative discussion around the results that will be needed. Consistent feedbacks from operational experience into knowledge of "what works" and "why" makes that knowledge widely available for the process of decision making in different level. The World Bank asked the question to what extent it's monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems provide staff with the information they need to better manage for results. Policies and procedures are instituted to manage better results with staff better clear about how to use performance information in their day-to-day work translate into improved practices at the operational level (World Bank, 2006). Strengthening incentives for staff and providing a training and communications program for management and staff to encourage the use of M&E information.




Accountability & Risk Sharing

Mutual accountability has come to be seen by many as a fundamental dimension of the good functioning of different kinds of institutions, from governments to private firms, from NGOs to international organisations. In general terms, accountability denotes the mechanisms through which people entrusted with power are kept under check to make sure that they do not abuse such power, and that they duly carry out the functions for which the power was originally entrusted (DFID, 2005). Two key components of accountability: answerability (the obligation of power-holders to justify their decisions and actions) and enforceability (the existence of mechanisms for punishing poor performance or non-compliance) (Schedler 1999). Answerability requires the availability of information which can be analysed by external actors to monitor and assess the performance of power-holders, and the related capacity to carry out such analyses.
Enforceability requires the existence of mechanisms for sanctioning lack of compliance or poor performance with regard to commitments or responsibilities of power-holders. It could also include, however, positive rewards for good performance and compliance.

Therefore, the availability and use of information, the existing mechanisms for monitoring performance, and the existence of adequate incentives (rewards/ sanctions) for compliance are three key determinants of the functioning of accountability mechanisms. Mutual accountability and reciprocal commitments imply shared responsibility for the outcomes and impact of development interventions.

The lack of risk-sharing mechanisms for allocating the ‘mutual pain’ that might come from programme failure is another obstacle towards enhancing mutual accountability.

Six main ways of managing risks (Risk Control) has been identified (Oxford Univ):
• Avoidance – identifying and implementing alternative procedures or activities to eliminate it.
• Contingency – having a pre-determined plan of action to come into force as and when the risk occurs.
• Prevention – employing countermeasures to stop a problem from occurring or having impact on an organization.
• Reduction – taking action to minimize either the likelihood of the risk developing, or its effects.
• Transference – transferring the risk to a third party, for example with an insurance policy.
• Acceptance – tolerating the risk when its likelihood and impact are relatively minor, or when it would be too expensive to mitigate it.
The risk management strategies of organizations need to take into account the conceptual frameworks used by professionals. One study that used data from focus groups conceptualized risk and its management according to six paradigms that appeared to be in a state of reciprocal tension: (i) Identifying and Meeting Needs; (ii) Minimizing Situational Hazards; (iii) Protecting this Individual and Others; (iv) Balancing Benefits and Harms; (v) Accounting for Resources and Priorities; and (vi) Wariness of Lurking Conflicts. The effective translation into practice of risk management strategies needs to address the complex and often contradictory issues facing services professionals.

Source:

Learning Need Assessment, Oxford University, 2006
www.tall.ox.ac.uk/opus/downloads/OPUS-day2.ppt

Learning Organisation;
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/resources/downloads
/devlearningorgintro.pdf?searchterm=performance+management

Ngaire Woods and Sarah Mulley from Oxford University, Paolo de Renzio, Andrew Rogerson, Tony Killick and Alina Rocha Menocal from ODI. Promoting Mutual Accountability in Aid Relationships, ODI, 2006

Performance Management in International Development Association, World bank, April 2002