Articles from June 2006
FOCUS ON … Seeing differently? Donors as learning organizations
Space for learning?
Jenny Hyatt and Allan Kaplan
How do we really make a difference in the world? We act, we reflect, we learn and we change. This is particularly important for donors as they control resources that can enable or disable social change. Too often, however, reflection and learning are neglected out of organizational complacency, fear of failure, and a paradigm of impact which is over-reliant on what can be counted rather than what counts.
This article looks at a number of interrelated features of learning organizations and how these play out within donor agencies. We consider some critical issues about the 'space for learning' in those organizations with the intention to move beyond the rhetoric to look at the context for, and practice of, donors' engagement with themselves as 'learning organizations'. The other contributions in this special feature were all written partly in response to an early draft of this article.
The learning organization
For some donors, learning appears to be outweighed by self-belief. An author of this article, for example, was commissioned to evaluate the first phase of a €20 million EU-funded educational reform programme in Central Europe only to discover that the second phase had already been planned in detail. In cases like these, learning tends to be replaced by a narrative and financial report that inevitably demonstrates that money was used appropriately and achieved what it was supposed to.
For other donors, there is genuine concern for impact and for learning with colleagues. At a community foundations conference in 2005, William H Gates Snr described how their early childhood programming was shaped by learning from the Harlem Children's Zone. He concluded: 'It is this kind of learning from other organizations - who do what we do - that makes us all better philanthropists, but more importantly, better at getting the results that are impacting the lives of the families we serve.' Evaluation of impact and peer exchange are critical aspects of learning, but a learning organization needs to go beyond 'measuring the external' to root reflective practice in its culture.
For us, 'a learning organization' has three critical features.
Conscious of self
First, it is constantly working towards being 'conscious of self' - its world view, beliefs about change, purpose, values, relationships, culture, power, patterns and practices. This appears to be reflected, for example, in ActionAid's wish for its Accountability Learning and Planning System to 'allow more creative and honest assessment of change and create space for staff to listen to and engage with the concerns of poor people … to critically look at what we have achieved (or failed to achieve) through our rights-based programmes and actions around the world.'
Centred
Second, a learning organization is 'centred'. This means it draws its confidence and power to act from the knowledge that its actions are integral with its world view, beliefs about change, purpose, values and other features noted above. Where this is not the case, organizations are prone to tensions between belief and practice. This is common, for example, with intermediary donors who may not have the choice (financial security) to ensure consistency between beliefs and practice, like the South African foundation that talked recently of 'struggling to find the common ground between what corporate donors want and what we believe makes a difference'.
Open to its 'emergent self'
Third, a learning organization is open to its 'emergent self'. This means it has capacities to read and make meaning of itself in relationship to its environment, is aware of how its own patterns influence how it engages with itself/the world, can view itself differently, and can transform itself. These are challenging capacities to develop. For example, 'reading' and 'making meaning' require us to become as aware of what we don't see as of what we do, both within our organizations and with those with whom we work. This places primacy on learning through relationship, reflection and dialogue. Instead, there appears to be a greater emphasis on 'tools' for learning which can hide more than they reveal. For example, a team supporting a small grants programme for youth organizations in South East Europe found the McKinsey assessment tool obscured rather than illuminated grantees' concerns.
Hence, a learning organization needs to have processes and practices (not purely systems and tools) that enable it to be conscious of self, centred and open to its emergent self. Otherwise, the temptation is to believe that an elaborate monitoring and evaluation system (and regular exchanges with peers) is sufficient for learning. The 'we measure impact' mentality can result in a feeling that learning has been 'dealt with' and that it is mainly about measuring things 'out there' rather than something embedded in the fabric of organizational life. In short, we need to remain aware that 'Learning from programmed information always hides reality behind a screen.' (Ivan Illich, 1926-2002, radical thinker on education and other key institutions of the industrialized world.)
The learning framework
Learning is intimately connected to how organizations view the world and the nature of change. Together these constitute their 'framework' - the more or less conscious parameters within which they set out their purpose, values, approach and practices..
Contrast, for example, Paul Wolfowitz's (World Bank) use of market imagery for his 'results-oriented' mission in which 'today's poor become tomorrow's entrepreneurs' with Stephen Heintz's (Rockefeller Brothers Fund) use of the language of social justice to 'collectively decide that there are better ways to manage globalization that will create greater equity and opportunity and environmental sustainability in less developed countries' (Philanthropy News Digest). These represent very different world views and mark out the terrain in which learning may take place.
Underlying these and other world views, there are different beliefs about the nature of change. Put crudely, some see change as predictable and controllable while others view it as more dynamic, relational and complex. In the former, learning is taken from a tightly constructed view of the future - what works or does not in 'achieving' predefined outputs and outcomes. The range of enquiry is therefore much narrower. In the latter case, learning is much more open and invariably comes from the ability to read and make sense of what is present and at play in the current situation.
In combination, world view and understanding of change can create more or less space for learning. In illustration, the European Union sets out a world view based on norms and standards developed by relatively few people (its Terms of Reference) and a mechanistic model of change (the logframe) and seeks information only to show compliance or divergence from the forecast results. What they receive tends to be a confirmation of forecast, rationalized variances and an illusory picture of social change. In other words, the world view itself may define learning as pure accountancy.
Organizational boundaries and power
This brings us to the question of how frameworks are constructed, who is involved and whose interests they serve. In short, it takes us to the issue of organizational boundaries and power. Generally, power is a hidden force within donor-grantee-beneficiary relationships and the rhetoric of partnership has buried power yet deeper in the psyche of their communication. Yet, like the skeleton in the family cupboard, everyone is affected by the unspoken as much as by what is said. It directly affects the ability of all players to engage in meaningful learning. Power is not (necessarily) a negative force, but if differentials in power are not acknowledged they can exert a covert influence on what donors, grantees and beneficiaries feel safe to share.
Often this is reinforced by how donors choose to set their organizational boundaries and how inclusively or exclusively they work with their governing bodies, staff, grantees and ultimate beneficiaries in learning. For example, we have worked with field offices that feel unheard in their organization and yet have great potential to bring in learning from grantees and others on the ground. On the other side, members of foundation boards have been heard to comment that they lack depth of understanding to make grant decisions, yet rarely are such decisions devolved to those who do have that understanding (with notable exceptions such as the regional offices of the Mott Foundation). Is it fair to conclude, therefore, that the term 'donor-driven' resonates strongly because it reflects how potential grantees and their beneficiaries feel about their share in setting the donor's agenda?
The recent interest in social justice philanthropy would suggest growing awareness of the need to place participation and equity at the heart of grantmaking. Yet this requires more participatory and equitable processes for creating philanthropic strategies which place learning from practice at the centre of the organization. Without an inclusive approach to determining the agenda based on open and mutual learning, what is the nature of a donor's legitimacy and integrity?
Motivation to learn
Power is deeply connected to motivation to learn. For many donors, power is derived from money. In the best cases, this is mediated by enlightened governing bodies such as those established by some private foundations who draw their boundaries more inclusively. In the worst cases, there is little or no mediation, particularly in the case of privately generated wealth. Where is the motivation to learn when you are using your own wealth and believe that you are 'doing good' - a belief that might be counterbalanced by some reflection on how much the wealthy tend to consume in the process of acquiring their wealth? It is not easy territory - to move rich people beyond talking to one another or carefully selected 'locals', to learn more directly from 'unpackaged' experiences. And yet we feel it is essential that donors can look beyond the power of (their own) money to engage with a deeper level of learning.
Of course, not all donors have their own resources (although for many the notion of 'doing good' may still serve to smother openness to learning). For example, a funding intermediary will have an identity that is essentially more schizophrenic. However much it wishes to have an inclusive approach to learning with grantees, it still has to satisfy a back donor. When the views of grantees and back donors do not coincide, the intermediary is pulled in opposite directions. If they become too concerned with financial viability and sustainability (through keeping back donors happy), then they risk losing identity and integrity (with grantees and beneficiaries). In this tension, the motivation to work as a learning organization can be seriously compromised.
However, we would argue that a learning organization is open to exploring both its essence and its possible demise. Once its purpose is focused purely on financial survival, the organization is not free and learning becomes similarly constrained.
Accountability, risk and failure
Organizational frameworks and power tend to enter the fabric of organizational learning via the language of 'accountability'. Unfortunately, accountability is often reduced to a rather mechanistic set of 'measures of success' - a weighing up of results or the costs and benefits of intervention. If it is felt necessary to demonstrate the 'success' of grantmaking, it inhibits the ability of the donor and the grantee to have an open and honest exchange about anything that is not a 'success'. Donors fear exposure, for example, through misuse of money (bi- and multilateral agencies) or public relations disasters (companies) and the grantee fears loss of support. Fear is a poor basis for meaningful relationship or learning.
Few donors have a comfortable relationship with failure, which many construe as a divergence from 'a good (and often predefined) result'. For example, a USAID contractor in Eastern Europe commented recently, 'We don't tell them what really happens. What about the things that go wrong? They would never give us more money.' Yet how else does learning take place and innovation happen? Have we thought of how many products we consume that were by-products or 'failed recipes' like Worcestershire sauce or balsamic vinegar? A learning organization needs to be open to risk and hence able to embrace 'failure'. Essentially, we are talking about what Peter Senge, a stimulating writer on the learning organization, calls 'generative learning - learning that enhances our capacity to create' rather than learning for reinforcement of expectation. Otherwise, lines of accountability so easily turn into lines of subterfuge. (How many people reading this article can say that they have never presented their results in the best light to satisfy a donor?)
Donor psychology
At best, individuals have an ambivalent relationship with learning, yet organizations learn (or not) from individuals that make up the organization. Perhaps it is our own education (which rarely encourages consideration of world view, how change happens, our purpose and values, relationship with self and others, etc) that shapes how we perceive organizations as learning spaces. We have argued that the frames that are placed around learning (logframes, accountability measures) may discourage learning and may indeed encourage distortion. Worse, they reduce the world to bite-size pieces and lose the sense of self and wholeness. This is typified by the dominance of managerialism in the way many donor organizations are viewed and led - greater concern, for example, with grant recommendation forms and pro-forma reports than with relationship-building with grantees. Yet from which is most learning drawn?
Trust is a prerequisite of a learning organization, as is the ability to hold open dialogue and to help new meaning emerge by 'learning to talk differently, rather than arguing well', as American philosopher Richard Rorty puts it. Yet the very nature of giving tends to make donors highly self-protective. At one level, the need to avoid bombardment for money is understandable but it has a pernicious affect on the nature of learning within an organization.
Similarly, the building of ego as a result of being in a resource-holding position can create a sense of association with the worthiness of the activity and a disassociation from its frailties. Hence, donors need to be aware of how the 'peripherals' of how they conduct business (where they stay, how they travel, where and what they eat) affect the space for learning. Perhaps, all donor education should include a fly-on-the-wall opportunity to observe grantees preparing for their field visit, with time for the flies to reflect on what they see?
Learning societies
To conclude, learning is a serious responsibility. We live in a world whose complexity and pace of change are growing exponentially. This has tended to result in a frantic search for the 'quick fix' in the social as well as the techno-economic sphere (not to be left behind); a focus on individual 'survival' (as resources become depleted) and a need to bring some sort of order (rather than meaning) to what we are living. Because of this, even learning is viewed as an 'add on' - something that we draw from outside that we are lacking - or a task, something else to be achieved. Yet what we do not comprehend so easily, or perhaps fear, is the whole and its complexity; the potential for learning as continually 'here' rather than yet another commissioned evaluative exercise; and the notion of learning as intrinsic to our sustainable presence in the world.
Many donors are uniquely placed to take a broader and longer view and engage with the complexity. They have a longevity denied to the political appointee; they are freer to travel and to observe; they are more able to express a different vision; and they have the power to meaningfully engage others. If donors are not seeing complexity, if they are not working at the global level rather than at 'home' (whether that is organization, nation or other construct), then who will encourage a learning society? If the focus is on 'doing' without reflection, as if we may continually snatch the world from the mouth of poverty, disease and disaster, will we wake up to face our own demise in the neglect of learning?
Jenny Hyatt is Director of The Development School. She is Founder and Honorary President of Balkan Community Initiatives Fund. Email jhyatt@development-school.org
Allan Kaplan is a South African consultant and a core associate of The Development School. Email alkaplan@mweb.co.za
The Development School
The Development School (tds) strengthens capacity for developmental thinking and acting that enables poor and socially excluded peoples to set and realize their own agendas for social justice. It acts as 'a university without walls building skills without edges' through validated learning programmes, dialogue and developmental processes with practitioners, donors and policymakers.
See www.development-school.org
Click here to send this article to a friend
Back to topFrom Alliance, Vol 11, No 2, June 2006
| Why should I subscribe to Alliance? |
Subscribe now to Alliance magazine and receive:
|