'Sticky' change: What international development can learn from adaptive management

2nd December 2016

One of the most significant failings of international political assistance has been the tendency to focus too much on institutional structure and process, and not enough on culture and behaviour.

Many authors have described international assistance programmes that were so concerned with creating new institutional architecture they forgot to take the people inside the buildings with them. People repeated previous patterns of work and brought the same attitudes to their role, just in a slightly different – and possibly more ‘efficient’ – environment. Patterns of politics and power remained pretty much as they were.

In international assistance, ‘changing behaviour’ is rarely, if ever, articulated as a specific objective.

Donor agencies’ recently-discovered appetite for adaptive programming has created new levels of consensus around the need for more flexible projects that understand, and engage with, the incentives and interests that affect political and development outcomes. But there has been less progress, and perhaps less inquisitiveness, about how to use these insights to actively change behaviour. Even harder, how do we actually manage and maintain the process of institutional reform?

Part of the answer may come from the business world, where ‘adaptive management’ has been evolving as a discipline since the mid-1990s.

Adaptive management includes the type of adaptive programming that the international assistance world is increasingly familiar with – the need to think politically, value small-scale innovation and accept that managing change is a flexible, iterative and reflexive process. But it also emphasises a second dimension – behavioural adaptation to make change ‘stick’. Back in 1994, Ronald Heifetz’s Leadership Without Easy Answers argued that adaptive solutions must “engage people in facing the challenge, adjusting their values, changing perspectives, and developing new habits of behaviour”.

Yet in international assistance, ‘changing behaviour’ is rarely, if ever, articulated as a specific objective. For this reason, at Global Partners Governance (GPG) we recently published the KAPE® methodology that we use to design, deliver and measure projects that seek institutional and behavioural change.

KAPE stands for knowledge-application-practice-effect. It sets out the stages of the project, starting with the initial advice, support and guidance to our partners (knowledge). Then we work with them to use that knowledge to manage practical problems (application). However, the key to achieving and maintaining institutional change comes in the second half of the process; ensuring that those new patterns of behaviour are repeated over time (practice) and replicated across the institution to improve the performance of the institution as a whole (effect).

We have described our approach, only half-jokingly, as ‘management consultancy for politicians in difficult places’.

KAPE reflects the logic we have applied over the last decade in our work with parliaments, political parties and government ministries in some of the world’s most sensitive political environments. In Iraq, for instance, we worked closely with specific parliamentary committees to help them establish new ways of operating that led to improved oversight, policy and service delivery. The task then was to embed and spread those new practices across the parliament: we used our original progress with the committees to help the Speaker’s Office and senior staff in parliamentary directorates establish parliament-wide benchmarks for committee activity, while simultaneously helping the committees to meet those criteria.

We have described our approach in private, and only half-jokingly, as ‘management consultancy for politicians in difficult places’. It is an active form of change management based on solving practical and political problems. The approach can be characterised as a search for catalysts for wider reform by establishing ‘pockets of good practice’ and then encouraging a ‘ripple effect’ across the institution.

Perhaps more importantly, KAPE is also a way of measuring change. It captures progress towards the programme’s strategic goals  through evidence of changed behaviour and new ways of working, instead of getting caught up in the pre-ordained indicators in the logframe. Although we use a series of metrics to assess institutional effectiveness that provide a baseline, the route to improving on them depends on behavioural change, which can take many forms – but not structural change, which tends to be more prescriptive. 

That approach means that any time during the project we know exactly whether we are getting the behavioural change sought, and whether we need to adapt our support. In places like Iraq, where politics is particularly in flux, interests and incentives are constantly moving. If new ways of working are not proceeding as expected within a particular committee, it suggests a lack of traction, forces us to question previous assumptions and to try something new to achieve the same, or similar, goals. Political analysis and adaptation go hand-in-hand at every stage.

Putting adaptive programming into practice means developing frameworks that are less rigid than the logframe. The point of KAPE is to emphasise that it is perfectly possible to innovate, experiment, and respond, while still having a clear sense of strategy, purpose and progress.

But it also reflects a belief that institutional change must start with individuals rather than the institution. As John P Kotter, one of the leading authors on change management puts it,

“… change sticks only when it becomes ‘the way we do things around here’, when it seeps into the very bloodstream of the work unit or corporate body. Until new behaviours are rooted in social norms and shared values, they are always subject to degradation as soon as the pressures associated with a change effort are removed.”

It is exactly this sort of ‘sticky’ change – lasting beyond the lifetime and scope of the original project – that international assistance has always sought, but found elusive. Getting closer to that goal will mean greater attention to both dimensions of adaptive programming; flexible delivery and behaviour change.

 

Image: Chameleon (Tom Lee)

0 Comments

Leave a comment

The views expressed in Opinions posts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of DLP, the Australian Government or DLP's partner organisations.

Documents

Author

Greg Power

Greg Power

Greg Power is the Founder and Director of Global Partners Governance, which delivers projects in many parts of the world that seek to strengthen representative politics. He is also the co-author with Tom Carothers of DFID’s forthcoming central guidance on working with parliaments and political parties. 

Find Greg on twitter: @gregpower_1 / @GPGovernance

Read more

Related items

What do we do on Monday? Political settlements in theory and practice

The value of the political settlements framework

Opinion by Edward Laws15th July 2015

Taking the Results agenda to the next level?

On new book The Politics of Evidence and Results in International Development

Opinion by Chris Roche15th July 2015

Does talking about corruption make it seem worse?

Guest post for The Guardian's Global Development Professionals Network

Politics, risk and development: three takeaways

Reflections from two conferences

Opinion by Chris Roche19th February 2016

Innovation: transactional or transformative?

Given the fascination with 'innovation' in the field of development, it's time to discuss what the word might mean.

Opinion by Chris Roche23rd March 2015
Opinion by Heather Marquette10th November 2014
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal26th April 2016

Medellin - more than a miracle

From the most murderous city on earth to 'a new global standard for urban policy': the politics of change in the wake of crisis

Opinion by Cheryl Stonehouse4th March 2014

Overcoming premature evaluation

Guest post in From Poverty to Power

Opinion by Chris Roche15th November 2016
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal29th March 2016

The seeds and roots of change

Guest post on leadership networks for Governance for Development

Opinion by Heather Lyne de Ver1st December 2014

Inclusive political settlements: who and what gets included, and how?

First of six posts on political settlements by researchers, policymakers and practitioners.

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal13th July 2015

Political analysis as the practical art of the possible

Bringing politics back into PEA - a new paper with Adrian Leftwich

Opinion by David Hudson24th July 2014

Politics shape services; and services shape politics

How governance and sector specialists can help each other understand the politics of service delivery

Opinion by Richard Batley19th June 2014

Cancer and the links between medicine and development

Guest post for From Poverty to Power

Opinion by Chris Roche15th April 2015
Opinion by Luke Arnold25th May 2016

The inclusiveness test: making change work

Guest post for openDemocracy

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal4th November 2015
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal24th November 2014

Indonesia and the political settlements trap

The challenges of 'resettling the settlement'

Opinion by Graham Teskey17th July 2015

Adding gender and power to the TWP agenda

Why bring gender into Thinking and Working Politically?

Opinion by Sally Moyle6th August 2015

Do donors have realistic expectations of their staff when it comes to 'thinking and working politically'?

Is learning to ‘think politically’ like learning a new language? 

Opinion by Heather Marquette9th June 2014

Security and justice – the mismatch between policy and practice

What hinders more politically nuanced security and justice programming?

Opinion by Shivit Bakrania21st July 2014

Identifying rebels with a cause (and effect)

'Power, politics and positive deviance' is the theme of DLP's 2016 annual conference.

Opinion by Chris Roche1st December 2015

International donors - aiding or abetting?

The 'donor's dilemma' is discussed in a new DLP paper.

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi10th September 2015

Gender - the power relationship that Political Economy Analysis forgot?

Why more questions about gender relations could help

Opinion by Evie Browne13th February 2014
Opinion by Dan Hymowitz3rd February 2017

What's in a name? Leadership as more than the 'big men' and 'big women' of history

Looking beyond 'The Leader' for a deeper understanding of how change happens

Opinion by Heather Lyne de Ver11th February 2014

Gender analysis, and thinking and working politically – bridging the gap

Guest post on Devpolicy  introducing panels at this week's Australasian Aid Conference

Opinion by Chris Roche14th February 2017

Parliamentary strengthening: the IDC report

Having presented evidence to the UK's International Development Committee, what of the final report?

Opinion by Tam O'Neil9th February 2015