Subject: [IKD] Partnerships and participatory knowledge-building
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:38:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: avongalis@general.monash.edu.au (Athena Vongalis)
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
I read about the World Bank's involvement in education in Russia with
interest especially since , according to Panos letter, the world bank
refrained from commenting upon education. Why is that? It begs the
question.
Human capital theories which determine the value of knowledge have
isolated literacy as an international comparison vehicle to assess the
economic propensity of a nation. How is the world bank involved in the
auditing procedures numeracy and literacy? Are they determining guide
lines? Human capital theorists claim that there are three aspects which
determine human capital value,
1.knowledge for the creation and manipulation of tools and machines.
2.knowledge embodied in the individuals as knowledge carriers
3.non embodied knowledge such as books, research, etc
If any institution is serious about improving the standard of living then
it must address all of the above.
Athena Vongalis
Monash University
Subject: [IKD] Response to Tatyana Soubbotina
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:42:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Reinald.Doebel@t-online.de,Reinald.Doebel@t-online.de (Reinald Döbel)
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
Tatyana Soubbotina gave a very interesting example of >cross-cultural
interaction in "hammering out" the vision of development<, noting the
necessity for GENUINE collaboration, and for "reaching out" not only to
a wider audience, but also to an audience consisting of people who are
"open to new ideas" - and can therefore use the new ideas to build
"local capacity".
What I found new and stimulating in this message was its ending: >I am
looking forward to getting your advice<. I found this refreshing because
the tone of the message made be believe this was a genuine expression of
concern about the limitations of the project - despite its innovative
and collaborative (participatory) approach.
It seems to me that this is an attitude without which "sustainable
development" will remain the focal point for a collection of illusions -
as Mr. Lubbers has pointed out. Because without this very old-fashioned
"humility" one cannot be as self-critical as Anil Gupta has wanted us to
be. And without humility and self-criticism one cannot be "open" to
either arguments, knowledge, or visions of other people. Without these
"personal ingredients" there can therefore be no truly collaborative /
participatory "hammering out" of "visions".
My own experiences in Malaysia and Zambia point out that it cannot even
be a question of "hammering out": truly collaborative visions develop
cooperatively and quietly. And: they develop in privacy and direct human
contact. And: they serve as "motivating energies" only if - and
precisely because - they are more encompassing than any simple
formulation in language can capture (so much for the necessary
limitations imposed by any electronic discussion).
If I attempt some self-critical reflection: I do not think I could have
learned this lesson had I stayed at home. I learned this lesson from
those about whose "indigenous knowledge" we have been discussing these
past few weeks. And it seems to me that the reason for this is the
development of personality of those I encountered.
The absence of a conscious acknowledgement of the existence - not to
talk about the necessity - of "personal development" is the most
disturbing point about this otherwise very stimulating discussion (which
as spawned off some even more interesting private discussions). The more
so, as private discussions with development professionals in Malaysia
and Zambia revealed that a considerable number of them learnt similar
lessons of personal development - and as a result experienced a kind of
shock any time they arrived "back home" in "developed countries".
It seems to me that the focus on "models", "concepts", and "concrete
examples" has led a number of participants to consider such personal
experiences as irrelevant - especially in the context of looking for
solutions about how institutions could work more efficiently, more
collaboratively, more respectful of indigenous knowledge etc. Could it
be that there is a "cultural" bias which makes us blind to the obvious
fact that any model, any bit of information, any defition, any concept
needs to be given concrete (i.e. "applicable" or "action-orienting")
meaning by individuals - whatever their position in whatever
institution?
Reinald Doebel
Subject: [IKD] Response to Doebel's comments on "personal development"
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:39:36 -0500
From: "Elisabeth A. Graffy" <egraffy@usgs.gov>
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: <ikd@jazz.worldbank.org>
Doebel's most recent comments sharpen the focus on a question that has been
lurking at the periphery of our larger discussion: do we need to be more
conscious of the distinct but interlocking spheres of development that
include the personal, the interpersonal, neighborhood, community, .......,
bilateral, and global. In other words, does it make sense for us to act
specifically in terms of each sphere rather than lump it all together?
Several entries to the dialogue here have pointed out the importance of
personal transformation as a motivation for larger social transformation.
Yet acknowledging the importance of personal development does not diminish
the legitimacy of community-based, nation-based or even global-based efforts
toward greater sustainability. The real dilemma seems to be that, if all of
these are legitimate, we need ways to deal with each sphere effectively: it
seems clear that, though the personal and public spheres are connected, the
way we approach them will likely not be the same. Where I'm going with this
is: when we consider the role of international organizations in development,
does it turn out that their "niche" resides in in working at one or more
specific spheres? Can we expect the World Bank to effectively or mainly
promote personal development? Or is it institutionally better-suited to
working within other spheres?
As an analogy, in the field of conflict resolution, there is a theory or
approach known as "multi-track diplomacy." The idea is that conflicts exist
and are resolved at many different levels (I think the theory recognizes
about 5 tracks, including global, bilateral, business, community, etc.) and,
though international negotiators get the most press, some of the most
critical aspects of conflict resolution occur in the relationships forged at
the community level. So the organization deliberately specializes in working
at the "track" where it can make the greatest difference. They leave the
state department and UN to work out that the government-to-government stuff
and they themselves work within communities. They've invested themselves in
dialogues between Israeli-Palestinians, Cypriots, and other places. Is there
good cause for us to disaggregate that "development" word into something
like these "tracks"? Does it help clarify where different participants in
sustainable development can be most effective?
Subject: [IKD] Re: Development Project Knowledge Network
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 10:09:46 -0500
From: "Elisabeth A. Graffy" <egraffy@usgs.gov>
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: <ikd@jazz.worldbank.org>
The risks involved in organization-mediated knowledge acquisition are
undoubtedly as Sean Siochru suggests. The alternative--project-to-project
sharing of information and knowlege--is attractive. Based on my own
organizational experiences with projects that are geographically fragmented,
use of internet and similar information technologies can only take you so
far in sharing knowledge. There does not seem to be a real replacement for
interpersonal knowledge exchange and insight-building. But there does seem
to be a need for innovation about how that interpersonal exchange takes
place. So, on top of effective linkage through information technologies, I
would add a layer of deliberate "people-brokered" exchange. Specifically,
develop a team of knowledge-brokers within the organization itself. In
effect, these people would be interpreters and facilitators of
knowledge-sharing among projects.
Elisabeth A. Graffy (egraffy@usgs.gov)
Subject: [IKD] WHAT IS NEXT?
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 10:42:02 -0500
From: Alfonso Gumucio Dagron <agumucio@guate.net>
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: "'ikd@jazz.worldbank.org'" <ikd@jazz.worldbank.org>
CC: "'James Deane'" <panos@gn.apc.org>,
"'James Deane (PANOS)'"
<jamesd@panoslondon.org.uk>
James Deane makes several good points about the World Bank's new attitude
to listen better and willingness to support further discussions on
development topics as the IKD. He also points that participation from
World Bank in the IKD debate was very small, I would add very
frustratingly short-coming compared to our expectations. Does it mean
that only very few individuals in the World Bank are willing to make the
obviously necessary changes in the organization.
At the closing of this debate some ideas have been thrown over the
cyber-table in order to ensure some continuity to the discussion. It is
always good to close with some opening for the future, but I'm afraid
that if the only perspective is to have another debate, we may enter in
the field of Dyanetics, just pampering ourselves in cyberspace and not
taking actions in "meat space". It is too comfortable to have this
dialogue from our chairs, watching a screen full of characters and not
knowing the faces that are behind the messages. By looking forward to
more discussions, aren't we just postponing real changes while feeling
at the same time very nicely about ourselves?
You can't make decisions in cyberspace, only make suggestions. But if
the World bank really wants to move forward, they should organize a real,
not a virtual, meeting where decisions can be made and put on paper,
and be acted upon. How else can our recommendations be seriously taken
into consideration?
Some have suggested as next steps to gather more information, a
knowledge bank, etc. It seems to me that those are interesting
initiatives, but they remain very intellectual exercises. Where is
action? When are the changes coming? For example, if we agree that
information and communication at the community level are so important
for social development, how can we make the World Bank and other
international agencies to allocate 2% or 3% of the budget of every
single project to communication and information activities at the
community level? I tell you -from my twenty and more years of work at
the community level in various continents- THAT could start changing
things.
Overall the debate was interesting, but I'm not looking forward to spend
the next years reading or writing similar things, in similar academic
debates, just sitting in front of this screen. There is too much to do
out there in the real world.
Thanks,
Alfonso Gumucio
Subject: [IKD] Re: Implications for international institutions; reply to Paul Mundy
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:40:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Prof. Anil Gupta" <anilg@iimahd.ernet.in>
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
Organization: Indian Institute of Management
To: Paul Mundy <paulmundy@netcologne.de>
CC: IKD conference <ikd@jazz.worldbank.org>,
Michel Loots <mloots@globalprojects.org>,
Guus van Liebenstein CIRAN <lieb@nuffic.nl>
I appreciate the posting by Paul.
I have following comments:
a) the funds for extension that is transferring knowledge of scientists
to farmers are actually not limiting in Asian context. If any thing, my
feeling is that these funds are disproportinately larger than the funds
for doing the opposite that is listening to the farmers( not that only
funds will make it happen) .
To give an example, we have more than 9000 examples of contemporary
innovations or outstanding examples of traditional local knowledge (
colelcted over alst ten years from more than 3300 villages) in the field
of sustainble technologies at grassroots. Despite best possible linkages
we could have with top level scientists, how many experiments we could
get done on these ideas at ICAR or other state agri-universities labs
or farms( notwithstanding huge World bank funds to these institutions
under NATP and other programes) ? Hardly any.
b) Not only that we have failed to get research done at national
reserach stations, international CG centres have not done any better (
say ICRISAT or any other). CIAT is exception under J Ashby. At least an
attempt is being made there to reorient the Cg research to some extent.
c) I agree that rather than starting new attempts, we should
strenghthen
what exists. The reasons are simple. Knowledge Networks can not be
formed by money. These require spirit, trust and mutual respect. All of
these take time to evolve. But when interanAtionAl organizations try to
blur the difference between Knowledge and wisdom, people's science and
formal science, technology and its institutional context, disasters
follow.
d) when we showed Multi-media multi language Honey Bee data base on
local innovations at Global Knowledge conference at Toronto in 1997, our
was the only product of its kind. It still is. So much is being said
about ICT applications in rural development, a meeting organised by my
colleague Prof Bhatnagar and Robert Schwire of WB, at IIMA collated
various experiments in this field in India. Our data base was still the
only example of its kind. It helped overcome barriers of language,
lietracy, and localism. Farmers and artisans could learn from innovators
any where, in their own langauige and without having to know reading and
writing by seeing pictures, films about the innovation and sound of the
narative in their own language. Have we scaled it up as yet. No, we
might do so in due course.
e) We had as a member of the Coalition against Hunger and Poverty
organised by IFAD and joined by WB, FAO and many other international
orgnaizations, NGOs, etc.,, proposed a Knowledge Network on sustainable
technologies and institutions. The coalition failed to do anything on
that though we on our own launched it at International Conference on
Creativity and Innovation at Grassroots, Jan 11-14, 1997 at IIMA.
We share the sustainable solutions with local communities and
individuals around the world through Honey bee news letter( how many on
this list subscribe to it, though it goes to over 75 countries).
What I am trying to say is that there is no dearth of good ideas and
initiatievs in third world on the subject under discussion on this list.
What is missing is the modesty to acknowledge that new intiatives may
come from knowledge rich economically poor people ( not the `resource
poor' people -- a term world bank popularised with very unfortunate
consequences, as if knowledge is not a resource, or poor people are poor
even in this resource).
I hope some rethinking will take place, some day. In the meanwhile, the
creativity of people will continue to throw surprises at all of us.
I wish you all the best and I am sorry taht I have not been able to
spend as much time as I should probably have on the list. May be I am
not convinced that WB is really serious about becoming a KNowledge
Organization.
anil
Prof Anil K Gupta
Professor, Indian Institute of Management
Ahmedabad 380015, India
and
Coordinator SRISTI and Editor, Honey Bee
anilg@iimahd.ernet.in
http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/~anilg/
http://csf.colorado.edu/sristi/
fax 91 79 6427896, 6423341
phone (o) 91 79 6407241
Subject: [IKD] Re: Implications for International Inst
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:27:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Zane Ma Rhea <z.marhea@cshe.unimelb.edu.au>
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
In response to this week's discussion....
We already have 'knowledge banks' (or as I would prefer 'storehouses of
ideas' as a more reflective metaphor!) called universities. The problem
seems to me to be that the extensive system of production, reproduction,
dissemination and legitimation of ideas that has gone on in these places
has hitherto been far more concerned with the 'international' transfer of
ideas (centre to periphery model) than with the preservation of local
knowledges, with academics being accountable to local communities about
what is regarded as legitimate knowledge. Universities have a complicated
history and I don't want to imply that they have been useful up til now
with this problem, but many universities were established as a symbol of
local identity. It has often been the case that they were too effective in
putting forward local aspirations that directly competed with global
capitalism and the globally-available funding for many universities in
so-called developing countries has been intrinsically tied to western
demands. Recent policies by some global funding bodies have abandoned the
on-going development of local universities in favour of 'basic literacy'.
Not surprisingly, this has coincided with people's demands that 'their'
university be more responsive to the needs of the local community and more
vocal in opposition to westernisation.
Over the past 20 years there has been a slow recognition of the need for
universities to be both locally and globally aware and there is a loose
network of academics in a diversity of localities around the world who are
patiently working to such ends. Getting a balance between local and global
knowledge within local universities has the potential to bring
indigenous/local knowledges into these storehouses and I know of a number
of successful ventures in this direction. For those interested in such an
approach you could contact me directly on z.marhea@cshe.unimelb.edu.au or
Bob Teasdale through the webpage
http://wwwed.sturt.flinders.edu.au/edweb/fuiie/fuiie.htm. And keep a look
out for our book 'Local Knowledge and Wisdom in Higher Education'
(Pergamon/ Elsevier) due out later this year.
Simply focussing on 'development' is a never-ending debate and discussions
about global institutions cannot avoid questions of power and legitimation
of some ideas over others. A move towards encouraging academics and their
students in universities to be BOTH locally and globally useful is an idea
that is more in the spirit of power-sharing than many others. By
strengthening local speaking positions the global discussion of course
becomes more contested, but through this sort of process I am seeing
evidence of a preservation of a diversity of solutions to global problems,
and that, to me, is a wise idea!
Regards to you all out there and thank you to all the other participants
for sharing their ideas!
Zane
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Zane Ma Rhea
Research Fellow
Centre for the Study of Higher Education
University of Melbourne
Parkville 3052 Victoria Australia
Phone: +61 3 93447577
Facsimile: +61 3 9344 7576
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: [IKD] Response to Elisabeth Graffy re: "personal development"
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 11:19:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kevin Lyonette <lyonette@bluewin.ch>
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
Organization: SDS
To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
Another posting of real importance from Elisabeth. It certainly DOES
make sense for participants to clarify where their effective "track" or
input can best be used. We have heard and read a lot about "modesty" in
setting goals - no one group of whatever kind has THE answer, that much
is obvious.
What does this mean ? It means keeping an overall, integrated view of
the purpose and nature of "development" while identifying in a
collaborative and realistic manner where and from whom the best inputs
can be made. It means recognizing imperatives of scale of action,
ownership and ultimate interdependence - not the imperative of "s/he who
has the gold makes the rules". It means accepting that a lot of people
are valid stakeholders in development and that there are many relevant
and valid types and sources of knowledge and information. As we have
learned recently in Central America, there are "trade-offs" (not only in
the economic sphere) to be identified and dealt with in advance of
action if development action is to be successful in the long term ie.,
sustainable.
--
K.J.Lyonette, SDS
1a Sentier des Morettes
1197 Prangins, Switzerland
Tel +4122 361 9739, fax +4122 361 8164
Subject: Re: [IKD] WHAT IS NEXT?
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 13:15:53 -0600
From: Martha Gorman <marthagorman@worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
CC: "'James Deane'" <panos@gn.apc.org>,
"'James Deane (PANOS)'" <jamesd@panoslondon.org.uk>
A great many good ideas have been bandied about over the course of this
interesting debate. One suggested by Alfonso Gumucio Dagron is feasible and,
in fact, already under consideration in both the World Bank and, to a lesser
extent, at the IDB.
Alfonso said "...how can we make the World Bank and other international
agencies to allocate 2% or 3% of the budget of every single project to
communication and information activities at the community level? I tell you
-from my twenty and more years of work at the community level in various
continents- THAT could start changing things."
We have spent the past two years developing the tools and the process needed
to make this concept a reality. In the process we have founded the
International Institute for InfoStructure and developed the "Information and
Communications Technology Assessment Process." This business-objectives
based
assessment process analyzes the ICT of development project host
organizations
to determine whether the organization's "infostructure" is sufficient to
develop the project efficiently and meet the organization's business goals,
since a failing organization is unlikely to be able to carry out a
development project successfully. Three types of expertise are needed to
achieve an objective, accurate assessment: business analysis, systems
analysis, and a site/industry specialist.
One of the products of the Assessment Process is a procurement
recommendation, should ICT enhancements be required to ensure the success of
the project. This will be built into the procurement process of the project
itself, and some small percentage (we estimate in most cases less than 3%)
of
the development project will be spent to enhance the ICT of the host
organization. This is much more efficient than creating/approving, etc. a
whole new project.
Think about it. If this Assessment Process were routinely performed for all
development projects during the pre-development phase (in a standardized,
SOP
manner, somewhat like an environmental impact study, except that the result
is action that leads to a greater probability of success, rather than to
recommendations on whether to proceed or not), we could significantly and
systematically accelerate the enhancement of the information and
communications infrastructure of the developing world.
There are, of course, benefits for the Banks, as well. A more objective
procurement process for ICTs would result (less vendor driven), as would a
greater degree of transparency over the life of the project.
Most importantly, of course, is that, instead of just producing
infrastructure, development projects would also be producing the
corresponding infostructure.
We realize that the validity of the Assesment Process depends to a great
extent on the quality of the Assessors. It is for this reason that we have
created the Institute. We wish to train individuals (especially those from
developing nations) with IT and business expertise to implement this
process,
and of course, every Assessment would involve a "site specialist" ie, a key
person from the host organization, to provide business objectives data, as
well as the necessary reality check. It would not do for outsiders to come
in
for a week or two and then hand down a prescription from on high -- the
Process involves host organization input, involvement and approval at every
stage.
A proposal to test the Process in the field is currently under consideration
by infoDev, and the World Bank procurement department has requested a copy
for review. Meetings have taken place with BID executives, and a further
discussion is being scheduled.
Are we dreaming? Or has the time come to give equal priority to
infostructure
as that given infrastructure?
We welcome feedback and suggestions.
Martha Gorman, Director
Institute for International InfoStructure
303 494 4488
303 494 4787 fax
marthagorman@worldnet.att.net
Subject: Re: [IKD] Response to Elisabeth Graffy
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 11:51:54 +0200
From: "Paul Mundy" <paulmundy@netcologne.de>
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: <ikd@jazz.worldbank.org>
Interesting thoughts (again) on division of labour from Elisabeth Graffy.
It does seem logical that different development institutions should take on
different tasks and become specialized in different things. Firms do it,
government departments do it, individuals practising their professions do
it. So too do development organizations.
It might seem ironic, then, that much of the criticism directed at the World
Bank and other international institutions can be summarized as "they aren't
enough like..." NGOs, private firms, or whatever. The Bank "doesn't listen
to its clients--the poor" (like NGOs are good at), it "funds big, poorly
thought-out projects" (suicide for a commercial bank), and so on.
Similarly, the CGIAR (international agricultural research centres) "don't do
enough field-based research", are "too 'upstream' in their research", and so
forth -- we often hear that they should be more applied, closer to
farmers... more like NGOs.
Much of such criticism may be valid, and international institutions surely
have much to learn (as do NGOs and the like). But the international
institutions do have a role to play. It would make little sense if they were
to just take over the niches already filled by NGOs or by commercial banks.
At the same time, we are undergoing a time of great institutional flux. For
better or worse, governments are privatizing parastatals and services.
Private investment in (certain) developing countries has dwarfed bilateral
and multilateral funding. There is a huge increase in the numbers and
breadth of activity of NGOs, and governments are beginning to work with
them. Large international NGOs and consortia of universities are behaving
more like consulting firms, chasing big funding and big projects. There is a
new focus on the "client" or "customer" in both development work and in
private business.
Some conclusions flow from this line of reasoning:
1. There is no one "right" answer. It is necessary to design
institutional and methodological solutions for each situation, and those
solutions must be flexible to deal with a changing economic and
institutional environment. Development institutions themselves must be
flexible, continually monitoring their environment to ensure that they are
optimally positioned (in terms of funding, impact, etc.).
2. At the same time, there is great opportunity for learning, copying and
adapting approaches. NGOs are often at the "cutting edge" of development
approaches: they are relatively small and nimble, and there are lots of
them. It's possible in a small project to take risks and try out new ideas;
doing so in a major project is far more difficult. NGOs can thus be seen as
laboratories for development, continually testing new ideas, and passing on
their lessons to the development mainstream. The mainstream needs ways of
monitoring these activities and adopting or adapting them. A recent example
of this happening has been in participatory rural appraisal (PRA), which has
in a very short time been transformed from a fringe approach to (almost)
standard practice.
3. Multiplicity and competition in development approaches are good. If
there were just one, huge development organization in the world, changes in
approach would surely come slowly. But lots of development organizations,
all competing for funds, ideas and talent, and each using different
approaches to development, keep everyone on their toes. The system ain't
perfect, but it's surely better than many alternatives.
4. There's a danger in competition though: institutional barriers are
built up because one player (NGO, consultancy firm, or whatever) doesn't
want to share its knowledge with potential competitors, or even with
partners. Witness the walls between agricultural research centres and
extension institutions: here are two types of institution that should work
closely together to serve farmers, but in fact seldom communicate
effectively.
5. Communication and collaboration are good. Ways need to be found to
ensure that such knowledge is shared to the ultimate benefit of the poor.
Perhaps there's an analogy with the scientific community here: scientists
compete with one another to be the first to announce a discovery, but they
still have the ethic of freely sharing the results of their research through
publication. That's because the reward system for scientists is based on the
quantity and quality of publications produced... Perhaps a similar reward
system could encourage development organizations to be more forthcoming
about sharing their knowledge?
Finally, let me add a word of thanks to the organizers of this email
conference: it's been a valuable opportunity to learn from others, and
perhaps also to influence in some small way how development is done.
Paul Mundy
development communication specialist
paulmundy@netcologne.de
http://www.netcologne.de/~nc-mundypa
tel +49-2202-932 921, fax +49-2202-932 922
DevArt: artwork for development
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Cove/1003/
Subject: [IKD] Re: Action in the Real World - Response to Alfonso Gumucio
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 09:43:40 -0700
From: Reinald.Doebel@t-online.de (Reinald Döbel)
Reply-To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
To: ikd@jazz.worldbank.org
Alfonso Gumucio Dagron talked about "ideas thrown over the cyber-table"
as opposed to "action in the real world". While I do share his concern
about the relationship between the two, I can still see some use for the
cyber-table: if the ideas thrown over this virtual table reach further
than just the thinking capacity of the recipients. If they reach what
E.F. Schumaker has called "our heart of hearts" (in a speech to an
international conference on Sept. 3rd, 1977, published in "Small is
Possible" by George Mc Robie) - and if they contribute to making this
the centre for decisions concerning action in the real world.
As this may seem very abstract (and therefore academic) again, let me
talk about my "real-life" experience that "networking" takes place
between people who have made similar decisions in their "heart of
hearts". Only then does real life co-operation become really
"productive": because the mutual recognition of the "right attitude"
does give additional "energy" to those who are able to "link" in this
way - energies of "enthusiasm", of "creativity", of "intuition", or
whatever you want to call it.
In "academic parlance" this is called "synergy effect" - but the
relevance of this effect in increasingly acknowledged in "new story
management" (see Charles Garfield, "Second to None - the Productive
Power of Putting People First"). The point I want to submit to
everyone's personal experiental testing here is: stripped to the
essential, it is a question of people doing what they feel is "right" -
in their "heart of hearts". And of recognizing those people who do the
same and then joining forces - i.e. "collaborate", "co-operate",
"network", "link" with them. Productively, towards a shared goal, and in
an atmosphere where mutual respect and mutual sympathy are not the goal
but an important "energizing" ingredient.
This calls for direct personal contact - and makes it necessary not that
figures of two or three percent are put into plans and guidelines
(though I trust Alfonso's judgement that this would change a lot of
things), but that the very people who are in a position to make the
decision about those percentages do meet those people whom this is
supposed to benefit - and establish the kind of relationship just
sketched.
In a book written centuries ago to advise Malay rulers ("Mahkota Segala
Raja") to become "wise rulers" one finds the story (not uncommon in
"oriental tales") of the "raja" who disguised himself as a common man
and went out at night to go to the marketplace and to eating places to
listen to people and talk to them unrecognized - just to find out what
they were really thinking. This has become more difficult in the age of
mass media: the faces of the "important people" are known to almost
everyone. But the need for this direct contact is as important as ever.
As Daniel Goudevaert (a rather senior Dutch manager) has acknowledged in
the following words:
"The higher you rise in the hierarchy, the more the windows turn into
mirrors. You can't look outside any more - you only see yourself. And
people can't look inside any more. And there are people who deliberately
put mirrors in the place of windows."
It is up to everyone's personal experience and decision-making capacity
to see this as "just another idea across the cyber-table" or as a
pointer to possibilites for action in the real world.
With best wishes
Reinald Doebel
No comments:
Post a Comment