 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
reduction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reduction |
Another part of organizational literature deals with leadership and the distribution of power in and between organizations. Autonomy or decentralization are structures or aspects of behaviour. As forms of behaviour they can be related to styles of leadership. From a structural perspective they can be treated as elements in the distribution of power. In either case. participative leadership and decentralized organizational structures are usually described in positive terms.
In our project both positive and negative aspects of Networking versus Autonomy and Leadership and Power became subjects of discussion and analysis in relation to the task structure of organizations working in the field of HIV/Aids.
At first there was a tendency to argue that there is no real problem with either of these issues and power is not always seen as a congenial topic. However, it emerged that one of the groups had a substantial problem with networking which they considered to be a potential threat to their established way of doing things. Others saw networking as presenting mutual benefits. From this contrasting position, the discussion opened up and established that Networking was not a uniform phenomenon it could for instance be formal or informal and its objectives could be pragmatic or idealistic.
People’s perception of networks as being a help or hindrance depended on who started the move and what stated (and hidden) objectives were attributed to the initiators of such a structure.
Expectations about outcomes also differ; what is the purpose of networking: is it to exchange information, to carry out joint advocacy, to economize resources or to achieve consensus? Where does responsibility lie? Can policy be made through networks, can policy be implemented through networks? There are potentially positive or negative aspects in relation to each outcome. Even if the purpose is only an exchange of information, the person or group that has most information exerts a potentially powerful position; having and giving information may become competitive. Are other people in the network expected to use the information? If so, it means making changes. Not everybody wants to change. Yet the positive side is clear. Information is essential for successful execution of all tasks. Collaboration adds strength and duplication is wasteful.
Attempts to achieve consensus or instigate joint advocacy requires leadership and, at least in the first place, a degree of centralization. If such functions are handled by official agencies or government departments, the power structure is not easily challenged or reversed. On the other hand it would be churlish to deny that elected representatives and their accredited civil servants have the right to make critical decisions about funding and structure. A network may provide a forum for consultation and making suggestions and offer a degree of transparency that traditional non network organizations cannot provide.
It is widely agreed that it is right and proper to assess progress, that is to say successes as well as failures and - perhaps through networks - to obtain cross-organizational learning. This subject is often called Evaluation. In designing an Evaluation Scheme, the initiative can be taken by formal agencies (of the government for instance) or by the non- governmental voluntary bodies working in the field of Hiv/Aids. The kind of evaluation information requested by formal agencies is very different from that which voluntary bodies consider appropriate and helpful. Governments want to have ‘facts’, often in the form of statistics which are accepted as surrogates for ‘facts’. Statistics are about numbers of people, hours worked, time spent, money used and so on; all broken down by specific categories.
The objective of Evaluation is to estimate ‘value for money’. This kind of data is thought necessary for justifying the expenditure of taxpayers' money. The negative side of this form of Evaluation is that it takes up time( with the collection of data) that is of little utility for either prevention or treatment and can easily be falsified if the motivation to do so is strong.
There are a number of alternatives to the bureaucratic form of evaluation; much of it would be qualitative in the form of cases studies preferably under agreed headings. There could be assessments of facilitators or obstacles to prevention and treatment and round table discussion with client and helper groups and documented exchanges of experiences among voluntary agencies. Suitable quantitative data might also be helpful for instance about client preferences or priorities for activities and types of information. The quality of this type of Evaluation is likely to be high and, suitably presented, could be of value to government in assessing its own priorities and justification for giving financial support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reduction |
Cutting through the various complexities outlined above, the following formulation was proposed and agreed: Firstly it was accepted that networking is important and desirable for progress, as long as the drive for consensus is kept in check. This formulation implies that the advantages of networking can be achieved without giving up essential aspects of ones own freedom of action. If these conditions are accepted as the basis for a networking arrangement, mutual benefits rather than zero sum conditions would prevail.
In relation to Leadership and Centralization versus Decentralization, a similar formulation could be worked out, that is to say, accepting leadership and a functional degree of centralization as long as within such a scheme an acceptable measure of semi-autonomy is achieved. The dissonance can be reduced or even eliminated by accepting that power does not have to be maximized either through networking or the exercise of leadership. At the same time autonomy (or decentralization) does not have to be maximized either. An optimum solution is to accept a degree of centralization (which can have functional advantages) with a measure of semi-autonomy (decentralization). Such an integrated solution has to be approached through dialogue and consensus. This is preferable to having it imposed by bodies with different values and inappropriate needs.
Furthermore, it was accepted that Evaluation can have advantages but should be anticipated and designed by HIV/Aids organizations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reduction |