Linking action training to bureaucratic reorientation and institutional reform
| Author | Gregory D. Schmidt |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230110107 |
| Published date | 01 January 1991 |
| Date | 01 January 1991 |
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Vol.
11,39-55
(1991)
Linking action training to bureaucratic reorientation and
institutional reform
GREGORY D. SCHMIDT
Grupo
ak
Estudios Para el Desarrollo
and
Northern Illinois University
SUMMARY
This article explores the use of action-training methods in a highly centralized and control-
oriented public sector. It focuses on the Technical Assistance and Training Programme for
Departmental Development Corporations (PATC-CORDES), an innovative programme in
Peru initially supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
Successive sections review a particularly influential alternative to conventional classroom train-
ing proposed by Honadle and Hannah
(1982);
provide relevant background; describe PATC-
CORDES organization and objectives; examine its training activities; assess the resulting
institutional impacts; and posit important insights from the case study. The PATC-CORDES
experience demonstrates that action-training methods can produce positive results in agencies
that are part of a rigid public sector and, more importantly, that such methods can
be
linked
to bureaucratic reorientation and institutional reform. Perhaps the most interesting and contro-
versial conclusion is that recruitment of central administrators to lead training exercises can
be a useful tactic for bureaucratic reorientation. The article is based on review
of
documents,
reports, and evaluations prepared by persons working for USAIDPeru, PATC-CORDES,
and departmental development corporations (CORDES); extensive interviews with political
leaders, managers, and professionals
in
these same organizations; analysis of Peruvian legisla-
tion; and other references cited in the text.
ACTION TRAINING: OPPORTUNITIES
AND
OBSTACLES
‘There is a near “consensus” in the development community that generic, classroom-
oriented management training has had an intolerably slow and tenuous impact on
delivery of field services’ (Wunsch, 1983, p. 240). This failure has helped to spark
the development
of
various ‘action-training’ strategies, which have evolved under
different names (see Kerrigan and Luke, 1987, pp. 28-31, 99-109). From a broader
perspective, action training is part of recent efforts to redefine technical assistance
roles and project mechanisms to better ‘fit’ the context of the developing country,
the needs of the beneficiary population, and the development task at hand (Honadle
&
VanSant, 1985; Korten, 1980; Leonard
&
Marshall, 1982; Rondinelli, 1983; Uphoff,
1986).
Honadle and Hannah (1982) provide one of the most cogent critiques of the tradi-
tional mode of classroom training used by most donor agencies and public adminis-
tration institutes in developing countries, and most clearly outline an alternative
strategy of action training. They argue that traditional management training has
The author is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, Northern Illinois University,
DeKalb, Illinois
601
15,
U.S.A.
027l-2075/91/010039-I
7%08.50
0
1991
by John Wiley
&
Sons, Ltd.
40
G.
D.
Schmidt
emphasized the one-way transfer of generic skills to specific individuals, rather than
the development of relevant skills that are likely to be assimilated by organizations.
Pressures to use training facilities to full capacity lead to the ‘processing’ of available,
but often inappropriate, persons from different organizations through standardized
modules at sites away from the work environment. Individuals from different levels
are trained separately, even though many important issues require interaction
between strata. The lack of a common experience-base among trainees leads to the
use of artificial, hypothetical cases for training, rather than a focus on issues and
problems that are relevant for job performance. Thus, ‘Each course or workshop
. .
.
becomes a discrete, time-bound occurrence rather than just one ripple in aconstant
stream of management development activity’ (Honadle and Hannah,
1982,
pp.
298-
299).
Furthermore, traditional classroom training assumes that improved knowledge
leads to behavioural change and to better organizational performance. No attempt
is made to assess incentives for adopting new techniques or to evaluate their actual
impact on performance. Instead, success
is
measured in terms of numbers of partici-
pant days.
Honadle and Hannah draw on their own extensive experience in technical assist-
ance and applied research to formulate an alternative training strategy. An ‘action
orientation’ leads to the use of real work groups as the basic unit of training and
real problems as the subject matter for frequent workshops that blend into other
activities. Training exercises are held at or near project sites, involve persons from
various levels of the organization, include examination of organizational incentives
and disincentives, and emphasize decisions, commitments, and actions. Using an
‘enhancement focus’, trainers or consultants provide flexible organizing frameworks
for interactive group exercises that focus local knowledge on key organizational
issues and priorities. These frameworks are continuously readjusted, as new data
are presented by participants and new problems are taken up.
Successful applications of this
‘action-based/enhancement
strategy’ are reported
by Honadle and Hannah
(1982,
pp.
302-305)
and Honadle and VanSant
(1985,
p.
43).
Supporting evidence for such an approach can also be gleaned from much
of the literature on development management and institution building (see Uphoff,
1986,
pp.
196-200).
Nevertheless, Honadle and Hannah correctly emphasize that
their training approach is no panacea. Indeed, efforts to build organizational capacity
through action training and other techniques face at least two major kinds of
obstacles.
First,
it
is well documented that capacity-building efforts are often undercut by
such donor practices as ‘blueprint’ designs for projects, pressures to rapidly ‘move
money’, and undue emphasis on tangible construction and production targets. As
many analysts have argued, donors must change many of their own policies and
procedures
if
they are serious about institutional development.
Second, national administrative structures and processes that are control-oriented
or otherwise inappropriate frequently frustrate capacity building, especially in the
public sector. National budgetary regulations are often complex, rigid, and incon-
gruent with seasonal or agricultural cycles (see Uphoff,
1986,
pp.
255-256).
The
slow or erratic disbursement of funds from central governments can undercut both
the institution-building and implementation objectives of development projects
(Honadle and VanSant,
1985,
pp.
11,
30, 58).
National civil service regulations can
To continue reading
Request your trial