Managing in the face of complexity (part 2.4): Task 3: Assess the distribution of capacities
This article is part 2.4 of a series of articles featuring the ODI Working Paper A guide to managing in the face of complexity.
First, we need to assess whether the capacities to tackle an issue are distributed across a range of interacting players and to what extent the success of our project/programme depends on the actions of others. International development interventions often involve a range of actions implemented by a network of partners who possess or control the relevant skills and resources. For example, the management of natural resources and the maintenance of common assets such as fisheries, forests or freshwater drainage require action at a number of different levels, from communities through local government to national policy and international agreements; the outcomes at many of these levels are influenced by a range of loosely-connected stakeholders. When interventions disregard the agency of any one level they are often ineffective: for example, fish stocks have become severely depleted when local communities have lost their rights to fish in local waters1. Success in promoting policy change is a prime example of the need to collaborate, relying on forming coalitions and interacting with broad networks of actors.
Management and decision-making during implementation needs to take into account relevant knowledge, where it can be found, and how it should be connected to the intervention for effective action.
Why do distributed capacities matter for management?
- Knowledge of key tasks and contextual dynamics may be incomplete at the ‘top’ level, due to being experiential or hard to codify. For example, genuine local progress might only be accurately judged by those working on the ground there, or opportunities for change on an issue may only be understood well by those continually engaged in working on it.
- Rigid targets and tasks reduce ability to capitalise on internal knowledge and spot opportunities. Formal management structures and tools may become less relevant and more a ‘tick box’ as teams at lower levels do what is required to achieve the desired results but fit reporting into standardised formats. Worse, treating lower levels (including, for example, NGOs contracted to implement projects) as merely a means to achieve higher level goals disempowers and demotivates, reducing the effectiveness.
- Overly hierarchical decision-making is not suitable in the face of this kind of issue due to the need to value inputs from lower levels. This is increasingly important in the face of fast-paced and unpredictable issues, as staff at lower levels need the capacity to act quickly, in order to capitalise on opportunities or make important corrective actions.
Next part (part 3.1): Tailoring management approaches to complex situations.
See also these related series:
- Exploring the science of complexity
- Planning and strategy development in the face of complexity
- Taking responsibility for complexity.
Article source: Hummelbrunner, R. and Jones, H. (2013). A guide to managing in the face of complexity. London: ODI. (https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8662.pdf). Republished under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 in accordance with the Terms and conditions of the ODI website.
Header image source: pxhere, Public Domain.
Reference:
- Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ↩
