Leadership for Results

1

• Leadership for Results
• Evaluating Leadership Interventions
• Kabell Konsulting ApS, Dorte Kabell

2
Leadership work in Madagascar

• Cabinet level retreats 2003, 2004 and 2005
• Leadership training program for ministers and SGs
  (AoLF, IPAC) 2004
• Transformational leadership program (Dean
  Williams) 2004-2006
• Rapid Results Initiatives 2005-2006
• Training of Chefs de régions 2005

3
Evaluation in Madagascar

• What
• Evaluation of AoLF
• Immediately after event
• 6 months later
• A year after
• Evaluation of IPAC
• Immediately after event
• A year later
• Evaluation of Cabinet
• Retreats
• Immediately after event

• How
• Needs assessment (by IPAC)
• Questionnaires (pre- and post)
• Structured and open interviews (with
  participants, non-participants and donors)
• Document review
• Direct observation

4
Key Evaluation Findings (1)

• 2. Giving self confidence and empowerment at
  individual level through knowledge of useful
  management tools and practices, making
  participants better able to prioritize and manage
  time and hence stress

1. Creating a strong foundation for increased
performance in terms of institutional structure
and performance culture as well as a widely
shared vision

• 4. Facilitating the introduction and
  internalization of a new results oriented
  culture, as evidenced in the national vision,
  budget and strategy and various other new
  documents.

3. Improving cooperation among individuals and
their respective institutions and clarifying
roles and responsibilities
5
Key Evaluation Findings (2)
Issues to consider for replicability

• The burning platform for change
• A clear commitment at the highest level of
  government
• A shared vision for the way forward
• A well coordinated donor response including
  synergies between WB/WBI initiatives
• An increasingly client-owned program where needs
  have been clearly identified and addressed

6
Evaluating Evaluation

• Limited participation from beneficiary in
  evaluation, but strong interest in results
• Retrospective evaluation, but limited monitoring
  data available
• Evaluation focused on product, not process
• Outcome was lessons learned. Limited capacity
  building - drawing lessons learned does not mean
  learning to do things differently
• Lack of a common conceptual framework

7
Evaluation Recommendations

• Incorporate ME from the start - a process from
  conception to follow-up
• Evaluation should contribute to building capacity
• Evaluate process product
• Realistic expectations mindful of trade-offs
• Common conceptual framework for complementary
  initiatives

8
Country Focused Evaluation Framework
WBI

Evaluation
OPCS/LICUS
PREM
9
Integrated Country Focused Evaluation Framework
Example Madagascar
Capacity development at 3 levels Capacity development at 3 levels Capacity development at 3 levels
Individual Organizational Institutional/ Enabling Environment
Objectives, based on diagnostic work Improved Diagnostic capacity Improved Coordination, shared goals Improved Trust (Demand)
Interventions Dean Williams, AOLF IPAC Cabinet Retreats, Rapid Results PGDI, Judicial reform (Supply)
Expected results/Indicators (Does S meet D?)
10
Intervention specific ME

• Design of ME adjusted to each intervention
• Transformational leadership
• Peer-to-peer engagement
• Collective learning events/retreats

11
Align ME with design delivery
ME
12
Evaluation Design

• Consider
• Trade-offs

• Approach (participative)
• Methodology
• Method (self-assessment)
• Tools (facilitated focus groups)

13
Tool-box

• Survey, questionnaire, interviews, content
  analysis
• Internal (participants), external (key
  informants)
• Evocative (I feel I have x, y, z)
• Evidential (It seems she has x, y, z)
• Work stories
• Self assessments

14
Issues for Debate

• Is it feasible to include ME from start?
• Is it realistic to expect that evaluation can
  build capacity?
• How to determine trade-offs between flexibility
  and accountability?
• How to value un-anticipated outcomes and effects?