Almis # 5824
May 11, 2005
To: ALLCARE USA COUNTRY DIRECTORS
CARE USA Country Offices
From: Michael Rewald, Vice President, International Operations
Madhuri Narayanan, Senior Advisor, Gender Equity and Diversity
CC: All RMUs; Program SMT; Reference Group Members
Subject: ALMIS#5824 -Summary Report of CO SMT Survey and Guidelines for Improving CO Decision-making Teams and Processes
Dear Colleagues:
We are pleased to attach the summary report of the CO SMT survey with recommendations and organizational guidelines for improving country office decision-making teams and processes. We would like to take this opportunity to remember Pat Carey, who was instrumental in initiating this exciting work that challenges CARE to reflect internally on our core values.
The implementation of the CO SMT survey and the formulation of the recommendations and organizational guidelines was a collaborative effort led by Madhuri Narayanan, working closely with a reference group comprising staff from different RMUs, CDs, CARE Atlanta staff and national staff from COs. The purpose of this report and the guidelines is to inform COs of the key observations and conclusions on CO decision-making and to provide practical guidance on how to make it more diverse, inclusive and consistent with CARE's programming principles.
In preparing these guidelines, several drafts were circulated to the reference group members for their input and feedback and the key findings and recommendations were presented to the CARE USA Program SMT for a final review. While many staff contributed to the development of the survey and the report, we are particularly grateful to the following individuals for their active engagement in the process - Doug Steinberg (formerly, Angola); Kassie Mcllavine (Burundi); Liz Sime (WBG); Peter Buijs (Ecuador); Allison Burden (ECARMU); Stephane Cardinal and Nina Bowen (SWARMU); Rene Celaya and Rafael Callejas (LCARMU); Sherine Jayawickrama and Mohammed Musa (ARMU); Mark Turpin (South Africa/LE); Michele Rakotomanga (Madagaskar); Nilu Gunasekara (Srilanka) Noha Hussein (Egypt/Atlanta), Elisa Martinez, Joy Shiferaw, Susan Farnsworth, and Barbara Murphy-Warrington (Atlanta) and Vasuda Arora (India).
These guidelines are meant for immediate application in the country offices. Please be sure to share this document among your staff and incorporate relevant activities as you finalize your CO plans for FY06. Harvesting and sharing promising practices and lessons learned around diverse, inclusive decision-making, will be a priority for the CARE USA program division in the coming year.
These guidelines should be considered a work in progress that will be improved based on feedback about their use in COs across the CARE world. Therefore, please send any questions or suggestions, as well as documentation of any lessons that you learn while implementing these guidelines to Madhuri Narayanan at .
Thank you!
Best regards
Michael and Madhuri
Michael Rewald
Vice President - International Operations
CARE International - USA
404 979-9338
Summary Report of CARE USA CO SMT Survey
April 2005
A. Introduction
A qualitative survey was completed between May and July 2004 to better understand how Country Offices (COs) make their decisions and what their approach is to senior management teams (SMTs). This survey is seen as an important step in the Aligning our Work with the Vision (AWV) process. It addresses two of the common key gaps identified by many COs - inadequate diversity of staff representation (women, national, field) in the SMT/ decision-making bodies in COs and decision-making processes which do not adequately seek out and consider perspectives from staff at different levels, functions and locations. Further, COs were strongly encouraged to make this survey more meaningful at their own level by using this process to reflect, analyze and improve their SMT and decision-making processes.
The focus on the decision-making bodies and processes is based on the following beliefs:
1) Decision-making is one of the strongest indicators of organizational culture and inclusive decision-making assumes even greater significance as we move to become a rights-based organization.
2) Decision-making processes that are grounded directly in the voices of a wide diversity of staff and other stakeholders are more informed, more sensitive to the complexities of the operating environment and more effective, empowering and motivating to the organization as a whole.
3) Transparency in making and communicating decisions is important for good corporate governance and accountability (This does not mean that all decisions have to be made by consensus).
4) Key decision-making bodies such as the SMT have a critical role to play in the country office as the discussions and decisions of this body have the greatest potential to impact the staff and work of any CO as it oversees the development and implementation of the strategic plans. It is of vital importance in nurturing an empowering/motivating/trusting organizational environment. If the SMT is not seen as representative, transparent etc, then the whole climate of the organization will be poor.
5) Ensuring gender equity and diversity in key decision-making teams is important to improve organizational performance and it is also important to practice internally what we preach in programming.
6) CO decision-making teams should be accountable to multiple constituencies – internally to staff, Regional and Global Management and externally to communities, partners and donors. It is important to have clearly defined accountability mechanisms for each constituency, although the mechanisms for accountability themselves may vary according to country contexts.
Data processing
The response rate to the qualitative survey (Attachment 5) was quite good with 37 CARE USA COs and one non CARE USA CO returning the completed survey. Quantitative information collected on diversity of CO SMTs during the FY05 AOP process was also reviewed and analyzed during this process. The following summary is based on the inputs from the CARE USA Program SMT and the work of a reference group, made up of national staff, CDs, RMU, and HQs[1], which worked together to review the findings and steer the formulation of organizational guidelines and the next steps for deepening this work. However, it is important to recognize that the situation is ever evolving and this survey is just one piece of ongoing efforts to improve gender equity and diversity and internal governance within CARE.
B. Key Observations and Conclusions
1) Decision making bodies – The structure and working modalities of SMTs vary greatly from CO to CO. Review of quantitative information provides additional CO-specific insights. The survey shows that:
· The number of decision-making bodies that guide the CO varies from one to eight.
· Approximately 37% (14) of the COs reported having clearly defined roles and responsibilities for the SMT articulated in a written form such as a TOR or a matrix. Roles and responsibilities for the CD and other individual members within the SMT is not defined in almost all the COs. 65% (23) COs report that all staff are aware of the roles and responsibilities of the SMT.
· In 45% (17) COs, the SMT members are nominated by the CD and/or by the SMT itself. In 24% (9) of the COs SMT members are automatically selected based on their grade or position.
· 66% (25) of the CO SMTs generally meet at least once a month. These meetings normally last up to half a day in 58% (22) of the COs.
· In 92% (35) of the COs, inputs from non-SMT staff is sought for decision-making through written communications, staff meetings or discussion in specific task forces etc. 45% (17) COs reported that they do not have any formal mechanism to get feedback from staff on decisions taken by the SMT or to monitor the impact of decisions taken.
· 66% (25) COs report that ‘consensus’ is the predominant mode used for decision-making.
· In 47% (18) COs staff perceive decision-making to be transparent and fair (with some exceptions) and in an additional 13% (5) COs, the SMT perceives decision-making to be transparent and fair but feel that the staff do not share the same view.
The survey indicates that there is scope for improvement in CO decision-making and that one model will not work across all the contexts and types of decisions. It also points to the need for clarifying types and levels of decision-making.
2) Gender and Diversity in SMT and decision-making - There is wide variation in how different COs interpret diversity and view the importance of diversity in SMT/ decision-making. 63% (24) COs perceive that there is under-representation in their SMT of certain diversity factors relevant to their country context.
In the last 1-2 years, more than half of the COs have taken some concrete steps to improve representation and inclusiveness in decision-making structures and processes and some continue to face some challenges – small size of SMT, limited pool of “qualified” candidates, physical distances, language, etc - in expanding the scope and depth of diversity.
3) SMT Accountability - According to this survey, the CO SMT considers itself accountable primarily to the internal stakeholders (itself, staff, CD and RMU/ Atlanta) and in some cases to external stakeholders (communities and partners, local Government and donors). 60% (23) COs mention employing existing accountability mechanisms such as the CO AOP and the Strategic Plan, MACO, and performance management tools such as the IOP and APA. CO SMTs also hold themselves accountable by sharing SMT meeting minutes with all staff and by carrying out periodic evaluations of SMT by self or by staff. However, in most COs, it is not clear whether these are formal, structured, well-defined ways of holding the SMT accountable.
4) Variations in basic information: CO staff size, structure, etc. – There is a significant range with respect to basic information of staff size, sub offices, etc. that has direct implications for decision-making and management systems. We also know that differences exist in CO contexts in terms of level of stability or conflict, geographical spread and difficulty in terrain, local civil society and staff capacities. This survey also brought out the need to define information needs and to standardize information systems in order to systematically track progress and trends in diversity of staff and decision-making teams over a period of time.
C. Recommendations
1) Recommendations for each CO
1.1 Deepen the dialogue to clarify the definition and importance of diversity for improving organizational impact and effectiveness in the CO context.
1.2 Prepare and communicate written Terms of Reference for the key decision-making teams (such as the SMT) and decision-making processes to all staff using the guidelines and tools provided in the Attachments.
1.3 Develop and implement a specific plan (with indicators to measure progress) to improve decision-making processes in COs, focusing on issues of diversity and transparency. This plan should examine and eliminate barriers that limit the participation of under-represented categories of people in decision-making bodies and processes.
1.4 Key decision-making teams (such as the SMT) should carry out an evaluation of itself – self-evaluation as well as by key stakeholders that the team is meant to serve. Evaluation helps all the members to realize how well the Team is guiding the organization and offers some recommendations for improvement. It may be useful to do a brief review annually and a deeper review once in two-three years as a part of an organizational climate survey.
2) Recommendations for the Regional Management Units
2.1 Provide personalized feedback and guidance to each CO to clarify the definition and importance of diversity in their CO context and on how to be aware of their “dominant decision-making model” and how to adjust their decision systems to be more effective/inclusive in their context and promote diversity in their decision-making bodies.
2.2 Review and formalize the use of existing mechanisms – MACO, AOP, and GED gap analysis process - effectively to hold the SMT accountable to gender and diversity objectives, including diversity in decision-making.
3) Recommendations for the Global Team:
3.1 Decide which decision-making body we want to track these efforts globally and clarify that in the quantitative information collection on CO SMT in the AOP format.
3.2 Define what staff information is required for different global purposes and communicate the same to all COs for consistent use.
4) Recommendations across the CO, Regional and Global Teams:
4.1 Conduct further reflective activities and analysis to identify and document promising practices and successes in CARE and external organizations to improve the workings of decision making bodies and increase diversity in decision-making teams and processes, as well measure the impact for wider organizational learning and sharing. See box below for examples of areas to explore and document lessons.
4.2 Expand and deepen the interpretation of inclusion and accountability to answer questions such as - How does working with local partners impact on the decision-making functions? How can we bring in the voices of the local communities into our decision-making and/or governance?
List of Attachments
Attachment 1a - Using the CI Programming Principles as a Guide for Decision- Making
Attachment 1b - A Short Checklist of Organizational Guidelines for Decision-Making
Attachment 2 - Step-by- Step Guide for Country Offices
Attachment 3 - Decision-Mapping Tool
Attachment 4 - Outline for Terms of Reference
Attachment 4a - Guiding questions to assist in reviewing and planning for more diverse and inclusive decision-making bodies and processes
Attachment 5 - CO SMT Qualitative Survey
Attachment 5a – Sample Questions for SMT Evaluation by CO staff
Attachment 5b - Example of a Self Evaluation Tool for SMT members
Attachment 6 - Some Relevant Lessons Learned/ Words of Wisdom Attachment 1a – Using the Care International Programming Principles as a Guide for Decision-Making
The CARE International Programming Principles offer guidance in assuring that our programs help us to achieve the CARE Vision. However, a statement at the end of those principles – We hold ourselves accountable to enacting behaviors consistent with these principles, and ask others to help us do so, not only in our programming, but in all that we do – clearly indicates that these principles should apply to all of what CARE does, both internally an din our programs. What follows is a set of set of guidelines developed by the CARE USA Program Diversity Working Group, in line with the programming principles, that are aimed at helping us improve decision-making processes in CARE and a shorter list that draws on these guidelines and the work done by the East and Central African Region that could serve as a checklist for easy reference.