From Project manager to transformational leader, key challenges for sustainable development within the UN. (*)
Gratitude. I want to thank Edinson Castaño, for creatively supporting this programme in the social arts, with his specific talents in Social Presencing Theater; my gratitude to Marcela Gavaldón Vela for holding the space in mindfulness, hatha yoga and wellness; and Isaac Santana, for his reliable facilitation skills. You held an inspiring holding space for learning. Thank you.
- Introduction.
In the winter of 2019, the United Nations Office for Drug and Crime for Mexico and Central America (referred to as U N O D C) [1] explored ways to strengthen its social implementation strategies. The purpose was to align social innovation tools to the complexity of current global projects to procure a higher level of efficiency in their execution.
In the context of the “theory of change”, UNODC selected Theory U[2] to embark on this endeavor given its holistic approach to change management, innovative paradigm, robust method, and powerful awareness-based tools.
It was agreed that during a four-month trial, an institutional prototype [3]would be designed and validated to research the role that change management [4] could play in making UNODC´s project cycle more aligned with the social field, i.e., more flexible and innovative, both in the planning and implementation arenas.
In the context of Theory U, the focus fell on the development of five capacities: to forge new strategic alliances; include system´s thinking in the planning and implementation stages; embrace innovation and creativity; test social prototypes in order to explore the theory-praxis dilemma; and activate an evolutionary cycle that could travel from the concept of “progress” to the reality of the “sustainability frontiers”.
For this purpose, a Theory U, “change laboratory”[5] was convened; it was composed of five “learning immersions”: an induction process in Theory U to frame concepts and language; a three-day workshop on the Theory U methodology for social change with UNODC project managers; small group discussions to explore tools; a one day workshop to land Theory U method to ongoing UNODC projects; and a possible option for certification through the MIT MOOC, ULAB 1X.[6]
In order to validate the theory-practice challenges, it was agreed that U methods and tools would be applied to concrete ongoing projects. For this purpose, UNODC selected the following ones:
- Gender, violence, and institutional response;
- Institutional transparency and anti-corruption through Budget Results methodologies and
- Prisons in Mexico and the Mandela Human Right rules (UNAPS project).
We will now show case the U process and how it played within UNODC.
2. Intention.
This intervention intended to migrate from the practice of a “project manager” to that of a “transformational leader.” A manager administrates a project; he/she is responsible for delivering the outcomes and outputs. A transformational leader applies theory of change, and takes the project to its maximum potential. A project manager honors the limits and scope of a project; a leader goes beyond borders into sustainable and tangible futures. One way of visualizing this can be through the following matrix.
Starting from the bottom on up, a “technical leader,” or traditional leader, focuses on team building and organizational change, “control” of outcomes as a premise rules; the “reflective leader” learns to listen in more profound ways [7]; the more he/she listens, the more she understands “blind spots,” hidden social forces and dynamics, and resistances to change; in the third level, of “unknown discovery,” the transformational leader, identifies opportunity niches, cracks in the system, or acupuncture points and explores the organic changes that are necessary for a profound and causal change.
3. Objectives
The general objective of this intervention was to forge “transformational leadership” capacities for action, with an emphasis on the development of seven leadership skills(8), i.e., forging strategic alliances, evolving in system´s thinking, exploring creativity and innovation, connecting theory with action through social prototypes, and evolving schemes through quantum leaps from the ego to the eco paradigm and vision.
4. The Theory U method for the development of transformational leaders within UNODC.
The Theory U method [9] sways through five movements.
· Movement One. - Co initiation. In this movement, we select participants to create the “core team” that moves through the change laboratory; we build intention and set up the bases for a trust container, the platform of increased relational trust.
· Movement Two. - Co sensing. During this movement, we forge a systemic view of the project´s change processes. We identify the difference between symptoms and causes. Theory U works with one level of symptoms and three levels of causes. We learn to understand that “we” are part of the system.
· Movement Three- Co-presencing. This movement focuses on connecting to silent creative inner spaces, the source. Some examples include meditation practice, social presencing theater [10], and the World Cafe [11]. All awareness-based personal tools for “personal mastery” [12] are welcomed as resources to enter this space of “ deep silent authenticity.” In this movement, we understand ourselves and the social field in the space of its highest potential, the arrival point of transformational change, the emerging future.
· Movement Four — Co-creation. This movement links theory with practice; it is designed to help us transition beyond analysis paralysis. It works through the design and implementation of “social prototypes” toward the construction of emerging futures. It is essential to differentiate social prototypes from pilots. A pilot is a mini-project with all the shortfalls of a project itself; a social prototype is a creative thinking process put into action. They have to be relevant, correct, revolutionary, replicable, rapid, rough, and relationally effective. [13] Social prototypes are learning spaces where we receive feedback from the social field, learn fast how to fail, and drive the action forward into the future.
· Movement Five- Coevolution. In the context of this cycle, this capacity represents the final stage from ego to eco; it goes from the fragmented to the holistic view, from debate to dialogue, from control to flow, and from competition to collaboration. We are not talking about progress linearly but evolution as an exponential leap into the future.
These movements are not designed to follow a sequence. As they sway with a programme, project, intervention, or process, the facilitator can choose the most dynamic movement according to the requirement of the social field and historical moment. It is recommended to complete the cycle of five, regardless of its conventional sequences.
We are going deeper. One truly revealing aspect of the Theory U method is that it functions in three dimensions. The first refers to the five movements explained in the previous pages; the second dimension refers to the flow that each movement invites in the integration of mind, heart, and will. Mind refers to the cognitive spheres; heart to the emotionally significant realms; and will to the courage, conviction, and consistency of closing the theory-praxis gap. One-third dimension drives into the individual-collective connection. Everything we do at an individual level has a profound effect on the collective field. The individual mind projected to the collective becomes “science”; the individual heart projected to the all becomes “consciousness”; and the individual will connected to the collective will becomes social “transformation.” Thus we link a) science, b) consciousness, with c) social transformation. We can visualize the interaction between these three dimensions in the following image:
5. The U pedagogy.
The Theory U method can be used as a complete U pedagogy based on the above. Given that we understand education as a learning change process, the U pedagogy can take us into deeper learning, reflection, assimilation, and awareness.
There are three moments to it: the first one refers to the five movements of the U transformed into learning spaces; the second one to “awareness-based technologies” that link mind, heart, and will; and the third refers to building the “holding space for learning”. Learning can become constrained and limited without a constructed holistic trust container in the facilitator, language, concepts, peers, environment, and social field.
FIRST PEDAGOGICAL MOMENT.
The first dimension refers to the five U movements rethought and converted into learning spaces.
· Co-initiation as a learning gateway begins with the definition of committed change agents, the beginning of the “holding space for learning”, and confirmation of an initial common intention that will guide and inspire the process.
· Co-sensing as a learning exercise has to do with system’s thinking applied to understanding the change process. The farther we go into the system’s fringes, the deeper our understanding grows; the more we welcome the exploration of blind spots, the more we can examine causality. This process invites us to learn to see ourselves as part of the system. This brings about increased social responsibility. The more we see ourselves as part of the system, the more responsible we become.
· In the third movement, Presencing, the purpose is to bring the mind to a moment of stillness and creative silence. This favors witness consciousness, the capacity to jump out of habitual thinking and allow new learning through the scrutiny of new angles. This moment can be carried out through a myriad of resources such as meditation, mindfulness, social presencing theatre, and generative scribing.
· During this fourth co-creation movement, we enter the praxis sphere. Theory U does not allow us to stay in theory “comfortably” but compels us to find relationships with practice, the reality of the social field. In this learning arena, we listen to what reality tells us and learn from it. As Prof Scharmer calls it, the “social field, “reality is the subject and object of learning.
· In the co-evolution moment, we can harvest and journal to reflect how we have learned. What allows us to claim that through the U journey, people, processes, and project and more sustainable, more connected to the Source, and in a better position to benefit the collectivity?
SECOND PEDAGOGICAL MOMENT.
The second pedagogical moment involves the fertilization of learning through “awareness-based technologies,” which allow us to link head, heart, and will. We learn from the wisdom of all three dimensions and explore the interconnections between the individual soul and the collective social field.
Accompanying each critical topic, we combined group dynamics such as Phillips 66, fishbowls, and debates,[14] and also from the Theory U reservoir of tools, we plunged into the art of listening, empathy walks, learning journey, the use of mindfulness for creativity purposes, and case clinics to link theory with practice. [15] All of them are available for exploration on the Presensing Institute web page, Presencing Institute. At the core of these learning technologies is using awareness-based techniques that link head, heart, and will.
The UNODC project on gender and violence was analyzed through the Social Presensing Theater lens. 16] aside from being highly participatory and motivational, it allowed participants to witness the present condition as part of their ecosystem.
It is impressive when vulnerability is shared, the alchemy of learning takes place; continual usage of harvesting and journaling techniques so participants can reflect; participating in a “collective resonance exercise, by responding to the “I see, I feel, I sense” upon the study of an object. [17]
An essential part of this moment is the “spirit, center, and connection to Source” of the mediator/facilitator. Relationships are horizontal; she/he is part of the “holding space for learning,” she/he is ready to listen, applies generative conversations, is aware of what the “social field” is expressing, she/he is willing to shift into the unexpected, plunges into the “unknown” future, new unexpected knowledge. Holding this open spirit is vital.
THIRD PEDAGOGICAL MOMENT
The third dimension of the U pedagogy involves building the “holding space for learning”. This “holding space” allows students to develop the trust to take risks, accept not knowing, nurture courage and self-esteem, and get through the uncomfortable moments of now knowing; in essence, it allows the alchemy of learning. Kelby’s Bird offers some crucial recommendations for building a learning “container” [18] in the following way:
· As mediators/facilitators, we held short “meditation” exercises every day before starting the workshop. The purpose was to connect with the Source and establish a ring of energy around the learning group. We used meditation techniques that generated focus and attention.
· We repeated this ritual in every “learning immersion.” The purpose was to nurture the ring of energy among mediators/facilitators, become stronger as a group, and keep this energy during the workshops. This ring of energy became highly useful when we faced challenging moments, either resistance to learning mechanisms or even conflict.
· The ring of energy, when aligned to the Source, was highly useful when the learning group lost attention, either because of tiredness, natural tensions, or doubts. When these episodes occurred, we agreed to breathe deep, go back to the Source, generate a collective silence, hold it, and from there, come back to the learning group. For example, this became necessary when the learning group started using their cell phones to take care of office business. We stopped all action, held silence, and then visualized the phenomenon. Even though the reaction was filled with emotional resistance, it brought the group back to a high level of attention.
The central hypothesis was that Source has the natural power to hold both the facilitation and learning groups. The fundamental challenge is for the group of mediators/facilitators to keep connected to the Source. When there was dispersion, connecting to silence and the Source allowed for a safe return.
6. UNODC selected projects
UNODC staff selected three projects to be used as landing strips where the Theory U method could be learned, seen, applied, and projected into the future. These were:
1. Gender, Violence, and Institutional capacities;
2. Anticorruption, through Budget based Outcomes;
3. Prisons in Mexico, and the Mandela Rules, UNAPS.[19]
Each project was diagnosed through the five Theory U methodological movements: and the seven leadership capacities: building trust with its constituency, systemic vision, new perspectives, crystallization, future vision, and strategic evolution capacities.[20]
After the assessment, we presented the three projects- with a summary of the main challenges, resistance points, change management strategies, and possible lines for future work. During this workshop an overview of possible change within the projects was presented. Senior staff would then decide which prototypes would receive support to move forward.
6.1 Project 1. Gender, Violence, and Institutional Capacities.
Intention for change. This institutional capacity development project aspires to increase the quality of the Mexican government when dealing with crimes against women at a national, state, and municipal local level. The mobile behind the crime is carefully examined, including gender as one of the key considerations.
Current situation. - main challenges- Three main challenges were identified:
- the need for a “new identity” for the project
- the impact of a limited budget
- the urgent need to activate a political lobbying strategy to maintain the relevance of the project in the context of changing priorities at national and local levels
Challenges and Theory U. Using the U method, we could say the project is suspended in an analysis scheme.[21] Main causes:
- lack of priority in the Mexican government re gender and violence issues
- weak understanding of all relevant actors and potential change agents
- insufficient budget
Lessons Learned. “cultural resistances” need to be recognized all across the horizon, both internally and externally; more vital partners need to be identified; national gender priorities and budgets need to be aligned.
Where are we going? After the project review through the U exercise, the following areas were explored: to construct a new identity for the programme, which includes institutional resistance and cultural factors; to engage in an aggressive identification of new partners at the national and international levels; to activate proactive resource mobilizations strategies, explore new ways to mobilize resources; to strengthen the relationship with UNODC HQ, in order to harness the new commitment and more substantial presence.
6.2 Project 2. Open government, anticorruption through Results Based Budgets and Competency Assessments.
Intention for change. — In the context of open government, this project is geared towards building more robust institutional capacity in the fields of anticorruption, financial transparency, and ethical use of public resources; the implementation tool is based on Results Based Budgets (RBB)[22] Competency Assessments[23].
Current situation. — main challenges — The main challenge is overcoming institutional resistance to change. The current culture is based on “old habits, interest groups, functional validity” of a well-established political bureaucracy[24], which operates through hierarchies and pre-defined hidden rules; this way of operation is based on a “black box” principle that hides the interest of diverse groups in power.
This project aims to move into a new culture of open government and transparency, research the social field, which identify niches for possible innovation, and connect to the new generations within the bureaucracy.[25]
Challenges and Theory U. — This project demands a significant shift. Carefully assessing the social field and identifying niches and opportunities for change, new generations of public servants can identify new governmental counterparts that understand the benefits and historical need for open government and financial transparency. As expressed by the project manager, a vital lesson learned is found in the need to complement the “contractual” relationship of a client-service provider (payments delivered in exchange for products) à vrs — — the understanding of technical cooperation and development goals (agreed funds towards a common good).
Where are we going? There is a need to forge a new identity for the project, identify new counterparts committed to the benefits involved in this project, and make a “vertical prototype” assessment to discover whether the land is fertile for a project of this kind. With the new partners, research and identify lessons learned that can be used in the context of Mexico, and finally, it was proposed to learn by developing social prototypes through small “innovation laboratories” that can provide the project with landing strips of innovation for open government and against cultural resistance.
6.3 Prisons in México. The application of the Mandela Statutes, the UNAPS model. [26]
Intention for change. — To improve the quality of life of people living in the prisons of Mexico by designing and applying a standardized model that will improve the quality of incarcerated populations. This project aims to offer technical assistance to prisons in the State of Mexico to validate the UNAPS Model, also known as the Mandela Statutes in the Penitentiary of Tenancingo Sur. One of the hopes is that this model will be used nationally.
Current situation.- main challenges. The current challenges exist in three dimensions, the structural, political, and operative arenas. At a structural level, prisons are overpopulated; in some states, they are self-governed, and there is a fragile health system and a generalized breach of human rights. At the political level, long-lasting historical inertia reproduces the above-mentioned structural problems. At the operative level, there is
- resistance to change,
- the lack of professional training capacities for hired personnel, and
- a lack of political will to implement these types of innovation projects.
Challenges and Theory U. The project has worked at a pilot level in the Tenancingo Penitentiary for three years. It has lobbied to introduce the project’s principles as a national policy; it has introduced 91 Mandela standards; has applied assessment tools; and carried initial training in the Mandela Statutes to prison personnel. This has not been enough for the Mexican government. The project is in a transition period. It is trying to define how to move forward.
Lessons learned- the Mandela rules have been proven highly valuable in protecting human rights within prisons in different parts of the world. The UNODC pilot needs to prove powerful enough to convince Mexican authorities to move in this direction. An assessment is necessary regarding the fertility of the social field to move forward or not.
Where are we going?- UNODC believes that at a similar level in terms of a possible U assessment, the project needs to move forward in the following directions: a) training of personnel in the Mandela certifying mechanism, b) validation of the model in “various” prisons, not only the assigned one, c) Validating a UNAPS pedagogy that transmits the Mandela mandate to prison personnel with efficacy, and d) understanding of lessons learned at a global level in order to facilitate application in Mexico.
7. Recommendations. The emerging future within UN agencies. Technical cooperation for the next century.
From the theory of change perspective and the implementation of the “UNODC change laboratory,” the following recommendations were generated in three levels: for UNODC, for the UN system, and for the construction of the emerging future of the UN system.
7.1. Theory of change, innovation within UNODC.
· UNODC would benefit significantly if it defines a “Core Group”, of five professionals who have taken the U training to implement discoveries during the change laboratory.
· From technical to transformational leadership. Participants recognized that they practiced a log frame, a traditional, highly technical type of management in implementing their projects, by focusing their attention on controlling outcomes and outputs. Significant progress can occur by combining this with the five movements of Theory U. Mastering them can take the project manager into the realm of a “reflective and then a transformational leader”. Within a development agency, this should happen, given that transformational leaders take projects to their maximum potential; they welcome blind spots, identify desirable change, and prototype and test change. Transformational leaders have the tools to go from conventional action to profound change.
· Balancing the theory-practice gap. The change laboratory identified stuck areas within the project. Project managers then reviewed the U tools and selected which ones they could apply to the stuck arenas. By applying methods and tools, a significant balance between planning and execution can be achieved. During the workshop, we explored the potential in combining LogFrame as a planning tool and Theory U as a change management implementation strategy.
7.2 Theory of change, innovation within the UN system.
· UNODC has functioned like a pilot for the validation of the U within UN agencies in Mexico. It can lobby for replicating the “change laboratory as a living example of innovation within the UN family.
· UNODC can function as “fertile soil” for the unfoldment of innovation within the UN system in Mexico and Central America. The question is whether UNODC willing to activate the “core group” to begin systemic implementation of the abovementioned recommendations. If so, does it have the capacity to become a living example of the relevance of linking innovation / transformative leadership/planning/with robust implementation?
· Agencies that conform to the UN system in Mexico can benefit from UNODC’s novel experience by plunging into the “Theory U change laboratory”, training its personnel, applying it to projects, and experiencing a rebalancing between theory and practice.
· Transformational leadership, in action, could be one of the missing links that help the UN family build a different future, with new operational schemes that link planning with theory of change, more powerful implementation strategies, and the validation of sustainable truths.
7.3 How to design the emerging future for the UN system?
During the Ecosystem Leadership Programme, ELP[27] training in Berlin 2019, el Prof Scharmer presented the paradigm of “vertical prototyping.” [28] Aligned with the horizontal logic of social prototyping, it complements it by bringing in the vertical elements of causality that determine the sustainability of a process, project, and programme. Complementing the five movements of the U, it plunges vertically into three vertical components: source, soil, and seed. The central hypothesis or raison the etre claims that if source, soil, and seed are aligned and fertile, they provide the alchemy for sustainability. By complementing the horizontal U with the vertical root and integrating them as a whole system, one could claim that together they provide the platform to start the era of “vertical prototyping assessments” in the appraisal and determination of visible sustainability. We can observe this model in the following way:
In order to identify strengths and weaknesses for action, after the U training at UNODC, a strong recommendation would be to go into a “vertical prototyping assessment.” In order to guide a prospective exercise, the sequence, components, and questions are presented in this section. The sequence builds from bottom to top. It starts with the base on how the source, soil, and seed of the UNODC social field are constructed. As they are discovered to be fertile, from the innovation perspective, we could proceed with clarifying intention (metaphor as the Sun). Once in place, the horizontal U begins its journey going through shifts, co-sensing, presensing, stewards, and strategic action. As the horizontal and vertical processes merge, this gives birth to sustainable living microcosms. With the intention of mainstreaming change management and innovation methods into UN agencies, the sequence and main questions could look like this.
o Step 1. Source. This refers to the nature and composition of the origin. What is the ultimate cause of introducing change initiatives within the UN? Why does the UN system want to better its implementation scheme? Why must it be more responsible with its budgets, outcomes, and output? Why is it committed the UN committed to sustainability?
o Step 2. Fertile soil. This refers to the composition of the social field. What are the UN agencies doing in terms of mainstreaming and applying change methods and tools? What innovation programmes are being run? Who holds the leadership? What are the most relevant lessons learned? How can ongoing efforts be aligned?
o Step 3. Seeds. Genesis of a social prototype. Which UN agencies have identified the theory-practice conundrum as a challenge? Which one wants to improve the planning/execution continuum?
If fertility is found in the vertical dynamic of the U, then we can proceed with the horizontal journey as follows,
o Step 4. The Sun. Clarification of the intention. The intention is connected to the source. Why begin a systemic innovative change process within the UN?
o Step 5. Shifts. This step implies moving from intention to concrete objectives. Which are the objectives that run the initiative? What are the new priorities?
o Step 6. Co-sensing, harnessing the knowledge needed to implement this initiative successfully. How is innovation understood in the field of technical cooperation? ¿What change management paradigms, methods, and tools are being applied? What change laboratories have been implemented? Can we assemble a menu of change management methods for innovation in operation? What are the lessons learned?
o Step 7. Live microorganisms. This refers to social prototypes in operation. Can we put together an inventory of existing prototypes in action? Can we capture success stories in prototype implementation? What at the lessons learned that allow for replicability?
o Step 8. Stewards, Social Actors. Which are the UN agencies committed to change management and innovation? How do we identify the social agents that can push the work forward? Who are the best partners for implementation purposes?
o Step 9. Strategic action and evolution. Can we complete a “vertical prototyping assessment”? Can we hold and cross information in all nine fields? How does this take us to the next step of building integrated implementation strategies?
The road has been traced. Within UNODC, staff has been trained in the theory and practice of Theory U; projects in operation have been assessed, passed through the U, and enriched from the change management and innovation perspective. This could be the right moment to launch a “vertical prototyping assessment” as the basis for constructing an emerging future. We have traveled a long way. In the context of these changing times, we are in the crossroad that could allow us to build the future we need, a new, more flexible, and reliable technical cooperation based on innovation methods propelled by transformational leadership and more rigorous implementation strategies, capable of contributing to the new world order we all want and need.
FOOTNOTES
- Introduction.
[1] UNODC, stands for United Nations Office for Drug and Crime.
[2] Otto Scharmer, Theory U, Leading from the Future as it Emerges. The Social Technology of Presencing. BK, 2009.
[3] A social prototype connects head, heart and will, in terms of functions, curiosity, compassion and courage. Social prototypes are learning spaces, where we receive feedback from the social field, where we learn fast how to fail, and drive action forward into the future. prototypes are small steps forward that allow us to go into the future.
[4] Theory of change applied to a project focus on the relatioships between cause and effect, and also in the relationships between outputs, outcomes and impact. In this article, Theory U is understood as a sophisticated method that propels theory of change, through it systemic approaches that link symtoms with causes. Theory U is an effective theory of change method that focus on “praxis”, on getting things done, on the relationship between planning and implementation.
[5] Adam Kahane, Power and Love, BK, 2008.
[6] An invitation was made to take the ULAB 0X de MIT-EDX, on line course, for certification purposes.
2. Intention.
[7] Otto Scharmer, Listening, Presencing Institute, https://www.presencing.org/resource/tools/listen-desc
3. Objectives.
[8] Prof. Otto Scharmer, https://www.ottoscharmer.com/ the seven leadership skills are: 1. building strategic alliances based on trust; 2. system´s thinking; 3 silence, inspiration and new perspective, 4. testing social prototypes to learn; 5 cristalizing change, 6. linking head, heart, and hand, and 7. putting it all together in fertile soil.
4. The U method.
[9] Otto Scharmer, The Essentials of Theory U, Core Principles and Applications. BK, 2013.
[10] Arawana Hayashi. Social Presencing Theater, The Art of making a True Move, 2021
[11] Juanita Brown, The World Café, El nuevo paradigma de comunicación organizacional y social, CECSA, México, 2006
[12] Peter Senge and others, The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, page 193, Doubleday, 1994,
[13] Presencing institute, Resources, Prototypes, https://www.presencing.org/files/tools/PI_Tool_Prototyping.pdf
5. The U pedagogy
[14] Cirigliano y Villavrde, Dinámicas de Grupos y Educación, Edición 21, Humanitas, Argentina 1997.
[15] Presencing Institute, Tools https://www.presencing.org/resource/tools
[16] Social Presensing Theater, https://arawanahayashi.com/
[17] Otto Scharmer, https://medium.com/presencing-institute-blog/social-field-resonance-how-to-research-deep-structures-of-the-social-system-544d68654abf
[18] Kelby Bird, Containers, Medium, March 5, 2020 https://medium.com/presencing-institute-blog/containers-458a26083f00
6. UNODC projects.
[20] Otto Scharmer, Addressint the Blind Spot of our times, the social technology of Presencing. Presencing Institute, Presencing Institute — Resources — Executive Summaries
[21] Within the U paradigm “stuck” means paralyzed, statue one, no movement, trapped in the pangs of habits. At the same time, and from a fresh perspective “stuck” also means GOLD, having Access to all necessary information that allows you to break the paralysis. STUCK is GOLD is the motto.
[22] RBB is a methodology where budgets can be sanctioned and appropriately resourced to each intended result of a programme. In implementation, RBB can provide greater focus on financial flexibility and auditing, which can assist in achieving an adaptive approach to budgeting and results. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-results-based-budgeting-how-can-useful-owen-edwards/
[23] What is a competency or skills assessment? A competency assessment focuses on how well an employee is performing the required job skills in relation to specified performance standards. This approach identifies existing competencies and skills gaps of your current and potential employees.
[24] Bureaucracy is the structure and set of rules that control the activities of people that work for large organizations and government. It is characterized by standardized procedure (rule-following), formal division of responsibility, hierarchy, and impersonal relationships.
[25] In general terms, an open government is one with high levels of transparency and mechanisms for public scrutiny and oversight in place, with an emphasis on government accountability.
[26] UNAPS stands for, United Nations Advanced Prison Standards, in Spanish, Estándares Avanzado de Naciones Unidas para Prisiones.
8. Recommendations.
[28] Margaret Mead, has been known to claim, “one individual can easily lose himself/herself in the solitude of effort; a group of five can change the world. There are few existing transcendental changes achieved by individuals, but a group of five can achieve almost anything.”. in Otto Scharmer, Theory U. BK 2009.
[27] Presencing Institute, ELP, Ecosystem Leadership Programme. Berlin, March, June and November 2019.
[28] From bottom to top, is the source, the window to the soul; the soil is composed by sand and gravel, silts and clays, dead organic material, fauna and flora, water and air; seeds are an embryo capable of germination to produce a new life; a living microcosm flourishes when nourished; the sun is the intention, in synchronicity with the source; the U journey is love in action.
