IS CHANGE POSSIBLE?

RELEVANCE
OF ADKAR MODEL TO TRANSFORM
BANGLADESH CIVIL SERVICE
Mobasser Monem

Change Management

Michael Fullan, one of the most influential writers on change and change management of the last
20 years, has over the years been confronted with a very persistent question: “The question asked
with more and more frustration is: „If we know so much about the change process why don‟t people
use this knowledge?‟ The answer is twofold. One, we have not yet appreciated the organic,
evolutionary nature of the processes of human and organizational change ...; two, as we begin to
appreciate these processes, we realize that there can be no cookbooks or silver bullets.” 1 At the
same time, however, “... there is great vulnerability to packaged solutions because the change
process is so nerve wracking ...”2

Given the preceding paragraphs, it will come as no suprise that this Strategy Paper will not pay
attention to change management strategies that still pretend that change management is a highly
structured, meticulously planned, tightly controlled and mechanically implemented process. These
models are outdated and refuted extensively by the organisational development research,
literature and practice. 3 Its use is limited to small changes like the introduction of new software or
a minor reshuffle of positions. It still has a remarkable following among IT practioners, no doubt
because of its similarities with the IT design process. But given the deplorable success rate of
large scale IT projects, in which billions of dollars have been squandered, a well-planned rolling out
of a large IT infrastructure is more fable than fact.

I would also like to take the liberty to deviate slightly from the change management model
expounded in the preliminary documents to the CSCMP. Although I will certainly use this model
(the model suggested by John P. Kotter)4, it leans quite heavily towards a top-down strategy and
lacks the necessary elements for employee buy-in and learning. I therefore suggest that we
choose an equally popular methodology that does pay attention to these issues, provides enough
flexibility to accommodate the dynamic of change and that will give us a framework to think through
our strategies and actions. This methodology is called the ADKAR model.

ADKAR Model

The ADKAR model for individual and organisational change management has been developed by
Prosci, one of the leading business process design and change management research institutes.
The model has been put together by the Prosci Change Management Learning Center with the
input of over 1000 organisations from almost 60 countries (it is not a „typical‟ western model,

1
Fullan, p. 14
2
idem, p. 28
3
Baser, e.a., p. 79
4
John P. Kotter, Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail, in Harvard Business Review of
Change, Boston, 1998, p.1-20
imbued with western business, social and organisational values and only applicable in „western‟
circumstances). The ADKAR model is specifically designed to make sense of and align the many
different change-related activities within an organisation. As such, it will help us to develop the
crucial requirement of „change coherence‟.

The importance of „change coherence‟ is self-evident. The change management literature is in rare
agreement over the significance of „coherence‟ (although they wildly disagree on how to achieve
this). Fullan put it most eloquently: “With change forces abounding, it is easy to experience
overload, fragmentation and incoherence... Policies get passed independent from each other,
innovations are introduced before previous ones are adequately implemented, the sheer presence
of problems and multiple unconnected solutions are overwhelming. Many [organisations] make
matters worse by indiscriminately taking on every innovation that comes along ... so many
innovations, as decorations, superficially adorned.”5

Kaye Thorne, in her book Coaching for Change, looks at it from a different perspective:
“Sometimes change can be seen as overwhelming, and this is one of the main reasons why
change initiatives fail. Almost like a giant rabbit, frozen in headlights, an organization fails to
identify which direction to take. Alternatively, inidvidual managers and their teams run off in a set of
different directions, each well meaning but totally uncoordinated.”6

Both quotations paint a fairly accurate picture of the current state of affairs at BCS with regards to
innovation and change. Next to the Reform Agenda set by the current government, donor
organisation are funding and running, in partnership with selected departments, a remarkable
range of different activities. As stated earlier, coordination, aimed at achieving greater coherence
in all the reform and innovation actions going on, is a sine qua non for successful change at the
BCS.

ADKAR is an acronym, consisting of the first letter of its five building blocks:

Awareness - of why the change is needed

Desire - to support and participate in the change
Knowledge - of how to change
Ability - to implement new skills and behaviour
Reinforcement - to sustain the change

Associated with these five building blocks are traditional change-related activities. For example, at
the Awareness stage, analysis and communication play an important role. Training and education,
on the other hand, are part of the Knowledge block, while on-the-job coaching and collaboration
comes into play at the Ability stage.

The five building blocks of the ADKAR model are exactly what they say they are: building blocks,
i.e. each block, and the associated change-related activities, build on the achievements of the
previous block. In the ADKAR model, it does not make sense to start training people in how to
change if the trainees are not aware (or convinced) of the need to change and certainly have no
desire (i.e. are not motivated) to do so. Although in any change process, it might be necessary to
go back to one of the previous stages, randomly and opportunistically hopping around the stages
will produce no lasting results.

5
Fullan, p.27
6
Kaye Thorne, Coaching for Change: Practical Strategies for Transforming Performance, London, 2004, p.
11
The ADKAR model provides ample opportunity to accommodate the change-related activities
which take into account the dynamics of change (especially system thinking, complexity theory, the
learning organisation) as we discussed them in Part A. In the following paragraphs, we will take a
closer look at how this „theory‟ translates into practical activities in the framework of the ADKAR
model.

It will not come as a suprise that our main focus, at least initially, will be one the Awareness and
Desire stages. As we have seen, there is little doubt that there is a need for change at the BCS,
which is recognised as such by many of its members and stakeholders. That is, however, where
the agreement stops. There are many different answers to why exactly the BCS needs to change,
and how big this change has to be (ranging from some small adaptations to the total upheaval of
the organisation), and as long as there is no effort made to find a common denominator, the „need
of the strongest‟ will prevail. If that happens, all others will disengage (“your „need‟ not being my
„need‟, I do not see why I should walk the extra mile to get there”) and the change process will only
be owned by one party. No matter how senior or politically strong that party will be, it is never
enough to realise the change. In change management, it is very lonely at the top... “Top-down
mandates and bottom-up energies need each other.”7

A Sense of Urgency (Awareness)

For any change to happens, people must see (or be aware of) the need for change. If not, the
change will be seen as change for its own sake, and people will not move a finger to make it
happen. „Not establishing a great enough sense of urgency‟8, according to Kotter, is the first of a
chronological set of fundamental errors organisations can make when embarking on change.9 The
ADKAR Change Management Model also identifies awareness of the need for change as the first
step in the change process.

Establishing a sense of urgency, however, is not as straightforward as it seems. First of all,

urgency requires an organisation to face up to reality; to have a frank discussion on the current
state of the organisation, to ask the hard questions and to accept a couple of harsh, unpleasant
truths (it is not entirely incidental that one of the three key characteristics of a resilient organisation
is exactly the ability to face up to reality: “The fact is, when we truly stare down reality, we prepare
ourselves to act in ways that allow us to endure and survive extraordinary hardship”10). So the
question is: is the BCS able and ready to face up to reality?

The ambiguous answer to that question (yes and no) is a reflection of the second complication with
establishing a sense of urgency: it depends who you ask. There are many different factors which
determine whether somebody will respond postively or negatively to the question whether the BCS
has to undergo radical change. A senior manager of the BCS, who is at the end of his or her
career, might be more willing to ask the awkward questions than somebody in middle
management, who is still keen to build a career in the excisting system, or a land officer at upazilla
level, who is extremely vulnerable to repercussions from the centre. This land officer, however,
might also be so fed up with the structural inabilities of the system to deliver decent services and
getting personally blamed for it, both by the people and his superiors, that his answer will be a

7
Fullan, p. 19
8
Leading Change; Why Transformation Efforts Fail, by John P. Kotter, in: Harvard Business Review on
Change, Massachusetts, 1998, p. 3
9
“...: when the urgency rate is not pumped up enough, the transformation process cannot succeed and the
long-term future of the organization is put in jeopardy”, idem, p. 5
10
How Resilience Works, by Diane L Cuotu, in: Harvard Business Review on Building Personal and
Organizational Resilience, Massachutes, 2003, p. 9
resounding „yes‟, while a senior manager might decide not to rock the boat too much with his
pension in sight.

Do all these perspectives really matter? Isn‟t it enough that senior management has a great sense
of urgency for the need to change (supported by a strong political will)? Again, yes and no. It is
certainly crucial for any change to take place that the top is aware of its the urgency, and provides
leadership, but it is not enough, as literally hundreds of change processes have demonstrated. The
„middle‟ and the „bottom‟ must be equally convinced of the need to change, because they are the
ones who have to implement the changes.

In order to establish a sense of urgency and to make an effective case for change at the BCS, we
have to tap into the differences sources of motivation of the main actors in the reforms. By doing
so, we have to accept that these sources might be very different from our own and that it would be
rather counter-productive to project our sense of urgency upon the other. What‟s more, we have to
accept that motivational sources are, by and large, less altruistic and more prosaic than is often
acknowledged in the „do-good„ world of international cooperation. Self-interest plays a crucial role
in each individual‟s calculation to go along with the change. „What is in it for me?‟ is a more
effective question than „How to make the world a better place?‟.

Notwithstanding the need to incorporate the multiple perspectives on the need for change at the
BCS, „leadership‟ remains one of the crucial elements in mobilising and inspiring the movement for
change. In fact, „leadership‟ plays a crucial role in all the five stages of the ADKAR change
management model. Change needs champions. But change requires a certain kind of leadership
that might conflict with current reality at BCS. As has been remarked elsewhere, at the moment
change is driven by „visionary, heroic leadership‟. This type of leadership is risky: it puts the
ownership, drive and responsibility of change in the hands of a few instead of many. It is therefore
more than likely that the impetus for change will disappear with the transfer, promotion or
retirements of these leaders.

To be fair, this situation does not seem to be intentional. The BCS is stuck, and it does need strong
leaders to get out of the current „logjam‟. However, a shift from „heroic‟ to „catalystic‟ leadership will
preserve the benefits of strong (and brave) management, and at the same time open up the
possibility for a much broader support-base to implement and sustain change. „Catalystic
leadership‟ mobilises the immense people resources of the BCS, motivates and inspires the staff
member to make the fateful leap into the dark, provides (political) protection from external
interference, needed for homegrown evolution and development (i.e. guards the organisational
identity) and facilitates the change process by providing operational „space‟ for experimentation,
risk-taking, innovation and learning. By doing so, the leader devolves much of the responsibility for
the change process to those who have to realise the change, while at the same time steering the
organisation in the right strategic direction (i.e. guaranteeing and guarding change coherence),
taking care of the momentum and making certain that milestones are reached, celebrated and
institutionalised.

The change management strategy will initiate activities that will raise awareness of the need for
(particular) change at the BCS with all actors concerned. It will pay special attention to activities
that will communicate the sense of urgency felt by the „outside‟ world to the BCS.

Motivation to Change (Desire)

Being convinced of the urgency of change is necessary, but not sufficient. As the famous Royal
Dutch/Shell Group Planning already noticed in 1983 in their report Corporate Change: A Look at
How Long-Established Companies Change: “Identifying the opportunity or the threat was one
matter; stimulating the change necessary to take advantage of the opportunity was another. There
is a considerable difference between companies that stare blindly at threat and opportunity and
those that reacted and changed.”11

When people talk (and agree) about the need to change, they often use abstract or general terms.
There is an abundance of conferences and workshops all year round which conclude with noble
and wise statements on why change is needed, in environmental policies, in education, in public
administration, etc. But most of these grand words lead to nothing, not just because no actions are
formulated (in many cases there are concrete action planning sessions), but because the distance
between those big concepts and somebody‟s personal motivation is too great. When we stick to
the big words, change remains an abstract issue and nothing concrete will happen on the
workfloor.

People need stronger, more personally relevant reasons before they make the leap into the
unknown. “Complexity creates change. Change means facing the unknown. Facing the unknown
means anxiety.” 12 People fear change, especially when it is forced upon them. This is a crucial
moment in any change process: “There is good evidence that when people are put under pressure,
they regress to their most habituated ways of responding.” 13 It is one of the paradoxes of change
processes that when people are confronted with radical change, the majority freezes up and
bounces back to familiar routines. It is a common trait in human psychology: „you know what you
have, you don‟t know what you‟ll get‟. Being aware of the need for change is obviously not enough
for people to adopt the change.

To make the change, people have to dig deep into their personal reservoir of motivation. They
have to identify personal benefits of the proposed change. Will it enhance my career opportunities?
Will it make me more employable? Will I get more appreciation from my boss or the people I work
for? Will it make my working life easier? Are there possibilities for promotion? Will the changes
finally enable to realise my particular talents? Etc. If some of these questions are answered
positively, and it becomes clear that the proposed changes will cause a definite improvement in the
professional life of an individual employee, that employee will actively support the change process
and go the extra mile to make it a success. He has a desire to change.

If, on the other hand, the individual employee, after carefully weighting the personal pro‟s and
con‟s, comes to the conclusion that the proposed changes will actually lead to a sustantial
detoriation of his professional situation (e.g. more work without more appreciation or salary, more
responsibilities without more authority, more interference from his superiors, shifting blame for poor
organisational performance on the shoulders of individuals, becoming responsible for the
implementation of unpopular policies, etc.), he will openly or secretely resist or even sabotage the
change.

At the end of the day, all individuals and organisations involved in the change process ask
themselves the question “What is in it for me?”. “What can I gain, and what will I loose by making
this great leap into the unknown”. For the idealists among us, this might sound cynical or
opportunistic. They might be consoled by the fact that this self-interested calculation very often
include moral elements, such as the desire to make a meaningful contribution to the development
of Bangladesh. For the authoritarians among us, this might all sound rather irrelevant and

11
Unpublished, quoted in de Geus, p. 32. De Geus was Head of Planning at Royal Dutch/Shell at the time.
The work of this Planning Group has had immense influence on change management and organisational
development in the following decades.
12
Fullan, p.25
13
Karl E Weiuck, The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organisations: The Mann Gulch Disaster, in
Administrative Science Quarterly, December 1993, p.
cumbersome; after all, who really cares what a petty officer thinks. They, however, should be
warned that they will need the active support of as many „petty officers‟ as they can possibly get to
make the change process a success. As we saw earlier, human beings cannot be controlled and
manipulated like a machine, no matter how much authority their superiors possess.

This is not to say that change management is essentially a bottom-up process. In fact, both top-
down and bottom-up approaches are needed: the „Top‟, „Middle‟ and „Bottom‟ need each other to
make change a success. In the words of Fullan: “... that while top-down change doesn‟t work, we
still need the force of top-down mandate ... it is true that you cannot mandate local committment
and capacity, but mandates do matter. They put needed pressure on local reform, and they
provide opportunities for legitimizing the efforts of local change agents working against the grain.”
14

Change leaders invest a lot in talking and listening to the „workfloor‟, especially with those who do
not agree with certain elements of the change. “You often learn more from people who disagree
with you than you do from people who agree, but you underlisten to the former and overlisten to
the latter.”15 “Often those who resist have something important to tell us. ... People resist for what
they view as good reasons. They may see alternatives we never dreamed of. They may
understand problems about the minutiae of implementation that we never see from our lofty perch
atop Mount Olympus.” 16 Besides, “small groups of self-elected reformers apparantly seldom
influence their peers.” 17

Change leader “keep most activity loosely structured but rely on critcial structure point of priorities,
targeted measures, real deadlines and the responsibility for major outcomes”. 18 Crucially, change
leaders “do not try to micromanage change trhough a lot of rules, rigid structures and formal
channels of communication. Rather, [they] set up a system of people-based learning framed by a
few priorities and structures.” 19 „Catalystic‟ leadership proves extremely effective in organisational
change. Instead of trying to direct and control the whole process, change leaders make certain that
the right circumstances for change and learning are in place, while keeping a close eye on
strategies, priorities and coherence. They champion the change, both inside and outside their
organisation in words and deeds.

„Desire‟ and „motivation‟ are closely connected to „power‟. Development organisations have an
uneasy relationship with power issues and have traditonally shied away from them. Raw power
politics fit badly in the idealistic, equalitarian ideology of international development cooperation.
However, capacity development (the most important change event development cooperation tries
to achieve) is also, among other things, about the redistribution of access to resources, authority,
professional opportunities, etc. Strengthening the capacity of a particular institution, organisation,
department or even individual might very well be at the expense of vested interests of other actors
in the system. Capacity development disturbs the balance of power. Therefore, capacity
development and change in one sector will illicit reactions and responses from these other actors.
Power issues explain why many reform initiatives quickly bounce back to the initial status quo.

“Capacity development has frequently been portrayed as an apolitical process during which
participants willingly learn skills, techniques and behaviours that allow them to carry out their tasks.
IDAs have a long history of trying to depoliticise their interventions, or at least ignoring the political

14
Fullan, p. 19
15
idem, p.21
16
Maurer, R., Beyond the Wall of Resistance, Austin, 1996, p. 49
17
Elmore, R., Getting to scale with good educational practice, in Harvard Educational Review, 66, 1, p. 20
18
Fullan, p. 24
19
idem
aspects of capacity issues.108 Also, many country participants have enthusiastically colluded with
these efforts by trying to limit IDA interventions to the support of technical activities in an effort to
keep them away from sensitive issues of power and privilege.109 But many capacity development
activities, such as organisational restructuring, downsizing, skills development, privatisation and
transparency, are intertwined with issues of power, politics and vested interests. Such activities
may shift authority and influence from some groups and individuals to others. Ideas and identities
may be in conflict. Individual, groups and organisational interests are usually at risk. Elegant
technical solutions can make things worse rather than better.”20

However, it is an issue that has to be dealt with one way or the other, given the crucial importance
of motivation and desire in effective and sustainable change. If a certain change is perceived as
detrimental to a individual‟s, group‟s, community‟s or organisation‟s vested interest, resistance will
be fierce. Unlikely coalitions might be created, against which the typical naive idealism of
development cooperation, the objective truth of an academic analysis or the perfect logic of a
blueprint, are powerless.

In the case of the BCS, there are many power issues that are likely to affect the change process.
Many of these issues are being played out in the background or are simmering under the surface.
It is not always easy to put a finger on the real issue and the particular dynamics. Power politics,
after all, often is a shadow-play. The mere mention of it might be very controversial. However,
„power‟ has played an important role in the relationship between politicians and the BCS
(especially the cadres) since Independence. The relationship between the Ministry of
Establishment and the Public Service Commission (and, quite possibly, in the near future, the
Prime Minister‟s Office) is fraught with power issues, as are the relationships between the Ministry
of Establishment and the other Ministries. At yet another level, the protection of vested interests is
also visible in the Ministry of Establishment itself.

Vested interests and power are probably the most important driving forces in any system. It can
only be ignored at our own peril. An effective and sustainable change management strategy either
incorporates a critical amount of vested interests or succeeds in neutralising the perceived threat
to these vested interests. To achieve this, an acute and hard-boiled understanding of the relevant
power issues and some awkward horse-trading is necessary, as well as an acceptance of the fact
that the achieved change, for the moment, might be less than perfect (power issues being one of
the main reasons why change always is incremental)

The change management strategy will develop and implement activities that assist members of the
BCS in identifying their sources of motivation to change, and that create a desire for change at the
workfloor. The Programme will pay, in an implicit way, attention to „power issues‟ and offer a
platform to create win-win situations through common vision and planning sessions. The CSCMP
will also initiatite workshops of „Change Leadership‟, „Coaching for Change‟, etc.

Knowledge and Ability: Setting up a Learning Architecture

„Knowledge‟ and „ability‟ are at the core of the ADKAR change management model. Together with
sensitivity to the wider system and a strong sense of organisational identity, they form the „learning
organisation‟. Notwithstanding their importance, however, their formal manifestations (training,
workshops, study tours, etc.; see below) come after establishing a sense of urgency and a desire
to change. This sequence is crucial. To plunge straight into training (or to narrow change down to a
training needs assessment), without first addressing the need or creating the desire for change,

20
Baser, p. 71
useless. This paragraph, therefore, will not be prematurely concerned with the specific „change
training needs‟; it will instead deal with positioning „learning‟ in the change process and the setting
up of an enabling learning architecture.

„Learning‟ and „change‟ go hand in hand. „Learning‟ is „changing‟: after learning a new piece of
knowledge, skill or attitude, a public officer will think, act or behave differently. And changing can
be learned. But if the relationship between „change‟ and „learning‟ is so obvious, why has the
heavy emphasis on training in capacity development initiatives in general, and the massive amount
of all different kinds of training and education in all public administration reform initiatives in
Bangladesh in the last 10 years in particular, resulted in so little change? Is it possible that
„training‟ and „education‟ does not capture all, or maybe not even the most important elements, of
„learning‟?

Over the last decade, IDA have, again belatedly, started to take a closer look at the true nature of
„learning‟, and in which ways it can make a real contribution to capacity development and
change.21 Although there is still a long way to go (there is, for instance, much more to be learned
from educational psychology and organisational learning), this research at least provides us with
some answers to why previous „training‟ and „capacity building‟ (often just another word for
training) has produced so little change and has led to so much frustration, disappointment and
failure. The list of answers is long and depressing:

• Poor understanding of what „learning‟ consists of;

• Failure to distinguish between „individual‟, „team‟ and „organisational learning‟;
• Ineffective teaching methods (lecture-based);
• Poor understanding of „teaching‟ or „training‟, both on behalf of the clients as well as the actual
teachers and trainers;
• Teacher and trainers consistently selected on the basis of their knowledge and experience of the
subject, and not on their pedagogical qualities („experience‟ does not count for much; a bad
course given a hundred times remains a bad course);
• Inability to formulate proper learning objectives and to select appropriate learning activities;
• Excessive emphasis on knowledge, little on practical skills and none on attitudes;
• Limited instrumentarium to deliver learning experiences;
• Obsessive emphasis on formal learning at the expense of non-formal and informal learning;
• Simplistic view on what capacities and capabilities individuals, teams and organisations need to
perform;
• Neclegence of organisational sharing, nurturing and building upon the „learning outcomes‟
(Knowledge Management);
• Mistaken view that individual, team and organisational capacity is being build instead of
emerging, etc.

This is not the time and place to discuss all these points. That has already been done extensively
by others.22 For our purpose, it is sufficient to point out the main issues that have a direct impact
on our change management strategy:

1. First of all, „learning‟ is not „conditioning‟. People, teams and organisations cannot be
conditioned. „Learning‟ is not a matter of getting rid of old software and uploading a new one.
„Learning‟ is the acquirement of knowledge, skills, values, attitudes, experiences etc. that helps

21
e.g. the already mentioned Capacity, Change and Performance report by ECDPM, the Capacity for
Development: New Solutions to Old Problems by Earthscan and UNDP, and a Capacity Development
Brief by the World Bank Institute, titled Does Training Work? Re-examining Donor-Sponsored Training
Programmes in Developing Countries.
22
idem
 an individual or any set of individuals (teams, communities, businesses, organisations) to solve
problems, to deal with the demands of life, society, customers, etc, to realise potential, talents
and aspirations and, most important of all, to adapt to a changing environment. Learning has to
be relevant to the learner.

2. Secondly, most of „learning‟ takes place outside what we traditionally call „education‟ or
„training‟ (formal education). This is partly due to the fact that so much training is hopelessly
irrelevant, ineffective and inefficient. But even if training would be ideal (and it certainly true
that the BCS is in dire need of more relevant, effective and efficient training opportunities), and
available to everybody, it will still not be enough to have a real impact on the organisation, for
the simple reason that non-formal and informal learning (i.e. learning outside the formal
structures) constitutes the major part of people‟s, team‟s and organisation‟s learning
experiences. Conversations with colleagues, brainstorm sessions, discussions, debates,
research, presentations by colleagues, sharing sessions, excursions, study tours and other
kinds of exposure to new ideas and experiences, etc., are all powerful learning events. An
organisational learning architecture harnesses both formal and informal learning opportunities.

3. Thirdly, it is important to differentiate between „individual‟, „team‟ and „organisational‟ learning

and their respective impact upon the performance of the BCS. There are several reasons why
„individual‟ learning has such a limited impact. Clearly, the current transfer and promotion policy
at BCS is unhelpful. More seriously, however, is the lack of coordination between „career
planning‟ (in as far career planning, other than moving to a higher post, really exists) and
„individual training paths‟.23 Secondly, in most cases an individual will hit many invisble,
systemic obstacles which will prevent him from applying the new things learned (if, and this is a
big caveat, the learning event has actualy given him the capabily to apply anything24). But the
most important reason why individual learning (no matter how many officer are trained
indvidually) adds so little to the performance of the organisation is simply because the capacity
of a team and an organisation is much more than the sum of all individual capacities. In a team
and an organisation relationships, teamwork, knowledge sharing, shared responsibilitity,
communication structures, formal and informal structures, etc. all have a huge impact upon the
transformation of an individual‟s capacity into performance. It is only possible to capture all
these elements in learning if special learning activities are designed for teams and the
organisation, in addition to individual learning path.

4. Of these types of learning, individual, team and organisational, the team should be the prime
focus of the organisational learning architecture. Put differently, in an organisation, the team is
the core learning unit. You work together, you depend on each other to do your work, so why
not learn together? That is not to say that there should not be room for individual and
organisational learning possibilities, activities and event, on the contrary. But the circumstances
in which these types of learning are appropriate are much more limited than in the case of team
learning. In addition, it is important to note here that each type of learning might require a
different activity, event or process. In the case of individuals, for example, short training
courses, coaching, supported self-development, talent management, career planning, etc.,
might be suitable. In the case of organisations, however, we have to look at a total different
(and non-traditional) type of learning, such participatory strategic planning sessions, scenario-

23
I have talked to a landofficer who, after three years in the field, had build up an impressive knowledge and
experience in land-issues and the needs of the people, only to be transferred to a totally unrelated post.
Worse, in a few weeks time he would participate in an international training in Japan on Development
Economy, which was utterly unrelated to his next posting, and there were no prospects whatsoever that he
would use the new knowledge in the near future.
24
Forn example, the MATT2 progamme, a very good capacity strengthening programme pays precious little
attention to implementation and change management issues.
 building, outcome mapping, or, very fashionably these days, effective knowledge management
strategies. For teams, we have to concentrate on a combination of the two approaches (e.g.
team training, team coaching, team scenario building and outcome mapping), complemented
by the establishment of a „learning environment‟ in which brain-storming sessions, discussions,
debates, formalised knowledge and experience sharing sessions, excursions, relationship
building, etc. are facilitated and promoted.

5. „Organisational learning‟ for change involves more than a once-off effort to acquire some new
knowledge and skills (and have these solified in rules and regulations). According to some
Knowledge Management theories, there are two basic ways in which organisations learn: „first-
order‟ learning („single-loop‟) and „second-order‟ learning („double-loop‟). A „single-loop‟
learning organisation is able to correct mistakes, to perform existing tasks better, to make small
adjustments to existing practices, and, crucially, improvements usually come in the shape of
new rules and procedures. „Single-loop‟ learning organisations do not reflects upon objectives,
values, strategies etc. of the organisation. „Single-loop‟ learning organisations are in the repair
business. „Double-loop‟ learning organisations, on the other hand, do reflect upon their pillars.
By doing so, the members of the organisation take a more structural, reflexive view on why
they are doing the things they are doing, constantly comparing it to their vision, identity and
values. The process of questioning „sacred cows‟ is aimed at coming up with new ideas,
formats, procedures, at strengthening the capacity of an organisation to respond and adapt to a
changing environment and, crucially, at changing ingrained routines, attitudes and perceptions.
„Double-loop‟ learning is a continuous process and is basically about strengthening the
organisational capacity to constantly adapt and change.

6. A similar logic applies to „first-order‟ and „second-order‟ change. „First order‟ (superficial)
changes are changes relating to the formal aspects of an organisation or an institution such as
structures or the configuration of tangible assets. Examples of „first-order‟ change in the context
of the BCS are the introduction of a performance based appraisal system, a new recruitement
policy, digital services, etc. These changes can be seen as repairing an existing system. They
will not fundamentally alter, let alone transform, the civil service into a citizens-oriented
administration. „Second-order‟ (deep) changes, on the other hand, are much more
fundamental, and are often referred to as „culture change‟, „changed mindset‟, etc. Again, in the
context of the BCS, „second order‟ changes are changes involving altering mindsets, patterns
of behaviour, degree of legitimacy and the relationship between the formal and „shadow‟
system. Good examples are citizens orientation, civic engagement, responsiveness,
accountability, adaptability, flexibility, etc.

7. One last word on individual, team and organisational learning. There is a tendency, as there is
with many other „reform‟, „restructuring‟, „reenginering‟ and „transformation‟ related activities, to
focus on the internal requirements of the organisation. In the case of „learning‟, nothing
illustrates this point more acutely than traditional training needs assessment (TNA). Traditional
TNA only compares the current with the desired performance of an individual staff member, or,
if you‟re lucky, the current with the desired performance of a task or job (e.g. manager, UNO,
land officer, etc.). But what determines the desired performance of a task or job? Are these laid
down in job descriptions? But who or what determines what should be included in these job
descriptions? An external consultant? A highly experienced senior officer? What is in those job
descriptions? Tasks, skills or competencies? Proper job descriptions, which specify the desired
competencies, should certainly not be based upon the gut feeling of one or two self-proclaimed
experts, but on the needs of the organisation. But who determines what the organisation
needs? Senior management? But is senior management really able to know all the nitty-gritty
details, while at the same time maintaining a birth-eye view and a actute strategic sense? That
is superhuman. Aren‟t the needs of the organisation determined by developments in the wider
 system, by changing needs of the citizens, by changing interests of the business community,
by the changing policies of the current government, by current trends in development
cooperation, etc.? In short, „learning‟, in the sense of acquiring new knowledge, skills and
attitudes in order to adapt to the changing environment and to realise the ambitions and
aspirations of individuals, teams and the organisation as a whole, is closely connected to the
„system‟. Effective individual, team and organisational „learning‟, therefore, far from being
inward looking, should be outward looking, in constant touch with external developments,
looking for new ways to establish relationships and partnerships, engaging stakeholders in
experiments, solutions and innovation, and by continuously reflecting on the internal
implications of the shifts in the wider system and on the repercussions of seemingly internal
changes on the wider environment. A proper learning architecture facilitates this constant
interaction with the wider environment, through stakeholders meetings, round table discussions
with citizens, outcome mapping sessions with the business community, etc.

With the previous points in mind, we can begin to see the contours of a new learning architecture
that promotes „second-order/double loop learning‟, and that will enable the BCS to develop the
necessary capacities to evolve, grow, adapt and change, based on its own organisational identity,
starting from its own strengths and aimed at becoming a resilient and responsive Bangladesh Civil
Service, home grown, tailor-made to the needs of the people, the government and other
stakeholders. This authentic learning architecture does not require external parties determining the
training needs of the BCS, nor the systematic provision of training opportunities by outside parties,
except when specifically requested to fill up a temporary lacune (and even then all efforts should
be aimed at strengtening the capacity of the BCS to mend this lacune itself, instead of being
depended upon external interference ad infinitum.)

It is highly inapropriate, given all that is said above, to predetermine an exact and fixed learning
architecture for the BCS. That has to be done in careful consultation with the all the „learning
providers‟ of the BCS, including the numerous foreign „training providers‟. However, we would like
to include a few pointers in this Change Management Strategy Paper that will set everybody
involved on the most productive course towards an effective learning architecture for BCS:

1. Internal „learning providers‟, such as the APD, BCSAA, BIAM, BPATC, PSC and the MoE, as
well as the external „training providers‟, like DFID, Worldbank, ABD, UNDP, NORAD, KOICA
etc., need to have, first separately and at a later stage together, an honest discussion and
analysis on the limited impact of their current training policies, its many causes (as discussed
above) and come to some kind of agreement on how to move forward (keeping the capacity
development research of the last decade in mind). If necessary, UNDP/CSCMP can take the
lead in this process.

2. Subsequently, all these players will have to participate in a respectful, positive and future-
oriented debate (preferably in the shape of a Strategic Planning Session or a similar method)
on what their role, responsibility and place could be in the envisaged learning architecture, and
how they can collaborate, in the most effective way, to realise their part in the formal part of the
learning architecture. Turf wars should (and can, depending on the proces used, easily) be
avoided. Again, UNDP/CSCMP can facilitate these meetings.

3. Parallel to these coordination efforts, the Ministeries, under the guidance of the MoE (probably
the CPT Wing, together with the Development Wing), and quite possibly with the rejuvenated
PSC, will establish the necessary conditions for an integrated career planning, individual
training paths, talent management, promotion policies based on merits and learning, etc., as
well as;
4. The creation of learning spaces and activities at the departmental and team level (see above),
in which space is created for experimentation, brainstorms, open discussions, risk-taking and
knowledge sharing, fully supported and championed by the Change Leaders, who will take
care of breaking down the multiple (structural) barrieres and protect the learning teams from
resistance and interference.

5. Alternative learning methods, such as coaching, e-Learning and knowledge management

should actively be explored as part of the learning architecture.

6. The establishment of several platforms on which BCS teams will regulary meet up with
stakeholders from the wider system, and of internal mechanisms in which the acquired
information with be shared, discussed and processed in concrete adjustments to working
processes.

7. When all this is set in motion, a high-level body with representatives of all different
stakeholders in the learning community (ranging from Ministeries, IDA, and learning teams) will
take stock of the lessons learned and try to impose some coherence (while allowing for the
necessary flexibility) and establish an appropriate learning achitecture. This type of meetings
should be held on a regular basis, for evaluation and adjustments purposes. The leading
organisation should be, for the moment, the Ministry of Establishment, although, depending on
future developments, another government agency might take over.

Reinforcement: Keeping the momentum

It is the sad faith of most change management efforts that, after initial successes, organisations
tends to bounce back to the days before the change. Sustaining the changes proves to be one of
the most difficult challenges in any change management strategy. According to Kotter, the last and
one of the biggest errors in any change management effort is the failure to anchor the change in
the corporation‟s culture. The following quote might illustrate the dangers along the line:

“In the final analysis, change sticks when it becomes „the way we do things around here,‟, when it
seeps into the bloodstream of the corporate body. Until new behaviours are rooted in social norms
and shared values, they are subject to degradation as soon as the pressure for change is
removed.
Two factors are particularly important in institutionalising change in corporate culture. The first is a
concious attempt to show people how the new approaches, behaviours, and attitudes have helped
improve performance. When people are left on their own to make the connections, they sometimes
create very inaccurate links ... Helping people to see the right connections require
communications. Indeed, one company was relentless, and it paid of enormously. Time was spend
at every major management meeting to discuss why performance was increasing. The company
newspaper ran article after article showing how changes has boosted earning.
The second factor is taking sufficient time to make sure that the next generation of top
management really does personify the new approach. If the requirements for promotion don‟t
change, renewal rarely last. One bad succession can undermine a decade of hard work ... Within
two years, signs of renewal began to disappear ...”25

It is for this reason that the ADKAR model emphasizes Reinforcement as one of the most crucial
stages of the change management process. Reinforcement, or better sustainabilty, hinges on at
least the following elements, many of which have been discussed more extensively previously:

25
Kotter, p. 18-19
Ownership: To be sustainable, the change process must be owned by the BCS. Although this
might sound obvious, “the international development community appears to devote only
modest efforts to understanding the issues of ownership and motivation despite their
obvious importance.”26 There are several repercussions which are not always reflected in
externally initiated change processes.27

• In the first place, change should be based upon the organisation‟s perceived needs, interests
and demands.
• Secondly, the starting point of change should be the current situation, as perceived by the BCS.
An external expert might very well be right that the situation is different, but for „ownership issues‟
(and much else) that is irrelevant.
• Thirdly, change should link up with internally emerging opportunities and possibilities, not with
externally imposed wish lists.
• Fourthly, change should not contradict or deny the values and identity of the organisation.
• Fifth, „ownership‟ should be spread equally through the organisation, and not just be limited to a
small group of senior managers. Petty officers, young senior assistant secretaries, field officers,
UNOs, etc., need to equally „own‟ the change process to find the motivation and desire to go the
extra mile. “... progress on capacity development depends critically on the level of
• ownership, commitment and motivation of country actors, i.e. their ability to commit and
• engage. ..., participants who were determined to develop their capacity overcame all sorts of
constraints and obstacles, while those with less resolve made little progress.”28
• Last but not least, „ownership‟ of the change process has to be extended, to a certain degree, to
the many stakeholders (citizens, businessmen, politicians, the international development
community, etc.), in order to share the responsibility for the Herculian task.

Leadership: As Kotter already mentioned, consistent leadership is important. If the current leader,
who believes strongly in the need for change and the change process, is succeeded by a less
enthousiastic champion, the chances are that the change will peter out. However, this problem can
be mitigated when the ownership of the change process at BCS is inclusive (as discussed above)
and when the BCS adopt the „catalystic‟ style of leadership. „Catalystic leaders‟, in fact, in leading
by example, will be able to sustain the momentum, oversee the spread of the changes to other
departments, keep sight on the strategic directions, provide space and support when things
become difficult, and, crucially, inspire, communicate and celebrate milestones and achievements.

“A key contribution of leadership for capacity development was that of a strategic mindset.
In the cases, some senior managers showed a genuine interest in, and commitment to,
capacity development as an end in itself. They wanted to help create and strengthen the
institutions and organisations that their country needed to make progress. They
persuaded their organisations or networks to be „mindful‟ about capacity issues. Such
managers also developed a sense of strategic management and adaptation, i.e. the
ability to adapt the system or organisation to the needs and challenges that it was facing.”29

Coherence: „Coherence‟ has been mentioned already many times. Although it is important in all
stages of the ADKAR Change Management Model (e.g. it will be impossible to establish a sense of
urgency if there if the reasons and the plan for change are confused, contradictory and illogical,

26
Baser, p. 60
27
Quite beside the fact that the inluence of external partners to develop capacity and create change in much
more limited than usually thought, given endogenous and emerging character of capacity and change, a
central idea in Baser et al.
28
idem, p. 59
29
Baser, p. 70
people will not get motivated to participate in the change if it is not clear why and in what direction
it is going, learning, innovation and adaptation will lack a definite goal, etc.), it is crucial to sustain
the change and transformation in the long term. Without coherence, i.e. an overall idea, concept,
strategic direction which binds all the change efforts together (and decides what should and should
not be done), the change process at the BCS will result in a few successful projects, many failed
ones, some innovated departments and services and a lot of ministeries and offices still stuck, etc.
Without coherence, the majority of the organisation will miss out on the change process, and they
will be very capable of sucking the whole organisation back to its starting point. Without coherence,
the whole change process is nothing more than well-intended window-dressing.

Participation: For any change to become institutionalised, participation of all concerned is needed
from the beginning. „Participation‟ is closely connected to „ownership‟. If an officer, a wing, a
department, or even a whole ministry in not actively involed and engaged in the change process,
they will not consider it „their change‟ and ignore, resist or sabotage it. Active participation will illicit
motivation and desire, unleash energy and creativity, and will almost automatically lead to shared
responsibility for the success and sustainability. „Participation‟, in the real sense, cannot be forced
upon officers by senior managers. Real participation, and thus real motivation and desire, is the
result of a process in which the officers etc. are actively involved at all the stages of the ADKAR
Change Management Model. For this, there is a whole range of participatory planning techniques,
that have proven extremely successful in engaging people. The CSCMP has already started using
some of these techniques and intends to continue doing so.

Operational Space: For change to happen, people need a risk-free, trusted and shielded
environment to experiment and to learn (also from their mistakes). Moreover, the BCS has to be
protected from undue pressure for (impossible) quick results from the outside. Good leaders
provide that space. In the case of BCS, that also means that a certain culture change might be
needed. Too many discussions are still governed by rules of seniority and hierarchical
relationships. Junior officers are sometimes not allowed to talk in the presence of their superiors.
This is not a conductive environment (operational space) for an open discussion, a critical
reflection on current practice, the free flow of ideas, the generation of new and more effective ways
of doing things, learning, etc. Without the commitment to and the provision of this operational
space, ownership, real participation, learning, etc., which will be needed to sustain and
institutionalise the changes becomes very hard.

Continuous Learning: The learning architecture discussed above plays a crucial role in
Communication (zie Kotter)
Incentive structure
Patience (Change is never revolutionary, but always evolutionary and incremental)