O C T O B E R 2 0 0 0

Workshop Summary:"CG CENTERS WORKING WITH DIVERSITY FOR EXCELLENCE AND IMPACT"ICRAF, NAIROBI KENYA. 18-22 SEPTEMBER 2000

P R E P A R E D B Y : ANNE ACOSTA

27

gender diversityA PROGRAM OF THE CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON

INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH (CGIAR)

working paper

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CGIAR

The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) was created in 1971 from an association of public and private members that support a system of 16 international agricultural research centers known as Future Harvest Centers. Working in more than 100 countries, The Future Harvest Centers mobilize cutting-edge science to reduce hunger and poverty, improve human nutrition and health, and protect the environment. The Centers are located in 12 developing and 3 developed countries and are sponsored by The World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) The CGIAR budget in 2000 was US $340 million. All new technologies arising from the Center’s research are freely available to everyone. For more information about the CGIAR, see: www.cgiar.org

GENDER AND DIVERSITY PROGRAM

The CGIAR Gender and Diversity Program serves to cultivate a workplace where diversity is celebrated and all staff are empowered to give their best to enrich future harvests. Its overall goal is to assist the 16 CGIAR Centers to seek out and collectively gain from the diversity inherent within the global organization. The Gender and Diversity Program grew out of a 1991 CGIAR initiative on gender staffing aimed at assisting the Centers to promote the recruitment, accomplishment, advancement and retention of women scientists and professionals

In 1999, this program was broadened to include diversity. The program provides support to the Centers through small grants, technical assistance, and management consulting, training, and information services. The CGIAR Gender and Diversity Program is hosted by ICRAF (Nairobi, Kenya) and the Program Leader is Vicki Wilde (v.wilde@cgiar.org). The Gender and Diversity Program seeks to use diversity to strengthen internal and external partnerships that enhance the relevance and impact of the Centers, by creating and maintaining an organizational culture that:

Attracts and retains the world’s best women and men; Encourages the recruitment and promotion of under-represented groups; Establishes a workplace climate of genuine respect, equity and high morale; Promotes a healthy balance between professional and private lives; Inspires world-class competency in multi-cultural teamwork, cross-cultural communication and international management; Empowers and enthuses all women and men in the system to maximize professional efficacy and collectively contribute their best; and Rewards leadership, creativity and innovation that employs and celebrates diversity in the Centers.

CGIAR CENTERS CIAT CIFOR CIMMYT CIP ICARDA ICLARM ICRAF ICRISAT IFPRI IWMI IITA ILRI IPGRI IRRI ISNAR WARDA

Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (COLOMBIA) Center for International Forestry Research (INDONESIA) Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (MEXICO) Centro Internacional de la Papa (PERU) International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (SYRIA) International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (MALAYSIA) International Center for Research in Agroforestry (KENYA) International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (INDIA) International Food Policy Research Institute (USA) International Water Management Institute (SRI LANKA) International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (NIGERIA) International Livestock Research Institute (KENYA) International Plant Genetics Resources Institute (ITALY) International Rice Research Institute (PHILIPPINES) International Service for National Agricultural Research (THE NETHERLANDS) West Africa Rice Development Association (COTE D’IVOIRE)

1

Table of contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXCERPTS FROM THE REMARKS OF 3 IAN JOHNSON, WORLD BANK VICE-PRESIDENT AND CGIAR CHAIR 3 WORKSHOP SUMMARY 6 Objectives of the G&D Program and workshop 6 Participants and panelists 7 Workshop outcomes 7 Preliminary proposals for action 9 Next steps 10 NOTES ON THE WORKSHOP, “CGIAR CENTERS WORKING WITH DIVERSITY FOR IMPACT AND EXCELLENCE” 12 Session 1: Working with the G&D Framework 12 Motive forces for attending to diversity 13 Understanding the three lenses of diversity 14 The social identity/social differences lens 15 Session 2: Institutionalizing gender issues and program performance 17 Diversity tool #1: Theory and practice of appreciative inquiry 18 Diversity Tools #4 and #5: Identifying cross-cultural differences and leveling the playing field 21 Diversity tool #6: The Problematic Moment Approach 24 “Reflection and Integration for Moving Forward” 26 Diversity tools #7 & 8: Approaches to organizational change 27 Diversity Tool #8: addressing resistance and monitoring progress around gender and diversity interventions 29 DIVERSITY WORKSHOP FOLLOW-UP PLANS 34 LIST OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 38 WORKSHOP PANELISTS’ BIO-NOTES 42 WORKSHOP AGENDA 47 LIST OF G&D BACKGROUND RESOURCES PROVIDED 49 Folder 49 Notebook Table of Contents 49 DEFINITIONS OF DIVERSITY 53 Definitions of Diversity Using Different Lenses 53

2

Broad definitions 54 MOTIVE FORCES FOR DIVERSITY 57 THE “4-D+” MODEL OF AN APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY 60 WHAT IS A PROBLEMATIC MOMENT? 62 The problematic moment approach to studying group behavior 62 Concepts related to problematic moments 63 The phenomenon of a problematic moment 64 ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE/DIVERSITY INTERVENTION MATRIX 66 Guidelines for Using the Diversity Intervention Matrix 66 FROM MONOCULTURAL TO MULTICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS: A DEVELOPMENT PATH 68 THE MICRO-LENS: A MULTICULTURAL ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT TOOL 70 STRATEGIC ACTION PLANNING FORMS 72 Strategic Planning handout 1 72 Strategic Planning Handout 2 72 Strategic Planning Handout 3 73 Strategic Planning Handout 4 73 Strategic Planning Handout 5 73 Strategic Planning Handout Six 74

3

Excerpts from the remarks of Ian Johnson, World Bank Vice-President and CGIAR Chair

Excerpts from the remarks of Ian Johnson at the CGIAR Gender and Diversity Program workshop reception, ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya, 18 September 2000

I believe that gender and diversity issues must be part of the CGIAR’s agenda for change--but not because we all like to be politically correct.

One reason is that we can't lecture the world about these issues unless we walk the talk. We must be more gender-sensitive, more attuned to whether our own policies are gender-biased. What we do within our institution is every bit as important as what we urge other institutions to do.

Another reason is that if we're interested in cost-effectiveness and efficiency we’d better seek out the very best people. To ignore half the world is ludicrous. We've got to recognize that we cannot do our job if we don't bring to bear the perspectives of all stakeholders.

We must think of gender and diversity in terms of mutual respect. Our chief resource is not money but people. It's our ability to work well with 9,000 people to really make a difference–9,000 people whom we treat as colleagues.

We must honor our commitments to our staff members. If technically and scientifically they know their business, they should have equal opportunities. They should not be denied those opportunities because of their gender or the passport they hold, or their sexual preferences.

Joining an international organization can be an overwhelming event for many people. It requires adjustment to multi-cultures, new processes, etc. I personally found it daunting to come to a place like the World Bank, and I'm sure many people coming into an international system find the experience daunting. We have to do everything in our power to make the transition an easy one for them.

When I first came to my current position, I insisted that all of my senior managers mentor at least two Part II women because these women faced many challenges in what was a largely male-dominated organization. I myself mentored two people,

4

advising them on their career paths within the Bank. I can assure you that this mentoring initiative is paying off.

Real change will come about when the leaders of the CG Centers embrace diversity and demonstrate their commitment to gender equity. That commitment is not politically expedient–it makes business sense. Insensitivity to diversity and gender issues cannot be tolerated. As we move forward, we've got to get tough.

Our president is also very committed to the diversity and gender objectives of the CGIAR and both he and I view quotas as tokenism at its worst. Merit will always win out. Let's make sure that we cast the net wide enough to find the best people.

Each year I sign a confidential Diversity Agreement with the President of the World Bank in which I commit to ensuring that the importance of diversity is recognized in each and every appointment I make in my Vice Presidency and in the ESSD Network Bank-wide. At the end of each year Jim Wolfensohn sits down with me to evaluate my performance. If I have not made progress in increasing the diversity of perspectives that are brought to bear on our work, I can assure you that I will be unhappy. And I should be unhappy because I will have failed to honor my commitment to diversity, and the organization will have experienced efficiency losses as a result.

I am concerned by the fact that the CGIAR's efforts to increase diversity and ensure gender equity have been funded as a special initiative, as if they would go nowhere without funding from special grants. These efforts must be part of our core business. They affect our effectiveness and efficiency and should be funded from core resources. I would like to suggest that our Secretariat make resources available to demonstrate our commitment to diversity and gender equity objectives and to encourage the Centers to continue funding this important work and basic priority for the CGIAR. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in any way.

I wish you all success in the forthcoming days and look forward to learning the outcome of your Workshop.

5

CH

APT

ER 1

: Wor

ksho

p su

mm

ary

6

Workshop summary OBJECTIVES OF THE G&D PROGRAM AND WORKSHOP

The objective of the CGIAR Gender and Diversity (G&D) Program is to institutionalize the leadership, skills, policies and norms that will ensure the CG Centers’ capacities to work with and capture the full benefits of staff diversity. The G&D Program is designed to be a CGIAR Center-driven initiative, with the central program office providing cutting-edge training, management consulting and technical assistance, information and other services to strengthen “working with diversity” in complex international, multicultural settings. In its first year, the G&D Program laid the groundwork for in-depth diversity work, including:

Commissioning a comprehensive survey of organizational experience with diversity issues, resulting in the publication of the monograph: Working with Diversity: A Framework for Action; Collecting employment and salary data from the 16 international Centers and analyzing it by gender and nationality, to update the periodic CGIAR human resources study and generate the first CG-wide assessment of salary and positional equity; and Expanding and strengthening a systemwide network of focal points, both international and national, to be the Centers’ liaisons with the G&D Program.

The workshop of the Gender and Diversity Program, held September 18-22, 2000, at ICRAF headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, was the first face-to-face meeting between G&D Program staff and representatives of the 16 Centers, and marked the beginning of a transfer of models and methods to the individual Centers. The workshop had five objectives:

For each Center to define its own diversity issues, and recognize why they matter to the Center’s work and the success of the organization; For the individual Centers to learn from each other’s successes and from the experience of world-class diversity experts; To identify Center-level challenges and the specific areas in need of change; To learn positive, practical and feasible tools and methods for constructive diversity work;

7

To draft initial two-year Center-level diversity strategies of direct relevance.

The remarks of the CG Chairman Ian Johnson on the critical linkages between leveraging diversity and achieving the CGIAR’s mission, underscored for the participants the importance of the workshop and subsequent results at the Center level.

PARTICIPANTS AND PANELISTS

Workshop participants themselves constituted a very diverse group (see Annex I for participant list). All 16 CG Centers were represented, in several cases by both internationally and nationally recruited staff. Of the 23 CG participants, eight were national staff, seven were IRS researchers or program staff, ten were human resource managers, and two were senior managers. In addition, five non-CG institutions sent representatives: CARE International, IDRC, the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Makarere University (Uganda), and the UN Child Health Services. Sixteen nationalities were represented among the total of 29 participants. Six world-class panelists were responsible for delivering the content of the workshop (their biographical notes are in Annex II). The workshop was designed and facilitated by Vicki Wilde, G&D Program Leader.

WORKSHOP OUTCOMES

The “work” of the workshop fell into three categories (see also Annex III – workshop agenda):

1. Understanding and applying the Working with Diversity framework, in particular the three lenses of diversity – social differences, cultural and cognitive-functional – and working through a diversity analysis of the participants’ own sources of privilege and disadvantage.

2. Learning about and applying cutting edge tools for working with diversity, including:

Appreciative inquiry – an interview-based approach that documents an organization’s past successes and builds on them to create a strong positive vision for the future; Gender and institutional performance – a tool to identify the characteristics of a gender-sensitive institution, appraise the level of gender sensitivity within an organization, and link improvements to program performance; Cultural values checklist – a list that highlights differences among individuals and groups around core values and beliefs in order to develop more inclusive group norms;

8

Problematic moment – an approach which encourages groups to analyze turning points in their conversations that shut out non-mainstream people and ideas; and Key interventions and organizational change strategies – strategies to help the Centers move from monocultural to multicultural.

3. Hands-on strategic planning exercises to enable all participants to turn workshop ideas into practical next steps that will generate positive results for their Centers.

From the participants’ perspectives, the workshop was quite successful. They gave an average final evaluation ranking of 4.0 out of 5.0, with scores ranging between 3.6 and 4.5 for workshop content, process and how well the objectives were met. At this stage, the participants’ contributions, or outputs, are only preliminary formulations of Center challenges and action steps. However, they still reflect considerable awareness, analysis and the application of newly learned tools to Center issues. The connections the participants drew between better management of gender and diversity and improved performance and impact are listed below (see also “Pyramid of Interests”, pp. 19-20 in this report).

Greater (leveraging of) diversity will enhance organizational performance and impact in the following ways:

G&D will enrich research topics because diversity brings broader perspectives, divergent viewpoints and more creative approaches to research issues and possible solutions. A diverse staff is more likely to represent and interact with a more diverse set of beneficiaries, increasing the likelihood of good technology design and more rapid dissemination. Diversity implies a wider coverage of language and disciplines, greater familiarity with different ecosystems and better use of global staff. Better diversity management implies more effective internal teamwork and greater productivity. Externally, it can lead to improved partnerships and greater credibility with NARs, policy-makers and donors.

Greater sensitivity in the management of diversity will also enhance organizational excellence by:

Increasing the ability to attract and retain quality staff from diverse backgrounds; Reducing stress and generally improving the quality of both professional and personal life;

9

Improving opportunities for and the productivity of national staff; and Increasing respect and understanding among staff and generally improving the climate in the workplace, leading to greater productivity.

Center participants incorporated diversity management into vision statements for excellence and impact as follows:*

“Every individual in my Center feels she/he is treated with professional respect and dignity.” “[IARC] is a center in which all staff members feel valued, respected and accepted for their diversity (including gender, age, culture, race, education, profession, etc.). Staff members are highly motivated and work in a stimulating environment.” “[IARC] is an organization where there is national diversity at a level that creates confidence and overall unity within the organization, and facilitates rich contributions of skills, knowledge and perspectives.” “We attract, recruit and retain high quality and diverse staff.” “We present research that is accepted by our stakeholders as having a credible and broad perspective to impact policy changes.” “[IARC] gives attention to gender and diversity issues in order to build partnerships and reinforces positive organizational change with global systems of agricultural research."

PRELIMINARY PROPOSALS FOR ACTION

The most important output of the workshop was the set of preliminary action plans developed by participants and identified as key to moving the gender and diversity agenda forward, including:

Strengthen and intensify efforts to recruit women and Southern professionals at all levels of the Center and for management positions in particular, using the G&D Program’s database and other pro-active measures to better tap into underrepresented labor pools.

* The statements and actions listed here are quoted without attribution to a particular Center or participant,

to protect confidentiality, given that these draft ideas have yet to be endorsed by Center management (and in some cases, had yet to be presented or discussed with them as of the time of publication of this workshop summary).

10

Assess diversity among staff from the social, cognitive and cultural perspectives. This analysis should be shared among staff to increase awareness of gender and diversity issues. Establish (revive) a Gender and Diversity Committee in the Center with broad representation from staff groups, and provide Committee members with orientation and training to enable them to foster communication and understanding of G&D issues among Center staff. Develop statistical indicators to track gender and diversity for each level of NRS and international employees, including project scientists, IRS, senior management, etc., and within international searches (G&D composition of search committees, applications received, steps taken to reach more applicants). Use appreciative inquiry to benchmark the Center’s best practices regarding diversity management and the benefits that flow from good practice, to motivate management and staff to do more in this area. Enhance staff’s skills and awareness of diversity in international teams in order to improve impact. Implement a multi-source assessment/evaluation process to strengthen cross-cultural sensitivity and leveraging of diversity in international teams. Institute a mentoring program to improve integration of women and Southern staff into Center activities, and to assist with retention and advancement of underrepresented demographic groups. Review Center policies and benefits (and their implementation), and seek ways to create a more enabling and supportive workplace environment for all staff, including women and men, national and international.

NEXT STEPS

The workshop was designed as the first of several steps in the Centers’ development of gender and diversity strategies. Workshop participants contributed their ideas and formulated preliminary drafts of Center strategies. Next, these drafts will be shared with Center management and staff, followed by an e-conference, tentatively scheduled for January 2001, with participation from Board Chairs, Directors General and other senior management of the CG Centers. Strategy development and action planning will continue during the first few months of 2001, culminating in the presentation of Center action plans at the CGIAR Mid-Term Meeting in 2001.

11

CH

APT

ER 2

: Not

es o

n th

e wor

ksho

p

12

Notes on the workshop, “CGIAR Centers Working with Diversity for Impact and Excellence”

Vicki Wilde (VW) opened with a summary of the findings of the 1999 demographic survey of CGIAR IRS. This report, to be distributed at ICW’2000, contains:

The gender profile of CG IRS and related issues; The diversity profile (national background) of CG IRS and issues; Compensation issues by gender and diversity (labor economist analyzing equity in pay). VW followed with an exercise that engaged participants in learning about many of the trends in gender and diversity staffing patterns in the CG.

SESSION 1: WORKING WITH THE G&D FRAMEWORK

Overview: 1. What is diversity? (Definitions–level 1) 2. Why diversity? What forces make diversity worth pursuing? 3. What is diversity? (Analysis–level 2) 4. How to do diversity? (Change strategies to be covered during Day 4)

Brainstorming about what is diversity brought out participants’ definitions, compared to other definitions offered in the workshop notebook handout, “Definitions of Diversity” (see Annex V.1). EH highlighted the following:

“Diversity” comes into play at the individual level (each of us carries different kinds of diversity) and the group/social level (what happens when diverse people come together). With many permutations of diversity present in different organizations, one needs to make a strategic decision about which aspect(s) of diversity serve as the best entrée for study and change. To the extent possible, the organization should strive to align all aspects of its internal dynamics in support of gender and diversity, e.g., not just recruitment, but also leadership, mission, etc. The 10-cell organizational model (below) illustrates the various components that need to be brought into alignment, and how the organization needs to

13

align its internal dynamics and purpose with its environment. It was noted that this is a continuing process at multiple levels. It requires working on each of the

components to align them with different aspects of diversity (gender, race, sexuality, etc.), and to bring them into force in different areas of the organization (e.g., HQ vs. field) and its continually changing organizational/environmental context (because the organization itself is not static).

MOTIVE FORCES FOR ATTENDING TO DIVERSITY

Nine motive forces for working with diversity identified in the Framework document were discussed (see handout, Annex V.2), and a tenth was added from Ian Johnson’s presentation, viz. the need to “walk the talk” – be congruent internally in terms of working with diversity, especially when the organization has a social mission. This is important in the CG context, where working with women is recognized as very important, and thus it is necessary to practice gender sensitivity inside the organization.

Participants identified a number of motive forces that were highly relevant for their Centers, such as:

Ability to attract and retain the best quality (diverse) staff; Importance of relating motives for diversity to effectiveness and organization’s bottom line; Importance of ensuring well-managed internal diversity in order to relate well to partners and clients, and have greater credibility in terms of executing mission; Need to comply with mandates from Board of Trustees or laws concerning equity in hiring, promotion, etc.

14

One organization’s rationale for enhancing diversity management:“The business case for inclusion and diversity”

This for-profit, global outsourcing business focuses on the four key reasons shown at left – all of which are closely tied to its business mission – as its rationale to improve the management and working of internal diversity. Framed this way, it is easier to understand, explain to others, and weave into the entire fabric of the organization.

This way of presenting the business case can be used in other organizations, tailoring the reasons to each particular organization, mission, context, etc.

UNDERSTANDING THE THREE LENSES OF DIVERSITY

EH explained the three lenses of diversity presented in the G&D Framework: social identity, cultural, and cognitive-functional. After describing various aspects of each of the three lenses, EH invited participants to think about and discuss the following questions with their workshop colleagues:

Considering your gender and your age, what historical event occurs to you that strongly influenced the person you have become? (Social differences lens) What particular tradition that you grew up with is still very important to how you feel and behave today? (Cultural lens) How do you process information, based on whether you are an introvert or extrovert? (Cognitive/functional lens)

Participants shared rich stories of these influences and experiences, and reflected on how these forces continue to define who they are now. It was noted that we all carry these background traits and experiences into our workplaces and all other aspects of our lives, but they are not always brought out into the open or fully understood.

15

THE SOCIAL IDENTITY/SOCIAL DIFFERENCES LENS

EH noted that, as the cultural lens would be explored in greater depth on Day 3, the discussion would focus on aspects of social identity. She drew attention to a paradox about working with the social differences lens: at one level, we are like all other members of the human race; at another level, we are like members of a particular group (gender, race, class, religion, sexual orientation, etc.); and at yet another level, we are each unique. The social differences lens works primarily at the level of groups, and notes that:

Any aspect of diversity is in relationship to others (gender = male/female; age = old/young; sexuality = homo/heterosexual; physical ability = able/disabled, etc.); There is a difference in the level of power and privilege attached to one group over another (e.g., “maleness” is privileged over “femaleness”); All aspects of diversity interact with one another (e.g., not just female, but a Puerto Rican female of a certain class and age); The varying elements of our diversity affects our subjective identity (how we see and interact with the world), as well as how others see and treat us; The relative importance and privilege given to aspects of diversity changes over time and social context.

EH noted that society places differential value on different aspects of diversity. In some cases, differences + ranking can lead to prejudice, as when others holding negative views about you. Of greater impact is when prejudice + power leads to oppression, as when a negative action is taken against you because of X. When power and privilege are worked into the equation, different aspects of diversity place us in a “one-up/one-down” situation (better or worse off) in relation to others. Participants were asked to identify and share which of their own personal characteristics put them “up” or “down.” Each participant then posted one characteristic that acted as a source of privilege for him or her, and one that acted as a source of disadvantage.

EH reviewed and elaborated numerous negative consequences and manifestations, from subtle to extreme, by which social differences are framed in organizations when not worked with positively, as represented in the scale below.

16

Negative attitudes Negative acts

| | | | | | | | |

Ste

reo

typ

es

Sch

emas

Dis

crim

inat

ion

Do

min

ant/

su

bo

rdin

ate

iden

titi

es

Avo

idan

ce,

invi

sib

ility

&

excl

usi

on

Ineq

ualit

y/

inju

stic

e

Inef

fect

ive

wo

rk p

ract

ices

Har

assm

ent

an

d h

ost

ile

clim

ate

Vio

len

ce

EH scanned and summarized the participants’ posted cards regarding sources of privilege and disadvantage. She noted that some characteristics were identified as disadvantageous, but not as advantageous (e.g., race). This suggests that the topic of race may be an aspect of diversity that is uncomfortable for the privileged to acknowledge. She then asked the participants to identify an aspect of diversity that is acknowledged and permissible to talk about in the organization, and another aspect that is not talked about – and why it may be important for the organization to bring the latter aspect to the surface.

Integrating the three lenses EH noted that there is ongoing controversy among professionals in the diversity field as to which of the three lenses is the “right” one to use. The G&D Framework suggests that it is more useful to merge the three lenses in order to understand things holistically – to overlap them and see how social identity-culture-cognitive differences come together and flavor one another. The Abramms-Simons model was presented as a set of four goals for change that integrate the three lenses (see below and p. 46 in the G&D Framework document):

Achieving organizational justice; Reducing bias; Developing cultural competence; Acting on the added value that diversity brings.

17

SESSION 2: INSTITUTIONALIZING GENDER ISSUES AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE

CK defined the term/concept “gender” as the social relations between women and men in a given society, reflected in different roles, responsibilities, constraints and opportunities. Gender is:

About women and men; Socially constructed; About power differences; Changes over time; Varies between and within cultures; Not biological; and Gender relations often find their way into institutions.

CK then led the participants through a proven five-step process that deals with institutional gender issues and performance.

Define the characteristics of a gender-sensitive organization. Assess the level of gender sensitivity of your organization, drawing on the picture developed of the gender-sensitive organization as a yardstick/benchmark, and using an appropriate rating scale (e.g., 0-5). Identify the weak areas in your organization, and describe the effects and consequences of those weaknesses on individual staff members and on the performance of the organization. Identify one or two areas/aspects that you would like to work on when you return to your organization. Define how you will market driving forces to your management.

CK defined a gender-sensitive organization as one that recognizes gender differences and their potential and moves ahead to create an institutional environment that will use the potential productively. Participants were then asked to identify specific qualities and behaviors that they would associate with a gender-sensitive workplace by completing the statement: “My organization will be gender-sensitive when…”. The following table summarizes the desirable characteristics for such a workplace. “I will know that my organization is gender sensitive when I see:”

18

Participants were invited to rank their home organization (poor to excellent, 0-5) in terms of the five areas above, to identify where the ranking is low, and to determine what effect this underachievement has in terms of (1) impact on individuals and (2) organizational performance.

DIVERSITY TOOL #1: THEORY AND PRACTICE OF APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY

On Day 1 of the workshop, AA introduced an activity in which participants interviewed each other about a high point in their experience as part of a productive, diverse team at their Center, and the conditions that contributed to the successful experience. In her presentation on Day 2, she explained that this type of interview is the starting point for an appreciative inquiry (AI) process of organizational development.

AA defined AI as a strengths-based approach to imagining and fostering bold, creative, high-performing organizations. She explained that, through AI, “we intentionally inquire into the best of the past and the present to determine ‘what gives life to the organization’ and consciously carry this forward into the future.” Appreciative inquiry transcends conventional problem-solving by focusing on what is already working well in the organization, studying the conditions that have made past successes possible, and envisioning what the organization could be like if the exceptional high point were the organizational norm.

Equity in policies and practices

Balanced gender representation and women in leadership

Family-friendly facilities and policies

Flexible work policies

Aspects of a learning organization

Equal pay for equal work

Fairness & equity

Fair performance appraisal

Equity

Recognizes gender differences and works towards equal employment opportunities at all levels

A clear policy stating the Center’s view/vision

More women in senior positions

Equal representation of women at all levels

More women are working at IRS level

When 34% of IRS are women

A policy that ensures that females are included in every committee set up in the institute for research & admin purposes

Women of different race/culture/class occupy important positions of authority and level

Nursery facilities for breast feeding mothers

A special child care center in the office for the women who have small children to be able to be with these children at intervals during the work day

Parental leave for men

Accommodation of women’s and men’s reproductive identities as normative. That is, female reproduction is not a ‘disability’ and male employee reproduction/ responsibility/ commitment allocated leave time

Special consideration for mothers

No unreasonable demands outside work hours

Allows flexibility in work time:

Start time

Sick time

Compressed work week

Job sharing

Continually learning

Positive and dynamic in responding to staff needs as they change in time

Good training opportunities to improve skills required for work

19

In the conventional approach to problem-solving, we typically identify a problem, probe for its root causes, then brainstorm and implement solutions. This approach has served us well for thousands of years, and continues to work well to solve “mechanical” problems. However, when we apply problem solving to interpersonal and organizational dynamics, there is often disagreement over the severity or impact of the problem and its causes, blaming and defensiveness among the people involved, and resistance to change.

The AI paradigm does not deny that there are problems or “sub-optimal circumstances” in organizations. Rather, it begins by working with members of the organization to define what the desired state is (i.e., not what we are running away from, but what we would like to be moving towards). It seeks examples of times when that desired state was present in the organization, even if only briefly or rarely. This “surfacing” of positive experiences serves to benchmark best practices and illustrates what the organization is capable of when it is performing at its peak. Moreover, applying the principle of quantum physics, it is argued that whatever one looks for – examples of failure or examples of success – is what one will find, and the organization can choose which it prefers to learn more about.

Emerging research suggests that AI is a powerful engine for positive change, for several reasons.

People are more motivated to change and excel when they receive positive feedback about what they do well, rather than negative feedback about their shortcomings. Inquiring into what is working in the organization gives people an opportunity to be praised for their good efforts and provides tangible examples of desired behaviors and bottom-line results. Allowing people to tell their success stories in their own terms advances the cause of diversity by allowing individuals who may be “invisible” in the organization or subject to stereotypes (particularly non-mainstream staff members) to contribute their own perspectives. As members of the organization share their stories and motivations, the negative perceptions held about one another begin to relax and can be replaced by more positive expectations. Each member of the organization is invited to imagine a future in which her/his best experiences become the norm. These individual visions can be combined into a collective future vision based on the whole organization’s documented potential. This creates widespread ownership of the future vision, ensures continuity of those elements

20

most valued by the organization, and stretches the organization to bold new levels of achievement. AA gave the specific example of an AI intervention at Avon-Mexico. In the early 1990s, Avon management introduced new policies to discourage sexual harassment – and was surprised when there was not only an increase in the incidence of reported sexual harassment, but the overall relations between men and women in the workplace deteriorated noticeably. The AI consultants worked with Avon to define the vision of the desired future: one characterized not merely by less sexual harassment or better working conditions for women, but more importantly, one characterized by the presence of high-performing male-female teams where both genders are honored and respected. The consultants then sought and interviewed hundreds of staff who volunteered their stories of positive experiences of cross-gender teams. These stories were written up and became the basis for a new vision at Avon where the valuing of gender and diversity was a core value. Two notable outcomes have since been documented: a measurable increase in productivity at Avon, and the company’s being awarded the Catalyst prize for the workplace most hospitable to women. AA briefly described the process of conducting an AI intervention (see Annex V.3 for model) and then led the participants through an analysis of the stories they had told and heard the day before in their interviews with colleagues. Participants identified a number of success factors that contributed to their positive experiences (see table below).

21

Summary of Success Factors Identified for High Performing Diverse Teams

The wishes and visions that emerged from the participants’ interview stories will provide the basis for their vision statements for their Centers–step one of the strategic planning process that will begin on Day 4 of the workshop.

DIVERSITY TOOLS #4 AND #5: IDENTIFYING CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD

SCD confirmed with all participants that they were already all working in international teams. She noted that it is possible not only to work side-by-side with people from other cultures, but also to learn how to do so in a way that genuinely capitalizes on the richness of this diversity, increasing global efficiency, local responsiveness and organizational learning within the CGIAR. She introduced three processes for helping international, multicultural groups accomplish these goals, including: the use of visible questionnaires; the setting of appropriate ground rules; and

People/attitudes Organizational setting/context

Interpersonal & communication skills

Empathy

Knowledge, appropriate skills

Varied skills, multidisciplinary input

Team spirit

Flexibility

Shared ownership

Sense of responsibility

Perseverance, hard work

People pleasant and cooperative, positive attitude

Motivation, willingness to improve knowledge (3)

Bottom up listening, involving the stakeholders

Management involvement and commitment

Good leadership

Coordinator role

Guidance by mentor

Role models available

External expertise available

Resources available

Sufficient time allocated to deal with problem

Ambitious dream/expectations

Common interest/goal

Clear problem, clear goal/timeframe

Ground rules established for collaboration

Recognition expected

Innovative way of doing task

Organizational rules changed or improvised to meet emergency situation

Positive work environment

Work with other outside organization

Stakeholders were involved in the process of review.

Resources available

22

the use of “metaplans” and “GroupWare” for gathering, sorting and prioritizing ideas.

What is culture?

SCD presented the concept of the “iceberg” or “ice cube” of culture – i.e., we frequently think of cultural attributes as those things we can see, but these represent only a small part of the determinants of culture. There are also very important culturally-based attitudes, values and beliefs that exist below the surface. They cannot be seen, and others may not know this about us and/or our culture.

SCD noted that there are probably few values and beliefs that we would absolutely adhere to in the most extreme circum-stances, e.g., if our children were being threatened, if we were lost in Antarctica. But in normal situations, these values and beliefs tend to guide our behaviors. However, it is also important to recognize that there is not one straight line between a value and a behavior. Rather, a complex juggling act of different value sets lead to a behavior. So you cannot know or understand someone’s values just from observing their behavior – indeed, in certain circumstances, we may even do things that disagree with our own espoused values.

Finally, members of each culture will tend to interpret and respond to events or behaviors of others in varying ways – all acceptable, but possibly quite different (behaviors observations assumptions interpretations, with differences at each point along the way).

SCD also pointed out that there are many layers of culture in the CG System that create further conflicts. In the CG, certain powerful norms flow from the World Bank/CG Secretariat (dominated by American/ European styles), and interact with those of host country cultures, the organizational cultures of each of the 16 IARCs, HQ-field cultures, etc.

23

So, if there is so much variety in our behaviors, values, and how we perceive others, are there ways to attain greater clarity and communication as we all work together? SCD led the group through the “cultural values checklist” exercise, in which participants identified their personal preferences on a values scale, and contrasted their values with the values in their host country or organizational culture. Participants used colored stickers to mark their personal and organizational or host country positions on each of ten cultural values scale. The distribution of the stickers produced “scattergrams” that illustrated great contrasts within and between both the personal and collective preferences. With this understanding, the next step was to practice developing ground rules for groups that embrace and work across the diversity of preferences. The participants worked in teams to develop the following ground rules that consider multiple perspectives:

Strike a balance between technical and political requirements for leadership. Discuss what kinds of decisions require which kinds of processes. Develop Center norms for interacting. Take time to introduce each other and be sure people are comfortable with each other. Make sure each task includes a discussion between supervisor and staff member of what is expected (overall and in terms of level of supervision). Surface and work with cultural differences. Be sure there is a facilitator who encourages everyone’s input in appropriate ways (oral, written, etc.). Allow the expression of emotions, but in a way that is sensitive to the group. When giving feedback, be specific, be constructive, and show results.

SCD then introduced additional cultural factors that affect members’ abilities to participate in international teams. Foremost among them are: whether or not one is functioning in one’s home country; whether or not one belongs to the same country culture of the organization’s headquarters; and whether or not one is a native speaker of the language being used.

She explained several problematic issues of language that go beyond spoken facility: 1) interrupting and talking over one another are practiced differently and have very different effects depending on one’s culture, e.g., British/US compared to Japanese; 2) people working in their mother tongues tend to drive the ways problems will be solved, indeed the very logic of

24

how to approach a challenge; 3) non-native speakers may contribute excellent ideas and insights, but these may not be woven into the work or strategies of the group.

SCD also noted that there are many ways through which people participate. “Air time” does not necessarily equate with participation (e.g., if others have already put forward the ideas you feel are important, then you may feel no need to repeat them; alternatively, posting ideas in writing, sharing them in small groups, reflecting on ideas in one’s own head, are also valid and useful ways of participating in groups). But at the same time, people can be shut out, silenced, overlooked by insensitive facilitators or team members.

DIVERSITY TOOL #6: THE PROBLEMATIC MOMENT APPROACH

The goal of this session was to: Understand the theory and practice of the problematic moment approach to finding underlying meaning in group dialogue; Discuss the benefits and limitations of the approach; Assess the potential applications of the approach.

The session included defining the problematic moment approach, a video and analysis of a problematic moment, and application of the approach. “Problematic” was defined as “when something happens in the group that raises a question.” A “moment” was defined as an instant or turning point in a group process “when we experience something that gives us pause, and that provides data for analysis.” A “problematic moment” is different from other events that happen in groups, such as critical incidents, or “plot point”" (major turning points in the “story” or life of the group) (see Annex V.4).

A problematic moment is marked either as silence, or as the opposite – din, sudden noisiness. It is necessary to understand the meaning(s) of silence in a group. Reaction to a problematic moment also provides opportunities for groups to take up subjects that are not normally discussed. In this latter case, the group may go one of three ways: the group chooses to take up the risky subject and explore it; it may suppress the theme altogether and go back to its previous discussion; or the introduction of the topic may totally derail the group and prevent it from continuing to function together.

To illustrate how the problematic moment approach works, JC gave a hypothetical example of a discussion of feminist issues between a woman and a man, in which the man might state, “You would have that opinion, wouldn’t you, Ms. Holvino?” – a

25

statement followed by silence in the group. In this example, the emphatic use of the term “Ms.” stands as an implicit criticism by the man of a long struggle among feminists for women to be respected regardless of their marital status.

In preparing to screen a video of a problematic moment (from a recent conference where JC was a consultant), JC invited the participants to consider the following questions as they read the transcript and saw the event being played out:

What do you see happening here? How is it that the whole story changes at that moment? What possible ways could the group have gone, after the moment?

Participants discussed in groups, and then shared, their interpretations of the problematic moment in the video. JC shared how the actual conference organizers analyzed the event and the follow on steps that they came up with as a result of the analysis.

JC presented several ways that the problematic moment approach has been applied (see examples in workshop notebook: Multicultural/Multilingual Board Development, and more inclusive recruitment practices). JC then showed a dramatized video reenactment of a crucial discussion that took place concerning the launch and explosion of the space shuttle Challenger, and asked the participants to apply again a problematic moment approach – this time, from the point of view of the three different lenses (social differences, cultural, and cognitive/functional). JC pointed out that in the case of the Challenger explosion, although all the people involved were male, there were still some significant differences among them – different ways of acting out their masculinity, different cultures (scientists vs. managers), etc. The groups discussed the video from these perspectives, and shared their observations in plenary. JC closed with a review of some of the benefits and limitations of the problematic moment approach (see table below).

26

Benefits of the PMA Limitations of the PMA

Surfaces power dynamics

Many differences addressed

Concrete outcomes

Self-managed/easily transferable

Helps people to make their own meaning of what is happening in the group

It is democratic in that it tries to involve all members of the group in the meaning-making process

It has the potential to get to deeper levels of meaning (for example, things that some or all members of the group are repressing or do not want to talk about)

The purpose and process of the approach seems to be intuitively understood by participants (you do not have to give a detailed explanation of the approach)

The data for analysis in the video clips of the problematic moments is usually not a matter of dispute, for example, about who said what

Participants may explain their own actions differently when they see themselves on videotape. Encourages people to re-evaluate their opinions

The data are manageable, for example, just a few minutes of videotape.

The group has to be willing to examine its own ways of working and interacting. They may fear that group cohesion will be disrupted. They may not be willing to be videotaped (it usually only takes one person in the group to say no)

Probably will not work in highly structured and undemocratic groups, as there is not enough “space”

There is always the possibility that a problematic moment may not occur in the group during the time contracted for study, and hence there are no data to analyze. Or, there may be no agreement as to when a problematic moment(s) occurred

May be difficult to get adequate visual and sound quality for playback and analysis

It is time consuming for the consultant to produce a tape containing the video clips, to do a tape script, and to do some preliminary analysis so that they can help guide the discussion

The theory crosses many disciplinary boundaries and goes against the tendency in the US to provide individualistic and genetic explanations

Lack of diversity of group may limit depth of analysis

“REFLECTION AND INTEGRATION FOR MOVING FORWARD”

In order to pull together the workshop learning experiences of the first three days, EH invited the participants to write down and share their thoughts on the following questions:

What has emerged as important issues in my Center that need assessing or addressing? What has emerged as important issue(s) for me in my role at the Center/organization? What learning goal or specific outcome would I like to achieve by the end of the workshop?

Among the comments that were shared by the participants in plenary:

Much learning, interesting topics, good explanation of lenses, but I’m not sure how to apply it all; the issues I had when I walked in the door are still there; how can I use all that I’ve learned to improve the situation in my Center? We feel as if we have embraced the complexity of the issues at a much deeper level than before, but some of the

27

questions also seem more complex. How do we feed this back to senior management, especially in the context of limited time (ours and the senior management); how can we encourage them to give time and get involved with these important issues, given all their other priorities? We see a need to use the social identity and cultural lenses, in the sense that gender may be an avenue of entry to begin to expand the agenda, e.g., using the numbers from the G&D Program’s data analysis. (EH recommended looking at the “Moving from Gender to Diversity” article in the workshop notebook.) I am impressed with the AI approach to working with organizations, as a positive way forward. Some people in my organization are already using this without knowing it, seems like a non-threatening way to proceed. As the first representative of national staff on the management team, many of these tools should help me on a personal level to understand and work better in a team that operates from a very Western mindset. I started out thinking gender would be the main set of issues to work with in my Center, now understanding the range of cultural diversity issues, I am rethinking this. I’m beginning to understand that the first thing to do when I return to my Center will be to talk with others to develop a better understanding of how others see the issues. There is a greater awareness of how our own views grow out of our individual experiences (gender, culture, place in the organization), etc.

DIVERSITY TOOLS #7 & 8: APPROACHES TO ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Four principles of organizational change 1. Change is inevitable and can be embraced, planned, or it

may just happen haphazardly. 2. Change involves and affects everyone. 3. Change is about power – when you try to do change, you

will exercise power and others will exercise power back. It usually will threaten someone.

4. Change is always in the direction of something, so it helps to have a clear idea of one’s goals and where the change should lead.

EH compared two models of organization change: the Organization Development model, and the Action Research model. She gave examples of both models and compared the

28

advantages and disadvantages of each (see table below).

Organization development model Action research model

Adv

anta

ges

Familiar planning process

Focused

Management driven

Evolutionary, planned, gradual

Involves multiple stakeholders

Promotes dialogue and participation

Develops internal capacity

Generates data and momentum

Dis

adva

ntag

es

Difficult to sustain

Easily derailed by other priorities

Generates resistance from those not involved

Difficult to management commitment andresources

Requires ongoing negotiation (more experimental)

Lack of grounding (especially if consultants don’t know/understand your system very well)

EH presented a matrix of possible interventions for organizational change around diversity (see handout, Annex V.5). To be effective, an organization should undertake multiple interventions in a complementary, mutually reinforcing fashion (across structural-behavioral-cultural dimensions, and at the individual-group-organizational-societal levels).

She presented ten of the most important diversity interventions identified through a benchmarking process of best practices in the US:

Personal involvement of top management Recruitment of diverse staff Internal advocacy and change agents Collection and utilization of statistics/profiles Diversity inclusion in performance and rewards Diversity inclusion in leadership development and succession planning Diversity education and training Support networks and groups Work-family policies Career development and advancement

Initial research concerning best practices on interventions at the global level (in global organizations) suggest that the following actions are important and useful:

Establish common values/purposes across cultures Provide support and resources at international sites Share best practices Establish a multicultural-multinational team to develop and oversee initiatives Create both centralized and decentralized structures

29

Initiate worldwide diversity conferences (to share best practices and develop networks of support) Organize regional and country-specific “task forces” Design and implement global diversity orientation, education and training programs

Participants shared examples of successful interventions in their organizations to promote better practices around gender and diversity issues.

CIAT: created advisory committees (including both IRS & NRS) to assist management around particular themes.

CIP: one of three top management members is a woman; about 40% of project leaders are women.

An example of a less successful intervention is an employee recognition program that hasn’t worked very well as a motivational tool for staff. EH suggested that in such a case, one could evaluate why it hasn’t been as effective and consider alternative ways to implement the activity or achieve the goal.

EH explained the six-stage process of moving from a monocultural to multicultural organization (see Annex V.6), and noted that different actions (e.g., those identified in the interventions matrix) may be needed at different stages of the organization’s evolution. For example, if the organization is at the monocultural stage, it is important for recruitment to “casts the net widely.” If the organization is in a transitional stage, greater efforts to retain and advance underrepresented staff members would be more important. EH also presented a handout (see Annex V.7) describing the different indicators that can track progress by stage of evolution and organizational dimension (linking back to the 10-cell organizational model). For example, the numbers of women in the organization might be increasing, but it is important to know if they have respect and authority, if they are moving up in the organization, etc.

DIVERSITY TOOL #8: ADDRESSING RESISTANCE AND MONITORING PROGRESS AROUND GENDER AND DIVERSITY INTERVENTIONS

Strategic planning step 1: Stakeholder analysis and building the pyramid of stakeholder interests (VW)

What is a stakeholder? VW defined the term “stake-holder” as any person, group or organization that can place a claim on an institution’s attention, resources or output, or is affected by that output.

30

Who are the stakeholders (inside and outside the organization) who can affect the success of a gender and diversity intervention in your Center? The stakeholders were identified by the participants, and then ranked in terms of importance depending on (a) their level of power and influence, and (b) the importance of their being involved in the design and implementation of a program/process/ intervention. The table at right identifies stakeholders and rankings. The top ranked stakeholders are noted by numerical ranking; all others were seen by the participants as being of lesser importance.

Participants then divided into groups based on their roles (stakeholder interests) in their organizations and brainstormed about reasons why gender and diversity issues matter to them, in terms of either organizational excellence or impact. They then ranked these reasons and presented them in order of importance, in the form of a pyramid of interests which presents a rationale for change (see below).

Ranking by level of power and influence

Category of stakeholders Ranking by importance to have them involved

1 Director general 1 2 Chairman of the CGIAR 10 3 Board of Trustees 9 4 Senior management 3 5 Donors 6 HR managers 2 Focal points 4 Gender & Diversity program 5 Women IRS staff 7 Women NRS staff 7 IRS staff 7 NRS staff 7 NARs 8 National governments Private sector Farmers, farmer organizations Agricultural policy makers NGOs ARIs

31

Stakeholder group: HR Managers Goal: Greater impact

Organizational performance

Credibility with donors/ policy makers

Acceptance by NARSs

Retain diverse staff

Attract quality staff

Enhance organization’s image

HR managers need to be advocates for gender &

diversity issues

Diversity brings a broader perspective to the issues and

resolution options

Reach female/ Southern beneficiaries in an

effective way

Improved partnerships

Staff and potential candidates trust HRs more if they see “themselves” represented

among those

Creates varied staff pool to facilitate appropriate staff

deployment

G&D will enrich research topics and technology devices

and transfer

To be able to cope well with difficult living

conditions

Diverse HRs encourage rich communication and

networking more relevant information to build on

Stakeholder group: Management Goal: Greater impact Donor appeal

Increased team productivity

Better links to partner organizations

More creative approaches to problem solving

Brings divergent viewpoints

Wider coverage of disciplines

Greater familiarity with different ecosystems

Better representation vis-à-vis beneficiaries

Better language coverage

Better use of global staff

Aid to recruitment

Increased retention of best staff

Positive impact on staff and family life

Greater appeal to media

Enhanced sustainability

Stakeholder group: NRS Goal: Greater excellence Good working climate

Increase/enhance individual productivity

More participation from NRS, given an opportunity

Team collaboration

Promotes shared/common vision for the organization

Values differences in the organization

Harnessing various ideas into solution

Fairness/non-discriminatory environment promotes excellence

Fairness in recruitment policy, selection process

Benefits/ recognition closing the gap between IRS and NRS

High staff morale

Reduced staff turnover

Better interaction in non-working environment

Career opportunities for NRS, employee loyalty

Stakeholder group: Scientists Goal: Greater impact G&D helps to recognize and

integrate relevant characteristics in technology development process

G&D boosts adoption that in turn boosts innovativeness, leading to

increased output and impact

Strengthen syner- gies to achieve quick results

Can make all scientists more productive by reducing stress

and increasing efficiency

To enhance teamwork among scientists of

various backgrounds

To meet the needs of diverse clients and partners, there is

need for scientific teams G&D is a current catchword in

the donor community

32

From this point, the workshop participants proceeded to frame vision statements for their Centers, based on the above rationales, as well as “provocative propositions” related to their previous best experiences of diversity in their workplaces (drawing on their AI analyses) and their analyses of “institutionalizing gender issues and program performance” (see pp. 10-11). On the final day of the workshop, participants identified strategic actions and outlined strategies to build support for G&D interventions in each of their Centers. Each Center representative or team completed a set of planning documents which is to be discussed with senior management, focal points and other stakeholders during the next few months (see Annex VI for blank forms).

Vicki Wilde concluded the workshop with a presentation of the tentative plans of the Gender and Diversity Program for the next two years. She invited participants to specify what type of backstopping they would find most useful to move their implementation forward. Requests from participants were recorded, and will be reflected in a revised draft plan of action for the Program (see summary on following two pages).

33

CH

APT

ER 3

: Div

ersi

ty w

orks

hop

follo

w-u

p pl

ans

34

Diversity workshop follow-up plans Center Plans for immediate follow up Assistance requested from Gender

& Diversity Program CIAT Present plan to DG and ask him to present to

management team For certain actions, we will also talk to specific stakeholder groups and encourage them to express their interest to appropriate persons

Technical support /guidance or education program and or samples of policies & practices in area of performance appraisal compensation Financial support for educational activities in center, e.g., day care as living experiment of impact of gender sensitive practices or bring outside experts to conduct training on multicultural team work Financial support for day care experiment Technical assistance in education program Recruitment assistance

CIFOR Process to share G&D participants in the workshop will contact the current G&D Focal Points. With their support, we will present recommendations to the DG and senior management

With the funding to do the multi-source assessment Some literature for mentoring process Sharing information on the best practices among workshop participants Visit by G&D Program Leader in June 2001

CIMMYT

Ask for meeting with DG to share what we learned during the workshop. Also discuss my idea for moving forward Ask DG for time on the PCC/MAC agenda Nov/Dec’00 to do a process of internal bench marking of best practices to build an action plan & review my visit with them. The goal would be to begin an experiment and select a small “ready” MTP team as an initial site Meet with NRS committee and other staff groups

G&D small grants will help with a consultant for guidance in developing a monitoring experiment Training video on the G&D Program to be used at the center and regional world be useful as an introduction

ICARDA Getting advice and approval from the DG Presentation to EC/MC Designation of G&D committee members First committee meeting

Contact the G&D Program for any issues concerning problems that are difficult to solve (consultancy)

ICLARM As per our strategic action plan: First achieve a common understanding on the scope of diversity Develop training/facilitators guide for the change agents

ICRAF Focal Point meeting Raise awareness MC discussion Power point presentation Video show Seminars Consultations

35

Center Plans for immediate follow up Assistance requested from Gender & Diversity Program

ICRISAT Identify Gender & Diversity Task Force within Institute, in cooperation with G&D program, to lead effort to address policy, action plan, monitor, to increase impact of international teams. Training for working in international teams for DG, DDG, PD, PC, HR, Finance, Identify and articulate successes or simple “small wins” to accept benefits of gender & diversity Develop team assessment indicators Share/consult/revise strategic plan. Send report back to DG and Board Chair with baseline actions. Give general feedback on issues. Meet and plan next action with Focal Point. Present to Management Group for action with G&D. Discuss all actions etc. with others at Global Planning Meeting.

Gender & Diversity Support:: Task Force, training opportunities, PA assistance. Three most important services and products: Direct involvement in strategic planning and implementation; Resources for identifying training program, consultants; Lots and lots of reading material to be used for ICRISAT benefit.

IITA Give report of the G&D workshop to the Director General, highlighting advantages of G&D to the center, the views of the CGIAR Chair on G&D, suggest need to generate G&D data specific to IITA. Generate data on Appreciative Inquiry exercise to draw attention to strengths and successes of IITA in the last 2 years Gender and diversity in IITA for years 1995 - 2000 with a view to highlighting the center’s G&D structure and pattern, skews in the pattern if any, explanations for these and implication of existing structure on donor motivation, IITA’s performance and quality of decision –making, on farmers, NARS etc Funding sources in each of the last 5 years to determine correlation if any between these and spread of IRS nationality Management committee reviews data generated and considers posters drawn to guide them to recognize existing patterns of gender &diversity. Management decides on adoption of an active G&D Program and constitutes an international committee to recommend the scope, method and timing of implementation and determine resources required for this.

G&D Program should seek quickly to influence the CGIAR Chair to formalize the necessity for all centers to adopt an active G&D Program feedback methods should be set up to ensure compliance G&D Program should be available for consultation by email G&D Program should circulate quarterly, current G&D issues to update and sustain interest and efforts of HR managers in CGIAR Centers.

IPGRI Involve and brief Gender committee and senior managers on Gender & Diversity concepts and possible issues Inform staff via seminars Prepare handouts

By giving seminars in our different office locations Professional advice and input when implementing the G&D strategy: also spend some time in our HQ office Assist with wide distribution of advertisements Support with funding

36

Center Plans for immediate follow up Assistance requested from

Gender & Diversity Program IRRI Follow up on strategic actions

Review with DG in weekly meeting Obtain his approval and guidance Present to harassment committee Approach interested parties such as IRRI core scientists Involve HR staff and encourage them to think positively about G&D Launch specific initiatives Follow up, consult again with DG et al, revise Persevere to the end

Address of women websites Specifics on gender database Statistics and reports Useful contacts names e.g., women DDGs Encouragement and most importantly another G&D Workshop

IWMI The actions prepared at the planning session will be discussed with the DG and DDG operations (Focal Point) to gain commitment and support to carry forward the identified actions Discuss how some of the three action plans can be included in the current center strategic plan under preparation

To keep an updated database which centers could access for female candidates as well as candidates from the South. To circulate the Institute position announcements to suitable female candidates after reviewing the requirements. All position announcements will be sent to G&D Program

37

AN

NEX

1: L

ist o

f wor

ksho

p pa

rtic

ipan

ts

38

List of workshop participants Center Name/Contact info Center Name/Contact info CG Shirley Geer, Secretariat Senior Information Officer World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington, D..C 20433, USA Tel: 202 473 8930 Fax: 202 473 8110 Email: s.geer@cgiar.org CIAT Nancy Johnson Senior Research Fellow Apartado Aereo 6713 Cali, Colombia Tel: 57 2 445 0000 Fax: 57 2 445 0073 Email: n.johnson@cgiar.org CIAT Fabiola Amariles Head of IRS office, Apartado Aereo 6713 Cali, Colombia Tel: 57 2 445 0000 Fax: 57 2 445 0073 Email: f.amariles@cgiar.org CIFOR Atie Puntodewo GIS Specialist P.O. Box 6596 Jakarta 10065, Indonesia Tel: 62 251 622 622 Fax: 62 251 622 100 Email: a.puntodewo@cgiar.org CIFOR Jennifer Crocker HR Manager P.O. Box 6596 Jakarta 10065, Indonesia Tel: 62 251 622 622 Fax: 62 251 622 100 Email: j.crocker@cgiar.org CIMMYT Krista Baldini HR Manager Apartado Postal 6- 641 06600 Mexico, D.F. Mexico Tel: 52 5 804 2004 Fax: 52 5 804 7558/9 Email: k.baldini@cgiar.org

CIP Jane Alumira Regional Research Fellow C/O Icraf P.O. Box 30677 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254 02 524000 Fax: 254 02 524001 email: j.alumira@cgiar.org CIP Modesto Olanya c/o ILRI P.O. Box 30709 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254 02 630743 Fax: 254 02 631499 Email: m.olanya@cgiar.org ICARDA Michel Valat Deputy Director General P.O. Box 5466 Aleppo, Syria Tel: 963 21 2225105 Fax: 963 21 2213433 Email: m.valat@cgiar.org ICLARM Vasu Suppiah Human Resources Unit 10, Lower Level 6, Equitorial Hotel Office 11900 Penang, Malaysia Tel: 604 641 4623 Fax: 604 643 4463 Email: v.suppiah@cgiar.org ICRAF Roselyne Lecuyer HR Manager P.O. Box 30677 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254 02 524121 Fax: 254 02 524001 Email: r.lecuyer@cgiar.org ICRAF Antonia Okono Bilingual Secretary P.O. Box 30677 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254 2 524000 Fax: 254 2 524001 Email: a.okono@cgiar.org

39

Center Name/Contact info Center Name/Contact info ICRAF Marie Rarieya Research Associate P.O. Box 30677 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254 2 524000 Fax: 254 2 524001 Email: m.rarieya@cgiar.org ICRISAT Paula Bramel Senior Scientist Head of Genetic Resources ICRISAT Zimbabwe Matopos Research Station P.O. Box 776 Bulawayo, Zimbabwe Tel: 263 83 8311 Fax: 263 83 8253 Email: l.cox@cgiar.org IFPRI I’Dafney Green HR Manager 2033 K Street, N.W Washington, D.C., USA Tel: 1 202 862 5628 Fax: 1 202 862 8171 Email: I.green@cgiar.org IITA Funke Osotimehin Personnel Manager for NP C/o L.W Lambourn Carolyn House, 26 Dingwall Road Croydon CR9 3EE England Tel: 234 2 241 2221 Fax: 234 2 241 2626 Email: o.osotimehin@cgiar.org ILRI Margaret Morehouse HR Manager P.O. Box 30709 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254 2 631499 Fax: 254 2 630743 Email: m.morehouse@cgiar.org IPGRI Ann Obara Administrative Officer c/o ICRAF, P.O. Box 30677 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254 02 524000 Email: a.obara@cgiar.org

IPGRI Lotta Rasmusson HR Manager Via delle sette Chiese 142 00145 Rome, Italy Tel: 39 06 518 921 Fax: 39 06 575 0309 Email: l.rasmusson@cgiar.org IRRI Ian Wallace Director Admin and HR MC P.O. Box 3127 1271 Makati City, Philippines Tel: 63 2 845 0563 Fax: 63 2 891 1292 Email: i.wallace@cgiar.org ISNAR Marian Lageman Personnel Officer Laan van Nieuw Oost Indie 133 2593 BM The Hague The Netherlands Tel: 31 70 349 6100 Fax: 31 70 381 9677 Email: m.lageman@cgiar.org IWMI Sepala Amarasuriya Senior HR Manager P.O. Box 2075 Colombo, Sri Lanka Tel: 94 1 867404 Fax: 94 1 866854 Email: s.amarasuriya@cgiar.org WARDA Assetou Kanoute Visiting scientist 01 B.P. 2551 Bouaké, Côte d’Ivoire Tel: 225 316 34514 Fax: 225 316 34714 Email: a.kanoute@cgiar.org CGIAR Pauline Bomett Program Assistant Gender & Diversity Program c/o ICRAF, P.O. Box 30677 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254 2 524240 Fax: 254 2 524001 Email: p.bomett@cgiar.org

40

Center Name/Contact info Panelist Contact info CARE Linda Adams Gender consultant P.O. Box 27551 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254 2 581 874 Fax: 254 2 581 874 Email: meljones@swiftkenya.com G&D Joy Tukahirwa Senior Lecturer, Makerere Univ., Advisory Board (NARS) P.O. Box 7062 Kampala, Uganda Tel: 256 41 54 34 05 Fax: 256 41 53 01 34 Email j-tukahi@starcom.co.ug IDRC Luis Navarro P.O. Box 62082 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254 2 711063 Fax: 254 2 713160 Email: lnavarro@idrc.or.ke KARI Lilian Kimani Training Manager P.O. Box 57811 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254 2 583 301 Fax: 254 2 583 344 Email: lwkimani@kari.org UNCHS Mbua Ru-Phina Nalova Volunteer P.O. Box 30030 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254 2 623 987 Fax: 254 2 624 250 Email: nalova.mbua@unchs.org Mary Weed En Combes Luins VD 1884 Switzerland Tel: 510 656 3761 Email: marykweed@yahoo.com

Anne Acosta Consultant Apartado Postal 6- 641 06600 Mexico, D.F Mexico Tel: 52 5 804 2004 Fax: 52 5 804 7558/9 Email: a.acosta@cgiar.org Sue Canney Davison Pipal Ltd. P.O. Box 42777 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254 02 583365 Fax: 254 02 583365 Email: sue@pipal.com James Cumming Director, Chaos Management Ltd. P.O. Box 737 Brattleboro, VT 05302 – 0737 USA Tel: 802 257 5218 Fax: 802 257 2729 Email: jcumming@sover.net Evangelina Holvino President, Chaos ManagementLtd P.O. Box 737 Brattleboro, VT 05302 – 0737 USA Tel: 802 257 5218 Fax: 802 257 2729 Email: chaos@sover.net Charity Kabutha Consultant P.O. Box 75608 Nairobi, Kenya Email: c.kabutha@wananchi.com Leena Lahti IMF - Special Advisor on Diversity 700 19th St. NW Washington D.C. 20431, USA Tel: 202 966 6203 Fax: 202 623 6927 Email: llahti@imf.org Vicki Wilde Program Leader, Gender & Diversity Program P.O. Box 30677 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254 2 524240 Fax: 254 2 524001 Email: v.wilde@cgiar.org

41

AN

NEX

2: w

orks

hop

pane

lists

’ bio

-not

es

42

Workshop panelists’ bio-notes Anne Acosta, from the USA and Mexico, has worked in the field of international development for more than twenty years. Prior to joining the CGIAR System in 1990, her work included research in Mexico on the impact of rural development projects on indigenous communities, study of gender issues in public sector organizations in developing countries, and the design of adult literacy and basic education programs (with a focus on Latin America). From 1990-99, she was the Assistant to the Director General and Donor Relations Officer at CIMMYT, as well as the co-chair of the CIMMYT Gender Task Force, the Change Catalyst Committee, and the gender focal point. Anne has a BA in Economics and Political Science from Yale, and a MSc. in Adult Education and International Agricultural Development from Cornell. For the past eight years, Anne has studied and apprenticed with the leading scholar-practitioners of appreciative inquiry, a participatory action approach that taps the best of the organization’s past and present to bring about a bold new vision of the future. In March 2000, she began a Ph.D. program in Organization Development at the Fielding Institute (Santa Barbara, California, USA). The focus of the Ph.D. will be on understanding and leveraging diversity in international organizations. Anne is married to a Mexican, has three bilingual-bicultural sons, and has lived in Mexico for 14 of the past 22 years.

Sue Canney Davison, from Britain and Kenya, specializes in international and cross-cultural management and teams. Clients have included Ford Motor Company, Citibank, BP, Grand Metropolitan, Daimler Benz, ICI, Shell, Glaxo-Wellcome, British Gas, Nokia, Fiat, Kone and business schools in Canada, Europe and Hong Kong. She pioneered research on transnational teams for ICEDR, a consortium of 30 multinationals and 20 top business schools. Her experience and research are written up in a book titled Leading International Teams. After marrying a Kenyan, moving to Nairobi and being joined by two young sons, she consulted with and created a learning resource center for the Staff Development and Training Unit of the United Nations Office. On a continuous basis, Sue runs executive programs and strategic planning sessions for international agencies, promoting diversity and sharing best practices in effective international management and teams. Sue has a Masters from Oxford University and a PhD in organizational behavior from London Business School. She has been working

43

with the CGIAR Gender and Diversity Program since March 2000.

James A. Cumming, from Britain and Vermont, USA, is a director of Chaos Management Ltd. with more than 25 years experience working as an international educator and consultant in technical, intercultural contexts within both public and private sectors in Europe, Asia, Africa, Middle East and the United States. He brings extensive experience facilitating multicultural and multinational groups and addressing issues of language, culture and power differences. He also specializes in creating effective conditions for dialogue, learning and change in groups, organizations and communities, using approaches such as the Future Search Conference. James has master’s degrees in design engineering and international management, and a doctorate in international education from the University of Massachusetts. He is adjunct faculty at the School for International Training. Other professional affiliations include: Future Search Network, The International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations; The International Foundation for Action Learning; and The Multicultural Mediation Team of the University of Massachusetts. James is the creator of the Problematic Moment Approach to finding underlying meaning in group dialogue. He is married to Evangelina Holvino. They have lived in Vermont since 1984 except for a two-year period at the Asian Institute of Technology in Bangkok.

Evangelina Holvino, from Puerto Rico and Vermont, USA, is a Senior Research Faculty at the Center for Gender in Organizations, Simmons Graduate School of Management and is co-author of the paper Working with Diversity: A Framework for Action. She has worked in the USA, Europe, Southeast Asia, West Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean since 1979 specializing in collaborative approaches to organization change and social justice. She has consulted to a wide range of for-profit and non-profit organizations in areas such as: developing a nation-wide network of health change consultants in Nigeria, designing and implementing global diversity strategies, developing and conducting managing differences and power educational programs, and facilitating strategic planning processes. Evangelina is also president of Chaos Management, Ltd. She has served as faculty at the School for International Training in Vermont, the American University/NTL Master’s Program in human resource management, and has designed and co-taught courses at the University of Massachusetts in multicultural organization development and organization

44

development in alternative settings. Evangelina has a doctorate in organization development from the University of Massachusetts and is a member and former board member of the NTL Institute and the Boston Center of the A.K. Rice Institute. Vangie, as her friends know her, writes short stories about her life growing up in Puerto Rico.

Charity Kabutha, from Kenya, is an international expert in people-centered development from assessment, planning, implementation and evaluation. Her core competencies are in gender, participatory methodologies and participatory research and evaluation. Most of her work on gender has focused on gender mainstreaming, gender and institutional change, and gender training. From 1994 to 2000, Charity was the East Africa Program Director of the African Women Leaders in Agriculture and Environment (AWLAE) program of Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development. She has also worked with the Government of Kenya (Agriculture, Environment), UNICEF, the World Bank, SIDA, DANIDA, and the CGIAR Gender and Diversity Program. Charity is currently providing technical assistance to WARDA on female staffing issues. Charity has an MSc in Demography from the London School of Economics.

Leena Lahti, from Finland, was appointed as the first Special Advisor on Diversity at the International Monetary Fund in October 1995. She has a PhD in Management Development from Tampere University in Finland. While working on her doctorate, she spent a number of longer and shorter periods as a Visiting Scholar at Stanford University, California. In the IMF, Leena advises management, supervisors, and staff in promoting and managing diversity, including gender, nationality, race, age, sexual orientation, language, and profession; she develops policies, procedures, programs, indicators, and best practices for the IMF; and she serves as the focal point for the IMF on staff diversity issues. Prior to the IMF, Leena worked on human resources in the private and public sectors for more than 25 years. Her expertise is strategic planning, human resource policies and practices, values and change processes, and management development, including mentoring. She has written a great number of publications and articles based on her own research and operational projects. Her last positions prior to the IMF were as Managing Director for the International Women’s Management Institute and World of Management, Finland, and various HR Planning, development and management positions in the private sector. She has been an active speaker in seminars, conferences and advisory boards.

45

Note: A seventh expert panelist was scheduled to participate in the workshop,Dr. Zareena Karani Lam de Araoz. Unfortunately, a last-minute family emergency prevented her from taking part in the workshop. Her bionote is included below as well.

Zareen Karani Lam de Araoz, a native of India, is past-president of the International Society for Intercultural Education, Training and Research (SIETAR International) and was professor of International Studies & Intercultural Relations at Lesley College in Cambridge, Massachusetts. As President of "Managing Across Cultures", a cross-cultural management training and consulting firm, Zareen works with DuPont, AT&T, SIEMENS, Lucent, FMC, Polaroid, Chemtex and Air India, but also with SIDA and Dag Hammerskjold Foundation and other international organizations. For several years she has been working with the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) in Vienna, training people from 92 different countries in intercultural management, leadership skills and gender issues. Her special emphasis is on cross-cultural team building and bridging managerial value differences. She works to bring insight into dealing with issues of diversity, helping to harmonize groups, inspire people and enhance the effectiveness of teams and individuals. Zareen has a PhD in Counseling Psychology, a Masters in Comparative Education, a Masters in English and German, a Law degree and a German Teachers Diploma.

46

AN

NEX

3: W

orks

hop

agen

da

47

Wor

ksho

p ag

enda

MO

ND

AY

T

UE

SDA

Y

WE

DN

ESD

AY

T

HU

RSD

AY

FR

IDA

Y

Star

t 8:

30 a

m

Part

icip

ants

’ ow

n ad

just

men

t tim

e

5. W

elco

me

and

inte

ract

ive

over

view

of C

GIA

R

dem

ogra

phic

s (V

. Wild

e)

The

“W

orki

ng w

ith D

iver

sity

” Fr

amew

ork

(E. H

olvi

no)

6. T

he m

eani

ng o

f div

ersi

ty

7. T

he m

otiv

e fo

rces

for

dive

rsity

wor

k

12. W

elco

me

and

“Tal

e of

O”

(V.

Wild

e)

13. D

iver

sity

Too

l #4:

Ide

ntify

ing

cros

s-cu

ltura

l diff

eren

ces

(S.

Can

ney

Dav

ison)

17. W

elco

me

and

revi

ew

(V. W

ilde)

18

. App

roac

hes

to o

rgan

izat

iona

l ch

ange

(E. H

olvi

no)

19. D

iver

sity

Too

l #7:

The

M

ultic

ultu

ral o

rgan

izat

iona

l de

velo

pmen

t mod

el

(E. H

olvi

no)

24. W

elco

me

and

revi

ew

(V. W

ilde)

25

. Str

ateg

ic P

lann

ing

Step

T

wo:

Sta

keho

lder

s’ in

tere

sts

26. S

trat

egic

Pla

nnin

g St

ep

Thr

ee: C

apab

ilitie

s an

d re

sour

ces

BR

EA

K

ICR

AF

coffe

e ga

ther

ing

M

id-m

orni

ng

Pa

rtic

ipan

ts’

own

lunc

h ar

rang

emen

ts.

Pick

-up

from

hot

el a

t 12

:45

8. T

he a

naly

tical

lens

es

(E. H

olvi

no)

14. D

iver

sity

Too

l #5:

Lev

elin

g th

e pl

ayin

g fie

ld

(S

. Can

ney

Dav

ison

)

20. D

iver

sity

Too

l # 8

: A

ddre

ssin

g re

sist

ance

and

mon

itori

ng p

rogr

ess

(L

. Lah

ti)

21.D

iver

sity

Too

l #9:

Pyr

amid

of

inte

rest

s (V

. Wild

e)

27. S

trat

egic

Pla

nnin

g St

ep

Four

: Get

ting

past

the

cons

trai

nts

28. S

trateg

ic Pl

anni

ng S

tep F

ive:

St

rate

gic

actio

n pl

ans

LU

NC

H

E

arly

afte

r- n

oon

1:

30:

Reg

istr

atio

n 2:

00:

Ope

n w

orks

hop

Wel

com

e, in

trod

uctio

ns

and

wor

ksho

p ov

ervi

ew –

V

. Wild

e

Ana

lytic

al le

nses

con

t’d…

. 9.

Int

erse

ctio

n of

lens

es

(E. H

olvi

no)

10. D

iver

sity

Too

l #3:

Ins

ti-tu

tiona

l gen

der

issu

es &

pr

ogra

m p

erfo

rman

ce

(C. K

abut

ha)

15. D

iver

sity

Too

l #6:

Pr

oble

mat

ic M

omen

t App

roac

h

(J. C

umm

ing)

22. D

iver

sity

Too

l #1

cont

: A

I fo

r pr

ovoc

ativ

e pr

o-po

sitio

ns (A

. Ac

osta

)

29. T

he S

trat

egic

Act

ion

Mar

ket P

lace

30

. Fol

low

-up

(V. W

ilde)

31

. Wor

ksho

p ev

alua

tion

BR

EA

K

Clo

se

Lat

e af

ter-

noon

2.

Div

ersi

ty T

ool #

1:

App

reci

ativ

e in

quir

y (A

I)

for

succ

ess

stor

ies

(A

. Aco

sta)

11. D

iver

sity

Too

l #1

cont

’d.

The

ory

and

prac

tice

of A

I (A

. Ac

osta

)

Prob

lem

atic

mom

ent,

cont

d.

16. S

trat

egic

Pla

nnin

g Se

ssio

n:

Stak

ehol

der

Ana

lysi

s (V

. Wild

e)

23. S

trat

egic

Pla

nnin

g St

ep O

ne:

Vis

ion

(V. W

ilde)

Clo

se 5

:00

pm

3. S

emin

ar b

y Ia

n Jo

hnso

n, C

GIA

R C

hair

Eve

ning

6:0

0 pm

4.

G&

D R

ecep

tion

Din

ner

at V

icki

Wild

e’s

Hou

se

48

AN

NEX

4: L

ist o

f G&

D b

ackg

roun

d re

sour

ces

prov

ided

49

List of G&D background resources provided FOLDER

Working with Diversity Framework The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry Selected chapters from Leading International Teams (book by S. Canney Davison)

NOTEBOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introductions Agenda summary Objectives Panelist Bios List of Participants PowerPoint Notes of Workshop Overview Some recommended sites on gender and diversity issues

Strategic Action Planning

Strategic Planning Overview Handout PowerPoint Notes of CGIAR Demographics and Patterns of Change Hand-out for video notes – The Story of ‘O’ Hand-out: Rules for Change Agents Hand-out on force field analysis Strategic Action Planning Handouts

Appreciative Inquiry

PowerPoint notes on AI AI Interview Protocol Article – Appreciative Inquiry: A Transformative Paradigm Article – Organizational Gender Issues –The Next Step AI references

“Working with Diversity” Framework

List of definitions and managing diversity Proposed definition (transparency) List of motive forces (transparency) Example of Mobil (transparency)

50

Sources of identity Diagram of Integrated Lens Definitions of diversity by lens Differences model and power model Organizational consequences

Gender and Institutional Performance

Institutional Gender Environment and Program Performance – Handout Article–“Glass Ceiling” (Harvard Business Review) Article–Career Patterns of Women and Men in the Sciences (American Scientist) Editorials- Naming the Game, etc.

Cross-Cultural Differences

PowerPoint slides: “Everyday Methods for Leveling the Playing Field” Background Notes on Cultural Differences for Managing Global Networks Booklist Sample questionnaires (general, international teams, communication) Metaplan Short bibliography Presentation on sources of unequal participation in international teams

The Problematic Moment Approach

Handouts 1-11 References

Approaches to Organizational Change

OD-AR comparison Matrix of interventions and questions Twelve conditions for success (transparency) Multicultural organization development path and questions (2 pp.) The microlens (2 pp.) MCOD- two reference articles PowerPoint Notes on the IMF Diversity Program

51

Additional Tools Hand-out: Five modes of managing differences Journaling guidelines

X. Workshop Evaluation

Evaluation form

52

AN

NEX

5(i)

: Def

init

ions

of d

iver

sity

53

Definitions of diversity Diversity encompasses any characteristic used to differentiate one person from others. Our conception of diversity includes differences across gender, race, age, physical ability, sexual orientation, religion, skills, and tenure in the organization. (Joplin and Daus, 1997, pp 32)

Managing diversity refers to planning and implementing organizational systems and practices to manage people so that the potential advantages of diversity are maximized while its potential disadvantages are minimized… The goal of managing diversity is maximizing the ability of all employees to contribute to organizational goals and to achieve their full potential unhindered by group identities such as gender, race, nationality, age, or departmental affiliation. " (Cox, 1993, pp 11).

Working with diversity involves constantly seeking to recognize, reflect upon, learn from, and develop diversity as a perspective that permeates work. The ultimate goal in working with diversity is to weave it into the fabric of the organization – into all the different dimensions of work, structures, and processes. (Merrill-Sands and Holvino, 2000)

DEFINITIONS OF DIVERSITY USING DIFFERENT LENSES

Social differences lens “Diversity refers to diversity in identities based on membership in social and demographic groups and how differences in identities affect social relations in organizations. We define diversity as a mixture of people with different group identities within the same social system.” (Nkomo and Cox, 1996:338). “Diversity focuses on issues of racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, ableism, and other forms of discrimination at the individual, identity group, and system levels” (Cross et al., 1994). “Diversity should be understood as the varied perspectives and approaches to work that members of different identity groups bring.” (Thomas and Ely, 1996:80). The concept of diversity … can encompass a broad range of differences. … But it is those features that make us like some specified group of people and different than other groups that constitute the principal thrust of much (of the) current work on diversity in organizations. Thus, diversity in organizations is typically seen to be composed of variations

54

in race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, physical abilities, social class, age, and other socially meaningful categorizations, together with the additional differences caused by or signified by these markers (emphasis added).” (Ferdman, 1995:37).

Cultural differences lens “Diversity exists both within and among cultures; however, within a single culture certain behaviors are favored and others repressed. The norm for a society is the most common and generally acceptable pattern of values, attitudes, and behavior. … A cultural orientation describes the attitudes of most of the people most of the time, not all of the people all of the time. Accurate stereotypes reflect societal or cultural norms.” (Adler, 1986:17). “The term multicultural diversity competence refers to the ability to demonstrate respect and understanding, to communicate effectively, and to work collaboratively with people from different cultural backgrounds.” (Garcia, 1995).

Cognitive-functional lens “Cognitive diversity focuses on the way people take in information, the way they internalize the information and analyze it, and the way they apply the information. Cognitive diversity embraces the spectrum of styles by which individuals acquire knowledge. At the heart of cognitive diversity is the appreciation and acceptance of differences in perceiving, reasoning, and problem solving.” (Idea Connections, training materials copyright protected). “New sources of diversity from within the organization (include) employees from nontraditional lines of business, functions that have an historically subordinate role, or a newly acquired subsidiary with a distinctive culture.” (Kossek and Lobel, 1996:2).

BROAD DEFINITIONS

Diversity among people reflects the many characteristics that make us who we are, including nationality, race, culture, ethnic background, gender, age, religion, native language, physical ability, sexual orientation, education, and profession. (International Monetary Fund, 1999a)

“Diversity refers to any mixture of items characterized by differences and similarities. …Diversity refers to the collective (all-inclusive) mixture of differences and similarities along a given dimension.” (Thomas, 1995:246).

55

Diversity includes differences in culture, organizational function, discipline, working style, religion, and so forth, as well as race, gender, class, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. (Adapted from Organization Resources Counselors).

© Merrill-Sands, Holvino, and Cumming, 2000 Center for Gender in Organizations and Chaos Management, Ltd.

56

AN

NEX

5(ii

): M

otiv

e fo

rces

for d

iver

sity

57

Motive forces for diversity Enhancing innovation, creativity, and problem-solving. Organizations are seeking to expand the knowledge resources and perspectives available for addressing problems, developing innovative approaches and solutions, and identifying new opportunities Strengthening collaborative modes of working. Organizations are relying increasingly on work tasks and strategies that bring people together to produce a common or interrelated set of products or services. The need to work effectively with diversity is accentuated with the greater interdependence among members of teams, partnerships, and alliances. Gaining broader access to clients, beneficiaries, investors, and other stakeholders. Organizations committed to innovation and impact are seeing diversity as instrumental to tapping into new knowledge networks, gaining access to new clients, markets or bases of operation, or attracting new types of investors or stakeholders. Responding to changing workforce demographics. Organizations committed to recruiting high quality staff are responding in a systematic way to the changing composition of the workforce. Changes reflect expanding globalization and increased participation of women and members of other social groups that have historically suffered discrimination in diverse countries of the world. Improving retention of high quality staff. Organizations seeking to retain high quality staff in a competitive marketplace are investing significantly in creating work environments that are supportive for staff of diverse backgrounds. Significant savings accrue from reduced turnover. Promoting social justice and equity. Many organizations hold social justice and equity as a core value. For social and economic development organizations, social justice is often central to their mission. These organizations focus on diversity because they believe that they need to align their values and foster equity both within their organization as well as in their programs, products, and services. Enhancing operational effectiveness. Experience has shown that a focus on diversity is often a catalyst for reviewing established operations and management systems and identifying opportunities for improving their effectiveness and efficiency. New systems developed to make global

58

operations more effective often open up new ways of thinking and working. Responding to organizational mandates and directives. Some organizations take on diversity initiatives in response to priorities established by boards, funders, clients, or other stakeholders. This type of external pressure can also include responding to legal pressures and mandates, such as complying with governmental mandates and country laws against discrimination. Excelling in performance and industry reputation. Organizations are increasingly viewing their work with diversity as a critical factor in establishing their reputation as a progressive and innovative place to work in the industry. This in turn strengthens their ability to attract the “best and the brightest” in competitive global and national markets.

Source: Merrill-Sands, Deborah and Evangelina Holvino,

with James Cumming, Working with Diversity: A Framework for Action, CGIAR Gender and Diversity Program monograph, 2000.

59

AN

NEX

5(ii

i): T

he “

4-D

+” m

odel

60

The “4-D+” model of an appreciative inquiry

61

AN

NEX

5(iv

): D

efin

itio

ns o

f div

ersi

ty

62

What is a problematic moment? Studying "problematic moments" in the life of a group leads to increased awareness of group behavior. Problematic moments are moments of “silence”, or its opposite “din” (which can be very brief - even less that one second), when the group has reached a kind of impasse. They are moments when things appear to be going wrong, or when things appear to be going in an unexpected direction. Usually, these moments have an emotional impact which nearly all members of the group experience. They may signal particular times when group members disconnect from each other, or disconnect from the task they are undertaking. They may also prepare the way for new patterns of interaction and connections in the group.

It is “as if” a problematic moment occurs somewhere between the conscious and unconscious of a group. In the dialogic unconscious we use rhetoric to censor the streams of our internal dialogue in the same way we use it to censor the streams of our external dialogue. In a problematic moment, this process of the repression of alternative discourses momentarily breaks down and presents the group with the conscious opportunity to reflect on what it is repressing. It can be experienced by the group as a disruption to a particular discourse of values, beliefs, and assumptions being constructed by the group.

The use of the term “problematic” does not indicate that the approach focuses on negative aspects of group behavior. Rather, it indicates that this is a moment when the group has the opportunity to creatively struggle with its differences and solve a particular problem.

THE PROBLEMATIC MOMENT APPROACH TO STUDYING GROUP BEHAVIOR

Analysis of these moments has the potential to make visible aspects of group practices that are normally naturalized, and therefore invisible. At the end of a group meeting, it is usually easy for the group to agree on which, if any, were the significant problematic moments experienced by group members (in homogeneous groups there may not be any problematic moments). A transcript of group dialogue can be edited to provide an extract consisting of a few sentences on either side of the moment of silence. A facilitated discussion on what was going on at this particular moment usually yields a great deal of interesting information. This process is called "the problematic

63

moment approach" and it leads to greater awareness of the dynamics in a group, which may then lead to increased competence in group behavior.

CONCEPTS RELATED TO PROBLEMATIC MOMENTS

At this point, it may be helpful to differentiate a "problematic moment" from related concepts in the literature.

In group theory, the term critical incident has been used for an event in a group that is important enough to require the intervention of a facilitator. Cohen and Smith define it as "the confrontation of a group leader with one or more members, in which an explicit or implicit opinion, decision, or action is demanded of that leader." However, the idea is circular as it leaves unclear what is the phenomenon that is supposed to trigger the response of a facilitator. It also leaves the judgment as to what is a critical incident up to the facilitator.

In psychology we have the term clinical incident: A distress reaction severe enough to interfere with the achievement of the participant's or the group's learning goals. For example, when a participant's behavior does not meet the norms of a particular group, he or she is seen as deviant, which in itself creates distress for most individuals. This kind of event is located at the individual, not at the group level of my investigation.

In the field of ethnomethodology, Garfinkel talks about points of reality disjuncture: moments where there is a contest over accounts of experiential reality, and “deviant cases” which are moments where some regular conversational procedure or form is not implemented. He encouraged researchers to experiment with using inappropriate language in certain contexts to create reality disjunctures, for example, a young student took the stance of a being guest in his own house and quickly drove his mother to distraction. However, my experience is that using such an approach would create a critical incident rather than a problematic moment in a group. Problematic moments cannot be created intentionally.

In the field of ethnography, Agar talks about rich points: an event when you experience another cultural frame of reference and become aware of something about your own identity that used to lurk on the edges of consciousness as the natural order of things.

Post-structuralists talk about contradictions: points of tension between different ways of speaking the world into existence. My work is a development of Norman Fairclough’s concept of a problematic moment, which is a moment in the discourse where there is evidence that things are going wrong: a

64

misunderstanding which requires participants to ‘repair’ a communication problem, for example through asking for or offering repetitions, or through one participant correcting another; exceptional disfluencies (hesitations, repetitions) in the production of the text; silences; sudden shifts of style (Discourse and Social Change, 1992, p.230).

Screenplay writers talk about a plot point: An incident, or event, that "hooks" into the story and "spins" it around into another direction. These are moments when a character(s) makes choices that create the drama that follows. There are usually two in every screenplay for a movie.

In their book “Leading International Teams”, Sue Canney Davison and Karen Ward talk about strategic moments. These moments vary from extreme emotional discharges to complete stony silences. They are created by hidden agendas and usually emerge in the mid-section of a team’s life cycle. If a facilitator can lead the team through these moments, the likelihood is that old patterns of behavior can be broken down and an opportunity created to change unworkable habits.

THE PHENOMENON OF A PROBLEMATIC MOMENT

One possible link between these related concepts is that the phenomena to which they refer are revealed in "moments" of discourse. Moments are not like snapshots without a past or future: they are composed of counterpoint between past, present, and future. It is as if something happens during a problematic moment that takes us out of linear, horizontal time (chronos) and into a vertical experience of time (kyros), where memory intrudes and disrupts the flow of chronological time and allows for the possibility of change. For example, agreeing on a new task for the group, constructing a different set of norms, developing a new relationship of authority and power between group members, and so on.

© 2000, Chaos Management, Ltd.

65

AN

NEX

5(v

): O

rgan

izat

iona

l cha

nge/

dive

rsit

y in

terv

enti

on m

atri

x

66

Organizational change/diversity intervention matrix Type/level of intervention

Structural Behavioral Cultural Multiple

Individual level Career Development Programs

Training & education Coaching

Awards

Group level

Sitting Arrangements Cross-cultural team building Problematic Moment Approach

Team Logo

Organizational level

Performance Appraisal Systems Rewards

Informal work practices Alternative Work Structures

Culture/gender audits Employee support networks

Mentoring Programs

Societal level

Affirmative Action Laws (USA)

Human Rights Campaigns

Gender, ethnic and other media symbols

GUIDELINES FOR USING THE DIVERSITY INTERVENTION MATRIX

What interventions are going on in your organization? For what purposes? How do you assess the effectiveness of the interventions currently occurring? Why? Are there other interventions that could be more effective or that should be considered?

© Evangelina Holvino, Center for Gender in Organiations and Chaos Management, Ltd., 2000

67

AN

NEX

5(v

i): F

rom

mon

ocul

tura

l to

mul

ticu

ltur

al

orga

niza

tion

s

68

From monocultural to multicultural organizations: a development path MONO CULTURAL TRANSITIONAL MULTICULTURAL EXCLUSIVE CLUB COMPLIANCE POSITIVE

ACTION REDEFINING MULTI-

CULTURAL Actively excludes in its mission and practices those who are not members of the dominant group.

Actively or passively excludes those who are not members of the dominant group. Includes other members only if they "fit."

Passively committed to including others without making major changes. Includes only a few members of other groups.

Committed to making a special effort to include others, especially those in designated target groups. Tolerates the differences that those others bring.

Actively works to expand its definition of inclusion and diversity. Tries to examine and change practices that may act as barriers to members of non-dominant groups.

Inclusive and diverse. Actively includes a diversity of groups, styles and perspectives. Continuously learns and acts to make the systemic changes required to value and include all people.

Values and includes the dominant perspective of one group, culture, or styles.

Seeks to integrate others into systems created under the dominant group norms.

Values and integrates the perspectives of diverse cultures, styles and groups into the work and systems of the organization.

© Evangelina Holvino, Chaos Management, Ltd. 1999.

69

AN

NEX

5(v

ii): T

he m

icro

-len

s

70

The micro-lens: a multicultural organization development assessment tool Organizational dimension Monocultural Transitional Multicultural Mission Exclusionary

Driven by dominant group

Non-committal

EEO & AA

Inclusive

Empowering

Informal climate Harassment Support groups and networks

Open

Fluid Culture and language use No tolerance of

differences

Monolingual

Recognizes differences

Dominant language use

Appreciates differences

Bi or multi-lingual Relations and interactions Club-like

Patriarchal

Rigid

Guarded

Bureaucratic

Compromises

Risk taking

Negotiation

Learning Organizational dynamics Assimilation Accommodation Collaboration and

problem solving Leadership Charismatic

Autocratic

Bureaucratic

Visionary

Accountable

Shared/rotating Environment Exploitation

In opposition

Limited interaction

Convenience

Collaborative

Mutually beneficial Numbers and representation

Homogeneous

Tokens

Minimum numbers

Glass ceiling

Heterogeneous

Representation at all levels

Structure Pyramidal

Rigid

Matrix

Hierarchical

Self-managed

Flatter Systems and policies Word of mouth Formal

Discretionary

Transparent

Flexible

© 1995, Chaos Management Ltd.

71

AN

NEX

5(v

iii):

Stra

tegi

c ac

tion

pla

nnin

g fo

rms

72

Strategic action planning forms STRATEGIC PLANNING HANDOUT 1

It would be clear that my organization is successfully evolving as a well-functioning diverse organization if:

Vision for excellence: 1) 2) Vision for impact: 1) 2)

What is currently true?

Excellence: 1) 2) Impact: 1) 2)

Key changes needed

Vision for excellence: 1) 2) Vision for impact: 1) 2)

STRATEGIC PLANNING HANDOUT 2

Proposed change number 1: Stakeholders Power Involvement Interests/Rationale

73

Proposed change number 2: Stakeholders Power Involvement Interests/Rationale

STRATEGIC PLANNING HANDOUT 3

Center capabilities and resources to support the desired changes, including human, financial and methodological:

Capabilities and resources needed Available Not readily available

STRATEGIC PLANNING HANDOUT 4

Top three constraints: 1) Most difficult constraint and possible solutions (Margolis

Wheel)

2) Top constraint:

3) Possible solutions:

STRATEGIC PLANNING HANDOUT 5

“Strategic” actions for excellence & impact 1)

2)

3)

4)

CG

IAR

Gen

der &

Div

ersity

Pro

gram

74

W

orks

hop

Rep

ort

STR

AT

EGIC

PLA

NN

ING

HA

ND

OU

T S

IX

Cen

ter:

___

____

St

rate

gic

actio

n nu

mbe

r #

: __

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

1) T

he v

isio

n th

at th

is a

ctio

n se

rves

:

2) T

he r

ecom

men

ded

actio

n is

for

Exc

elle

nce

[___

__]

and/

or fo

r Im

pact

[__

____

] 3)

The

spe

cific

exp

ecte

d ou

tcom

e(s)

:

4) W

ho w

ill c

ham

pion

and

/or

spon

sor

this

act

ion?

5) W

ho w

ill im

plem

ent t

he a

ctio

n?

6)

Wha

t res

ourc

es w

ill b

e re

quir

ed?

Whi

ch a

re a

vaila

ble?

Whi

ch m

ust b

e fo

und?

H

uman

Fi

nanc

ial

Met

hodo

logi

cal

7) W

hat c

onst

rain

ts w

ill y

ou o

verc

ome

and

how

?

8) W

hat i

s yo

ur ti

mel

ine

(ove

r ne

xt tw

o ye

ars)

?

9) H

ow a

re y

ou g

oing

to m

onito

r or

eva

luat

e th

e im

pact

of t

his

actio

n? W

hat s

ucce

ss c

rite

ria

will

you

use

? W

hat i

ndic

ator

s of

pro

gres

s?

10)

How

will

res

ults

be

shar

ed, a

nd w

ith w

hom

?

Page: 7 [NH1]delivering the content? what’s that mean? were workshop leaders? facilitators? Page: 7 [NH2]The other documents have used the term ANNEX, not Appendix…this should change… Page: 8 [NH3]be careful giving a page number, because it could change in the printing…maybe it’s best to say section name… Page: 12 [NH4]can you give a sentence about the exercise? Page: 12 [NH5]is this handout available? maybe no need to mention it, if we don’t see what definitions are being compared to. Page: 13 [NH6]see it where? does the handout have a name? is it an annex? Page: 20 [NH7]what handouts? names? Page: 21 [NH8]global? does this mean systemwide? or beyond CG? Page: 22 [NH9]metaplans and groupware? well known stuff? is groupware in caps? Page: 22 [NH10]the handout again. is there just one handout? is it the one in the annex? if so, reference it. if not, can it be put in? Page: 24 [NH11]I don’t understand this Page: 24 [NH12]I re-wrote this a bit to make is similar to the rest of the paper—please make sure I didn’t mess it up…. Page: 24 [NH13]do your readers know what these are? Page: 24 [NH14]Vangie is Ms Holvino??? do the readers know that this is her name? Page: 25 [NH15]is the problematic moment on the video MS Holvino—or is it something else?. If it’s something else, you should at least give a few words to explain what’s on the video… Page: 25 [NH16]this is different from the problematic moment video? Page: 27 [NH17]are these proper titles? Org Dev and Act Res…if not, should not be capitalized. if so, should also be capitalized in the box below (I think when I edited the framework, they were not capitalized—but I’m not sure) Page: 29 [NH18]by whom?