Praxis Note 5: Mayan Organisation and Management. INTRAC

8/12/2019 Praxis Note 5: Mayan Organisation and Management. INTRAC

1/9

PraxisNote No.5

Mayan

Organisation and

Management

Felix Alvarado

PraxisNote 5 Mayan Organisationand Management Felix Alvarado 2004 1


2/9

Mayan Organisation andManagement

Felix Alvaradoi

Keywords

Organisation, Indigenous Peoples, Management, Professional Development, Research Agenda

Introduction

A large proportion of Latin-Americansare not Latin, despite living with theheritage of the encounter between Spainand the Americas. Among otherchallenges, indigenous peoples in thecontinent face the need to manage theirorganisations in the context of a systembuilt by cultures very different fromtheir own. In Guatemala, Mayan

organisations have adopted anincreasingly relevant role in the nationalcontext, and have experienced somedegree of institutionalisation, along withits implications. There is at leastincipient evidence pointing to importantdifferences between Western andMayan management of indigenouspeoples organisations in Guatemala,

where around half the populationbelongs to one of 22 different ethno-

linguistic groups. Some evidencesuggests that received knowledge ofconventional management promoted bymanagement schools, and theassumptions about the constitution oforganisations in the Western world, donot necessarily offer the best solutions,and cannot be adopted uncritically byindigenous peoples bent on taking morecontrol of their own development.

Diversity as an Aspect ofManagement

Although the relevance of social andcultural diversity for both analysis andpractice in management has beenrecognised since people started studyingand prescribing management, interest inculture as a crucial dimension fororganisation and performance increased

when it was perceived as a critical factorin addressing a variety of differencesbetween Japanese and US industrialorganisations (Schein,1995). A firstaspect of this interest, which we mayterm diagnostic, seeks to typify thecultural differences betweenorganisations entering into contact witheach other, or focuses on the way in

which management is practiced indifferent cultural contexts. A secondaspect, which we may call instrumental,seeks to find ways to manage agentsfrom cultures different from themanagers. Additionally, the process ofinter- and trans-national linkage calledglobalisation is increasingly recognisedas cultural, social and political, ratherthan just economic (Reich, 1992;

Appadurai, 1996; Reinicke, 1998).



3/9

Empirical Features ofMayan Organisations

From one study we found a variety ofdualities illustrating differences in

perception or practice between Mayanorganisations and the internationalcooperation agencies helping them1(Rodas, Alvarado and Chacln, 1998).

Among other things, Mayan subjects seeactions and results in their organisationsas part of a longer-term process than theproject linking them to any specificcooperation agency. They had a markedpreference for oral rather than writtencommunications. Additionally, percep-

tions about the time ruling theirtransactions are cyclical, rather thanlinear, making it difficult for them tomake sense of donors expectationsconcerning discrete products that comefrom clearly differentiated short-termactivities (Stewart, 1997).

Are these findings simply localpeculiarities within the organisationalcosmos, or are we facing phenomena

that may teach us something aboutmanagement, and at the same time helpus derive learning that may benefitsubjects in the Mayan population itself?Before attempting an answer necessarily tentative to thesequestions, it is useful to identify otherfeatures pointing towards differencesand similarities between management inMayan organisations and notionsreceived from more conventional

management.

Indigenous organisations have over thelast decade and a half progressively

1 In this study, among other things, a set ofmanagers from NGOs self-defined as Mayanand the officers serving them in internationalcooperation agencies were interviewed toidentify issues arising from their relationship. Aseries of issues were identified in whichimportant differences existed among the two

groups (e.g. decision-making, criteria forrecruitment, oral versus written commitmentand so on).

found spaces for political, ideologicaland strategic convergence in their effortsto vindicate themselves vis--vis a staterepresenting non-indigenous interests.

This has meant that above their ethnic

and linguistic differences Mayan leadershave had to find a lingua franca paradoxically Spanish and at the sametime use it to develop their own culturalinitiatives. The challenge has been huge,and the effort has indeed been criticisedas revisionist (Bastos and Cams, 1995)among the indigenous community itself,as well as leaving little time for theorganisations own internaldevelopment. Besides the challenges

posed by inter-cultural relations amongindigenous communities, Mayanorganisations have had to face the needto link to international cooperationagencies. In the study mentioned above,interviewees underscored the burdenthat trans-cultural communication placeson Mayan organisations, which mustdeal not just with using Spanish for day-to-day transactions, but also having toadopt and adapt to the codes of

cooperation agencies coming fromcultures that are even more remote fromtheirs than the Hispanic (Rodas,

Alvarado and Chacln, 1998).

The difficulty of grasping the scope ofthis cultural complexity is repeatedlyemphasised by external evaluations ofgovernment and cooperation agencies

working with Mayan organisations,which point to the insufficient

incorporation of a focus on ethnicdiversity in programmes, making itimpossible to address this requirementadequately (Alvarado and Barillas, 1998).

Reproducing Values

Where do the differences betweenMayan and Western organisations comefrom, and what do they tell us about thecontext in which these organisationsarise? A valuable pointer on this subject

is offered by studying educationalsystems. An analysis of the educational



4/9

situation of the indigenous peoples inGuatemala identified educationalpractices currently maintained withinMayan communities (Zapeta et al.,1997). Three of a variety of elements for

a practical model of Mayan educationare used here. First, there is an emphasison those who occupy positions ofauthority as teachers: they are theelders either literally or figuratively

who teach the right way of doing things.Second, the preferred medium forteaching is oral: advice, explanations andcorrections in practice sustain thelearning process. Finally, education,rather than the theoretical transfer of

knowledge, is a process of learning inpractice, for workand in the context of dailylife. At the same time, the school as astate organisation is seen by the subjectsof that study as the place whereexogenous education takes place, andthrough which the state assails anddilutes their culture.

The Role of the Mayan Manager:Success and Acceptance

An important area to be studiedconcerns the actual practices engaged inby managers in Mayan organisations.

The municipality as the key agent oflocal government in Guatemalademonstrates the relationship betweenmayor, citizens and indigenousorganisations (Glvez and Camposeco,1997; Glvez, Hoffman and Mack(1998) contrast authoritarian andparticipative styles of government in

several indigenous communities,underlining the importance of historicaland cultural aspects of the localdynamics and their relationship with thenational state in understanding thesedifferences. This points to theimportance of resisting the temptationto stereotype Mayan organisations andtheir management, by assuming thatbelonging to a culture that favoursparticipation and consensus necessarily

leads to a more democratic form oforganisation and decision-making

(Rodas, Alvarado and Chacln, 1998). Italso sends a methodological warningabout the importance of treating theseas any other organisation, on the basisof the empirical features they present,

rather than based on assumed genericfeatures.

Another study illustrates the challengesinvolved in Mayan management as a nomans land. Thus, a mayor in a chortcommunity faced difficulties because, asa member of a generation that was nottaught the ancestral language, he haddifficulty communicating with oldermembers in his own community. At the

same time, urban non-indigenousinhabitants rejected him for beingindigenous and a farmer (Arvalo et al.,1997: 2831).

Practical Implications:Evaluation and Commitment

The practice of management asunderstood in the West generally impliesshowing results. A comparison in thisarea with Mayan organisations would

reveal important differences, which playan important role in communicationefforts between these organisations andtheir donors. Repeated reports in Rodas,

Alvarado and Chacln (1998) mentionthat Mayan organisations see means ofevaluation (such as the logframe) asrigid, focused on the short term andleaving little space for process results.

Whilst Mayan managers tend toappreciate the incidence of their actions,

and those of their organisations, upon abroad and unspecific agenda for cultural,social and political development, mostdonors prefer to see productscorresponding directly to the amountsof money contributed, with previouslyspecified objectives in one to three-yearcycles, at the most. Again, thisunderscores a notable differencebetween Mayan and non-Mayanorganisations concerning preferred

communication technologies. Mayanorganisations tend to prefer oral over



5/9

written means, not just as a way tocommunicate, but also as a way to commit;in other words, verbal agreements areconsidered more credible than thoserequiring written formalisation (Rodas,

Alvarado and Chacln, 1998).

Structure and Legality

In their interaction with the state andwith the rest of society, Mayanorganisations see the need to adjust tothe existing legal and institutionalstructure. They have had toaccommodate themselves to the legalframework for non-governmentorganisations (NGOs). In this context,

although Mayan organisations arecharacterised as NGOs, some importantrestrictions and contradictions existconcerning the assumptions of that legalclassification. For example, the privilegeand dignity awarded to elders within apredominantly oral culture, and thelimited circulation of people withinclosed communities is relativelyinconsistent with a legal structurepredicated on periodic and frequent

(one to three years) exchange ofmembers sitting on an elected board ofdirectors. In one study, the majority oforganisations self-defined as Mayan fitmore with a community-basedorganisation structure than with aservice organisation structure (Alvaradoand Carrera, 1996). Finally as mentionedbefore, Mayan organisations unlike theirnon-indigenous counterparts, tend to be

participative rather than representative

organisations. Thus, while non-MayanNGOs mostly promote specific interestsand intents, Mayan organisations tend toseek the solution to social topics or issues,and to arrive at decisions through broadconsensus.

The Next Step: Buildinga Research Agenda

Both empirical evidence and what hasbeen said by multiple authors aboutmanaging cultural diversity leave little

doubt about the importance of a studyon management in Mayan organisations.However, what are the questions weshould ask and how will we use them?

The Indigenous Peoples:Subjects of Exclusion andInequity

The indigenous population inGuatemala, as in a large part of Latin

America, is subjected to a profoundinequity. More than half theGuatemalan population may beconsidered indigenous, which includesthree major ethno-linguistic groups and22 distinct ethnic groups. Ethnicity is

closely related to poverty, so that 92.6per cent of the indigenous populationlives in poverty and 81.3 per cent inextreme poverty, while in the case of thenon-indigenous population thesenumbers are 65.8 per cent and 45.2 percent, respectively (World Bank, 1995).

This translates into worse social andeconomic indicators for the indigenouspopulation. For example, the mortalityrate among children 0 to 4 years old is

directly related to the percentage ofindigenous inhabitants in each of thecountrys departments, the coverage ofhealth services is much lower among theindigenous population than otherwise(Barillas and Valladares, 1998) andeducation coverage and quality are loweramong indigenous and rural populationsthan amongst the rest of the population(De la Cruz, Girn, Zapeta and

Alvarado, 1998).

At the same time, many of the featuresof Mayan organisations that we see are areflection of ways of interpreting the

world and addressing problems thathark back to a long tradition, linked tothe need to resist and survive over 500years of domination, first colonial andthen under a nation state that wasorganised to serve the interests of adifferent, hegemonic culture. With the

return to a formally democratic regimein 1986, new spaces opened up in the



6/9

country for the legal organisation of theindigenous population. Amid anexplosive expansion in the number ofnon-government organisations in thecountry2, new and expanded Mayan

organisations also arose, both thosedealing with the promotion and defenceof the Mayan peoples rights and thoseaddressing the conceptualization of theircultural bases (Bastos and Cams, 1995).In the same way, the state began toaccommodate in an expanded mannerthe needs for representation of theindigenous peoples. In 1996, the Accordfor a Firm and Lasting Peace was signedbetween the government and the

guerrillas, ending over thirty years ofinternal war. Among the accordscovered were one specifically addressingthe identity and rights of the indigenouspeoples and another dealing with socio-economic and agrarian issues. The firstaccord covers aspects of culturaldevelopment of indigenous peoples andtheir equitable treatment by the state,

while the second deals with the needsfor socioeconomic development

predominantly affecting the indigenouspopulation in rural areas.

However, these are still only minorachievements, for there are extendedand unacknowledged practices of racismand ethnic confrontation. In May 1999 aplebiscite was held to ratify a series ofconstitutional reforms required by thepeace accords to achieve, among otherissues, improved inclusion of cultural

diversity in the Guatemalan political andinstitutional system. All reformsproposed were rejected, mainly due tothe vote of the population in themetropolitan region and in the southand east of the country, in its majoritynon-indigenous.

2 According to the Ministry of the Interior, at

least 341 NGOs were founded in Guatemala justbetween 1986 and 1989 (Alvarado, Carrera andGirn, 1998).

Transition in MayanOrganisations: From Indictmentto Development

In the context of the war andimmediately after its resolution, Mayan

organisations were especially visible asagents seeking political redress from thestate and as entities dedicated tooversight on human rights of Mayanpeoples (Alvarado, Carrera and Girn,1998). These organisations evinced ahigh degree of political development, asthey managed to link interests andstrategies among a variety oforganisations representing diverseMayan interests in the preparation of the

Accord on the Identity and Rights of theIndigenous Peoples signed in March1995 (Bastos and Cams, 1995).

With the signing of the Peace in 1996,political functions, although stillimportant, began to take second placeon the scale of social priorities. Itbecame increasingly necessary, besidesoverseeing the implementation of thePeace Accords, to enhance the capacity

of Mayan organisations to managedevelopment projects and to switchfrom a position of confrontation withthe state to one of collaboration ininitiatives for reconstruction anddevelopment. In this context, theorganisations began to recognise theneed to strengthen their managementand administrative capacities, given thatpreparing and managing productive andsocial projects required efficiency and

effectiveness that had been a secondaryconsideration in organisations dedicatedto lobbying and oversight, with theirfocus on inter-institutional negotiationand fundraising among donorscommitted to a specific political agenda.In this their challenges equal, in purposeif not in content, those faced by theirWestern peers.

Mayan organisations have proved

increasingly sophisticated in facing thischallenge. Their political performance



7/9

has been considerable, as they havemanaged to place an increasing numberof representatives in Congress and win alarge number of municipal elections,including that of the city of

Quetzaltenango, the second mostimportant city after the capital.

Additionally, there has been a gradualspecialisation in areas considered apriority in indigenous development:such as linguistics (Avendao, 1999);curricular development and preparationof school textbooks; distance education;agricultural training; and micro-businessdevelopment (Zapeta et al., 1997).

Conclusions: Points fora Research Agenda

There are two levels on which to pursueideas presented here. The first leveldeals with the differences between

Western and Mayan organisations.Which of these are substantivelyrelevant for practices and what do theyimply for the development and progressof the Mayan peoples? If in fact theorganisation and management of theMayan world has a specific content andpractical implications, where must weseek them? A second level addresses thelessons to be learned here for the study,design and implementation ofmanagement tools across culturaldivides in general. Among theconclusions and other questions arisingfrom addressing these issues I wouldemphasise the following:

Considering the radically differenthistory of the Guatemalan indigenouspopulation from the societies in whichdescriptions and prescriptions of bestmanagement practices arise, it isreasonable to expect an importantdivergence in values, codes andmeanings in management practice. Whatare these differences and what do theymean for the development and progressof Mayan peoples? More generally, howfar must we take into account diverse

cultural histories in understanding andprescribing management tools andpractices across cultural interfaces?Monitoring, evaluation and reportingconstitute a prime field for this

discussion: should internationalcooperation agencies adjust to localcultural systems in requiring reports andimplementing monitoring systems?Should local organisations accept theseuncritically?

What can studies of the strategiesfor relationship-building developed byindigenous mayors vis--vis non-indigenous communities, and between

indigenous NGOs and cooperationagencies, for example, bring to theunderstanding of management inmulticultural settings?

How are the various indigenousleaders each of whom belong toclearly differentiated ethno-linguisticgroups satisfying the needs for mutualcommunication, not just on politicaltopics, but also on more pedestrian

issues of resource administration andlogistics? How can entities seekingimpact on a larger scale, exceeding thatof specific ethnic identities, reconcileglobal, regional and national agendas

with inter-ethnic differences?

What is the nature of conventionalreceived knowledge applied by Mayanmanagers in their daily work? Withinsuch knowledge and strategies what

appears most useful? How were theseacquired, and how is a Mayan managertrained? In what areas are moretraditional practices maintained, and

why is that so? More generally, howmuch of such traditional knowledge canbe codified for the subjects benefit, andshould cooperation agencies attempt todo so?

Are the features of a successful andcapable manager different in Mayan (ornon-Western) and Western contexts, or



8/9

are they simply presented differently?Furthermore, how does a non-Westernmanager obtain and ensure success? In

what measure does the rise of ageneration of young, educated Mayans

enjoying an environment of greater civicfreedom affect the more traditionalforms of delegation of authority?

What role does sponsorship andlinking to peer groups play in ensuringthe survival of new Mayan or culture-specific managers in the organisationalcontext? Is there a significantrelationship here between indigenousmanagers and non-indigenous mentors

as bridges to the wider political,economic and institutional system, stillpredominantly non-indigenous?

What are the practical implicationsof the features of Mayan/non-Mayan (orindigenous/ non-indigenous) differenceconcerning measurement andperformance? How do we deal with theneed to include long-term processmeasures that overcome the limitations

of more conventional short-termproductivity measures?

Finally, what are the implications ofthese concerns for the training ofmanagers that will lead indigenousorganisations into the third millennium?On the one hand, we must bettercharacterise such managers in thoseaspects that are nature as a part of acultural heritage and those that are

nurture acquired in practice byresolving day-to-day issues ininstitutional management. On the otherhand, we need to identify the formativeelements that, while preservingmayagement3, may also broaden themanagers role in leading organisationsthat contribute to building a moreequitable society.

3 I thank R. Valladares for this ingeniousneologism.

It is my hope that this note will awakenan interest in addressing systematically atleast some of the issues outlined here.Some of the issues I have pointed toprobably resonate with experiences in

other contexts where indigenous andnon-indigenous cultures are interfacing,

while at the same time experimenting indevelopment together. A generalconcern is to elicit responses about thesimilarities and differences between

what I present here and other contexts.At the same time, more than simplysatisfying intellectual curiosity this is aninvitation to giving us all indigenousand non-indigenous the chance to

negotiate and build a future that ispotentially different from the situationof colonialism external first, but latermore insidiously internal that stillshapes the existence of a considerablepart of humanity, not just in Latin

America, but wherever indigenouspopulations meet the overriding meansand interests of Western culture andsociety.



9/9

References

Alvarado, F. and M. Carrera (1996).Diagnstico y Propuesta de FortalecimientoInstitucional de ONG de Desarrollo.FORO/PNUD/MINUGUA (Foro deONG de Guatemala, Programa deNaciones Unidas para el Desarrollo,Misin de las Naciones Unidas para la

Verificacin del Cumplimiento de losAcuerdos de Paz en Guatemala).Guatemala.

Alvarado, F., M. Carrera and A. Girn(1998). Perfil de las Organizaciones NoGubernamentales en Guatemala. Foro deCoordinaciones de ONG de Guatemala(FORO) y Banco Mundial. Guatemala.

Alvarado, F. and E. Barillas (1998).Evaluacin Externa del Fondo de DesarrolloDemocrtico. CECI, GSD Consultores

Asociados, Guatemala.Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large:

Cultural dimensions of globalization.University of Minnesota Press,Minneapolis and London.

Arvalo, F., V. Ramrez, S. Alvarez, L. Len,P. de la Roca and R. Valladares (1997).Diagnstico de 7 Comunidades Lingsticas enVas de Extincin. Fondo de DesarrolloIndgena de Guatemala (FODIGUA),GSD Consultores Asociados. Guatemala.

Avendao, N. (1999). Oxlajuuj Keej MayaAjtziib: Investigadores Mayas, en: RevistaDomingo, Prensa Libre, 13 de Junio de 1999.Guatemala.

Barillas, E. and R. Valladares (1998).Inversiones en Salud, Equidad y Pobreza:Guatemala. Informe Final. The WorldBank, United Nations DevelopmentProgramme, Pan American HealthOrganisation, Guatemala.

Bastos, S. and M. Camus (1995). AbriendoCaminos: Las Organizaciones Mayas desde el

Nbel hasta el Acuerdo de Derechos Indgenas.Facultad Latinoamericana de CienciasSociales (FLACSO). Guatemala.

De la Cruz, M., R. Girn, J.A. Zapeta and F.Alvarado (1998). El Sistema EducativoGuatemalteco: Anlisis y Propuesta para el

Area Administrativa de la Reforma Educativa.Comisin Paritaria de Reforma Educativa(COPARE), Guatemala.

Glvez, F. and Roberto Camposeco (1997).Guatemala: Polticas de Descentralizacin yCapacidad de Gestin Administrativa yFinanciera de las Municipalidades. FacultadLatinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales(FLACSO). San Salvador.

Glvez, Vctor, C. Hoffman and L. Mack(1998). Experiencias de ParticipacinDemocrtica y Poder Local en Guatemala.Facultad Latinoamericana de CienciasSociales (FLACSO). Guatemala.

Reich, R. (1992). The Work of Nations.Vintage Books. New York.

Reinicke, W. (1998). Global Public Policy:Governing Without Government? BrookingsInstitution Press, Washington.

Rodas, I., F. Alvarado and C. Chacln(1998). Anlisis y Recomendaciones al FDD

para Trabajar con Organizaciones Mayas:Informe Final. CECI, GSD Consultores

Asociados, Guatemala.Schein, E. (1995). Organisational Culture and

Leadership.Jossey-Bass, San Francisco andOxford.

Stewart, T. (1997). Intellectual Capital: TheNew Wealth of Organisations. CurrencyDoubleday. New York, London, Toronto,Sydney, Auckland.

World Bank (1995). Guatemala: AnAssessment of Poverty. Report No. 12313-GU, Country Department II, HumanResources Operations Division, Latin

America and the Caribbean RegionalOffice, Washington.

Zapeta, J., M. Chacach, J. Cupil, M.Curruchiche, M. and E. Cums (1997).Diagnstico de la Realidad Educativa de losPueblos Indgenas y Otros Pueblos de

Mesoamrica: Informe Guatemala. FundacinRigoberta Mench Tum, UNESCO,Guatemala.

i GSD Consultores Asociados, Avenida Reforma7-62, Zona 9, Edificio Aristos Reforma, Oficina606, Guatemala 01009. International mail: P.O.Box 590808 (P187), Miami Florida 33159-0808,USA. E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]. Readers areinvited to comment and respond to this paper.


Praxis Note 5: Mayan Organisation and Management. INTRAC

Documents

Transcript of Praxis Note 5: Mayan Organisation and Management. INTRAC