In 1996, the Asian Productivity Organization launched the Integrated Community Development (ICD) programme with the aim of sharing experiences of community development in Asia, and developing a method for strengthening the capacities of communities to plan and implement their own projects. After 12 years of experience and action research to try to trigger effective behaviour patterns, we have gained important insights into behaviour and how it relates to capacity development in practice.

Community capacity development (CCD)

Globalisation has had tremendous impacts on the traditional values, structures and knowledge base of many Asian communities, which are having to deal with increasing external pressures and changing internal dynamics. Government and NGO programmes create additional stress, as they often encourage a ‘hand-out’ mentality rather than genuine capacity development.

We have identified the following challenges of CCD in Asia:

1. Many communities lack motivation and self-confidence due to their experiences with external development programmes, top-down planning by government agencies and internal conflicts. This has led to the paradoxical situation where facilitators focus on community-driven development, while the communities expect ready-made solutions.
2. Communities tend to underestimate their internal resources, potential and knowledge, while overestimating the value of foreign resources, solutions and knowledge. Increasingly, they expect external agencies to ‘bring’ development to them.
3. Many external agencies have created situations in which development actors and communities focus on obtaining external funds, leading to internal conflicts and disparities between those who benefit and those who do not. What is often missing is a collective community effort to develop a shared vision and to find ways to move towards it.
4. Capacity development is now in the mainstream of development discourse, but in practice the focus is on the delivery of outputs. Even capacity development initiatives often follow blueprint approaches to the transfer of knowledge and technology. Such transfers of solutions, either from the past or from elsewhere, do not support communities in developing their own capacities.

All humans are continuously engaged in developing the capacities they need to achieve their goals. Taking action and reflecting on the outcomes, applying knowledge and mobilising resources are essential aspects of life. Even the poorest communities are rich in terms of their capacities to deal with the challenges they face.

It is not the role of external agencies to impose their own vision of development on communities, or to apply blueprint approaches based on standardised processes, predefined solutions or well-defined tools. CCD is a collaborative process between external capacity developers and actors at the community level. In this process, the key roles of such facilitators are to encourage communities to:

• discover and mobilise internal and external resources;
• create necessary knowledge;
• discover and mobilise internal and external resources;
• engage in communication and dialogue across generations and sections of the community, leading to consensus and legitimate decisions;
• find effective ways to deal with emerging conflicts;
• continuously reflect on actions and outcomes;
• collaborate regardless of the diversity that exists in every community.

Changing facilitators’ behaviour

In the initial phase, the trainers involved in the ICD programme believed that behavioural change among facilitators was crucial to supporting communities in their capacity development. This belief was influenced by the debate on participatory rural appraisal, and the observation that change agents employed by governments and NGOs often use a top-down approach, focusing on teaching communities what they should do.

Based on this understanding, we designed a series of training programmes for facilitators. The participants were trained in facilitation concepts and techniques, and encouraged to reflect on their role. The programmes focused on clarifying what attitudes are conducive to community development, and how to change them to ensure the emergence of desired behaviour. We put considerable energy into teaching the facilitators how to encourage dialogue, demonstrate listening skills, etc. After these preparations in the classroom, and sharing ideas on how to build relationships of trust, we then went for the ‘real application’.

The outcome was not impressive. The meetings with communities resembled formal exercises rather than authentic, relaxed human interactions. Despite our advice to relax and focus on dialogue, the facilitators’ behaviour was almost the opposite. Rather than trying to develop trustful relationships with communities and encouraging them to reflect on their strengths and potential, they simply applied the tools and methods they had learned in the training.

We realised that theoretical concepts of what is appropriate behaviour may be useful in discussions among development practitioners, but they do not necessarily change their own behaviour. The facilitators who had talked so eloquently about respect and empathy during the training showed quite the opposite behaviour in their interactions with the communities.

Behaviour, intentions and social interactions

We realised that the facilitators’ behaviour was significantly influenced by their previous experiences with the communities, and their intentions. It seemed not to be predefined by attitudes alone, but something that emerged in social interactions. A systemic view of the interactions between community and facilitators helped us to focus on the relational and dynamic nature of behaviour.

We applied the ideas developed in approaches such as Kaizen, Appreciative Enquiry and solution-focused brief therapy. Since all people have the potential for diverse behaviour, we shifted our attention to creating a psycho-social environment that would provide space for desired behaviour to emerge.

This shift led to the development of the Seven D Approach, which consists of seven steps that enable facilitators and community members to develop a trustful relationship and enrich behavioural change in each other (see box). We started by clarifying the principles of the approach and the intentions at each step, and ‘de-tooling’ our interactions. That helped both sides to engage in genuine conversations without being fixed on tools and how to apply them. We concentrated not on the facilitators’ behaviour, but on the dynamic interactions between them and the communities.

The approach is based on the insight that both facilitators and community members are capable of showing the kind of behaviour needed for CCD without necessarily being taught, and so do not need training to adopt pre-defined ‘optimal behaviour’. Instead, both can be encouraged to become aware of their intentions and to interact in a more genuine way. Continuous collective reflection can improve the ability to widen the range of behavioural options.

Principles in practice

For example, in a programme for agricultural extension officers in Iran, we first discussed the key principles of the Seven D Approach (see box), and asked the participants to share their experiences as CCD extension workers. Without being taught any sophisticated tools, they visited a community. We explained that the intention was to establish relationships with the community and explore their capacities. The extension officers were encouraged to engage in dialogue with community members and ask them to reflect on those aspects of their life they were proud of. This brief introduction was sufficient to create a space for relaxed communication. By providing an avenue for behaviour conducive to bonding to emerge, both sides could develop trust and engage in a respectful, enriching way.

The interactions proceeded like this. The extension officers arrived in their four-wheel-drive jeeps and the community, who had everything prepared, were waiting. During formal greetings, the facilitators showed confident non-verbal behaviour, while the community members stood with their heads slightly bowed, showing their respect for the visitors, and indicating that they were ‘helpless’ and ‘happy’ that these change agents had arrived to help them.

When the facilitators started asking the people what they were proud of, there was silence. But after some time, they started talking about the footpath they had laid without government support, or how peaceful their community was. They pointed to their bath house, which was so clean and better maintained than those in surrounding villages, and invited the visitors to see with their own eyes.

We have observed similar processes in Laos, Nepal, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Fiji. Slowly, community members start to talk more confidently; they straighten their backs and seem to grow several centimetres, while the external agents start to bend, showing their respect for the people and listening to them as they talk about their achievements. Respectful behaviour emerges by exploring how they achieved all those things they are proud of. Empathy and admiration for their capacities is awakened, and appropriate behaviour follows as a simple result of social interaction.

It is important to emphasise that effective facilitators do not mimic the ‘respectful behaviour’ or ‘careful listening’ described in manuals or taught by trainers. Rather, their behaviour is authentic and appropriate to the situation, based on their new understanding of the community’s achievements.

Reflection in action

After the first interactions, we would reflect on what happened and what we observed about the community and ourselves. Such collective after-action reflections enable a person actively, with body and mind, to turn the event into an experience, and internalise it. Such internalisation – the interplay of previous experiences and present interactions – creates the foundation for new behaviour to emerge. The aim is for facilitators to develop the capability to reflect while in action and change their behaviour in ways that will contribute to CCD.

In our experience, such reflection is a powerful way of contributing to behavioural change. It may not be behavioural change in the strict sense, but it strengthens the facilitators’ confidence to adopt appropriate behaviour in their future interactions. CCD requires a systemic approach that pays attention to both facilitators and community members. The capacity for effective behaviour is best strengthened collaboratively, through genuine interactions where desired behaviour can emerge.

Behavioural change is a continuous process. Careful, systematic reflection on behaviour and its results can help to improve the ability to adapt. Reflective practice and action learning are two essential features of learning programmes that aim to widen behavioural options. It is not ‘behavioural change’ of facilitators that is needed, but the creation of avenues where they can interact with their clients, develop a common intention and reflect on their behaviour and outcomes. Such reflective practice is very effective in the collective capacity development of both facilitators and communities.

Further reading

Dhamotharan, M. (2009) Handbook on Integrated Community Development: Seven D Approach to Community Capacity Development. APO.
http://www.apo-tokyo.org/