From evaluation to continuous improvement: lessons in accountability at InovaQuebrada
Every funded project must, without exception, go through the accountability procedure. How should this process be approached so that it becomes a pedagogical tool that empowers peripheral leaders?
The InovaQuebrada Fund
It is important to provide context: to talk about the accountability process, we first need to introduce the InovaQuebrada Fund, a fund that was created as a strengthening strategy focused on the individual and organizational development of the participants of the Inova Quebrada program. Each leader received an amount upon producing and having approved a strengthening plan, a plan that included writing a project, a budget description in the form of budget line items, an execution timeline and proposed social-impact indicators. I, Nara Leme, Project Manager of Inova Quebrada, would like to propose a reflection.
Two structuring axes
Accountability as a pedagogical tool for leaders who have little or no experience with the process should preferably be guided by two structuring axes: a) the understanding that accountability is a competence and b) one should aim for autonomy rather than dependence. Below, I will offer some comments on these two perspectives:
A) Accountability as a competence: For the author PERRENOUD, Philippe (1999), competence is “the capacity to act effectively in a given type of situation, grounded in knowledge.” In practical terms, several skills are needed to build a competence. In the case of accountability, the leaders are expected to master at least two of the following three skills: the skill of organizing and storing documents, digital skills and the skill of reading and interpretation. When two of these skills are mastered, the third is developed throughout the process.
B) Accountability: autonomy vs. dependence: Throughout the accountability process of the Inova Quebrada Fund, a 476% increase in requests for extra advisory support was observed, compared with the previous month, when there was no accountability to be carried out. Of 100% of the requests for extra advisory support, 74% were to deal solely and exclusively with the topic addressed here. This figure must be analyzed very carefully: are the leaders going through an advisory process or handing their tasks off to a third party? Processes that demonstrate autonomy will involve increasingly specific questions, showing a level of depth that requires far more a validation from the person whose role is to build the skill than the presentation of a guided execution.
To recognize the handing off of tasks, watch for the following points: if the questions are very basic or show that there was no first attempt or search through the distributed reference materials, the handing off of the task may come disguised as “show me exactly how I should do it,” and this is the process that must be stopped immediately, always reinforcing to the leader that there is no problem in requesting advisory support; it is necessary to show that a process of weakening the skills that are to become competences is under way.
How, then, can we ensure that the accountability process is effectively turned into a pedagogical learning tool?
- Awareness during the process: It is recommended to take an approach that brings the leader’s doubt into awareness. In a fictional example, if a leader repeatedly raises questions about how to access documents online, how to download / upload or how to turn documents into PDF, then beyond the solution itself, it should be pointed out to that leader that there is a gap that should be observed and worked on, and from there, frame the question: at this moment, would investing in technological skills bring improvements to the organization?
- A safe environment for error: There is no room for growth in an environment that seeks out culprits or mistakes, just as there is little to gain from a systematic search for the quick fix. If the focus is development, there is a zone of convergence between erring and solving that creates a healthy environment for development; this environment is the environment well built for error. An environment well built for error must be open enough for creativity to exist and closed enough for ethics, financial compliance and the law to be the foundation of creating and executing. Which brings us to a final point:
- Feedback is different from judgment: Each leader needs to receive constructive feedback. Moral or intellectual judgment destroys the leader’s self-esteem, especially in peripheral contexts, and that is harmful to the learning process. Feedback, in this sense, needs to be directly tied to the conscious process of the action, a point that was addressed earlier. If this process was carried out consciously, it is quite likely that the leader already knows what their weak points were; in this sense, feedback does not reaffirm that weakness but rather helps to find a set of strengthening possibilities that will convert the skills into competences of autonomous execution.
Bibliographic reference: PERRENOUD, Philippe. Construir as competências desde a escola. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 1999.
*This article used artificial intelligence tools exclusively for spelling correction and adaptation to ABNT standards, without any change to the content.
References
- PERRENOUD, Philippe. Construir as competências desde a escola. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 1999.