Learning and accountability

If you Google for development coöperation (just over 1.000.000 hits) you will find that some 132,000 of those hits refer to both “evaluation” and “behavio(u)r(s)”.  So behaviour is clearly an issue when you look at evaluation of development coöperation.

Out of the one million hits on development coöperation, 4730 give a hit for “evaluation tools”, 2180 for “evaluation tool”. For “evaluation methodology” the result is 5160, and for its plural 2430.  If you look within the one million hits for development coöperation for “behavior(u)r(s) of evaluators” you will get exactly two hits.

Evaluation. So much reflection on behaviour, on evaluation methodologies and tools but the behaviour of evaluators is never studied,  at least not in the context of development coöperation.

4 Rooms of Learning

Most evaluations primarily aim to satisfy accountability requirements. Tax money is allocated and channeled down a chain towards public or private actors and finally to the ultimate beneficiaries. Actors in the chain need to inform the actors one step above them. Besides information coming from that actor itself, external audits ensure that resources are handled in accordance with certain standards and not misused for other purposes than they were intended to. External evaluation normally looks as to whether the “use according to the originally intended purposes” actually has any of the originally intended effects on the ultimate beneficiaries.

But do we actually learn from evaluations. Learning and accountability are not the same. Accountability normally has a legal and institutional dimension; it involves negotiation, judgment and possibly punishment.  Learning is much more fluid process, there are few rules, it can be an individual or organizational dynamic and it can be quite irrational, involving emotions.

It happened to me again a few months ago: the evaluator comes in, hired by the provider of our project’s financial resources. We are to be reviewed “as part of standard accountability procedures”.  After having told us what will happen to us – we and our work are the ‘object’ of evaluation, the evaluator and donor are the subjects in this evaluation grammar – the evaluators cheerfully adds he hopes we will also learn from the process.  Intimidated, I nod, off course we hope to learn, it would be actually inappropriate to say you do not intend or expect to learn. But you know you will not. The fact you are treated as an object, and respond that way seems to play a role in does, but how?

Weisbord and Janoff use a four room model for learning: Home base is the room labeled “contentment”.  Inevitably at some stage we are in “denial”: reality has changed; our assumptions were wrong, things do not go as well as expected.   In a learning process you are able to move on, acknowledge you have a problem and focus on finding a solution: you may linger sometime in the room labeled “confusion”. That uncertainty can lead you to growth, change and move you back into “contentment”, or – if learning does not take place – it hurls us back into the room of denial, waiting for someone or something to draw you back into the uncomfortable room of confusion.

What influences whether the evaluation actually help us overcome denial and confusion and generate growth and learning?  When I commission an evaluation or when I am being evaluated in order to be accountable, will I actually also learn? Besides methodologies and tools, the behavior of all those directly involved that will also very much determine or not whether I will actually make my round through those four rooms of learning. But if Google is a measure there seems to be no yet any serious confusion about behaviours of evaluators.

2 thoughts on “Learning and accountability

  1. Dear all,

    In a informative article like this on an important subject one would hope that sources would be better recognized and given credit. Weisbord and Janoff – who happen to be long-term friends of myself – have never claimed to be the originators of The Four Rooms of Change Theory, which is the official name of the theory you refer to.

    This theory is one of the significant results of more than ten years of ground-breaking research at Stockholm University, Sweden by Claes Janssen, Ph. D., Psychologist, Researcher and Author.

    Marvin Weisbord and Sandra Janoff have, since they met Claes Janssen and learned about the research and the theory in the seventies and eighties, been strong supporters of the theory. This was for several reasons, of which you can read about some in all of their books, for example Productive Workplaces, Future Search and Don’t Just Do Something, Stand there!

    Claes Janssen has written a number of books on the topic and two of them will be released in English in the fall of 2011, most likely in late September. The books are The Four Rooms of Change. A Practical Everyday Psychology, Part 1., which was originally published in Swedish in 1996. The title of the second book is The Four Rooms of Change. A Practical Everyday Psychology, Part 2. Fifteen More years of Experience.

    Also, check out Claes Janssen’s web site http://www.claesjanssen.com where several of his books are described in English. And if you want to learn more, shop for books or get trained and certified in this outstanding and completely unique theory, check out http://www.andolin.com/fourrooms.

    Hope this was helpful – The Four Rooms of Change and all of you interested in learning more about its different applications deserves the original.


    Bengt Lindstrom
    Organizational Development Consultant. General Manager of Ander & Lindstrom AB and The Four Rooms of Change Group.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s