PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT, Vol. 5 , NO. 2, 145-156 (1985)

Managerial roles for social development management

DERICK W. BRINKERHOFF University of Maryland. College Park, Maryland

RUDI KLAUSS Academy for Educational Development, Washington D. C.

SUMMARY

The configuration of roles needed for effective management of social development is discussed and compared with that needed for conventional development project management. It is argued that while the managerial skills associated with more conventional projects are useful to social development managers, social development management places greater emphasis on entrepreneurial behaviour and attention to both analysing and influencing the environment external to the organization. Facilitating the creation of local-level capacity also requires strong interpersonal skills. The extent to which social development management skills can be trained for is discussed, with an illustration from Sri Lanka. A combined skills training plus job rotation approach to preparing social development managers is suggested. The need to modify organizational structures and incentive patterns in order to effectively support new management skills is highlighted.

INTRODUCTION

There has been a growing shift in the development community away from thinking about development in terms of optimal allocation of available physical and monetary resources to achieve targeted economic growth rates towards seeing people as development’s central focus. This people-centered conception does not ignore the need, for example, to raise agricultural productivity, provide employment opportunities in rural or urban areas, or build infrastructure. However, it takes as its starting point local people’s knowledge, capacities, aspirations and desires, and places development activities in the service of bettering people’s lives in ways that best suit them. People become both the means and the ends of development. Evidence increasingly suggests that interventions taking this perspective have a

Derick Brinkerhoff is on the staff of the University of Maryland’s International Development Management Centre. He is currently advisor to the Ministry of Planning in Port-au-Prince, Haiti through a joint arrangement with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Rudi Klauss is a field co-ordinator of a USAID-funded project being implemented by the Academy for Educational Development (AED) in Zimbabwe. An earlier version of this article was presented at the American Society for Public Administration Annual Meeting, New York City, April 1983. The views expressed are solely those of the authors and should not be attributed to USAID. USDA or AED.

027 1 -2075/85/020145- 12$0 1.20 01985 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

146 Derick W. Brinkerhoff and Rudi Klauss

higher probability of producing effective, self-sustainable results (Cohen and Uphoff, 1980; Paul, 1982). The case for merging the people-centered approach with productivity concerns into a strategy for rural development is convincingly made by Johnston and Clarke (1982).

The people-centred perspective has profound implications for the way development interventions are planned, organized and managed. These implications have been the subject of a growing body of intensive applied research which can be grouped under the general label of social development management.

The social development process seeks to mobilize local resources to address locally defined needs, recognizing that these are a function of the socioeconomic and political context in which local people live (Korten, 1980). Effective programmes, and the inputs required to carry them out, must be formulated as an integral part of the mobilization process. Social development management’s overarching task is to combine external technical resources and other inputs with local ones in ways that enhance local development capacity. This requires programme designs and implementation procedures that are attuned to constant modification over the life of programmes in response to changing local conditions, rather than applying externally-conceived ‘blueprint’ solutions according to a predetermined schedule to address beneficiary problems (Korten, 1981; Korten and Alfonso, 1983).’

Shifting successfully to a development approach that accords primary importance to local needs, conditions, knowledge and resources requires changes in those entities charged with designing and implementing development interventions, as well as changes in the interventions themselves. Organizations set up to carry out top- down service delivery with a strong control orientation-the situation in most LDC public sector bureaucracies-need substantial reorienting in order to be successful at people-centred development. When goals and strategies change, but structures and procedures do not, the risk of inefficiency and failure is high.

Part of the needed change in managing social development revolves around the person responsible for orchestrating the process of people-centred development: the social development manager. That is the focus of this article. What are the managerial roles, skills and functions called for in social development management? How do these differ from what managers of more conventional development projects or organizations do? Are social development management talents innate or can they be acquired through training? What are the opportunities and constraints for building social development management skills? In the sections that follow, these questions are discussed.

MANAGERIAL ROLES, SKILLS AND FUNCTIONS

Ever since Gulick (1937) summarized the manager’s job in the by now classic acronym POSDCORB-planning, organizing, staffing, directing, co-ordinating, reporting and budgeting-studies have been accumulating on the nature of

I Much of the empirical basis for social development management comes from experience in the PhiYippines (Korten.1982; Siy, 1982). The approach has also been applied to irrigation management in Sri Lanka (Uphoff, 1982, 1984). For further elaboration of social development management concepts see Korten and Klauss (1984). I t is recognized, however, that the empirical base in this area of enquiry is still limited and that the concepts are somewhat controversial.

Managerial Roles for Social Development Management 147

managerial work. Some schools of thought focus on one particular aspect or another of the manager’s job as paramount; for example, the manager as decision- maker, entrepreneur or leader. Other approaches have sought to identify the day-to- day content of the manager’s job in order to get at what managers actually do. Stewart (1982), for example, has characterized managerial jobs in terms of different kinds of demands, constraints, and choices. This model, developed on the basis of open-ended interviews, observation, selfrecording diaries and group discussions, underscores the need to understand the variation and flexibility in managerial jobs and behaviour.

Another model for understanding managerial behaviour has been developed by Mintzberg (1980). Using an inductive research methodology, he conducted an intensive analysis of a small sample of executives from several types of organization. From these data Mintzberg categorized managerial work in terms of a set of roles that appeared to encapsulate the major generic elements of the manager’s job.

Managers, Mintzberg found, perform three main types of roles: interpersonal, informational and decisional. Each of these categories contains a set of related roles. Within the interpersonal grouping, managers perform the roles of figurehead (performing social, ceremonial or symbolic duties), leader (shaping individual performance to meet organizational goals, creating a suitable work climate and guiding subordinates) and liaison (maintaining a network of contacts outside the organizational unit). Within the category of informational roles, managers fulfil the

Individual Characteristics of the Manager

, training and experience . personality and propensities . b i t i o n in the irganization v Interpereonal Roles Informational Rolea . figurehead monitor

leader . disseminator

External Environment . resources . actors . other organizations

a liaison

Decisionnl Roles Technical R o l a . entrepreneur . technical . disturbance review handler problem- . resource solving allocator

negotiator

Nature of Task . simple or complex

discrete or interrelated

Organizational Characterist ics . structure . procedures . incentives . resources Figure 1 . Influences on managerial work

148

roles of monitor (seeking and receiving information about the organization and its environment), disseminator (transmitting information received from the environment to the organization) and spokesperson (transmitting information from within the organization to outsiders). Managers performing decisional roles act as entrepreneur (scanning the organization and its environment for opportunities to introduce change and improvement), disturbance handler (handling grievances, crises, conflicts), resource allocator (allocating the organization’s resources to organizational priorities and needs) and negotiator (representing the organization’s interest in negotiating and bargaining with others). Application of Mintzberg’s model to the public sector added a fourth role category to the three he elaborated: technical expert. In an extensive empirical investigation carried out in a government research and engineering environment, Lau et al. (1 980) found through intensive interviews and a questionnaire survey that these managers played a technical expert role in addition to those previously elaborated by Mintzberg. Subsequent survey research involving several hundred managers in a variety of public agencies provided further support for the technical expert role as an important component for understanding the nature of a manager’s job (Klauss, 1982-1983). In this role, managers provide technical expertise and guidance to activities internal and external to the organization.

The Mintzberg model with the addition of the technical expert role appears to capture, at a general level, the essential elements of what managers do in most organizations. Obviously, the extent to which they spend their time on activities falling into one or the other of these role categories is contingent upon a variety of factors. The major factors include: the nature of the task, individual characteristics of the manager, characteristics of the organizational setting in which the manager operates, technology, managerial level within the organization, and the nature of the external environment. Figure 1 summarizes such influences on managerial work.

Recent studies have begun to clarify the impact of some of these factors. For example, research investigating the effects of hierarchical levels indicate that in top management positions, externally oriented roles (e.g. liaison, figurehead, spokesperson) appear to be more important than for lower level managers (Pavett and Lau, 1983; Alexander, 1979). In addition, differences in role emphasis have been shown to vary according to the general task or functional area for which a manager is responsible (Pavett and Lau, 1983). Thus, the kinds of factors identified in this model will affect the relative importance and time spent by a particular manager in various roles, but in general these various roles consistently appear across managerial positions.

Derick W. Brinkerhofland Rudi Klauss

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT ROLES

This section examines the literature on social development management and, using the modified Mintzberg framework described above, looks at the job of the social development manager. Given the ‘distance’ from actual behaviour that such a review methodology involves, the discussion here should be regarded as indicative, suggesting potentially useful areas for field investigation that could lead to a stronger empirical base for critical examination of the validity of the social

Managerial Roles for Social Development Management 149

development manager concept. The existing research base for this subset of the development management field is at present relatively narrow.

The essence of social development management is the interweaving of national level plans and resources with local opportunities and resources to create self- sustaining, people-centred development. This view is reinforced by Johnston and Clarke (1982) who refer to social development managers as ‘facilitator people’ mediating between the rural poor and their local organizations and national policy- makers and their planning agencies. To the rural poor and their local organizations these facilitators provide goods and services, access to knowledge, links with other local organizations, and protection both from more powerful elites and from internal corruption or local pressures. To the national policy-makers and their planning agencies, facilitators seek to ensure effective implementation and achievement of specific objectives. In terms of Mintzberg’s model of managerial roles, such activities would be particularly reflected in the roles of entrepreneur, liaison, spokesperson and negotiator. Johnston and Clarke also include tasks related to maintaining the effectiveness of the facilitator organization itself as part of the manager’s job, e.g. staff motivation, supervision, professional satisfaction, career advancement, etc. Such activities would fit into Mintzberg’s view of the manager’s roles in areas such as leader, disturbance handler and resource allocator.

Lindenberg and Crosby ( 198 1) indicate that managing the political environment in which development takes place is the essential task of the development manager. However, they note that this is but one of several important roles. Other roles identified by them are policy translator, programme and organizational designer, implementor, evaluator, financial controller, staff supervisor, motivator, negotiator, spokesperson, co-ordinator of multi-organizational activities, programme advocate, organizer of external bases of support and general organizational strategist. Some of these terms overlap considerably with those proposed by Mintzberg, but what appear to take on particular emphasis in the writing of Lindenberg and Crosby are those roles that pertain to managing the external environment of the organization.

Ickis (1979) provides a similar list. He states that all rural development managers perform roles as strategist, infuser of values, decision-maker/ problem-solver, negotiator, organization architect and implementor. In addition to these, he identifies other roles more specific to the social development manager: ambassador or builder of interorganizational linkages, public spokesperson and programme defender, and interpreter of community aspirations. This latter role covers a number of tasks, encompassing ‘mobilizing the community to play a more active, self- directed role in using its own resources, setting priorities, and obtaining needed inputs from the government, as well as actions to make programmes and bureaucratic structures more responsive to these community inputs’. Once again, one senses a particular attention to externally focused roles that the social development manager must play.

Korten (1980) emphasizes the sharing of knowledge and resources between poor people and development personnel in order to achieve a fit between the needs and capacities of beneficiaries and technical assistance organizations. Key elements of the social development manager’s job are leadership, teamwork, coalition-building in support of programme objectives, commitment, charisma and candour. In addition, social development managers must be able to relate a systemic

150

perspective-the big picture-to programme details, and be constantly ready to change and adapt the details while focusing on the larger objective, tolerating errors and missteps along the way. Elsewhere, Korten (1981) notes the importance of ‘linking’ and ‘facilitating’ skills, an experimental mode and a bias toward rapid and creative adaptation. This view of the social development manager reinforces other commentaries on the nature of people-centred development, but gives particular attention to the manager’s need to retain a strategic view and the capacity to engender co-operation and commitment through charismatic leadership characteristics. The focus is especially on influencing forces external to the manager’s organization, but does not ignore the need to work with or through internal actors.* Clearly, then, the role of leader in the social development manager’s repertoire of job functions applies to a much wider audience than simply the manager’s organizational colleagues and subordinates.

Derick W. Brinkerhofland Rudi Klauss

COMPARING MANAGERIAL ROLES IN SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AGAINST CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

How does this view of the manager of social development projects compare with perspectives on the manager of conventional development projects? Interestingly enough the literature on managing conventional development projects does not pay a great deal of specific attention to managerial roles and behaviour. Implicit in much of the writing, however, are notions that relate to the traditional planning and control functions performed in a production oriented enterprise. Emphasis is given to analytical tools (PPBS, PERTS, cost/benefit analysis, scheduling, decision modelling, etc.) for planning, and to management control and monitoring systems to enable the manager to make adjustments during implementation in order to keep projects on target.’

Thus, such approaches stress careful, detailed planning which in turn enables implementation to move toward the attainment of clearly specified goals. Minor adjustments may occur during implementation, but basic procedures are unlikely to be fundamentally questioned or altered.

Implicit in this view of managing development activities is the assumption of a rather stable and unchanging environment-a condition which often does not hold in a development programme context (Hyden, 1983; Kiggundi et al., 1983). Recently, however, evidence has been accummulating that challenges this general perspective. For example, a review of some 200 World Bank funded projects indicates that projects directly involving and reaching large numbers of people are much more open to political and cultural influences, and are more difficult to manage than conventional projects. These findings suggest that ‘sometimes the role of incentives, management and organizational structure have to be drastically different in the social fields from those in the technical and financial subsectors’ (Israel, 1983, p. 18). Though the study indicates the need for alternative

See also Smith et a/. (1980) on the need to identify accurately significant actors in the external

See for example Kulp (1977) for a comprehensive presentation of analytic tools and management control environment.

techniques. See also United Nations (1975).

Managerial Roles for Social Development Management 15 1

management approaches, it does not elaborate on the particular managerial roles and behaviour that may be required.

The Mintzberg model of managerial roles, as applied to conventional development project managers, would stress the monitoring, disturbance handler, leader and, to a certain extent, resource allocator roles (in terms of making reallocations to adjust to project delays, etc.) during implementation. Some activity as disseminator, spokesperson, liaison and figurehead would undoubtedly also occur, as would technical problem-solving. Less likely to be emphasized would be the entrepreneurial types of activities and managing of external relations which appear to be much more critical in social development. The skills, functions, and roles emphasized for conventional development projects would of course be relevant to social development management projects, but the social development project manager would need to pay particular attention to the roles and skills cited earlier for people-centred development efforts. In fact, differences in managerial behaviour in each type of project might be understood best in terms of differences in emphasis

Table I . Managerial orientations/tendencies

Orientation Manager of social Manager of conventional toward: development project development project

Goal

Beneficiaries

Error

Change

Communication

Environment

Information

Procedures/ routines

Takes an experimental, process orientation emphasizing beneficiary capacity-building . Seeks beneficiary involvement in all phases of projects. Embraces, builds into implementation process; re-examines basic assumptions in light of error. Seeks opportunities internal and external to organization for experimental improvement. Emphasizes high lateral flow between organizations; participatory within and between organizations. Sees environment as dominant force; attempts to modify, manage environment. Constantly acquiring, reassessing information flows, purpose.

Sees them as useful on interim basis; is prepared to modify, eliminate, unlearn as necessary.

emphasizes production of particular outputs.

Possible input to planning. but generally quite limited. Factors in fine tuning but generally tries to minimize or ignore errors

Minimizes change; emphasizes stable routines.

Concentrates largely on top-down vertical, more inwardly focused communication.

Seeks to react to and anticipate environmental factors. Selectively acquires information for predetermined categories by pre-planned monitoring system. Seeks to establish routines quickly, but less inclined to modify them once established.

152

rather than in terms of absence or presence of a particular role or function. Such tendencies are highlighted in Table 1.

This table indicates areas where the emphasis given to particular roles is seen to differ between the two types of projects. Note that we see these differences not in categorical terms (absence or presence of a particular focus), but rather in relative terms. Concerning project goal orientation, for example, the table suggests that managers of social development projects must show a dominant concern for process (how a project is designed and implemented, and beneficiary capacity-building) with clients or beneficiaries playing central roles in the project. Conventional project managers, on the other hand, focus particularly on production (e.g. increases in yield per hectare for particular client groups), with less attention to the client’s role in design and project implementation. This difference in emphasis does not mean that social development project managers are not concerned with, for example, the productivity of farmers, but rather that the process is seen as critical. If the process focus of beneficiary involvement works successfully, then productivity gains should subsequently begin to occur. Moreover, beneficiary groups should be in a better position to sustain their efforts on their own later if the process lays a foundation for local management capability and capacity to interact more effectively with government bureaucracies.

What emerges from this perspective is a view of the job of the social development manager as one that extends beyond the organization within which the manager operates. Dealing with the external environment through entrepreneurial initiatives, bargaining and liaison activities, information dissemination, etc. is as critical to successful management as taking care of internal organizational matters (surbordinate supervision, monitoring performance, resource allocation decisions, etc.). Although the manager’s job in conventional development projects does not ignore the organization’s environment, the orientation is inclined to be more of a reactive, monitoring one. The internally-focused job functions revolving around resources under the manager’s direct control are the ones normally stressed in the literature on conventional development projects.

Of particular concern to the social development manager is the importance of shaping and managing interorganizational relationships in ways that meet client- group needs and build clients’ capacity to take charge of their own development. A second main theme is the importance of retaining a flexible learning orientation to the direction of projects, and of responding to error, new information and client experience in a way that can strengthen the benefits (production increases, etc.) that derive from such learning. Retaining such flexibility while maintaining a strategic focus on the larger purposes of the project are critical ingredients that can make or break social development management projects.

Derick W. Brinkerhoff and Rudi Klauss

IMPLICATIONS AND ISSUES

Several points emerge from the above discussion of social development management roles. A striking feature of the social development manager’s job is the extent to which it involves activity outside the organizational boundary.

Smith et at. (1980) describe this external environment in terms of how controllable

Managerial Roles for Social Development Management 153

it is from the manager’s perspective. They identify three sets of environmental factors: (1) those that the manager can control, (2) those that can be influenced, (3) those the manager must appreciate as constraints to action that cannot be modified. The boundaries between these sets are subject to the organization and/or to change over time. In comparing the two perspectives in managerial roles it appears that along with the stronger orientation to the outside environment that characterizes managerial roles from the social development perspective is an accompanying assumption that more in that environment can either be controlled or influenced.

Testing this assumption could lead us to an assessment of the viability of the social development management approach in a particular environment. One of the unanswered questions surrounding the approach is whether it is appropriate for all situations; that is, should the manager seek to fulfil the roles identified with social development management with the view that these roles point the way toward improved performance in every case? Or, can certain development management tasks be more effectively addressed through the application of conventional managerial roles? The analysis summarized in Table 1 above suggests that given the non-dichotomous nature of the differences between social development and conventional development managerial roles, managers might profitably adjust their relative emphasis on each of the dimensions according to the characteristics of their operating environments.

None the less, the ability to make such choices depends upon an orientation to what is going on outside the organization. This in turn suggests that on at least one dimension-orientation toward the environment-effective managerial performance is strongly associated with the social development end of the continuum.

Such performance requires skills in mapping the relevant features in the external environment and analysing their implications both for day-to-day action and long- range strategy, as well as interpersonal skills for dealing with interorganizational relations and community interaction aimed at building local capacity and power. Characteristics frequently associated with performing such activities include a tolerance for ambiguity, patience, propensity to take risks, ability to interact with people from peasants to top ministry officials, and a willingness to ‘dejargonize’ technical language. Also crucial are entrepreneurial skills: knowing who and how to influence, building on mutual interests, being attuned to new and changing opportunities.

It is with the entrepreneur role in particular, as well as some of the characteristics mentioned above, that treatments of social development management frequently move toward discussions of personality traits, and the problem of distinguishing between what social development managers do and what kind of people they are. The importance of this distinction surfaces when we consider how to develop social development management capacity. To the extent that personalty traits of one sort or another are relevant, then screening and selection methods become central in order to distinguish among potentially more effective or less effective managers. An indication of the importance of personal qualities and other characteristics not readily amenable to training is suggested, for example, in a recent study of the effectiveness of development bank executives, which noted that ‘expertise in some particular discipline or line of activity does not seem to have been crucial. What seems to have been far more important is the personality and leadership qualities of

154

the managers, how they conceived of their job and the objective environment in which they had to work ... plus luck’ (Diamond, 1982, p. 6).

To the extent that discrete roles and skills can be identified, however, social development managers can in turn be trained and nurtured, provided that effective methodologies for doing so exist or can be discovered. In comparing those methodologies currently developed, it is apparent that much less is known about what can be trained and/or tested for in social development management than in conventional development project management. Cost-benefit analysis, PERT charting, inventory control or performance appraisal techniques, for example, can all be taught in a relatively straightforward way. However, methods for teaching entrepreneurship have not reached a comparable level, though several efforts have been made.‘ Other skills required for the social development manager’s job are harder still to isolate into ‘trainable’ subcomponents, and are not readily acquired through traditional training techniques.

An example of an attempt to train social development managers comes from the Gal Oya Water Management Project in Sri Lanka (Uphoff, 1982, 1984). This project, funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, has partnered Cornell University with an indigenous organization, the Agrarian Research and Training Institute, to work with the Sri Lanka Irrigation Department to develop a participatory approach to irrigation in the Gal Oya District. The approach has centred on the creation of a new kind of staff role to link service providers with users. These institutional-organizers (10s ) work with local farmers to build their capacity to manage the irrigation system under construction.

The I0 training programme focused explicitly upon skills associated with many of the social development management roles discussed above. Training techniques for the 1 0 s have comprised a mix of pre-service technical training, experiential learning through residential placements with farm families and in-service team-building and problem-solving work. The 1 0 s have proved highly successful at mobilizing local capacity, and the project has sought to bring this social development managerial cadre into the Irrigation Department. Accomplishing this bureaucratic regularization of the I 0 cadre without losing its distinctive characteristics has been a difficult task, but one that must be dealt with if social development management is to be institutionalized in any meaningful sense.

The Gal Oya Project’s strategy for developing management skills for social development began with persons from the outside brought in specifically to learn these skills. The project then aimed to create an organizational ‘home’ for the best of the cadre. Another approach would be to select from managers already within the organization to build a core of staff with social development management skills. This approach would combine training with job rotation in order to programme the managers for a series of career positions that would expose them to situations with which effective social development managers must know how to deal. Advancement would be predicated upon successful performance (measurement problems aside for the moment) in each situation. Such a consciously designed programme for social development managers appear to be needed particularly to build capacity to interact

Derick W. Brinkerhofland Rudi KIauss

‘ See McClelland (1965) for an early treatment of entrepreneurship training and see also the later work of McClelland and Winter (1971).

Managerial Roles for Social Development Management 155

effectively with the extra-organizational factors called for in social development.s This approach would thus differ from many conventional organizations where career advancement often results from becoming increasingly expert at managing the internal organizational environment.

This point leads to the necessary consideration of the impact that organizational structures and procedures can have on the manager’s job (Brinkerhoff, 1979). These structures and procedures condition the manager’s access to needed resources, ability to exert influence, patterns of rewards and incentives, etc. Social development managers do not operate in an organizational vacuum. They can only with difficulty scan the external environment and modify a project’s course of action in an organization that is closed to outside information and rewards ‘blueprint’ implementation. They will be loath to admit mistakes or champion client empowerment if negative sanctions are the result of such action.

In short, social development managerial roles need to be considered as one element in implementing a people-centred approach to development. Equally important is attention to the required features of a ‘learning’ organization within which the social development manager can be effective. Neither is complete without the other. Similarly, the development of a cadre of social development managers cannot rely on training alone. Training, undertaken with no other changes in the workplace, has been shown to have little impact on improving management performance. The challenge of developing social development managers is to discover which aspects of the job can be trained for successfully, and which minimum set of organizational changes are required in order for the manager to apply what is learned in ways that increase the chances of attaining the goals of social development.

REFERENCES

Alexander, L. D. (1979). ‘The effect level in the hierarchy and functional area have on the extent Mintzberg’s roles are required by managerial jobs’, Academy of Management Proceedings, 186- 189.

Brinkerhoff, D. W. (1979). ‘Inside public bureaucracy: empowering managers to empower clients’, Rural Development Participation Review, 1, Summer, 7-9.

Chambers, R. (1980). Rural Poverty Unpercieved, .World Bank, Working Paper No. 400, Washington DC.

Cohen, J . T. (1980). ‘Participation’s place in rural development: seeking clarity through specificity’, World Development, 8 , 21 3-235

Diamond, W. (1982). ‘The preoccupations and working style of chief executives of development banks’, in Diamond, W. and Raghavan, V. (eds), Aspects of Development Bank Management, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 5-17.

Gulick, L. (1937). ‘Notes on the theory of organization’, in Gulick, L. H. and Urwick, L. (eds), Papers on the Science of Administration, Columbia University Press, New York.

Hyden, G. (1983). No Shortcuts to Progress, University of California Press, Berkeley. Ickis, J .

M. and Uphoff, N.

C. (1979). ‘Rural development management: strategy, structure and managerial roles’, in Korten, David C. (ed.), Popularion and Social Development Management: A Challenge for Management Schools, lnstituto des Estudios Superiores de Administracion, Caracas, pp. 113-127.

Israel, A. (1983). ‘Management and Institutional development’, Finance and Development, (September), 15-1 8 .

’ Many staff in developing country public sector organizations are personally unacquainted with the realities of rural development. See Chambers (1980) on how to address this problem.

156

Johnston, B. F. and Clarke, W. (1982). Redesigning Rural Development: A Strategic

Kiggundi, M., Jorgensen, J. and Hafsi, T. (1983). ‘Administrative theory and practice in

Klauss, R. (1982-1983). ‘Managerial work and executive development’, The Bureaucrat, 11,

Korten, D. C. (1980). ‘Community organization and rural development; a learning process approach’, Public Administration Review, 40, 480-51 1.

Korten, D. C. (1981). ‘The management of social transformation’, Public Administration Review, 41, 609-618.

Korten, D. C. and Alfonso, F. (eds) (1983). Bureaucracy and the Poor, Kumarian Press, West Hartford, Connecticut.

Korten, D. C. and Klauss, R. (eds) (1984). People-Centred Development: Contributions Toward Theory and Planning Frameworks. Kumarian Press, West Hartford, Connecticut.

Korten, F. (1982). Building National Capacity to Develop Water Users’ Associations, World Bank, Working Paper No. 528, Washington DC.

Kulp, E. M. (1977). Designing and Managing Basic Agricultural Programmes, PASITAM, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.

Lau, A. W., Newman, A. R. and Broedling, L. A. (1980). ‘The nature of managerial work in the public sector’, Public Administration Review, 40, (S), 5 13-520.

Lindenberg, M. and Crosby, B. (1981). Managing Development: the Political Dimension, Kumarian Press, West Hartford, Connecticut.

McClelland, D. C. (1965). ‘Achievement motivation can be developed’, Harvard Business Review, 43, (6), 6-24 and 178.

McClelland, D. C. and Winter, D. G. (1971). Motivating Economic Achievement: Accelerating Economic Development Through Psychological Training, Free Press, New York.

Derick W. Brinkerhoffand Rudi Klauss

Perspective, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

developing countries: a synthesis’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 66-84.

(4), 53-57.

Mintzberg, H. (1980). The Nature of Managerial Work, 2nd edn, Harper Row, New York. Paul, S. (1982). Managing Development Programmes, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. Pavett, C. M. and Lau, A. W. (1983). ‘Managerial work: the influence of hierarchical

level and functional specialty’, Academy of Management Journal. Siy, R. (1982). Community Resource Management: Lessons from the Zanjera, University of

Philippines Press, Quezon City, Philippines. Smith, W. E., Lethem, F. J . and Thoolen, B. A. (1980). The Design of Organizations

for Rural Development Projects: A Progress Report, World Bank, Working Paper No. 375, Washington, DC.

Stewart, R. (1982). ‘A model for understanding managerial jobs and behaviour’, Academy of Management Review, 7, ( I ) , 7-13.

United Nations (1975). Development Administration: current approaches and trends in public administration for national development, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York.

T. (1982). ‘Report on institutional-organizer (10) programme in Gal Oya, Sri Lanka, after sixteen months in the field’, Cornell University, Rural Development Committee, Ithaca, unpublished.

Uphoff, N. T. (1984). ‘Experience with people’s participation in water management: Gal Oya, Sri Lanka’, in Garcia-Zamor, J.C. (ed.), Public Participation in Development Planning and Management: Cases from Africa and Asia, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Uphoff, N.