Autonomous

An empowered partner was held to be autonomous. What, then, makes a partner autonomous? The data suggested that autonomy is composed of purpose consciousness, responsibility, independency and ability to take and manage risk. Autonomy generates strong images of independency, however, autonomy does not mean isolation as will be pointed out in 4.2.1.3.

Purpose-Driven

Purpose-Drivennes refers to a number of factors. It presumes a leadership and a workforce that has the ability to envision about the future. In addition, leadership and workforce are able to translate its visions into concrete actions and communicate it to the workforce. Once the partner has a vision, it has to have the required discipline to stick to the vision. Consequently, the partner uses the vision as the basis of decision making and does not expand its activities and involvement into areas that are not relevant to it. Vision ensures that decisions are made bearing in mind the impact they are going to have in the future. Local leadership is important in ensuring that the vision grows from local needs and has continuity. The following excerpts help to capture some of the connotations that were attached to purpose consciousness.

An empowered partner must have a clear understanding of the purpose of the project/program in a long-term perspective. Leadership must develop from within the organization that is totally committed to the goals and work toward achieving them within their particular context. At the same time, there must be flexibility on the part of the donor group in order to

adapt to the reality of the culture in which the project/program in being implemented. (D1Q1)⁵⁸

An empowered partner? Based on the little experience I have, I would understand an empowered partner to be able to independently carry out – in this case, development cooperation. Ability, here, refers to both institutional capacity and knowledge of substance… The partner has a clear vision of its role as a development actor and how the role integrates with the other activities it has. The partner has capacity and is willing to seek possible external funding for its development activities. (D4Q1)⁵⁹

Responsible

Autonomy relates also to responsibility. Responsibility could be seen to begin from the willingness to face the surrounding challenges. Responsibility for successes and failures is not attributed to others. On an institutional level, an empowered partner has assumed full responsibility for the administrative functions of the organization.

As the target group assumes more responsibility for the day-to-day administrative functions, the donor group must begin to relinquish control over the decision-making process. What is an empowered partner like? As long as it is a “partner”, it may never be totally empowered. Nevertheless, one can observe the way by which Jesus trained his disciples. First he

“did it”; then, he “did it while they watched”; next, he “let them do it while he watched”; and finally, he “left”. It took them a while to grasp Jesus’ purposes, but once they did, they were totally committed to achieving them. (D1Q1)

The issue of responsibility in the context of partnership seems to be somewhat paradoxical. As one of the respondents puts it above, the very idea of partnership may inhibit a total assumption of responsibility by one or both members of the partnership.

In partnership, there is a fine line between positive independency and dependency on external sources. Responsibility was also seen to relate to commitment to sustainable action and mobilization of necessary resources.

58 Note, the spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and other mistakes in the expert answers have not been corrected.

59 Translated by the researcher: Voimaantunut kumppani? Sen pienen kokemuksen perusteella, joka minulla asiasta on, ymmärtäisin voimaantuneen kumppanin siten, että kumppani on itsenäisesti kykenevä tekemään – tässä tapauksessa – kehitysyhteistyötä. Tässä kykenevällä tarkoitan sekä institutionaalista että substanssikykyä… Kumppanilla on itsellään selkeä visio siitä, mikä on heidän roolinsa

kehitysyhteistyötoimijana ja miten se sopii yhteen kumppanin muun toiminnan kanssa. Kumppanilla itsellään on kykyä ja halua hakea mahdollista ulkopuolista rahoitusta kehitysyhteistyötoiminnalleen…

Only an empowered partner will take responsibility to face challenges and make needed intentional decisions, commit resources, and implement actions to resolve them. (D5Q1)

Risk Taker

Risk taking occurred only once explicitly in the data of the first Delphi round.

However, the idea was implicit in a number of answers. When asked to give an example of an empowered partner, one of the respondents referred to a person who needed to take risks in order to succeed in a community intervention that he initiated.⁶⁰ The fact that risk taking did not occur explicitly in data, could be interpreted to mean that it is not an important feature of an empowered partner or that it is indeed a characteristic that is essential, but seldom thought of by the experts who attended the analysis meetings. Or it might be that risk taking in an organizational setting is a feature hard to recognize and describe. Whatever the conclusion on the significance of risk taking, it seems to fit in and supplement the category of autonomy. In a research drawing material primarily from Non-Governmental Organizations and Faith Based Organizations, the topic may seem irrelevant since risk is often related to businesses not to social serviced provided by the NGOs and FBOs.

Independent

Independency or a similar thought was expressed in eight out of nine answers (8/9). It could even be the designation of the entire category that was labelled autonomy.

However, in the analysis independency is considered as a somewhat narrower concept than autonomy. Independency was seen to relate to decision making, financial capacity, ownership, planning within available resources, self-confidence, problem solving, capacity to initiate, and clear identity. Independency was also described as the opposite of dependency on external factors such as funds and instructions.

An empowered partner demonstrates self confidence. He is aware and perceptive of challenges in his context which he and can influence positively. He is able and willing to take the responsibility and initiate to organize, manage and motivate members to action, and commit available human and economic resources to reach objectives. He is also willing and able to evaluate impacts and change direction if needed. (D5Q1) In my mind, an empowered partner is a person or an organization that is in a process of change, sufficiently independent and self-confident person

60 D5Q3

or organization. Through empowerment they are capable of effecting real development both for themselves and to pass the same on to others.

Empowerment presumes change. Without change, there is no empowerment. Growing independent and independency is a good sign of the empowerment of the partner to implement things themselves.

Empowerment leads to right kind of = reasonable planning and activities that bring about real development. (D7Q1)⁶¹

One of the respondents⁶² characterized an empowered partner to be a community that opts to implement activities that match their level of abilities and resources. It has defined a strategy independently, knows its context and resources that will enable them to make informed and independent decisions. It looks beyond its own organization and seeks to influence others. To achieve this, it has to have clear principles to guide its activities. An empowered organization has the capacity to evaluate its activities and the needed humility and transparency to be evaluated by external assessors.

Theoretical Reflections on Autonomy

In the data, autonomy was seen to consist of purpose consciousness, responsibility, independency, and ability to take and manage risk. These factors occur frequently in empowerment theories. Independency and responsibility have close links to theories that relate empowerment to an ability to manage and control one’s own life (e.g., Fetterman et al. 1996; Gutiérrez et al. 1998; Rappaport 1981; Zimmerman 1995).

Although, these factors are quite often discussed on an individual level, it seems that they can be expanded to characterize an empowered collective as well.

The empowerment literature also touches the area of self-determination that may be held to embrace the areas of purpose consciousness, responsibility and independency (Kuokkanen 2003; Spreitzer et al. 1999; Thomas & Velthouse 1990). In an organizational setting, empowerment has been related to increased authority of a person to influence his or her work and set personal goals in line with the goals of organization (e.g., Argyris 1998; Heikkilä & Heikkilä 2005; Heikkilä-Laakso & Heikkilä 1997;

61Translated by the researcher: Mielestäni voimaantunut kumppani on muutosprosessissa oleva riittävään itsenäisyyteen päässyt itseenä luottava yksilö tai organisaatio. Voimaantumisen kautta he ovat kykeneviä saamaan aikaan oikeaa kehitystä itse itselleen ja vaikuttamaan myös samaa muutosta muihin.

Voimaantuminen vaatii muutosta ja ilman sitä ei voimaatumista tapahdu.

Itsenäistyminen/riippumattomuus on hyvä merkki siitä, että kumppani on voimautunut tekemään asioita itse. Voimautuminen johtaa oikeanlaiseen=järkevään suunnitteluun ja työhön joka on todellsiat kehetystä.

62D8Q1

Koberg et al. 1999). In addition, Herrenkohl (1999) has written on the importance of understanding individual responsibility and authority in an organization that may result in a feeling of empowerment.

Ideas that are similar to the factor “ability to take and manage risk” are also found in empowerment theories. Kuokkanen (2003), for example, describes an empowered nurse as one who is innovative, creative, and promotes new ideas. Innovative solutions and new ideas, naturally, involve a component of risk. Heikkilä and Heikkilä (2005) hold innovation and an organizational environment that allows for new ideas and does not punish for error to characterize an empowered working community. Beairsto (2000) has suggested that ability to permit ambiguity, acknowledge paradox and initiate change characterize an empowered person. Such abilities can also be linked to risk taking and managing risk.