The 3-day workshop aimed to develop a framework for operationalizing the concept of resilience. Participants struggled to develop indicators and found resilience difficult to define in static terms. Alternative approaches were discussed, focusing on processes, temporal scales, and defining interventions based on resilience characteristics rather than assets. Ultimately, a new framework was created using concepts from disaster risk reduction, climate adaptation, and sustainable development to guide programming toward resilient communities. Further field testing is needed to evaluate its usefulness.
National Disaster Resilience Competition's Resilience Academies - Emerging In...The Rockefeller Foundation
In 2015 The Rockefeller Foundation partnered with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to launch the National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC)
Resilience Academies. Recognizing the salient need to infuse resilience thinking into HUD’s NDRC, these Academies were established to expose state and local governments to new approaches for protecting and promoting the long-term well-being and safety of their communities. A recent independent evaluation of the Academies has provided instructive insights about what works in efforts to build innovative resilience capacity.
Overview Our team has been immersed in ‘whole .docxgertrudebellgrove
Overview
Our team has been immersed in ‘whole system change’ for the past few years
in Ontario, Canada; California; Australia and New Zealand; and elsewhere. Our main
mode of learning is to go from practice to theory, and then back and forth to obtain
more specific insights about how to lead and participate in transformative change in
schools and school systems.
In this workshop we take the best of these insights from our most recent
publications: Stratosphere, The Professional Capital of Teachers, The Principal,
Freedom to Change, and Coherence and integrate the ideas into a single set of
learnings.
The specific objectives for participants are:
1. To learn to take initiative on what we call 'Freedom to Change’.
2. To Understand and be able to use the ‘Coherence Framework’.
3. To analyze your current situation and to identify action strategies fro making
improvements.
4. Overall to gain insights into ‘leadership in a digital age’.
We have organized this session around six modules:
Module I Freedom From Change 1-4
Module II Focusing Direction 5-10
Module III Cultivating Collaborative Cultures 11-14
Module IV Deepening Learning 15-22
Module V Securing Accountability 23-30
Module VI Freedom To Change 31-32
References 33
Please feel free to reproduce and use the
material in this booklet with your staff and others.
2015
Freedom From Change
1
Shifting to
the Right Drivers
Right Wrong
§ Capacity building
§ Collaborative work
§ Pedagogy
§ Systemness
§ Accountability
§ Individual teacher and
leadership quality
§ Technology
§ Fragmented strategies
Freedom:
If you could make one
change in your school or
system what would it be?
What obstacles stand in
your way?
What would you change? What are the obstacles?
Trio Talk:
§ Meet up with two colleagues.
§ Share your choice and rationale.
§ What were the similarities and differences in the choices?
Module 1
2
The Concepts of Freedom § Freedom to is getting rid of the constraints.
§ Freedom from is figuring
out what to do when you
become more liberated.
Seeking Coherence § Within your table read the seven quotes from Coherence and circle
the one you like the best.
§ Go around the table and see who selected which quotes.
§ As a group discuss what ‘coherence’ means.
Coherence: The Right Drivers in Action for Schools, Districts, and Systems
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. ( 2015). Corwin & Ontario Principals’ Council.
# Quote
1. There is only one way to achieve greater coherence, and that is through purposeful action and interaction,
working on capacity, clarity, precision of practice, transparency, monitoring of progress, and continuous
correction. All of this requires the right mixture of “pressure and support”: the press for progress within
supportive and focused cultures. p. 2
2. Coher ...
2006 StrongAngel III - integrated disaster response demonstration in San Diego. Directed by mentor Dr. Eric Rasmussen,MD,MDM,FACP http://about.me/EricRasmussenMD
9/17/2018 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all&c… 1/34
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
Explain the concept of social interdependence and how cooperative or competitive
frameworks arise.
Analyze the relationship between cooperation and team effectiveness.
Describe the connection between social interdependence and con�lict, and the factors
that in�luence one’s orientation toward cooperative or competitive interaction.
Distinguish between constructive and destructive dynamics in competition and con�lict.
List key points for devising strategies to manage cooperation and con�lict.
7Cooperation and Con�lict
Stocktrek Images/Thinkstock
9/17/2018 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all&c… 2/34
De�ine the role and primary objectives of a group facilitator.
9/17/2018 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all&c… 3/34
Introduction
Anders works as a medical researcher for a large company that develops new medical devices for use in
hospitals and doctors’ of�ices. The company uses cross-functional teams to see a product through from start
to �inish. Anders serves as the leader of his team, which is composed of a marketing specialist, several doctors,
and an engineer.
Recently, a con�lict arose within the team that was related to the development and marketing of a new
diabetes management device. The team was divided on how best to design and market the device. Raj, the
team’s marketing specialist, argued that the device should be sleeker, look more fashionable, and pair with
mobile devices to target the growing population of younger, tech-savvy patients who have diabetes. Raj’s
position was supported by a couple of doctors on the team who had seen an increase in younger patients in
recent years. Yoanna, the team’s engineer, disagreed with Raj’s design. She argued that the proposed design
would be more expensive, take longer to develop, and be more dif�icult for less tech-savvy individuals to use.
She supported a more basic design, with no pairing ability and a bulkier body that would be less expensive to
produce. Yoanna’s position was supported by the other doctors, who worried about alienating users with a
more complicated product.
Tensions had begun to develop on either side. Raj accused Yoanna and her followers of putting costs before
innovation, while Yoanna accused Raj and his followers of discriminating against older patients for the sake
of �lashy bells and whistles. The con�lict had brought the team to a standstill, and something needed to be
done.
Rather than forcing a solution by choosing a side, Anders decided to make the entire team resp.
National Disaster Resilience Competition's Resilience Academies - Emerging In...The Rockefeller Foundation
In 2015 The Rockefeller Foundation partnered with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to launch the National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC)
Resilience Academies. Recognizing the salient need to infuse resilience thinking into HUD’s NDRC, these Academies were established to expose state and local governments to new approaches for protecting and promoting the long-term well-being and safety of their communities. A recent independent evaluation of the Academies has provided instructive insights about what works in efforts to build innovative resilience capacity.
Overview Our team has been immersed in ‘whole .docxgertrudebellgrove
Overview
Our team has been immersed in ‘whole system change’ for the past few years
in Ontario, Canada; California; Australia and New Zealand; and elsewhere. Our main
mode of learning is to go from practice to theory, and then back and forth to obtain
more specific insights about how to lead and participate in transformative change in
schools and school systems.
In this workshop we take the best of these insights from our most recent
publications: Stratosphere, The Professional Capital of Teachers, The Principal,
Freedom to Change, and Coherence and integrate the ideas into a single set of
learnings.
The specific objectives for participants are:
1. To learn to take initiative on what we call 'Freedom to Change’.
2. To Understand and be able to use the ‘Coherence Framework’.
3. To analyze your current situation and to identify action strategies fro making
improvements.
4. Overall to gain insights into ‘leadership in a digital age’.
We have organized this session around six modules:
Module I Freedom From Change 1-4
Module II Focusing Direction 5-10
Module III Cultivating Collaborative Cultures 11-14
Module IV Deepening Learning 15-22
Module V Securing Accountability 23-30
Module VI Freedom To Change 31-32
References 33
Please feel free to reproduce and use the
material in this booklet with your staff and others.
2015
Freedom From Change
1
Shifting to
the Right Drivers
Right Wrong
§ Capacity building
§ Collaborative work
§ Pedagogy
§ Systemness
§ Accountability
§ Individual teacher and
leadership quality
§ Technology
§ Fragmented strategies
Freedom:
If you could make one
change in your school or
system what would it be?
What obstacles stand in
your way?
What would you change? What are the obstacles?
Trio Talk:
§ Meet up with two colleagues.
§ Share your choice and rationale.
§ What were the similarities and differences in the choices?
Module 1
2
The Concepts of Freedom § Freedom to is getting rid of the constraints.
§ Freedom from is figuring
out what to do when you
become more liberated.
Seeking Coherence § Within your table read the seven quotes from Coherence and circle
the one you like the best.
§ Go around the table and see who selected which quotes.
§ As a group discuss what ‘coherence’ means.
Coherence: The Right Drivers in Action for Schools, Districts, and Systems
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. ( 2015). Corwin & Ontario Principals’ Council.
# Quote
1. There is only one way to achieve greater coherence, and that is through purposeful action and interaction,
working on capacity, clarity, precision of practice, transparency, monitoring of progress, and continuous
correction. All of this requires the right mixture of “pressure and support”: the press for progress within
supportive and focused cultures. p. 2
2. Coher ...
2006 StrongAngel III - integrated disaster response demonstration in San Diego. Directed by mentor Dr. Eric Rasmussen,MD,MDM,FACP http://about.me/EricRasmussenMD
9/17/2018 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all&c… 1/34
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
Explain the concept of social interdependence and how cooperative or competitive
frameworks arise.
Analyze the relationship between cooperation and team effectiveness.
Describe the connection between social interdependence and con�lict, and the factors
that in�luence one’s orientation toward cooperative or competitive interaction.
Distinguish between constructive and destructive dynamics in competition and con�lict.
List key points for devising strategies to manage cooperation and con�lict.
7Cooperation and Con�lict
Stocktrek Images/Thinkstock
9/17/2018 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all&c… 2/34
De�ine the role and primary objectives of a group facilitator.
9/17/2018 Print
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all&c… 3/34
Introduction
Anders works as a medical researcher for a large company that develops new medical devices for use in
hospitals and doctors’ of�ices. The company uses cross-functional teams to see a product through from start
to �inish. Anders serves as the leader of his team, which is composed of a marketing specialist, several doctors,
and an engineer.
Recently, a con�lict arose within the team that was related to the development and marketing of a new
diabetes management device. The team was divided on how best to design and market the device. Raj, the
team’s marketing specialist, argued that the device should be sleeker, look more fashionable, and pair with
mobile devices to target the growing population of younger, tech-savvy patients who have diabetes. Raj’s
position was supported by a couple of doctors on the team who had seen an increase in younger patients in
recent years. Yoanna, the team’s engineer, disagreed with Raj’s design. She argued that the proposed design
would be more expensive, take longer to develop, and be more dif�icult for less tech-savvy individuals to use.
She supported a more basic design, with no pairing ability and a bulkier body that would be less expensive to
produce. Yoanna’s position was supported by the other doctors, who worried about alienating users with a
more complicated product.
Tensions had begun to develop on either side. Raj accused Yoanna and her followers of putting costs before
innovation, while Yoanna accused Raj and his followers of discriminating against older patients for the sake
of �lashy bells and whistles. The con�lict had brought the team to a standstill, and something needed to be
done.
Rather than forcing a solution by choosing a side, Anders decided to make the entire team resp.
We've been researching and developing a standardised, evidence based approach to the spread and adoption of innovations in our region. We call this our 'spread and adoption model' – the model is constantly evolving, with a key output being a 'spread and adoption plan'. This presentation complements the webinars held in early March 2019 to introduce the first three components of our model and the spread and adoption planning template to colleagues from other AHSNs.
Knowledge management a practical inquiry into knowledge gap, local practice ...Munas Kalden
The knowledge management is an integral part of sustainability process. It becomes pivotal in any community based development project. The knowledge society contributes to quality inputs and cascades the benefits to the next generations. It is an intellectual heritage; it ought to be owned and translated into development activities by the beneficiary community.
Similar to Strengthening climate resilience workshop notes (20)
India Diversified-INTEGRATED FARMING adaptation strategy for small and margin...
Strengthening climate resilience workshop notes
1. Strengthening Climate Resilience Workshop Notes
9th-11th February, Institute of Development Studies
Summary of Discussions
The workshop began with a presentation by Ms. Maggie Ibrahim from the Institute of Development
Studies who gave an overview of the current level of conceptual development of the Strengthening
Climate Resilience project. A number of interesting points were raised during this, including one
on an inherent contradiction in the resilience concept about whether it refers to the persistence of
systems (or relations within it) or the complete transition of systems. It was also felt that the current
ambiguity within the term ‘resilience’, leads a number of different concepts such as DRR, CCA,
coping, vulnerability etc. to be subsumed within it. Therefore, there is a case to be made for
thinking through the trade-offs that will need to be made between the advantages/disadvantages
of these various ideas as they are included in (be it partially) and replaced by ‘resilience.’
Stemming partly from this point, it was felt that a general sense of ambiguity existed about whether
‘resilience’ was a property of a system acquired and expressed over the long term or whether it
was simply the short term ‘bounce back-ability’ of a system after a perturbation. At the beginning
of the session it seemed that ‘resilience’, due to its numerous interpretations, may not be a useful
concept but by the end of the session it emerged that there was a certain degree of convergence
on the participants’ conceptualisations of its characteristics. During the conceptual discussion of
resilience, a participant contributed his own work where he analysed resilience in the context of
coastal communities. Here it was seen as a sum of three parts-shock absorption, bounce back-
ability and learning/ adaptation which correlates to a certain degree with the IDS understanding of
resilience being composed of anticipation, preparation, response, learning and recovery in the
context of changes in a system.
The second session of the day began with a presentation by Ms. Susanne Jaspar of the Overseas
Development Institute and by Dr. Tom Mitchell’s presentation on the ‘adaptive social protection’
concept who provided an overview work that aimed to understand the conceptual similarities
between Climate Change Adaptation, Disaster Risk Reduction, Social Protection and Livelihoods
approaches and to see how these might contribute to resilience. Several strains of discussion
stemmed from this presentation including one that underlined a paucity of examples of how the
concept of climate change adaptation has been applied at scale. Another comment addressed the
2. point that while Social Protection carried the potential to be transformative sometimes it fails to
reach the poorest of the poor. Another set of comments centred around the need for
frameworks, one participant argued that there is a requirement for a framework such as the HFA
for CCA too but another said that this already exists but is not employed due to its complexity. The
need for any framework emerging from the workshop to contribute to the HFA was underlined. It
was also felt that any such framework should be aimed to assist those implementing programmes
at the field level. From this the discussion moved onto the conflict between process and outcome
indicators. It was felt that outcome indicators would be much too context specific and difficult to
develop and therefore it may be more valuable to concentrate on the process, two comments
suggested that it may be possible to develop a mix of both process and outcome indicators. One
more comment dealt with the need to develop indicators that were general as more than a
rigid/binding roadmap, they are meant to guide people. A comment also dealt with a tension
between characteristics and indicators as the former are more dynamic and the latter seem to be
more static. Following Ms. Jaspars’ presentation was.
The day ended with the division of participants into teams, each of which were asked develop
indicators for a set of characteristics of resilient systems.
On the second day, the teams displayed the results of their efforts to develop indicators. Overall,
the workshop participants found it to be an extremely challenging exercise and while a number of
difficulties were discussed, each team went onto to present their thoughts. Group 1 felt that
developing indicators led to resilience becoming a more static concept and that it was difficult to
develop generic indicators that would be applicable across specific contexts. They also underlined
the importance of clear guidance accompanying any such framework which would help individuals
to deduce timescales and governance scales that are most appropriate to them. The group tried to
circumvent this problem in part by supplying a list of ‘interlocutors’ or institutions that would help
define the scale at which specific resilience building interventions are undertaken. They also had
two critiques of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and said that it fails to adequately address
political issues and also fails to acknowledge that more of a particular capital is not always a
positive attribute of a system. Group 2 began with defining resilience to be interchangeable with
‘bouncing back’ and decided to develop three sets of indicators-those based on risk management,
vulnerability reduction and long term sustainable vision with the idea that an ideal resilience
3. building programme would work with all three indicators. In terms of trade-offs during the
framework construction process, the group noticed that issues of politics and power get sidelined
as they are complex and time consuming. The group also observed that adaptation needed to be
‘transformative’. Group 3 did not develop a set of indicators but instead presented a set of issues
that needed to be resolved before this could happen, these included questions such as the
difference between CCA and resilience, the correlation of indicators with scales of governance and
whether mitigation was a part of approaches that aimed to build resilience. The third group also
identified four principles of resilience which included access and entitlements, diversity and
spreading of risk, flexible infrastructure and adaptive management, knowledge and adaptive
capacity. Overall, in this session there was a discussion on the appropriateness of the asset
based approaches for the task at hand and certain alternatives were listed these included
approaches that were founded on temporal scales, stemmed from processes rather than assets
and approaches where characteristics of resilience defined the interventions rather than the
assets.
After the groups made their presentations it was evident that the participants were dissatisfied with
the approach taken for developing indicators as a means of operationalising the resilience concept
and therefore, the discussion went ‘back to the basics’ to try and understand what it was that the
framework was trying to achieve. The answers to this included the idea that the framework being
developed at the workshop aimed to analyse whether CSDRM could promote resilience;
decompose the concept of resilience into its constituent parts; understand how social protection
and disaster risk reduction could promote resilience; to provide a standard of judging whether
existing projects/interventions were promoting resilience and a means of identifying gaps in current
practice. Overall, at the end of the day it was felt that tables based on indicators and characteristics
were not the most useful instrument for achieving these aims and another idea based on a
continuum of knowledge was discussed.
On day 3 further discussions on alternative concepts continued and another framework template
was developed (see table). The framework essentially appropriates concepts from the fields of
disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation and sustainable development to work towards a
normative ideal of resilient communities.
4. While a certain amount of progress was made, field work is needed to work out whether it is useful
as both a progamming and evaluation tool. The table also works with the assumption that those
working with this framework will work across the three rows but further investigation is needed the
optimal mix needed between these for effective programming.
Normative Current Where we How to Barriers and
situation want to get get opportunities
to there
1. Addressing Safe housing
unsafe conditions
2. Enhancing Experienced,
adaptive capacity knowledgeable
communities
3. Addressing and Inclusive,
Tackling Drivers of equitable
Poverty decision making
Participant List
Name Organisation
External Experts
Richard Ewbank Christian Aid
Jack Campbell Department for International Development
Marcus Oxley Global Network for Disaster Reduction
John Twigg Independent Consultant
Aditya V. Bahadur Institute of Development Studies
Linsey Jones Overseas Development Institute
Sara Pavanello Overseas Development Institute
Susanne Jaspars Overseas Development Institute
Catherine Pettengell Oxfam GB
Jon Ensor Practical Action
Silvi Llosa UN ISDR
Emma Tompkins University of Leeds
Africa Climate Change Resilience Alliance (ACCRA)1 & Strengthening Climate Resilience
(SCR)2 Members
Christina Ruiz Christian Aid
Maurice Onyango Christian Aid
Sajjad Mohammad Sajid Christian Aid
Katie Harries Institute of Development Studies
Maggie Ibrahim Institute of Development Studies
Tom Mitchell Institute of Development Studies
Chris Anderson Oxfam GB
Jo Lofthouse Oxfam GB
Atiq Ahmed Plan International
Kelly Hawrylyshyn Plan International
5. For further information please contact –
Katie Harris, SCR Programme Manager - Institute of Development Studies
k.harris@ids.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0) 1273 915633