How can we improve the way we move from analysing power to designing change strategies?

One of the most productive conversations in my recent trip to Bolivia was a discussion with Oxfam Bolivia staff on the shortcomings of my/our current thinking about how to move from analysing power to designing strategies to bring about change.

The current advice is to start with a power analysis, then move to mapping the relevant stakeholders, and on the basis of that, come up with some possible change strategies. Here are the guidelines I give my LSE students on how to do this, drawing heavily on Oxfam’s internal training materials (we will be publishing those soon, in case you’re interested).

What people told me in La Paz is that often, this doesn’t work very well. They struggle to join the dots. Power analysis is interesting, but struggles to connect to the rest of the exercise; stakeholder mapping becomes a ritual exercise in which you dump loads of acronyms and institutions onto the flipchart, but then largely default to the change strategy you would have come up with anyway.

We tried to nail down why this is happening, and how to fix it. Here are some of the ideas that came up:

1. More attention to defining the problem

2. Think about power, then think harder about power

3. Who is doing the analysis/mapping?

4. Monoliths v turtles

5. What works for public policy doesn’t necessarily apply to other areas of influencing

6. What do we mean by ‘interests’?

More attention to defining the problem

We often have broad ideas about the problem we are trying to influence (‘patriarchy’; ‘inequality’). If you jump straight from there into a discussion on power, stakeholders, tactics etc, you are unlikely to come up with anything very effective. Better to spend more time digging down into the problem, for example through the ‘5 whys’ approach, until you get to something which you really think is the root cause (you may be wrong of course!). Then you have a better chance of coming up with a decent strategy. But be aware, there’s a tension here with thinking in systems – a problem is always part of a broader system and isolating it entails some degree of misrepresentation/approximation. Also, most people will have blind spots – hence the value of involving diverse perspectives to inform the analysis.

Think about power, then think harder about power

Everyone says they think about power, but often people default to the world of ‘visible power’ institutions such as the different arms of the state, or private companies, or civil society organizations. Worse, they conflate power analysis with mapping these stakeholders. Spending more time on uncovering the importance of other kinds of power invisible (in our heads/hearts) and hidden (behind the scenes) power helps avoid this. But also, it may be worth doing two stages of power analysis – first one to identify the main actors involved in a given change process, but then another to understand what might influence them, on the basis of which we can shape our change strategy. Eg the first analysis identifies a particular official who can shape or take the relevant decisions, and then the second analysis identifies what could influence him or her.

Oxfam stakeholder map in run up to 2015 Paris Climate Change conference

Who is doing the analysis/mapping?

When the Bolivia team was coming up with a strategy on intimate partner violence among young people, staff drew up a standard stakeholder map that proved largely irrelevant to what they found once they started work. What would have been better?  Involve members of the system you are trying to influence from the outset, eg focus groups with youth people who are/aren’t experiencing violence.

Monoliths v turtles all the way down

A monolithic stakeholder map with entries such as ‘the private sector’ or ‘the government’ obscures the divisions between different sectors/companies/ministries/tiers of government that often play a crucial role in successful change strategies. By avoiding this, Oxfam has found allies in unsuspected places, eg European arms manufacturers in the campaign for an international Arms Trade Treaty. But how far do you go, short of reducing it to every single company employee or civil serpent? Is it enough to focus on the leaders at different levels? To paraphrase Einstein, as far down as necessary, but no further……

Credit: Pelf at en.wikipedia

What works for public policy doesn’t necessarily apply to other areas of influencing

The advice on how to move from a stakeholder mapping to a change strategy is largely based on Oxfam’s extensive experience in achieving policy change through public campaigns and advocacy. So it considers areas such as how officials or politicians make decisions, what influences them etc, and how campaigners can target those processes.

In recent years we have become much more aware of the wider arena of power, and our power analysis has broadened to include areas such as social norms on issues like gender-based violence (see this post on the very useful Rao and Kelleher framework). But we have not worked out how to move from that kind of power analysis to a useful discussion of stakeholders and strategies. Eg if we are talking about GBV, then the stakeholders (and bystanders and perpetrators) are likely to be very different – parents, neighbours, faith leaders, and the tactics to influence them are also going to be different.

The dynamics of change are also likely to be different in different quadrants of Rao and Kelleher. Eg we have seen with norm changes in areas such as gay rights, or GBV, that there is often a process of Courageous initial outliers → spread of acceptance → tipping point → reform, but that is then followed by a backlash, leading either to reversal or eventual consolidation. That clearly has implications for how you design a strategy to work on the left hand side of Rao and Kelleher. Has anyone got anything useful on this?

What do we mean by ‘interests’?

Trying to identify the ‘interests’ of particular players is really complicated. Firstly, we tend to equate them with material interests, but that is too simplistic. Every actor has multiple interests: self image, or wanting to look good/avoid losing face in front of others, or be in line with symbolic history (eg Bolivia’s 1952 Revolution) can be just as important as ‘will this make me richer?’ We also need to understand why they are interested. Some interests are easily changed, eg through experience or exchange with people who have a particular experience/story, or by altering material incentives, but others are deep rooted ‘positions’, e.g. some norms, and probably aren’t worth the effort, at least in a short-term campaign.

Finally, potential allies may not support you for the reason you want them to, but have interests that can be tapped to get their support or at least neutrality (eg in Bolivia, evangelical church leaders softening their line on abortion because they wanted to appear more humane than the Catholics).

There was lots more along these lines. Oxfam Bolivia people still thought that mapping is a good way to organize subjective perceptions, make it visible and then test and improve it – we should refine the tools, rather than reject them. So now and I’m going to have to rewrite my guidelines for students, but before I do so, I thought I’d ask you lot to chip in.

And thanks to Jo Rowlands for great comments on an earlier draft, many of them incorporated

Subscribe to our Newsletter

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information about our privacy practices, please see our Privacy Policy.

We use MailChimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to MailChimp for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices here.

Comments

5 Responses to “How can we improve the way we move from analysing power to designing change strategies?”
  1. Great guidance and I would agree strongly with all the points made… getting away from over-simplistic PEAs does require deeper, more incisive problem analysis. And yes, stakeholders preferences are not all about simple power and vested interests – many people’s beliefs are shaped by their own experiences or their own views about how to deliver development, not just selfish aggrandisement of power or wealth, and we forget that in most PEA discourse. One challenge I would add … how does the PEA toolbox deal with the ‘unknowns’ – the real world is complex and your team sitting in a workshop might not know all the relevant stakeholders, how they think and why… so how do you do useful, accurate PEA? Most of our PEA evolves as we meet and deepen our relationships with stakeholders and they learn to trust us and share their deeper thoughts and motivations – do you run back to a workshop after every meeting and write it all down? How often and for who’s benefit. But if you don’t write it all down, everyone criticises you for not doing PEA. How can we give people comfort that we are doing TWP, when they don’t have time for the messy detail and just want to see perfect PEAs?

  2. Thomas Dunmore Rodriguez

    I use the “5 Whys” exercise a lot (so do my children, although they normally take it a lot further than 5 “why”s!). There is huge value in getting external critics in, at different stages of strategy development, whether it´s when defining your problem, analysing context and power, or deciding on strategies – we did this in Brazil recently after the problem and solution analysis, just for a couple of hours, and it was extremely helpful. After we explained our flipcharts and post-it notes to some critical friends, we gave them some time to have a think, and they came back to point out several big gaps we hadn´t spotted, and questioned some of our assumptions and thinking. In terms of thinking about most effective strategies, I find the Center for Evaluation Innovation´s “Advocacy Strategy Framework” very helpful https://www.evaluationinnovation.org/publication/the-advocacy-strategy-framework-3/

  3. Gabriela Alvarez Minte

    When thinking at the G@W model for GBV, its might also be good to include the ecological framework on VAWG: as violence respond to different risk (and protection) factors, where power lies, and the “how to” achieve systemic/individual change might work for one risk factor, but not for others. So it is about being aware that “when all you have is a hammer, everithig looks like a nail?” The hammer being Oxfam power anaylisis approach..

    • Thomas Dunmore Rodriguez

      Agree with you Gabriela, the socio ecological model is extremely useful for analysing power not just in relation to VAWG, but for other areas of social norm/bevahiour change work as well

      • Gabriela Alvarez Minte

        Thank you Thomas, the ecological model has also been useful to me in terms of thinking about institutional and structural factors, where we need to go beyong individual level behavioural change.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.