2012 PAP* SKILLS BUILDING COMPONENT

SELECT PARTICIPANTS TO ATTEND THE SKILLS BUILDING COMPONENT Date

April 15-20, 2012 Objectives

To select the teams to be invited to attend the Skills Building component among those who finalized the Knowledge Building

component. Target clients

The 6 teams that finalized successfully the Knowledge Building component

Description

The teams have been contacted and invited to attend in the period April 23-May 2, 2012 the Skills Building component. Only one participant from BiH (Proffs Consulting) was not able to confirm participation. Due to the new contract with World Bank,

we have been able to invite also the team from Albania, whose members attended in 2009 the Knowledge Building

component.

ORGANIZE, DESIGN AND CONDUCT THE SKILLS BUILDING COMPONENT Date

February-May, 2012 Objectives

To identify a suitable location for the Skills Building component at Croatian sea side.

To design the 10 day Skills Building component training and prepare all necessary materials To conduct the Skills Building component, in order to achieve its objectives

To organize the 1st Regional Meeting (activity included in the WB-Austria Urban Partnership Program)

Target clients The 13 anticorruption practitioners attending the training, from Albania (2p), BiH (3p), Croatia (4p), Serbia (4p)

The 4 selected Local Governments representatives

Description

With the support of FPDL Croatian partner, Chronos Info who did a market research, the location was decided to be Hotel Falkensteiner, in Zadar, due to the best quality/price offer. It proved to be an excellent choice. Accommodation, meals and

training space were of high quality at a price in the limits of the evaluated budget.

The Skills Building training was designed to achieve the following objective: participants will gain new knowledge, skills and

self confidence, as consultants, facilitators and trainers, the three roles they will play when supporting mayors/public

managers, initiating interventions in local government organizations, aimed at curing and preventing corruption.

The Skills Building structure was:

Day 1, April 23: Arrival and welcome dinner

Day 2-4, April 24-26: The 3 roles, trainers, consultant and facilitator

Day 5, April 27: Free day Day 6, April 28: Robert Klitgaard session and Preparing the Pilot Workshop

Day 7-8, April 29-30: Pilot Workshop

Day 9, May 1: Regional Meeting between anticorruption practitioners and clients (selected local governments’ representatives)

Day 10, May 2: Departure

Training materials FPDL provided to all participants:

Books: “Flawless Consulting” and “Community – structuring belonging” by Peter Block FPDL booklets “What is Facilitation” and “What is Participatory Planning” and the manual “Training Toolkit”

Book “Corrupt Cities – a practical guide to cure and prevention” translated in Croatian

Power points presentations and handouts used during the training on a memory stick

Trainers/Tutors were:

FPDL: Ana Vasilache and Olivia Baciu

WBI: Ronald MacLean Abaroa and Robert Klitgaard

Chronos Info: Anton Florjan Barisic

Organizer: Chronos Info/Croatia, Petra Padjen

Short Description of the Skills Building Training program

Day 1, April 23, 2012, Monday – Arrival All participants arrived during this day with the exception of the Albanian team and Proffessor Robert Kiltgaard who arrived

on April 27.

Day 2, April 24, 2012, Tuesday - Trainer

Session 2.1.

The program started at 9.00 welcoming participants. They had met, with few exceptions, at the opening dinner of the previous day. Ana Vasilache explained shortly PAP and WB-Austria Urban Partnership Program background, supported by LGI and WBI, results obtained in

the dissemination and application of the strategic anticorruption approach at local level.

Followed a get-acquinated exercise in which participants had to prepare in their country teams and present in plenary, a drawing with key words providing the following information:

Country, organization, names, main activities. One achievement they are proud of Expectations out of this program

Trainers’ team – FPDL- Ana Vasilache and Olivia Baciu, WBI- Ronald MacLean Abaroa and Croatia/Chronos Info Anton Florjan Barisic - presented themselves, to give also a model of achieving the get acquainted task. After participants teams presentations, the goal and structure of the Skills Building program were presented, linking them to participants’ expectations. The training methodology was also explained.

The session continued with participants deciding the rules of work they should follow in order to achieve the program goal and work effectively together.

Based on the idea of how important is to follow the rules they agreed on, Ana Vasilache introduced the concept of “integrity” defined as

keeping our promises and honoring our word. In order to demonstrate concretely how important is integrity in interpersonal and inter-groups relationships, trainer introduced XY exercise. Formed the 4 groups and explained the rules. Groups played and in processing the experience, trainer emphasized some conclusions:

Our behavior is different/more honest when our activities can be observed by the community members (importance of transparency,

accountability) Through collaboration everybody wins, the precondition of collaboration is trust, the precondition of trust is integrity: keeping your

promises, honoring your word Nothing works without integrity because reality is built through our words.

For example, honoring their word by following the rules they agreed on, is the condition for realizing the workshop objectives, an

opportunity to practice being a person of integrity and of understanding that integrity is the foundation on which being an anticorruption practitioner is built

Session 2.2

This session focused on clarifying the three roles – trainer, consultant and facilitator, they will play when designing and conducting the participatory planning processes in the local governments. Differences and similarities were highlighted.

The session strated with an icebreaker – Knowing each other better. Participants had to answer yes or no, by moving on an imaginary scale, the following questions: Do you have brothers or sisters?

Are you a parent?

Do you know more than two languages? Do you live in the country where you were born?

Are you from a mixed ethnic families? Did you travelled abroad in more than 3 countries? Do you like dancing? Do you play on a musical instrument? Do you like swimming?

Are you in love?

The roles of Trainer, Consultant, Facilitator were defined by the Trainer, using Q&A. The three roles were presented as three circles overlapping, in order to highlight the idea that they are different but have common areas, represented by common knowledge, skills and tools. The three roles were defined:

A Trainer is a person who creates an effective learning environment for participants to gain new or improve existing: • Knowledge • Skills • Attitudes and Behaviors By keeping their attention, involving their minds and hearts, offering opportunities for ideas and experience exchange A Facilitator is a neutral person who creates and manages an environment which enables groups to work together in an effective way A Consultant is a person, without direct responsibility and power to make changes, but in a position to influence and support, individuals, groups or organizations • To solve their problems • Achieve their desired future

Types of consultants was the following topic. A Self assessment- questionnaire was provided – the instrument was developed by FPDL, inspired by Peter Block „Flawless Consulting” book. The results were processed in plenary and a group profile was obtained on a flip chart. The four main types of consulting were identified and advantages/disadvantages of each approach were discussed and clarified: Pair of Hands, Expert, Collaborative, Facilitator – defined as „process consultant”.

Pair of Hands

Client says: “I know what is the problem but I do not have time to deal with it. I have the solution; I have prepared an outline of what has to be done. I want you to get it done as soon as possible.” Consultant says: “OK, I will do it, because I have the technical expertise”. Client retains full control, consultant is expected to apply his/her expertise to implement the action plans toward achievement of the goals

defined by the client. The consultant acts in a passive role, responding to the client’s requests. The consultant does not question the client action plan. Decisions on how to proceed are made by the client, the consultant may prepare recommendations that have to be reviewed and approved by the client. The client makes the selection of methods for data collection and analysis. Disagreements are perceived as challenges to the client authority. Collaboration is not necessary, but consultant may ask questions for clarifications. Communication is limited to an active client and responsive consultant. The consultant main goal is to use his/her expertise to implement client action plan.

Advantage: consultant uses his/her expertise and has influence on implementation. Disadvantage: consultant relies on client ability to

make accurate diagnosis and to develop effective action plans. The consultant can become a scapegoat in case of not being successful. If consultant wants to avoid this trap, and asks for time to verify client’s diagnosis, clients who are used to work with this type of

consultants may interpret such requests as questioning their authority and experience.

Expert

Client says: “I have this problem. Please fix it” (give me the solution). Consultant says: “Let me think and I will give you the solution” (consultant does not question the client problem statement). Consultant becomes a member of client’s staff with delegated authority to plan and implement change programs. The client decides to play an inactive role. He/she expects to hold the consultant responsible for the results. The consultant accepts the responsibility and feels free to develop/implement action plans. The client is expected to provide assistance. Decisions on how to proceed are made by the consultant based on expertise. The consultant gathers information needed for analyzing further the problem and identify solutions. The consultant makes the selection of methods for data collection and analysis. Technical control rests with the consultant. Disagreement is unlikely because the client do not challenge “expert” arguments. Collaboration is not required because problem-solving efforts are based upon specialized procedures. Communication is limited to an active consultant and a responsive client. The consultant expects and is expected to initiate communication in a question/answer mode. The client role is to judge and evaluate after the facts. The consultant main goal is to use his/her expertise to solve client problem. Advantage: Consultant uses his/her expertise, have influence on implementation. Disadvantage: client is not committed to implement solution, more often the solution rests on a shelf; sometimes client is not identifying the real problem and solutions focus on symptoms;

consultant accepts full responsibility for the solution and takes decisions on how to proceed based upon expert judgment, but rarely problems are only technical without people’s problem involved.

Collaborative

Client says (as a patient): “I have a problem, but I do not know exactly what it is. Please find out and give me the solution” Consultant says (as a doctor): “I will make a diagnosis and I will give you an acceptable solution”. Consultant knows (as a doctor) that client’s problems can be solved effectively only through collaboration, by joining consultant specialized knowledge with the client’s knowledge about himself. Equal attention is given to technical and human interactions. The client must be actively involved in data gathering, analysis, in setting goals and developing action plans, in sharing responsibility for success or failure. Decision-making is bilateral and there is mutual respect for the responsibilities and expertise of both parties. Data collection and analysis is done by joint effort. Selecting the methods and the kind of data to be collected is done by agreement between consultant and client. Control issues become matters for discussions and negotiation. Disagreements between client and consultant are expected and considered as a source of new ideas. Collaboration is considered essential. The consultant tries to reach understanding and agreement on the nature and scope of work prior initiating problem solving efforts. Communication is two-way with both parties taking the initiative depending on the issues. Implementation responsibilities are determined by discussion and agreement. The consultant main goal is to establish a helping

relationship with the client and get his/her expertise used and his/her recommendations implemented. Advantage: Consultant expertise has more chances to be used and the solution to be implemented by a committed client who was involved in the process. Disadvantage: Clients may have different expectations (you are the expert, tell me what to do! And may interpret consultants attempts to collaborate as foot dragging. It is more time consuming than the 1st approach

Facilitator - Process Consultant

Client says: “I have a problem, but I do not know exactly what. Please help me to find out what it is and help me to find solutions” Consultant says: “I will help you to make a self-diagnosis and to generate your own solutions in an effective way”. Consultant builds

capacity of clients in problem solving and decision making processes, but does not intervene with any expertise. Consultant is responsible for the process but not for the content. The content is as good as the client is. It is assumed that the client has enough knowledge and experience, and the need is to help him/her work with others in a structured, logical and effective way. Collaboration and communication are important for achieving results. Disagreements can be avoided by clarifying from the very beginning consultant role, that is to be responsible with the process and client role that is to be responsible with the content. The consultant main goal is to design and facilitate

a logical, inclusive process and facilitate the client to go through all its steps in order to solve his/her problems. Implementation responsibilities are the client’s ones, the consultant may help in the process design and facilitation. Advantage: client commitment is at maximum, he/she owns the solutions and feel responsible for their implementation, client capacity building during the process enable him/her to do it next time without consultant help. Disadvantage: if client do not have the expertise or necessary skills the outcomes are poor, time consuming, and some clients are not used to this process and expect solutions from consultants.

Trainer emphasized that as Anticorruption Practitioners, when working with their local government client, they will play, most of the time, Facilitator role by involving local government leaders and staff in diagnosing their own problems and elaborating solutions. An exercise was conducted at the session end to identify the common knowledge and skills necessary to perform the three roles. Participants were asked to write down on the post-its, 1-2 ideas for each of the following category, they consider essential for an ideal anticorruption practitioner in the roles of trainer/consultant/facilitator.

Critical knowledge: What he/she should know? Critical skills: What he/she should be able to do? Critical attitudes: How he/she should be?

Presentation of ideas: ideas were put on a human profile: knowledge near the head, be able to do near hands, and attitudes near the

heart. Trainer emphasized that during this training they will maybe add/complete the anticorrupotion practitioner profile.

Having in mind the ideal trainer/facilitator/consultant, participants were asked to write on one paper-stick „one quality I have” and on other paper-stick „one quality I want to gain” from this training. This exercise was repeated at the end of the program, in order to assess if participants identified new fields where they „did not know they do not know”. Becoming aware about what you do not know is the first stage of learning.

Session 2.3

In the afternoon both sessions focused on the trainer’s role. Trainer explained that consulting local governments implies also embedding training in the process, to transfer/improve knowledge, skills and attitudes in the client organization. The Skills Building training implies

also transferring/improving their knowledge, skills attitudes. So the session focused on the characteristics of an effective learning process and the trainer role in designing and conducting such a process.

Brainstorming in plenary: trainer asked participants to remember a time when they enjoyed learning and it was an effective process, what made them learn effectively? First they had to share in pairs, write down what made them learn effectively and after present in plenary.

After having the list generated by participants, Trainer presented adult learning characteristics, the percentage of what people remember

when learning through different approaches. In order to design an effective learning process they have to be aware of these common chracteristics of adult learning, but also of individual characteristcs: each person has his/her own learning style.

In order to identify their learning styles, Feelers, Observers, Doers or Thinkers, participants received a self-evaluation instrument. A group profile was elaborated in plenary and trainer asked for commentaries. Trainer presented David Kolb experiential learning theory that is behind the four types of learning styles and its application in the training design. Trainer explained that the components/stages of a training process are based on the experiential learning model:

The stage of presenting, during which the trainer conveys information and theoretical concepts on a specific subject The stage of processing, during which the trainer processes/analyzes the information or the experience, linking it with participants

concrete experiences, trying to draw conclusions and lessons learned The stage of applying during which the trainer creates opportunities for participants to apply the newly acquired knowledge, skill,

attitudes. An effective learning process should include all these three stages, but what is their sequence is up to the trainer to decide. Training tools used in the different stages were also presented.

Session 2.4

This session focused on the training tools. Through a short exercise trainer highlighted the characteristics of an effective visual aid. Two persons registered on flipcharts a brainstorming session results – the question was “what are the characteristics of effective visual aids?” In plenary, participants analyzed the visuals of those who registered ideas – if they correspond with what they wrote. Trainer presented some conclusions about effective visuals.

Trainer formed 4 teams each had to take the responsibility of preparing an interactive and attractive presentation about one of the following training tools: Questions and Answers, Role play/simulation, Instruments, Case studies. As resource trainer provided the “Training Toolkit” elaborated by FPDL. Teams prepared and delivered the presentations. An evaluation of the day was conducted at the session end.

Day 3, April 25, 2012, Wednesday, Consultant

Session 3.1

The morning session was focused on clarifying consulting goals & steps. Trainer repeated the definition of the two concepts Consultant – Client. Client is the one who seeks/needs help: I have a problem. Please fix it. Consultant is the one who provide help (helps client to solve his/her problem), is the person who is in the position to influence but has not direct control to make changes or implement programs (As managers have).

There are Primary and Secondary clients: the Primary clients are the persons who attend the initial planning meeting, set the objectives for the project, approve the actions to be taken, receive the reports on the results of consultants work; the Secondary clients are the persons who participate in the process and can influence/are affected by the process results. Trainer registered participants answers to

the question: who are your clients when working with local governments?

Trainer presented intervention process aim: to make Changes in the Organization in order to achieve specific Objectives (Desired Future), which are beyond curing and preventing corruption. Trainer formed pairs, gave them post-its and asked them to discuss and answer with

2-3 ideas the following question (each answer is written on a separate post-it): Imagine that the Local Government you will be working with, is a person who asks for your support to enhance its qualities and overcome its weaknesses. What kind of a person you want that she becomes? (Qualities, behavior, attitudes) Trainer concluded by presenting a synthesis of the main ideas to be highlighted, defining what is:

• Integrity: walk your talk, keep your promise and honore your word, if not possible, say when is possible and how the impact will be

solved • Accountability: being responsible to someone for actions taken by explaining, clarifying and justifying the actions; it implies that

someone has a right to know and hold LG organization to account and that the LG has a duty to explain and account for its actions • Transparency: being easy to be understood, being open, frank and honest in all communications, transactions and operations;

Accountability and transparency go hand-in-hand

• Professional and managerial capacity: Being effective = Doing the right things; Being efficient = Doing the things right

Based on this, trainer presented the intervention proposed specific objectives:

Enhance people and organization Integrity and make them more: Accountable: having systems of control over performances that lead to corrective actions

Transparent: providing complete, clear and understandable information about its activities Effective: doing the right activities Efficient: doing activities in the right way By improving the organizational systems and transforming organizational culture

Trainer asked participants to assess how far on a scale from 1 to 10 the LGs in their countries are. All characteristics received low points.

Trainer presented the proposed process steps, the concept of participation, the levels of participation, level of consultant involvement decreasing in the process; during all these steps practitioners play different roles. Participants were asked to generate data for a workplan for the anticorruption intervention, which objectives have been identified in the previous exercise. The workplan will be an annex to the agreements that have to be signed between them/their organization and the mayor/local government they will work with. Four teams were formed and each developed an action plan for one of the following steps:

Contract with the Client and Build a Guiding Coalition Imagine the desired Future, Diagnose the Existing situation Elaborate Solutions

Implement Solutions,Monitor, Evaluate, Correct Actions

They have to identify the following data for the respective step:

Activities in each step Who is responsible

Session 3.2

Groups work results were presented in plenary.

Trainer explained that further the training will focus on the contracting phase, as described in the Peter Block “Flawless Consulting”.

What is the Social Contract? that is agreed between consultant and LG mayor/public manager:

An explicit agreement of what consultant and client expect from each other and how they will work together. Trainer explained that a similar social contract was agreed between trainers and participants at the training program beginning. The Social contract has two elements that all legal contracts have: (1) Mutual consent: both parties enter the agreement freely and by their own choice (2) Valid consideration: each party has to offer in exchange something that is valuable for the other party

Why is the contracting phase important? Is the foundation of the whole process, it clarifyes steps and relationships/responsibilities, it is easier to negotiate a new contract than to re-negotiate an old one; most misunderstandings appear because this parties do not give enough attention to this step.

Contracting Meeting steps: Trainer presented Step 1 Negotiating Wants Step 2 Dealing with Resistance Step 3 Closing the Meeting

Trainer explained that it happens that from step 1 the contracting goes directly to step 3. Trainer explained that the rest of the day they will receive detailed information about all the steps and sub-steps.

Step 1: Negotiating Wants 1.1. Personal acknowledgment • Your goal: to establish contact and your credibility with your client.

• How: You express thanks for the time given by your client, how you feel about this meeting and you should encourage your client do the same (I am glad I am here, I am happy we will work together, I hope it is a good time for us to work together, etc). Consultant has also to present its competencies, shortly, to build his/her legitimacy.

1.2. Communicating Understanding of the Problem • Your goal: to demonstrate that you understand the problems of your client and to identify more specifically the client’s perceptions

about these problems • How: you have to restate with your own words your initial understanding of the problems and you can ask clarification questions.

Consultant should reassure the client he/she can help, knowing the steps toward finding the solutions through a collaborative process. Consultant should use short and simple sentences, expressing understanding and support

1.3. Consultant wants and offers • Your goal: to put into words what you need to make the intervention successful • How: State your offers and state your wants concerning the successful realization of all project stages The most critical skill is to put into direct and simple words (street language) what you, as consultant, want from the client to make the project successful.

1.4. Client Wants and Offers • Your goal: to make the client put into words his/her expectations and support

• How: Ask the client: “What do you expect to happen as a result of this project?” „What are the constraints on this project that are helpful to find out early in the process?” „What support the client may offer to you?”

Session 3.3

In two groups: Group 1 = Clients - mayors Group 2 = Consultants/AP, participants elaborated two lists of Wants and Offers of the specific group from and to each others, in order to make the intervention successful. Presented in plenary: 1st round: client wants and consultants offers; 2nd round: consultants wants and clients offers

Discussions were held to analyze if the wants are addressed by offers, what are the differences, the need for negotiating wants and offers to clarify them.

The lists may include:

Consultants offers - remember you can offer only what you control, (do not promise what you cannot offer)

process design and the strategy of involving the client expertise specific behaviors

Clients wants

Advice and support for changes/improvements Recommendations to solve problems Study, reports Training

Evaluation

Consultants wants

a clear definition of my job free access to the right people and information

contact persons from client’s organization to work on the project enough time to do the job right money or other in kind suppport return to phone calls

Clients offers

Personal participation of leaders Time and money Access to information Expertise

Trainer presented about Essential wants - conditions without which consultant may decide to renounce to his/her project and Desirable Wants - conditions with which the project will be more successful. Asked participants to identify essential wants: participants receive 3

dots to identify the essential wants of consultants and clients (mayors). Trainer also asked: what are the most difficult wants to ask for, from your clients?

Session 3.4

Trainer asked participants to prepare to state in an assertive way the most difficult essential Wants for 2 minutes, in front of a video camera. They had to think of Wants that focus not only on the task but also on the relations with the client. They received the instructions to start with “I want…” and only after that to give the reasons for their request. They had to be specific, short and use simple statements, street language. Trainer asked each participant „What do you want from me?”

In plenary after looking at registrations, each participant received Tutors feedback.

Day 4, April 26, 2012, Thursday, Consultant and Facilitator

Session 4.1

Trainer presented Step 2 Dealing with Resistance 2.1. Stuck on Wants and Offers It may happen that step 1 is difficult. First, you have to know that you are stuck. There are several signals: (a) when you hear yourself re-explaining something for the third time (b) when you notice the client is explaining the same idea the third time (c) when your body gives you clear messages such as boredom, fatigue (indirect expressions of irritation) (d) when client’s body gives signals such as moving backward from the discussion, pointing at you like a gun, signals that show you that

you are stuck but not why you are in this situation. 2.2. Think/recess If you admit to yourself you reached an impasse, you have to mentally pull back and become an observer. It is wise to adjourn the meeting and ask for thinking time. Think of new ideas on what you want and what you have to offer to the client. Present them in a new meeting. Sometimes does not help.

2.3. Stuck again, address resistance and agree on new wants and offers If you are in another impasse you should think if the problem with the client is not different from what you are talking about. You have to focus the discussion on client’s feelings. First and more important: don’t take client resistance personally. The harsh reality has to do with how the client feels about something that is important to them. Client resistance is the indirect expression of his/her concerns about: Control and Vulnerability (Client feels uncomfortable about loosing control and reputation). Your task is now to help client express his/her

underlying concerns directly. This can be time consuming and sometimes uncomfortable. But you should not avoid it.

What are the forms of resistance you may encounter? Give me more details: client keeps asking for finer and finer bits of information. When you start to be impatient even if you know the

answers is the moment you suspect that this is a form of resistance

Flood you with details: the client keeps giving you more and more information You understand less and less; the moment you start being bored and confused you know that this is a form of resistance.

Attack: the client attacks you with angry face, pointing his/her finger into your face, punctuating the end of each sentence. Do not take the attack personally and do not withdraw or response with the same tone.

Compliance: client totally agrees with you, having low energy, and eagerly wants to know what to do next. It is exactly what you wanted: agreement and respect. But if you do not have any form of resistance you should know something is missing.

Changing the subject: the client seems no longer having the problem or changing from one problem to another, confusing you.

Silence: the client is passive, is silent and do not react to your proposals. Silence never means consent! Silence means that the reaction is blocked. Ask yourself if the client gave you real support or got personally involved. If there are no signs of life, begin to wonder whether silence is a form of resistance

Pressing for solutions: client is very busy, client is asking for solutions but has no time to meet with you; client is not interested in analyzing the problem, only give me the solutions! Rush for solutions can be a defense.

What to do? Acknowledge the resistance so that the clients feel understood and not like you are fighting against them. We cannot talk people out of what they are feeling; they have a right to their feelings. Feelings change when they are expressed directly. Logic does not work in this case, so never ask WHY. The consultant skill is to help client express directly their concerns. Trainer reviewed the steps for dealing with resistance. 1. Give two Good Faith Responses 2. Name the Form of resistance (as simply and as directly as possible) 3. Be quiet. Let the tension rise 4. Give support for underlying concerns

Trainer explained the importance of making a statement vs. asking questions when naming the form of resistance. Naming resistance is describing in neutral words what the client is doing. Never ask WHY. Trainer asked for 3 teams of volunteers (1 consultant, 1 client) and gave them the task to simulate a discussion including a form of resistance. The sequence was: (1) Consultant asks for something and Client offers a form of resistance (2) Consultant goes through the steps of dealing with resistance.

Trainer presented Step 3 – Closing the Meeting 3.1. Reaching agreement • Your goal: to repeat and confirm the agreement, identifying issues that are still not clear • How: restate the agreement as you understand it. But the meeting is not over. You have three more phases. 3.2. Ask for Concerns about Control and Commitment • Your goal: to address any concerns your client may have about the project and the agreement. Concerns of the client may be about

control, vulnerability or commitment of time and resources. Most weak contracts are faulty because: (a) the client increasingly felt that they did not have adequate control over what is happening (b) the client entered the agreement under some kind of coercion.

• How: ask the client “Do you have any other concerns about this project?” Is this project something that you really want to see happen? Are you satisfied with the way we have agreed to set it up? Do you feel you have enough control over how this project is going to proceed?

3.3. Give support • Your goal: to demonstrate support for your client effort and expressed commitment for this project

• How: give positive feedback on what the client has done so far on this project – including this conversation. Make supportive statements to the client about his/her willingness to begin this project with you. The support needs to be genuine and specific. “Starting this project implies a risk from your part, I appreciate your willingness to take this risk with me”

3.4. Restate Actions • Your goal: to clarify and confirm the next steps

• How: state the next steps. Make sure you and the client know what each of you is going to do next.

Trainer presents the ground rules for contracting The responsibility for every relationship is 50-50. There are two sides for every story The contract should be freely entered and you can not get something for nothing there must be gains for both sides All wants are legitimate; you cannot say: “You should not want that.”

You can say no to what others want. Even to your client; You do not always get what you want; but you still survive! You can ask for behaviors and not feelings

You can not ask for something the other person does not have; You can not promise something that you can not deliver; You can not contract with somebody who is not in the room

You should write down contracts whenever it is possible; Social contracts are renegotiable

Session 4.2

Trainer presented facilitator (process consultant) key responsibilities: the proposed intervention in the organization is based on a participatory approach: in all the stages they will work with groups (the group that form the guiding coalition, the agents - managers and the executive staff, or the clients (companies, citizens). The goal of facilitation: to create, encourage and manage a process and an

environment which assist the individuals to better work together

Why a participatory process? Q&A Advantages? Presentation: Changing the way we change organizations: Engagement paradigm vs. Resistance to change.

The facilitator key responsibility is to manage group processes: Group communication: help groups to communicate effectivelly Group decision making: help group to make good quality decisions through effective decision-making processes Group problem-solving / Planning: to structure/design and guide the group through the logic of planning/problem-solving processes

In order to support groups effectiveley facilitator has to

Understand these Processes Have Knowledge and Skills to identify the obstacles in the Processes Have the ability to overcome these obstacles (tools and techniques)

Following, each of the 3 Processes will be in turn analyzed, understood, obstacles identified and tools/techniques tried in order to

overcome them.

Group communication

Trainer presented the interpersonal communication model: sender-message-receiver. Short video is presented with the communication

misunderstanding (Italian in Malta) as a funny example. The model of interpersonal communication is described in a simplified way, a sender and a receiver who exchange messages containing ideas and feelings, mixed together. The sender encodes the message using Verbal, Vocal and Visual elements. What element is giving more info? The receiver takes the messages and decodes them by sorting out and interpreting the elements, according to own experience, beliefs, needs and influenced by the environment in which communication takes place. People who understand the communication process and its possible roadblocks have more control over it and

fewer breakdowns.

Receiving messages – the way our minds work: a short video is presented to demonstrate that our view of the reality is limited by how our brain is functioning (the moon walking bear). Our reality is formed by our perceptions, influenced by our physical perceptual constraints that we rarely are aware about and take them into account. We have the erroneous belief that what we see is how it is. Our worldview leaves us blind to the fact that we are blind. It is important to be aware of these physical constraints because in that way we reduce their impact on us. For example, this awareness will help us appreciate the fact that others may perceive things that we have missed and think don’t exist. Another more simple reality to demonstrate the above: how many squares do you see? Trainer presents stages of perception formation.

Listening actively is presented as a solution to effective communication, to overcome obstacles in receiving messages. Presentation with

Q&A: Why listening is difficult? What should we do to listen with presence and actively? Self- assessment instrument – am I a good listener?, group profile and conclusions.

Sending powerful verbal and written messages; Participants are organized in 2 groups. Task – list (1) Group 1: Characteristics of a powerful verbal presentation/message (2) Group 2: Characteristics of a powerful written presentation/message. Participants present in plenary their ideas about effective verbal and written messages. Trainer synthesizes discussions by presenting:

• Powerful presentations characteristics • Written Messages - key points and steps

Session 4.3

Trainer presented the decision-making process scheme. What is a decision? Is choosing an alternative among many. The process of group decision-making: (1) generate ideas (2) select the best among many options

Money in the middle – an exercise to demonstrate types of group decision: Collect money from participants in a bowl; participants have 15’ to decide how they would like to spend the collected money during their stay in Zadar (trainer collects money from all participants and put them in the middle of the room). One person is asked to volunteer and play the role of facilitator. If they are not able to agree than the money will be taken by the trainers

In the processing stage trainer presented about How groups take decisions (by omission, by minority decision, by majority decision, by consensus and by unanimity) Q&A – what

method did you used? Facilitator tools The best known are Brainstorming & NGT, which include both divergent and convergent thinking tools

Facilitator must also propose criteria for decisions – such as urgency, affecting a large number of people, affecting disadvantaged groups, control or influence over implementation, realistic concerning resources (HR, material, financial, informational, time)

Obstacles and difficult moments in group decision-making processes: participants worked in 3 groups, to identify moments when it was difficult to take decisions in groups, why – what obstacles did they encountered? Groups presented in plenary the results. Trainer presented obstacles and facilitator techniques to overcome obstacles. Trainer presented also the conditions to have good quality group decisions – when “wisdom of crowds” can work.

Session 4.4

Trainer presents the logic of the strategic planning process – where we are (present), where we want to be (future), how to go there (solutions). Follows clarifying the concepts: 1. Concepts describing present: Problems and Opportunities pg 11-15 2. Concepts describing future: Vision and Objectives pg 16-18 3. Concepts describing solutions: Strategies and Tools to elaborate them pg 22-25

Exercise - Process steps: working in 3 groups, participants has to put in a logical order the stages of a rational problem solving/planning process, by arranging in logical sequence the cards on which steps were written:

• Information collection

• Problems and opportunities identification and analysis • Objectives elaboration • Stakeholders identification • Strategies elaboration • Resources mobilization • Strategies Implementation • Monitoring and Evaluation Trainer presented process alternative designs, appropriate for different situations

Problem tree exercise: trainer provides cards with statements to be arranged in a problem tree. Participants presented in plenary their

work results.

FPDL provided to each team the handbooks useful for the topic (besides What is Participatory Planning) developed by Ana Vasilache and Nicole Rata: What is Facilitation, What is Interpersonal Communication, What is Decision Making, What is Conflict, what is Ethnic Conflict – some in hard copy, others in electronic format.

Day 5, April 27, 2012, Friday - free day

Day 6, April 28, 2012, Saturday – Professor Robert Kiltgaard presentation and Pilot Workshop preparation

Session 6.1

Participants welcomed Professor Robert Kiltgaard, who arrived previous evening in Zadar. He had a presentation „Facts, examples, frameworks” about the structure and data that should be included by the anticorruption practitioners, to persuade audience that

addressing corruption is very important for the country/city economic, political and social development. He used data about Croatia as a concrete example.

Session 6.2

The 6 facilitators’ teams (2 persons/team) were the teams organized per country and organization: 2 teams from Croatia (one BiH representative being without her team member, joined one of the Croatian teams), 2 teams from Serbia, 1 team from BiH, 1 team from Albania. Trainer explained the task of each team of facilitators: during the next two days Pilot Worksho, each team will be responsible to design and conduct one session, so that they achieve in the proposed time (90’) the session objectives (provided by the trainers)

When not in the facilitator role, participants had to play the roles of a Local Government, elected or appointed officials. First trainer elaborated with participants support a list of persons/job positions that will be invited to attend the Pilot Workshop. Each participant had to choiose one the roles and develop the character: name, background, expectations, concerns. The 13 roles included mayor, vice-mayors, councilors, directors of different departments. The name of the city was decided as being Magnolia City. Trainer provided also to each participant a Guide for the Pilot Workshop, including detailed description of the session objectives and facilitation tools that may be used. The Pilot Workshop objectives were (a) deepen understanding of the curing and preventing corruption process steps and the main concepts on which it relies (b) diagnose LG organization vulnerability to corruption and elaborate solutions to address it (c) agree on the

process next steps and on their responsibilities to implement it

Session 6.3 and 6.4

Teams prepared the session they were responsible for. Feedback rules were also clarified - giving and receiving feedback. They were applied in the 30’ feedback sessions held after each PW session, devoted to learn from experience, and improve their performances as AP

Day 7, April 29, Sunday - Pilot Workshop for the Guiding Coalition (1)

PW Session 1: Get acquianted, what is corruption, what do we think about it PW Session 2: Why is important to address corruption in our organization PW Session 3: Main concepts on which relies the strategic approach to address corruption in organizations and Identifying and

analyzing organization vulnerability areas to corruption

Day 8, April 30, 2012, Monday - Pilot Workshop (2)

PW Session 4: The culture of the organization – continuing the in-depth diagnosis

PW Session 5: Causes/reasons analysis using the problem tree tool PW Session 6: Possible solutions to cure and prevent corruption

Day 9, May 1, 2012

Session 9.1

This session was devoted to highlight lessons learned and to clarify future steps, that will be done under the WB-Austria Urban Partnership Program: selection of one team/country to work with the selected local government and the support/coaching offered by Tutors, Ana Vasilache and Ronald MacLean Abaroa.

The exercise from the first session was repeated: participants were asked to identify one quality they have and one quality they want to improve in the future, as anticorruption practitioners. Here after are the results of the 1st and 2nd time participants went through this exercise.

Session 1.1 Session 9.1

Qualities I have Qualities I want to improve Qualities I have Qualities I want to improve

Good problem solving skills and solutions oriented

Flexibility/adaptability Training skills (design and

implementation) Determination to address

corruption Able to see the broad picture Ability to adapt to different

situations and environments

Open minded – ready to learn and listen

Compassionate, respectful Communication skills Knowledge of anticorruption

intervention process

Facilitation Skills (4p) More knowledge on internal

government processes Effective communication Patience Knowledge about how to

structure a process for elaborating an anticorruption strategy

Skills to transfer my

knowledge in order to address corruption in local governments

Skills to change things around me

Skills to control time and structure

Listening skills Analytical skills

Determination to cope/fight corruption in local governments

Facilitation skills and understanding of the process

Knowledge about the process Teamwork Better view and

understanding of the process logic

Group of people to talk to and exchange experience

Listening skills Supportive Open to learning new things

and learn from others Understanding the concepts

(4p) and process Ability to adapt – listening

skills and facilitation skills

Improved facilitation and communication skills

Networking Preparation and prevention of

possible bad scenarios

Facilitation skills (less didactic)

Facilitation skills Experience in intervention Self-control Practical experience in

applying PAP methodology (2p)

Fundraising Listening skills

Time management More focused, more effective Entrepreneurial Power to implement Consulting skills

More clear and specific in introducing concepts

Communication skills – to be able to convey messages in a clear and structured manner

Analytical skills Improve performance

through more practice (2p) Selling the program to

decision makers

Session 9.2

This session was attended by three (of four) local governments representatives selected to receive WB-Austria Urban Partnership Program

support, to elaborate and implement a strategic plan aimed at curing and preventing corruption, and in the same time to enhance organization integrity and improve its activities/services transparency, accountability and efficiency: Albania – Kukova, BiH – Zenica and Croatia – Krizevci. The Serbian city of Boljevac did not sent representative, due to local elections planned to take place May 8.

The session started with a get acquainted session during which both sides – the anticorruption practitioners and their future clients, knew each other better. Anticorruption practitioners had the opportunity to build their legitimacy in front of their future clients and local government representatives had the opportunity to present achievements they are proud of.

The anticorruption methodology was presented by Robert Klitgaard and Ronald MacLean Abaroa through a live discussion about their successful collaboration in La Paz, answering a simulated interview. Ana Vasilache presented the steps and results obtained through the last 7 years efforts, in disseminating, adapting and applying the anticorruption methodology in CEE/SEE countries, in the frame of the Regional Program supported by LGI/OSI. She also presented the international recognition received by the methodology through the UN Public Service Award 2011, as well as the process steps and results obtained in Craiova LG. She presented also the future activities during which local governments will collaborate with the trained anticorruption practitioners in the frame of the WB-Austria Urban Partnership Program for SEE.

The certification ceremony was held at the program end: participants received their last task, to give certificates to each other, as a symbol that they learned from their peers as much as from their trainers/tutors. Each of them had to choose one certificate, to come in front and describe the person to receive the certificate of attendance. He/she provided the certificate only after participants identified the person name.

Session 9.3

The last and closing session was organized in the evening, in the training room, after dinner. It was facilitated by Robert Klitgaard: participants and Tutors, were asked to make a toast. It was a very emotional evening, a nice ending of a rich and intensive learning experience.

Day 10, May 2, 2012, Tuesday

Participants’ departure

The photos bellows show a relaxed and friendly atmosphere, as well as, participants and Tutors committed and hard work. More to be

seen onhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/CORRUPT-CITIES-A-NETWORK-TO-CURE-AND-PREVENT/369195359755

At the end of the Skills Building component, by completing an Evaluation Form, participants' expressed their level of satisfaction and their

perceptions about the program different aspects. The synthesis of their evaluations demonstrates that the Skills Building component was

very successful. The evaluation results look as follows:

List of participants in PAP* Skills Building Component, April 23-May 2, 2012, Zadar, Croatia

COUNTRY ORGANIZATION NAME E-MAILS WEBSITE

1 BiH Proffs Consulting Ltd. Anticorruption Practitioner

Emina Abrahamsdotter emina.abrahamsdotter@proffs.ba www.proffs.ba

2 BiH Transparency International BiH Headquarter: Banja Luka, Anticorruption Practitioners

Ivana Korajlić ikorajlic@ti-bih.org

www.ti-bih.org 3 BiH Lejla Ibranović libranovic@ti-bih.org

4 HR UDD Zagreb Udruga za

demokratsko društvo, Anticorruption Practitioners

Tomislav Brnas udd@zg.t-com.hr tomislavbrnas@gmail.com

www.udd.hr 5 HR Katarina Sekulic udd@zg.t-com.hr

6 HR CEDEX Centre for Excellence in Development Anticorruption Practitioners

Joanna Rybacka - Barisic

7 HR Ivana Puksec ipuksec@anticorruption-see.org

8 SR Mena Group Ltd, Anticorruption Practitioners

Suzana Zivkovic menakonsalting@gmail.com;

www.menagroup.com 9 SR Tamara Zivadinovic tamara.zivadinovic@gmail.com

10 SR Partners for Democratic Change Serbia, Anticorruption Practitioners

Uros Misljenovic uros.misljenovic@partners-serbia.org

www.partners-serbia.org 11 SR Ana Toskic ana.toskic@partners-serbia.org

12 AL Partners Albania, Anticorruption Practitioners

Klotilda Tavani ktavani@partnersalbania.org www.partnersalbania.org

13 AL Arjolla Agolli arjola17@yahoo.com

www.partnersalbania.org

14 RO FPDL, Tutors

Ana Vasilache fpdl@fpdl.ro www.fpdl.ro

15 RO Olivia Baciu fpdl@fpdl.ro www.fpdl.ro

16 HR CHRONOS INFO, Organizer and Tutor

Petra Padjen ppadjen@chronos.hr www.chronos.hr

17 HR Anton Barisic afbarisic@chronos.hr www.chronos.hr

18 USA WBI, Tutors

Ronald MacLean Abaroa romacab@aol.com

19 USA Robert Klitgaard robert.klitgaard@gmail.com

20 BiH LG Zenica, Mayor Husejin Smajlovic kabinet@zenica.ba

21 HR LG Krizevci, Chief of Dep. Mladen Tenodi procelnik-dd@krizevci.hr

22 AL LG Kucove, Vice Mayor Shpetim Nishani

23 SR WBI, Program Manager Tamara Nikolic tnikolic@worldbank.org

Selected teams to work in 2012 with local governments in the 4 countries are highlighted with yellow