Facilitating Local Ownership Through Paradoxical Interventions

Abstract

This article builds on findings from 6 years of action research on change dynamics in the Dutch diplomatic arena concerned with tough issues such as dispensing foreign aid to reduce poverty. The complexity of tough issues can only be handled effectively with intensive local participation. Such participation is not straightforward as people may shy away from the unfamiliar repertoires, unpredictable processes, and inevitable opposition that come with the territory. This article focuses on how to facilitate local ownership in a series of paradoxical interventions with sufficient depth and credibility. It describes the dynamics enabling and frustrating the helping relationship during the initiation and execution of complex change.

Toward understanding three phases of individual responses to paradox

“…Closer observations, which are particularly needed of the ways in which individuals understand paradox, should thus result in the identification of more accurate, varied and novel individual responses to paradox. For example, some individuals may understand the situation such that they attempt to evoke opposing views and complex co-operation through essentially one-sided behaviour (Cuganesan, 2017; Vermaak, 2012). Not only does this make it salient that understanding sometimes combines with behaviour in a less typical way, but the effectiveness of ostensibly defensive behaviour is also brought into attention.…”

“…We can label this communication strategy as including paradox in a bounded way . Various tactics can be used, such as irony, preparation, rhetoric and ambiguity (Barge et al , 2008; Bednarek et al , 2017; Fiol, 2002; Gibbs, 2009; Hoelscher, 2019; Vermaak, 2012). With symbolic integration , the sender of a message uses complex symbols to “respond fully to all opposing forces at once without any compromise or dilution” (Baxter and Montgomery, 1996, p. 65).…”

Additional Guidelines for Publication

“…In another article, Vermaak (2012) did not have a separate “Implications for Practice” section, but a large part of his “findings” sections were implications for practice. The focus of his approach was on how Instead of basing contracts on reassurance [facilitator directiveness], facilitators can go in the opposite direction.…”