Localization is the only solution with sufficient reach to meet the challenges of preparing a global emergency workforce.
This blog reveals the Three Golden Rules when forming a localized training strategy within your capacity building programmes.
Capacity building and emergency preparedness account for millions of dollars each calendar year in the global humanitarian aid and development sectors. Within this spectrum of activity, training is by far the most common tool of choice for most international organizations seeking to create lasting impact across their network of national and local counterparts.
Yet given its importance, there remains a staggering variety of approaches on show and little in the way of common standards or guidance for managers responsible for implementing a training strategy.
The Most Common Downfall
Consider the following scenario:
--------------------------------------------------------------
A project officer working at the headquarters of an international organization is tasked to build a new global training programme. The aim is to roll-out a new set of guidelines and practices that have been developed through widespread consultation, and are now expected to enhance emergency response capability within national government and local actors.
A number of colleagues suggest a sensible place to start would be to hold a centrally led training event - ideally some form of workshop, course or exercise.
Hoping this event will act as a catalyst for others, our project officer decides to be inclusive and invite along representatives from other partner organizations to be part of the journey in supporting roles or as observers.
Being a diligent person, the project officer then ensures that the training curriculum is written up into a formal package that can then be replicated or adapted by others working at the regional or country level.
The pilot event feels like a big success. The 30 participants selected to attend all left with 5-star ratings and there was significant discussion at the end about cascading this training throughout their parent institutions.
However, several months later, the project has stalled and any traction has been lost.
It seems that partners institutions didn`t have the resources or will to run the training independently. The project officer attempts to reignite the idea several times but a new director has now come in with different priorities and, reluctantly, the project officer agrees to move on.
---------------------------------------------------------------
If the above story sounds all too familiar, then you are not alone.
The centralized-cascading approach reflects the vast majority of practices by humanitarian agencies up until present day. In my role as a training specialist, I have been guilty of supporting partners in delivering literally hundreds of events that fit this description.
The problem is that we are operating on a fundamentally flawed set of assumptions.
While a centralized-cascading strategy can be fantastic for training emergency rosters that are limited in size, they are a poor fit for creating sustainable impact throughout a diverse, multi-organizational network.
In my experience, handing over a written training package is akin to conducting air drops of relief items. Sometimes it lands where it’s really needed; on most occasions it`s impossible to track.
Your network partners simply lack the time, resources and expertise to decipher your training materials and customize them to meet the operational context of a different set of participants, while maintaining a level of consistency that is aligned with global standards.
Moreover, almost every cross-sectoral report ever published tells us the same message: despite good intentions, centrally-implemented capacity building reinforces and perpetuates the huge barriers to access that national staff face due to training opportunities not being available in their native languages [1].
Towards An Alternative Model
Working as a consultant trainer in this arena for 17 years has afforded me a backstage pass to witness the different organizational cultures and how this shapes the thought processes of those managers responsible for implementing capacity building training programmes.
Increasingly, I see people achieving their best results when they embrace a holistic approach and look two or three steps beyond the immediate horizon. This requires a real shift in mindset for many managers and can be difficult to reconcile with the short-term budget cycles that are their reality.
However, to be truly effective, a training programme must reach beyond the skills and knowledge of a few key individuals and influence entire institutions or communities.
The key is to reach your full target audience with sufficient quality and within the resources available.
The essence of building capacity through training is about improving the ability of a critical mass of people to absorb change and - crucially - to sustain those changes over time.
The Subsidiarity Principle
The subsidiarity principle refers to devolving responsibility for something to the most proximate level capable of handling it.
This principle is the pivotal ethos behind the humanitarian localization agenda and has been applied to various aspects of emergency response over the past decade or longer, everything from humanitarian coordination to programmatic decision making [2].
It strikes me that emergency preparedness training could benefit from utilizing the same principle, but we rarely frame our global strategies in these terms.
A distributed training model, which values the empowerment of local training partners as its core tenet, presents the most viable solution to overcome the challenges of preparing a global emergency workforce.
By shifting from centralized to localized training strategies, organizations can achieve superior impact in several major ways:
The Three Golden Rules
While the benefits of localization are clear, maintaining quality and consistency across distributed training programmes can still be challenging.
Here are three Golden Rules to improve your success rate:
#1. Reverse Engineer a Training Pathway
Firstly, consider the entire target workforce across your network that needs to be reached and how they will be organized during an emergency.
Next, in consultation with your partners, clarify what is the end point capability or operational gap that each unit, team or subset of the training audience collectively needs to be equipped to fill.
Then – and here lies the rub – work backwards in their journey: identify what is the penultimate step in their development to reach that end point goal, and what sort of training intervention will provide the best fit?
A single event is rarely enough, so continue backwards, step by step, until you reach the current status of your emergency workforce as it stands today.
You and your network partners now have the outline of a training pathway: an agreed roadmap for moving each target audience through a blend of training experiences, using different delivery methods and within a specified period of time.
Many of the most effective solutions in humanitarian response are examples of simple plans executed efficiently, and at scale. Training strategies are no different – however, when used for capacity building purposes, training can feel more like waging a campaign rather than fighting a single battle.
#2. Invest in Local Trainers
Review each step in your training pathway (see Golden Rule #1 above) and determine which activities can already be implemented autonomously at the local level.
For the remaining steps on your list, identify what support, expertise, material or resources would be needed to empower local actors to lead the activity.
Skilled trainers at the local level are oil in the engine of all distributed training programmes. Reframe the dialogue from “Who do we need to bring in to deliver this activity?” to “How do we empower local leadership to achieve the desired quality levels?”
Going beyond a single Training of Trainer course is key. This can be an excellent catalyst but more important yet is how to build systems that nurture and measure the development of local trainers over time.
#3. Leverage Training Technologies
Utilize available technologies to help local trainers standardize the consistency and quality of the training experiences they deliver.
Training technologies have improved vastly since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and there are tools available now which we simply didn’t have before.
Tools like REM-Systems Global, developed precisely to help emergency response organizations expand their reach and impact by building their own group-based training scenarios, for a fraction of the budget that it would take to fly in and deliver that same training experience.
Such technologies present a lifeline for local trainers that goes far beyond the sharing of Powerpoint slides.
This also offers the first real solution we have to the problem of how group-based training results can be delivered equally well in any local language.
Conclusion
Localization is not just a trend in the context within which we train our global workforce; it's a necessity for creating sustainable and impactful improvements in capacity where they are needed the most.
Incorporating these three cornerstones into your localized training strategy can transform your organization`s influence from a single event involving a few people, to an entire network that includes a diverse and multinational target audience.
[1] For example, see: https://gisf.ngo/resource/state-of-practice-the-evolution-of-srm-in-the-humanitarian-space-gisf-and-humanitarian-outcomes-research-paper/
[2] For example, see: https://sohs.alnap.org/previous-editions/sohs-2015#:~:text=The%20SOHS%202015%20showed%20that,quarter%20in%20the%20period%20studied.
This blog reveals the Three Golden Rules when forming a localized training strategy within your capacity building programmes.
Capacity building and emergency preparedness account for millions of dollars each calendar year in the global humanitarian aid and development sectors. Within this spectrum of activity, training is by far the most common tool of choice for most international organizations seeking to create lasting impact across their network of national and local counterparts.
Yet given its importance, there remains a staggering variety of approaches on show and little in the way of common standards or guidance for managers responsible for implementing a training strategy.
The Most Common Downfall
Consider the following scenario:
--------------------------------------------------------------
A project officer working at the headquarters of an international organization is tasked to build a new global training programme. The aim is to roll-out a new set of guidelines and practices that have been developed through widespread consultation, and are now expected to enhance emergency response capability within national government and local actors.
A number of colleagues suggest a sensible place to start would be to hold a centrally led training event - ideally some form of workshop, course or exercise.
Hoping this event will act as a catalyst for others, our project officer decides to be inclusive and invite along representatives from other partner organizations to be part of the journey in supporting roles or as observers.
Being a diligent person, the project officer then ensures that the training curriculum is written up into a formal package that can then be replicated or adapted by others working at the regional or country level.
The pilot event feels like a big success. The 30 participants selected to attend all left with 5-star ratings and there was significant discussion at the end about cascading this training throughout their parent institutions.
However, several months later, the project has stalled and any traction has been lost.
It seems that partners institutions didn`t have the resources or will to run the training independently. The project officer attempts to reignite the idea several times but a new director has now come in with different priorities and, reluctantly, the project officer agrees to move on.
---------------------------------------------------------------
If the above story sounds all too familiar, then you are not alone.
The centralized-cascading approach reflects the vast majority of practices by humanitarian agencies up until present day. In my role as a training specialist, I have been guilty of supporting partners in delivering literally hundreds of events that fit this description.
The problem is that we are operating on a fundamentally flawed set of assumptions.
While a centralized-cascading strategy can be fantastic for training emergency rosters that are limited in size, they are a poor fit for creating sustainable impact throughout a diverse, multi-organizational network.
In my experience, handing over a written training package is akin to conducting air drops of relief items. Sometimes it lands where it’s really needed; on most occasions it`s impossible to track.
Your network partners simply lack the time, resources and expertise to decipher your training materials and customize them to meet the operational context of a different set of participants, while maintaining a level of consistency that is aligned with global standards.
Moreover, almost every cross-sectoral report ever published tells us the same message: despite good intentions, centrally-implemented capacity building reinforces and perpetuates the huge barriers to access that national staff face due to training opportunities not being available in their native languages [1].
Towards An Alternative Model
Working as a consultant trainer in this arena for 17 years has afforded me a backstage pass to witness the different organizational cultures and how this shapes the thought processes of those managers responsible for implementing capacity building training programmes.
Increasingly, I see people achieving their best results when they embrace a holistic approach and look two or three steps beyond the immediate horizon. This requires a real shift in mindset for many managers and can be difficult to reconcile with the short-term budget cycles that are their reality.
However, to be truly effective, a training programme must reach beyond the skills and knowledge of a few key individuals and influence entire institutions or communities.
The key is to reach your full target audience with sufficient quality and within the resources available.
The essence of building capacity through training is about improving the ability of a critical mass of people to absorb change and - crucially - to sustain those changes over time.
The Subsidiarity Principle
The subsidiarity principle refers to devolving responsibility for something to the most proximate level capable of handling it.
This principle is the pivotal ethos behind the humanitarian localization agenda and has been applied to various aspects of emergency response over the past decade or longer, everything from humanitarian coordination to programmatic decision making [2].
It strikes me that emergency preparedness training could benefit from utilizing the same principle, but we rarely frame our global strategies in these terms.
A distributed training model, which values the empowerment of local training partners as its core tenet, presents the most viable solution to overcome the challenges of preparing a global emergency workforce.
By shifting from centralized to localized training strategies, organizations can achieve superior impact in several major ways:
- Reach and Inclusivity: Localization enables training initiatives to reach a larger number of people, reducing language barriers and other restrictions for those who have traditionally been disadvantaged by centralized approaches. Training becomes more accessible, ensuring that more individuals across the network are equipped with the necessary competencies.
- Adaptability: Localized training is inherently more easily adapted, allowing programmes to be tailored to specific contexts and needs. This flexibility ensures that the training is relevant and effective, addressing the unique challenges faced by different regions and communities.
- Sustainability: A localized approach requires fewer resources from any single actor over an extended period, making it a more sustainable solution. This is particularly crucial in a time when reducing carbon footprints and managing limited resources are high priorities. The role of the global agent switches from direct provider to the provision of second-order support.
The Three Golden Rules
While the benefits of localization are clear, maintaining quality and consistency across distributed training programmes can still be challenging.
Here are three Golden Rules to improve your success rate:
#1. Reverse Engineer a Training Pathway
Firstly, consider the entire target workforce across your network that needs to be reached and how they will be organized during an emergency.
Next, in consultation with your partners, clarify what is the end point capability or operational gap that each unit, team or subset of the training audience collectively needs to be equipped to fill.
Then – and here lies the rub – work backwards in their journey: identify what is the penultimate step in their development to reach that end point goal, and what sort of training intervention will provide the best fit?
A single event is rarely enough, so continue backwards, step by step, until you reach the current status of your emergency workforce as it stands today.
You and your network partners now have the outline of a training pathway: an agreed roadmap for moving each target audience through a blend of training experiences, using different delivery methods and within a specified period of time.
Many of the most effective solutions in humanitarian response are examples of simple plans executed efficiently, and at scale. Training strategies are no different – however, when used for capacity building purposes, training can feel more like waging a campaign rather than fighting a single battle.
#2. Invest in Local Trainers
Review each step in your training pathway (see Golden Rule #1 above) and determine which activities can already be implemented autonomously at the local level.
For the remaining steps on your list, identify what support, expertise, material or resources would be needed to empower local actors to lead the activity.
Skilled trainers at the local level are oil in the engine of all distributed training programmes. Reframe the dialogue from “Who do we need to bring in to deliver this activity?” to “How do we empower local leadership to achieve the desired quality levels?”
Going beyond a single Training of Trainer course is key. This can be an excellent catalyst but more important yet is how to build systems that nurture and measure the development of local trainers over time.
#3. Leverage Training Technologies
Utilize available technologies to help local trainers standardize the consistency and quality of the training experiences they deliver.
Training technologies have improved vastly since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and there are tools available now which we simply didn’t have before.
Tools like REM-Systems Global, developed precisely to help emergency response organizations expand their reach and impact by building their own group-based training scenarios, for a fraction of the budget that it would take to fly in and deliver that same training experience.
Such technologies present a lifeline for local trainers that goes far beyond the sharing of Powerpoint slides.
This also offers the first real solution we have to the problem of how group-based training results can be delivered equally well in any local language.
Conclusion
Localization is not just a trend in the context within which we train our global workforce; it's a necessity for creating sustainable and impactful improvements in capacity where they are needed the most.
Incorporating these three cornerstones into your localized training strategy can transform your organization`s influence from a single event involving a few people, to an entire network that includes a diverse and multinational target audience.
[1] For example, see: https://gisf.ngo/resource/state-of-practice-the-evolution-of-srm-in-the-humanitarian-space-gisf-and-humanitarian-outcomes-research-paper/
[2] For example, see: https://sohs.alnap.org/previous-editions/sohs-2015#:~:text=The%20SOHS%202015%20showed%20that,quarter%20in%20the%20period%20studied.
RSS Feed