Participatory governance of social development agents within non-profit organizations: A Peruvian case

This abstract argues that although third sector organizations in Peru claim their work is based on principles of democratic participation, solidarity, reciprocity, respect for traditional knowledge, human and ecological... [ view full abstract ]

This abstract argues that although third sector organizations in Peru claim their work is based on principles of democratic participation, solidarity, reciprocity, respect for traditional knowledge, human and ecological diversity (Felber, 2012; Muñoz and Briones, 2011; Portocarrero and Sanborn, 1998), this may not be the case when analyzing their   internal decisional-making processes.  For this paper, members of the third sector organizations are described as social development agents (SDAs), who exercise different posts of responsibility, such as: board members, managers, operational staff and volunteers.

The study put the spotlight on an internal managerial logic derived from private sector culture, co-opting and compromising the ethos and logic of third sector organizations and members. As Kenny, Taylor, Onyx, and Mayo (2016, citing Edwards, 2008) state, business and markets are not designed to build those third sector rationales that are concerned with the social cohesion of communities where people are assumed to care for each other.  

The study was carried out in two Peruvian cities. 506 SDAs participated.  The work aimed to a) identify their frequency of participation in specific decision-making processes; and b) examine which factors SDAs perceived as enabling or inhibiting their participation in these processes. The specific decision-making processes were identified through previous work in the field and organizational and professional development literature. These were systematized in three areas:  (i) Systemic planning: processes that develop the capacity and legitimize the right and duty of SDAs to set the mission, vision, policies, and objectives within their own organization (Ridley-Duff and Bull, 2016; Moreau and Mertens, 2013);   (ii) Organization and sustainable management: processes that allow SDAs to create spaces for participation to collectively fulfil the aforementioned duties so as not to undermine the impact and transformation intended within  projects being undertaken (Defourney, Hulgard, Pestoff, 2014; Skelcher and Rathgeb, 2014;  and (iii) Empowerment: processes that enable SDAs’ capacity to decide on they training required to optimize job effectiveness and thus performance. (Abbott, Wallace and Sapsford, 2016; Anheier, 2014; Prugsamatz, 2010; Sen, 2009, 2003)

The  empirical work comprised linking quantitative and qualitative methodology. A 3-point Likert scale (never, sometimes, always)  gathered the frequency of SDAs participation in decision-making processes for which statistical tests where applied, e.g.   Chronbach’s  coefficients and contingency analysis.   A dialogical and facilitation approach was used to organize  focus groups (Bushe and Marshak, 2016; Spencer 1989). The dialogical focus groups enabled  SDAs to get involved in the analysis and interpretation of their own data. They developed a common understanding of the root causes inhibiting and fostering their   participation in decision-making   processes within their posts.

The validation of the information generated followed a four step process: testing assumptions and inferences; sharing relevant information; using specific examples and combining advocacy and inquiry within the discussion (Schwarz et al., 2005).

The narrative and arguments developed in the dialogical focus groups clearly demonstrated that SDAs recognized the factors influencing participatory governance and management:   leadership, autonomy and control. However, regarding leadership, this is still being exercised through a managerial and self-directed style, not engaging leadership behaviours to support group effectiveness; as well as team leadership activities which potentially shape emergent cognition and behavioural processes that facilitate team effectiveness. Regarding autonomy, this is perceived as dysfunctional, as it reinforces individualistic behaviours which limit mutual learning and teaching opportunities. The paper reveals the need expressed by SDAs to counteract subtle power structures which do not allow meaningful engagement within decision-making processes. Significantly underpinning this engagement was their demand to co-design and be accountable for participatory mechanisms and processes.

While focusing on Peru, it is argued that factors inhibiting and facilitating participatory  governance have wider relevance in socially-oriented organizations, if a participatory organizational culture is to be exercised.  SDAs demand  a democratic competence-based training, which would empower them to democratize their organizational structures.

Anheier, H. K. (2014) Nonprofit organizations: Theory, management, policy, (2^nd ed)  Routledge, London.

Bourdieu, Pierre. (2005) The social structures of the economy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Defourney, J.,  Hulgard, L.,  Pestoff, V. (2014) Social Enterprise and the Third Sector, Routledge, Oxon.

Felber, C. (2012) La economía del bien común, Deusto, Barcelona.

McNulty, S. (2013) Participatory democracy? Exploring Peru's efforts to engage civil society in local governance, Latin American Politics and Society, 55(3), 69–92.

Muñoz, M. C. and Briones, J. (2011) Good governance in the entities of the social economy, Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, 73, 171–191.

Portocarrero, F. and Sanborn, C. (1998) Entre el Estado y el mercado: definiendo el sector sin fines de lucro en el Perú, Apuntes. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 43, 45–80.

Ridley-Duff, R. and Bull, M. (2016) Understanding Social Enterprise. Theory and practice. (2^nd ed), Sage, London.

Spencer, L. (1989) Winning through participation. Meeting the challenge of corporate change with the Technology of Participation. Kendall-Hunt, Iowa.