Uru's story is each rural manager's story? (http://www.ishmael.com/Education/Parables/uru.shtml) Expert solution vs Engaged solution: How do they make difference for collectives?
Expert solution follows a top down approach while Engaged solution focuses on getting people’s participation thus following bottom up approach. Uru by not telling the people what exactly to see/hear/ make, didn’t give them an expert solution, he wanted them to realize their potential on their own which was a good thing but they were not well equipped for doing so, therefore the rural manager should focus on capacity building of the rural masses so that they can “work for themselves”, can build their own solutions, institutions and become self sustainable, rather than looking at outside agencies for support /aid
It is truly every manager's story.During our fieldwork our RO gave us an important lesson on these lines.He said the pressing problem of developmental sector today is concerned with that we go and break the traditional relationship.eg.farmer and middleman. But fail to provide alternate link in its place.It same as in case of URU who goes fills people with excitement but later fails to give them direction.So what i feel is that untill and unless we find this missing link, we should not intervene.
Expert solutions are readily available but these are of no use if one cannot use it. Uru's case is just like any other rural manager. During fieldwork I was involved in the social mobilisation process for the formation of Disha co-operative. During the process many questions regarding the co-operative used to be reverted back to us as for the people the idea of co-operative seemed like a bunch of jargons thrown at a student. It was then necessary to make them understand every tit and bit of the idea of a co-operative. Only after that the people accepted our proposal.
Engaged solutions does make a difference when trying to form a collective.Like, in my fieldwork,our organisation also had to engage with the people,making them understand its benefits,motivate them to form a collective. only an expert advice, might not have been helpful, as it would only have stirred them, not making them work towards a common goal.URU's case is just like any other rural manager's case.
For the collective to get established it needs more of an engaged solution from the part of rural managers rather than expert solution. The case with URU was that he went on making people awaken but at last the people themselves got disappointed. This tells that it is easy to give advices and the real challenge lies in filling the gap between how much potential people have and how much they knew about it. This could be brought by directly engaging with the people and with the matter In hand. Then only the real awakening of people happens.
The work sphere for a rural manger provides ample diversity in terms of not only the challenges related to the job but also in terms of cultural, behavioural, & professional proficiencies of the inhabitants of these rural areas. In such a situation the solution is not to be stuck by the book but it calls for improvisations suiting the local sensibilities. Thus an amalgamation of expert solution (For a clarified approach) with the engaged solution (For an acclimatized approach) needs to be done for efficient results.
The story of URU can be seen as a rural manager’s story as it is the engaged solution that is expected out of the rural managers. But what they instead try to provide is the expert solution. For a collective to get established the manager needs to be involved with the whole process instead of superficially giving his comments and suggestions. His role is to make people understand the very purpose of the collective. Only advising people won’t help but instead working with them and engaging with them at each and every step would result in a successful collective.
Rather than feeling helpless and going for a long sleep, one has to understand that they themselves shape their destiny. Rural Manager must not only play the role of an awakener like Uru but also as a facilitator to engage the people for finding solutions to their problems. Such an adaptive leader is better for a collective than an expert one. Rural manager has to inspire people to believe in themselves. Recognition of strengths, talents and assets of collectives is more likely to inspire a positive action for change than a focus on problems and their solutions.
Rural manager has to awaken the people and he/she has to guidethem and facilitate the requirements to them. Then only we can expect them to achieve something. Also more importantly he/she has to ensure that the system is sustainable so that they will run on its own. For example, we see an NGO intervention in a village which extends for 10 years. In these, some cases are in which NGOs are successful in making the interventions sustainable so that people can carry forward. But there are cases of failures wherein it has died down without creating any result
URU is the story of each rural manager..A rural manager has already studied solutions for problems in his/her curriculum as the ground reality is much different from the cases in the textbooks. Engaged solution are more beneficial for a collective as it reflects the thoughts and the perceptions of the members of the co-operation. There are different solutions for different problems in different situations. Applying your concepts from CAC in Assam will be much different from applying in Tamil Nadu..! thus better to decide people how to solve and check ...follow bottom- up...inclusion of all the members of the co-operative.
It is somewhat related to Rural Managers. People most of the time are waiting for an external agency to come and wake them up for any kind of initiative. Expert solution may help but what after withdrawal of the expert, people will sleep again and hence they need to find it from within through engaged solution approach as in case where people themselves formed a successful “Majdoor Sangathan” in our village for organizing their mass.
Expert solution is unidirectional. Without engagement, the solution is of an oppressive nature because of the way it is arrived at. To quote Paulo Freire, "No one can say a true word alone - nor can one say it for another in a prescriptive act which robs others of their words." Uru awakened the people but didn’t engage in a dialogue with them on how to proceed further. He considered his job done with the awakening. Rural managers tend to make the same mistake. Moral of the story for them is transformation is not possible without engagement.
Uru's story captures the typical dilemma in front of rural managers .Its all about the right timing of removing the support system when a beneficiary becomes independent as too much aid defeats the purpose of aid itself .However the timing is important as withdrawing help too early would not make a beneficiary self dependent.Of the two approaches engaged is better one as you can understand an action only when you get involved in the process rather than being an onlooker who offers nothing but plain advice.
Engaged solutions are long lasting as it focuses on empowerment and self- realisation i.e. how one can tackle his problems self rather being dependent on others. It leads to collectivity whereas, expert solution helps to cure symptoms rather than disease itself, has short term effect helps to get popularity or acceptance but the members don’t find 'engage' or associated with problem solving or decision making. Even intervention by development organizations /NGOs stresses that they are there for 5-10 years thereafter community has to take care of institution themselves and URU’s story is very contextual to rural managers.
What did URU do? Was he appreciated for what he did? I want to loosely connect here the URU’s story with the fact that Why Sony sir doesn’t give alms to beggars? He don’t want to solve problem of one beggar for one day but to create a situation that all beggars come together and endeavor for a better living. Point I want to put here is that URU’s approach may not be appreciated initially but in long run may be an efficient and sustainable way of mobilizing resources. A lesson for Rural Manager!
For collectives expert solution may not be applicable always as the very essence of collectives is based on the engagement of people and any dolutin has to be in given keeping in mind the people'e engagement.A rural manager awakens people initially but when people question back he moves away to more profitable avenues leaving them with an unclear picture Of the situation thereby creating an image of disappointer rather than an awakener. away giving them a unclear picture
If we consider Uru’s tale in a rural management perspective, we learn that an external agency can mobilize the villagers to move towards a certain goal. But ultimately it is the villagers who have to take the responsibility of implementing plans for their own betterment. Even if an expert solution stirs the public initially, but to bring about a change in real sense people’s engagement, that is engaged solution in a rural context is necessary.
What if a. India loses a cricket match by 100 runs. b. Nehra struggling till the end and gets out trying for the winning run.(Nehra amplified our hopes, even though we never rate him low) The later will be more devastating. Initiating the expectations on the part of a rural manager (expert solution) will certainly see people gaining confidence. But what if the manager leaves them in the midst? It erodes the faith for any future interventions. The manager has to ensure that he stays right there or never try to induce expectations if co-operatives are to be formed.
Expert advice is easy to give but giving the right solutions is tougher. Engaged solution involves people and when solutions come from them then only it will be effective. We don't learn something unless we really want to and just by knowing the solutions won't help us unless we find them. Uru did not tell people the solutions but rather gave them new questions to think about what they all really wanted. But this didn't help them either as they again had more questions. Rural managers should play the part of awakener but also engage people for development.
In order to build a successful collective one needs to provide an engaged solution. If one is providing a solution and not means to sustain it is not engaging with the solution he provided. One should restrain from building dreams among the people if he is not engaging with the solution, or else people will lose trust in us like in Uru in the Valley of Sleepers.
Rural manager is often constrained by lack of resources, monetary or otherwise and thus faces an uphill task to give immediate results, consequently, people lose interest in the idea and the manager is consigned to be like URU the disappointer. It is up to the manager to share his vision and convince people that his way will lead to betterment in their lives. Collective action must involve people and the reason that most collectives fail is precisely because the solution to their problems is given by an expert(s) rather arriving at a solution which is found after engaging with people.
One of our RAC tasks was to prepare a Prospective plan for the coming five years for the village. It was necessary for us to hold discussions with the villagers to know problems from their point of view and also get solutions from them as far as possible. It was then that we realised that the task of awakening can be done by a top down approach, but motivating the people to achieve the desired outcomes requires an engaged solution. Collectives provide solutions to the problems of people themselves, therefore to get feasible solutions, participatory approach is fruitful.
Every rural manager's story is like Uru's story. Expert solutions are like short term benefits for collectives. Until one don't engage with the community/people, the real success of the collectives is just impossible. Engaged solution accelerate the spirit of participation and ownership among the members in a collective. E.g. in a dairy cooperative when you impose methodology (expert solution) for the obtaining the outputs v/s engaging people/ employee during the work processes. The outcomes in both the cases found different, being better in the later case.
Each of the rural managers epitomises the character of Uru.At the initial stage, they try to mobilise the rural people and later find it very much difficult to engage with them .Hence they quit the job half done leaving the rural people in despair.As rural manager one should focus on not only providing right direction to the people but also focus on capacity building.
URU should be every rural manager’s story. However the context is just not limited to a rural manager and his/her contribution but also to the target audience the manager is engaged with. So in a collective no matter how effectively URU guides or awakens or facilitates, though a collective maybe formed but its sustainability will depend on the inner motivation of its members and their belief in associating themselves with the change. It is here where an engaged expert will be more effective than an expert one.
Yes, Uru's story is each rural manager's story. If not then it should be. There is a huge difference between Expert solution vs Engaged solution for collectives. Engaged solution make them feel the need for collectives for which Expert solution does not.
Collectives are made successful by strong and expert leadership, but more than providing ideas and aid it is required to help the members to formulate and realize their goals. Also, ensuring the proper and efficient use of the available resources is a leader's role. This is where URU failed as he could not help the people in finding the usage of the resources that he had given. Rural managers are facing the same problem today, they either do not have enough resources or enough time to attend to the actual needs of the poor.
While I agree with most of the bloggers here about engagement with the community I want to question the extent to which this engagement should be. As a manager one should help people perceive the real problems but wouldn’t it be wise to just allow them to find a solution to their problems? Of course, a little help would be fine but leading by the little finger is definitely not the solution. The aim should be self-reliance not dependence on an external agent.
While I agree with most of the bloggers here about engagement with the community. I want to question the extent to which this engagement should be. As a manager one should help people perceive the real problems but wouldn’t it be wise to just allow them to find a solution to their problems? Of course, a little help would be fine but leading by the little finger is definitely not the solution. The aim should be self-reliance not dependence on an external agent.
Uru played the role of an awakener, but role of rural manager extends beyond awakening, rural manager has to spur on and engage the people for finding solutions rather than articulating the expert solution. Duty of rural manger is influencing change that builds and enables the capacity of individuals and cooperatives to thrive. It is practice of mobilizing groups of people to tackle tough challenges and thrive. Rural managers need to understand the importance of adaptation to employ the relevant processes and facilitating a change to build people’s capacity.
As rural managers our approach towards development would matter a lot in our functioning.URU was seen as the disappointer as he could not react as per the context.he left the people without building their capacity to think for themselves.Its important to engage with people and see reality with their eyes. expert solutions might be efficient but not necessarily be effective all the time.
If someone is shown a ray of hope and then not directed in right direction, it will lead to disappointment, which was what happened in case of uru. Also this is the emerging trend in rural sector in context of management by rural managers, many managers find the problems and then motivate farmers to raise their voice against those issues, but the managers are not able to lead the crowd in fruitful direction and hence causing disappointment. Maximum of solutions provided are expert solutions which fail radically, while if engaged solutions with involvement of farmers will tackle the issues better.
Expert solutions may not be always applicable for collectives, because the basic of any collective is engagement of people, but for a rural manager who inspire people to believe in themselves must not only play the role of an awakener like Uru but also act as a person who engage people by collective means against their common problems.
Today is the time when we have to develop the rural India if we want the country to develop. Yes we can say Uru is the story of the rural manager but it’s not the complete story. If we want the real development then we have only to wake up the villagers but also make them aware and have to work with them. Today we have to think collectively and come with the best solution. Expert solution is like the consultancy while engaged solution is to be the pert of the organization and then work on the problem.
Uru’s story is in a way the learning each rural manager should carry with himself. The rural managers, no doubt, work on a noble mission to work amongst the underprivileged and disadvantaged people. However, their work should not be aimless. They should have a well defined objective and work in a defined manner to achieve the goal. The people who are the target community should be confidents in the objective. Stirring up a revolution and leaving it mid way will bring in more confusion. Understanding responsibility and stakes are a vital part of being a rural manager.
Uru’s story can be related to persons working in development sector, waking up people from sleep is quite simple but giving them the right direction is a tough task. So a development worker should be aware of this fact that mere stirring up the people with thoughts of progress and collective would be futile unless there is a direction to this movement. Otherwise people will blame them like sleeping valley people blamed Uru as a disappointer.
Rural manager is akin to Uru as both rely on engaging people for finding solution rather than spoon feeding ready made solutions in the form of expert solution. This make people dependent on the experts other than making them realize their own potential to engage and find possible solution. Development is impossible unless people engage themselves and participate to get potential solutions.
39 comments:
Expert solution follows a top down approach while Engaged solution focuses on getting people’s participation thus following bottom up approach. Uru by not telling the people what exactly to see/hear/ make, didn’t give them an expert solution, he wanted them to realize their potential on their own which was a good thing but they were not well equipped for doing so, therefore the rural manager should focus on capacity building of the rural masses so that they can “work for themselves”, can build their own solutions, institutions and become self sustainable, rather than looking at outside agencies for support /aid
It is truly every manager's story.During our fieldwork our RO gave us an important lesson on these lines.He said the pressing problem of developmental sector today is concerned with that we go and break the traditional relationship.eg.farmer and middleman. But fail to provide alternate link in its place.It same as in case of URU who goes fills people with excitement but later fails to give them direction.So what i feel is that untill and unless we find this missing link, we should not intervene.
Expert solutions are readily available but these are of no use if one cannot use it. Uru's case is just like any other rural manager. During fieldwork I was involved in the social mobilisation process for the formation of Disha co-operative. During the process many questions regarding the co-operative used to be reverted back to us as for the people the idea of co-operative seemed like a bunch of jargons thrown at a student. It was then necessary to make them understand every tit and bit of the idea of a co-operative. Only after that the people accepted our proposal.
Engaged solutions does make a difference when trying to form a collective.Like, in my fieldwork,our organisation also had to engage with the people,making them understand its benefits,motivate them to form a collective. only an expert advice, might not have been helpful, as it would only have stirred them, not making them work towards a common goal.URU's case is just like any other rural manager's case.
For the collective to get established it needs more of an engaged solution from the part of rural managers rather than expert solution. The case with URU was that he went on making people awaken but at last the people themselves got disappointed. This tells that it is easy to give advices and the real challenge lies in filling the gap between how much potential people have and how much they knew about it. This could be brought by directly engaging with the people and with the matter In hand. Then only the real awakening of people happens.
The work sphere for a rural manger provides ample diversity in terms of not only the challenges related to the job but also in terms of cultural, behavioural, & professional proficiencies of the inhabitants of these rural areas. In such a situation the solution is not to be stuck by the book but it calls for improvisations suiting the local sensibilities. Thus an amalgamation of expert solution (For a clarified approach) with the engaged solution (For an acclimatized approach) needs to be done for efficient results.
The story of URU can be seen as a rural manager’s story as it is the engaged solution that is expected out of the rural managers. But what they instead try to provide is the expert solution. For a collective to get established the manager needs to be involved with the whole process instead of superficially giving his comments and suggestions. His role is to make people understand the very purpose of the collective. Only advising people won’t help but instead working with them and engaging with them at each and every step would result in a successful collective.
Rather than feeling helpless and going for a long sleep, one has to understand that they themselves shape their destiny. Rural Manager must not only play the role of an awakener like Uru but also as a facilitator to engage the people for finding solutions to their problems. Such an adaptive leader is better for a collective than an expert one. Rural manager has to inspire people to believe in themselves. Recognition of strengths, talents and assets of collectives is more likely to inspire a positive action for change than a focus on problems and their solutions.
Rural manager has to awaken the people and he/she has to guidethem and facilitate the requirements to them. Then only we can expect them to achieve something. Also more importantly he/she has to ensure that the system is sustainable so that they will run on its own. For example, we see an NGO intervention in a village which extends for 10 years. In these, some cases are in which NGOs are successful in making the interventions sustainable so that people can carry forward. But there are cases of failures wherein it has died down without creating any result
URU is the story of each rural manager..A rural manager has already studied solutions for problems in his/her curriculum as the ground reality is much different from the cases in the textbooks. Engaged solution are more beneficial for a collective as it reflects the thoughts and the perceptions of the members of the co-operation. There are different solutions for different problems in different situations. Applying your concepts from CAC in Assam will be much different from applying in Tamil Nadu..! thus better to decide people how to solve and check ...follow bottom- up...inclusion of all the members of the co-operative.
It is somewhat related to Rural Managers. People most of the time are waiting for an external agency to come and wake them up for any kind of initiative. Expert solution may help but what after withdrawal of the expert, people will sleep again and hence they need to find it from within through engaged solution approach as in case where people themselves formed a successful “Majdoor Sangathan” in our village for organizing their mass.
Expert solution is unidirectional. Without engagement, the solution is of an oppressive nature because of the way it is arrived at. To quote Paulo Freire, "No one can say a true word alone - nor can one say it for another in a prescriptive act which robs others of their words." Uru awakened the people but didn’t engage in a dialogue with them on how to proceed further. He considered his job done with the awakening. Rural managers tend to make the same mistake. Moral of the story for them is transformation is not possible without engagement.
Uru's story captures the typical dilemma in front of rural managers .Its all about the right timing of removing the support system when a beneficiary becomes independent as too much aid defeats the purpose of aid itself .However the timing is important as withdrawing help too early would not make a beneficiary self dependent.Of the two approaches engaged is better one as you can understand an action only when you get involved in the process rather than being an onlooker who offers nothing but plain advice.
Engaged solutions are long lasting as it focuses on empowerment and self- realisation i.e. how one can tackle his problems self rather being dependent on others. It leads to collectivity whereas, expert solution helps to cure symptoms rather than disease itself, has short term effect helps to get popularity or acceptance but the members don’t find 'engage' or associated with problem solving or decision making. Even intervention by development organizations /NGOs stresses that they are there for 5-10 years thereafter community has to take care of institution themselves and URU’s story is very contextual to rural managers.
What did URU do? Was he appreciated for what he did? I want to loosely connect here the URU’s story with the fact that Why Sony sir doesn’t give alms to beggars? He don’t want to solve problem of one beggar for one day but to create a situation that all beggars come together and endeavor for a better living. Point I want to put here is that URU’s approach may not be appreciated initially but in long run may be an efficient and sustainable way of mobilizing resources. A lesson for Rural Manager!
For collectives expert solution may not be applicable always as the very essence of collectives is based on the engagement of people and any dolutin has to be in given keeping in mind the people'e engagement.A rural manager awakens people initially but when people question back he moves away to more profitable avenues leaving them with an unclear picture
Of the situation thereby creating an image of disappointer rather than an awakener.
away giving them a unclear picture
If we consider Uru’s tale in a rural management perspective, we learn that an external agency can mobilize the villagers to move towards a certain goal. But ultimately it is the villagers who have to take the responsibility of implementing plans for their own betterment. Even if an expert solution stirs the public initially, but to bring about a change in real sense people’s engagement, that is engaged solution in a rural context is necessary.
What if
a. India loses a cricket match by 100 runs.
b. Nehra struggling till the end and gets out trying for the winning run.(Nehra amplified our hopes, even though we never rate him low)
The later will be more devastating. Initiating the expectations on the part of a rural manager (expert solution) will certainly see people gaining confidence. But what if the manager leaves them in the midst? It erodes the faith for any future interventions. The manager has to ensure that he stays right there or never try to induce expectations if co-operatives are to be formed.
Expert advice is easy to give but giving the right solutions is tougher. Engaged solution involves people and when solutions come from them then only it will be effective. We don't learn something unless we really want to and just by knowing the solutions won't help us unless we find them. Uru did not tell people the solutions but rather gave them new questions to think about what they all really wanted. But this didn't help them either as they again had more questions. Rural managers should play the part of awakener but also engage people for development.
In order to build a successful collective one needs to provide an engaged solution. If one is providing a solution and not means to sustain it is not engaging with the solution he provided. One should restrain from building dreams among the people if he is not engaging with the solution, or else people will lose trust in us like in Uru in the Valley of Sleepers.
Rural manager is often constrained by lack of resources, monetary or otherwise and thus faces an uphill task to give immediate results, consequently, people lose interest in the idea and the manager is consigned to be like URU the disappointer. It is up to the manager to share his vision and convince people that his way will lead to betterment in their lives. Collective action must involve people and the reason that most collectives fail is precisely because the solution to their problems is given by an expert(s) rather arriving at a solution which is found after engaging with people.
One of our RAC tasks was to prepare a Prospective plan for the coming five years for the village. It was necessary for us to hold discussions with the villagers to know problems from their point of view and also get solutions from them as far as possible. It was then that we realised that the task of awakening can be done by a top down approach, but motivating the people to achieve the desired outcomes requires an engaged solution. Collectives provide solutions to the problems of people themselves, therefore to get feasible solutions, participatory approach is fruitful.
Every rural manager's story is like Uru's story. Expert solutions are like short term benefits for collectives. Until one don't engage with the community/people, the real success of the collectives is just impossible. Engaged solution accelerate the spirit of participation and ownership among the members in a collective. E.g. in a dairy cooperative when you impose methodology (expert solution) for the obtaining the outputs v/s engaging people/ employee during the work processes. The outcomes in both the cases found different, being better in the later case.
Each of the rural managers epitomises the character of Uru.At the initial stage, they try to mobilise the rural people and later find it very much difficult to engage with them .Hence they quit the job half done leaving the rural people in despair.As rural manager one should focus on not only providing right direction to the people but also focus on capacity building.
URU should be every rural manager’s story. However the context is just not limited to a rural manager and his/her contribution but also to the target audience the manager is engaged with. So in a collective no matter how effectively URU guides or awakens or facilitates, though a collective maybe formed but its sustainability will depend on the inner motivation of its members and their belief in associating themselves with the change. It is here where an engaged expert will be more effective than an expert one.
Yes, Uru's story is each rural manager's story. If not then it should be. There is a huge difference between Expert solution vs Engaged solution for collectives. Engaged solution make them feel the need for collectives for which Expert solution does not.
Collectives are made successful by strong and expert leadership, but more than providing ideas and aid it is required to help the members to formulate and realize their goals. Also, ensuring the proper and efficient use of the available resources is a leader's role. This is where URU failed as he could not help the people in finding the usage of the resources that he had given. Rural managers are facing the same problem today, they either do not have enough resources or enough time to attend to the actual needs of the poor.
While I agree with most of the bloggers here about engagement with the community I want to question the extent to which this engagement should be. As a manager one should help people perceive the real problems but wouldn’t it be wise to just allow them to find a solution to their problems? Of course, a little help would be fine but leading by the little finger is definitely not the solution. The aim should be self-reliance not dependence on an external agent.
While I agree with most of the bloggers here about engagement with the community. I want to question the extent to which this engagement should be. As a manager one should help people perceive the real problems but wouldn’t it be wise to just allow them to find a solution to their problems? Of course, a little help would be fine but leading by the little finger is definitely not the solution. The aim should be self-reliance not dependence on an external agent.
Uru played the role of an awakener, but role of rural manager extends beyond awakening, rural manager has to spur on and engage the people for finding solutions rather than articulating the expert solution. Duty of rural manger is influencing change that builds and enables the capacity of individuals and cooperatives to thrive. It is practice of mobilizing groups of people to tackle tough challenges and thrive. Rural managers need to understand the importance of adaptation to employ the relevant processes and facilitating a change to build people’s capacity.
As rural managers our approach towards development would matter a lot in our functioning.URU was seen as the disappointer as he could not react as per the context.he left the people without building their capacity to think for themselves.Its important to engage with people and see reality with their eyes. expert solutions might be efficient but not necessarily be effective all the time.
If someone is shown a ray of hope and then not directed in right direction, it will lead to disappointment, which was what happened in case of uru. Also this is the emerging trend in rural sector in context of management by rural managers, many managers find the problems and then motivate farmers to raise their voice against those issues, but the managers are not able to lead the crowd in fruitful direction and hence causing disappointment. Maximum of solutions provided are expert solutions which fail radically, while if engaged solutions with involvement of farmers will tackle the issues better.
Expert solutions may not be always applicable for collectives, because the basic of any collective is engagement of people, but for a rural manager who inspire people to believe in themselves must not only play the role of an awakener like Uru but also act as a person who engage people by collective means against their common problems.
Today is the time when we have to develop the rural India if we want the country to develop. Yes we can say Uru is the story of the rural manager but it’s not the complete story. If we want the real development then we have only to wake up the villagers but also make them aware and have to work with them. Today we have to think collectively and come with the best solution. Expert solution is like the consultancy while engaged solution is to be the pert of the organization and then work on the problem.
Uru’s story is in a way the learning each rural manager should carry with himself. The rural managers, no doubt, work on a noble mission to work amongst the underprivileged and disadvantaged people. However, their work should not be aimless. They should have a well defined objective and work in a defined manner to achieve the goal. The people who are the target community should be confidents in the objective. Stirring up a revolution and leaving it mid way will bring in more confusion. Understanding responsibility and stakes are a vital part of being a rural manager.
Uru’s story can be related to persons working in development sector, waking up people from sleep is quite simple but giving them the right direction is a tough task. So a development worker should be aware of this fact that mere stirring up the people with thoughts of progress and collective would be futile unless there is a direction to this movement. Otherwise people will blame them like sleeping valley people blamed Uru as a disappointer.
Rural manager is akin to Uru as both rely on engaging people for finding solution rather than spoon feeding ready made solutions in the form of expert solution. This make people dependent on the experts other than making them realize their own potential to engage and find possible solution. Development is impossible unless people engage themselves and participate to get potential solutions.
Post a Comment