The Matrix System at Work - Independent Evaluation Group - World ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

APPENDIX D EXPERIENCE IN THE TRENCHES: RESULTS FROM THE STAFF SURVEY recognition by peers. Messages from senior management and desire for promotion were the weakest incentives for collaborating across sectors (with substantial influence for 25 percent and 28 percent, respectively), mobilizing Bank-wide technical expertise (19 percent, 20 percent), and adapting knowledge to country needs (19 percent, 20 percent). Non-organizational factors were far more influential in this regard: job satisfaction was substantially influential for 71 percent of sector and anchor staff in driving collaboration across sectors, for 60 percent in driving mobilization of Bank-wide technical expertise, and for 62 percent in driving adaptation of knowledge to country needs. The next most common incentive for these behaviors was peer recognition. ACCOUNTABILITY: ONLY THE TASK TEAM LEADER (TTL) IS SEEN BY A MAJORITY TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE RESULTS OF LENDING OPERATIONS; NO INDIVIDUAL IS SEEN AS SUBSTANTIALLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR ESW. 39. Staff indicated a greater degree of accountability of TTLs for results of lending operations than of sector managers and country directors/manager: TTLs were accountable to a substantial or very large extent according to 52 percent of staff, while 35 percent and 34 percent of staff attributed substantial accountability to sector managers and country directors/managers, respectively. Staff graded at the H-level were least likely to attribute accountability to managers and directors. 40. Few staff think anyone is substantially accountable for ESW. Thirty-six percent of staff attributed substantial accountability to TTLs for dissemination of ESW products, compared to 22 percent to sector managers and 17 percent to country directors/managers for impacts of ESW on projects or policy. 41. Accountability for results of lending operations are strongest in East Asia and the Pacific, where more than two-thirds (69 percent) consider the TTL substantially accountable for results of lending and half consider sector managers and country directors/managers accountable. Accountability is weakest in Latin America and the Caribbean, where the same figures are 49 percent, 20 percent, and 25 percent respectively (only staff from the Middle East and North Africa judge TTLs to be less accountable for lending with 35 percent considering them substantially so). Similarly, staff in Latin America and the Caribbean rarely view anyone substantially accountable for dissemination or impact of ESW—the analogous figures for TTLs, sector managers, and country directors/managers are 28 percent, 10 percent, and 10 percent. 42. Staff based in Washington are less likely to view sector managers or country directors/managers as accountable for results. About a quarter (27 percent) of headquarter-based staff consider sector managers substantially accountable for results of lending operations, compared to 47 percent of field-based staff. The figures for country director accountability are 28 percent and 44 percent. And only 10 percent of 141
APPENDIX D EXPERIENCE IN THE TRENCHES: RESULTS FROM THE STAFF SURVEY headquarter-based staff view the country director as substantially accountable for the impact of ESW on policy or projects, compared to 27 percent of field-based staff. Overall Assessment OVERALL: A MAJORITY CONSIDERED THE MATRIX MODERATELY EFFECTIVE OR BETTER OVERALL, WITH STAFF BASED IN THE FIELD, IN AFRICA, AND MAPPED TO HDN SECTORS THE MOST POSITIVE. 43. The matrix system was considered to have worked moderately effectively or better by a majority of staff (57 percent). But still, as shown in Table D.4, nearly a quarter of staff consider the matrix system to be ineffective or highly ineffective. Table D.4. Most Staff Believe the Matrix is Working in a Manner that is Moderately Effective or Better All things considered, do you believe that the matrix is operating in a manner that is . . . Share of staff Highly effective 1% Effective 19% Moderately effective 37% Moderately ineffective 19% Ineffective 15% Highly ineffective 9% 44. Staff in Africa and mapped to HDN sectors were most positive about the effectiveness of the matrix system, while those mapped to FPD were least positive. Nearly three-quarters of staff mapped to HDN sectors (73 percent) judged the matrix system as working in a manner that is moderately effective of better, compared to only 38 percent of those mapped to FPD. Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of staff in Africa held the same opinion. 45. Staff based in the field viewed the effectiveness of the matrix system far more positively than those based in headquarters. Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of field-based staff indicated the matrix was working in a moderately effective or better manner, compared to less than half of those based in headquarters (47 percent). Indeed, 37 percent of field-based staff deemed the matrix system fully effective or highly effective, higher than any other subcategory with a sample size over 10. OVERALL: A CLEAR MAJORITY OF STAFF INDICATE THAT COSTS EXCEED BENEFITS UNDER THE MATRIX SYSTEM WITH REGARD TO DUAL REPORTING, DUAL ACCOUNTABILITY, AND BUDGETARY ARRANGEMENTS. 46. Costs of budgetary arrangements are seen to outweigh benefits by more than three-quarters of respondents, while the same figures for dual accountability for quality and dual reporting to SMUs and CMUs is 61 percent and 58 percent, respectively. For budgetary arrangements, the most common response—indicated by one-third of respondents—was that costs significantly outweigh benefits, the 142
Page 1 and 2:
The Matrix System at Work An Evalua
Page 3 and 4:
©2012 Independent Evaluation Group
Page 5 and 6:
Costs of Country and Sector Strateg
Page 7 and 8:
Table 3.6. Total Cross-Support Sold
Page 10:
Abbreviations AAA AFR ARDE ARPP BET
Page 14 and 15:
Glossary Term Anchor sector directo
Page 16 and 17:
GLOSSARY Practice managers (PM) Reg
Page 18 and 19:
Overview The Matrix System at Work
Page 20 and 21:
OVERVIEW rather than on the 1997 ma
Page 22 and 23:
OVERVIEW satisfactory or better in
Page 24 and 25:
OVERVIEW toward capacity building a
Page 26 and 27:
OVERVIEW Innovation in the field is
Page 28 and 29:
OVERVIEW Figure D. Outcomes of Bank
Page 30 and 31:
OVERVIEW modernization in the corpo
Page 32 and 33:
OVERVIEW management structure but t
Page 34 and 35:
OVERVIEW Structure Bank-wide matrix
Page 36 and 37:
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE interest and ow
Page 38 and 39:
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE Management cons
Page 40:
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE that reach far
Page 43 and 44:
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
2. The Strategic Alignment of Secto
Page 61 and 62:
CHAPTER 2 THE STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT O
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
CHAPTER 3 THE PROMISE OF A KNOWLEDG
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
CHAPTER 4 DELIVERING QUALITY SERVIC
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
CHAPTER 5 INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132: CHAPTER 5 INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES AND
Page 145 and 146: 6. Conclusions and Recommendations
Page 147 and 148: CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEND
Page 149 and 150: CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEND
Page 152 and 153: Appendix A Matrix Management and Or
Page 154 and 155: APPENDIX A MATRIX MANAGEMENT AND OR
Page 162 and 163: SECONDARY ANALYSIS OF CASCR REVIEWS
Page 164 and 165: APPENDIX B EVALUATION METHODOLOGY a
Page 166 and 167: APPENDIX C RESPONSIVENESS AND EFFEC
Page 176 and 177: APPENDIX D EXPERIENCE IN THE TRENCH
Page 196 and 197: Appendix E Key Findings from Sector
Page 198 and 199: APPENDIX E KEY FINDINGS FROM SECTOR
Page 206 and 207: Table E.1. Country Directors and Ma
Page 210 and 211: # Other Questions Q # 7 APPENDIX E
Page 214 and 215: APPENDIX F FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS:
Page 216 and 217: APPENDIX F FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS:
Page 218 and 219: Appendix G Comparison of the Six Re
Page 220 and 221: APPENDIX G PROFILES OF THE BANK’S
Page 226 and 227: Appendix H Working across Organizat
Page 228 and 229: APPENDIX H WORKING ACROSS ORGANIZAT
Page 230 and 231: APPENDIX H WORKING ACROSS ORGANIZAT
Page 232 and 233:
APPENDIX H WORKING ACROSS ORGANIZAT
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Appendix I Budgetary Incentives 65.
Page 240 and 241:
APPENDIX I BUDGETARY INCENTIVES Bud
Page 242 and 243:
APPENDIX I BUDGETARY INCENTIVES 72.
Page 244 and 245:
APPENDIX I BUDGETARY INCENTIVES com
Page 246 and 247:
APPENDIX I BUDGETARY INCENTIVES Fig
Page 248 and 249:
APPENDIX I BUDGETARY INCENTIVES mea
Page 250 and 251:
APPENDIX J WORKING ACROSS SECTORS A
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Appendix K World Bank Sector Strate
Page 258 and 259:
APPENDIX K WORLD BANK SECTOR STRATE
Page 260 and 261:
APPENDIX K WORLD BANK SECTOR STRATE
Page 262 and 263:
Appendix L International Finance Co
Page 264 and 265:
APPENDIX L IFC 2013 CHANGE INITIATI
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
APPENDIX M STAFFING DATA Note: Head
Page 272 and 273:
APPENDIX M STAFFING DATA Table M.7.
Page 274 and 275:
Appendix N Managers Interviewed Nam
Page 276 and 277:
References Barnett, Michael N. and
Page 278 and 279:
REFERENCES Sy, Thomas and Laura Sue
Page 280 and 281:
Endnotes 1 See Wapenhans 1992, 1994
Page 282 and 283:
ENDNOTES appropriately assessed by
Page 284 and 285:
ENDNOTES 46 The respondents to this
Page 286:
ENDNOTES 71 See Safeguards and Sust
show all

The Matrix System at Work - Independent Evaluation Group - World ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?