The Broker

So Many Questions, by Orin Zebest

How are the game changers spending their time?

Jennifer Lentfer | 11 January 2012

“Tell the truth,” I asked my friend at headquarters. “How much of every day do you spend talking about beneficiaries?”

“Who?” she joked, the essential problem revealed.

Last month I re-entered an international non-governmental organization (INGO) after five years of working with small foundations and local groups.

It is conversations such as these that remind me of why I left.

I am once again surrounded by smart, driven, committed people. But unfortunately they are largely a group of people who are also exhausted, overwhelmed, and discouraged by fighting while propagating the very organizations in which they serve. From my still outsider’s perspective, it’s as if the system closes in and the perpetuation of the institution itself slowly, silently becomes what consumes people. Or must protecting the interests of agencies always come first, given that they ultimately rely on fundraising from donors and the public at large?

The Community Development Resource Association in South Africa describes the “particularly undevelopmental global development industry” as characterized
by:

  • the need to urgently disburse money;
  • a tendency to focus on product rather than process;
  • higher respect for suits and ties than rages and bones;
  • a proactive rather than responsive orientation;
  • centralized and hierarchical decision-making; and
  • bureaucratic and instrumental rigidities, practiced largely (if unconsciously)
    for the benefit of those who intervene.

Many talented people within INGOs spend most of their time dealing with the constraints of donor-controlled, project-based funding, which ties their hands and shuts down the possible processes that could genuinely result in local ownership and empowerment. In truth, the corporate culture and heavy accountability systems that take up most of staff’s time and that marginalize and de-motivate people, especially local NGO leaders and activists, ultimately do not lead to any real assurance of long-term results.

Instead, we need these talented people to focus their roles on service and advocacy, rather than abstractions and bureaucratic technicalities. We need to enable and encourage these same talented people to expand their attentiveness to how to change the rules and regulations by which their work is governed.

As Dov Seidman, author of "HOW: Why HOW we do anything means everything", and Bo Burlingham, author of "Small Giants: Companies That Choose To Be Great Instead Of Big", encourage those in business to do, I want to see aid agencies put behavior and relationships first. To do so, INGOs must abandon the expertise infusion model of programming and require power asymmetries to be a larger part of their staff’s consciousness, and most importantly their performance assessment.

Getting partnerships right has plagued international NGOs since their creation, yet in my experience the processes of decision-making and power dynamics within these relationships are often the make-or-break factor in the success of development projects. Hakima Abbas in Pambazuka News last year questioned the role of outside entities in the developmental process, describing an "...ever-expanding NGO industrial complex separates and depoliticises service and advocacy while failing to question its own role in weakening African institutions, power and self-determination." Rather than building the capacity of local implementing partners, INGOs and donors should first focus on building their own skills to accompany and support local institutions, rather than overpower or co-opt them.

As we look into the future of aid, can INGOs harness the energy currently focused on controlling finances and demonstrating results based on donors’ needs, and use it instead to concentrate on the priorities of those their mission ultimately serves? The good news is that international non-governmental organizations do not operate from a profit motive. They can change the game until the game doesn’t look the same.

Until then, I’ll be supporting and encouraging the seasoned and dedicated humanitarian and development practitioners within INGOs to openly, bravely, and constructively question business as usual in our sector.

Photo credit main picture: So Many Questions, by Orin Zebest

Comments

Your comment will not be automatically posted but first reviewed by the editor. If the editor has questions with respect to the content of your comment, you will be contacted.

 

Continents divided by a common language?


Dear Jennifer,

I think we probably agree on a lot of points, and certainly in the spirit of the argument, but reading your article and subsequent posts from two prominent Dutch NGO figures, I cannot help but get the feeling that there are perhaps qualitative differences in the US and Euro experience. Two continents divided by a common language?

I think you will find on this (the former colonial and still big spending soft power budget side) side of the pond (thank you incidentally for paying for European defense for 60 years it saved us a lot of money and, far more importantly, helped heal deep wounds (hopefully we won’t make a mess of it a again!)) you are singing from the official hymn sheet;

"require power asymmetries to be a larger part of their staff’s consciousness, and most importantly their performance assessment." In my humble experience it is also common within multilaterals certainly in social sector work (which dominates the discourse currently with the MDGs of course – we will have to see what happens post 2015).

Alas, it reached the point some time ago where outside the industry it has simply become a subject of parody – not a good place to be:
http://www.economist.com/node/18014068

Inside the euro side of the industry the discourse you suggest is therefore likely to be counter-productive. And the industry here is under a lot of pressure as you may know and this would just make it worse. (It is actually a puzzle to me why this discourse seems so hard to shake. My best guess is it must be inertia. For many years, working for example for Dutch NGOs and quasi-government entities (QUANGOs) (the big ones or sub-contractors) you could get more or less, but mostly more (particularly in the medical field), Dutch civil service ('public service') contracts to go and live in pretty and pretty remote and exotic parts of the world.)
.
I would not like to put numbers on it but I think amongst the 'older hands' this civil servant (called ‘bureaucrats’ here and I think you can imagine the connotation) ‘spirit’ is pretty common. And there is maybe the real issue. It is actually generational. The 'good old days' are in many ways gone. Mourned only by a few. The world moved on and moving on still. And the under forties, who want to go work in Africa, Asia or any other part of the world have no choice these days but to get out there in the field with real folks and mix it up. And good luck to them. (As an ‘Island ape’ as my German friends like to call it, I moved to Europe in my early 20s for the same reason hence do all I can to help).

The real opportunity is therefore not I think in further discourse harmonization, (good to follow on google n-grams incidentally) but in skill transfer (maybe even to the EU and UK!).

Because you could be a civil servant development worker (and of course we live in welfare states over here so all of medicine and education (a ever growing part of post industrial societies), social work and myriads of other things are also civil servants) there are of course no courses - or need for training - on non-profit and social enterprise management. I was speaking to someone about great programs on this in the US. There is a big gap in the market I think going forward. (Anyone interested can contact me I have some ideas).

So a self-assessment of 'power asymmetries' might also be very interesting but I have a feeling - if analysis were multi-level and included thorough 'meshed' social network analysis - it may throw up unexpected results.
Grant Rhodes | January 18, 2012 | Respond

Thanks for the encouragement

@Aaron, @Tanya, @Andy - Despite our attempts to make aid more effective, I see a real lack of moral (and dare I say spiritual) leadership within our sector. That said, I also see a growing cadre of skilled practitioners in aid, philanthropy, and social enterprise that openly, bravely, and constructively question “business as usual” and are focused on fostering more local initiatives and authentic ownership of programs. From inside and outside, we all have to explore and show the way how funders can transform linear, hierarchical systems to become more horizontal and adaptive to locally-identified priorities. And along the way, let's instill and/or re-cultivate a sense of public service to those we serve in the developing world.
Jennifer Lentfer | January 17, 2012 | Respond

How are the Game changers Spending their

Spot on Jennifer, relevant points raised consistently by "beneficiaries" consistently, and ignored in the lexicon of excuse. As with all business, as aid is, starts at the top and permeates down and the fear of ethics and change management places many INGOs in same boat as beneficiaries if not grasped. Good luck in new post
Andy Wren | January 16, 2012 | Respond

small is big

Thanks for putting these important thoughts down on paper, Jennifer. Let's get working on that Small is Big project to share with the world how small organizations can work with (and think about) beneficiaries rather than conduct bureaucratic paperwork.
Tanya Cothran | January 16, 2012 | Respond

welcome back to the machine

All well said. Welcome back to the machine. I hope you don't spend too much time feeding it - it gets discouraging pushing for change. We need more like you on the inside.
Aaron Ausland | January 16, 2012 | Respond