Luckily, I gave up the search for “it” a while ago. I have a different orientation to my role in the development space and it frees me from much of the swirl of thoughts that can de-motivate and confound us, especially after we’ve been working for a few years, and change still seems elusive and organizational life at times ridiculous.

“So why should we continue?” she asked me.

“Because of people like Don Popo.”

And then I showed her this short film, Familia Ayara, the winner of the Impact Jury Prize at the Social Media Impact Awards. (And my first pick – I was honored to be one of the judges.)

Familia Ayara from documon on Vimeo.

Congratulations to all the SIMA 2013 winners and nominees! I look forward to sharing the rest of my picks in the coming weeks!

1. Aid workers are privileged, removed from reality, and wasting their time. (Some are, yes.)
2. Haitians are stuck in a cycle of dependency (not a characterization with which I agree) and aid is not helping. (A lot of it is definitely not. I do agree.)

Such frank reflections about the difficulty of “doing good” are still too much of a rarity in the aid industry and in the popular media. As @pj_blue pointed out on Twitter yesterday:

“@intldogooder @pandpvolunteer I think the point being made is that it is easy to be a do-gooder. It’s the actual doing good that is tricky.”

So good for Nora for sharing the realities of her experience and for getting out of the system once she realized it was not for her. The tension between the root causes what aid is trying to solve (poverty, inequality) and aid actors’ own contributions to those dynamics is certainly a difficult one to navigate, especially as a person begins this work. Though as @monasf shared via Twitter:

“@morealtitude @intldogooder @dawnsdigest This is nothing new & lacks the nuance and insight that might come later in a career.”

I must confess I myself was riding around in a white vehicle last week. Of course, I was doing so to talk with Haitians about how they are able push back on the aid system and on systematic injustices in general.

Everywhere I go these days, I’m interacting with a growing cadre of skilled professionals that openly, bravely, and constructively question “business as usual” in the aid industry. If I had written a personal narrative essay for the New York Times this week, I guess it would have read a little more optimistic and it would have included more about assuming our personal responsibilities in supporting those who are bringing about progress and development in Haiti and elsewhere.

I would have wanted to tell the world–change is upon us and here’s how we can all start bringing it about.

A superior continues to make passes at you. You find out you’re paid less than someone doing your exact same job. Someone takes undue credit for work you did.

The rules don’t work for us? Guess we have to stand up for ourselves and change those rules. This will not happen by letting power go unchecked or unchallenged, on a personal or a sectoral level.

Telling a donor or a boss to go fly a kite is an intimidating experience, but there is a point when we have to speak up, no matter how uncomfortable we may be or how much power someone else has.

From my experience, here are seven things that can make these encounters a little less frightening.

1)   Use of the powerful’s own language and tactics. Like it or not, sometime we’ll have to “play the game” in order to get the access to change the rules. I tend to favor infiltration and influence. But the words of a friend and fellow writer often also ring in my ear, “Sometimes, you also have to also scream and yell to get a seat at the table.”

2)   Consideration of the counter-argument. Anticipate how people may object to what you are saying. If you can, by acknowledging their perspective, you may “head them off at the pass” and defuse their opposition.

3)   Your peeps. I tend the tribe as a source of my power. Allies ground me, validate me, are friendly adversaries, help lick my wounds, and share their own tales of speaking truth to power. Invaluable.

4)   An ever-thickening, yet still permeable skin. When speaking truth to power, you will receive criticism yourself. Some of it will need to bounce right off your exterior. Some of it will be necessary to reflect upon and move you to the next level.

5)   A new definition of vulnerability. Powerlessness is only a perception. But I find that if I can acknowledge my own vulnerability, I can find a more secure place from which to advocate. In fact, my vulnerability emboldens me in a way, knowing that push-backs are necessary.

6)   A back-up plan. Whistleblowers often have to start anew. It’s the price they pay for speaking truth to power. But personal risk is often over-estimated. Bureaucracies and organizations benefit from our fear of losing our jobs. But we are not our organizations and it is foolish to equate income with security.

7)   Non-attachment to outcomes. You win some. You lose some. Real change is due to many factors outside of your control. So keep the long arc of justice in mind and let it rip anyway.

Why is it important for people to speak their truths within their organizations and within global development circles?

Because if you haven’t noticed, it is all about power.

So let her rip.

***

A version of this post first appeared on the Women Working in Aid and Development blog.

WE WANT DEVELOPMENT – A Trailer from Philippa Ndisi-Herrmann on Vimeo.

Watch and learn more via the film’s tumblr site or via  Save Lamu. HT @AJWSinAfrica

Watch for more content forthcoming on Politics of Poverty and via Oxfam America’s Aid Effectiveness Team.

***

“It’s like they’ve brought us a plate of food and told everyone to take a bite. But we don’t know the food or how it was made.” Response: “But if we’re not going to eat it, they’re not going to bring any more.”

“We don’t expect NGOs to solve all our problems, but let’s analyze together what is the most pressing. We need help moving the big pot, not the medium-size pot.”

“[The federation of farmers associations] was given 12 hours to make a list of needs [among all the associations]. How can that result in participation?”

Where the [agricultural] project is going to be, this is from where it must grow.” (Literally and figuratively – hello.)

“I’m tired of [large, bilateral project]. They invite us to meetings and then don’t come. They had one meeting and instead of teaching us how to farm, they asked who had land where corn could be planted.”

“A professor showed a document telling what [the project] had done, but it meant nothing to me. I’m the one who can tell you the results.” (Such competing world views about what constitutes evidence on display.)

[After debate about how much criticism is acceptable:] “I don’t agree [the project] helped. They did business with us.”

“[The local NGO] is what actually helped. They came to find out what the [large, bilateral] project as supposed to do. If the [bilateral donor] had done the same, all these problems could have been avoided.” (My emphasis. There was so much ache when he said this.)

“How does a person help someone who’s fallen? You pick them up and take them to the hospital. You can’t pick them up and then try to stand them up. They will fall again.”

“Donors come and turn us to zombies.”

“It’s like…we don’t have to be spectators to all this aid. We don’t have to accept whatever comes.”

[After interacting with the Paris principles:] “We have a glimpse of what to do next, when another NGO comes…People coming here have to come with a written document of what the project will look like to see if it’s what we need. We can offer alternatives and contribute our own resources. And we can ask for translation into kreyòl!”

“It’s like USAID is the corporate sponsor of Haiti. I can’t turn my head without seeing that logo.” (I must confess. It was me who uttered this one.)

“It’s how the [aid] is given to you that’s going to determine if one’s independence is built.”

“It is important for us to speak up so that [aid] money doesn’t just go in circles.”

“Is it a political strategy for Americans to come waste their money and weaken us?”

“The [large, bilateral] project is alike a president. They come give promises, then they go and we are no better off.”

“It’s like outsiders think more about the earthquake than we do. We don’t have time for that. We have to live.”

“We have opened our eyes.” Response in the group: “I want the whole country’s eyes to be opened on this issue [of aid effectiveness].”

***

As you can see, aid effectiveness is a long, winding road. Awareness at the community level about people’s role in bringing it about with local government and NGOs is, frankly, a politicization process.

My parting words shared with the farmers? Pa gen anyen pou nou, san nou. Remember—nothing for us, without us.

As I’ve written before, the jury is still out on this in my mind.

In my career, I have had to fight hard to not let the overly technocratic, abstractionist tendencies of this work pull me under. When I started, my young, idealistic self from a small town in Nebraska was driven by passion and even if naïve, I was excited about the possibility of making the world better. I suspect that all of you started in that very same place. But where is it we find ourselves now?

“Sorry but not now! I have to have my project results to donors by 5pm!” to person holding village survey report. An illustration from Trocaire’s Leading Edge 2020 report http://bit.ly/115IdLN

A couple of months ago, on a Friday, I met with a group of impressive young people from an organization called Thinking Beyond Borders in my office. They had just returned from a gap year traveling to four countries, where they were focused on studying development theory and learning how to become effective agents of change. They spent their first week back in the U.S. and were in Washington DC., where I live, to met with various multilateral agencies and NGOs.

Here’s what one of the students wrote to me in their thank-you note afterwards:

“After a week of some somewhat disheartening meetings, it was great to see that somebody in this town has a pulse!”

These young people were so hungry, after only a week among development professionals, for an open and real conversation about development work!

Their “new eyes” reminded me about how much reductionist perspectives frame aid work and philanthropy. This can make us appear less sensitive, hardened, more disconnected, less caring, less open to possibility.

Our ability as “thinkers” to high-mindedly question everything about “what works” can insulate us. It can become just a tool of our egos. It can create a “gotcha mentality.” And it can greatly remove us from the realities of those with whom we’re supposed to be working in solidarity.

I guess it’s a good reminder for us all.

***

Related Posts

Listening to local leaders: Just more data points?

RCTs: A band-aid on a deeper issue?

Aid, Africa, Corruption and Colonialism: An Honest Conversation

Subjective, squishy, touchy, feely, and fundamental: Partnership matters

How to make people glad that you are there: Some motherly advice

There are many guises for intelligence.
One part of you is gliding in a high windstream,
while your more ordinary notions
take little steps and peck at the ground.

Conventional knowledge is death to our souls,
and it is not really ours. It is laid on.
Yet we keep saying we find “rest” in these “beliefs.”

We must become ignorant of what we have been taught
and be instead bewildered.

Run from what is profitable and comfortable.
Distrust anyone who praises you.
Give your investment money, and the interest
on the capital, to those who are actually destitute.

Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.
Destroy your reputation. Be notorious.
I have tried prudent planning long enough.

Helping professions, by design, were meant to be some kind of temporary relief to people who are in positions of vulnerability. In my field of social work, we employ an empowerment approach in the intervention process, such that we intend for individuals receiving welfare support to be better off than before they were enrolled.  This is the very reason I fell in love with the profession and daily why I look for ways of to improve the lives of individuals and families.

Applying my skill set as a social worker while working in international development has had me asking a lot of questions where this issue is concerned. Our emergency response approach to development seems to be our main undoing, as we seem to run around fighting fires, rather than making means to empower our citizens to be able to stand on their own to prevent or stop these fires.

I sometimes ask myself why would a country so endowed with natural resources and beautiful mountainous landscapes and that is deeply in love with its cultural heritage, linger in poverty? Sixty three percent (63%) of my country of Swaziland lives in poverty (SHIES, 2010). Is it really because we cannot fight the scourge of poverty? Or is it because our current situation draws us international attention and external resources to continue receiving grants and favors from donors and other nations? What is it that we are missing and not doing right? I have written in the past about community resilience, people-driven development, aid effectiveness, etc. and still I have no solution in my mind for Swaziland or other countries in a similar situation.

I have watched with interest civil society (myself included) designing activities together with communities, which, we believed would be best practice and set the tone for widespread development that will pull communities out of the cycle of poverty and mediocrity. Some interventions have worked wonders and have led to innovation in communities that are continuing to sustain them and improve their livelihoods. But this is not the norm. Most interventions end as soon as the donor pulls out, then activities begin to slow down and people return to vulnerability.

If someone helps me during a time of vulnerability, there is this tendency to make that individual a savior of some sorts, such that I believe helplessness is the way into the heart of the savior. This has led me to the conclusion that vulnerability can naturally lead to dependency. No matter the amount of effort a practitioner puts into empowering communities, many still want to bask in the comfort of having the development partner close. Unfortunately, the emergency response to poverty or firefighting approach is the very thing that entrenches vulnerability. The cycle keeps repeating itself and it is my deep conviction that we are not doing enough. Rather than being bogged down by vulnerability, we need to start focusing on community strengths, because the more we play into the hands of vulnerability, we lose the plot.

I recently interviewed my fresh men (first year) students on why they had enrolled into the Institute of Development Management. The response from many of them was that they didn’t qualify to go into the local university. Taking it further, I asked why they were studying. The response for the majority of them was, “I need to be employed.” This came as no surprise; even my institution is raising a bunch of graduates that will be thrown into the pit of vulnerability. The reason for this is simple; Swaziland, with a population of slightly above a million, has an unemployment rate of 40% (SDHS, 2007). Current statistics reveal that out of the youth that graduate with diplomas and degrees, 53% are unemployed! Without a robust job market and a cadre of engaged, professional leaders, Swaziland is creating vulnerability and therefore dependency even among its educated people for years to come.

I was once there with the same mentality of studying to be employed. Luckily I found my passion as a social worker cum international development practitioner, and it’s what I will aim to inspire and instill in my students, no matter why they are in my classroom.

To break this vulnerability, Swaziland needs to create a new culture, one that empowers citizens to think outside the box, or better still, pretend there is NO BOX. Developing countries need to employ an asset-based perspective that focuses on harnessing the strengths of all of its people, rather than focusing on their deficits. The question from a tender age should be, “What are you good at?” rather than “What do you need?”

***

Clement N. Dlamini, from the Kingdom of Swaziland, is an International Development Practitioner who is a Social Worker by training and at heart. Clement has 12 years experience working in development with local and international civil society organizations, the U.N., and government and has a Masters in Social Work from the Stephen F. Austin State University in Texas.

Related Posts

The Real Experts

Whose capacity…really?

The Case of the Missing Tomato Cages

The Marginalization of CBOs by Development Actors: A Perspective from Zimbabwe

Sorry but it’s not YOUR project!

Photo courtesy Eye of the Child

Beyond the celebrity vs. politician whoo-ha, there is another story to take notice of– the behind-the-scenes persistence, vision, and impact of the local leaders and effective, indigenous organizations who are working to solve their own country’s problems, on their own terms.

I’ve worked for many years with the leaders of Eye of the Child, Malawi’s leading child rights advocacy organization, which led the civil society charge for an injunction against both of Madonna’s adoptions. Though they were not successful in preventing the adoptions, they have been incredibly successful in forging closer ties with government officials to support them to navigate tricky donor relations with such funders and foundations as Madonna’s, as well as to reform Malawi’s contradictory laws governing adoption and child protection.

That’s the story I’d rather hear–one of citizens holding their governments to account. Not as sexy, but way more important at the end of the day.

You can read more about Eye of the Child’s current work here.

The actions for the founder, board members, and staff described below are intended to help an organization or team become more stable and proactive, thereby overcoming founder’s syndrome. Even when actions are taken, each team or organization adapts according to its own needs and nature.

Just remember, major changes don’t happen overnight and are never done perfectly. Start simple, but start!

*********************************

What can founders do to avoid founder’s syndrome?

First, if you are the founder of a brand new organization or team and you are just starting out, build it right. Build it to sustain for the future. Build it from the beginning as if you won’t be there to see it through its life.

1. Acknowledge that some day, you will leave the organization or team. The only way to ensure that your legacy is to acknowledge, right now, that you cannot be there forever. Take that to heart and be conscious of it as you plan for your organization’s future. You will then be more likely put the needed tools in place.
2. Formalize the vision and values that are at the heart of the organization. Create a working mission statement and strategic plan that will guide both the board’s future decisions and those made by the staff.  There is nothing to say that these won’t change over time. But the core of what is important will remain, and will be another part of your legacy.
3. Find and accept a mentor outside the organization to help you change your style of leadership. Founder’s syndrome comes from doing what’s natural for you. Changing your leadership approach may seem rather unnatural. Seek and accept help from someone who can help you work out these personal aspects of your eventual separation from the organization.
4. Set direction through joint planning activities. Support the board and staff to carry out strategic planning. Ensure mutual understanding of the organization’s goals and strategies.
5. Delegate, delegate, and delegate! This can motivate staff and volunteers to meet the organization’s goals. Get their input as to how the tasks can be completed. Give them the decision-making authority to complete the tasks. Celebrate their successes!
6. Conduct regular meetings to hear input from staff and volunteers—and make sure you’re not the only person talking. Develop staff-driven procedures for routine, but important tasks.
7. Guide resources to meet goals. Share management challenges with the board or leadership and ask for supportive policies to guide management.
8. If you are thinking about leaving, create a succession plan that proactively deals with all the things you (or the board) is scared might happen when you leave, such as:

• Ensuring the link to the community,
• Preserving the public image of the organization,
• Documenting the institutional memory of the organization that resides inside your head, or
• Continuing fundraising and external relationships.

As part of your succession plan, train and mentor someone now who could replace you, even temporarily, in the event something happens to you. This doesn’t mean you are going anywhere soon. You may not be leaving for the next 10 years! But find someone with whom you can share your institutional knowledge. Train them to share the load now, while you still can.

*********************************

What can the board do?

Making a change in leadership style is often confusing, lonely, and stressful for the founder. The board can be the founder’s greatest help.

1. Understand and take full responsibility for the role of board member. Insist on focused board training to review the roles and responsibilities of a governing board. Undertake a yearly self-evaluation of the board to ensure it is operating effectively.
2. Once a year, conduct a key exercise: pretend the founder suddenly left the organization. Who will/can quickly step in? Are you sure? What activities are the staff really doing to carry out programs? In the case of non-profits, what grants does the organization have to perform against and report on when? What is the cash flow situation? What stakeholders must be contacted? Where are the files/records?
3. Strategic planning is one of the best ways to engage the board and take stock of the organization. Conduct regular and realistic strategic planning with the board and staff. Focus on the top three or four issues facing the organization or team. Although most organizations scope plans to the coming three years, focus careful planning on the next 12 months. Establish clear goals, strategies, objectives, and timelines.
4. Develop a highly participatory finance committee. Too often, boards can be reluctant to face the founder by getting involved in finances. However, troubles with a director’s performance are often revealed in financial problems. If a director struggles or leaves, finances are usually the first to become major problems. Therefore, closely review regular cash flow, income and balance statements.
5. Don’t be part of the problem! Don’t take on the traits of the crisis-driven founder and staff, or worse yet, just ignore the issue. Meet consistently and make decisions based on mission, planning, and affordability, not on urgency. Avoid the notion of any quick fixes, such as hiring a deputy director with “people skills.” This doesn’t address the problem and may make things even worse.
6. Help board members and staff to keep up their hopes through regular communication. Remind each other that the recurring problems are the result of the organization’s success and that current changes are to best serve the needs of its customers. Note that staff members’ morale will improve as they perceive stability, security, and progress.
7. Support the founder with ongoing encouragement and affirmation. The founder will change to the extent that he or she feels safe, understands the reasons for change, and accepts help along the way.
8. Carefully and consistently monitor implementation plans and deviations from those plans. Don’t hold the founder to always doing what’s in the plan or budget, but do hold him or her to always explaining deviations and how they can be afforded.
9. Implement regular performance plans and review for the founder. Include his or her input. Evaluate the founder according to meeting strategic objectives and to his or her job description.
10. Consider policies to carefully solicit feedback from staff to board. Establish a grievance procedure where staff can approach board about concerns if they can prove they have tried to work with the founder or director to resolve these issues.

*********************************

What can staff do?

Founder’s syndrome can be quite stressful for staff. They can lose motivation amidst the continued confusion and anxiety in the workplace. If they’ve been in the organization long enough, they, too, can become part of the problem.

Staff can also play a major role in helping the organization to recover from founder’s syndrome. However, staff may be in somewhat of a high-risk situation because the founder (who often values loyalty at least as much as effectiveness) may perceive staff actions as hurting the organization or team, rather than helping it.

1. If you are trying to help the founder, organization or team to recover or improve, use the organization’s structure. That is, communicate your concerns (and better yet suggestions) with colleagues, whether that is the founder or not. Give them a chance to address your concerns. Promptly go to the board only if symptoms of the problem result in discrimination or harassment of you.
2. Don’t personalize your descriptions of concerns by blaming them on someone. Always accept your own responsibility in the health of the organization or team. If you communicate concerns, be respectful and tactful.
3. Monitor whether the organization or team is recovering or not. Has the organization made substantial changes and the symptoms have decreased? Or, do you see the same symptoms over and over again? Have you given enough time to address concerns?

*********************************

What can everyone do?

Eventually, most founders realize they must change the way they operate. Many go on to develop their leadership skills. To do this, they realize that change will come from within themselves, and they need all the support they can get.

If you find yourself in a situation characterized by founder’s syndrome, here’s some advice to ensure you get the support you need:

• Understand that the problems are not all your fault—you’re doing the best you can.
• Be willing to ask for and accept help.
• Communicate often and honestly. (Be prepared that this is sometimes difficult for crisis-driven, “heroic” leaders.)
• Engage in stress management.
• Be patient with yourself, your leader, your board, and staff.
• Regularly take time to reflect and learn, particularly about your value in service to others.

*********************************

This two-part post is from a Firelight Newsflash that was originally shared with grassroots organizations working with children, families, and communities in southern and east Africa.  It was adapted from managementhelp.org.