Future of INGOs | Part 2: the era of shifting the power [from "Global North" to "Global South"].

Positive Minds | Positive Stories | Edition 034

After a series of crises and scandals over the last 2-3 decades, INGOs have realised that even do-gooders must be held accountable. They have increasingly spearheaded initiatives to rethink their roles and responsibilities and to reform the development and humanitarian sector. To achieve this, they have five difficult but necessary choices to make. I outline these five choices in this article.

Five difficult choices the INGOs must make to remain relevant and legitimate | Credit: Positive Minds

Recently I had an interesting conversation with a former colleague and friend. Like me, he is convinced that the development and humanitarian sector needs significant reform. Like me, he wants to be an agent of reform in the sector. And just like me, he faces a moral and ethical dilemma: should he stay and criticise from within, or should he leave and criticise from outside?

I chose to stay to criticise from within constructively. I am firmly convinced that self-criticism and critical self-assessment produce the most impactful and lasting changes. Changing as a result of external criticism and pressure never lasts. I'm glad I convinced my former colleague and friend to stay (in the den) and fight for change.

Indeed, as I illustrated in part 1 of this article (After four versions, the INGO operating system needs an overhaul), previous changes, however commendable, have been a flash in the pan. They started with great excitement and enthusiasm and faded with time. Why? Because most of these changes have been imposed from outside and, sadly, after a [global] crisis.

When you find yourself on a burning platform, you have no choice but to continuously jump around until the platform cools down (the wear-and-tear strategy) or find an emergency solution to cool the platform down as quickly as possible (the painkiller strategy).

In either case, the disease often returns, with more virulent and resistant variants, as we have seen with the different crises that have shaken the foundations of our sector in the past 2 - 3 decades.

Over time, INGOs have realised that the "wear-and-tear" and "painkiller" strategies are unsustainable. They have learned that their "operating system" must be overhauled from top to bottom. They have also understood that individual efforts and solo initiatives are more costly and have no lasting impact. They willingly and unwillingly come together to support and defend common causes and ideals.

The last decade has seen the launch of several initiatives to reform the sector. Some of these, such as The Charter4Change or The Grand Bargain, are declarations of goodwill that have had little concrete impact on the lives of people affected by crises and conflicts. Others, such as the Start Network or Shift the Power, aim to transform development and humanitarian action. And most recently, The Pledge for Change 2030, launched on 27 October 2022, is based on a strong belief that being 'locally led and globally connected' will mean bigger, longer-lasting impacts on people's lives.

Donors are not to be outdone. As is the case, USAID is often a pioneer. The Agency aspires to transform development and humanitarian action. For this purpose, it seeks to strengthen the capacity of local actors, allocate more resources directly to them and significantly reduce bureaucracy. It has set out its commitments in the Local Capacity Building Policy. It goes even further with its Policy Framework, the highest-level policy document, launched on 23 March 2023. It establishes three overarching priorities to drive progress through and beyond [their] programs: first, to confront the greatest challenges of our time; second, to embrace new partnerships; and third, to invest in USAID's enduring effectiveness.

As much as I appreciate and praise all these great initiatives, I have more questions than answers. What will be different this time? How will the big INGOs and donors move from goodwill declarations to commitments and from commitments to actions? What accountability mechanisms, including sanctions, should be put in place to ensure that they live up to their commitments, especially as the people affected by crises and conflicts have neither the power nor the means to hold them to account?

But for now, the most burning question to address is: what strategic shifts must large INGOs make to remain relevant and legitimate when civic space and humanitarian access are shrinking?

I see five difficult choices to make for these shifts.

Dinosaur (i.e. rigidity) vs. Chameleon (i.e. adaptability)

Dinosaurs were inflexible, arrogant, and bossy. They went extinct about 65 million years ago after ruling the world for 165 million years. In contrast, the chameleon is agile and adapts to its environment. It is discreet but alert and vigilant. Thanks to its adaptability, it has lived on Earth for 78 million years.

The ostrich (i.e. risk aversion) vs. the royal eagle (i.e. risk taking)

The legend says that the ostrich refuses to face reality and sees danger by burying its head in the sand, thus, falling into a defensive and reactive mode and consequently caught off guard. In contrast, the eagle takes risks to achieve its goals. It is vigilant, persistent, and fearless. It constantly scans the horizon and changes course as opportunities and challenges emerge and as quickly as possible.

Generalist (i.e. jack of all trades) vs. specialist (i.e. master of a few trades)

A generalist organisation is a jack-of-all-trades and, therefore, a master of none. It follows safe and known paths and leaves no footprints. In contrast, a specialist organisation masters a few relevant areas and is sought after for its expertise and know-how. It follows unexplored paths and leaves its footprints.

Cruise ship (i.e. big and heavy) vs. speedboat (i.e. small and light)

A cruise ship is massive, heavy, slow, expensive, and difficult to navigate. It has a large and complex crew and a sophisticated, centralised command centre. In contrast, a speedboat is compact, light, fast, cost-effective and easy to navigate. It has a small but dedicated crew and a simple, autonomous command centre.

Driver's seat (i.e. in control) vs. back seat (i.e. in support).

When you are in the driver's seat, you hold the steering wheel to keep control [of the car]; you decide where to go when to go and what route to take. In contrast, when you are in the back seat (or passenger seat), you support the driver and limit interference and distractions with them while they are driving.

INGOs should not wait for the next crisis to change. Change is now, and they need to make the right choices. They must be agile, adaptable, and alert like a chameleon; vigilant, persistent and fearless like a royal eagle; have a small and committed crew like a speedboat; have well-defined niches like a specialist; and let go of power, trust their local partners and take the back seat.

Are these five strategic shifts enough? Certainly not. But they provide a solid foundation to build the future of INGOs.

What other shifts do INGOs need to make to remain relevant and legitimate? Please share your thoughts in the comments.