|
Editorial, volume 9, numbers 1 and 2, 1999
'Management' was once something of a dirty word among most development NGOs.(1) In rhetoric if not in practice, the preferred organisational culture was that of coordination and consultation, of leading from within rather than of issuing and obeying top-down edicts. This style went hand in hand with a discourse, if not always a reality, that revolved around a belief in consensus-based management (however flawed) and was not shy of using terms like 'solidarity', 'commitment', 'oppression', or even 'liberation'. For various reasons, all that began to change from the early 1990s.(2)
One reason is that, having sought - and largely acquired - such a high profile among official agencies, and often become more overtly competitive in the battle for domestic funding, NGOs became increasingly aware of the need to professionalise. Indeed, a failure to do so could result in costly and very public mistakes, and exposure to criticisms of bumbling amateursim. Related to this is the rise in official assistance (both emergency and development aid) being channelled through NGOs. Consequently, NGOs have gradually adopted the norms and bureaucratic procedures of their donors, either as an express condition of serving as a conduit for government policies, or simply as a matter of survival.(3)
A third reason is that many of the the old certainties that had guided NGO thinking since the 1960s began to crumble along with the Berlin Wall, and then to capsize in the tidal waves of economic globalisation and new information technology. That the roles of government and the private sector were changing so rapidly, and so profoundly, compelled NGOs also to rethink their own raison d'être and direction. Corporatism, strategic planning, and formal accountability became the order of the day; a way to 'contain' the turbulence and complexity of the NGO working environment.(4)
The recognition by NGOs that people and resources must be managed if they are to perform effectively makes a welcome change from the 'muddling through' of an earlier age. Making firm choices and taking responsibility for these can only be done if roles are clear, and if the organisational culture (and structures) encourage transparent processes. Increasingly, it's not just a question of knowing where the buck stops, but also agreeing what the buck comprises, or whether it should be changed for a new one. No assumptions are sacred, and complacency is no longer an option even for large mainstream NGOs. But there are risks too. For in concentrating so much on their own management, NGOs may lose sight of where they really stand in the overall picture. Certainly, to judge from some internal documents, there is often a serious loss of perspective in this obsessive self-absorption: not for nothing has it been said that NGO stands for 'navel-gazing organisations'!
Today's competitive world is one which rewards those who 'blow their own trumpet', and NGOs are no exception. Nevertheless, some of the claims made by NGOs smack not just of immodesty, but of sheer hubris. Similarly, while planning and evaluation are essential, there is a tendency to see these as ends in themselves rather than merely as tools. By extension, processes are viewed as objects, documents as reality, and aid interventions as 'development'. This double-issue of Development in Practice on Development Management has been compiled mainly by our Guest Editors from The Open University, Tom Hewitt and Hazel Johnson. They offer a challenging and unusual collection of essays and insights into the ethical dilemmas and practical conflicts posed by managing development interventions. One message that comes across loud and clear, however, it is that management is as much (if not more) about dealing with the 'messiness' of intervening for change, with the importance of feelings and intuitions, with uncertainty and risk-taking, with handling conflict and diversity, with what is not said or is not visible as it is about establishing concrete facts and objectively verifiable indicators, quantifying achievements, or seeking to put reality into neat packages marked 'projects'. Development management is, then, concerned not with exercising control or counting beans but with seeking to act on an understanding of how change processes intersect with power, and how these processes can be better shaped in favour of those who are excluded from resources and decision-making.
Deborah Eade
1 A notable exception is the NGO Management Network, which began in the 1980s, well before most NGOs considered that they had anything to learn in this field.
2 For instance, in the mid-1980s, Oxfam GB changed the title of its senior programme staff from 'Field Director' to 'Country Representative': rather than directing operations, the role was to represent the agency in a given country or region while at the same time representing local interests to the agency. This two-way process of representation was overseen by an Area Coordinator. In the early 1990s, however, Oxfam sought to bring about a new management culture. This involved changes in the hierarchical and departmental structures, and also in many job titles. Significantly, Area Coordinators were replaced by Area Directors, a new cadre of UK-based Regional Managers was put in place to manage overseas-based staff and programmes, and various tiers of Management Teams were created, culminating in the Corporate Management Team.
3 Having discovered 'management', however, many Northern NGOs sought spiritual and practical guidance from corporate sector orthodoxies, with the pitiful consequences outlined both by Mike Powell and David Seddon (1997) in 'NGOs and the Development Industry', Review of African Political Economy 71, and by David Lewis (1998) 'NGOs, management, and the process of change: New models or reinventing the wheel', Appropriate Technology 25(1). Ironically, NGOs began hoisting the flag of strategic planning and so on (often casting their earlier values overboard) just as its original proponents, such as Henry Mintzberg, had left the sinking ship!
4 One recalls King Canute's demonstration that he was no more able than ordinary mortals to stem the incoming tide. Similarly, managerial tools may help NGOs to do their jobs better, but will not themselves change the world in which they operate, any more than royal status could change the laws of the universe.
 Previous
|
Next Abstract 
|
