Wednesday, 30 May 2007

I'mpotent?



"...my biggest barriers are probably my staff..."


My 'field' experience involved the development of Participatory Learning & Action (PLA) approaches to extreme forms of social exclusion, sometimes in dangerous places, and usually with almost overwhelming despair. I still recall entering a third floor brothel in New Delhi during one initiative: perhaps projecting intense anguish onto the girl child trying to provide me 'services' as I accompanied the project team. Or the photos of drug users in Manipur with huge padlocks clipped into their ears as insurgent punishments, as I accompanied a staff learning visit there. Or prisoners with AIDS in another part of Asia facing death and no support aside from what each other could provide, locked up as they were, eight to a cage.

Now I'm in management, trying to bring authentic participation into our large regional programme. I used to do it - pioneered some techniques and venues. And sure, I've got high level support. But I struggle to find and implement a tool which can lead to the huge transformation of mind-sets needed to make it a reality. How can I say this without being disparaging, but my biggest barriers are probably my staff (or maybe it's just me), not high level policy 'wonks'.

Even Robert Chambers took three years to recover from what he called a 'seminal' power-relations workshop run by ActionAid in which he partook (Ideas for Development page 113); can I afford the fall-out of trying something similar with my own management team - I suspect my Board would not look kindly on dramatic disruption. So how to deliver? I just feel impotent.

Saturday, 26 May 2007

Quality? Why?

"If it's worth doing, it's worth mediocrity!"




As a religious objective, quality has a certain beauty (Zen & the art of motorcycle maintenance; Round the bend). But what is it doing creeping into the world of Non-Government Organisations? And why does it appear to me only to be championed there by those working for Government Organisations or in academia or earning above $50,000 a year? If it was aimed at preventing fraud or other crimes then fine - but it is much more than that, indeed its proponents are sometimes adamant that it is not related to crime at all. Like I intimidated, quality looks like a metaphysical objective in disguise:

"What big indicators you have!"

"All the better to trip you with."

"What big millennium goals you have!"

"All the better to divert you with."

"What big plans you have!"

"All the better to belittle you with."

etc

Time I think, to join (or start) an anti-quality, anti-excellence, anti-best practice movement. Our slogans:

"If it's worth doing, it's worth mediocrity!"

"The excellence pestilence..."

"Best practice? When we all get your salary and choices."

Thursday, 24 May 2007

Sharing, a surreal nightmare


"I'm not a cynic, let alone a hypocrite."



My Board was asking me recently about our business model. These notes are from the minutes:

TREASURER: Let’s say one of our individual donors gives us $10. What have they done? Have they bought $10 worth of our services?

ME: They are not consuming the services, and they don’t collect and pass on the benefits they have just ‘bought’ from us; they could even disappear from the scene and nothing less would happen in the field. How can they be considered to be our customer?

VICE-CHAIR: Let’s say instead that they are selling us something then. What is it exactly? And what are we paying with?

ME: Difficult.

FUND RAISING PORTFOLIO: Let’s take a look from the other end: the service receiver. Are they our customers? They receive something from us. But what do they pay with?

ME: It is hard to say exactly what they pay with in a tangible sense. (I wrote a note to myself but didn’t speak it: “Sometimes, they pay with their souls –as they become dependant on us or confer sufficient gratitude to make our staff feel good about themselves.”)

PURCHASING PORTFOLIO: Could they be our suppliers then? They certainly supply us with opportunities to intervene – and plenty of them.

BENEFICIARY REPRESENTATIVE (No voting power- a token presence only): Maybe I could contribute and see if it takes us forwards: The individual private donor has sold their soul already by allowing themself to perpetuate a globally unjust set of systems that benefit them at the expense of others. (I wrote myself another unspoken note: “perhaps they have sold their soul to development NGOs since we do encourage them to remain blind – or pretending to be so; we pay with the distaste of our misrepresenting encouragement.”)

PRESIDENT (No voting power and we try to ignore him – he’s only on board because he used to be eminent): Yes I see it! They try to buy forgiveness (mediated by guilt or other masked motives leading them to make a ‘gift’ or even a more explicit ‘pay-off’) through us and we act as a broker to buy up forgiveness in communities of globally excluded people (mediated by projects and programmes).

CHAIRMAN (Above the ensuing clamor): But we all have a vested interest in not seeing it like this. Donors have a legitimate right to their ascendancy; they really are simply purchasing a service (again I wrote a private note to myself: “Never mind the patronization which goes with buying services on someone else’s behalf unless they are intimately involved in the negotiations”); the excluded are poor through no one’s fault (except sometimes their own) and should be grateful for ‘help’ proffered.

Of course, there had a to be a second ‘Board’ meeting afterwards – as some of us adjourned to the pub. A couple of hours later, I recall the following said:

PRESIDENT: And government ‘donors’? They can hardly be said to be contracted on behalf of poor country governments to purchase development services on behalf of their respective communities – though un-tied sectoral payments into ‘good governing’ department budgets can provide a cunning façade. It looks more like they are mandated to demonstrate at a large scale the same set of guilt-removing principles and processes that operate at the individual level amongst private donors. No wonder they want to regulate us. They have to be accountable to maximize the guilt reduction by so-called ‘quality services’ and need to legitimate their actions by appearing to suggest they are better than NGOs who are suddenly required to somehow ‘match up’.

ME: But it’s all we deserve if we insist on perpetuating the idea that we are ‘helping’. And they have every right on behalf of society to prevent us actually stealing.

BENEFICIARY REPRESENTATIVE: Never mind that ‘donations’ by the rich to the poor do nothing to bring about equity let alone equality. If individual donors or governments actually started ‘sharing’ instead of ‘giving’, it could be an entirely different story.

(I’m not sure what state we were in by then but the crazy talk suggests we were getting drunk. What a surreal nightmare! I’m gad it makes no sense in the real world or I might have had to resign! I know for a fact that I’m not a cynic, let alone a hypocrite.)

Sunday, 20 May 2007

Blame each other


"…perfection can wait till next year."




Dear X

I am sorry on behalf of my team for the misunderstandings which have messed up your programme this year. Introducing the new systems has indeed been a trial - and not merely for yourselves.

Almost everything we do in development work involves compromise - I am sure you find that. You remain right in principle that a gentle roll out is needed but unfortunately I am being asked to move quickly. And whilst it is admirable that you have asked your managers to finalise plans for next year in early May, we had not expected such zeal, aiming as we had mentioned last year, for July. Indeed, I understand that not all your programmes will have to convert to the new systems this year (despite earlier pressure on us to make everyone do so this year.)

Of course, I also recognise everyone's immense frustration; but you have said little that was not said by one or other programme manager the last time we changed the documentation. It is annoying enough to want to pull one's hair out at times, I know. And suffice to say that I'm sure my colleagues here are as frustrated trying to introduce changes as you are in swallowing them. We are all frustrated in fact. And we all feel like blaming each other.

Of course, you are the programme director and you must decide what is and what is not possible. If you are telling me that you are unwilling to attempt to manage the new project planning system this year, then I will have to accept that. As you suggest, there will then be more time to prepare. However, I would much rather that we start the transition now and look at this year as a first attempt rather than a final maximal quality production; perfection can wait till next year.

Yours patiently

Me