I'm back. And I'm going to tell you a story.

"I'm too passive, verbose and terminologically convoluted"

Hi! I'm Dan - Dan the development man. And it all began with a turkey. Or a turkey farmer anyway. He saw the advertisement (I thought he was my friend) and he e-mailed it to me. "Do it!" he said. So I did.

First came the interviews. I was embarrassed by my high powered competitors. But apparently the Board wanted a change of direction. And being the only one pointing in that direction I was offered the job (although apparently I'm too passive, verbose and terminologically convoluted). Surprised, I took it. Anyway, another application had just been rejected and the job I was otherwise heading for would have had me walking the streets at night (seriously).

Next came the admin. I'd forgotten the complexities of taking on a new overseas assignment. Or the orientation: anachronistic to say the least, with some crucial aspects underdone and others overdone. But a bit of self-advocacy; incorporating a couple of field trips; and I was pretty much as well prepared as I think I could usefully have been.

Themes from The Poisonwood Bible drifted silth-like through my nightmares as I flew, with my young family, into the darkness.

Abandon ship?

"I might even get a nice reference..."

It's all very well gaining the security of guaranteed donor income. But the stress is astonishing. I hypothesise that the resulting strain is not about personalities but structures, yet because structures are not being addressed, it is manifesting itself in inter-personal ways: being visible, this apparently ‘proves’ to those who won't act that the problem is merely one about personalities – hence justifying their not acting. Now I feel stuck:

• Either our donor needs to historically revert themselves radically (though they have an equally valid perspective in my view); but I know their management won't, and their board whilst disagreeing with management has minimal apparent control over them, tinkering with communication-related discipline rather than tackling incipient mutiny
• Or our organisation needs to reinvent itself in the image of our donor: unlikely to happen more than incrementally given the caution of our management and board (though I have noted some significant changes such as a generally expressed desire to follow 'best practice')
• Or we should take a break from each other's embrace for a season: this is considered by the board on each side to be a bad option, not the more therapeutic ‘still waters’ I would predict if it was done soon
• Or I am 'beating a straw man': my structural hypothesis is wrong; I am the problem - and for what? I don't actually care much about the position I am defending, nor do I particularly desire to preserve the loyalty of staff whom I am afraid are inappropriately reactionary. (I have pointed all of this out to our management, highlighted it in discussions with our donor's management, and discussed it with our donor's chairman.)

Maybe I should hold out just a little while longer? Maybe change is on the cards? I am unsure enough to have begun preparing my exit. I'm too tired to go on fighting, and it detracts us pointlessly from our beneficiaries/participants needs/aspirations. Anyway, if I am the problem and my own management is unable to say so, it would be more honourable for me to quietly bow out. Who knows, I might even get a nice reference?

A merging question…

“…the process could evaporate off their technical staff…”

Is it healthy for us to absorb one of our collaborators/competitors as a simple donor to our projects/partners?

On the one hand:

· it could reduce our cumulative bureaucratic load,

· it is a positive sign in an all-too-often cynical and fragmentary world,

· it could allow them to focus on core skills of fund-raising and us on programme delivery.

On the other hand:

· we have lower field supervision expectations than they presently do; can they accept this as ‘progress’ or will they want us to increase our supervisory intensity?

· will they maintain their technical inputs to projects they support as supernumerary to our overheads, or will they attempt to subtract them from our overheads – in effect removing our leeway to manage as we see fit; who will end up controlling whom?

· the process could evaporate off their technical staff; and if this happens, will we have won or lost?

· will the process also drive away their own current partners, unwilling to partner us now, or unhappy at not having been consulted?

The project 'market' caricature

“Our opaque transactions increase costs by requiring Orwellian
'double think'.”

Our agency agrees to implement and not raise funds. Our funding arms agree not to implement nor to fund others. Our funders don't compete but after expressing their preferences they are simply given projects - supposedly on transparently rational grounds.

To our funders, project cost supposedly has little meaning and is anyway approved in advance by our agency. Nor are the projects officially involved in the funder choices. It is tacitly assumed that the relative value (factoring in both technical quality and the ability to raise funds from direct donors) of our projects is equal (value is related to a fixed overhead portion coming to our agency).

In reality, I perceive that projects are being 'bought' and 'sold'; the price of quality and resale potential is the Relational Intricacy (combining the degree of interference granted to the funders – their 'added value', and the amount of documentation and communication required).

Simplistically speaking:
· Agents with a well funded portfolio squeeze funders to keep documentation and communication (a cynic might quip “and accountability”) minimal.
· Funders counter with humble passivity, agents blaming the victims for non-assertive relationships.
· In opposite circumstances, funders play 'accountability' and 'added value' cards to their maximum, taking control of important areas of project decision making.
· Agents respond by courting alternate internal funders in opaque deals.

What if we had some competition between projects to secure funders and between funders to fund projects?
· Should funders bid overhead percentage offers?
· Should unchosen projects be refused access to agency reserves?
· Will projects compete for 'easy' funds?
· Will funders re-direct funds outside our agency?
· Could our agency compete with internal funders to raise funds directly?

Our opaque transactions increase costs by requiring Orwellian 'double think'. But an unspoken fear exists, that allowing more transparent competition might not improve everyone's practice, but instead cause our fragmentation. I don't know what to prefer.