NOG Spawn

"...I am becoming my own sister..."

.

.

.

I'm in negotiation with one of my own staff and asking her to represent me to herself. Conflict of interest? Probably. Confusing? Certainly.

We've been in one of the countries I supervise for decades under our own name but for various reasons it's time to change. Specifically, I asked the country director to register a new, locally governed non-government organisation (NGO) - a new sister in our global network.

Knowing she will be appointed the new organisation's chief executive officer (CEO) concentrate's one's mind: for a start, I will never be able to sack her. Second, she is the only resource I have in-country to identify, recruit and motivate a group of highly credentialed Board members; but will they hold her accountable or simply approve whatever she asks for? Thirdly, she has implied that she could delay registering the organisation if I don't recognise her 'need' to be our country representative as well as the new organisation's CEO. Apparently she says, not doing so could cause too much loss of 'face' on both sides. (True or not I don't know, but one of my colleagues is deeply cynical.)

Now it's Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) time. I managed to get her to steer the Board to register themselves (and they seem excellent) without sight of an MoA (I know already the main sticking points). Our deadline approaches and I'm biting my nails in anticipation (my boss wanted me to push all the boundaries first and compromise later). At least the Board Chairman is now alongside my country director to negotiate - I've even suggested a conflict of interest if she tries to negotiate terms with me without his consent. But it can feel like I am becoming my own sister.

Have I done enough? I wonder. This is supposed to be a fledging-cum-graduation but might be turning into a failure-to-launch...

"...it's hard trying to save the world."

Sometimes I just need to switch off - do some SCUBA diving maybe; it's hard trying to save the world.

Of course, I know that's not my intent, regardless of misguided family, friends, or random hecklers. But sometimes I wonder... Why exactly do I do what I do? Why not just try and make money somewhere? The thing is, I am somewhat revulsed by the thought even though much of the development work I ultimately supervise is directed towards micro-enterprise. But is that a pathological problem? I was told so once...

Some who believe in God have asked me previously to describe my 'calling'; my parents were Christian missionaries and can describe the 'almost-voice', the 'words-coming-alive' in their Bible readings, which they say pulled them out of their comfort zones and into a mission agency.

Not me. The closest corollary for me would be a sense of being 'driven'. If those same Christians looked up words from one of their own saints: Paul, they'd find an old translation of one of his quotes describing his motivation which says something like, "...love constrains me..." I understand that the Greek word translated 'constrain' is quite a violent one (and the meaning of the English word used 500 years ago has drifted), so it should apparently now mean: "...love compels me..."

Can such a sense of drivenness be positive? I remember one particularly oppressive country where I told myself (and my wife) that two years was the limit that I could be driven by anger: I'd have to escape after that to cool down. But generally, I have not burned out though I am somewhat cooler-headed. I like to think that I am not fleeing some childhood demon - but who knows? Probably not a psychosis (not even organic), though maybe a neurosis? Anyway, it keeps me going…

“...can a strongly assertive leader really authentically empower marginalised people?”

My childhood gave me a deep rooted fear of authority figures, particularly men, but also assertive women. Maybe in reaction, I developed a drive to deliver justice and root out oppression; increasingly channelled into participatory methodologies.

Now I've a quandary: some of my peers appear to control inputs, the outcomes of which I am accountable for.

• Is this just an impression arising from my history, and revealed as paranoia?
• Are they actually just being supportive?
• What good are 'silos' in networks anyway?
• And if I want to empower, what message is read by me circumscribing and defending my own powers and roles?
• According to Belbin I'm a 'resource-investigator'. Aren't I actually cannily, if subconsciously, using my colleagues to take responsibility for aspects of my job, freeing me for other things?

But maybe I really am being treated inappropriately - disrespectfully perhaps?

• Will it help me as a leader if people see that I can't even control my own spheres of responsibility?
• What if I allow my empowering agenda to be undermined by an alternative agenda - one that at times appears to try to centralise control, whilst paying lip service to devolved responsibility?
• I took this job because I thought I could achieve more for the inclusion of socially excluded people if I had some control over policy and strategy in a significant area of interest. Am I in fact abrogating an hypothetical responsibility to use my power to empower, or is that just false reasoning and self-justifying (learning-org has an interesting summarised thread related to this)?

Either way, if I say "no" or "stop it" to colleagues, it will both irritate them and stress me; do I need either? I know I have strong support to lead firmly in my area, but can a strongly assertive leader really authentically empower marginalised people?

"Should I embrace it with open arms or run away screaming, as fast as I can?”

We manage our own projects; we also channel privately raised funds from our network of over-developed country programmes, into our under-developed country programmes. There is also a corporate desire to devolve responsibilities from headquarters out into the regional and country programmes. This is taking multiple forms: the regions are already responsible (since two years ago) to coordinate the links between under-developed country programmes in their area, and over-developed parts of our global network. Last year, country strategy was devolved into the hands of the regions (with the expectation that they would facilitate but not control country strategy development). Now, moves are afoot to devolve the majority of funding decisions to the regional offices.

Should I embrace it with open arms or run away screaming, as fast as I can? In the past, funding decisions were made by a central committee. In future, it'll be up to each region to determine its own funding approval system, but based on central guidelines. But I feel like a fox being asked to guard the farmer's chickens: I value my project management support role most; I preferred the past when the field team included the regional leadership and we all ate humble pie together when a project got rejected by the centre. In future, I could be cast in the role of the judge; how can I simultaneously advocate for and support my own project staff? I will become one of 'they' – the ones who judge and approve/reject. And what of accountability, for I shall no doubt be enormously tempted to approve projects the centre might once have rejected? Or is my perspective so badly distorted that I just can't appreciate the obvious benefits, or am seeing problems which don’t actually exist?