Aid Worker Voices

Skimming off the top (part 3)

Skimming off the top (part 3)

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this current series of posts I presented some data and insights on the first two-thirds of the survey questions.  This final part brings the ‘skimming’ to a close and my next posts will drill deeper into the factors of gender and race/ethnicity and also into the changes in levels of idealism reported by aid and development workers.

*************

Q51 and Q52 asked about the relationship between the “field” and “home office” with Q53 allowing for narrative responses to the questions.  Q51 asked in general about the degree to which the field and home office are in sync regarding important matters like priorities and processes, and Q52 made it more specific asking about this relationship in the organization with with they were working.

The numbers were striking similar in both with the mode (by far, about 62%) being the response “The field and home office are sometimes in sync regarding important matters like priorities and processes.”

Below are some illustrative comments, some of which providing good indication as to why 38% said that they were “rarely in sync”.  I find it interesting that the word count on this open ended question was one of the highest in the entire survey; many people had lots to say about this topic.

•  “F@$&@ng HQ” we have all heard that in the field. I think a big problem is depersonalization. HQ becomes a machine not a person and vice versa. People would be a lot nicer if they there was a clear face behind the email. Technology had helped communication move forward in incredible ways but it has also created a perverse form of bullying and consequence-less communication. (I might have invented that word sorry). As a whole it isn’t as bad as it is made out to be. They are running multi million dollar organizations after all. But as a field worker I wish the media and events team came and experienced the field before they started b&@&hing :)”  (26+yo male expat aid worker)
• “In a dream world the home office would have a clue what is happening in the field and the field team would manage expectations successfully. However, good orgs would trust that their field staff is working and they would also send their home office staff to collaborate and get a clue about life and expectations outside the western world/the cushy home base in a major African city. People who are not in the field (or who haven’t been in the field for more than 2+ years) should not dictate processes to people doing the work day in and day out in the field.” (31+yo female expat aid worker)
• “There is often a large disconnect between the two and while field offices are more intent on doing, HQ’s can often be more intent on process – usually implementing systems which are time heavy and not that useful for the field. Field offices can see HQ management/advisors as pestering, and HQ’s can see field staff as renegades. However, having one good liaison officer between the two can make all the difference, ensuring better relationships and better outcomes for both.” (35+yo female working in HQ)

*************

Corruption.  Big topic there, and also one where respondents had much to say.  Q53 asked  “To what degree do you have to deal with corruption within the organization with which you are affiliated?” and Q54 “To what degree do you have to deal with corruption within the region you work?” and the modal response to both was “I have to deal with corruption within my [organization/region] occasionally.”  Yes, that is vague, but in a previous post I drilled into the data and presented some narrative responses.

*************

Q55 asked  “How would you characterize the overall inter-agency coordination and cooperation among the humanitarian aid agencies with which you are familiar?” and though the most common answer was “Inter-agency coordination and cooperation are moderately high; occasion problems.” (44%) the next highest (at 42%) was “Inter-agency coordination and cooperation are low; frequent problems.”  In retrospect this is clearly one of the questions that should have allowed for a narrative response. The stress caused by low inter-agency coordination and cooperation is likely at the root of both loss of idealism and general levels of burn out among aid and development workers.  This question merits additional research to be sure.

*************

Although most  (39%) respondents answered “Increasing levels of corporate influence are having negligible impact on the effectiveness of humanitarian aid efforts” for Q56 the remaining 61% was nearly evenly divided among those who selected “overall positive impact”  (29%) and those that chose “overall negative impact” (32%). No matter the perception is on this particular question I think that the trend is clear and irreversible:  there will be increasing levels of corporate influence in the aid and development industry into the future.

*************

I will be making an entire post on the reaction to Q56 related to MONGO’s (“What is your general view of so-called MONGOs (My Own NGO) or other smaller humanitarian aid work entities?”), but just to give you a preview here are a couple comments, the first two of which are very, ah, critical and the third maybe a bit more representative.

• “I think that if every overly bright, well-dressed 20something would just get together and co-run the skinny jeans appreciation society in their respective countries, the rest of us could put all that money and press to actual use.” (26+yo female working in HQ)
• “Mongos are started by young, green, idealistic expats. Often funded by daddy and his friends, MONGOs are a faster, easier way to humanitarian glory than throwing yourself into the large and comptetitive sea of humanitarian recruitment.” (35yo+ female expat aid worker)
• “I think MONGOs like small businesses begin when the larger NGOs or companies don’t listen to a good idea. Of course there is that bit of hubris in being able to say back home I have my own NGO. I think a more realistic term would be “my own short term project” like most start ups unless they are bought out (or funded) by a larger organization they won’t last long. I think any large INGO would be wise to create a space for ideas and innovation in programming to be heard from all members of staff not only the grants and program development people. This would help the INGO to grow and develop better programs while keeping their staff from quitting to start their MONGOs.” (26+yo male expat aid worker)

 

************

Q59 and Q60 ended the survey by asking about the overall direction of humanitarian aid work offering three response choices then a space for further comment.  The modal response  at 66% was “Humanitarian aid work is having and will continue to have a moderate positive impact on the lives of more and more people.”  Not overly positive, that.  And so we end with some aid worker voices on our future, some of which are flip and humorous, some sober. But all are thoughtful, methinks.

• “Humanitarian work is going the way of the dinosaur or jersey’s free of logos … soon enough, it will all be green-washing by some corporation to make themselves or others feel good about how the help people. The end-of-history is starting to subsume humanitarian work; eg., capitalism is dollar-for-dollar far larger than any aid agency, even in the poorest areas.” (36+yo male HQ worker)
• “I really hope it will have more impact on the lives of more and more people. But nowadays it is more and more linked with political and economic agendas of the “powerful” countires so it is loosing its credibility. The use of the army also to bring humanitarian relief is it complicating and confusing people about what humanitarian work is.”  (46+yo female expat aid worker)
• “We are like the frontier doctors– right now we are “bloodletting” and have no clue how to help people, although we may accidentally have a positive effect. But, our efforts will enable future generations to learn from our mistakes– at least we are doing something!” (31+yo female expat aid worker)

***********

So, that’s a bit of skimming done.  On to deeper drilling.  Email me if you have questions or comments.

 

Comments are closed.