How can your organization improve your life as a humanitarian worker?

A final question
The final, open-ended question on the survey asked, “What are your thoughts about what your organization could do to improve your life as a humanitarian aid or development worker?”.  At the end of a 43 item survey, this question generated 53 responses, 35 from females and 18 from males.

Below I have included over two dozen responses, broken down into themes.  The comments I make reflect some of what I have learned from the entire survey.

 

Need for attention to the emotional strain of the job
This first set of responses addresses the emotional strain of doing humanitarian work.  As one respondent put it, “This line of work is very demanding, long hours, weekends, very little support, fatigue. It effects the physical as well as mental health.”

Question 28 on the survey asked, “Humanitarian work can be emotionally difficult. Some workers report having to deal with ‘burnout’ [burnout = a situation where the emotional impact or stress of your job negatively affects your motivation, performance and/or well being].”  Eight of ten respondents indicated that their work can be emotionally difficult, most indicating that “My work is frequently emotionally difficult and I have chronic [or moderate] ‘burnout.’ 

What Jordanian based INGOs and NGOs can do to address this is straightforward and told in the responses below.

• “More self-care activities especially aid workers who spend 98% of their time in the field.”
• “More psychosocial support for workers, and a chance to do fun activities every once in a while.”
• “Staff care, paid psychiatric clinic sessions.”
• “Adding psychologist to the medical insurance.”
• “Invest more in the psychological side of the staff.

There is significant attention sector-wide being paid to the issue of staff mental health.  Here Brendan McDonald cites many of the relevant studies and offers a list suggestions on how the sector can improve.

In sum, the above comments indicate that Jordanian workers have unmet psychosocial support needs.

 

Calls for equal status, capacity building, and opportunity
Virtually any sector insider is well familiar with the issue of national versus international staff compensation packages, and everyone seems to have their own opinion on the matter. I recommend a close reading of this essay by my colleague J for some sober, sound advice and perspective on this matter.

In a series of posts (here, here, and here) I describe and comment on  survey results which examined this issue in detail.

The Society for Human Resource Management comments on “Designing Global Compensation Systems“, but this document, comprehensive as it may be is, predictably enough, only from the perspective of the ‘expatriate’ assigned to international posts.  This short essay by Mark Canavera does a good job of introducing the history behind the international versus national humanitarian worker compensation disparities.

All that said, here are some of the respondent comments related to this theme.

• “Equal opportunities would be a great topic to work on… and of course RESPECT!!! my culture and experience is something valuable and needed to be into consideration.”
• “More appreciation, higher salary, giving the Jordanians the chance to be in higher positions that do no need to be foriegns, عقدة الاجانب.”
• “To be more appreciated when it comes to salaries and promotions.”
• “Build my capacity and treat me as an equal.”
• “Meet the capacity building aspects which is fit to the organization and personal development goals. As an INGO worker having a fix contracts will give the feel of positivity and stability.”
• “Better career paths.”
• “BUILD CAPACITIES we miss it especially in the specialized field we are working on.”

• “Invest more in employees and get them on career paths.”
• “To be treated the same as international staff, medical, housing and salary wise.”
• “I think there is a gap between the higher management and the staff. Improving the humanitarian staff by giving them more stability rather than searching for new blood specially after the staff burned out.”
• “It is very important that the benefits and competitive salaries are offered equally to everyone regardless of their nationality or background, as long as they can get the job done well. This is where the fair process starts. National staff need to be represented at a senior, decision making level. In my organization, no national is part of the core-management team, neither is any allowed to be (as per the internal regulations and protocols!).”
• “Job Security, you spend enough years to not yet get a retirement pension. Some sort of retirement plan that could provide you with retirement away from Jordan Social Security policy that needs you to work up to 60 yrs old to get your pension.”

In the most negative light, the perceived gap between the treatment of national versus international staff has, in the words of one interviewee, a ‘caste-like’ nature to it. In previous posts (see above) I have detailed various dimensions of this issue and, given what I understand -at least for the foreseeable future- most of the above concerns will remain largely intractable issues.

 

Listening and amplifying voices
This next series of comments raise the issue of listening to the affected community. As the critical connecting mechanism between the donors and those being assisted, humanitarian workers are sensitive to what does and does not work. Using tried and true ‘recipes’ from other parts of the world seems to make sense, but what the humanitarian who offered this first comment is arguing is these approaches need to be more carefully retrofit to the Jordanian situation by using the input from both national workers and members of the refugee community.

• “Aid and livelihoods alleviation is best done when conducting continuous participatory approach, engaging the affected population with the designing, planning and implementation of the programs. Amplify their voice and reflect their own needs and concerns onto the program, rather than parachuting ready recipes on them, particularly those coming from Africa!”
• “Be more assertive with donors. Try to live up to its values more honestly, and stop trying to emulate big organizations at the expense of our values.”
• “Better capacity building, listen more to local workers, more trust in the local capacities.”
• “Open a discussion channels, having a personal developments plans, taking in consideration the people in the field opinions while preparing for the new proposals.

In sum, and again not news, listening = good. Yes, it bears repeating: one can never over-stress the fundamentals in any context. We need all pay constant attention to what is being said -and not said- by all with whom we interact.

 

Concluding thoughts
The three themes above -psychosocial support, equity, and listening- are all important and, I believe, are generally recognized and acknowledged by most in the sector.  Work is being done both in Jordan and elsewhere by both individuals, INGOs and NGOs, and sector-wide by umbrella entities like ALNAP and REACH.  Meaningfully moving the needle in a positive direction on these issues is an ongoing and necessarily slow process, and many well intentioned people are pouring creative energy into imagining and enacting changes.

But.

But in a world where most humanitarian responses are chronically and in many cases critically underfunded, where do the resources for proposed changes come from? How do you convince donor entities -themselves being held accountable for ‘using money efficiently’- to agree to allowing scare resources to be used on ‘non-critical overhead’?

As always, please contact me if you have any feedback, suggestions, and just want to offer some snark.

---

Post script
I have deep appreciation for all the time taken by every respondent who offered their opinions and perceptions. My thanks to each one.

One respondent’s comment made my day.  Indeed, improving the lives of Jordanian humanitarians was the primary goal of this research. She said,

“Thank you for your survey, I hope it will improve the humanitarian workers’ situation in Jordan.”

“…respect their dignity first…”

-female Jordanian humanitarian

“Although I love my work, I do think this sector is very damaging and it must be scrutinized and criticized more often.”

-female humanitarian in the sector more than five years

How can humanitarian aid organizations be more effective in improving lives?

 

Prologue
I am very near the end of presenting and commenting on the results from the survey of Jordanian humanitarian workers, with just one or two posts remaining. My next step will be to summarize all the data in article form, so stayed tuned.

The larger context
Jordan has been receiving refugees for at least the last 70 years, and the impact of Syrian refugees on Jordan’s economic system, social services, educational institutions, and overall culture has been significant.  In addition to the Jordanian government and UN agencies, there are threescore INGOs working in and around Amman, and countless other smaller national, regional, and international NGO’s addressing the needs of 1.2 million refugees. While I am not aware of any comprehensive sources about the humanitarian response in toto, a good guess is that there are close to 10,000 Jordanians employed in various capacities as part of this effort.

In sum, responding to the needs of affected communities is an enormous effort involving a complex array of organizations, thousands of workers, and affected communities that are far from static and homogeneous.  Indeed, just the opposite is the case as political sands shift, donor attention spans wane, and the aid industry itself morphs and adapts in response to both internal and external pressures and feedback.

One thing remains constant, though, and that is the chronic and dramatic gap between needs and resources available to meet those needs. “In 2018, UNHCR requirements to assist refugees in Jordan total $274.9 million. As of February 2018, UNHCR has received only $17.8 million in funding, equal to 6% of total needs.” (emphasis added)

Ouch.

Though what I am going to report below may sound -and, frankly, is- critical of the humanitarian aid and development sector, the objective reality cannot be forgotten. What is done, day in and day out, in support of marginalized individuals and communities by Jordanian (and other) humanitarians is no less that Herculean, a large scale effort perhaps unmatched in human history. Responding the waves of refugees is a massive, under resourced, and frequently misunderstood task that is no less than amazing in its professionalism, passion, and persistence. Lives are made better every day, and the proverbial needle is being pushed forward slowly, methodically, and in a demonstratively positive direction by the cumulative efforts of countless humanitarian souls. And, yes, the vast majority of these souls are Jordanians.

I’ll go one step further and point out that all the humanitarian good that is happening in and around Amman is matched in humanitarian crises around the globe in places like Erbil, Cox’s Bazar, Juba, Abs, and Bangui.  Many critics argue that the humanitarian aid system is ‘broken’, but I don’t think it is that simple or negative, and I think using that language is dismissive of all the positive actions being taken every day by both individual humanitarians and the organizations for which they work.

Is the system perfect? No. One move in the right direction, though, is for the sector to listen to an array of voices with sober assessments and positive suggestions.

Listening to what national aid workers think is critical, and so now on to what they have to say.

How can organizations can be more effective in improving lives?
Question 41 on the survey was open ended, asking “What are your thoughts about how humanitarian aid and development organizations in Jordan can be more effective in improving the lives within the affected communities?  That a total of 48 women and men took the time to write in responses at the end of a long survey -57% of the total respondents- tells me they wanted their opinions heard.  So here they are.

One consistent theme throughout the comments was these aid workers felt  humanitarian organizations need to engage in “More listening.”  This young female worker had her sentiment repeated again and again in various phrasings by other respondents.  Another female said, simply, “Activate feedback system from beneficiaries.”

Here are just a few more, many of which are quite clear on who needs to be engaged in the listening process.

“Implementing projects related to the true needs of the beneficiaries.”

“Humanitarian and development agencies need to play a major role in changing donor strategies which are sometimes restrictive and lack a certain needed creativity, especially in the development sector while paying more attention to the actual needs of the effected communities and adapting to the constant change and the complicity of the legal frame in Jordan.”

“To be really based on their needs, and actively engage them with the project design and implementation.”

“Getting the donor more involved in the planning phase to actually see what the current needs are to really address them and getting more funds to cover all needs seen and anticipated.”

 

With rather than for
The repossess above clearly call for more partnership and listening, especially by the donor entities.  This next comment from a veteran female aid workers underlines the points above and adds more.

“I think it’s very important for the industry to start hiring individuals from the affected communities more systemically, and to stop silencing people through putting up language barriers. The industry needs to truly start creating interventions with the communities rather than for them and — equally importantly — create Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning systems with them to measure the effectiveness of said interventions. The industry needs to stop monopolizing the knowledge around humanitarian work and development and deeming all other types of knowledge (especially in the communities) as irrelevant. The industry needs to start looking at the work we do as an obligation we’re fulfilling rather than a favor we’re doing affected communities. Accountability mechanisms especially are chronically underdeveloped in the industry and they need to be built and strengthened to ensure that we are actually meeting our obligations and not mismanaging precious funds. We should think of ways to give affected communities voice. We often think we are acting as their voice but it’s rather dis-empowering than the opposite.”

I think this respondent’s comment merits restatement in bullet points:

• Hire more individuals from affected communities, and have this hiring be more systematic and systemic
• Stop silencing people
• Find more ways to give a voice to affected community
• Address language barriers
• Work with communities at all levels, including M&E, etc.
• Use data to maximize impact of limited funds
• Re-frame work as obligation, not as a favor

All good advice, though nothing sector insiders have not heard in various forms many times before.

 

The inevitable struggles of bureaucratic functioning
Inter and intra agency/INGO coordination and communication were seen as areas in need of improvement. Simply put by two respondents:

“Enhance the coordination level between the acting INGOs understand in a better way the needs of the community.”

“More coordination between the international agencies.”

These comments speak to what I see as a critical and inherently intractable issue within the sector, namely the fact that the sector is, essentially, a complex array of interactions between hundreds of bureaucracies.  An axiom in organizational theory is there is an inverse relationship between the overall size of an organization and the efficiency with which various sub-parts of the organization communicate and coordinate with each other.  Bigger = a trend toward lesser efficient communication.

A second axiom, perhaps more important and called out by the respondents quoted above, is that communication and coordination between organizations is slow, inefficient, and prone to misunderstanding.  Cluster meetings and though inter-agency committees and task forces are a great remedy, they are destined to chronically fall short of perfection even in the best of circumstances. More and more organizations working together = exponentially more challenges in terms of communication and coordination.

Sociologist Max Weber, a student of the process of bureaucratization, mused long ago that, “Not summer’s bloom lies ahead of us but, rather a polar night of icy darkness and hardness…”  His pessimism is borne out by what we see not just within the aid sector, but elsewhere around the world in all sectors dominated by large organizations.  I have written about this general issue several times on this blog.  Look here, here, and specific to the above, here.

 

Botton to top approach
The ‘listening’ theme in all of the Q41 comments can be summed up by these two respondent’s offerings,

“To focus on the grass root needs and not their own agenda and donor interest.”

“Prioritizing the needs of the people, not the demands of the donors.”

Yes, this is a call to action that is repeated frequently enough to be heard but perhaps hard to act upon.  Yes, donors need to listen.  Yes, the affected community needs less patronization and more partnership.  Yes, there needs be more and better intra and inter agency communication and coordination. No, these issues will not and perhaps cannot be perfectly resolved, especially give the paucity of resources (all three: time, money, and personnel bandwidth).

Conclusion
How can organizations be more effective time in improving the lives within the affected community?  There is, alas, no linear path toward perfection and, as Weber would point out, any path(s) will only get more and more difficult.  But that does not mean we throw our hands up in despair.  Just the opposite, we remain steadfast in our quest to listen and respond to the voices of national aid workers.

Comments, feedback, or questions?  Contact me here.

Treated with respect and dignity?

[updated 14 August 2018]

Basic human needs
Humans have basic needs, among them are the obvious like food, water, shelter, and freedom from constant danger. These, largely material (or materially satisfied) needs, are the first focused on when people think about responding to communities at risk. Critically, in the minds of many both institutional and individual donors, once these needs are met the job is done.

How the above mentioned material needs are met is critical in determining the degree to which some vital non-material needs are met, namely the existentially critical necessity to have and to be treated with both respect and dignity.

An article authored by Valerie M. Meredith and published with the ICRC (“Victim identity and respect for human dignity: a terminological analysis“) says, in part,

“The notion of human dignity is central to the discourse of the ICRC and what it wants for the victims of conflicts–to protect their dignity. There are various facets to human dignity. They include a sense of self-worth involving self- perception and arguably a recognition of worth and a sense of belonging bestowed by others, be it the family or the wider community. In this regard, human dignity relates partly to one’s own sense of identity and worth. The act of recognizing the identity projected by a person is thus an act of respect for that person’s dignity and should therefore, in theory, be part of any humanitarian gesture.” (p. 270)

I would agree that yes, as inferred in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Dignity is in the centre of humanitarian aid.”  Here’s a short (30 seconds) video I made a few years ago featuring my Iraqi friend and colleague’s view on dignity.

The next several questions on the survey were added after in-depth discussions with Jordanian colleagues about “big picture” questions regarding the humanitarian imperative and how it related to responding to basic needs.

Responses from Jordanians
The survey offered three questions related to respect and dignity.  Questions 38 and 39 went directly to the point, first asking the respondent about how they are treated by their employing organizations and then how the affected community gets treated.

“In your opinion, do national humanitarian aid and development workers in Jordan get treated with respect and dignity by their organizations”

“In your opinion, does the affected community seeking or receiving services from NGOs in Jordan get treated with respect and dignity by aid and development organizations?”

Q38
First, a look at how the aid workers felt they were treated. A strong 59% indicated they were treated with respect and dignity “for the most part” but that leaves a significant number -41%- indicating only “Sometimes” or “No, not for the most part.”  My first response when seeing these numbers was “Wow.”  The only comment I feel totally confident making about these data is that this is something that definitely needs more study.  If I were an HR or Comms manager seeing these numbers from my national humanitarian aid workers I would pause and then begin to dig deeper into where these feelings are coming from.

Q39
The next question looks at how the aid workers feel the affected community gets treated by the aid and development organizations, and the numbers are, like with the last question, give reason for pause.

The numbers are similar to the Q38, with 44% responding that the affected community gets treated with respect and dignity only “Sometimes” or “Not for the most part.”

Again, if I were in an INGO senior management position and saw these numbers I would be compelled to respond, at least with more questions and study.  If I were a donor to an INGO, these numbers would, I think, be of concern, and more questions would be asked.

The third question
The next question on the survey asked, “In your opinion, do humanitarian aid and development organizations in Jordan meaningfully listen to and engage with the affected community?”

This question essentially asks the “respect and dignity” question again, though in a slightly different way. The numbers are even more stark.  Nearly two thirds -64%- of the respondents indicated that the humanitarian aid and development organizations only listened to and engaged with the affected community only “Sometimes” or “Not for the most part.”

Giving great detail, here is what one respondent wrote,

“Not for the most part. Needs assessments are rarely done openly and curiously. They mostly are done to prove certain hypothesis and are made to do so. The needs are often pre-identified and the intervention is planned before any funds for needs assessments are available. In interaction with communities, dichotomization is often practiced to silence affected individuals from discussing certain needs that are deemed “non-relevant” or “too private” by the humanitarian sector. One example I recall very clearly being notified of is the need of adult refugees to have private time to be intimate without their children being in the same space as them. This was deemed too private and not fit to be discussed publicly and addressed publicly. Refugees were asking for Day Cares for their little children so they can find such time. Another very powerful exampel is the issue of religion. The industry is underequipped to address any religious discourse and reasoning that shape the minds of affected communities. Therefore, when religion and religious references are used in communities’ public discourse, organizations often try to bring it back to the ‘private’ sphere where they don’t have to deal with it and where it reinforces values the industry claims to engage with..”

Among other issues, this comment brings up the sensitive topic of religion, the social institution at the core of most cultures. The epic and inexorable tug of war between ‘objectivity’ and ‘ethnocentrism’ is extremely nuanced when taking on religiosity.

A second core issue raised in this response is that recognizing, honoring, and responding to agency, is certainly a critical dimension of respect and dignity.  When asked to comment on these data Amelie Gagnon, a UN staffer working on education initiatives, reacted,

“One of my thoughts is that although professionals treat people with respect and dignity, we always need to make sure that the organizational purpose, or the meaningfulness of the programme being implemented, is aligned with the needs of the counterparts we are serving. In that sense, if context is not understood and no proper priority analysis is done, this can lead to the outcome of depriving the receivers of their agency, rather than straight dignity or respect. And it is probably just as problematic.”

In practical terms, fulfilling the humanitarian mission and responding to needs is never easy, linear, or perfect.  Yes, there will always be issues, especially when it comes to the non-material needs we are discussing here.

Not a new story
For some, the phenomena that may be behind these numbers are familiar.  In a 2017 discussion paper for ICRC” Engaging with people affected by armed conflicts and other situations of violence” the authors note,

“In recent years, there has been no shortage of literature on the systemic issues that prevent humanitarian organizations from meaningfully engaging with, and being accountable to, individuals affected by war and disaster. Institutional resistance to change, operational constraints, technical difficulties, the fear of devolving power and decision-making, the complex integration of localization processes and private sector partnerships… the list is, or should be, familiar to all.

What is lacking, however – and what this discussion paper hopes to contribute to – is how these systemic issues can be compounded in armed conflict or other situations of violence. Unlike natural disasters, situations of conflict or other violence bring with them particular characteristics that can both create and exacerbate challenges around engagement with, and accountability to, affected people.”

In one of the discussion’s “Recommendations for donors” the author teams notes suggests a need to “Strengthen the humanitarian-academic nexus.”

“In recent years, there has been more research into humanitarian engagement with communities affected by violence. However, there are still gaps between research and practice, as practitioners often feel that research generally focuses on what should change and why, without giving practical help as to how. As such, research and its findings often do not reach or resonate with practitioners.”

So, the Jordanian survey data reported above is no surprise to many, and the comment above makes me seriously reflect on the “so what” reaction many might have, well, to any data reported out from this entire survey.

A short note on gender
Prompted by reaction from one reader, I went back through the data for the three survey questions discussed above, filtering for gender.  Those identifying as females were, on the whole, less critical than males.

Here are the numbers for Q’s 38-40.

The results broken down by gender in Q40, “In your opinion, do humanitarian aid and development organizations in Jordan meaningfully listen to and engage with the affected community?” yielded not much difference.

For Q38 you’ll note a significant difference -nearly 20 percentage points- between males and females, with females far more likely to indicate “Yes, for the most part” regarding affording respect and dignity.  I find it striking that there is a 22% difference between females and males -30% versus 52%- when responding “Sometimes.”  To a lesser degree we see the same trend in Q39.

Why?  A very good question, left, for now, unanswered.

Concluding thought
Is the humanitarian sector consistently affording “respect and dignity” to both national staff and to the affected communities in Jordan and Syria? The answer must be no, given the data above.  I have confidence that this failing is both known and being addressed with both professionalism and passion by staff at all levels within Jordan and beyond.

Please contact me if you have comments or feedback.

 

 

 

 

Deepening the conversation regarding ‘local aid workers’

[updated 12 Aug 2018]

Guilty as charged
I have been researching and blogging about ‘local aid workers’ for a couple years now. (You can click elsewhere on this space to see my posts about national aid and development workers in Zambia, the Philippines, and Jordan.)  In this short post I hope to deepen the conversation regarding ‘expat’ versus ‘local’ aid workers.  My first act is to remove this phrase from my vocabulary, ‘expat versus local’.  I must admit to being among those -guilty!- who are too imprecise in their usage of terminology, not just with this particular issue, but regarding many others relevant to the humanitarian ecosystem.

That said, the humanitarian aid system is an ever expanding and adapting global system that is extraordinarily dynamic and complex. Describing it with precision can be a bit like trying to grab smoke.

How to talk about the staff employed in the humanitarian ecosystem
Published by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)/Policy Development and Studies Branch (PDSB), this 2011 report titled “Safety and Security for National Humanitarian Workers” gives a wealth of detailed information concerning the issues discussed in Pauletto’s BRIGHT magazine essay.  Her offering, The Shocking Inequality in Foreign Aid That Nobody talks About, although doing a credible job of discussing several important issues, adds to the semantic muddying of the waters regarding the types of staff that are employed in the humanitarian ecosystem, reverting back to the comfort of the “expat versus local’ terminology.

Here are two relevant exerpts from the OCHA report. This first comment affirms the information the Pauletto article mentions that I gathered in Zambia regarding the ratio of international versus national aid and development workers.  Understanding national aid workers is imperative given their numbers and obvious critical impact on the sector and, of course, on affected communities.

“National aid workers constitute the majority of aid staff in the field — upwards of 90 per cent for most international NGOs — and undertake the bulk of the work in assisting beneficiary populations.”

This next statement provides a valuable deepening of the defintion of ‘national’ aid worker.

“‘National staff’ can encompass a range of hiring categories that can stipulate different terms and conditions of employment. Increasingly organisations differentiate between local staff, hired directly from the area that they work, and national staff, nationals of the country but not from the duty station locale. In this paper, we use the terms ‘local staff’ and ‘nationally-relocated staff’ to distinguish between these two. In many organisations, local staff have different terms of employment, compared with their relocatable counterparts. Further, some organisations, including the UN agencies, will have different contracting arrangements, benefits and career tracks for nationals hired for ‘professional’ positions and those hired for general services and administration. Like in many NGOs, UN national staff can serve in senior management positions and ultimately become international staff working in other countries.”

As we all move meaningful dialogue forward on these issues, I am convinced that using OCHA’s more nuanced -and accurate- definitions related to national aid workers can take us away from simplistic ‘expat’ vs ‘local’ chatter and toward ever more productive discussions.

Not a homogeneous lot
In my interviews with national aid workers I have become keenly aware of the obvious, namely that they are not a homogeneous lot, but rather can be broken down into many useful categories as modeled above by OCHA above, e.g., ‘local staff’ and ‘nationally-relocated staff’.

An additional nuance immediately comes to mind, and I am tempted to use the language we employ here at my university, making the distinction between ‘administrative’ staff versus ‘support’ staff, the former being, generally, professionally trained personnel (e.g., administrators or accountants) and the latter being non-professional (e.g., housekeeping or grounds workers).

In picture form, I here pose a question question. At any single point in time, based on the table below, what would be the breakdown of all the staff ’employed’ (using as a working definition where employed = getting paid for work) by various INGOs? To national staff reading this post, where would you place yourself?

When discussing ‘local’ aid workers some of the distinctions suggested above may be useful.  Regarding major issues like the degree of risk typically encountered, availability of vertical career pathways, or compensation packages (to just start the list), one’s place in the table above may be a good predictor.

This short essay by my fellow researcher Gemma Houldey (“Why a commonly held idea of what aid workers are like fails to tell the full story“) models a keen sensitivity to the various types of both international and national aid workers in Kenya.  She notes that the differences in socio-economic status and living conditions  “…between local workers and expatriates can be sharp.” Relevant to my illustration above, she notes that,

“In Turkana, Kenyans I spoke to had partners and families hundreds of kilometres away in another part of the country. They could only see them every eight to ten weeks, during their rest and recuperation, a compulsory break taken from humanitarian operations which usually lasts about a week.”

Being a nationally relocated humanitarian worker can be onerous, to say the least.

Adding yet another dimension to this discussion Houdley adds, “There is a racialised aspect to this too, with ‘expat’ still often conflated with ‘expert’, and in both cases they are primarily assumed to be white.”

An even more recent research article by Ong and Combinido (“Local aid workers in the digital humanitarian project: between ‘second class citizens’ and ‘entrepreneurial survivors’”) adds even more nuance. They examine “… the rise of project-based rather than long-term career aid work and the explosion of precarious digital work characterized by short-term dispersed labor (i.e. outsourced) arrangements.”

Somehow I must edit my “Types of national staff” illustration above to account for the critical issues highlighted by both Houdley and Ong & Combinido, perhaps paying more attention to the dynamic nature of this workforce and adding “project-based aid worker” into the scheme.

A short note on international staff
Just as national staff are demonstratively not a homogeneous lot, the same is so for international aid workers.  The biggest distinction perhaps being between those that are from the ‘Global North’ and those from the ‘Global South’. Oft times an international staff might be from another country in the region, a Kenyan working in South Sudan or a Syrian working in Jordan, for example. That there are differences related to the factors mentioned above (degree of risk typically encountered, availability of vertical career pathways, or compensation packages) between these two categories seems apparent.

Much more to be said about the different types of both national and international aid workers, to be sure.

Onward
As I continue researching and working on hearing and then reporting on the voices of national (of all types) humanitarian aid workers, I will strive to improve the lenses through which I arrive at my questions and my interpretations of the answers.

I look forward to reporting on the final questions on the survey of Jordanian aid workers, but now with the suspicion that most that responded to the online survey are not representative of all the cells in the “Types of national staff” illustration above.

Any comments or reactions are welcome.  Contact me here.

“Workers of the world unite…”

A need for an organization representing Jordanian humanitarian workers?

More results from the Jordanian humanitarian worker survey.

Looking back at my time in Amman doing background interviews for my survey, I have many fond memories. First, on a personal level, I want to once again thank the many women and men who took the time to meet with me both while I was in country and in the many months following, agreeing to Skype conversations, emails and follow-up questions.

Secondly, and very critical to this research, some of my strongest memories are when new questions were added to the final draft of the survey based on these many discussions.  In one particular interview with a male office staffer employed by a major INGO, we were talking about how many ‘national’ humanitarian aid workers there were throughout Jordan in many scores of organizations.  “How do you all communicate, coordinate, and commiserate with each other?”  I asked. “Is there any national organization or meeting of Jordanian humanitarians?

The answer was “Not really.” We went from there to talk about organizations like the Jordan INGO Forum (JIF) and the many intra-organization ‘work groups’ that exist, and how these organizations were more about the overall mission of the INGOs and getting the job done.  The focus was not on the workers themselves for the most part. Our discussions ultimately led to adding this question to the survey.

“Do you feel that there is a need for an organization whose primary mission is to represent the needs of humanitarian workers in Jordan?”

Worker organizations in Jordan
The labor movement in Jordan has a fairly long history going back to the 1940’s, with a first major watermark being the establishment of the General Federation of Jordanian Trade Unions (GFJTU) in 1954. This article by Ahmad M. Awad at the Phenix Center for Economic & Informatics Studies is a very good summary of the history of the labor movement in Jordan. A very good update can be found here in a 2012 essay by Fida Adely, and this article gives an update relevant to last spring’s unpopular tax bill. Although there have been humanitarian aid workers in Jordan at least since the 1930’s, I found nothing mentioning the inclusion of this small but important slice of the Jordanian work force. The international worker advocacy organization the Solidarity Center, based in Washington, DC, has a strong MENA presence, but I can find no mention of issues related directly to humanitarian aid workers.  According to this ‘secret aid worker’ recent attempts to unionize INGO’s has been for naught, meeting resistance from the HR and CEO levels.

 

Survey says…
In answer to the question “Do you feel that there is a need for an organization whose primary mission is to represent the needs of humanitarian workers in Jordan?” only 17% said there is “no need for such an organization.” The remainder of the respondents were equally divided, half indicating that “Such and organization would fill some needs, but it is not necessary” and the other half  -42%- agreeing that “Such an organization would fill many needs, and there is a need for such an organization.”

One respondent wrote simply, “For (local) humanitarian workers, yes.” Her comment is the pithy version of what another offered,

“This is very necessary, HOWEVER it needs to ensure that the needs are being represented from the inside and with a very fair and logical representation of the reality. The last thing we need is an imposed group of expats who think they understand the culture better or as well as locals.”

This comment resonates with many presented earlier in this series of posts describing the tensions between ‘local’ and ‘expats” and also perhaps hints at an answer to the question as to why there appears to be no organizations representing the needs of humanitarian workers in Jordan or elsewhere around the world.

I’ll offer some conjecture.

• Perhaps the fear articulated in the comment above -control by ‘expats’- inhibits national aid worker support for such a movement.
• Perhaps the needs of international and national workers are too different.
• Perhaps, given the complex nature of the humanitarian ecosystem, there is little sense of common identity among humanitarian aid workers.
• The forces of global neoliberalism resist any hint of unionization as antithetical to a ‘free market.’
• Most likely, some combination of all the above.

Whatever the case, this piece of exploratory research has accomplished its mission, namely asking the question and furthering the conversation.

More to say about this is my next post.  In the meantime contact me here with comments or feedback.  Snark also is an option, though only if it can lead to productive discussion.

The gap between donor interests and the needs of the affected community

More results from the Jordanian humanitarian worker survey.

A frustrating gap
Although I have heard and read a good deal about the general frustration in the humanitarian aid sector about the gap between donor interests and the needs of the affected community, it was not until my travel to Amman and the chance to talk face to face with several Jordanian aid workers did I come to more deeply understand this issue.  In several interviews I asked the open ended question “What are some of your frustrations?” and the donor interest-affected community needs gap was very near the top of everyone’s lists.

If you Google search the ‘three legged stool’ trope you’ll find a multitude of references dealing with all kinds of organizations, industries and businesses. My colleague ‘J’ has written about this as it relates to the aid sector, pointing out, accurately in my opinion, that the sector can be distilled down into three parts, namely the donors, the recipients, and those people and organizations that comprise the humanitarian aid sector.

Understanding the organizational, bureaucratic, political, and cultural (including linguistic) complexities of the interactions between these three basic units is a massive task, made all the more difficult by the fact that rarely are two humanitarian responses exactly alike. One constant is the fact that global, regional, and local geopolitical realities will come into play, and these realities are, to say the least, fluid; the cocktail of political factors impacting any one geographic region are rarely simple or static.

All to say this: pointing out there is a gap between donor interests and the needs of the affected community is akin to observing that ‘water runs downhill.’  We do not live in a perfect, linear, and orderly world, and that gaps such as this exist, though frustrating, are typical. The width of the gap varies considerably from one scenario to the next. Minimizing the gap is a meaningful goal, hard to measure progress and even harder to reach to the extent that everyone feel pleased.

Having preliminary data showing that aid workers perceive that gap and are frustrated by it is one step toward meaningfully addressing the situation.

 

Who should ‘mind the gap’?  A comment on imperfections in the humanitarian sector
There is a persistent, chronic, and perhaps inexorable disconnect between the lofty ideas and goals being imagined by academics and ‘experts’ in humanitarian think tanks and what policy changes and organizational adaptations can and are actually being implemented in most sectors. This disconnect includes an array of issues. Here are just a few:

• ‘zero-tolerance’ of sex related misbehavior
• the ‘localization’ of the sector
• the issues related to the relationships between ‘international’ and ‘local’ workers
• how best to maintain the safely and security of humanitarian workers
• how to manage the slippery slope from aid to development

and, of course

• the gap between donor interests and the needs of the affected communities

Addressing issues within the sector is done on many levels at both the inter and intra organizational levels. And though there indeed are ‘disconnects’, I’ll offer the observation that the good being done by the sector is massive and, by some critics at times, under appreciated.  Every day countless refugees and IDP’s are being supported in hundreds of camps globally.  Shelter, food, sanitation, security, and social support are being provided to millions of people day in and day out. Innumerable surgeries are performed, medical procedures administered, medicines dispensed, babies delivered, and psychosocial support provided every day in countless venues around the world.  All of this is being done by organizations that employ a rich mix of international, national, and local humanitarian aid workers, all working together -the vast majority of the time- for exactly the same goal, to address and minimize the human impact of natural and human-made disasters.

Band-aides (plasters) are put over wounds and, yes, the system is imperfect. But to dwell on that imperfection without acknowledging the massive positive outcomes is counterproductive on many levels.

 

On to the data
I asked two interrelated questions. “In general, to what extent do you see a gap between donor interests and the needs of the affected communities?” and “How does the gap between donor interests and the needs of the affected communities impact your work and motivation?”  In summary, the results indicate that well over half (55%) of the respondents ‘frequently’ or ‘constantly’ see a ‘gap between donor interests and the needs of the affected communities’ and the vast majority -83%- are ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ frustrated by these gaps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comment
This statement by one of the respondents on the survey summarizes what I heard in one on one interviews with several Jordanian humanitarian workers.

“Donors ask for high targets and they don’t pay much attention to quality implementation, which is very frustrating. I have seen many INGOs fake numbers to please donors. This turns beneficiaires to numbers instead of people!”

In a previous post I wrote in detail about the chronic issue of ‘turning people into numbers’, quoting from an international aid worker, Lily Rosen. Her poetry and prose help us to better understand some of the inherent difficulties in bridging gaps between “how things are and how we say things are”.

Another respondent offered this suggestion,

“Humanitarian and development agencies need to play a major role in changing donor strategies which are sometimes restrictive and lacks a certain needed creativity, especially in the development sector while paying more attention to the actual needs of the effected communities.”

That Jordanian aid workers see and are frustrated by the gap between donor interests and the needs of the affected community is a surprise to no one.  The data above, I hope, can serve as a starting point for deeper inquiry into this issue. In the meantime, I hope that my message above concerning the bigger picture -much good is being done every day by the sector- is kept in mind by all.

Please contact me if you have comments or feedback.

 

Misuse of funds or power

More results from the Jordanian humanitarian worker survey.

Definitions
According to Transparency International, “Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.” Their definition, though, goes on to infer a more narrow focus on money. “It can be classified as grand, petty and political, depending on the amounts of money lost and the sector where it occurs.” Working since the mid 1990’s, Transparency International has ranked the level of corruption within nations based on a complex set of indicators. The 2017 list had New Zealand at the top and Somalia very last, with Jordan in the mid-pack at 59 (my home, the US, was 16th) .  Though the bottom half of the list does contain mostly ‘Global South’ nations, any sober analysis has to emphasize that corruption is most demonstratively a “first world” problem as well.  Like I said, my home nation is the US.  Enough said.

If we embrace a broad view of the phrase “private gain” then we must include a whole host of behaviors, and this must include the #MeToo and #AidToo issues.  Parsing out what “entrusted power’ means is important as well, but that may be for another post.

In this post from a few years ago I pose the question “The cancer of corruption or the culture of corruption?” and present many voices from aid workers around the world who eloquently explore the many nuances involved in defining, understanding, and dealing with corruption.

Words matter
One of the more robust discussions I had with Jordanian humanitarians as we were crafting the survey had to do with the question related to misuse of power.  I first proposed the exact wording I had used in the survey of Filipino humanitarian workers. “Which statement below best describes how you feel about corruption related to your job?” 

• I have to deal with corruption very rarely in my day to day work.
• I have to deal with corruption frequently in my day to day work.
• I have to deal with corruption on a constant basis in my day to day work.
• I never have to deal with corruption in my day to day work.

Although the word ‘corruption’ translates pretty much exactly (الفساد), the wisdom was this had more political, big business kinds of associations rather than the more general “misuse of power.” In the end, the word ‘corruption’ was deemed too vague, and we arrived at an alternate phrasing. “Which statement below best describes your experience with the misuse of power or funds by people working for NGOs in Jordan?”  

Here are the data which indicate that 25% -one quarter- of the respondents ‘experienced the misuse of power or funds’ on a ‘frequent’ or ‘constant’ basis.

Is that a lot?

No way to tell, but of all the questions on the survey, this one begs for narrative explanation.  Only 6 respondents offered their thoughts, and some indicate areas where more and probing research would be useful.

 

Jordanians speak
One respondent said simply, “Not funds just power.” Another helped shed light on the broad range of behaviors that can be viewed as misuse of power by any and all staff.

“Breaches of the code of conduct, bullying, conflict of interest, etc etc… among both national and international staff, in different dimensions but somewhat equally.”

In previous posts I have talked about the tension between ‘national’ and ‘international’ staff, and these two comments underscore this situation, with the second one below giving several provocative examples of ‘misuse of power.’

“Particularly by foreigners.”

“I think the outrageous benefits some staff — some incomptent — receive is a perfect example of misuse of funds. The fact that decisions are made all the time without consulting constituents is also misuse of power and funds. Strategms of “silencing” are always practiced intentionally or not. One very prominent example of how the sector reports ‘beneficiary reach.’ A beneficiary could have attended only one or two sessions of a 20 sessions program and they would be reported as ‘reach’ to justify the hemmoraging of funds. One very troubling example is the very lax regulations governing cross-borders programs. There are a lot of whispers about funds going to the ‘wrong hands’ there because of the lack of accountability and follow up.”

In one of my interviews with a Jordanian female humanitarian worker we talked in detail about the issue of ‘creative accounting’ with beneficiary reach. This is a gray area where use of power might as easily be described both as benign and benevolent or malignant and nefarious, depending upon one’s perspective and the complex array of contextual variables that are in play.

This situation reminds me of one what one international aid worker argued in the Aid Worker Voices survey: “One man’s corruption is another man’s wealth redistribution system. I find it hard to judge others on this.” 

Back to the numbers
Looking at the data I must wonder how the 35% of the respondents who indicated ‘never’ and the 40% of the respondents who checked that they ‘rarely’ experienced the misuse of power or funds interpreted the question and the response choices.  Misuse of power -or at least the appearance of same- is, I think, a given in an industry populated by imperfect humans.  And to be clear, that means every industry, not just the humanitarian sector, has misuse of power; it’s a matter of degree and definition, but it is there.

Methodology note
As I read and talk to others about the humanitarian aid sector I find that the concept ‘unit of analysis’ is sometimes lost on or glossed over by many. As I reflect on the above post about ‘corruption’ the realization that I -and because of my question design, my respondents- have further contributed to this confusion. When talking about ‘misuse of power’, this question should arise, to wit, “what is the unit of analysis being talked about: the individual, the organization, or the ‘sector’ in general?”  In the long comment above the respondent refers to ‘the sector’, as in her statement “One very prominent example of how the sector reports ‘beneficiary reach. (emphasis added)”  It is never possible to know exactly what is in a person’s mind when they write (or speak), but I will presume the following. It may be the organization’s policy to report ‘beneficiary reach’ in a way that seems disingenuous -i.e., ‘misuse of power’- but the individual humanitarians who follow this policy are only doing their job following the letter of the policy, perhaps disagreeing with the policy privately.  Although the question wording clearly states “Which statement below best describes your experience with the misuse of power or funds by people working for NGOs in Jordan?” it is at least questionable that all respondents, including the woman who that response, conflated the units of analysis.

The issue of unclear statement and/or interpretation of unit of analysis is common in the social sciences, and for that matter in much discourse about the humanitarian aid sector.  Inappropriate behavior (‘misuse of power’) by an individual -or an organization-must be called out, but those doing the calling out need be careful to be clear about the entity who is the culprit.

In the case of the Haiti/OXFAM issue, we see that it was individuals, not the whole organization that was primarily at fault.  That said, the loss of social capital by an organization due to actions by individuals can and does happen, and this can go both ways.  An individual may suffer loss of social capital simply because of the actions of her/his organization.  And, yes, it can be that both the organization and the individual are misusing power, and also that in real life this is rarely a clean binary.  But that does not negate the importance of appreciating the distinction in the first place.

As always, contact me if you have any feedback, thoughts, or good hummus recipes.

 

Overview of remaining survey data from Jordanian aid workers

More results from the Jordanian humanitarian worker survey.

 

Where we have been
In the past months I have presented and commented on the survey data from a small (n =86) sample of Jordanian humanitarian aid workers.  To date I have made over two dozen posts covering several major sections of the survey, addressing such topics as perceptions of the working relationship between ‘local’ and ‘expat’ aid workers, the mental health stressors faced by national staff, how marital status impacts work expectations, and even the ‘diversity’ question. My posts have been a blend of data presentation -numbers and graphs- combined with contextual comment and sociological reflections in equal measure.

Where we are going
In the next several weeks I will complete the preliminary analysis of and comment on the data in additional blog posts. Some important topics are yet to be covered.

Here are a few of the survey questions on which I’ll present data and comment on in the near future:

• “Globally, international aid organizations can seem to play a dominant role in shaping the aid sector as compared to national or local humanitarian aid organizations. Do you see this changing in Jordan?”
• “Which statement below best describes your experience with the misuse of power or funds by people working for NGOs in Jordan?”
• “In general, to what extent do you see a gap between donor interests and the needs of the affected communities?”
• “How does the gap between donor interests and the needs of the affected communities impact your work and motivation?”
• “In doing your job to what extent do you feel like you have the freedom to contribute new ideas, approaches, and practices?”
• “Do you feel that there is a need for an organization whose primary mission is to represent the needs of humanitarian workers in Jordan?”

What I have learned so far
As with in any branch of inquiry, the more you learn the more you realize that there is, well, more to learn. Deeper scrutiny leads to more questions.  I liken this to looking at my arm just now as I am typing.  I known that with even a weak microscope I could see cracks and fissures not perceptible by the naked eye, and with increased magnification I would discover ever more detail and nuance.

The same is so for learning about what Jordanian humanitarian aid workers feel and think; there is only increasing complexity. As I read through the narrative responses I am constantly struck by the fine distinctions that are being made and the very subtle -yet critically important- shades of perception that are expressed.

What I can say about the data so far is that the issues, opinions, and feelings of Jordanian aid workers sound very much like of those I heard from Filipino national staff.  Though each setting is very different environmentally, politically, and the overall presence of the aid sector, I have found a remarkable similarity of voice and tone when comparing the Jordanian and Filipino survey responses.

A look into the future:  Iraqi voices
The long term goal of this project is to put together a book similar to Aid Worker Voices, this time with a demonstrative focus on ‘local’ or ‘national’ aid worker voices. As I worked with humanitarian contacts in Amman on the current survey the decision was made to have one version of the survey in English.

I am now working with colleagues in Iraq to replicate the Jordanian survey, though this time we will make both English and Arabic versions accessible. Our working assumption is that an Arabic version will reach more respondents, especially those working in more first-line positions (drivers, staff working in camps, etc). We will proceed deliberately, making sure to alter the survey to fit the Iraqi context (more specifically in Erbil), and more importantly proceeding with the ultimate goal being to serve Iraqi humanitarians, presenting the voices they share with accuracy and with deep respect for the humanity represented in each utterance.

All for now.  Please contact me if you have any comments or questions.

 

 

 

 

 

The diversity question

More results from the Jordanian humanitarian worker survey.

First, a comment about status, privilege, and being ‘woke’
From the worker perspective, one very important factor determining comfort in the workplace is how accepted one feels concerning their various social statuses.  There are many statuses, both ascribed and achieved (and some a hybrid) that, depending upon the social context, emerge as ‘master statuses’ which can significantly color how one is viewed, responded to, and ultimately either accepted or marginalized both socially and professionally. Among these statuses are gender, age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, level of education, and outstanding physical attributes. Adding to the complexity is the fact of intersectionality, the complex and inherent interconnection of power and marginalization that impacts everyone either directly or indirectly.

Most of us train ourselves to see beyond the surface (to become ‘woke’), but the reality is that life-long socialization into using specific cultural lenses sometimes can make us unaware of some of the assumptions we are making about ‘the other’.  Recognizing, owning and then mindfully checking ones’ ethnocentrisms and various privileges is rarely a ‘one and done’ exercise, but rather a lifetime journey, especially for those -humanitarians, for example- who regularly encounter diversity in its many rich and complicated forms.  Those with privilege must constantly be not only willing but ever ready to engage in anti-oppressive practices and encourage same in all our workmates.

On a reflexive -and sociological- note I’ll add that having certain ascribed statuses can make the journey toward ‘wokedome’ longer and harder (but all the more necessary!).  As a cis, straight, ‘too male, too pale, and too stale’ person, I embrace that journey daily.  It should surprise no one that some of the earliest and strongest voices advocating for social justice and embodying ‘wokeness’ were women of color, all too aware of how their master statuses were at play as they navigated a life of meaning.

To be clear, privileges come in many forms, including (but not limited to) race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and nationality, and this means being from the ‘global North.’ Can privileges amplify each other if, as in my case, a person has multiple privileged statuses? Of course.

Kimberlé Crenshaw coined the term ‘intersectionality’ many years ago to help us understand the “complex, cumulative way in which the effects of multiple forms of discrimination (such as racism, sexism, and classism) combine, overlap, or intersect especially in the experiences of marginalized individuals or groups” (source).  Perhaps we need a new word to describe the complex, cumulative way in which the effects of multiple privileges combine, overlap, or intersect and thus amplify the power of these privileges in both individuals and groups.

The evolution of a survey question
One measure of the acceptance of diversity in the workplace is the degree to which those identifying as LGTBQ+ feel comfortable. When generating questions for our 2014 survey that reached mostly expat ‘international’ aid workers (and led to the publication of Aid Worker Voices) , J and I did not include any questions directly relevant to this issue. To fill that gap I put out a separate survey, with this as the main question: “In your opinion how accepting of those who identify as LGBT+ is the aid and development industry?”  See here for the post of the LGTBQ+ survey.

When I collaborated with Arbie Baguios on our survey of Filipino aid workers we used this version of the question: “Which statement below best describes your perception regarding acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trangerder, queer (LGBTQ) aid workers in the Philippines?”

See here for more on the results from the Filipino survey.

The Jordanian version
Early drafts of the Jordanian version of the survey had this exact question, substituting “in Jordan” for “in the Philippines.”  After several Jordanians looked at this wording it was suggested that there was a need for revision aimed at making the question more inclusive and also less direct.

We settled on the following: “A culturally diverse workplace can bring people with different beliefs, values, and behaviors together. To what extent do you feel comfortable with the different beliefs, values, and behaviors of your colleagues? Consider religious practices, romantic preferences, relationship practices, and other factors in your response.”  

We also decided to add this follow up question, making it a bit more personal: “Do you feel your beliefs, values, and behavior are respected by your co-workers including your international colleagues?”

The results
While most -75% reported feeling comfortable with the “beliefs, vales, and behaviors” of their colleagues, 13% indicated that they “don’t pay much attention”. In retrospect including this as a response option confused more than clarified the question, allowing for a safe ‘none-response.’ That 12% have “some discomfort with the different beliefs, values, or behaviors of [their] colleagues.” is significant.  Given the nature of workplace relationship chemistry, having any significant number of team members feeling uncomfortable impacts the interactional patterns overall.

The comments to this question were mostly positive, many having the theme represented by this older female respondent.

“We have “national” and “international” staff who hold different beliefs, values, etc. They’re none of my bussiness just as mine are none of theirs. We agree on the values that affect and drive our work, our organization’s values, and that’s what matters.”

A second female put it this way,

“As long as everyone is doing their job the best they can, and their beliefs, behaviors and values align with the humanitarian principals (they’re basically decent people), I feel very comfortable regardless of the specificities of their values and beliefs.”

There was only one comment that I would term negative, again made by a female.

“I find that as a female with liberal opinions i always have to keep my beliefs private.”

Do I feel respected by my colleagues?
In response to the second question, again a sizable minority did not feel comfortable, with 10% saying they “rarely’ are respected, with 52% indicating that they felt respected in ‘most’ cases.  In a perfect world 100% -as opposed to a weak 38% on this survey- would always feel respected.

Take away thoughts
All workplace managers are tasked with keeping tabs on the overall chemistry of their teams and, as part of that job, making sure that everyone feels accepted and respected.  A team that respects each other works more efficiently and, not inconsequentially, reflects the core mission of all humanitarian operations, namely facilitating pathways toward dignity for all.

And now for comic relief
International workers have feelings, just like everyone else, and those feelings need attending to.  Some may find this training video useful.  I will be using it in my sociology classes soon.

https://www.facebook.com/ajplusenglish/videos/230678020679839/

Please contact me with comments or questions via email.

You can access all of my posts related to Jordanian humanitarian workers here.

 

The mental health of Jordanian humanitarian workers

More results from the Jordanian humanitarian worker survey.

Suicide happens
I write this post in the immediate aftermath of watching the many tributes to American author, chef, and CNN ‘correspondent’ Anthony Bourdain. News of Bourdain’s suicide came just days after designer Kate Spade met the same fate.  As is the way of the news cycle, there is now a great deal of attention on mental health issues generally and depression specifically.

This topic is personal. Regarding depression, I can say ‘me too.’  It sucks.

Given the context, this post on the mental health of humanitarian aid workers seems timely.  As a blanket statement I’ll argue (the obvious?) that far too little attention is paid to the mental health of both aid workers and those in the affected community.

Yes, I know delivery of effective treatment is complicated and even contentious, and many HR departments do address this issue, but we continue to live in a world where denying stress, burnout, depression, and the wide array of symptoms of mental illness is far too common.

Change will come, and more voices being heard is a step in a positive direction.  It is to all of the Jordanian humanitarian workers that suffer from emotional stress now in their daily work lives that I dedicate this post.  May we all be heard.

Jordanians feel stress
As I workshopped drafts of survey questions with several Jordanians I found that the term ‘burnout’ was  unevenly understood.  The question wording we settled on was “Humanitarian (aid and development) work can be emotionally difficult. Some workers report having to deal with ‘burnout’ [burnout = a situation where the emotional impact or stress of your job negatively affects your motivation, performance and/or well being].  Which statement below best describes you?” 

The aggregate data are fairly clear, with the vast majority of the respondents -80%- reporting that their work is emotionally difficult and they have ‘some’ or ‘chronic’ burnout.  One female commented,

“This line of work is very demanding, long hours, weekends, very little support, fatigue, it effects the physical as well as mental health.”

Another made an interesting distinction, remarking that,

“My job is extremely emotionally difficult, but I cannot identify myself having chronic burnout.”

A gender difference in the data exists, and males -by a ratio of two to one, 22% to 11%- were more likely to say that “my work is emotionally difficult and I have chronic ‘burnout.”  

Probing into the data more deeply, I found that among those who described themselves as working primarily in the field none -0%- said “My work is not emotionally difficult and I feel no sense of burnout.” as compared a quarter -25%- of those who work ‘mostly in the office.’  Those who work in the field were over three times as likely to say indicate that “My work is frequently emotionally difficult and I have chronic burnout.”  That increased proximity to the affected community is associated with higher emotional stress seems clear -and predictable.

As exploratory research, the overall goal of this survey was to add nuance to our understanding of the issues and to raise new, or at least more precise, research questions. To wit, why does it appear that males are more likely to claim their work causes burnout, and in what ways does working in the field’ generate more of an emotional burden?

A comparison
The survey of international aid workers I did in 2014 had a similar question.  “Most professions carry the risk of worker “burnout” (as that word is typically interpreted). Which statement below best describes your views on humanitarian aid worker burnout relative to other professions?” The results then compliment the Jordanian data, and affirm other research on this topic.  A large majority of those surveyed – 71%- agreed that “Compared to most other professions of which I am familiar being a humanitarian aid workers carries a higher risk of burnout.”

The ‘helping’ professions in general can be high risk in terms of mental health, and being a humanitarian worker -dealing with geopolitical and environmental catastrophes- is inherently difficult to deal with emotionally for all but the rare few who are able to effectively wall off work activities from their emotions. Perhaps Alessandra Pigni’s The Idealist’s Survival Kit. 75 Simple Ways to Avoid Burnout
may be of use to many, even -or especially- for those working in the Levant.

Please contact me with comments or questions via email.

You can access all of my posts related to Jordanian humanitarian workers here.