Job security and advancement possibilities
More results from the Jordanian humanitarian worker survey.

Not secure
We live in a world where certainty can be a scarce commodity, and in the Middle East, especially in the Levant, political volatility inevitably leads to rocky and tenuous economic conditions for most people.  Jordan serves as an international hub for many large INGOs, and those employed in the humanitarian sector make up a significant portion of the entire workforce.  In this next section of the survey I examine perceptions about job security and advancement opportunities and, given the overall geo-politics of the region and in Jordan particularly, the results will surprise few.

To preface this section it seems relevant to note that among this sample of Jordanians nearly half -44%- had worked for three or more organizations. There appears to be a good bit of lateral mobility within the humanitarian work force, and many national workers have experienced the organizational culture within a variety of INGOs.

Very simply put, most of the respondents felt insecure in their jobs, with just over two-thirds indicating that “My job security is uncertain due to variables beyond my control.”  Many respondents chose to add comments to this question, and a common theme runs through most of them.  This first comment speaks for many, and points out the sad irony many have noted about the humanitarian sector in general, that an explicit goal is to rid the world of conflict and gross inequity and  “work ourselves out of a job.”

“Jobs in this sector generally aren’t secured and they’re project based, regardless of how experienced the person is, how many years the person spent as part of the organization, there will always be funding limits and one day most of the INGOs in Jordan might be out, and many will be unemployed.”

Perhaps looking more with a short term view one respondent stated,

“Refugees not going anywhere any time soon.”

Circling back to my previous posts commenting on the oft strained relationships between ‘national’ and expat’ workers, this respondent noted,

“The sector as a whole is unsecure due to shifting politics and shifting donor focuses. Also, I feel my job is unsecure due to shifting power-relations and politics in our organization. If we get more money, I might find myself replaced with an ‘international staff’.”

Of note is that females felt more insecure than males by a slight margin, 72% compared to 61% of the males.

Expat ceiling?
The next question probes the ‘expat ceiling’ asking, “In your organization are local workers 
encouraged to take leadership positions even at the highest levels?”  Looked at from a ‘glass half full’ perspective, the data could be read to say that most -70%- believe that leadership positions at the highest level are possible, ‘only’ 30% feeling that those pathways are ‘never or rarely’ open to them. The comments that were offered indicated a more sober, negative tone.

“‘A white person will do it better’ – International NGOs.” said one.  Adding more detail, a second respondent offers this.

“The senior vacancies are usually predetermined to be expat positions, therefore locals aren’t even given a chance to apply. The budgeting (salary planning) and all of that takes into account that a certain position is international, and the position would even have a different color on the organigram, it sends a message to the locals ‘there’s your limit, after this position you can’t have anything more’. Moreover, at many times I’ve seen that even when two managers have the exact same responsibilities, experience, and are on the exact same level, but one of them is local the other is international, the opinion of the international manager is heard more, respected more and has automatically more influence.”

There were several pity responses echoing this exact sentiment:

“99% of high positions are occupied by expats.”

“Most senior level jobs aren’t open to local staff.”

“Senior positions are locked to non Jordanians.”

This comment below makes explicit how some Jordanian humanitarians frame the issue. Though specific to one organization, this veteran male uses the frank language of discrimination to describe the situation.

“This question is at the heart of the discrimination/problem. As I explained in previous answers, there are levels where local staff are not allowed to apply to! In my organization only staff up to level 8 are allowed to be Jordanian. But the levels go up to level 12 (the country director) and all these four higher levels are exclusively for expats, with 8 even being mostly for expats and rarely for Jordanians.”

Limiting factors
The next question on the survey allowed respondents to comment on factors that might limit their mobility.  I asked, “To what extent do you feel that factors such as your nationality, visa status, or language ability limit your opportunities for advancement in your career?”

The vast majority -88%- felt that these factors limited career advancement.  There were comments on each of the three prongs to this question.

Regarding nationality, one said,

“I think it mostly falls under nationality, once you’re internatioanl then you’re treated differently, you get higher pays, more senior positions, much more benfits, etc. Therefore as a Jordanian passport holder, the treatment isn’t the same, I don’t have the same access as international people have.”

Another respondent makes the global comment that,

“In this sector you find favored nationalities regardless of the competencies in selecting candidates, which will block you getting an international experience that can help to develop your career.”

Specific to visa status, the bureaucratic and financial factors were seen to play a part.  This respondent notes this but also is vocal about the discrimination aspect.

“NGOs don’t want to go through the hassle of delayed visas and paying visa fees, and they don’t think nationals have the capacity to take big steps in their career and they don’t support the capacity building of these employees.”

The third factor mentioned in the question prompt -language ability- is perceived to be part of the cocktail of factors limiting advancement. This veteran female humanitarian worker puts it this way.

“It’s a rarity that non-English speakers get to higher levels in this sector. Even assistants and officers are required to have English language competencies and are then subjected a series of courses to learn English better so they can move up. Of course ‘Western’ nationalities have advantage over Jordanian nationality holders as you go up in the career ladder. Although connections and the country where you were educated also matter to Jordanians.”

Take away thought from the above?
The survey data that I’ve reviewed above compliments and extends the many interviews with Jordanians working in the sector that I had both while in Amman and via Skype since that visit.  Jobs in the humanitarian sector are frequently contract to contract, with many workers moving laterally -though sometimes vertically- from one organization to another.  To state the obvious, those who want to affect positive change regarding the perceptions cited above face significant challenges; there is no ‘silver bullet.’

The broad goal of further ‘nationalizing’ the humanitarian sector will at best, I’ll assert, more forward apace with the forces of economic and political globalization, and not much faster.

Please contact me with comments or questions via email.

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

Family matters & humanitarians

Married and obligated
The respondents to the survey were mostly single -64%, with 70% of the females reporting being unmarried compared to 52% of the males reporting same.  Of minor note, the females in the sample were slightly younger than the males, with 17% reporting being between 18-27 compared to 6% of the males.

Early in my research while workshopping drafts of the survey in Amman, marital status came up in conversation, with single individuals indicating they felt an expectation that they should work longer hours, and those married indicating the role strain of being a spouse/parent and humanitarian professional was quite significant.

I asked, “To what extent has your marital status impacted your humanitarian aid work experience?”

Here are the aggregate results indicating that while most -64%- said that their marital status has no impact on their humanitarian work experience, by a ratio of 2:1 -24% to 12%- respondents viewed their marital status as having a positive impact.

Breaking this down, 70% of those not married indicated that their marital status had no impact on their work experience as opposed to less than half -44%- of the married individuals indicating same. Digging deeper, I found nearly twice as many married people -35% compared to 18%- felt their marital status had a positive impact, while at the same time the data indicating that 22% of the married respondents say their marital status has a negative impact, giving meaning to the phrase ‘relationship status = complicated.’

Humanitarian voices
Here are some comments amplifying the numbers above. This first comment could have been made by non-married workers in virtually any workforce.

“In the humanitarian sector you are regarded as a better quality when you’re single, like it is in my case. However, it has a negative impact of expectations: as I am expected to spend more time than usual at work sometimes just because I don’t have children and my own family.”

One respondent commented  “Can work the long hours without feeling guilty.” underlining a positive spin on this sentiment.

Regarding the role strain mentioned above, a married male humanitarian commented,

“Long working hours, late night, working over weekends and extra work at home are all bad influence to the relationship.”

This unmarried female underscores a different dimension of role strain felt by those who must attend to their parents needs while living at home.

“Generally, single women are more “hirable” than married women, but single Jordanian women are expected to do the most work, stay longer hours until the work is done, our parent dependents are not included in health ensurance because married men are supposed to be more burdened than us.”

Respectable job?
History tells us that there have been Jordanian humanitarian workers for decades, dating back at least to when the first Palestinian refugees created in the late 1940’s. Over the years the humanitarian sector has become woven into the Jordanian economic and social structures, since the beginning of the Syria conflict has become an increasingly significant part of the Jordanian economy.

The next question on the survey asked, “How do your family and friends view your job as an aid or development worker?”

An overwhelming majority reported that their family and friends see being a humanitarian worker as a ‘good and respectable job.’  There was a very small difference between males and females, with females indicating by a slightly higher percentage that their friends and family viewed the job as respectable (85% compared to 78%).

That said, and again illustrating the role conflict discussed above, there are some notable complications as indicated in this comment:

“They generally respect my job, however, many locals do think that international humanitarian agencies are part of a bigger political agenda, and that certain donors wouldn’t have given money if they had no interest in the war in Syria in one way or another. Therefore, I have enocuntered many locals who think that jobs like this contribute to the mess in the middle east.”

These next two comments add to the conversation about the ‘expat’ versus ‘national’ compensation disparities discussed in previous posts.

“Everyone in Jordan now wants to be a humanitarian worker, even if they have never had any interest or background in this field, even if their values oppose those of the humanitarian work, everyone wants a Job in a NGO because its one of the highest paid sectors in the nation.”

“They’re happy that I’m in this field, yet they believe that my organization is under paying me.”

In my next post I’ll address the issues of job security and the opportunities for vertical movement within thew sector for national humanitarian workers.  Until then, please contact me here with any comments or questions.

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

Gender and #MeToo

Gender in the Jordanian humanitarian workspace
One goal of the survey was to hear both male and female voices. Overall nearly twice as many females than males -65%- found their way to the survey url and responded.  This gender difference has been present in all three of my ‘aid worker’ surveys so far.  Female Filipino aid workers comprised 64% of that sample, and in the ‘mostly expat” survey (with over 1000 respondents) 71% were female.  One obvious question that merits further research is why do females more than males grant the trust and then put forth the effort to respond to survey requests.

I asked, “To what extent has your gender impacted your humanitarian aid work experience?”  As with every other question on this survey, the responses below must be interpreted with extreme caution.

That said, these results are not what I would have expected.

Percentage-wise, males and females had exactly the same number -54%- indicating that their gender “has had no impact on my work experience.”  Just looking at the percentages, twice as many males as   females -8% to 4%-  indicated that their ‘gender has had a negative impact on my work experience.”  By a fairly wide margin -24% to 13%- females more than males indicated that their gender has both positive and negative impacts.

The comments below made in response to this question seem to contradict the numbers cited above.  This first one raises the question of context and underlines the reality that one’s master status -the most salient feature about oneself that people respond to- is a matter of social definition.

“Inside Jordan, my sex has affected my experience badly. Outside Jordan, it has affected my experience — for the most part — positively. Jordanian women are judged to have less valuable opinions and knowledge in Jordan. Outside Jordan, it tickles the white neoliberal interest that a well-spoken feminist brown woman from the broken Middle East is to be found amidst the rubble of the region. People like me prove the White Burden and imperial efforts have not been for nought.”

This next comment from a female lays out a view perhaps held by many women not only in Jordan but around the world.

“Females are generally discriminated against and there are major stereotypes, generalizations, backwards thinking, religious influences, that females have to deal with when working with men.”

This male respondent expresses well the gender sensitivity difficulties inherent in all aid work.  Earning trust in mixed gender situations can be a challenge for both males and females.

“I am a male, so unfortunately I believe that I am more privileged than women in some ways. However, my job requires being on a certain proximity from the beneficiaries when I am in the field and that I win their trust and confidence, which is more difficult when addressing a female program participant or beneficiary.”

 

#MeToo
I next asked, “The #MeToo (وأنا_كمان#) movement has motivated many women (and men) to come forward regarding various levels of sexual harassment.  Regarding your workplace and including colleagues, members of the affected communities you serve, and donors, have you personally experienced any level of sexual harassment at work?”  Again, the results are not what I would have anticipated.

The results above indicate minimal gender difference on this question, though I am deeply concerned about the three females indicating “Yes, including serious offenses.”  With respect to the question itself one female noted that,

“There’s no such #وأنا_كمان movement. Regarding the answer, I think most of what I have experienced can be termed better as “gender injustice” and inequality rather than personal sexual harassment.”

Another female commented,

“I personally had never experienced sexual harassment in the workplace and don’t know any woman who has (or no woman came to me with this), so I don’t have much to say about it. I think men get harassed just as much as women, I had a LOT of conversation with young men (20s) and A LOT of them had been harassed, and some even in the workplace by WOMEN in JORDAN (which was shocking to me because of the whole connotation that men are victimisers not victims). I imagine people won’t really know where to report to and lack of faith in that reporting system. I know [most INGOs] have an Ethics committee that sits in HQ which is an independent entity that investigates claims like that. I mean if I get harassed by a driver he might lose his job tomorrow, if I get harassed by the Chief of Mission I might end up quitting my job and nothing actually happening to him.”

The assertion that males get harassed “a lot” is at least mildly surprising, and the insight that “…people won’t really know where to report to and lack of faith in that reporting system” is critical from a policy and practice perspective. Messaging the existence of reporting pathways and making sure that those pathways are effective, fair, and responsive needs to be a priority within all humanitarian organizations.  Her last sentence points to the oft cited issue that men in power tend to get away with behavior that those on the margins do not.

More survey posts to come in the near future.  Email me with questions or comments.

“The difference between the salary scales for Jordanians and expats is MASSIVE, not to mention the benefits. Expats get -in addition to their basic salaries, which is at least double if not triple what a national would receive- living expenses, transportation compensation -even though most of them live within walking distance of the organization and it’s the nationals who live far from the office- they also have their rent partly covered by the organization, and their utilities and bills paid. There definitely needs to be more of a fair treatment, specially if both employees hold the same position and the same tasks.”

-female Jordanian aid worker speaking about compensation disparities

Jordanian voices on relationship between ‘international’ and ‘national’ staff, Part III

 

Context
In my previous two posts  (Part I and Part II) I have presented Jordanian voices on the relationship between ‘international’ and ‘national’ staff, and below extend this discussion reporting on a perennially hot topic in any industry, namely compensation packages and the ‘fairness’ thereof.

To start this post I’ll make three observations.

First, when people say its not about the money, they’re lying.  But they are also telling the truth in the sense that money is a marker for perceived value, and, unfortunately, I’ll argue that many of us fall into the trap of the failed logic that says money = worth. We all know that is not true, but baked into our cultures and thus our psyches is the idea that more is better, and that someone who gets paid more is more valued.

Secondly, and related to the first observation, is insight from ethological and evolutionary psychology research arguing our brains are wired to recognize and to react to unfairness.  Frans de Waal’s short video linked here tells the story.  Seeking fairness is literally woven into our psyche.

Thirdly, in a world dominated by capitalism and neoliberalism, compensation packages are going to be determined for the most part by two factors.  (1) Everything -including labor – is going to be compensated and valued as determined by the intersection of the supply curve and the demand curve. (2) Trumping the supply/demand factor is -and my choice of words was obviously intentional and a comment on the current US leadership- the greed and power factor where the ultra rich and powerful make the rules, including the ones on compensation.  The distribution of wealth in the US is not ‘fair’ just as globally wealth distribution is not ‘fair.’  Not by a long shot.

That playing field is tilted is not in question.

The question is we need to face is how do we respond to this reality with compassion, understanding, and a desire to proactively address disparities -whenever possible- that are overtly egregious and can be addressed by purposeful and thoughtful policy changes.  Dealing with the relationship issues between international and nation staff can be difficult, especially when talking about money.

That said, there are some very good insights from within the sector that can help guide us forward.  For starters, I recommend a close reading of this essay by my colleague J. One suggestion he makes is happening in the sector now, though not as quickly as it could, namely create more pathways so that “…national staff become international staff; locals themselves become expats.”

A partial history of the compensation disparity issue
A year ago when I was commenting on data from my survey of Filipino aid workers I included a good deal of research and comment about the compensation disparity issue.  In one post I sketched out part of the history underlying this disparity.

In short, there are two competing models when compensating staff in transnational/mixed national contexts. The so-called Noblemaire principle states that the organization (e.g., UNHCR) should pay everyone -be they national staff or internationals- the same based on the benchmark nation’s compensation structure. The Flemming principle side of the argument is just the opposite, directing organizations to compensate competitive with the local or national standards, as in the “conditions of employment are based on best prevailing local conditions.”

As the decades have passed, most large organizations have opted for a hybrid of these two models, most tilting distinctly in the direction of the Flemming principle, thus nodding to the pressure from donor entities to keep overhead costs down, in this case compensation packages.

As Kurt Vonnegut told us long ago, and so it goes.

Jordanian views on compensation disparities
The question asked was, “Which statement below best describes your opinion concerning pay and benefit differences between Jordanian humanitarian aid workers and that of international humanitarian aid workers doing the same or similar jobs in Jordan?”  Based on anecdotal information I learned from one on one interviews and from my Filipino research, the results were not surprising.  Most Jordanians -a full 75%- believed that international workers were getting paid more for doing the same job.  There was a gender difference in these numbers with 82% of the females checking that response and ‘only’ 62% of the males indicating same. As a note of comparison, in the data from the same question asked of Filipino aid workers, just slightly more -77%- believed internationals were paid more than locals for doing the same job.

Of all the questions on the survey, this one generated the most comments, many having the predictable theme ‘it’s not fair.’  The comment section on the survey directed them, “If you believe that international colleagues are compensated more that locals do you feel that difference is justified?”

Here are just a few responses.

“Of course it’s not justified. I’ve met local humanitarian workers who have excellent experience (equals or even exceeds that of international colleagues) yet they’re limited with the pay and benefits they receive. The benefits that the international humanitarian workers get are unjustified, at the end they’re supposed to be working to aid those whom are less fortunate, isn’t a big salary supposed to be enough? Why do they get transportation compensation? International health insurance instead of local? Housing? Per-diems? Great pension plans? Local people are living in the same country and are going through the same living circumstances (in terms of rent, housing, food, etc.) but they do get half of the basic salary and 0 benefits despite their experience or their knowledge. Worst part is that international colleagues constantly comment on the salaries of the locals and say that salaries are “higher” than the average salaries of Jordanian companies, as if locals should be grateful and appreciative because they got the opportunity to get paid this much, as if locals don’t deserve such salaries but international “expertise” does!”

“No, I don’t think it’s justified. I think it’s unfair. If a Jordanian is doing his job as good or even better than an expact, they should be making as much or more.”

“The diffirence is certainly not justified. The fact that international staff need to get per diems for every day they spend in Jordan, get free houses, get their children to be sent to best schools in Jordan for free means that the international staff has all their expenses in Jordan covered and then they have their extremely high salaries at the end of the month to save or spend on luxuries Jordanian staff cannot afford. This reinforces the idea that international staff are doing Jordanians a favor in being in Jordan and doing their jobs. Of course, held up to scrutiny, thier competencies or the lack of it thereof don’t matter much in this scheme.”

“Jordan is not a war zone, and life standards are good, so the expats are not actually putting their life under risk or compromising their life standards. Therefore, the additional benefits are not justified at all.”

To state the obvious, the data support the observation that Jordanians perceive a a compensation inequality between nationals and internationals and most feel that this disparity is unfair.

The data in this section of the survey paints a negative picture of the relationship between ‘expats’ and ‘locals’ that I suspect may not be the case in many organizational settings, though the voices reported must be heard.  What I see from my academic seat is a slow move toward wanting a more Noblemaire-like compensation structure where expats and nationals get compensated the same, but that movement is slowed by the blind rationale driving all organizations, namely minimizing the bottom line at all costs.

As always, please email me if you have an comments or questions.

 

 

Post updated 21 May 2018 with Jordanian-Filipino comparison data.

“I would be surprised if any national believes that “expats” don’t see themselves as superior to nationals, regardless of the experience or the grade! NOT all internationals though are the same, some are very humble and natural. However, condescension is very prominent among international staff towards nationals, whether in subtle, patronizing behaviors or rude and explicit ones.”

-veteran male aid worker

Jordanian voices on relationship between ‘international’ and ‘national’ staff, Part II

 

Tell me how you really feel
Part I in this series of posts explored the results from two questions probing the relationship between ‘international’ and ‘local’ aid workers.  A third survey question in this section regarding the relationship between international and ‘local’ staff
asked, “Which comment best describes the way your international (أجانب غير العرب) colleagues interact with you?”  The categories offered forced respondents to characterize the power dynamics in their relationships with ‘expats.’

By an overwhelming margin -nearly two thirds -64%- Jordanian aid workers felt that their international colleagues believed themselves superior to local staff, thus leaving only one in three surveyed thinking that expats see local aid workers as their equal.  The comments that some wrote add detail.  One veteran male aid worker stated,

“I would be surprised if any national believes that “expats” don’t see themselves as superior to nationals, regardless of the experience or the grade! NOT all internationals though are the same, some are very humble and natural. However, condescension is very prominent among international staff towards nationals, whether in subtle, patronizing behaviors or rude and explicit ones.”

This question -indeed most questions on the survey- force respondents to make broad generalizations.  In any array of humans there will be a wide distribution of traits, as phrased just above, “NOT all internationals though are the same.”  Yes, but those with the most negative attributes tend to be highlighted in the comments section of an anonymous survey.

In my previous research on Filipino aid workers the same question was asked.  Among those respondents ‘only’ 44% felt international aid workers ‘think they are superior to local aid workers.’

Ethnocentrism defined
This next respondent comment brings up some very real issues of perspective and even ‘competing’ ethnocentrisms.

“The majority of the international colleagues I’ve worked with have dispensed a sense of superiority especially because the sector’s structure places them in places of superior power. The opinions of “local” aid workers are less important, less “sound”, and less “logical” to them. They miss the very obvious fact that different people come from different epistimologies. Often times — especially in inter-agency meetings, people argue from totally different universes of discourse, missing each others’ point and ultimately decisions are made by the most powerful (international staff).”

How one knows the world -their epistemology- is guided by many factors, the most dominant of which is their home cultural context. In, as mentioned above, inter-agency meetings there is one language being spoken, invariably English, in many cases not the first language of many in the room. Though all parties may literally be speaking the same language, I’ll assert that there are important and even critical nuances in meaning that are frequently misunderstood by all parties.  We all know -but frequently forget or ignore- that languages do not translate word for word into other languages, and that shades of meaning are lost and gained with every translated exchange. Indeed, people typically are arguing from “totally different universes of discourse” and, given the power dynamics in the room it would not be unusual for the operative interpretation of meaning to be made by the international colleagues in the room, that is, the ones who most typically wield the most power.

Invoking here the word ‘ethnocentrism’ seems appropriate, and this exact sentiment is captured by this young female Jordanian,

“The international workers are of a community of their own, and many do look at locals in a superior manner not only professionally but culturally.”

In very basic terms, ethnocentrism looks like this:  If A ≠ B ∴ A > B; if some other person or culture is different from mine, by default mine is superior.  Its opposite, if A ≠ B ∴ A ≠ B, is how we all aspire to function, wanting to be culturally relativistic. As the Javanese told anthropologist Clifford Geertz long ago, “Other fields, other grasshoppers.” But being ethnocentric is our default  mode as humans, and it takes constant work to check how our cultural lenses are functioning in every interaction in order to achieve true cross-cultural awareness and acceptance, i.e., cultural relativity.

One young male put it succinctly,

“I believe there is sometimes a gap in understanding each other potentials and deeds.”

The “gap in understanding” likely comes from deeply embedded cultural assumptions being made by all parties and is being masked by the fact that everyone is speaking the same language, smiling and nodding at each other while simultaneously -though typically unwittingly- not fully understanding what has just been understood by the other.

Do international workers listen to local advice?
Given the results of the previous questions that paint ‘expat’ aid workers in somewhat negative light, the results of the next question extend and deepen this view.  The next questions asked, “With regard to listening to the advice of local people, which comment below best describes your international (أجانب غير العرب) colleagues?”  

Over a third of the respondents observed that “Most of the time they [international staff] listen to the advice of local people and try to understand the local context/culture.”  That leaves nearly two thirds believing that international colleagues only ‘sometimes’ or ‘rarely’ listen to the advice of local people nor try to understand the local context.

This comment called out a flaw in the response categories offered, clarifying that there is a

 “Difference between listening to beneficiaries (which they do), and listening to the opinions of local coworkers (which is not always the case).” 

This next comment repeats the common theme that in any array of people there will be those on various places on, in this case, a cultural sensitivity continuum.

“Sometimes internationals respect cultural sensitivities, and abide by the advice of nationals because they trust that nationals know better. But sometimes they come up with all their analyses and breakdowns of the context in Jordan/the Middle East in the most stereo-typically degrading manner and without much logic.

Again, comparing Jordanian and Filipino voices on this question is interesting.  While 64% of the Jordanian’s surveyed thought that international aid workers only ‘sometimes’ or ‘rarely listen to local people, the Filipino number for the same question was 57%.  The data indicate that by a noticeable margin Jordanian aid workers are more critical of the ‘expat-local’ relationship than their Filipino counterparts.

A gender difference?
In general throughout the survey I found that females were more likely to comment, and when they did comment to write more detail.  The numbers below are so small no conclusions can be drawn, but breaking down the data from this last question by gender indicates that more research in this direction may be warranted.  As you can see, though the percentages are very similar for “rarely listen”, males appear to have a much more critical view of the ability of their international colleagues to listen to locals.

Looking forward
My next post will hit on the perennial issue of compensation disparities between ‘expats’ and ‘locals.’  Stay tuned.  In the meantime, please email me if you have comment or question.

 

“Many of my colleagues are non-Jordanians. We get a long very well and respect each other. However, in general, the international humnaitarian/development sector places ‘expats’ at the top of the top of the power heirarchy and values their knowledge most, harkening back to colonial times I find. Jordanian women are often least valued in the sector. It’s a very much neo-liberal sector that discourages fighting back and speaking up especially on the part of ‘national staff.'”

-female Jordanian aid worker

Jordanian voices on relationship between ‘international’ and ‘national’ staff, Part I

‘Localization’ within the sector
Long before the WHS “Grand Bargain” in 2016 and in the years since there has been much conversation about ‘localization’ within the sector.  Any real change in how the sector operates necessarily involves shifts in the loci of power and, at the personnel level, changes to the relationships between ‘international’ and ‘local’ staff.

I appreciate and understand the implicit and significant oversimplification embedded in the cliche ‘expat’ versus ‘local’ binary.  That said, as with all cliches, there are elements of truth which bear examination.  The ‘expat’ versus ‘local’ reality exists as a social fact in the lives of many within the sector, and most certainly in Jordan.

With all that in mind, I report below on the first two of five questions on my survey addressing the relationship between ‘international’ and ‘national’ staff in Jordan.  The last question addressing compensation disparities merits its own extended treatment in a future post.

A note:  Semantically loaded and/or outdated as the words ‘expat’ and ‘local’ might be -as compared to the more PC words “internationals’ versus “national workers’- my informants in Jordan used and preferred this way of differentiating among staff.

On the same team
The intent of these first two questions was to get at how Jordanians felt about working alongside ‘international’ staff.  The quantitative results to the question, “Overall, how would you describe your working relationship with international (أجانب غير العرب) humanitarian aid and development colleagues?” indicate the vast majority -91%- feel comfortable working with ‘international’ staff.  That said, why do some not feel comfortable?

Here is what one young female wrote in the comments.

“I personally don’t differentiate in my relationships with internationals vs nationals. However, I am fully aware of the dimensions and the perceptions that (most) internationals have towards us (Jordanians/Arabs/”third-world citizens”), and that is what makes me rightly uncomfortable.”

Underlining what I mention above regarding power shifts, another said,

“Many of my colleagues are non-Jordanians. We get a long very well and respect each other. However, in general, the international humnaitarian/development sector places ‘expats’ at the top of the top of the power heirarchy and values their knowledge most, harkening back to colonial times I find. Jordanian women are often least valued in the sector. It’s a very much neo-liberal sector that discourages fighting back and speaking up especially on the part of ‘national staff.'”

This next comment adds to the colonial reference above, and adds a charged barb evoking the voice of Teju Cole,

“Other than the White supremacy attitude, particularly when working with a foreigner with amateur background, yet thinking that s/he is here to build the local capacity.”

Co-worker relationships set the tone in an organization, and tone can impact efficiency.  The next comment by another young female explains why attention to these relationships matters.

“There are certain instances where it would be uncomfortable, sometimes us nationals are excluded from certain activities or meetings (even outside of work, just for being a national) and it really affects morale.

One last comment offered by a young female provides a very different and positive perspective,

“They [international workers] are mostly very professioanl and help elevate the level of professionalism, and quality of work being delivered. Many Jordanians treat their place of work like their second home and lack professionlism.”

How positive are your relationships?
This first question in this section asked about comfort level, while this next question probes more deeply, allowing for a more nuanced view on the relationships Jordanians have with international workers.  Prompting the respondent to put their relationships on an overall ‘positive versus negative’ experience continuum I asked, “Overall, what is your experience of working with international (أجانب غير العرب) colleagues?”

The data are telling, and now we see a more tepid response with 71% indicating an overall positive working experience but with one in four -25%- indicating at least a mixed bag. Four percent described their relationship as negative.  As with the first question, the comments offered are illuminating.

A thoughtful young female made this comment,

“I chose that I neither have a positive nor a negative experience because sometimes I do have a very positive experience but sometimes this experience is negative, or even harmful. Some have great, necessary capacities that are rare to find, or/and they are very hard working and spend so much time and effort (evenings/weekends…etc) working which justifies why they’re hired. However, some of them have very little/irrelevant experience, get paid a ton of money and stay in vast apartments (all are benefits they’d probably not dream of in their home countries), yet I hear them myself talking badly about Jordan and making really awful, insensitive, racist comments and jokes. There should be a system to whistle-blow those and make sure they are immediately expelled!”

And then this one, echoing a similar sentiment,

“I have inernational colleagues who are open-minded, respectful of my opinions and culture, interested in engaging intellectually even when things are challenging. On the other hand, I’ve equally worked with international colleagues who are so blinded by their “Western” sense of superority that it renders conversations with them ineffective and work with them very much predictable and disempowering.”

These two Jordanians express a common theme, namely, some [international workers] are good to work with, and some less so.  In reference to the suggestion that there be a whistle blower system to call out racists, I’ll point out that growing empirical research indicates micro aggressions -death by a thousand cuts- can and do have both mental and physical consequences.  Both the efficiency of the workplace and the health of the workers are compromised  when marginalization -however subtle or ‘unintended’- exists.

How can the sector respond?  I’ll quote AidWorkerJesus on this one, “Fewer workshops, my son.  More wokeshops.”

That strains exist between ‘expat’ and ‘local’ aid workers in Jordan should be clear from the above. In a more perfect world we would have no comments like this, “Some of them are good people, some of them have hidden agenda.”  But just as indicated by the #oxfamscandal and #AidToo movements we know sexism is baked into the aid sector, it is the same with racism.

My next post will present data from more survey questions related to ‘expat’ and ‘local’ relationships in Jordan.  In the meantime, please email me if you have comment or question.

“Probably the reason I stayed in the sector is because I wanted to perform my responsbility towards the marginalized and act as a counter-force to the corruption, mismanagement, and injustices I saw in the sector.”

– Jordanian female aid worker employed by a large INGO

 

 

Why are you a humanitarian (aid or development) worker?
Even a casual read of the large body of ‘tell all’ or memoir books by current or former aid workers leads to an obvious common denominator.  Virtually all of these works address the question, “why I got into this field in the first place.”

In the social sciences, answers to most ‘why’ questions are generally complicated and demonstratively non-binary.  For most ‘why’ questions there is typically a hierarchy of answers, some more important than the others. When allowed the opportunity via open-ended comment boxes, respondents will, in various phrasings, say that their reason for doing something is based a blend of many variables, some of which are ‘rational’ and others very personal and emotional.

Here is the blog post I made a discussing the data from over 1000 (mostly ‘expat’) aid and development workers.  An astounding 72% (596 out of 826) of those answering the closed ended question “Which statement bellow best describes your primary reason for becoming an aid worker?” chose to add some elaboration in the comment box offered.  I asked a similar question with my survey of Filipino aid workers, and here is the post based on those data.

How did the Jordanian’s respond?
The survey question “Which statement best describes your primary reason for becoming a humanitarian (aid or development) worker?” allowed for four options and encouraged the respondent to elaborate on their choice.  Those responding chose overwhelmingly -nearly three-quarters- “I wanted to help the less fortunate.”  The second most frequent response, “There are well paying jobs in this sector.” yielded nearly 15%.  This response option was added based on interview data with Jordanian aid workers during my field work in Jordan and later affirmed by numerous Skype interviews as the survey was fine-tuned.  Given this methodology in crafting the response categories I had assumed -wrongly- that a larger percentage of respondents would have chosen this option.

Interestingly, a paltry 3% chose “I felt called by God or a higher power.”  As a comparison, in the Aid Worker Voices survey 6% chose that option, and in the Filipino survey 4% indicated similarly.

What seems universal in my three surveys of aid workers thus far is that they come into the occupation not called by their religion but rather by basic human caring and altruism, wanting to help the less fortunate.

In the comments were some passionate voices.  Here’s two, both by females.

“Fighting for women’s rights and gender equality is my passion, study and profession in life.”

“[My reason for becoming a humanitarian worker is] Really a mixture of options 1 and 4. Probably the reason I stayed in the sector is because I wanted to perform my responsbility towards the marginalized and act as a counter-force to the corruption, mismanagement, and injustices I saw in the sector.”

There was a mildly interesting gender difference in answers with 79% of the females indicating they came into the sector to ‘help the less fortunate” compared to ‘only’ 63% of the males indicating same.  More than twice as many males than females indicated they came to the field ‘accidentally or unintentionally.’

Like your job?
Once in the sector, do Jordanians report being satisfied with their jobs?  Overwhelmingly, yes.  Here are the data indicating that 100% of the respondent like their job at least moderately, with none indicating dislike.

A few chose to comment on their responses, and a theme among those was making qualifications to their closed positive ended response.  Here are some examples.

“It can be very hard and frustrating at times, no job is perfect. This one needs a special kind of patience.” 

“I love my job, but there are so many things that are lacking that can really improve my work situation.”

“I find working with children and youth is really gratifying, reinforcing their resilience and learning from them and empowering them to demand more accountability from organizations. I find it frustrating that the heirarchy of power and inter-identity policitics have shaped this sector in very negative ways and have — in some instances — rendered the marginalized even more so and more voiceless.”

This last comment by a female veteran aid worker articulates a significant issue, namely that sometimes the workings of the sector can have impacts which move the needle in a negative direction.

End note
I keep encountering variations of the word ‘marginalize’ in respondent comments, three times in just this post. Implicit in the word ‘humanitarian’ is that all humans have equal value, and to work in the ‘humanitarian sector’ is to be part of an effort to move toward a world where all humans are treated with dignity. Efforts that lead to marginalization are inherently racist, inferring that some humans are worth more than others.  I point this out as events in the Levant -especially with reference to the plight of Palestinians– indicate that there are many in political leadership who’s actions only serve to minimize dignity.

More results very soon.  In the meantime email me any comments.

Overview of the data:  Jordanian Aid Workers عمال الاغاثة الانسانية الاردنية

 

Overview
Just over a year ago I began researching Jordanian aid workers with the goal of contributing to the dialogue about and the academic literature on ‘local aid workers’ in general and in particular national aid workers in Jordan, most of whom are dealing with the humanitarian crisis generated by the protracted war in Syria.  See here for more background.

My research is based on (1) 23 interviews in person or over Skype with 11 different Jordanian aid workers and (2) an Internet based survey comprised of 43 questions.

A total of 86 individuals spent an average 15 minutes taking the survey, 73% completing all questions. Of the 43 questions, 13 were forced choice with no option for comment (mostly descriptive/demographic questions), 27 were forced choice with an option to comment, with the last three questions on the survey all open-ended.  A total of 278 comments were offered by the respondents, with 122 of those coming on the last three open ended questions.  Most comments were short, but several were detailed, offering useful insight into several issues.  These qualitative data will be reported and analyzed in future posts.

Who were the respondents?
The vast majority were aid workers and/or insiders with in-depth knowledge of the sector in Jordan, and virtually all self-identified as Jordanian. Most were fairly new to the sector, with over 61% having five or fewer years of experience, leaving 39% with six or more years, 14% reporting more than 10 years experience.  The modal respondent was female (66%), younger, between 26-35 (61%), and unmarried (64%). Worth noting is that 70% of the females indicated ‘unmarried’ as compared to a somewhat lower 52% of the males.

The vast majority of the respondents -92%- reported working for an INGO with headquarters based outside of Jordan (e.g., OXFAM). When describing the nature of their organizations work most -65%- indicated a mix of both relief and development, with an equal number -17% saying either mostly relief or development.  Jordan has been absorbing refugees for over 70 years, and most recently the six year (plus) conflict in Syria has generated waves of individuals and families needing aid.  The line between where relief work stops and development work begins is always blurry, both through the eyes of the aid organization staffers and those in the affected communities.

When asked how they spend their day as an aid or development worker, just more than half -52%- indicated a mix between working in ‘the field’ and working in the office.  Only 9% reported working mostly in the field while 39% indicated in the office.  That said, just as the line between aid and development can be blurred, my interview respondents said that the same holds true for the ‘field’ and ‘office’ distinction.  Only a small percentage of the total affected  population are in rural refugee camps, and thus the vast majority of ‘field’ work is done in and around Amman or in the other larger cities adds to that blurring.

When breaking down the data for this question gender differences did appear to be somewhat significant, with a higher percentage of  males working in the field and, just the reverse, a higher percentage of females reporting working mostly in the office (by almost double, 24% males compared to 47% females).

Lateral movement common
Given those data, the next question “How long have you worked at your current organization?”  had predictable results, with over 50% being in their current position less than two years.

The results of the next question surprised me a bit, and appear to paint a picture of the aid sector in Jordan as being somewhat fluid.

Just over 44% reported that they have worked for three or more different organizations.  In interviews I talked with several younger aid workers for which going from one short term contract to the next was seen as a typical career trajectory, the hope being that one of the positions would be more permanent and/or have clear pathways for vertical movement.  In between contracts other life options are explored, and for some leaving the sector altogether was a choice -a better job in line with their training, and for others it meant time for additional schooling (e.g., Masters or PhD level).

At least at first glance, the downside of this fluidity is that learning both the formal and informal norms and overall organizational culture of any aid organization takes time and resources for both the new staff person and those within the host organization tasked with bringing the new hire ‘up to speed’.  As a basic fact, high staff turnover tends to be inversely correlated with organizational efficiency.

 

More posts on the remaining data are coming soon. In the meantime, if you have any questions or comments please email me.  Follow me on Twitter (@tarcaro) for updates and comment.

 

 

 

(الترجمة العربية ادناه, مع الاعتذار لعدم الدقة في الترجمة)

عمال الاغاثة الانسانية الاردنية

Jordanian Aid Workers

The context
The aid and development ecosystem comprises one of the most important industries in the world. Collectively, aid and development organizations impact the lives of hundreds of millions of people in virtually every nation all around the world.  The literature on what some have called “Aidland’ is growing, but there is still a great deal left to be described about what aid organizations do, how do they operate, and who are the aid and development workers that are the connection between the donors and the people that make up the affected communities.

The voices that write about the aid sector come largely from the global North, and as one would expect there is a disproportionate emphasis on aid workers that are from the global North, commonly referred to as expats or ‘internationals’.

Several years ago I embarked on a research project focusing on aid workers around the world and, not surprisingly, the vast majority of those who responded to my survey fit the  stereotype.  Out of a sample of over 1000 respondents only 5% self identified as ‘local’ aid workers.  Indeed, the book I published based on that survey –Aid Worker Voices– could have been more accurately titled “Mostly Global North ‘Expat’ Aid Worker Voices“.

Eighteen months ago I began research intended to fill in the gap left by my first large scale survey, and partnered with a Filipino aid worker to construct and administer a survey of aid workers in his homeland of the Philippines.  The data and results from that survey can be found elsewhere on this blog in the section labeled ‘Filipino Aid Workers‘.

Now to Jordan
One year ago I began making contacts in Jordan, and established a partnership with several national senior level staff members at a major INGO. I was subsequently hosted on a visit to Amman to workshop with small focus groups early drafts of a survey intended for Jordanian aid workers.  After nearly two dozen revisions using the feedback from both Jordanian aid workers and fellow researchers, a final version was made live in November 2017.  On the advice of my colleagues in Jordan, the survey has remained open until now. Using the same methodology as my previous research, information about the survey encouraging Jordanian staff to participate was circulated using a variety of social media vectors.

In the coming weeks and in cooperation with a Jordanian communications director from a major INGO, I will be presenting and analyzing the results.  As highlighted in the cover information that appeared at the beginning of the survey, all summary results will be published on this blog and organized in the section labeled ‘Jordanian Aid Workers.’  In this section you can find already six posts that describe and comment on some interviews related to this research.

According to the Jordanian INGO Forum, JIF organizations employ over 4,400 Jordanian staff, and a more comprehensive count likely includes a total of nearly 7,000 Jordanian aid workers in various capacities. I have no delusions that the data that I will present fully captures the views of all these women and men.  That said, this exploratory research does provide a point of departure for additional academic inquiry.

Please know that in the coming weeks I sincerely hope that Jordanian nationals will read the results and provide additional insight or comment.  I can be reached here.

---

السياق
يشتمل النظام البيئي للمساعدات والتنمية على واحدة من أهم الصناعات في العالم. بشكل جماعي ، تؤثر منظمات المعونة والتنمية على حياة مئات الملايين من الناس في كل دولة تقريباً في جميع أنحاء العالم. إن الأدبيات حول ما يسميه البعض “آيدلاند” آخذة في التزايد ، ولكن ما زال هناك الكثير مما يمكن وصفه حول ما تفعله منظمات المعونة ، وكيف تفعل ذلك ، ومن هم الأشخاص الذين هم الرابط بين المانحين و الأشخاص الذين يشكلون المجتمعات المتأثرة.

إن الأصوات التي تكتب عن قطاع المساعدات تأتي إلى حد كبير من الشمال العالمي ، وكما يتوقع المرء أن هناك تركيز غير متناسب على عمال الإغاثة الذين هم من الشمال العالمي ، والذي يشار إليه عادة باسم “العمالة الاجنبية” او “العمالة الدولية”.

 

منذ عدة سنوات ، شرعت في مشروع بحثي يركز على عمال الإغاثة في جميع أنحاء العالم ، وليس من المستغرب أن الغالبية العظمى من أولئك الذين استجابو لاستطلاع رأي يتلاءم مع الصورة النمطية. من بين عينة تضم أكثر من 1000 شخص ، تم تحديد 5٪ فقط كعمال إغاثة “محليين”. وبالفعل ، فإن الكتاب الذي نشرته استناداً إلى هذا الاستطلاع – أصوات العاملين – كان من الممكن أن يحمل عنوان “أصوات العمال الأجانب المغتربين في شمال العالم” بشكل أكثر دقة.

منذ ثمانية عشر شهراً ، بدأت البحث بهدف سد الفجوة التي خلفتها أول دراسة استقصائية واسعة النطاق ، وشاركت مع عامل إغاثة فلبيني لإنشاء وإدارة مسح لعمال الإغاثة في وطنه الفلبين. يمكن العثور على البيانات والنتائج من هذا الاستطلاع في مكان آخر في هذه المدونة في القسم المسمى “عمال الإغاثة الفلبينية”.

 

الآن إلى الأردن
منذ عام مضى ، بدأت في إجراء اتصالات في الأردن ، وأقمت شراكة مع العديد من الموظفين الوطنيين رفيعي المستوى في إحدى المنظمات الدولية غير الحكومية الكبرى ، وبعد ذلك تم ترتيب زيارة إلى ورشة عمل في عمان مع مجموعات صغيرة في وقت مبكر من مسودات مسح تم إعداده لعمال الإغاثة الأردنيين. . بعد ما يقرب من عشرين مراجعة باستخدام التعليقات من عمال الإغاثة الأردنيين وزملائهم الباحثين ، تم إصدار نسخة نهائية مباشرة في نوفمبر 2017. بناء على نصيحة زملائي في الأردن ، بقيت الدراسة مفتوحة حتى الآن. باستخدام المنهجية نفسها التي اتبعتها في بحثي السابق ، تم تعميم المعلومات حول الاستطلاع لتشجيع الموظفين الأردنيين على المشاركة باستخدام مجموعة متنوعة من مواقع التواصل
الاجتماعية.


في الأسابيع القادمة وبالتعاون مع مدير الاتصالات من إحدى المنظمات غير الحكومية الدولية الرئيسية ، سنقوم بتقديم وتحليل النتائج. كما هو موضح في معلومات الغلاف التي ظهرت في بداية الاستطلاع ، سيتم نشر جميع النتائج الموجزة في هذه المدونة ويتم تنظيمها في القسم المسمى “عمال المعونة الأردنية”. في هذا القسم ، يمكنك العثور على ست مشاركات تشرح وتعلق على بعض المقابلات المتعلقة بهذا البحث.

 

السياق
يشتمل النظام البيئي للمساعدات والتنمية على واحدة من أهم الصناعات في العالم. بشكل جماعي ، تؤثر منظمات المعونة والتنمية على حياة مئات الملايين من الناس في كل دولة تقريباً في جميع أنحاء العالم. إن الأدبيات حول ما يسميه البعض “آيدلاند” آخذة في التزايد ، ولكن ما زال هناك الكثير مما يمكن وصفه حول ما تفعله منظمات المعونة ، وكيف تفعل ذلك ، ومن هم الأشخاص الذين هم الرابط بين المانحين و الأشخاص الذين يشكلون المجتمعات المتأثرة.

إن الأصوات التي تكتب عن قطاع المساعدات تأتي إلى حد كبير من الشمال العالمي ، وكما يتوقع المرء أن هناك تركيز غير متناسب على عمال الإغاثة الذين هم من الشمال العالمي ، والذي يشار إليه عادة باسم “العمالة الاجنبية” او “العمالة الدولية”.