Articles

By David Bull

The emerging “crisis” facing International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) centres around the power relationships between INGOs and the communities they work alongside.

These power dynamics include the role of donors, Governments and international institutions. INGOs face related issues of legitimacy, effectiveness and media scrutiny associated with safeguarding, executive salaries, racism and more.

In this article, I focus on the options INGOs have to (re)structure in order to maximise their legitimacy and impact, while addressing power imbalances.

Finding your own way

Terms like “localisation” and “decolonisation” are frequently used but not clearly defined or understood, and often seen differently by various stakeholders. Each organisation needs to find its own way, based on its history, culture, goals and relationships and it would be wise to consult widely.

In response, some INGOs have moved their HQs to the Global South; some have de-merged country operations into independent entities; some have relocated functions; many have made their Boards more representative of the communities they work with. There is no template, and research about the effects of these decisions on legitimacy and effectiveness is limited.

Of course, just changing the structure without addressing organisational strategy, culture and values, for example, will not meet the challenges. I have tried to describe a typology that INGOs may find helpful to assist their thinking. There are many considerations any organisation may wish to take into account when reconsidering their structure.

Key Considerations

·      Accountability

·      Legitimacy

·      Power and Control

·      Managing Uncertainty

·      Technology

·      Governance

·      Employment

·      Balance of activities

·      Funding

Which structural options best address each consideration?

Structural models

Structural options can be organised along a spectrum from centralised to devolved. My suggested typology is organised into five groups: Unitary, Group, Membership, Partnership and Network.

Unitary structures are those in which a single legal entity controls all aspects of the organisation, normally through a single Board. Staff are employed by the unitary organisation, regardless of location. Activities are overseen from the centre and funds largely flow through the centre.

Unitary structures may operate through regional or country offices with delegated responsibility for managing local operations, but ultimate authority rests with HQ. A unitary structure may also operate through subsidiaries, with local offices being distinct legal entities, but be ultimately controlled by the parent. Subsidiaries could be represented on the main Board and may have authority to raise and spend funds locally and initiate projects.

Group structures normally consist of independent legal entities in different locations that share a vision, mission, goals and often a brand. They would each have their own Governance arrangements and normally be represented in the governance of the international co-ordinating body.

Members of a group may operate under a franchise agreement, whereby their freedoms are limited by rules aimed at maintaining a common brand identity.

A Federation is a group in which members cede power to a relatively strong international secretariat, perhaps in exchange for the use of a common brand.

A Confederation is a group of autonomous, like-minded organisations, each led by independent Boards, which team up to establish a co-ordinating secretariat governed by the members. 

An alliance is a looser collaboration between NGOs sharing some facilities, expertise and strategies. It may carry out activities or campaigns under a common brand.

A Membership structure has independent organisational members in different locations, normally making a financial contribution. Governance of common activities would normally be through election of member representatives to the Board of the umbrella organisation.

In a member-led alliance the international secretariat is controlled by the country-level members.

Partnerships may be formed by autonomous organisations to work together for a common purpose. Effective partnerships are built on trust and shared vision, normally with a level of equity between partners.

One form of partnership may be where one partner contracts others to undertake activities on its behalf, in which case there is less equity in the relationship.

A consortium is a partnership where organisations join to undertake specific activities. Many donor contracts now require INGOs to join consortia to submit bids.

A Network is the loosest structure, often lacking a central secretariat or common brand. A movement is even looser, having very limited formal structure, but where groups identify, and act in accordance, with the movement’s goals.

A platform is an online structure facilitating individuals and organisations to initiate or support activities (often called “clicktivism”). They may raise funds and have some organisational existence or facilitate individuals to transfer funds to projects.

A diagrammatic representation of some of these structures might look like this (arrows indicate direction of decision-making or control. Boxes indicate distinct legal entity):

Discussion

Organisations often combine elements of several such structures in hybrid forms. There is no “right” answer. Every option involves trade-offs (eg greater decentralisation may enhance legitimacy, but also reduce cohesion and efficiency).

Agility is vital in today’s uncertain context. Agility and localisation may be in tension. Resolving that tension (eg through communication, consultation, governance and culture) is key.

The following matrix seeks to place the structural models within a framework of agility and decentralisation, but placement of each model is subjective. Culture, governance and communication can alter the degree of agility of a given model. And this is only one possible matrix.

Conclusions

Given increasing challenges to the underlying assumptions on which (particularly Western) INGOs have been built, it is an important time for leaders to review how they can more effectively exercise their solidarity with people and communities facing poverty, exclusion, exploitation and crisis.

Each INGO must decide its own structure consistent with its strategy, culture and ethos. It needs clarity about its change objectives and to gain stakeholder support through genuine consultation. Whatever the chosen structure, each organisation must work hard to deliver its goals, focusing on power relationships, equity, diversity, inclusion, anti-racism, safeguarding and clarity about its approach to localisation.

Changing the structure does not answer these questions on its own. Working alongside independent consultants can help in many ways, not least in facilitating consultations that allow for a diversity of views to be expressed in confidence.

A longer version of this article is available here.

If you would like advice or support in relation to your organisation’s structure or governance, call Action Planning on 01737 814758, email [email protected] or submit your enquiry here.

David Bull is a Management Consultant and Mentor with 32 years as an international charity CEO. He has led four international organisations, including Amnesty International UK and Unicef UK. Now a trustee of two international NGOs, he is undertaking a variety of consultancy assignments, including mentoring CEOs, advising philanthropists, public speaking and identifying international development programmes for a major new global initiative.