INGO job titles reimagined
I was daydreaming. How would roles look like within a global* organisation committed to shifting the power to the Global Majority? What jobs would there be within an international NGO embarking in a just transition towards locally-led development and local self-determination?
I thought this was a worthwhile exercise in playful (re)imagination. So while they’re imperfect and come from my very limited brain, here are some quick back-of-the-napkin suggestions. (Note that the assumption here is that global organisations will continue to exist, albeit in a different form; in fact, I have always believed this — that is, in solidarity and cooperation beyond borders. I am a champion of local actors, but I am no reactionary isolationist. I’ve written more about that here).
Firstly, I’d scrap Business Development or Bid Development teams. How can organisations radically rethink their ways of working if they see what they do as, fundamentally, “developing” their “business”? Instead, I propose a Listening & Partnering team. Their task is not to chase donors’ call for proposals or impose bid/grant opportunities onto unwitting partners, but instead to listen. To look out for folks (not just traditional NGOs but the full spectrum of diverse actors — from local governments, local businesses, individuals, or even informal groups) who either desire assistance in solving locally identified problems, seek peers in mutual knowledge exchange, or are eager to cooperate with others in tackling collective planetary issues (like climate change). Listening — and I mean really listening — reorients an organisation away from an addiction to winning donor funding (and raising their own income) and towards finding the opportunities where they could genuinely add value and create more meaningful partnerships.
Then, instead of Fundraising or Resource Mobilisation, it would be a Resource Transfer team. Calling it as such captures the essence of their role: a transfer of resources from high-income countries towards partners in the Global Majority. The goal is to gamify the system: how can one play within the constraints of the (current, flawed) funding regime while ensuring local partners can do whatever they want with the funds? This entails not managing grants but managing donors — to keep their purses open! (Like “managing up” difficult bosses.) This can be done by, for instance, “translating” the work of local partners into the language of donor reports instead of the other way around (i.e., “converting” donor priorities into projects for local partners to implement). This also entails global organisations shouldering much of the financial risks.
I will also replace Project Managers with Enablers. Solutions designed by people closest to the context do not always come in the form of projects. The global organisation’s task is, therefore, not to projectise the work, but to enable local partners in solving their problems in their own way — whatever that way may be.
In terms of advisors, I suggest the following. A local Context Advisor, whose contextual (as opposed to technical) expertise from their (professional and lived) experience and knowledge can ensure the solution is contextually appropriate and effective. An Empirical Advisor in charge of evidence and learning (already common within INGOs) but paired up with a Critical Advisor, who can question the premise of the solutions in the first place (for example, they may ask if a livelihoods activity is actually effective or serves to promote destructive neoliberalism in the long-term). A Creative Advisor who can encourage innovation and experimentation. And an Ethics Advisor whose remit goes beyond what Ethics Officers currently do within INGOs (usually limited to procedural ethics — such as around fraud and corruption or codes of conduct) and who is there to make sure the global organisation doesn’t just do things right but are also doing the right thing (for example, dealing with questions around antiracism, or looking at how solutions may impact future generations). All these advisors will challenge each other and play devil’s advocate amongst themselves to encourage diverse views and prevent groupthink.
I’d also have a Solidarity and Advocacy team. Their role is two-pronged. Firstly, engage existing local collectives (or help local actors organise one) — such as trade unions, youth movements, or even women’s associations at the village level — to support the struggle for long-term change in those communities/societies (because it is mainly through such struggles that long-term change is achieved). Secondly, build solidarity between local folks in the Global Majority and members of the public in the Global Minority. This is in recognition that many problems in the Global South stem from Global North policies — think of arms trade or carbon emissions. More than working with government/political insiders (which is what Policy and Advocacy Officers in INGOs typically do), a global organisation should endeavour to align the preferences of Global South communities to that of the Global North publics. If people in the Global North internalise Global South folks’ preferences, then in the next elections, the former would want to choose politicians whose platforms also benefit the latter (instead of voting for those who pander to regressive populist politics).
Finally, and perhaps more importantly, any partnerships between Global North and Global South actors towards solving a problem must report to a board — not of experts or leaders, but of people representing those closest to the context with equitable representation of contextually-identified marginalised groups. Call it a People’s Board if you will (like a People’s Assembly). For example, organisations wanting to do something that’s supposed to benefit a population of refugees must report to a People’s Board composed of refugees, with representations from, for instance, women, children, people with disabilities, and other marginalised groups. This lives out the spirit of the slogan, “Nothing about us without us.”
*By global organisation, I don’t necessarily mean organisations in the Global North, but rather those whose work span multiple countries (wherever their staff may come from or be located).
