While I want to stress that there are countless great NGOs out there, big and small, that are doing amazing work, there are also some significant challenges in terms of how the work of running an NGO is viewed, specifically by those who do not have an academic or professional background in the non-profit world, and see it as being much easier than it actually is.
There is almost endless work to do in the NGO world, and everyone’s effort is appreciated. However, not all people are equipped for the roles that they are in, and that causes problems. We can’t fix what we don’t acknowledge – so this is part of continuing an important conversation.
When speaking with small, new NGOs, one of the first questions I ask if about how they decided to start – and specifically, how much background research etc went into planning before deciding whether to embark on this journey or not. I have been surprised to see that there seems to be a perception out there that starting an NGO is like a hobby – something that you do on the side – with whatever time you have left your “real” job and other commitments. Likewise, the same thing often seems to apply to recruiting for unpaid positions (boards, planning committees etc) at least in my circles.
Working for an NGO
Lack of background research, skills, training or time should be seen as serious obstacles to taking on a role in a non-profit – but (especially if the role is unpaid), those barriers seem to have less weight than they should ie “Well maybe I’m not good enough at the job to be hired by an existing NGO, but if I start my own, nobody can stop me…”
Conversely, one’s strengths seem to be over-emphasized in many cases. For example, someone might say something like (slightly paraphrased for clarity and emphasis): “I might have no idea how to do non-profit work properly or safely, and have a different full time job, but the community where I’m sending money is so bad, that no mater what I do, it’s automatically a net gain for them. Therefore, I can do no wrong, and whatever I do is right, and nobody can complain.”
My (completely unofficial, not scientifically researched or proven) theory, is that this ties into a different pattern, which I have observed often: the idea that work that happens in the non-profit/international development space isn’t “real work” or is somehow lower value than work that happens in the for-profit space. It’s true that, decades ago, development was not what it is today. Even from the 1970s or 80s to today, countless academic programs have been created and developed, program planning and project monitoring is a far more precise and scientific process than it was in the past, and there is much greater awareness of how to balance local and external expertise, just to name a few things.
Despite all of these fairly radical changes in how development/NGO work is done, my view is that some of those old perceptions persist, to some extent. What that means, in practice, is that, when viewed through an outdated lens, is that NGO work isn’t “real” work, doesn’t need any “real” skills, and all one needs is an opinion (which everybody has) and the belief in oneself as a “nice person who wants to do nice things for others” (I can’t think of many people who would actively describe themselves any differently…”).
Somehow, we hold a higher bar for almost every other position. Ever hired a lawyer who never went to law school? What about your doctor or your kids’ teachers? We all assume that they are trained, educated and qualified for their jobs – and yet somehow the perception remains, in some places that NGO requires nothing beyond being a nice person with some nice opinions.
And that leads back to the earlier question: If starting and running a new NGO requires nothing more than being a nice person with some nice opinions, there is nothing stopping anybody from doing it, regardless of any limitations that might seem obvious when applied to any other field. Being a “nice person” doesn’t make someone eligible to work as a lawyer or doctor or engineer or anything else. Likewise, the same bar applies to NGO work. Of course, there are ways to have value outside of one’s area of professional expertise, and that has merit. However, on average, a bit more discerning is in order before jumping in to an NGO position for those who are not usually in that space: “If you would not be able to get this job in the for-profit sector, or for a well-recognized NGO, consider whether you have the skills to do it in the NGO that you are considering working for or starting.”
Starting a New NGO
Having addressed the first question – that of basic qualifications – the next question is that of starting a new NGO vs supporting and existing org. In general, based on all evidence that I have, the vast majority of the time, the best first step is to try to support an existing NGO that is already doing excellent work. This is especially true if/when trying to support programming that is not happening in the same geographical location as the founder/admin/CEO offices. The admin and program costs of running a program that is across the ocean from the rest of the organization is very high, and generally cost prohibitive for a very small organization. The flight costs alone, for the CEO or another admin to do regular checks on the program might use up the entire annual budget of the organization, with nothing left for actual programming expenses.
Beyond that, doing thorough background research will generally reveal that someone else is doing similar work somewhere relatively close by. Despite the objections that I sometimes hear (“There is nobody doing the one exact thing that I want to do in the exact village where I want to start, so I have to start my own NGO”), there is almost always someone doing something related, within a few hours distance.
What does this look like outside of the NGO world? It’s like:
– moving into a new neighbourhood and starting a new school for your own kids and assuming others will come (despite not being a teacher or principle, and having a full time job somewhere else), before checking with the neighbors to see which school all of the other kids in the neighbourhood are going to.
OR
– starting a new pizza restaurant in your city (even through you have a different full time job), because you want a restaurant that has your favourite topping, without talking to all of the existing pizza restaurants, or checking to see if anybody else likes your topping idea, or figuring out how to make pizza or run a business.
Supporting exiting orgs in their efforts to expand will almost always be more effective, and better use of donor money, than starting a new NGO from scratch. Given that, starting a new NGO, without doing adequate background research, connecting with existing organizations or getting adequately trained first – is likely to take donor funds away from projects that could have used them more effectively. The CEO may feel good about their personal choices, but far from being of service to the community, a step like this, if taken rashly, is likely to do more harm than good.
So what does this look like when we put it all together?
– NGO work is real work, with real skill sets needed. There is lots of opportunity to learn, for anybody who wants to learn more.
– Basic committee work can be done in addition to a full-time job or other commitments. However, starting/running an NGO is a full-time commitment, not a hobby. If you don’t have the time or skills to start a for-profit, consider carefully whether you have what it takes to start a new org. This is a serious commitment, not a hobby. The well-being of others is at stake – and that is a much heavier weight to carry than simply feeling a bit over-scheduled.
– Looking to recruit for a board or committee for your small org? For program implementation staff, absolutely choose people who love and are good at whatever you are implementing eg if you are running a camp for kids, hire people who are good with kids for your program implementation positions. However, your behind-the-scenes positions (admin, fundraising, program planning/monitoring/evaluation etc) are different.
The actual, behind-the scene work of program design and fundraising, for example, is largely the same, regardless of what activities the program actually implements. In other words, fundraising for a math camp vs a music camp vs an ESL program etc is not really that different. The skill set that you need, therefore, in your fundraising or communications or program admin position is not someone who is good at math/music/teaching. What you need is someone who is good at fundraising, communications or admin. So, if you are running a program, and you have alumni who want to help, they might be great ambassadors (“I love math because I went to xxx math camp”) but the same person might not be the best choice for a program planning position on your board or planning committee.
Founder’s Syndrome:
In essence, this is the failure of the founder (and the board), to hand over the organization in a timely manner, with an appropriate transition, and then allow the organization to thrive, without the involvement of the founder. Unofficially, 10-15 years seems to be the max that a founder can be at an org (in many cases, even if not all), before the transition becomes unnecessarily difficult. If a founder has been at the org for 20-25+ years, and organizational relationships (donors etc) are primarily with the individual (eg friends of the founder) – as opposed to the supporters of the organization as a whole, the transition to a new CEO will be very difficult. Ultimately, failure to plan for clean transition at an early enough date may be enough to result an a failed transition (where the org is unable to succeed with the second CEO and shuts down as a result.)
‘Founder Syndrome’ Can Take Down a Nonprofit. Here’s How To Avoid It Link
WHAT CAUSES “FOUNDER SYNDROME”?
All three parties (founders, board, E.D.) have big issues here.Founders worry that what they built will stumble and fall if they don’t stay involved. They may have identity issues (“This job has been my life – what do I do next?”) Worse, a founder may worry that the nonprofit will succeed without her leadership.
Boards worry about losing the founder’s relationships – with themselves (“We love her! We don’t want to upset her!”), with donors, and with other constituents. There may just be simple resistance to change (“We’ve gotten this far with these processes, or no processes at all! This is how we do things here.”) They may also fear losing the founder’s deep institutional and sector knowledge.
The new Executive Director wonders, “Why did they even bother hiring ANYONE? Don’t they trust me? Why isn’t my board supporting me? Can I go home now please?”
Link
“My biggest accomplishment is that when I left after 18 years, nobody missed me.” – Kevin Jennings
Link
Ep 17: How One Founder Avoided ‘Founder Syndrome’ – with guest Kevin Jennings
Leave a Reply