PositiveMinds | Positive Stories | Edition 057

Choices are an inherent part of leadership and decision-making, often offering clear paths forward. Dilemmas, however, take decision-making to another level. They push leaders into spaces where trade-offs are significant, outcomes are unpredictable, and ethical considerations are paramount.

This reality is well known to those of us in the global development and humanitarian sector. During the recent Pledge for Change Global Gathering on 5 November, I had the privilege of moderating a breakout session entitled "Navigating the Dilemmas: Challenges and Choices for INGOs in a Changing World". This discussion, supported by live survey results and an impact vs. control analysis, provided fresh insights into the multifaceted challenges facing INGOs today.

What is the Impact vs. Control Matrix

The Impact vs. Control Matrix is a strategic tool used to assess and prioritise challenges or decisions based on two key dimensions:

Impact (vertical axis): Measures how much a particular issue affects an organisation's mission and goals, ranging from minimal to major.

Control (horizontal axis): Assesses the degree of influence or control an organisation has over the issue, ranging from no control to complete control.

By plotting dilemmas or challenges on this matrix, organisations can identify which areas to prioritise. They should prioritise high-impact issues over which they have substantial control, as they represent significant opportunities for effective change. Issues with high impact but little control may require external collaboration or advocacy. This tool helps INGOs strategically allocate resources and efforts to maximise their impact and drive meaningful change.

Why these dilemmas matter

These dilemmas reflect the evolving landscape of global development, where INGOs must adapt to changing expectations, new partnerships, and a more interconnected world. With changing donor priorities, demands for localisation, and the need to decolonise global development (policies, practices, structures, funding), how INGOs address these dilemmas affects their own sustainability and the rights and needs of the local communities they support.

Identifying and analysing the dilemmas facing INGOs

Funding dependency vs. organisational integrity emerged as the most pressing dilemma. This tension highlights the ongoing challenge for INGOs to secure funding without compromising their mission or values. As they become more dependent on institutional donors, it is increasingly difficult to maintain decision-making independence. This challenge also influences other dilemmas, such as global standardisation and adaptability, due to the pressures of donor expectations. The Impact vs. Control analysis placed this dilemma in the 'strategic priorities' quadrant. This indicates that while it has a significant impact, organisations have some control over addressing it through diversified funding strategies and partnerships. However, this requires systemic change involving both internal strategies and external donor engagement.

Global standards vs. local adaptation follow closely. While global policies and frameworks ensure consistency and accountability, they can sometimes conflict with local realities. The pressure to apply one-size-fits-all frameworks can inhibit the adaptability needed for impactful, context-specific work. This dilemma is at the intersection of 'strategic priorities' and 'external pressures' in the analysis. While INGOs can influence internal frameworks to support localisation, they often face external pressures from donors and global accountability bodies that make context-specific adaptation a challenge.

Hierarchical structures vs. organisational agility is another key dilemma. Traditional structures may provide control and stability; however, they could slow down decision-making, thereby making it challenging to respond to rapidly changing circumstances. This dilemma is directly linked to the need for INGOs to adopt more decentralised, flexible operating models. The analysis showed that this issue is seen as an 'operational adjustment' with a significant impact for change. INGOs can drive this change internally by delegating decision-making closer to the point of impact and promoting leadership that fosters agility.

Participants identified other challenges that reflect the complex and evolving expectations of INGOs:

Short-term solutions vs. long-term impact reflects a tension many INGOs face: prioritising immediate, donor-driven results over sustainable, long-term change. While short-term results satisfy stakeholders and funding requirements, they can compromise deeper, systemic impacts that benefit communities in the long term. This dilemma requires INGOs to strive to create resilient, self-reliant communities.

Localisation vs. Centralised Control highlights the gap between INGOs' public commitments to devolve resources, agency and decision-making to local actors and the practical challenges of balancing local autonomy with centralised oversight. While localisation supports equitable partnerships and shared power, centralised control can limit the flexibility needed for true localisation. This dilemma resonates with the Pledge for Change's push for local leadership and the redistribution of power and agency.

Inclusive Governance vs. Traditional Power Structures reveals the ongoing challenge of integrating diverse, often underrepresented voices into decision-making versus maintaining established governance models that align with and support Global North perspectives. This polarity is pushing INGOs to rethink their governance and management structures to create more inclusive, balanced power dynamics.

Recognising the interconnected nature of dilemmas

The interconnected nature of these dilemmas was evident in both discussion and analysis. For example, funding dependency has a direct impact on global standards, as donor requirements often drive the push for uniformity over local adaptation. Similarly, maintaining organisational integrity is linked to promoting agility, as rigid structures inhibit the responsiveness and adaptability needed to achieve INGO's mission.

These interdependencies suggest that addressing one dilemma can have a knock-on effect on others.

For example, diversifying funding sources supports organisational integrity but also creates space for more localised, adaptive approaches. Embracing decentralised, agile structures can empower teams to adapt to local contexts, reinforcing the commitment to equitable partnerships outlined in the Pledge for Change. Transformative leadership can drive change that aligns global standards with local articulations and promote inclusive governance structures that strengthen leadership from the Global South. This multi-dimensional, cohesive approach is essential for INGOs seeking to promote sustainable, long-term impact while upholding their core values.

While these steps represent a complex journey, they are necessary for INGOs to continue their inexorable march towards relevance, legitimacy and effectiveness. The road ahead will undoubtedly present further dilemmas, but with shared learning, adaptive leadership and a commitment to the Pledge for Change, INGOs will navigate them with resilience and purpose.

A call to reflect and engage

As we continue to operate in this complex landscape, leaders and stakeholders in the global development sector must reflect on these shared challenges. Engaging in open dialogue and collaborative problem-solving can help INGOs adapt and thrive in an ever-changing world.

The Pledge for Change provides a solid framework that encourages the global development sector to move forward with purpose, aligning strategic actions with the Pledge's commitments of Equitable Partnerships, Authentic Storytelling, and Influencing Wider Change.

We invite you to share your thoughts on these key dilemmas and highlight any additional challenges you believe will shape the future of INGOs.