Ashley Lackovich- Van Gorp

Antioch University

PhD in Leadership and Change Case Study

January 30, 2012

Common River:

An Alternative Approach to Creating Change

in International Development

Introduction

This past September, I was working as a program development consultant

for Counterpart International, a US-based non-profit relief and development

organization. The Starbucks Foundation had released a call for proposals for

development projects in Sidama, a coffee rich yet vastly impoverished region of

Ethiopia. Counterpart had no experience working in Sidama, and thus I was

searching for an international organization with an existing project in the region

with which we could partner. I came across Common River, a small organization

based out of Mill Valley, California. I checked out their website and exchanged

emails with Donna Sillan, the Chief Operational Director. I learned that Titira, the

small Sidama village in which Common River works, is in desperate need of water.

Thus Donna proposed a water and sanitation project, one that would increase

school attendance for girls who often missed class to fetch water from the

neighboring town of Aleta Wondo for their families. Right now, Titira was

dependent upon hand dug wells that Donna’s partner and the Chief Executive

Director of Common River, Tsegaye Bekele, had dug. Those hand dug wells are

not deep enough to meet the needs of the community and thus frequently dry up.

Wait, Tsegaye dug the wells himself? Donna mentioned it casually, as if it were

the norm. Make no mistake: international relief and development is a booming

business and chief executive directors do not dig wells unless it is part of a staged

publicity event.

I communicated my interest in this partnership to Counterpart’s

headquarters. “This organization is different,” I explained, “I have a really good

feeling about this partnership.” I received Counterpart’s support, and immediately

emailed Donna. The Counterpart International- Common River partnership had

begun.

Two days later, I received another email from Counterpart’s DC

headquarters. For various bureaucratic reasons, we could not apply for the grant

and thus had to abandon our newborn partnership.

That evening, I sat to down to write an apologetic email to Donna,

explaining that our intentions were good, but the timing bad. As I began to write, I

recalled that Tsegaye had dug the wells himself. The statement floored me. I

deleted the few lines I had written and sent the following email instead:

Hello Donna,

Thank you so much for your response. Unfortunately, Counterpart HQ has decided

not to pursue this opportunity. I did thoroughly read your website and

communicated your experience and capacity to CPI HQ. Counterpart absolutely

remains interested in future partnership opportunities and we will follow-up with

you as those opportunities arise.

That being the case, I would like to offer my professional support to Common

River as a volunteer for the Starbucks project. With the appropriate support of your

organization, I am willing to assist you to the extent needed to develop the

proposal. All of your ideas seem appropriate for the Starbucks Foundation, but

more importantly they seem to address the core needs of the Aleta Wondo

community. To be quite honest with you, I am becoming increasingly frustrated

with the politicization of funding and the lack of donor/organization commitments

to the projects and communities. . .I’m sure you are familiar with the ineffective

projects implemented by organizations here for insincere reasons. Donna accepted

my offer, and thus I became involved with an organization that is an exemplary

model of leadership and change in international relief and development.

Goals of the Case Study

In this case study of Common River, I present the story of an organization

that deviates from the norms of international non-governmental organizations

(NGOs) to effectively lead change in a community as well as in the relief and

development field itself. I aim to demonstrate that Donna and Tsegaye create a

unique model of leadership that is based on experiences, a shared vision and strong

ethical principles rather than relevant degrees and former management positions. I

exhibit the effectiveness of Common River by examining key components of the

organization’s alternative approach in light of conventional, arguably ineffective

relief and development trends.

Method of Data Collection

My case study is based upon the testimony of Donna and Tsegaye as the

founders and leaders of Common River, my experience with Common River and

Common River’s organizational profile. First and foremost, I draw from the

literature that critically evaluates the existing system of relief and development in

search of improved development methods and strategies. In addition, I discuss

Donna and Tsegaye’s leadership vis-à-vis relevant scholarship on authentic, shared

and pragmatic leadership.

On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 I sent a list of interview questions to Donna

and Tsegaye. These questions aim to engage Donna and Tsegaye in critical

reflection on their inception of Common River, its development, their shared

leadership and their vision. Ideally, we would have been able to have a face-to-face

discussion; however, Donna and Tsegaye were both in California at the time of the

case study. Given the technological challenges of Ethiopia, I decided that email

would be the most reliable, direct and consistent interview method. Although this

is an impersonal form of communication in which privacy can be breeched, Donna

and Tsegaye expressed appreciation of this method, as it provided them with time

for reflection. The questions were:

• What inspired Common River? How did Donna and Tsegaye come together to

create such a unique concept and organization?

• In developing Common River, how did Donna build upon lessons learned

from previous NGO experience? Which positive approaches were utilized,

and which negative approaches were avoided?

• Explain the positive deviance approach and how it is applied it to Common

River.

• Tsegaye works in his native community. What are the benefits? What are the

challenges and risks?

• Sustainability of the project?

• Donors and NGOs emphasize "beneficiary buy-in" and "community

engagement" yet so few truly achieve it. With Common River the

community is engaged, passionate and empowered: how was this

accomplished?

• Common River is unique: it is truly community-based and Ethiopian-driven,

yet it maintains an international standard without major US government/EU

funding. How did Common River achieve what most other organizations

consider impossible? Which challenges has Common River faced, and how

were they effectively overcome? Which challenges remain?

• Plans for Common River's future

• Can the Common River model be replicated in other communities in Ethiopia?

In addition, I traveled to Common River. For two days I stayed on the site,

toured the projects, engaged with the staff and the children at school. Furthermore,

my work with Donna on the Starbucks proposal provided me with a solid

background on the organization.

Positionality

For the past year and a half, I have been living and working in Ethiopia.

However, while deciding a topic for my case study, I questioned whether or not I,

as a white woman from the United States, should engage in research in Ethiopia.

As Linda Tuhiwai Smith writes in Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and

Indigenous Peoples, “research is one of the ways in which the underlying code of

imperialism and colonialism is both regulated and realized” (7). However, at the

same she also describes research, when conducted ethically, responsibly and

respectfully, as a “humble and humbling activity” (5). Furthermore, Valerie

Malotra Bentz and Jeremy J. Shapiro write in Mindful Inquiry in Social Research

that “a scholarly practitioner is someone who mediates between her professional

practice and the universe of scholarly, scientific and academic knowledge” (66). In

order to examine alternative approaches to my work and ultimately begin

implementing more ethical, community-based and sustainable practices myself, I

realize the need to incorporate scholarship into my professional life. Furthermore, I

understand that there are ethical and respectful ways to learn and document

experiences. Consequently, after much reflection I decided to move forward on the

case study of Common River. I went into this study with full awareness of my

position of relative power and as Tuhiwai Smith indicates, it has indeed been a

humbling experience.

My career in international relief and development is marked by a personal

rupture of faith in the field. After spending over two years living and working in

Jerusalem and the Palestinian territories, I was burnt out by the politicization of

funding, the for-profit mindset of non-profits, the dependency of the people on

international aid, the ethnocentric and often imperialistic approaches and the

overall lack of transparency, accountability and integrity. I took a year-long break

in the US before reengaging. Even now, I am increasingly outspoken at meetings,

as I find the business of relief and development too unethical to remain passive.

Consequently, my negative experiences have provided a basis for the critical

questioning of the standards, strategy and approach of international humanitarian

interventions. The time I spent time assessing my own values vis-à-vis the norms

of this field inform my perceptions on the ethical standards of international relief

and development. The positive experiences I have had with other organizations

like Common River also provide a balance, as I know that my expectations are not

unrealistic.

In February, 2010, my husband and I adopted our two daughters from

Sidama. A Slavic proverb states that, “a mother’s home is where her children are

born.” My attachment to Sidama is intense, and perhaps can only be understood by

another adoptive parent. I support Common River professionally because I believe

it is an exemplary organization from which I have a great deal to learn. Yet I

support Common River personally because Sidama is my emotional home.

Consequently, I bring a strong personal component to this study, which provides

me with the passion needed to truly embrace and convey the story of Common

River. At the same time, my personal attachment allows me to examine the

organization critically, as I have high standards for any organization in Sidama that

I consider supporting.

Contextualizing Common River: Overview of International Relief and

Development

The modern concept of international relief and development emerged out of

the colonial era. William Easterly writes in his book, The White Man’s Burden:

Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good,

that there was an “abrupt transition from colonialism to foreign aid and benevolent

military intervention” (23). The Marshall Plan for reconstruction of Europe after

World War II ushered in the transition. During the next thirty to forty years, former

European colonies would fight for and acquire independence. Easterly writes that

while there was a global change in perspective on the equality of people, “a

paternalistic and coercive strain survived” (24). He also notes that the same

colonial conceptions remained and only the terminology truly changed, as

“uncivilized became underdeveloped” and that “savage peoples became third

world” (24).

In this postwar period, a host of agencies were established to implement

foreign aid, including the World Bank, the United Nations Development Program

(UNDP) the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s

Fund (UNICEF). The United States, who today plays a leading role in international

development, officially formed the United States Agency for International

Development (USAID) through the passing of the Foreign Assistance Act in 1961.

As a result of the establishment of this major donor agency, many NGOs were

formed, including Counterpart International (est. 1965). Throughout the 1960s and

1970s, international relief and development projects were created based upon the

needs of the recipient countries and communities.

Machiko Nissanke writes in his article, “Reconstructing the Aid

Effectiveness Debate,” that in the 1980s there was a “radical change in aid delivery

structure from project aid to policy-based aid” (63). Now that the majority of

former colonies achieved independence, aid became aligned with the political and

strategic interests of the donor governments and political entities such as the UN.

This is a change from the previous focus on the specific and immediate needs of

the recipient countries and communities. Subsequently, Nissanke states that

modern aid contains one of four policy conditions: paternalism (characterized as

donors believing they know what is best for the recipient), bribery in the form of

incentives, restraints in the form of conditions by the donors and overt messaging

that the donor efforts are sincere despite the political and strategic interests (66-

67). For instance, in 2005 the Bush administration pledged $15 billion toward

fighting HIV/AIDS. However, this aid came with paralyzing restraints: this money

went to abstinence-only prevention programs and would not be provided to any

organization that offers abortion services or counseling. Thus aid is tightly

controlled and aligned with the priorities of the western donor.

Today aid organizations and government donors have the collective

ambition of eradicating global poverty. During the UN Millennium Summit, all

present world leaders adopted the Millennium Development Goals (MGDs). This

UN Declaration was designed with the input of over 1,000 NGOs from over 100

countries and aimed to eradicate extreme poverty by 2015. Subsequently, donor

governments align their relief and development strategies with the MGDs. Easterly

challenges such large scale endeavors and writes that “$2.3 trillion later, the aid

industry is still failing to reach the beautiful goal [of poverty elimination]” (11). He

goes on to write that “setting a prefixed (and grandiose) goal is irrational because

there is no reason to assume that the goal is attainable at a reasonable cost with the

available means” (11). Furthermore, this is not the first time that the world came

together to end poverty: a UN summit in 1977 set 1990 as when all peoples would

have access to water and sanitation (now a MDG target), and another summit

in1990 aimed to achieve universal primary school enrollment by 2000 (a goal

moved to 2015).

Another major criticism of the aid industry is that the competitiveness of

grant applications as required by USAID, the EU and the UN have turned

international relief and development into an aggressive business. In my experience,

the field is increasingly cutthroat as non-profits compromise their ethical integrity

for funding. For instance, non-profits that claim to be nonpolitical will implement

non-neutral and political programs for government funding. Furthermore, since the

1980s more and more for-profits are eligible for grants, and the presence of these

money-making organizations greatly influences the overall culture of the relief and

development field. In the book, Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There

is a Better Way for Africa, Dambisa Moyo wrote that this environment results in

poor implementation and high administrative costs (7). Furthermore, he adds that

implementing organizations are “coerced to do their government’s bidding—

despite the obvious lack of relevance of a local context” (7).

International relief and development has had some success; however, the big

picture indicates the current system is failing. Moyo writes that sub-Saharan

Africa, the poorest region of the world, has a per capital income today that is lower

than in the 1970s, which is a shameful catastrophe for the field of relief and

development (5). Scholars and practitioners bold enough to call the aid industry on

its failure do make productive criticisms and propose a solution: foreign aid should

become beneficiary-based and should not fulfill political agendas. Easterly writes

that “once the West is willing to aid individuals rather than governments, some

conundrums that tie foreign aid up in knots are resolved” (368). Common River, by

focusing on the beneficiaries and maintaining ethical leadership and organizational

practices, does indeed pilot such an alternative, non-commercial approach.

Development of Authentic Leaders: Donna, Tsegaye and the Inception of

Common River

Donna and Tsegaye’s authentic leadership forms the core of Common River.

In A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about Studying

Leadership, Brad Jackson and Ken Parry define authentic leadership as “having

clear and certain knowledge about oneself in all regards. . . and behaving

consistently with that self-knowledge” B(117). Furthermore Jackson and Parry

note that “among the individual differences that have been singled out in creating

authentic leadership, personal history is particularly important” (118). Donna and

Tsegaye’s personal histories clearly shape their current leadership, as their

experiences have provided them with an ethical and practical perspective that

guides Common River. Donna began working in international development when

she graduated from Colgate University in 1980 with a BA in International

Relations. She entered into the field as the framework for foreign add became

increasingly policy-oriented. She first worked on a ground-based project to resettle

Southeast Asian refugees in San Jose, CA for the International Rescue Committee

(IRC). After one year, the IRC sent her to Thailand, where she spent two years

working in refugee camps. After witnessing the tremendous health needs, she

decided to pursue her Masters Degree in Public Health (MPH) at San Jose State

University. At the same time, she continued to work with refugee resettlement with

people from countries including Ethiopia, Cuba, Afghanistan and Iran.

Once Donna completed her MPH, she worked as a health intern at Save the

Children’s US headquarters. This became a formative experience, as she was

mentored by Drs. Warren and Gretchen Berggren. Famous for developing a

community-based project to reduce the mortality rate of children under five at a

pilot project at the Hospital Albert Schweitzer in Deschappelles, Haiti, these

doctors are internationally recognized for their unique achievements in

community-orientated public health. Donna considers this relationship formative,

as she learned that the only path to development is community-led.

After two years, Donna moved to Jakarta, Indonesia to manage a primary

health care program for Save the Children in an urban slum. She dedicated nine

years of her life to this program and then, after having a child, she began to consult

for NGOs working on child survival programs. Child survival programs focus on

curbing child mortality by empowering caregivers and community health workers

with the knowledge, tools and services to combat preventable diseases such as

pneumonia, chronic diarrhea, malaria and malnutrition. In this capacity, Donna

designed programs, wrote grant proposals and manuals, and conducted trainings

for community health workers.

Donna remained true to the grassroots community-based approach of Drs.

Berggren and made the Positive Deviance/Hearth approach the focus of her work.

The Positive Deviance/Hearth approach is an uncommon strategy that identifies

members of a community who are engaging in a practice that deviates from the

community norms, yet results in their increased well-being. The article, “The

Power of Positive Deviance,” written by a group comprised of practitioners and

scholars, states that these deviant behaviors can be replicated as they are likely

“affordable, acceptable and sustainable because they are already practiced by at-

risk people, they do not conflict with local culture, and they work” (1177). Donna

has become a leading expert on this approach and has published widely on topic,

including the 2003 manual, “Positive Deviance/Hearth: A Resource Guide for

Sustainably Rehabilitating Malnourished Children.” This guide notes that “in

traditional programs that rely on external food resources and paid health providers,

the children often relapse into their previous malnourished state as soon as the

feeding sessions are over” (6). Since the Positive Deviance approach focuses on

utilizing existing efforts and means, there is no risk of running out of resources. In

our correspondence, Donna described her experience implementing the Positive

Deviance/Hearth approach in over 35 countries. She affirmed the success of the

strategy, noting that:

clearly malnutrition could be solved at the hands of mothers, not by food

hand outs. Babies could thrive at the center of a village without outside

clinicians. Mothers could be living examples for others to model without

necessary educators. The positive change that positive/deviance hearth

brought was like a pebble in the pond, rippling out with a self sustaining

force.

Donna has become an expert trainer in Positive Deviance/Hearth approach to

malnutrition throughout Africa and Asia. She implemented the strategy for over 15

different NGOs and UN agencies, including Oxfam, Care and UNICEF.

Having acquired this wealth of experience, Donna decided that she wanted

to expand the Positive Deviance/Hearth approach to community development. In

our interview, she noted that the current international relief and development

model is not working: “Over three billion dollars have been donated to Africa, and

sadly poverty levels have worsened.” In addition, she explained that the current

model of relief and development “has exhausted itself with failure.” The approach

of donor and policy oriented strategies “does not address and remedy the core

issues that have created the conditions systemically. It is like treating cancer with a

band-aid.” She proposed the Positive Deviance/Hearth approach because it is “an

inside-out tactic. It goes to the heart of the community and zeroes in on a

community member that is thriving in some way, whether it is raising healthy

babies, running a small business, or continuing an education.”

In 2006 she traveled abroad to Ethiopia to help a friend adopt two children.

She later became their godmother, and “felt compelled to do something to help

[her godchildren’s] village.” This same year, she was introduced to Tsegaye by a

mutual friend. In their initial conversation, they discovered that Donna’s

godchildren and Tsegaye come from the same village in Ethiopia. This connection

seemed to go beyond coincidence and was the very beginning of Common River.

Tsegaye was born and raised in the town of Aleta Wondo, Ethiopia. He left

his country in 1964 after graduating from an American boarding high school in

Addis Ababa. He attended the University of Maryland in Berlin, Germany, where

he spent six years and obtained a BA in agriculture and sociology. After graduating

in 1974 he confesses that he “wanted desperately to return home and made it all the

way to Kenya.” However, in 1974 the Emperor Haile Selassie’s reign in Ethiopia

came to a violent end with the instatement of the Derg, a one-party communist

military dictatorship. The violent military campaigns, the forced deportation of

citizens and the use of hunger to control the masses kept Tsegaye from entering his

country. He stayed in Kenya, where he witnessed the effects of the new Ethiopian

politics and “faced a flood of Ethiopian refugees.” He spent a year in Nairobi

working with the refugees, arranging for housing in Kenya and/or resettling others

abroad.

After his experience in Kenya, Tsegaye decided to visit friends and relatives

in the US, where he started his own successful contracting business. In 2003, after

working for 40 years in the US, he decided to visit his hometown in Ethiopia for

the first time since he left. When he went to Aleta Wondo, he says that he was

“shocked at the poverty.” In the 2007 article, “Mill Valley residents organize to

help Ethiopian village,” Tsegaye described visiting one of the schools he attended

as a young child. "They were still using the same blackboard when I was there," he

is quoted in the article, "And they only had two shelves of books and they were all

from the 1940s. They're so thirsty for knowledge.”

As Donna and Tsegaye got to know each other, they realized that they “held

the same dreams and had chosen the same little town.” They decided to build on

their respective strengths to develop a non-profit organization that would model an

alternative path to development. In 2007, they traveled to Ethiopia together to

conduct a feasibility study by speaking directly with children, parents, elders,

government officials, teachers, businessmen, religious leaders and farmers. The

grassroots study revealed that, across the board, everyone prioritized education.

Tsegaye and Donna returned to the US and registered Common River as a 501c3.

They held an initial community awareness event in their home town of Mill

Valley, California and raised enough funds to start a one-room schoolhouse.

Tsegaye reclaimed his family’s property in Titera3 from the government and

donated those 20 acres to Common River. The organization was established, and

their efforts had begun.

Donna and Tsegaye practice authentic leadership. Jackson and Parry define

authentic leadership as having a “clear and certain knowledge about oneself. . . and

behaving consistently with that self-knowledge” (117). Donna and Tsegaye

acquired this self-awareness through their life experiences. Jackson and Parry

continue that “authentic leaders’ interpretation of events in their past are predicted

to create a personal meaning system” (118). Donna’s mentorship experience and

grassroots work inform her worldview that communities must lead their own

development. The tragedy of Tsegaye’s homeland, his effort to help Ethiopian

refugees, and the shock he experienced when he returned to Aleta Wondo provide

Tsegaye with a genuine desire to create change. They are both fully aware of what

drives their work, and they realize that their personal knowledge informs their

decisions and joint leadership of Common River. They understand their values vis-

à-vis relief and development, and they bounce their decisions off of these values

before implemention. This is what differentiates Donna and Tsegaye from typical

non-profit leaders in this field: Donna and Tsegaye act according to their

experience-based personal convictions and not political goals.

Common River

In forming Common River, Donna and Tsegaye were taking a risk. Tsegaye had no

previous experience in international development. He was largely unaware of the

politics, bureaucracy and challenges that accompany fundraising, project

implementation and oversight. He admits that he “was jumping into the deep end.”

Donna, on the other hand, could not have been more experienced with the field. As

a consultant, she was able to avoid “all office politics and administrative tasks and

simply do her ‘thing,’ which was ‘pure program’ content.” As time went on in her

career, she began to feel more and more isolated from her work as she found

herself parachuting in and out of situations and distanced from the people. She was

a part of the model that she questioned, and knew that it was time she took

concrete action to create change through Common River.

Four years after its inception, the following are select achievements of Common

River:

I. EDUCATION:

• Built a three classroom school, a library, cultural hut and pavilion and sports

fields

• Enrolled 135 first through third graders

• Used the school in the evening as a Women’s Learning Center, with 140

enrolled in female literacy classes

• Formed a Sidama Senior Council to transmit cultural heritage to CR students

II. HEALTH:

Nutrition:

• School lunch program: 150 people fed a hot meal 5 days a week

• Planted a school garden to grow produce for the lunches

• Animal husbandry for the dairy products (6 cows).

• Nutrition Training for Common River staff (diversified diets).

• Family planning training for women

• Hygiene and sanitation education in the school

• One well is for community use, for drinking and laundry

Water and Sanitation:

• Dug 5 wells: installed one with a bicycle wheel hand-pump

• Built a hand-foot-teeth washing station, supply soap

• University of Texas Medical School Program: 8 students and a supervisor

professor MD visit Common River each summer to provide free care

• Community health survey on Water and Sanitation conducted in June 2011

• Bring medicines for treating patients at the health center and within the

community

• Put gutters and water containers to catch rain water off of roofs

• Built 6 latrines at the school

• Male guards haul water for the female kitchen staff

III. LIVELIHOODS

• Worked with local coffee farmers to direct trade their coffee under a US-based

LLC called Aleta Wondo Coffee. Sold in Whole Foods markets and on-line

• Planted 1,500 coffee trees on the property

From the start, Common River can be differentiated from mainstream relief and

development organizations by the following distinct characteristics:

Community-Determined Projects and Positive Deviance

Most international relief and development organizations predetermine their

interventions according to government policies and related strategies such as the

MGDs. Yet as Easterly writes, “aid agencies cannot end world poverty, but they

can do many useful things to meet the desperate needs of the poor” (11). Instead of

setting out to be part of the global coalition to end poverty and inequality,

Common River aimed to directly respond to the needs of one community. Donna

and Tsegaye, as the leaders of the organization, traveled to Aleta Wondo and Titera

to conduct a needs assessment themselves. The leaders of Common River did not

rely on a team of consultants to conduct a highly complex needs assessment, but

rather they simplified the process by directly asking the people to convey their

needs. Many of the larger aid agencies do speak with community members during

an assessment; however, the bulk of the assessment is comprised of molding the

situation to the pre-existing project goals and development framework. Easterly

writes that aid agencies “satisfy the rich countries doing the funding as well as (or

instead of) the poor” (167). Most western governments currently do not have

funding opportunities for small-scale education projects in Sidama and this would

deter most agencies from taking on an educational project; however, that is

irrelevant to Common River. Donna’s experience in relief and development allows

her to clearly articulate the difference: “Most of the big NGOs practice top-down

development. Common River bases the program on bottom-up development

percolated from the grass-roots.” She adds that “the funding [of the big NGOs] is

donor-driven and dictated. . . Common River’s program is community driven.”

Furthermore, many agencies rely on best practices, or strategies and methods

that they claim have been proven to be the most effective. Donna notes that these

best practices are “not always applicable to every community.” Consequently,

Donna and Tsegaye based their assessment on direct interviews and experiences

with the people. No development plans could override what the community

members said. Easterly agrees that this simple approach is the best road to success.

He writes: “Throw into the trashcan all the comprehensive frameworks, central

plans, and worldwide goals,” he writes. “Just respond to each local situation

according to what people in that situation need and want” (206).

In connection with the hands-on and interview-based assessment, Donna and

Tsegaye sought out the positive deviant behaviors present in the community. For

instance, in order to help the students achieve, Donna says that “Common River

looks at children who are doing well. . . and identifies what behaviors are practiced

at home to allow them to thrive at school. This is shared with the rest of the student

body.” Most aid agencies would not be concerned with the performance of the

children: the tangible result of a school building is enough to check off a result

box. Even the few who would concern themselves with the children’s progress

would focus on the reasons for the underachievement rather than looking at the

successful children as a model. Donna and Tsegaye believe that the community can

increase their own well-being. As long as one community member is doing well,

there is hope for everyone.

Indigenous Leadership Coupled with Experienced Leadership

Most international relief and development organizations are led by highly

experienced westerners. Yet Tsegaye holds the top position in Common River.

Donna notes that he knows “both cultures and is able to bridge them with his

American experience and Ethiopian upbringing.” Although he has spent most of

his life abroad, his knowledge of Amharic and Sidama (the local language), his

well-known family history, and his intrinsic and indisputable tie to Aleta Wondo

give him an in-depth perspective, intricate understanding and unique ability to

work with the people. He understands the community’s perspective, as he too is

from Titera. This affects the community’s perception of Tsegaye as well. As

Jackson and Parry write, “both the identity and influence of leaders depend to a

large extent on the manner in which their followers perceive them” (53). Tsegaye

is perceived as a member of the community and the community members accept

him.

Although Tsegaye is at the top of the organization, the leadership is shared.

Jackson and Parry define shared leadership as “the notion that the responsibility for

guiding a group can rotate among its members, depending on the demands of the

situation and the particular skills and resources required” (61). While Tsegaye is

the head of the organization, he can pass the leadership to Donna when technical

relief and development skills are needed. Unlike in typical executive positions in

international relief and development, neither Donna nor Tsegaye feels threatened

by the other. Instead, they feel that the organization benefits from their collective

knowledge, skills and capacity. This combination allows Common River to

maintain both professional and ethical standards.

At the implementing level, all Common River staff are local community

members. This presented a challenge, as Donna and Tsegaye went through many

employees who took advantage of finances and representation. However, they did

not retreat to hiring an international manager or even non-local Ethiopian. They

continued to search and try new employees until they created a team of committed

local individuals who share the Common River vision. Donna and Tsegaye’s

authentic leadership also helps in this regard, as Jackson and Parry write that

followers of authentic leaders tend to “exert greater effort, engage in more

organizational citizenship behavior and enjoy better work performance” (118). My

personal experience visiting Common River is that the current and quite dedicated

staff are indeed benefiting from this unique leadership team.

Focus on the Marginalized

The policy-driven approach to international relief and development often

overlooks the most marginalized members of society. For instance, in 2009 USAID

launched the global Feed the Future (FtF) initiative to reduce food insecurity. In

Ethiopia, this strategy divides the country into three sections: pastoral, productive

and hungry. Rather than focusing on hungry or pastoral Ethiopia, areas in which

food insecurity is a chronic problem and malnutrition is common, FtF focuses on

productive Ethiopia to promote its US market interests. Furthermore, this

deliberate division of Ethiopia on a western map has an imperialist undertone

reflective of colonial exploitative labels that, like the FtF labels, were developed

and imposed according to western judgment. Common River takes the opposite

approach and aims to provide services to those in most dire need. In addition to

building and running a school for children who would not be able to attend school

due to lack of resources, Common River provides a home for 23 orphans who are

enrolled at the school. There is neither labeling nor dividing of the community, but

rather Common River aims to reach those who are isolated from services and

integrate them into the community through education. Common River focuses on

giving a voice to three specific marginalized groups: children, elders and women.

The children, as the main beneficiaries, provide feedback directly to Donna and

Tsegaye on the program and local staff. This may sound trivial, but aid agencies do

not ask beneficiaries if their efforts are working, but rather they evaluate the

success of their own programs themselves. At best, some donors require external

evaluators, who themselves represent the standardized policy-based aid delivery

system. Easterly writes, “Is aid reaching the poor? Well, let the agents of foreign

assistance ask them” (381). Furthermore, Donna and Tsegaye motivate the children

to dream and make goals. To a western audience this may seem unimportant, but

dreams and goals are common life skill and pathway out of poverty. Common

River facilitated the formation of a Senior Council that meets weekly at the

Common River site in the specific Elder’s Hut to discuss cultural programming

while sharing a traditional Sidama meal. The Council provides traditional story-

telling to the students and organizes cultural events such as a rain-making

ceremony and the Sidama New Year celebration. Women and girls are also

assigned priority as a group with more limited access to services. 140 women

participate in the female literacy program. Girl children are given enrollment

priority in the school, and Common River hires female staff equally. Women also

directly request programming, such as family planning and nutrition, which is then

implemented by Common River.

Fundraising and Budgets: Lean is Mean

The overwhelming majority of international relief and development

organizations are funded by government entities such as USAID, the EU and the

UN. Common River has no government funding. This does have many

disadvantages, as these are the agencies with the majority of the funds. Donna and

Tsegaye note that, as an emerging, small NGO “trying to build up from crawling to

walking,” donors are less likely to fund the organization. Common River “has

grown organically from small donations” and thus has struggled with money since

its inception. However, Donna admits that as a result:

Each dollar donated is spent as wisely and stretched to its maximum

capacity for the greatest impact. This has truly made the organization realize

its true values and decide what is important. It keeps them on the constant

edge of values clarification. With a huge input of large funds, the program

would not have developed through as thoughtfully nor in an incremental

manner.

Common River received a grant from the Christensen Fund for biodiversity and

cultural heritage and is continuing to apply for grants. However, the main

fundraising strategy has been, like the organization itself, community-based. The

fundraisers held in California have been disappointing due to the economic

situation and NGO-market saturation. Thus the approach to fund-raising is to

create awareness among students in US schools as counterparts to the Common

River project. This effort has been successful, and Donna notes that several

elementary schools held bake sales, shoe, uniform and book drives. In addition,

one local private primary school provides a percentage of its annual fund-raising

proceeds to Common River.

In addition, in 2008 Tsegaye, Donna and the international coffee expert Willem

Boot formed the Aleta Wondo Coffee Company, LLC (limited liability

corporation) to export coffee from the local coffee farmers to the global market.

The local coffee is bought for higher than fair trade prices and sold in the US and

abroad. Aleta Wondo Coffee donates 100% of the profits to Common River’s

development program with the intent of the for-profit company funding the non-

profit organization. Furthermore, a significant portion of the school lunch program

(1/3 of the food and 100% of the dairy products) are self-sustaining through the

vegetable garden and animal husbandry. Currently Donna is writing a cookbook to

document the recipes of the Sidama tribe while collecting senior case histories to

capture the tribe’s historical knowledge. Sales from the finished product will go

directly to Common River.

Commitment to One Community

Unlike other international NGOs that aim to expand to as many locations as

possible, Common River is committed to one community. Typically, development

projects last for 3-5 years, with the end of services often resulting in a retreat to the

previous situation. Common River believes in committing to one community, yet

at the same time strives to create a model that creates independence rather than

dependence. In 2009, two classrooms were used for first and second grades. The

following year, new first graders were admitted and three grades were established.

In 2011 Common River leaders and faculty decided that, since they could not

afford to build another classroom, the program would follow the cohort of students

and grow with them. Therefore, the school now maintains the original student body

and teaches second through fourth grade, and next year will teach third through

fifth grade and so on. Donna and Tsegaye feel strongly that “the investment made

in the selected students, who were orphaned and vulnerable children, needed to be

maintained.” When there is enough funding, the school will expand to include new

first graders; however, the current focus is on enabling the initial group of students

to receive a first class education and eventually lead the development of their

community. This fosters independence, as Common River is truly investing in a

new generation of community leaders.

Sustainability and Experience Sharing

Common River’s mission is to "create balanced, productive and self-sustaining

communities for others to witness and replicate” In addition to the above

mentioned sustainable practices in the Fundraising and Budgets: Lean is Mean

section, Common River has the following sustainability plans:

• Build capacity of the staff so that eco-tourism can help support the program.

Local staff members are trained to receive foreign guests and volunteers.

Through developing the

eco-lodges, paying guests could provide enough funding to cover the

costs of the guests, but also help to defray some of the costs of the

program. In addition, volunteers and guests are encouraged to participate

in a low-cost grassroots program.

Discover the local handicrafts that can be produced by the students and

sold to guests, locals and in the US.

The school lunch program will be fully maintained through the vegetable

garden and animal husbandry.

Expand the Aleta Wondo Coffee Company. Willem Boot will bring

“coffee caravans” to Aleta Wondo as paying guests to witness the coffee

plantations around Common River.

The school may become a hybrid, whereby 90% of the students would be

on full scholarship as OVCs and 10% could be paying students which

would help pay for the school expenses as a whole.

Rental income from Tsegaye’s family hotel in the prime downtown area

of Aleta Wondo will directly fund CR’s program.

Common River created this first pilot program as a model to learn many lessons.

Rather than taking on a huge endeavor, Donna and Tsegaye designed a simple,

small and cost effective project. Believing that “small is beautiful,” Donna and

Tsegaye created a project that could eventually be self-sustaining and adapted to

meet the needs of other small communities. Common River’s site can serve as a

“living university,” whereby new communities can come and witness the program

and learn directly from what they feel and experience.

Lessons Learned

Common River demonstrates that alternative approaches to international

relief and development can be created and successfully implemented. Charity is

not sustainable. Outside international and national development make only

marginal progress. The big plans of the UN, USAID and other stakeholders fail

again and again and again. Common River represents a new model with vast

potential.

I think an important lesson is the power of practicality, from which policy-

based interventions are disconnected. Donna and Tsegaye realize the challenges to

development are complex, multifaceted and interlocking and they respond through

pragmatic leadership. Jackson and Parry write that pragmatic leaders are able to

address “the practical needs of followers” and demonstrate “the feasibility of these

solutions” (122-3). Consequently the community-identified needs must be met, and

it is not practical to meet these needs through highly complex strategies. Common

River responds by implementing simple, sustainable solutions that are not only

community initiated, but proven successful by the community’s previous

experience. For instance, the feeding program is sustainable as the food comes

from the Common River gardens and livestock. Thus, the feeding program is not

dependent upon outside sources, but rather upon the community’s own care of the

garden and animals. This is a very different model. Usually feeding programs,

including the World Food Program, utilize foreign commodities donated by

western governments, which is neither sustainable nor practical. Common River

makes use of local food, local labor and local cuisine. Donna and Tsegaye saw a

pasture, animals and local knowledge and came to a rational conclusion: provide

the tools so that the people can feed themselves.

Common River understands that if the most impoverished and isolated

members of the community can live a life of dignity, the well-being of the entire

community increases. This is the exact opposite of many western efforts. Common

River has created a community for those isolated from the mainstream community

as a pathway toward their integration. Illiterate women have a safe place to learn to

read. Orphaned children have a home and are enrolled in school. Elders have a

place to meet and are encouraged to share their traditions. This is a community that

serves as a bridge for the marginalized to access not only basic services, but make

meaningful emotional connections that encourage their overall development and

integration into the greater Titira community. In addition, Common River is fully

dedicated to one community. The school, for example, is committed to this original

cohort. An elementary school alone does very little alone, as a 4th grade education

is only a beginning and not a pathway to development. Consequently, Common

River’s school will grow with the students to ensure that this cohort graduates as

literate adults with the academic tools to pursue higher education, vocational

training or enter the workforce. At the same time, Common River is providing

these students with the life skills, such as self-esteem and goal setting, necessary to

navigate their way out of poverty. Common River is creating organic leaders who,

in 10-20 years, will be able to take over the development leadership of Titera.

Conclusions

I undertook this study of Common River in order to better understand the structure

and strategy of an organization that is creating a new pathway to development. I

learned that Common River models leadership and change on two levels. First, the

organization is promoting change through community-based leadership in Titera.

Using the positive deviance approach, Common River is facilitating development

rather than implementing donor-based projects. Second, Common River informs

future leadership practice in that it serves as model of an innovative approach to

international relief and development. Traditional methods of humanitarian

intervention are not working, and Common River is piloting a new model of

development that aligns giving with existing deviant practices of the community as

a pathway for beneficiary-led, sustainable development.

It is unrealistic to think that Common River is going to change the entire field of

international relief and development, and it is premature to assume that this model

should be the model for change. However, even at this early stage I can see the

impact of Common River on the field. As a professional working in international

relief and development, I am spreading the word about this innovative approach.

Some of my colleagues are intrigued, others ambivalent and still others critical.

Yet in my circle the knowledge that there is an alternative pathway to development

is growing, and dialogue is beginning. Knowledge grows; enthusiasm is

contagious.

Time will show the impact of Common River. As indicated throughout this

study, I do believe that this organization and its unique practices are going to have

a positive effect on the community that can truly be felt by the residents. However,

much of Common River’s success depends upon its own organizational progress.

Donna and Tsegaye must move the organization forward despite the challenges of

the funding and continue to resist the urge to fall into the typical relief and

development trends. They must continue to engage the community and promote

the unique practices of Common River. This study is quite limited by the fact that

the organization is so young. There are many variables in Common River’s future,

and I look forward to being a part of the organization so that I can witness its

development and learn from its successes and mistakes. I hope that my work with

Common River will inform my own practices, enabling me to lead development by

following the knowledge of the local people.

Works Cited

Bekele, Tsegaye and Donna Sillan. Personal Interview. 29 November 2011.

Easterly, William. The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the

Rest Have

Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. New York: Penguin Books, 2006.

Jackson, Brad & Ken Parry. A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably

Cheap

Book About Studying Leadership. London: Sage Publications, 2011.

Marsh, David R., Dirk G. Schroeder, Kirk A. Dearden, Jerry Sternin and Monique

Sternin.

“The power of positive deviance.” Education and debate. 329 (2004): 1177-1179.

Print.

Moyo, Dambisa. Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is a Better

Way for

Africa. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009.

“Positive Deviance/Hearth: A Resource Guide for Sustainably Rehabilitating

Malnourished

Children.” Core, 2004.

Sinclair, Amanda. Leadership for the Disillusioned: Moving beyond myths and

heroes

to leading that liberates. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin, 2007.

Tuhiwai Smith, Linda. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous

Peoples.

New York: Zed Books, 1999.

Wolfcale, Joe. “Mill Valley Residents Organize to Help Ethiopian Village.” Marin

Independent

Journal 28 September 2007: Web. Retrieved 12 December 2011