Harvard Hauser Presentation Dec1 (5)

Leadership and Effectiveness of Transnational NGOs: Perspectives from cross-sectoral research

Tosca Bruno-van Vijfeijken and Hans Peter SchmitzTransnational NGO Initiative

Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs

Rationale for interview study

Design: sampling, protocol and interview process

Coding, data structure and data transformation

Preliminary findings

12/01/2009TNGO Initiative @ The Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs

Outline

A rapidly growing awareness of TNGOs is not matched by systematic and interdisciplinary research efforts;

In particular, we diagnose a dearth of large-N studies cutting across size, sectors, and financial capacity;


Rationale

Create data in a cross-disciplinary context, using quantitative as well as qualitative tools;

Add the perspective of TNGO leadership on their role in global governance;

Develop a research program integrated with teaching and practitioner engagement;


Objectives

In-depth interviews with leaders from 152 US-registered TNGOs;

Sample selection: 1. sector, 2. size, 3. financial health and capacity;

Selected from a population rated by Charity Navigator in 2005;


Design/sampling


Size

21% (32)

42% (64)

37% (56)

small (< $ 1 Mio.)large ($ 1-10 Mio.)giant (> $ 10 Mio.)

Sector

9% (13)

42% (64)

21% (32)

14% (21)

14% (22)

EnvironmentHuman RightsHumanit. ReliefDevelopmentConfl. Resolution


Fiscal health and capacity

14% (22)

9% (13)

23% (35)

54% (82)

low/lowhigh f/low clow f/high chigh/high


The claim of representativeness is limited to US-registered TNGOs, not global community of such orgs.

Charity Navigator provided a specific population, but was the only one containing financial ratings.


Limitations of the sample

Changes in organizational goals and governance structures

Effectiveness and its assessment Accountability Funding as related to effectiveness and

accountability Communication, collaboration, networks and

partnerships

Leadership characteristics and preparation


Interview protocol

Response rate: 68% (123 out of 182). Interviewees largely top leaders (81%); Researcher visited headquarters; Interviews lasted an average of 85 minutes;


Interview process

What measures did we take to increase the candor of TNGO leaders’ answers?

Confidentiality was guaranteed. Interviewers assessed candor after the interview. Most TNGO leaders exceeded the time commitment,

indicating a strong interest in the results.


Limitations of the method/coding

Professional transcriptions; Atlas.ti software used to code interviews; Development of codebook;


Coding process


Alignment


Emerging findings

Motives and goals

Effectiveness

Accountability

Leadership

Networking and partnerships


Bridging the gap

A general conclusion:

When we look across data in different areas of the interview protocol, one of the striking results is the consistent gap between the academic literature and practitioners’ perspectives.

How do we best understand TNGOs? Principled and interest-driven views compete in the

current debates, in particular in IR.

Interviews show that TNGOs are not best understood as either principled or interest-driven actors.

Strategic pursuit of impact: TNGOs pursue principles within a dynamically constrained environment.


Motives

Leaders conceptualize effectiveness largely as goal attainment and evaluation -- outcome accountability Stronger conceptualization of goal attainment at the

program level than at the organizational level

Resource availability/growth, overhead minimization and stakeholder satisfaction are far less pervasive in the answers


Effectiveness

TNGOs monitor outputs closely but relegate outcome attribution to narrative process tracing or speculation (lack of rigor).

Definition of effectiveness as goal attainment contrasts sharply with the academic literature which has largely abandoned goal attainment for proxy measures, including reputation or resource acquisition.


Effectiveness: a gap

TNGO leaders primarily focus on three dimensions of accountability: financial management, mandate and transparency;

TNGO leaders are less likely to mention the following dimensions of accountability: responsiveness, evaluation, and participation;


Defining Accountability

Service-delivery organizations emphasize growth as the main benefit of accountability;

Advocacy organizations emphasize reputational benefits;


Benefits of Accountability

TNGO leaders are satisfied with the level of their organization’s accountability

The three dimensions of accountability emphasized by TNGO leaders are least likely to lead to organizational learning.

TNGO leader perspectives confirm a gap between their current practice and ideas advanced by standard-based initiatives and the academic literature.


Accountability: a gap

Leadership behavior in the face of constraints:

57% of leaders ‘work within the system’, i.e. make incremental changes rather than challenge governance constraints head-on (‘constraint respecters’)

11% prefer to ‘work behind the scenes’ 13% challenge constraints head-on


Leadership

19% have ability to either challenge directly or indirectly, depending on context;


Leadership

Networks: informal, loose relationships among organizations, sub-units or individuals. Membership tends to be more homogenous.

Partnerships: more formal working or contractual relationships between institutions. Different types of expertise brought together.

TNGO Initiative @ The Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs

Networking/partnerships: definition

TNGOs join networks primarily to interact and share resources (information, expertise…). Networks help TNGOs raise their voice and may help in identifying sources of funding or potential partners.

TNGOs form partnerships primarily for joint implementation. Partnerships can attract donor support, improve effectiveness/efficiency, and increase transparency.


Networking/partnerships: motives and benefits

N “a network expands your universe”

P “need to pool resources to actually be able to do this project; [we are] doing it jointly and splitting the budget”


Networking/partnerships: answer samples

Networks: lack of commitment, may involve wasting time and resources. “We get tired because often the network is over time”

Partnerships: inequality and (un)fair distribution of benefits. “For an NGO getting one percent of the one percent of a fortune

five-hundred company’s annual revenues, [how can you] call that a partnership?”


Networking/partnerships: challenges

Research collaboration Data sharing

Practitioner engagement Summer Institute

Education


Future plans

Harvard Hauser Presentation Dec1 (5)

Documents

Transcript of Harvard Hauser Presentation Dec1 (5)