Drivers of INGO Organisational Structures and Types of Structure

Considering the importance of organisational structures, the decision regarding the type of structure that an organisation adopts is a ‘conscious’ and ‘rational choice’ that is informed by the ‘specific objectives’it wishes to pursue. (Balding et. al., 2006:3). In reality the types of structures that INGOs adopt are determined or influenced by a combination of contextual, strategic,

institutional, managerial, and technological factors (Hailey, 2009; Fowler, 2000).

The need for INGOs to ‘remain relevant’, address concerns of stakeholders and meet the needs of their beneficiaries compels them to adopt structures that promote efficiency and innovation as part of ‘new ways of working internationally’(Hailey, 2009:5). That position challenges the notion in the definition of organisational structure above that an organisation’s structure is a reflection of its ‘enduring characteristics’ (James & Jones, 1976:76). It is doubtful whether organisational structures of most INGOs actually reflect their‘enduring characteristics’(James &

Jones, 1976:76), since one of the ways in which they adapt to their fast changing operating environment is by changing their structures (Hailey, 2009; Fowler, 2000). As one researcher argues ‘most international NGOs appear to have changed their governance structure a number of times in their history’ (Foreman, 1999:180).

As an influential group of stakeholders, donors influence the type of structures that INGOs adopt through their funding policies that determine the spread or allocation of funds for programme implementation (Hailey, 2009; Fowler, 2000; Foreman, 1999). In view of increased competition for funds, INGOs have had to review their structures to address cost -efficiency concerns expressed by donors in order to gain access to much needed funds (Hailey, 2009;

78

Fowler, 2000). A shift in strategy that has also led to some INGOs becoming less operational and more focused on long-term development has resulted in a situation where INGOs work through independent local partners(Hailey, 2009; Fowler, 2000) thereby eliminating the need to employ field personnel.

Institutional and managerial factors that influence the design or review of INGO organisational structures include the development of common operational standards and promotion of organisational culture that facilitates inclusive decision-making and shared learning that

managers in INGOs believe will enhance organisational effectiveness (Hailey, 2009; Madon, 2000;

Foreman, 1999).

The three major types of organisational structures adopted by INGOs are

Federation, Confederation and Alliances (Hailey, 2009; Hudson & Bielefeld, 1997). An INGO that is a Federation is made up of semi –autonomous entities that ‘share a common purpose , mission and history and that have joined together under the auspices of a national [or international ] organization that articulates this mission at the national [or international] level and provides leadership for the movement

‘(Hudson & Bielefeld, 1997:35). In a Federation, individual or national members voluntarily ‘cede power to a relatively strong organization ‘(Foreman, 1999:180). A Confederation consists of autonomous and ‘like-minded’ organizations working in a common field (Hailey, 2009; Foreman, 1999). Confederations are led by few autonomous boards or strong members which team up to form international secretariats that are relatively small in size (Fenwick, 2005; Foreman, 1999) . Alliances are networks of INGOs that work in closely related fields, share facilities and expertise (Hailey, 2009; Hudson & Bielefeld, 1997).

Centralisation and decentralisation are key dimensions of organisational structures (Andrews, 2010; Johari & Yahya, 2009; Schiminke et al., 2002) and they are reflected in varying degrees in the three types of structures described above. Centralisation refers to the

79

amount of power or degree of latitude that employees in different positions have to make decisions or the opportunity to participate in decision-making (Andrews, 2010; Johari & Yahya, 2009; Schiminke et. al., 2002). It reflects the concentration of decision making power in respect of policy issues such as hiring and firing (macro centralisation) and concentration of decision making power as it affects how an employee does his or her job(micro centralisation) (Johari &

Yahya, 2009; Schiminke et. al., 2002). Centralisation minimises risk of structural fragmentation and it ensures cohesion in how INGOs approach the execution of their mission (Hailey, 2009;

Fowler, 1992). On the negative side and as far as INGOs are concerned centralisation

promotes bureaucracy (Fowler, 1992) since INGO headquarters have to provide various services to field locations , chart strategic direction for the INGO and represent the organisation before stakeholders (Suzuki, 1998 )

Decentralisation refers to the ‘degree to which power is held in a central place – usually the top –or distributed downwards or within or outwards from an organisation’(Fowler, 2000:221). Potential benefits of decentralisation include improved responsiveness in handling local issues, reduction in bureaucracy, improved programme delivery, efficient resource allocation, and better liaison with donors (Hailey, 2009; Fowler, 1992).

Specific factors, which influence the adoption of decentralisation by INGOs, include response to donor demands, pressure from NGOs in developing countries and forces of globalisation such as economic and political regionalisation and improvements in information technology and telecommunications (Hailey, 2009; Fowler, 2000). The dynamic and complex environments in which INGOs operate require that they adopt decentralisation instead of centralisation that is more appropriate in a stable operating environment (Schmidt, 2006; Argote et. al., 1989). Improvements in information technology and telecommunications have also been cited as factors that support the case for adoption of centralisation by INGOs (Fowler, 2000). It is

80

argued that improvements in IT and Telecoms will mitigate the risks of fragmentation and lack of cohesion that are associated with decentralisation because INGO headquarters and field locations will communicate with each other more effectively (Hailey, 2009; Fowler, 2000; Suzuki, 1998). For those in favour of centralisation, improvements in IT and Telecoms imply that senior personnel could coordinate programme activities from INGO headquarters instead of relocating to field locations (Fowler, 2000). The main justification for decentralization is that it will enable INGOs to provide ‘a truly international response…namely the formation of global associations that globalization demands’ (Fowler, 2000:220).

Potential demerits of decentralisation includes weakening of INGO corporate identity that results from efforts to adapt to local contexts (Fowler, 1992). Three forms of decentralization commonly adopted by INGOs are deconcentration, delegation and devolution (Fowler, 2000; 1992). Deconcentration is a limited transfer of responsibilities downwards or outwards without transfer of authority. With delegation, responsibilities and the authority necessary to discharge them are transferred and under devolution authority is transferred to

semi-autonomous entities (Fowler, 2000; 1992).

Even as more INGOs embrace decentralisation they still retain structures that enable them to control activities of regional and field offices in a way that does not make them either fully decentralised or completely unitary (Fenwick, 2005). The coordination provided by a

‘strong centre’ or headquarters in a federative structure and by ‘strong members’ in a confederation includes resource allocation and setting of standards for the organisation’s activities (Fenwick, 2005:500). In both cases but especially in a federation the coordination role draws attention to the influence of INGO headquarters and the criticism that they ‘impose detailed plans’on field locations (Hailey, 2009:7).

81