INGO Accountability Charter

In 2005, 12 major INGOs involved in different activities adopted the International Non-Governmental Organizations Accountability Charter (CIVICUS, 2005). The charter covers strategic and operational elements captured in Madon’s (2000) concept of INGO accountability but more importantly it focuses on ‘shared principles’ that guide how INGOs operate (CIVICUS, 2005:2) . Signatories to the voluntary charter are Amnesty International, Action Aid International, and CIVICUS World Alliance for Participation, Consumers International, Greenpeace International, Oxfam International, Plan International, Save the Children, Survival International, Transparency International and World YMCA (CIVICUS, 2005).

Operations related guidelines that the charter covers include responsible

advocacy, accurate reporting, audit, evaluation, use of donations effective programming, and good governance (CIVICUS, 2005). Signatories to the charter undertook to provide accurate information and comply with applicable governance, financial accounting, auditing and reporting requirements in the countries where they are based and or operate (CIVICUS, 2005:3- 4). The INGOs pledged

59

to work with local communities and other partners in the true spirit of partnership, respect the rights of donors to be informed about the purposes for which fundraising is being undertaken, ensure that financial, material and other donations received are channelled towards the pursuit of causes that are consistent with corporate mission based on prior agreement with stakeholders (CIVICUS, 2005:5-6).

The principles and values that the signatories to the INGO charter pledged to apply in carrying out their activities will be addressed in the next section that focuses on the impact that the application of corporate principles and values has on employee job satisfaction.

The argument in support of greater accountability is that INGOs would be empowered when they allow stakeholders to scrutinize their activities (Kilby, 2006). It is also contended that the more open and transparent INGOs are the more they will be able to maintain or enhance their legitimacy before stakeholders (Ossewaarde et. al, 2008). INGOs have various stakeholders that they are accountable to and the conflicting demands that may be made on them by those stakeholders may weaken their ability of to achieve their missions (Ebrahim, 2003;

Ossewaarde et. al., 2008; Kilby, 2006; Madon, 2000).

In relation to the concept of mission valence that was discussed earlier, the commitment of employees to corporate missions has been identified as a key factor that

contributes to the success of INGOs (Suzuki, 1998; Brewster & Lee, 2006). How INGOs handle the demands for accountability by various stakeholders has implications for organizational behaviour (Brown & Moore, 2001). An example of such implication is that‘committed staff members can stop working hard if an INGO fails to embody the values and missions that brought them to the organization (Brown & Moore, 2001:575). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment both contribute to organizational effectiveness (Mosadeghrad et. al., 2008).

60 2.8.3 Organisational Commitment and Job Satisfaction

Commitment and job satisfaction are different concepts and commitment is broader than job satisfaction (Garland et. al., 2009; Koh & Boo, 2004; Yiing & Ahmad, 2009).

Job satisfaction is concerned with employee’s response to experience of specific jobs tasks and organizational commitment includes his or her attachment to corporate goals and values (Garland et. al., 2009; Lipinskiene, 2008). Apart from attachment to organizational goals and values, other characteristics of organizational commitment are employees’ willingness to put in extra effort to enable the achievement of organizational goals and strong desire to remain in the organization (Ying & Ahmad, 2008; Koh & Boo, 2004; Garland et. al., 2009; Lipinskiene, 2008). From the characteristics of organizational commitment outlined above, it could be described as a ‘process by which people come to think about their relationship with the organization…a mindset in which individuals consider the extent to which their own values and goals are congruent with those of the organization’

(Alatrista & Arrowsmith, 2004:537). Organizational commitment is also defined as ‘’the relative strength of an individual’s identification with, and involvement in a particular organisation’(Koh & Boh, 2004:680).

The three types of organizational commitment on which most studies on organizational commitment are based are affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Allen & Meyer, 1990). Affective commitment relates to employees’ perception of their emotional attachment to and identification with the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Allen & Meyer, 1990). Employees that have this type of commitment are strongly motivated to contribute to the realization of organizational objectives because they regard those goals as theirs (Shore & Tetric, 1991). Continuance commitment is a type of organizational commitment that is based on employee’s consideration of costs or losses such as loss of benefits, pay cut, and job search related expenses and risk of unemployment that may result from leaving an

61

organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Allen & Meyer, 1990). The nature of the losses that an employee perceives he or she could suffer for leaving an organization and limited opportunities in the labour market are key factors that influence continuance commitment (Mosadeghrad et. al., 2008). The fewer the work alternatives that the employee perceives he or she has the stronger the sense of continuance commitment to the organization (Meyer et. al., 1993). Normative

commitment refers to employee’s feeling that he or she is obliged to remain in an organization (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Allen & Meyer, 1990). Normative commitment could have a moral or cultural basis in which case the employee feels obliged to remain in the organization because of what the organization has invested in him or her or the belief that an employee should be loyal to his or her employer (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Allen & Meyer, 1990).

Research evidence exists to support the conclusion that there is a positive relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Wright & Pandey, 2007;

Lipinskiene, 2008, Koh & Boo, 2004; Yiing & Ahmad, 2009). However, there is lack of agreement as to whether job satisfaction leads to organizational commitment or that organizational

commitment is a precursor to job satisfaction (Mosadeghrad et. al., 2008). Whilst some researchers argue that employee commitment to the organization leads to employee job satisfaction (Lund, 2003) another group of scholars takes the view that there is a reciprocal causal relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Lance, 1991; Mathieu, 1991). This researcher supports the dominant position in the literature that job satisfaction is a precursor to organizational commitment (Mosadeghrad et. al., 2008; Koh & Boo, 2004; Mackenzie, et al., 1998). In support of that argument the critical element in various definitions of organizational commitment that employees will stay or that they will not be keen on leaving their organizations for

‘moderate personal advantage ‘suggests that increase in job satisfaction will lead to stronger organizational commitment (Koh & Boo, 2004: 680). Furthermore, organizational commitment is

62

less specific but more stable than job satisfaction and therefore it is expected that employee commitment will be affected by employees’ perceptions of job satisfaction (Koh & Boo, 2004). That is because the more an organization is able to satisfy the needs of employees the more committed the employees are likely to be to that organization (Koh & Boo, 2004).

As noted earlier, INGOs respond to changes in their operating environment (Dolnicar et al., 2008) by redefining or changing their approach to the execution of corporate mission (Hopgood, 2006), embarking on strategic review (IFRC, 2003), adopting management practices from the business sector (Lewis, 2003) and , becoming more accountable to various stakeholders (Ossewaarde et. al. 2008; Kilby, 2006; Madon, 2000). The mission–market dilemma that INGOs face means that they have to pursue policies and adopt practices that enhance their competitiveness without sacrificing their missions (Dolnicar et al., 2008; Young, 2005, Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008). The next section focuses on the principles and values that guide the conduct of INGOs and their employees when they carry out activities in pursuit of their missions.

63