The inter-organisational challenges

The greatest concern for most of the participation involved the conflicts in objectives, priorities, and terms that often result from weak communication between their organisations.In many cases, partners had not agreed upon the outcomes to be gained from the cooperation, the tasks to implement together, and the ones to achieve independently. When one of the INGOs tried to build the capacity of a CBO, both the INGO and the CBO involved in a capacity-building exercise were surprised to discover their dissimilar viewpoints on how capacity would be built. The CBO defined capacity building as its

capability to deliver people's needs, whereas the INGO defined the CBO capacity based on its capability to align itself with the donors’ conditions. Table 4-8 explains how INGOs and CBOs understand the core concepts and humanitarian terminology.

Table 4-8:Terminology misunderstanding between INGOs and CBOs (Washington, 2011) Development/humanitarian terminology Local understanding

Community Based Organisation Charitable / Rehabilitation / Improvement societies

Non-Governmental Organisation Service oriented organisations that provide services where government services are lacking / replacing government

Empowerment Improvement in economic situation / train women to take over men’s role

Partnership Service implementer / funding recipient

Monitoring and evaluation Top-down analysis of welfare needs of a population

Capacity building Attend training workshops / INGO staff seconded to CBO

The barriers of culture and language were also recognised by participants as major reasons for miscommunication between partners. Many of the international participants mentioned cultural clashes between the international and local staff. They also cited the stress that is caused because of the dissimilar tribal backgrounds of local staff in rural areas. One manager in an INGO stated:

“Although ninety-eight percent of our staff are Jordanians, they sometimes belong to different tribal backgrounds. Tribal animosities may lead to personal animosities that affect the harmony between members of an organisation, or between partners”.

Regarding the differences in languages, some INGOs stated:

“Most of CBOs are located in remote areas where the majority of their staff lack English language proficiency. Although they sometimes pretend to understand the topics discussed in the joint meetings, the fact that they get the implementation wrong indicates their lack of understanding”.

Overcoming this issue was cited as a big challenge by the INGOs. Therefore, the majority agreed on the importance of listening as a key factor for a successful relationship. In an exemplary statement, a project manager in an INGO proved the importance of listening to the local expertise.

“In the Azraq reserve, one of the INGOs, which is interested in wildlife conservation, requested help from its local partner, an organisation with extensive experience in this field, in order to draw up a plan to convince donors to support their joint project. The CBO was effective in its role , and knew how to attract animals by putting food in the right places at the right time during the donors’ visit. The subsequent funding of the project was the successful outcome of effective communication between partners.”

4.4.1.2 Power imbalance

The asymmetry of power between CBOs and INGOs remains unsolved in Jordan, with INGOs holding a controlling role, that is shown in the way that goals and schedules are shaped unilaterally, and outcomes that are important to local partners are ignored. Many CBOs stated that INGOs discuss the issues of local community and refugees away from beneficiaries. CBOs expressed the asymmetry of power this way:

“INGOs are the main source of funding. Thus, they often do what they want regardless of what we want, and this is our main challenge”.

“Even when focus groups are employed by donors to evaluate local community needs, results will be manipulated until they become compatible with INGOs’ and donors’ agendas”.

“We are reflecting the reality since INGOs come with a set of unrealistic expectations about what is happening in our country… Sometimes INGOs want to fund anything even if it is not suitable for our needs”.

“We refuse to fully document the security challenges that we face during implementation, because we believe that funding might stop. For this reason, we sometimes employ our personal connections to accomplish tasks”.

In 2010, a project was established in Wadi Rum (south of Jordan) to teach the local community how to use technology. Centres were established, fully equipped and funded by the INGO operating in the area. The surprise was that 80% of the locals were illiterate. A

CBO manager explained “This is a result of the inaccurate proposals that are prepared by foreign managers, who consider themselves superior and know what is best for all”. Therefore, several cases of physical abuse were recorded against the international workers as a sign that the local community rejected the “white man mentality”. Managing this asymmetry was stated as a challenge by many CBOs.

4.4.1.3 Strategic incompatibility: distrust, lack of commitment, and disrespect

Both local and International participants showed strongly held opinions regarding tension between partners in terms of trust, commitment and respect. For CBOs, underestimating their capabilities is what generates distrust.A CBO manager stated:

“They make us feel that we lack the skills that are needed to accomplish tasks. For example, they do not allow us to participate in monitoring and evaluating joint projects, although we have better evaluation systems and a better understanding of the local community’s needs”.

“Out of the blue, our international partners send inspectors, without informing us beforehand, which shows that they do not trust our capabilities and way of implementation”.

For INGOs, the uncertainty about CBOs’ resources have promoted a lack of commitment and disrespect.The majority reported their inability to determine the genuine CBOs that are dedicated to spending funds in a proper way. Other INGOs pointed out that many CBOs might falsify their work and pretend that they have the same agendas of INGOs to keep receiving donations.In an exemplary statement, a project manager in an INGO mentioned that:

“In one case, we signed contracts with CBOs based on their resources and their awareness of the international standards. However, we have been deceived as we discovered that they were operating from their houses, with very limited resources”.

Other INGOs stated:

“Many of CBOs shut down after receiving the first payment. They are not real organisations”.

“Commonly, 10% of funds reach beneficiaries…whereas, 90% of funds are divided between the persons in charge”.

4.4.2 The organisational challenges