Frances Hurst is passionate about charities (and birds). She is co-founder of Birdsong Charity Consulting, which has been helping charities work more effectively with their people for more than a decade. She is a trustee of the BTO and spent the 1990s working as the RSPB’s Marketing Director.
Have you ever quit a job out of pure frustration? Frustration that, despite loving your work, there was something about the way people came together that squeezed all the joy out of it? If the answer is yes, then you’re far from alone. In fact most of us ‘of a certain age’ have had this experience.
The interactions I’m talking about are often grouped under the banner of ‘internal politics’ and can range from certain people being undervalued to bullying. I have seen the effects of unhealthy behaviours throughout my career, across sectors, but working as I do now in the UK voluntary sector, I am sorry to confirm that charities are not exempt from them.
I don’t know whether unhealthy working relationships are more or less prevalent in NGOs than in other sectors – all organisations are populated by the same species after all. It has become clear to me, however, that there is a particular piquancy to the disappointment people feel when they encounter these behaviours after they have joined a charity. This is because people who sign up to work for a charity do so in the hope and expectation of helping to make the world a better place, even if in just a small way. Having that expectation squashed by inter-departmental rivalries or an egotistical boss is, well, sad.
So what can be done about this seeming waste of human passion and drive? Are we really so hopelessly at the mercy of our own and others’ less admirable human qualities when we come to work? Well the answer, thankfully, is no. And it all comes down to leadership. Good leadership can transform things – and quickly. There are charity leaders out there who will not allow inappropriate behaviours to persist on their watch – who are clear that a vital part of their job is to create a healthy working environment for their people.
Sadly, however, there are other leaders who seem to underestimate the frustration that these issues cause their staff or, worse still, just don’t ‘get’ that they are a problem at all. Perhaps they feel that internal politics are just part of life, or that behavioural problems are a total minefield best left well alone…
To help sweep these issues out from underneath the organisational carpet, my partner Sam Attenborough and I decided to try and get a handle on the scale of the problem. There’s nothing like a few facts and figures to bring a topic into sharper focus so, this year, as part of the annual Charity Pulse staff survey that we run with Third Sector magazine, we asked some pertinent questions about working relationships in NGOs.
The results were significant… in total we found that 29% of charity employees who took the survey consider that working relationships in their organisation are unhealthy. Going on to compare these respondents with their peers working in charities with healthy working relationships, we found that these individuals were more negative about every aspect of their working life. Most notably, only 52% of those working in the unhealthy charities felt that they were making a difference, compared to 90% of those in healthy organisations. When it comes to morale just 2% – yes 2%! – felt that morale in their charity was high, compared to 64% elsewhere. And only 20% are planning to be working for their charity in a year’s time, compared to 70% of those lucky enough to work in healthy organisations.
Many more interesting – and troubling – findings emerged from the survey, so we’ve published the full report: Better together? on our website. You can download a free copy: at www.bird-song.co.uk.
If you’re a charity leader – do take a look at the report. Then ask your people what’s going on in your organisation that drives them crazy. It’ll be worth it!
If you have experienced particularly healthy or unhealthy working relationships while working for a wildlife charity or other NGO, do leave a comment. I’d love to hear about your experiences.
[registration_form]
Verbal aggression, False accusations leading to a police interview of which was deemed… Release without charge. Then threats to revoke my schedule 1 disturbance license by ******************** in the Forest of Bowland….Is a little tad more than bullying
Paul – thanks for your comment, which you see I have edited (obviously and slightly) to avoid any individual being suggested.
Interesting article in yesterday’s Independent (or Tuesday’s) about bullying at the Care Quality Commission and its link to organisational instability. Sorry I don’t have the link.
Didn’t see it in the Indy, but here’s a link to the same report in the Gruniard:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jul/26/care-quality-commission-report-bullying?guni=Article:in%20body%20link
I do not think that any of this should be particularly surprising to anyone. I have worked and volunteered for several charities and this mirrors my good and bad experiences. As with all organisations, some charities are better than others and there will be variation within different departments of the same organisation. That leadership is an important role in the effectiveness of any organisation is again not really very surprising either. All of us in our working lives have seen good, bad and indifferent ‘leaders’ in our respective employers.
I think that it is very simplistic, and very far from reality, to say ‘people who sign up to work for a charity do so in the hope and expectation of helping to make the world a better place’. I just cannot agree with this statement I’m afraid, and it does not tally with my experience. I do not even agree that all of our charities have objectives that are contributing to ‘making the world a better place’. From a nature perspective, we could have arguments about the motivations of Songbird Survival, and don’t the BTO say they are a scientific, and not a conservation organisation?
As with any organisation, people work for charities for a whole variety of reasons. Yes some people think that they are supporting the objectives of their charity to improve their state of the chosen field of interest, be it nature conservation, humanitarian, or environmental. I also agree that you are likely to get a different demographic to what you would find working for Barclays or British Telecom, for example. But some people work for a charity because it is the job available at the time, the office is close to home, it gives them the ability to research something they are interested in, or because they can get paid for their hobby. From a nature perspective, not everyone interested in birds is interested in their conservation, but they may be interested in someone paying them to survey them. People also want to further their careers, move up within an organisation or use this as a springboard to something else.
With these different motivations the likely result is just as described in the blog. What I would find interesting is whether you found a difference between the different types of charities. Are people who work for wildlife NGOs generally happier than those who work for humanitarian NGOs?
Thanks for your comments Atropos. Although the sample size of this survey (675 respondents) does not enable the breakdown of the data by type of charity, our survey work over the years does indicate that people working in wildlife NGOs are generally more satisfied with their jobs than those working in health and social welfare charities, for example.
I am not sure you can rule out the idea that someone is working for an organisation in the hope of making the World a better place simply because you don’t agree with the aims of that organisation. Misguided though they are I imagine employees of Song bird Survival may well think they are helping make the world better – it’s just that bizarrely and wrongly they seem to think that means a world more or less devoid of birds of prey. I am pretty certain that few of them if any see themselves as some kind of Dr Evil on a mission to kill sparrow hawks for the sheer hell of it.
I take this on board and I was being slightly flippant in my comment. However, it does not alter the general point about how people who work for charities are motivated by all sorts of different reasons. Saying it is because they all want to make the world a better place is not helpful, in my opinion. It is part of some peoples motivation, but it is just one of many factors.
I do agree with the general premise of the blog, which I read as being that we need well-lead and effective wildlife NGOs with motivated staff if we are going to meet the challenges presented to us by the State of Nature. The work Birdsong are doing to achieve this is to be applauded. I am just suggesting that we may need to think more broadly about why people work for wildlife NGOs to get the most out of them.
A complaint I hear from friends in NGOs and industry is that the performance related pay process is a lemon. It’s fine at first, when you can be on a roll, but then you come up against a salary cap on the line-manager’s budget. No matter how well you then perform, an excuse will be found to cap your progress. This is not only corrupt, but systematically undermines morale and sours relationships between managers and the managed.
The answer is to be offski – but this is not an attractive option to many.
Agree with much of what Atropos wrote
Does the paper state how many charities took part, and the names of the charities? I couldn’t find this, and without such information, the survey is (in my opinion) pretty useless), as it might be comparing apples with pears. There are factors that have significant influence on the responses to some of the questions, such as the size of the organisation in particular. But percentages are meaningless if the data they are based on are not statistically significant.
Thanks for the comment, John. Individuals from over 190 charities took the survey, from organisations of all sizes. Although charities with more staff were more likely to have relationship issues, people in charities of all sizes cited problems.
This is not scientific research, but by starting to assess the scale of what are often seen as intangible issues, we want to raise the profile of very real issues that are hindering good work in NGOs and wasting donors’ money.
Frances is spot on, it is absolutely essential to recognise that the effectiveness of any wildlife charity is 100% dependent on the quality and motivation of the staff and volunteers working for that charity.
Working to achieve a happy and productive workforce is a primary purpose of managers and leaders in the sector. This is about valuing and respecting people, listening to them and treating them fairly. It is also essential to maintain a clear aim and purpose for the charity, it makes such a positive difference when everyone is together, working to achieve the same ends and appreciating how their role and their colleague’s roles are contributing to saving biodiversity.
At Buglife we are very proud of our 2013 Birdsong Staff Survey results.
A few highlights include:
– 96% of Buglife scores higher than the average for the charity sector
– 82% of scores were an improvement on last year
– 100% said they enjoy the work they do
– 100% enjoy working with the people in Buglife
– Significantly better morale than elsewhere in the sector
– Positive views of leadership and people management
– 90% of our staff feel they are treated with fairness and respect, compared with a charity average of 67%
– 90% of staff feel appreciated, compared with 58% externally
– 81% feel it is safe to challenge management, compared with 51% externally
– 76% feel their views are listened to and valued, compared with 58% of charity sector
I would encourage other wildlife NGOs to use the Birdsong or similar surveys to benchmark their achievements against others.
The impact Buglife has with very modest resources:- changing international pesticide policy, saving key wildlife sites from destruction, establishing B-Lines, creating habitats and many other achievements all arise from the foundation of being a good place to work.
Many thanks for that Matt – and keep up the good work!
Spot on Frances – can’t say anything else as I have a gagging clause.
Hi Frances
This was a really interesting piece, and I’m surprised that it didn’t get more of a reaction. I guess everyone is much too busy worrying about the name of a magazine.
Anyway, I’ve worked for 30 years in nature conservation, with charities and, since 1992 for Countryside Council for Wales (now Natural Resources Wales). Although not an NGO, I’d argue that the motivations for people working for CCW are very similar to those who work for the RSPB etc.
I’ve only been on the receiving end of real bullying once, and that was long before I joined CCW, when I was very young and inexperienced. I wouldn’t tolerate that kind of thing now, but then I’m older and…a bit… wiser.
CCW employed about 450 staff and, almost without exception, they were a very nice group of people and a pleasure to work with. I only came across a handful personally, or by reputation, who were regarded as showing bullying behaviour. I say bullying behaviour, because even they were not bad people. Often they were inspirational people to be with. They regarded themselves as committed and driven by a concern for the environment. They just had very little concept of their effect on the people around them. When this was explained to them, they often had a mechanism to shift blame onto the victim – it’s not me, it’s you etc etc. Some would even regard themselves as the victim in the situation.
I’d agree that a culture of tolerating bad behaviour can be created by poor leadership. To be fair to CCW, and to the new NRW, both have strong policies on bullying and a determined HR department that is sympathetic to staff concerns. But one big difference between NGOs and the public sector is that the latter has active trade unions to stick up for staff. Whilst this isn’t a panacea, having a supportive union to go to can make a big difference, so if NGOs have a problem with bullying, perhaps the staff should get themselves organised?
Thanks again for a very interesting blog.
Andrew
Andrew – thank you. And just for info, Frances’s Guest Blog was read lots even if not commented on so much.
Unite is the Union for the NGO sector, but I’ve yet to work for a wildlife NGO with union recognition; though I know at least one that has a staff association.
Thanks for your comment Andrew. Bullying is certainly a serious issue – and our annual survey finds that between 12 – 14% of charity people affected by it each year. There are some good resources available these days and anyone affected might like to start by taking a look at this website: https://www.turn2me.org.
However… bullying is quite extreme behaviour that is at the tip of an iceberg of less serious, but none-the-less demoralising and immature behaviours. ‘Personality clashes’, turf wars or a simple lack of trust are often the things that wear people down and ultimately lead to good people moving on. These issues are more widespread.
That’s why I think that NGO leaders need to be much more proactive in developing their organisations’ cultures. To see it as a vital part of their role to build and nurture workplaces where people feel valued and respected. Charities need to aim higher than just addressing the problem areas.
Excellent and important last para to your (latest) comment Frances. ‘Nurturing workplaces where people feel valued and respected’ is crucial – as is proper training and being prepared to be open to and encourage new ideas and enthusiasms both of staff and of volunteers. There’s nothing worse than feeling you have to work slavishly to a Strategic Development Plan or the latest all-embracing fashionable concept – while it lasts that is – and they rarely do!
Another problem with many NGOs is the internal team silo thing where people within one team rarely get to know or appreciate what goes on elsewhere in an organisation, let alone have a chance to work together on a project. And finally, the commonly held idea that acquiring and managing land is more (usually much more) important than engaging and enthusing people – especially younger people…but I sense an old hobby horse starting to gallop here….so I best stop!
Nick Bee
Ps. Does anyone (with a long memory) remember Colin Ward of the Town and Country Planning Association and BEE (Bulletin of Environmental Education) which he started and edited? What a marvellous (if very challenging) anarchic approach to life and work he had (using ‘anarchy’ in the very best sense of the word)! Hierarchical organisations were anathema to him. ‘Wiki’ him to find out more….
Thanks for your comment Nick. Of course strategy is important for focus and prioritising, but the pendulum can swing too far in that direction. We need to remember that its motivated and committed people who change the world.