What is an aid organization's reputation - how is it measured?

Hello Daniel,
This should be an interesting concept but basically reputation is all about credibility. Measuring an organisation's reputation will involve an assessment of its human rights protection and promotion index while executing and implementing programs. Generally, an evaluation of its core values and principles as a guiding tool of the organisation's performance in undertaking its responsibilities.

Thank you Andy for your comprehensive reply.

Intuitively I agree with you; both at the local as well as at the systemic level reputation is important, however, I find that it is a remarkably illusive concept. I surveyed the literature in the field on this issue and have found that the most attention is leveled at the issue of reputation in the corporate world. The yardstick is often customer satisfaction and corporate branding. The closest international standard that attempts to systematically measure reputation is the ISO 9000 Quality Standardization. Reputation is the result of perception and corporate behavior.

If reputation is so important, why is so little attention paid to it in the humanitarian enterprise? After all, Coca cola may need to recall a product, but it is difficult for an aid agency to recall a kidnapped or murdered aid worker.

So this leads me to another quandary: Is reputation part of humanitarian space. Or in research terms, can I argue that the reputation of org. A (dependent variable) leads to successful humanitarian space (independent variable)? But isn't hum. space only a means to an end. Isn't hum space the operational freedom which allows for the effective implementation of aid:

Reputation ----------Hum. Space -----------Humanitarian impact

Keep it coming folks

In case it is of interest, the Swiss INGO I work for (Medair) decided several years ago to take the route of becoming ISO 9000 certified as a means to better serving our 'customers', the beneficiaries of our country programmes. Despite being founder members of HAP International, we have currently decided to continue to pursue ISO compliance in favour of HAP certification, as this enables us to view our organisational quality management system more holistically.
I would argue that trust and working in partnership with affected communities are more important considerations than reputation (which is more aligned to upward accountability to donors than downward accountability to beneficiaries), and are more likely to assist us in establishing the elusive humanitarian space that we seek after...?

I also find it curious that such limited attention has been paid to managing the humanitarian brand given that research suggests that in many (although not all) contexts there is a positive correlation between acceptance of an organisation (that comes from trust which is built on reputation) and access to those in need of assistance.

While the jury is still out on the fate of humanitarian space (see HPG Report #32), the literature suggests that humanitarian principles remain (broadly) universal. Given the increasingly crowded humanitarian market place where NGOs rub shoulders with foreign military powers and for-profit contractors, there is a strong justification for NGOs both to communicate these and to monitor their effectiveness in doing so.

In such environments where the penalties for mistaken identity are often the stiffest and where the humanitarian community as a whole risks being judged on the performance of its weakest member I believe that there is a case to be made for NGOs to strengthen their collective accountability - a point that Maurice alludes to in his final sentence. This will be no easy task though. Given the limited progress made by individual agencies to manage and monitor their reputation, one can only imagine that collective humanitarian brand management will be a stretch!

Excellent question and thought-provoking responses.

I have always felt uncomfortable with the term beneficiary, as it immediately suggests a power imbalance--and of course, there is a power imbalance. Where you have a beneficiary, you have a "benefactor" --and the humanitarian organisation may behave or be viewed as such, although it does its good works with other people's money. The humanitarian is in reality a trustee and is responsible to many stakeholders, but the primary stakeholder is the 'beneficiary'--it is s/he that all this is about. All our attention should be on improving conditions for that person.

Words are important. I prefer the term 'programme participant' to beneficiary. Social workers often use the word 'client' and 'client-centered therapy' to remind themselves how important it is not to lose sight of the fact that they are there to provide service and that they must be aware of their own prejudices. But the term client is too close to corporationspeak for me for the humanitarian world. And many NGOs have already adopted a corporate like structure with CEOs and VPs. And many have undergone the exercise of 'restructuring', a word that makes me cringe. What seems important is how well we know--literally know, in the sense of spending time with them and listening, those who our work puports to serve. How well do we know their thoughts on what we do, how we do it and how well we do it? How much do they see themselves as stakeholders who have a right to question us and have a forum for doing so? How do they think we perceive them, and-- toughest to get at, how do we really perceive them?

I have been out there enough to know that any of us are capable of becoming distanced from the real issues and from the people who are the reason for our presence. The emergence of humanitarian as bureaucrat, gatekeeper, remote-control operator, savvy lobbyist, paper machine pumping out grants in an unwieldy, top-heavy organisation may be argued as necessary, but when so many people spend so much time pecking away at reports on their laptops, fewer and fewer people are in the field, responses are presumptive and do not really include the full engagement of those at risk (never mind all the inclusive language); when a "field visit" of a couple hours in a meeting counts as a field visit, when security measures become so restrictive that it is impossible to make meaningful contact, and when discussions at the office are only about reports and donors, I can't help but feel we have lost our way.

When I think about the organisations that have good reputations in my book, they are the ones that are the most visible in the field and have the most contact with people and whose organisations live and breathe meaning. They are not necessarily the ones with the most vehicles who appear often in the media--they are not all big and certainly do not all hire expats. Many are local NGOs with just a few staff--sometimes just volunteers. But a few are big and still manage to work In a way that is both professional and deeply humanitarian in the sense that they are truly guided by humanitarian principles. These organisations tend to do a lot of soul-searching. Some of the bigger organisations that Immediately come to mind are ICRC, MSF and Partners in Sharing--and there are many smaller NGOs that exemplify caring, accountability and standards of excellence that I have been privileged to witness. Perhaps we should study the culture of some of these organisations so that we can figure out what makes them work and what they have learned through self-criticism. One thing I know--committed leadership and the infusion of principles from the top down has been one key to the success of these organisations.

http://www.globalscale.info - this is an initiative I set up in 2006, but got distracted along the way, especially when joining the Humanitarian Accountability Parternship as a Humanitarian Auditor. Some of what is written in the "recognition system" section may be relevant to this discussion, as is the HAP intiaitive (www.hapinternational.org). Although there is a great deal of debate around measuring accountability, I do think if you are measuring reputation, understanding how much any of your stakeholders can trust you, as an organization, is an important consideration.

Hello Mark:

Interesting point on the ISO 9000. I think that we will see an increase in business related models merging into the hum. enterprise. I am excited about that development and will monitor it. I think that the hum. enterprise has much to learn from the business sector.
With regard to your arguments concerning trust: yes, very important, but what is it:? Intuitively you and I feel it, but how can it be measured/operationalised into research variables.
Also, with regard to reputation, which you mention is more aligned to upward accountability to donors than downward accountability to beneficiaries, I would argue that this is not necessarily so, certainly not deterministic. TQM for example, capitalizes on the involvement of management, workforce, suppliers, and even customers, in order to meet or exceed customer expectations. It is a total, 360 degrees commitment to everyone in the supply process.

You may be interested in looking into this: Ahire, S. L. 1997. Management Science- Total Quality Management interfaces: An integrative framework. Interfaces 27 (6) 91-105.

Thank you for your comments!

Andy, can you by any chance refer me to the research you mention in your first paragraph? It sounds very interesting and relevant.
Also, maybe you will find this attachment interesting; I really enjoyed it and it created a riot in class, good stuff: marketing and branding the humanitarian effort.

Attached file: hd-slim-marketing-humanitarian-space.pdf

Hi Colleen, will have a look and many thanks for sending the report my way.
Best!

Thank you so much Dustin for your comments. The truth is that at this point my ambition is less to standardize and more to understand the theoretical concepts and how to measure them.

What tangible outcomes do you think relate directly to impact? I think you make a very important point here...
Best

To Daniel:
Apologies, by "in my book" I was referring to my point of view--I did not express myself well as I used a colloquialism. Sorry about that!

Thanks so much for initiating this discussion. How interesting that the post that has elicited so many responses is from someone who worked for ICRC!

Thanks for the link to the paper...I am really looking forward to reading it.

All the best to you and all those taking the time to reflect on how we might do a better job,

Diane Paul

In relation to 'how organisations are measured' I partly agree with Maurice but would add that I think an organisation is firstly measured by and for staff (so they know how to improve and feel good about what they do), secondly to beneficiaries and stakeholders (to keep them involved and build capacity), thirdly to host governments (local, regional and national so that they can use the data for national statistical measurement and know what is going on), and then fourthly to donors (to be accountable for the money used). This way is respectful of those involved and places the reputation of an organisation squarely on those, staff, who are in the best position to make sure that the organisation does well and gains a good reputation. In my work with social enterprise I do a lot of Social Accounting and Audit and with my work with aid organisations I do a lot of Results Based M&E. However, increasingly I find that there is a need for both Social Auditing and M&E to come together into a single method to be accountable and measure programmes and the organisation.

Dear Daniel,

First, apologies to you and the group for another long post.

I want to thank for the reference to Sowon Kim and Susan Schneider's article on ICRC. One of the things that seems very important is that ICRC has consciously decided to base its work on the needs of people as assessed at field level and that field staff consistenty send ideas and issues to HQ. The authors note that this is a "bottom up" approach. I would agree, but than look at the amount of effort that goes into recruiting and training delegates, and it is clear that ICRC works hard to ensure that its staff are selected on the basis of their ability to navigate difficult situations while, importantly, viewing actions through the lens of the fundamental principles. So the ability delegates have to understand the real problems and to propose approaches occurs in large part because they have taken the ICRC's values on
board and hold the principles dear. Also, I have yet to meet an ICRC delegate who does not know exactly why she/he is taking a particular approach in the field. There is a clarity that is
lacking in many organisations. The authors of the article note that [humanitarian] "Performance...is about the safety and integrity of Individuals and groups of people." This really says it.

Perhaps some organisations have not created the kind of clarity needed for effective field performance--which tends to lead to a good reputation with the participants of aid programs. ICRC is clear about what is meant by the words "protection" and "assistance" and defines them in terms of specific activities, each infused by principles. It is true that ICTC has a very specific mandate; thus it could be argued that it is easier for ICRC to achieve clarity of purpose. But I don't see why other organisations can't develop similar clarity. What strikes me is that humanitarian organisations often have difficulty translating lofty principles into action and staff are floundering around because no one has told them what to do. ICRC has particular approaches and standards that are time-tested, e.g. how detention visits are managed. This is not to say that ICRC does not struggle to meet challenges--a huge challenge involves attacks on staff--but by and large, there is a procedure to follow WITH permission from management to take initiative. As long as one doesn't stray from established mechanisms and the Principles, innovation is encouraged.

I can't help but think about Syria right now. If only the UN had clarity about the situation there...but hats off to the UN monitors, who are at least speaking out and being permitted to do so. This is a completely different role from that of the ICRC which rarely speaks out for many good reasons. In this case, the role of the UN should reflect what is in the Preamble to the UN Charter and it must now take action before more civilians die. And I dare say that if it doesn't, its reputation will suffer as badly as it did post-Rwanda, and deservedly so. Here, it's reputation precedes it in that the parties to the conflict are betting on the same old behaviour.

This may seem like mixing apples with oranges but the critical shared component is action based on principles--acknowledging that unlike ICRC, where everyone is pretty much on the same page, the UN is made up of actors interested largely in acting out of self-interest. And I dare say I have seen some NGOs get themselves in a pinch because they are also acting out of self-interest or out of the donors' interests, which may or may not relate to the reality of the survival and integrity of the population under threat.

Thanks again for stimulating the discussion.
All best,

Diane

Dear all,

Great to watch this interesting debate unfolding!

Though nearly three years old, you might find the ALNAP Study Counting what counts; performance and effectiveness in the humanitarian sector useful when considering approaches to measurement of various aspects of performance - although not (directly) reputation - in humanitarian action.

Latest findings on the performance of the humanitarian system are about to be shared when ALNAP's report The State of the Humanitarian System will be published on 4 July 2012. The research for this report included a survey of aid recipients in the four aid contexts of DRC, Haiti, Pakistan and Uganda who expressed the critical importance of timely response. When asked about the main things they would like to see humanitarian agencies do to improve their performance, more respondents answered 'be faster to respond' than any other option. More findings will be revealed in a couple of weeks when the report gets launched.

Hello all,
The reputation of an aid organization is subject to what kind of aid is being delivered, i.e. it could be relief assistance, technical assistance, rehabilitation, or development in its multidimensional facets. So to measure the reputation of an organization depends on what kind of aid it delivers. Is it worth thinking about a conceptual framework of how to measure reputation?

Thanks Franziska, will have a look. This has all been amazingly beneficial (oops, I meant helpful) :)

Thanks Andrew,

I refer in particular to your last paragraph. It would be interesting to note whether it is possible to establish a correlation between an agency that is considered credible (as you define it), and the impact of its work.....

Best

Daniel,

As my stats professor used to say, one can measure anything, as long as the definitions are agreed upon. The first question would be the definition of "impact". All interventions have impact - the question would be whether or not the impact is positive or negative.

The thread assumes definitions of "impact" and "credibility" and "reputation". One can assume the readers accept HAP and SPHERE, though Medair prefers ISO 9000 to measure the quality of its organization.

As for reputations, having spent 30 plus years in this field, that meaning varies widely. All agencies want to be seen as reliable with the funds placed at their disposal. However, how they approach their niche in the humanitarian sector also contributes to their reputation. Some agencies prefer the "cowboy" approach. They will go where others are afraid to go, speak up and criticize others for not meeting their standards and generally position themselves as the best of the best. Other agencies place themselves as ones who will be around for the duration and into development. Still others have a faith-based component that needs to be included when considering their reputation and credibility.

For example, I know of several major organizations that are faith-based who want the reputation of including faith-based results as a part of their impact. They promote this among their individual donors. However, their reputation with other faith-based organizations is weak in this area. Yes, they have positive impact in other areas. Therefore, under one set of criteria, they are not as credible and their reputation is mixed. Under another set of criteria, they are credible and enjoy a strong reputation.

This is why standards like SPHERE, HAP, ISO 9000 and others help stabilize discussions like this to a degree. However, as the Medair example points out, not everyone agrees on one standard.

Medair, I'm not disagreeing with your choice. You have valid reasons for your decision. It also helps illustrate why this discussion will not have a nice, neat answer. Agencies will find core elements upon which to agree and other elements upon which they disagree.

When I conduct an evaluation of an agency's efforts, my first question is to which standards do they subscribe? The second is how did they portray their programme approach and impact intent to their donors and beneficiaries? The answers to these two questions allow us to develop the quantitative and qualitative measures to determine internal policy quality, overall credibility and ascribe a positive or negative aspect to their reputation.

And, in answer to the original question, once you have the desired measurement definitions, you can objectively validate an agency's credibility and reputation.

Cheers, Drew

In response to Andrew, I should clarify that Medair has not taken an either/ or approach with regards to ISO 9000 versus other standards: all our programming aims to be SPHERE-compliant (and we have developed additional 'SPHERE-like' indicators where these are lacking, such as for infrastructure projects), and revolves around serving the needs of the vulnerable following HAP principles (we report on progress to HAP-I annually). ISO 9000 is the overall organisational framework which Medair has selected as the global quality standard within which our programming sits. Since ISO requires us to demonstrate continual improvement in terms of service delivery, this encourages us to focus on how the whole is operating, and which processes or linkages need to be strengthened in order to improve our performance, therefore credibility, therefore reputation with beneficiaries and donors...