It’s well known that international NGOs founded in the UK, the US and other global north countries are aiming to be more rooted in the global south these days. Both for practical reasons, and for legitimacy and funding. As a consequence, many are establishing new offices there and trying to recruit more staff and managers from developing countries. In some cases, jobs may require the expertise that only those from the global south – or those who have spent significant time working and living there – are likely to have.
Beyond this, there is an ambition to diversify INGO workforces and achieve greater representation from the communities with which they are working. I don’t know of any colleagues who would disagree with this.
But it is in this context that positive race discrimination can occur, where an INGO overlooks candidates from the global north in favour of those from the global south, even if merit might dictate a different decision.
I know of several examples.
In one case, a senior manager allegedly told others on an interview panel that they needed to choose a candidate from the global south, even though there was no legal reason for doing so.
In another, a new manager admitted to his team that a role had not been filled after several attempts because they hadn’t found the right candidate from a particular region in the global south.
Is this OK?
Positive discrimination could be justified on the basis that something needs to be done to promote diversity, to ensure that historically unrepresented groups are represented in the workforce and to bring INGOs closer to those they are supposed to be helping.
But it can be very harmful for the individuals affected and it is also risky for the organisations that are doing it.
Charities risk opening themselves up to costly legal claims. In the UK, positive discrimination is generally not allowed.
The practice can have a lasting impact on the individuals discriminated against, with their self-esteem undermined and reputation damaged. Rarely are they or others told the real reason for missing out on a job and are instead made to believe they are simply not up to it.
It can cause resentment by those overlooked against those perceived to have benefited, making for divided and unhappy organisations. When people are not recruited on merit alone, the charity’s work can also suffer – which is detrimental for its beneficiaries, donors, supporters and other stakeholders.
Further, those who benefit may suffer also. I know of cases where individuals have been put in an impossible position – they have allegedly been chosen for a role because of their race and are then expected to have the required competencies but don’t. Positive discrimination is patronising and can entrench discriminatory attitudes, implying that those with certain characteristics may not otherwise have the skills and knowledge to secure jobs.
Then there’s reputation damage. INGOs failing to practise what they preach, not following their own stated values, such as respect for human rights. On the one hand, they may rally against discrimination and inequality, while on the other, follow the same practices when it suits them.
Imagine what the Trump administration might do if it identified discrimination at the very same organisations opposing his discriminatory policies? Now more than ever, INGOs need to guard against hypocrisy.
Ending positive discrimination does not mean giving up on efforts to promote diversity and achieve greater representation.
Instead, INGOs can take positive action – which is allowed – to encourage under-represented groups to apply for jobs, such as advertising in relevant media and holding interviews in appropriate languages.
They should have an honest conversation with staff from the global north about their ambition to diversify the workforce, and work with – not against – such individuals to achieve that aim. They could do this through involving them in positive action with colleagues from the global south, such as outreach efforts with potential applicants from developing countries. They should also provide training and support to managers and others involved in recruitment, to guard against unconscious prejudices and biases.
Organisations could also engage an external body such as Acas or even the Equality and Human Rights Commission to provide advice and support on ensuring diversity while ending discrimination, and even commission an audit of recruitment and promotion practices.
These steps would help ensure that INGOs are acting in accordance with their values, enable them to take all their staff with them on the journey to diversity and broader representation, while protecting them from costly legal claims and – potentially – serious reputational damage.
Do you have a secret aid worker story you’d like to tell? You can contact us confidentially at globaldevpros@theguardian.com – please put “Secret aid worker” in the subject line. If you’d like to encrypt your email to us, here are instructions on how to set up a PGP mail client and our public PGP key.
Join our community of development professionals and humanitarians. Follow @GuardianGDP on Twitter.
