“We are in the process of creating an exciting and innovative new international programming division, with scalable empowered Country and Regional Offices worldwide as a keystone of our ambitious growth strategy, enabling us to have an even greater impact for children. Once complete, the organization will have a budget of US$1 billion and over 12,000 staff. We’ve already completed 10 countries and there is plenty more to go!”
“A dynamic rapid scale-up of such magnitude needs experienced hands-on change managers with a successful track record gained ideally in merger, acquisition, outsourcing or similar major organizational restructuring initiatives. Results driven, you will be a creative problem solver, strategic thinker and incisive analyst. You will have the credibility and powers of persuasion to influence issues and people at all levels with tact and diplomacy.”
The italics in the final sentence of the first paragraph are mine, but the exclamation point is Save the Children’s special touch. I can’t say that I am similarly excited that relief work for impoverished children is seen as a growth market. Notably absent is any mention of the prospect of mission completion. On the contrary, there is the clear suggestion that this is a job with plenty of upside and security.
The grotesqueness of the intro teaser is surpassed by Save the Children’s shocking description of the ideal applicant. It appears that INGOs are no longer satisfied with merely receiving donations from the Gordon Gekkos of the world—now they want to hire them as well. One has to wonder why Save the Children needs this particular type of talent – should UNICEF or Plan International be worried about a hostile takeover?
These mega-INGOs ask applicants to provide proven track records of success; however, they rely on PR fundraising campaigns focused on the emotionally blinding needs of starving children rather than the actual effectiveness of their work. Yet, the CEOs of the mega INGOs, who earn upwards of $400,000 to $500,000 a year, never have to show proven results or real change to their "shareholders." They just have to wait for another disaster to stir "the market."
The fact that there are hundreds of millions of children in the world at risk daily is unquestionable. What is questionable is assuming that mega INGOs are the most cost effective or progress-oriented solution to the problems these children face. It just does not make sense to employ global conglomerates to do highly localized work. Outsourcing ‘love of neighbor’ and social welfare does not work – neither economically nor socially.
