1: Differences and Commonalities in Management

Background

Through our class readings, we have learned that there are both similarities and differences between NGOs and businesses, government, and international organizations. When exploring the similarities, both NGOs and businesses have more flexibility in management and making decisions compared to government and international organizations. Furthermore, NGOs and businesses have shorter feedback loop because they both do not have a rigid hierarchical system unlike other institutions. However, when it comes to public accountability and scrutiny, NGOs are similar to government than businesses--they both have high accountability to the public. In relation to international organizations, NGOs may share the same goals and mission with international organizations but in a more narrow and grassroot level.

Aside from characteristics, such as accountability, flexibility, and structure, NGOs differ from government, businesses, and international organizations in terms of its purpose. While NGOs seek to meet the needs of people, especially those who are poor and/or vulnerable, in order to improve human condition and the well-being of society, businesses on the other hand exist to generate profit and deliver goods and services that people “want.” Government and NGOs both try to address and deliver the needs of people, but government makes decision based upon public’s will and interests instead of a value or a principle. Finally, international organizations function as facilitators and deliverers of global public goods; thus, in comparison to NGOs, international organizations have a larger commitment to overall global needs.

The National Center for Refugee and Immigrant Children (NCRIC), a special program under U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, is a typical NGO that seeks to meet the needs of people, but it particularly helps unaccompanied and undocumented immigrant or refugee children who come into the U.S. Similar to other NGOs, NCRIC has a high accountability to all stakeholders--public, donors, recipients, and government. Furthermore, NCRIC has a “loose” hierarchical system compared to government and international organizations; it is composed of few “leadership” staff members, such as the director and the immigration program officers, as well as various interns and volunteers.

Analysis

Despite the fact that the popular trend nowadays is to have high accountability, the level of accountability in NGOs is still subject to an appraisal through an evaluation of effectivity of having high or low accountability. There is a reason why businesses are sometimes viewed to be more effective than NGOs. While businesses can make faster decisions, transactions, and negotiations, it takes NCRIC a lot of time and effort before taking an action because it first has to consider various risks and assumptions. For instance, like any other NGOs, NCRIC’s ability to take action depends upon its finances; its finances are dependent upon donors, such as government, foundations, and international organizations, specifically the UNHCR. It is valid to require NGOs to provide a report on its financial management and program evaluations. However, there is a downside of this system of accountability when it is “overdone” because the organization may be spending too much time and money to be accountable to different stakeholders. Therefore, the challenge is to continuously be accountable to stakeholders yet the organization must ensure that its time and money are allocated more towards delivering the organization’s mission.

Recommendations

In my knowledge and experience working at NCRIC, considering the level of accountability, the organization does not have a problem on ensuring that its time and money are allocated towards serving the right target audience. In fact, having the characteristic of having a balanced yet higher accountability system compared to businesses motivates staff members, especially volunteers, to work harder to achieve organization’s mission. Therefore, NCRIC should remain status quo.