Keeping the Flame
This chapter looks at who and what are seen as legitimate in MSF, focusing on OCA and partner sections. It focuses on the spirit of volunteerism and closeness to ‘the field’, and the way these impact on opportunities to enter MSF and on how internal dynamics and politics play out. In doing so, it highlights one of the ways informal power is used: to define what subjects or activities are viewed as legitimate uses of resources.
Key Findings
The spirit of volunteerism and proximity to operations are deeply rooted in MSF’s emergency culture and affect who has influence.
An organisational culture built on debate and individual initiative favours those who feel legitimate and equipped to wade in.
The Operations Department holds both formal and informal authority, overseeing the direct action in which the majority of MSF’s staff are engaged. Although only a small part of OCA’s workforce operate at HQ level, it is where power is concentrated.
Chapter overview
MSF values the idea of being seen as a ‘volunteer’, in the sense of a commitment to the humanitarian cause. In MSF’s emergency culture, this is reflected in expectations such as a willingness to work long hours and difficulty in negotiating individually on pay.
One result of this is that there are barriers to entry for staff from lower socio-economic groups. MSF’s workforce is most accessible to those in a financial position to accept low remuneration. In reflections on the profile of headquarters and partner section staff, this was linked to a perceived exclusion of certain groups, with access to education seen as a form of class privilege.
For programme staff, too, even at the lowest grade, entry into MSF may favour those with access to education and/or the right linguistic skills, reinforcing class barriers. Locally recruited employees described having to join via routes that discounted their professional expertise, and being expected to speak colonial rather than local languages.
“The organisation is designed for a certain socioeconomic background […] and I would wonder whether, to an extent, that prejudice is the bigger prejudice than others that we worry about within MSF.”
The Operations Department is another important concentration of power and legitimacy. While small at headquarters level, it oversees the direct action in which the majority of MSF’s staff are engaged.
‘Field’ experience is short-hand for a proven ability to cope and perform in the challenging environments with which MSF is most associated. Experience in high-profile, acute emergencies can catapult someone up through the ranks of prestige.
There are networked connections between staff members within Operations, adding up to a strong concentration of internal power. Personnel, particularly the locally recruited staff who make up the vast majority, face many obstacles in being able to participate in discussions, which increases the importance of having voices within or accessible to headquarters that can speak with authority from a ‘field’ perspective.
The weight given to those with operational experience affects internal communication, management and where attention is directed in MSF. While colleagues in other departments may also have significant experience and credentials, they feel their views lack authority or weight in the eyes of colleagues with operational experience.
“I’ve been told a lot of times, both at country level and OC level, ‘I’ve got 25 years’ experience,’ ‘I’ve got 28 years’ experience,’ ‘I’ve got 20 years’ experience.’ I’m, like, ‘That’s commendable, that’s respectable, and your input is valued, but can we not use that as the end-all of a conversation? Can we not use that as the justification for why we should take your approach and not another approach?’”
Proximity to programmes can be used to sideline the roles or voices of staff members with less or no equivalent experience. Awareness of this dynamic affects people’s decisions about whether to take part in internal discussions. However, people with the right experience can challenge those further up in the formal hierarchy, as authority and legitimacy are separate from this.
The weight given to operational experience is linked to criticism of formal leadership. Managers are perceived as too hands-on – that they try to reproduce the ways of working that they’re used to and are not good at considering strategic issues. At the same time, there is also scepticism about whether external experience can equip someone to be a leader in MSF.
A focus on ‘saving lives’ makes it difficult to access resources, attention and time for anything else, including reform. Some are concerned about the level of attention on internal issues, such as the ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ agenda, and examining biases in MSF culture or structures is often seen as a ‘distraction’ from ‘core business.’
Delve deeper
Image credit:
15. Hussein Amri/MSF
16. Scott Hamilton/MSF