WikiLeaks - The voluntary sector?
Transparency and accountability have taken a whole new turn in the recent WikiLeaks furore.
If governments cannot rely on any of their most confidential information to remain out of the public eye, organisations and individuals haven’t got a hope.
As Carne Ross, who resigned from the British Foreign Service over the Iraq war puts it in The Harvard Business Review: “deeds will henceforward have to match words. If they don't, you can assume you will suffer a WikiLeaks crisis of your own, for it is from that discrepancy (or hypocrisy, read another way) that WikiLeaks finds its energy — and other leakers will in the future.
Like it or not, what has happened this week is of profound importance, and its lessons are profoundly important too.”But how does any group balance the need to talk freely internally with the need to record the rite of passage to decision-making?
Discord with stakeholders – and non profit organisations have a very disparate group of them – is inevitable when controversial decisions are being taken, such as a merger with another charity or financing a risky project. Not every last person will agree with everything and there are bound to be some heated exchanges along the way.
However, it is when the final conclusion is reached that the trouble arises; if there are discordant internal views and the direction has not been deeply debated and accepted so that some individuals are left feeling they have been bulldozed, seepage is a significant risk. And in a sector that relies on public trust and confidence to set it apart from the public and private sectors this can be catastrophic.
Human nature is such that not everyone is going to getting on in perfect peace and harmony all the time. People and situations can be frustrating and it is entirely normal to express this. But Gordon Brown’s Gillian Duffy moment is a salutary lesson in the consequences of ‘offline’ alternative perspectives.
This was something I raised last month when looking at a ‘step change’ culture in the boardroom – and this was pre-WikiLeaks.As charities review their operations for 2010 when preparing their 2011 reports, perhaps the challenge of how you maintain a positive story or spin for supporters while being open and honest about the things that didn’t quite work is a tough one.
Many annual reports do list the objectives set out in earlier ones and state how these were fully, nearly or incompletely met. Oxfam GB does this successfully in a separate ‘Accountability Report’ with specifics about how the charity will address any problems clearly stated. This kind of straight talking is more powerful than an avalanche of press releases.
With all the best from the Caritas team for 2011.
Author: Clarissa Dann
Clarissa Dann was the editor of Caritas as well as an HR and management online service,he People Bulletin until July 2011.
She is now the editor of the specialist trade finance magazine, Trade and Forfaiting Review which can be viewed at www.tfreview.com but does write on charity finance and investment from time to time.
Clarissa has a background in legal and professional publishing, as well as business journalism and holds an MBA from
There are no comments on this article. Be the first to comment.