OXFAM AMERICA:
BECOMING A GLOBAL CAMPAIGNING ORGANIZATION
Assignment#3A:CaseAnalysisandDiscussionLead
PA749ManagingNGOsintheInternationalContext
Dr.JenniferShea
MichaelJacinto
April8,2013
OxfamAmerica:
BecomingaGlobalCampaigningOrganization
In1942,agroupofsocialactivistsandscholarsfoundedtheOxfordCommitteefor
Famine Relief (“Oxfam”) a voluntary organization (“VO”) to aid refuges displaced by the
Nazi‐occupationofGreeceduringWorldWarII.Oxfamundertookitsworkasaregistered
charity, soliciting donations to address the war’s immediate humanitarian impacts, first
throughout Europe then later internationally by expanding its social welfare mission to
include the “needs of people in developing countries.” (Scott, 2004, p. 2) As a VO, Oxfam
predates the classification of nongovernmental organization (“NGO”) in development
nomenclature. NGO was first used in 1950 by the United Nations (“UN”) to refer to any
international organization “not established by intergovernmental agreement.” (Dichter,
1999,p.38)Oxfam’sactivities alsopredatethosebykeyactorsandinstitutionsthat have
come to characterize formal international aid institutions: the World Bank (1944),
International Development Association (1960), and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD, 1961), et al. It is within the context of voluntary
action of altruism and global civil society, the “sphere of ideas, values, institutions,
organizations, networks, and individuals located between the family, the state, and the
market and operating beyond the confines of national societies, polities, and economies,”
(Anheier,2007,p.7)thatOxfamAmerica(OA)tracesbothitsoriginandmission.
This paper begins with the identification of OA as an organization in global civil
society, one that provides development interventions that challenge the status quo; its
activities “legitimized by the existence of poverty.” (Lewis, 2007, p. 8) It examines the
endocentric(internaltotheorganization)andexocentric(externaltodonors,partnersand
policy makers) challenges arising from OA’s affiliation to Oxfam’s international
1
confederation as well as from shifting its activates from grant‐making to global policy
advocacyaddressingthesocial,economicandpoliticalfactorsthataffecttheworld’spoor.
UsingLewis’conceptualframeworkasanorganizingprinciple(Lewis,2007,pp.15‐
16),thecase’scoreissuesareorganizedaroundOxfam’sactivities,organizationalstructure,
anditsrelationshipsinthecontextofthewiderenvironment(seealsoExhibitA).Interms
ofactivities,OA’smovetowardconfederationandadoptionofOI’sstrategicplanreflectsa
desire to “scale‐up” its activities in order to have a broader impact, using a rights‐based
approach to drive social change. Implementing the strategic plan and expanding OA’s
mission created organizational challenges: internally, Raymond Offenheiser joined OA in
1995aspresidentalmostsimultaneouswithadoptingthestrategicplanandaffiliatingOA
withOI.OffenheisersawOA’sexpandedmissionasanopportunitytoforgeanewnichein
an increasingly saturated marketplace of altruism; Offenheiser approached impending
changewithaneyetowardbalancing“tensionsbetweenprocessandoutcomes,withaneed
tobeflexible,outwardlookingandentrepreneurial”usingorganizationallearningtoserve
asafeedbackloop,whichwouldhelpOAidentifychallenges,learnfrommistakes,andplot
course corrections as necessary. (Scott, 2004, p. 4) Internally, staff saw things less
optimistically: mission shift was regarded as mission drift; some feared that miss‐match
between the new task of global campaigning and the resources allocated to carry it out
wouldultimatelytesttheprimacyofOA’sagency;othersquestionedthesaliencyofaglobal
fair trade campaign, and raised fundamental concerns related to OA’s capacity to carry it
out,giventhedearthofitsinstitutionalexperiencewithinthatissuearea.
OA’snewmissioncreatedconsternationandstraininitsrelationships:externally
with its NGO partners who critiqued OA for playing the “insider game” with Washington
policymakers, questioning OA’s strategies and allegiances, with some suggesting that the
institution was becoming more “mainstream” inconsistent with its brand identity it had
2
created with its partners the past 25 or so years. Internally, relationships between
management and staff took on a clash of cultures between the “old” and “new” Oxfams.
Long‐timestafffoundnewproceduresandlayersofmanagementonerous;theyquestioned
the relevancy of campaign work; feared an ultimate abandonment of core grant‐making
activityandfieldworkandfoundthetrendtowardtop‐down,centralizeddecisionmaking
disconcerting in an organizational setting where bottom‐up consensus‐driven decision
making had been the norm. Environment refers to the context in which Oxfam actively
implements its mission. This environment is an arena influenced by macro‐level political,
socioeconomic, technological and cultural forces that, taken together are referred to as
globalization. It is within a globalized context then that Oxfam carries out its development
work,whichmaybeunderstoodinreferenceto“organizedinterventionincollectiveaffairs
accordingtoastandardofimprovement.”(Pieterse,2010,p.3)
OxfamAmerica:OriginsinCrisis(andinChange)
In the early 1970s a refugee crisis in Bangladesh prompted the founding of OA in
Washington D.C. with seed money from Oxfam Great Britain. By the mid‐1970s, become
financially and programmatically autonomous from its UK counterpart. It set up regional
offices to focus on poverty and hunger issues in Central and South America, West Africa,
southernAfrica,EastAsiaandinBostontoservetheUnitedStates.OAissuedgrantstofund
a variety of grassroots activities, including “seeds and tools projects” in addition to
providing financial aid, technical assistance, and sometimes emergency relief in the
aftermath of disasters. There was a strategic focus on making small grants that had the
potential for replicability and broader impact.
OA gained the reputation as progressive and independent international
development organization devoted to supporting partner organizations in developing
3
countries throughout the world. The partnership focus was a strategic investment in its
partnering NGO’s social capital, which entails the “features of social organization, such as
trust, norms [of reciprocity] and networks [of civic engagement], that can improve the
efficiencyofsocietybyfacilitatingcoordinatingactions.”(Putnam,1993,inLewis,2007,p.
58)AsnotedbyanOxfamaccountant,“unlikemanyotherorganizations,OxfamAmericahas
not chosen to develop organizational capacity [in the regions] but rather to promote
sustainabledevelopmentthrough…relationshipswithpartners.”(Scott,2004,p.3)
OvertimeOAhaddevelopedaloyaldonorbasethatfundeditsprograms.Individual
donations from private sources accounted for 72 percent of its budget in 2002 with the
balance covered by foundations, Oxfam affiliates and other sources. (p.3) The decision to
eschewgovernmentfundingwasimportantintworespects:itprovidedindependencefrom
theU.S.geopoliticalagendaandalsoacertaindegreeofmaneuveringroomforOAtocarry
outitsagendaofbuildingabroadbaseofgrassrootssupportwithitspartners,primarilyin
the global South. OA leveraged the capacity it had built with its partners in appeals to
donors,withOAdepictingitspartnersasproblemsolverswiththelocalexpertisenecessary
toaccountablycarryoutprojects.Inadditiontograntmaking,OA’smissionalsoincluded
educatingtheU.S.publicabouttherootcausesofhunger,povertyandsystemicchallenges
todevelopment.OAwascompelledtobringitsperspectivesonissuesofpovertytopolicy
debateswithintheU.S.government,theUnitedNations,andmultilateralagencies. AgendaSetting:ARights‐basedApproachtoPolicyAdvocacy
Themovetowardarights‐basedapproachindevelopmentpracticecanbecharted
against the organizational life span of OA, and broadly also in conjunction with the
expansion of civil society. As Arnheier (2007) notes, the 1970s marked “a major shift in
culturalandsocialvaluesthattookholdinmostdevelopedmarketeconomies….[interms
of]change[s]inmaterialsecuritytoconcernsaboutdemocracy,participation,andinvolved,
4
among others a formation towards cosmopolitan values such as tolerance and respect for
humanrights.“(p.5)
Duringthe1980s,publicmanagementanddevelopmentpracticewereinfluencedby
macro‐level forces and philosophies that came to be known as globalization and
neoliberalism.Globalizationcanbeunderstoodastheriseoftransnationalcorporationsand
integrated,capitalflowandtransfer.Thiseconomicintegrationoccurredwithinthecontext
ofneoliberalism,aneconomicphilosophythatpromotesliberalization,freetradeandopen
markets, privatization, deregulation, and decreasing the size of the public sector by
promotingtheincreasedroleofthe privatesectorinsociety.(Pieterse,2010,p.9)Within
thesameperiod,theColdWarexertedconstantpressurethat“eventuallyfocusedtheglobal
humanrightsmovementonpoliticalandcivilrights,relegatingeconomicandsocialrights
tothecareofthemarket.”(Offenheiser,2003,p.273)
By the 1990s the world was no longer oriented and polarized around two
superpowers; within the U.S. “widened the world’s sense of democratic space space—and
because of that, American NGOs see the developing countries as filled with potential
partnerswithwhichtoreplicateprojects.”(Dichter,1999,p.43)Therewasatthesametime
a“growinguneaseaboutthemeritsofglobalizationfueledthedrivetoreconnectciviland
politicalwithsocial,economicandculturalrights.”(Offenheiser,2003,p.273)
It is within this period that in 1995 Raymond Offenheiser became OA’s new
presidentandjoinedOAwithelevenotherOxfamaffiliatesinaworldwideconfederationto
become a "global campaigning force." (Scott, 2004) OA adopted a new strategic plan and
mission(seeExhibitB)thatsignaledashiftinhowitwouldorientitsworktowardpoverty
alleviation.Untilthistime,developmentinterventionsinpracticeregardedpovertyas“the
absenceofsomeparticularsetofpublicgoodsorbodyoftechnicalknowledge…[suchas]
certain inputs or catalysts, e.g., seeds, nutrition, family planning strategy [that would be
5
needed by] either state or private actor… to most cost effectively spur development and
reduce poverty…” (Offenheiser, 2003, p. 271) OA strategic plan and mission therefore
reflectedascaling‐upofitsactivities,tomovebeyondaservicedeliverymodelofpoverty
reduction by addressing through advocacy and education the structural issues that
hinderedpeopleinpovertyfromimprovingtheirlives.
BebbingtonandHume(2008)seedevelopmentashavingtwodistinctmeanings:‘big
D Development’ is characteristic of project‐based and intentional interventions, wherein
tangibleoutputshavelittleintentiontomakefoundationalchangesthatchallengesociety’s
institutional arrangements. ‘Big D development’ on the other hand, is regarded as an
ongoing process that emphasizes systemic alternatives that seek different ways of
organizingtheeconomy,socialrelationshipsandpolitics.(Lewis,2007,p.161)Withregard
to OA’s activities, the shift toward a rights‐based approach to poverty alleviation signals
OA’sengagementwith‘little‐d’developmentthatattemptstoalterthefundamentalfactors
thatcauseandkeeppeopleimpoverished.
ALearningOrganization?
The alignment of OA to an international confederation, adoption of a new mission
and shift in activities to the advocacy arena created a number of management challenges,
some Offenheiser anticipated; others he and senior staff did not. Offenheiser intended to
use organizationallearning to manage the potential pitfalls associated with implementing
OA’snewstrategicplanandmission.Organizationallearningispremisedonorganizations
having processes and procedures in place to capture data and learn from failures and
successes. The qualitative aspects of collecting and reviewing data are only part of the
organizational learning process. Learning also occurs in settings that encourage reflection
andopendialogue.
6
Suggesting a certain level of amateurism, Offenheiser referred to the “stove‐pipe
mission”and“scattershotmanner”inwhichtheOAinthepasthadissueditsgrants.Under
thenewOIframework,therewasamovetoward“centralizingcontrolover‘mission,vision,
values and performance standards’ and staffing the competencies of the new mission.”
(Scott, 2004, p. 4) The role of the field managers was diminished under the new OI
confederationrelationship.Managementlayerswereaddedtofieldoperationsandtheuse
ofemailandothertechnology(thiswasthelate1990s)highlightedthedifferencesinboth
theorganizationalculturalandstaffcapacitiesbetweenstaffwhosawthemselvesaspartof
the“oldOxfam”andthenewtechandmediasavvypolicyadvocates,manyofwhomwere
hired when OA doubled its staff and budget. (p. 7) OA’s new plan and mission required
strategic planning and embracing diversity as a transformative management principle but
alsohadthetendencytoaltertheorganization’scultureinsuchawaythatsuggestedashift
to professionalism through superimposed, top‐down decision making management
practices.
Lewis(2007)statesthatinordertoachievesuccessinchangingpolicy,acoherent
campaignstrategymustbecombinedwithadequateresources,anditisnecessaryforNGOs
to‘frame’theissueinsuchawaythatitmustappealtothegrassrootsgroupsandalsolimit
the oppositions ability to organize. (p. 149) One arena that created a significant level of
management tension and challenge was that of issue salience and affiliate autonomy. OI’s
“Make Trade Fair” campaign fell flat with many of OA’s long‐term employees. OI’s
delegationofthetopicsaswellasthe“wedgeissue”campaignsrequiredahugeamountof
scaling up in terms of capacities to effectively carry out and advocate on issues that OA
historicallyhadlittletonoexperiencewith.RelationshipsbetweenOffenheiserandsenior
staff at OA were often strained because policy advocacy generally pointed to the
Washingtonestablishmentasthecauseofthenegativeimpactsassociatedwithtrade,when
7
atthesametimeOAwasscalingupitsdomesticcapacitiesbyestablishingconnectionswith
lawmakerstohaveamoreeffectiveadvocacyimpact.Finally,asisprobablythecaseinany
transnationalorganization,OAassumedhighmanagementtransactioncostsinbecomingan
internationalaffiliatethroughitsrelationshipwithOI:directcostswereaccruedassociated
with travel and meetings, as well as indirect opportunity cost were ultimately tradeoffs
between juggling primary job duties (grant making) and carrying out the new, often
onerous tasks involved with managing the relationships between native organization and
internationalaffiliate.
Recommendations
The following are my recommendations that address management problems and
relationshipsinthiscase.



DesignatemembersofeachformerOAworkunitasanambassadortoOIand
new employees hired to “staff the competencies.” This would not require any
additionalresourcespersonnelresources(newstaff)butresultinsome additional
stafftime.Thepurpose wouldbeto communicatetosenior managementconcerns
related to mission shift and other organizational issues that could fall under the
rubric of “organizational culture clash.” The idea would be to aid in the learning‐
feedback loop early on so that senior management could adjust recently adopted
policies based on real world information pertaining to their appropriateness and
effects.
Conduct a cost‐benefit analysis of new initiatives relative to existing capacities
priortorollingthemout.Itseemsprudenttounderstandthecostsassociatedwith
directing staff to engage in new initiatives when 1) the core capacities of existing
staffmaynotmatchtheaptituderequiredbythetaskinquestionand2)ifthat’sthe
casehowmuchtimeandresourceswillittaketoeithertrainstaffappropriatelyhire
new staff to carry out the directive. Implementing this recommendation could be
carried out by an internal or external auditor, which under either scenario would
requiretimeanddedicatedmonetaryresourcestofundtheexerciseaswellastime
and
Establishgreaterautonomy(andleeway)betweenOAandOI.Allowforgreater
flexibilityincarryingoutactionsdeemedrelevanttotheconfederation.Establisha
greater “firewall” to protect autonomy and donor relationships. Implementing this
wouldrequirenegotiationwithOI’sboardandwouldlikelyresultinamendmentsto
itsbilawsandifhandledequitablyacrossallaffiliates,couldreducesomesynergies
andcooperativebenefitsinsupportofgreater(national)affiliateautonomy.
8
ExhibitA:IllustrativeFramework
The Conceptual Framework for NGO Management (Lewis, 2007) serves as a model for
understanding the core issues, motivations and management challenges associated with
Oxfam America (OA) becoming an affiliate to Oxfam International (OI) as a “global
campaigning organization.” Oxfam manages its organization, activities and relationships
within the context of the broader environment. Figure 1 illustrates the interplay between
thesedomains.
Figure1:FourinterrelatedareasofNGOmanagementchallengeappliedtoOAandOI
Organization refers to Oxfam’s internal structures: its mission, vision, values, and
performance standards relative to the management of its staff, resources, and image
(“brand”) in the context of the services it provides. Activities relate to Oxfam’s specific
functions. As an international relief and development organization dedicated to poverty
reduction,OA’scoreactivityisgrantmaking,followedbyadvocacyandpubliceducation.In
joiningOI,Oxfamsignificantlyexpandsitsscopebyaddingglobalcampaigning(advocacy)
toitsportfolioofservices.RelationshipsrefertothevarioustypesofpartnershipsOxfam
establishes: withdonors,insolicitingfunds from private foundationsand individuals; and
withitsNGOpartners,eitherthroughissuinggrantstosustaingrass‐rootsrelationshipsor
to build capacity in the advocacy arena required to affect social change. Finally, the
environmentistheinternationalcontextwithitsownsetofpolitical,culturalandhistoric
dimensions that influence management decisions. More specifically, whether as an
independent NGO or as an affiliate part of a confederation, Oxfam’s environment is one
defined by globalization, which raises the question of how transnational social policy is
developedwithin—andinfluencedby—economic,technicalandculturalchange.(Lewis:8)
A‐1
ExhibitB:OxfamAmerica’sMissionStatementandCoreOrganizationalBeliefs
Oxfam America is dedicated to creating lasting solutions to hunger, poverty, and social
injustice through long‐term partnerships with poor communities around the world. As a
privatelyfundedorganization,wecanspeakwithconvictionandintegrityaswechallenge
the structural barriers that foster conflict and human suffering and limit people from
gainingtheskills,resources,andpowertobecomeself‐sufficient.
Tocreatetheselastingsolutionstohunger,poverty,andinjustice,OxfamAmericabelieves

intheessentialdignityofallpeoplesandtheirrighttopursueandshapethecourseof
theirownlives,andthatrespectfordiversityofrace,gen‐der,religion,andethnicity
isessentialtobuildingjustsocietiesandvibrantcommunities;

thatpovertyisaconsequenceofthesystemicexclusionofdistinctsocialgroupsfrom
therights,resources,andopportunitiestoachievetheirfullestpotential;

thatitisourresponsibilitytofosterunderstandingoftherootcausesofpovertyand
injustice and promote the role each individual can play in a global movement for
socialchange;

that the distinctiveness of our partnerships is defined by mutual respect and a
willingnesstobeinnovative,sharerisks,andassumelong‐termrelationships;

that it is our obligation to be a responsive, efficient, and effective steward of our
donor’s resources and apply these resources in a way that will achieve maximum
impact;

that lasting solutions to global problems require sensible management of natural
resourcestoensureastablequalityoflifeforgenerationstocome;

thatdemocraticparticipationandpracticeareprimaryandindispensableelementsin
enablingpeopleandcommunitiestosecurefreedomandaccesstotheresourcesand
opportunitiestheyrequire;and

thatitisourresponsibilityasglobalcitizenstorespondtohumansufferinginallits
manifestationsandtobuildanintegratedglobalhumanitarianresponsecapability.
from:PartnershipsforImpact:1998‐2002StrategicPlan(OxfamAmerica,1997).
B‐1
References
Anheier, Helmut K. 2007. Reflections on the Concept and Measurement of Global Civil
Society.Voluntas18:1‐15.
Banks, Nicola & Hulme, David. 2012, June 1. The Role of NGOs and Civil Society in
Development and Poverty Reduction. Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper
No.171.
Dichter, T. W. 1999. Globalization and Its Effects on NGOs: Efflorescence or a Blurring of
RolesandRelevance?NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly,28,pp.38‐58.
Lewis, David. 2007. The Management of Non‐Governmental Development Organizations.
SecondEdition.NewYork:Routledge.
Mitlin, Diana, Hickey, Sam & Bebbington, Anthony. 2007. Reclaiming Development? NGOs
andtheChallengeofAlternatives.WorldDevelopment35(10):1699‐1720.
Offenheiser, Raymond C. & Holcombe, Susan H. 2003. Challenges and Opportunities in
Implementing a Rights‐Based Approach to Development: An Oxfam America
Perspective.NonprofitandVoluntarySectorQuarterly32(2):268‐306.
Pieterse, Jan Nederveen. 2010. Trends in Development Theory, pp. 1‐18, in Development
Theory.2ndEdition.LosAngeles:Sage.
Scott, Esther & Brown, David. 2004. Oxfam America: Becoming a Global Campaigning
Organization.FileHKS176‐PDF‐ENG,HarvardBusinessPublishing.
10