Women Unite
A Case Study on A North-South Power Shift
By Hope Chigudu
Artwork courtesy Devi Leiper O'Malley
Founded in 1998, Women Unite’s (WU) purpose was to reduce poverty by supporting women-led development initiatives. It supported organisations based in 10 African countries. The Founding Executive Director, a woman named Ana, emerged from the ‘Women in Development’ era. She was hardworking, kind, and proud of her work and leadership. She believed in empowering women, especially poor Africans, and her enthusiasm in doing so was evident in the organisational strategies, systems and policies that she initiated. She emphasised the importance of accountability to funders, professionalism, and well-organised, beautifully elaborated organisational reports. Ana reminded all her staff members to follow the WU’s strategic and operational plans, measure results using existing tools and instruments, and maintain a ‘clean’ organisation. The intellectual and knowledge production work of WU was well-established and had been sustained throughout its history. The organisation’s work appeared strong and represented an actual or potential area of excellence in the ‘kraal’ of women’s organisations; at least, it was outstanding in many respects. It was clear that significant effort and resources were devoted to thinking, analysis, ideas, beliefs, critical thinking, reflection, sense-making, conceptualising and theorising about the change the organisation wanted to see.
Over the years, the organisation grew and flourished through the efforts of staff and especially Ana as a leader. It was loved by its constituencies, who were dispersed and diverse but maintained a strong sense of belonging and commitment to WU as a space, community and platform. The funding they received from WU was modest, but its flexibility was unique and much appreciated.
As WU developed in diverse ways, it caught up with trends among Civil Society Organisations and began identifying itself as a feminist organisation. There was no real debate regarding what it meant to be a feminist organisation or the shifts required, though occasional statements indicating WU’s feminist identity would appear here and there.
In the meantime, Ana’s leadership remained in the safer world of binaries, of black and white with few grey areas. She was measured in most of what she said and did, knowing that her constituency was diverse and any radical statement could undermine what the organisation had built over the years.
As the organisation grew, many young people joined as staff, some because it aligned with their values and others due to donor pressure. These young people’s thinking had been shaped within feminist spaces, movements, and cross-movement discussions on issues such as feminist and collective leadership, communication, and wellbeing. Many of them claimed that they were on anti-racist and decolonial journeys, not necessarily seeking power but defying it. They questioned the language, concepts, methodologies, articulation, and content of WU. They raised critical issues both in person and in online spaces and platforms, as well as in their written and audio-visual productions.
To the older staff, this young generation seemed to have escaped from Mars and landed right in the middle of WU. They acted, thought, behaved, saw, wanted, yearned, practised, performed, and approached things differently from what Ana knew and had been practising as a committed leader who had built WU into a strong organisation. They spoke a different language, worked differently, and made many demands, some of which appeared unprofessional to Ana. For example, their obsession with wellbeing, which they called a decolonial precursor to all the other changes, was particularly baffling.
Based on their many demands, Ana had many questions: What does feminist leadership look like? What does a decolonised leadership model look like? What did they mean by NGO-ized accountability? What is radical transparency? What does a transformed relationship between WU leadership and the staff as a whole look like? What are the legal and moral obligations involved in the changes that were being demanded, and what could that plan look like? What are the fears, threats and risks associated with these new demands and how can these be addressed? There was neither a shared understanding nor a conceptual framework to respond to these questions. Moreover, with funding becoming increasingly scarce, was this the time for such bold rethinking and reorganising?
Ana tried to view the new way of thinking as a transition to something different that might build on the old, but some aspects were difficult to understand. For example, she struggled to comprehend how someone could step away from work, citing stress. In her mind, if she herself had stayed away every time she experienced stress, there would be no organisation—she had to constantly juggle fundraising, staff supervision, report writing, partner visits, and meeting various stakeholder demands.
The young staff raised concerns about overwork, but their time allocation, particularly on social media, concerned her. Everything, including their tears, was posted on social media. When she attempted to discuss potential pitfalls of social media with younger staff members, they dismissed her advice as displaying a saviour mentality and being conservative.
Ana was not resisting change; she simply did not understand what was expected of her. She created discussion spaces for staff to express their views, but in response, they stated that they were not interested in structured, righteous, loveless spaces with a preachy tone. That was how they characterised her efforts: preachy. Many took advantage of online conversations to be explicitly rude, muting their cameras and making callous and hurtful comments. They seemed to reject every suggestion she made to incorporate their views.
One system they rejected was performance assessment. They complained that it was based on perfectionism and failed to accept human vulnerability and wellness needs. They lamented, “you want to get it right, you want to stick with the assessment forms, and in doing so, we’re becoming mechanical, dry, brittle bodies. You are breaking us; we can no longer make mistakes or speak about our wellness anymore. Everything is about performance as defined by your systems. The system wants to get it right and you seem to be sticking to the script and not leaving room for conversation, humanity and mistakes.” Ana was shocked because she believed that employed individuals are supposed to work in accordance with their job descriptions to meet the funders’ and constituencies’ expectations. How was money to be raised if people praised failure as a virtue? And what was breaking them? How was she supposed to incorporate brokenness into the performance assessment forms? And all this talking about brokenness as a ‘virtue’...
They also rejected the idea of focusing on specific themes of work, such as economic empowerment. They said that their work was that of transforming society and this could not be broken into thematic categories.
The young staff raised many complaints and made numerous observations. They identified some of the organisational structures as capitalist, arguing that these reinforced the system that activists were trying to escape. They maintained that WU structures, systems and policies could not function within a world becoming shrewder, wiser, and deeper. To Ana, the world had always possessed these qualities, so she saw nothing new in their assertions.
They did not leave anything untouched, even criticising WU for failing to be intergenerational and transnational and for failing to combine local and global perspectives (what they termed “glocal”) in their language. They questioned why she avoided confrontation and why she would back down during arguments.
The young staff displayed both passive aggression and open rudeness. They used what they called their feminist knowledge, including their questioning mindsets, to re-create new ways of protesting, resisting, and disrupting what they called the binaries within WU. They introduced new vocabularies for everything and new approaches for everything. Their strategies were often innovative, such as using aesthetic graffiti and creative poetic expressions to confront patriarchal structures and establish novel relationships with politics. However, Ana wondered whether the artistic and innovative strategies would be taken seriously in bureaucratic corridors of power.
Their perspectives led Ana to many crossroads and challenged her to rethink her work, leadership, and overall strategies. She found herself navigating difficult terrain without support, climbing many mountains without ladders. She attempted to catch up with the young staff’s perspectives but found herself unable to do such shape-shifting.
Ana cried many times, but her tears did not move the younger generation. They wanted a radical overhaul of the organisation.
Finally, she accepted that after giving her heart, soul, body, and resources to WU, it was time to step away with care and dignity, knowing that others were rising up to carry on the work in a new form.
Transition Phase
The organisation appointed two internal caretakers who were familiar with WU's programs to provide interim leadership.
In the meantime, WU conducted a thorough search for Co-Directors, making clear their commitment to decolonisation and shifting power to the Global South by requiring candidates from those regions. It was an exciting time.
The recruitment process successfully identified young, dynamic candidates who demonstrated fresh perspectives, comprehensive knowledge, and activist backgrounds in feminist movements from the Global South. The international community received the young leaders with excitement and pledges of support, though some adopted a more reserved stance, quietly waiting and watching to see how things would unfold.
An organisation-wide audit led to a comprehensive transition plan incorporating both immediate and long-term objectives. The plan included several key elements: the herstory of the organisation, documented achievements, maintaining funder relationships, engaging constituencies, assessing strategic plan implementation, conducting partner and ally outreach, familiarising the new leadership with WU’s ecosystem, and clarifying leadership roles.
However, the transition process overlooked critical organisational challenges and unanswered questions. The process did not question WU’s future direction or allocate time to engage with the many questions and issues that had been raised previously. The new leaders were busy trying to prove to the funders that they were capable of leading WU, afraid of making mistakes that might jeopardise their involvement in the world of CSO forever.
One year after the transition, WU convened a global staff meeting that brought together team members from both the North and the South. The same complaints that were raised before Ana left were raised once again: allegations of racism, concerns about mental health impacts, criticism of outdated policies, workload challenges, salary disparities, and power imbalances in decision-making. The list was long and left many in tears. Some of the younger generation even walked away, proclaiming that the organisation would never change.
They questioned the meaning of feminist leadership and, within the same breath, went after each other violently. Some people felt they could not speak because they were not from the Global South. Those from the South thought that those from the North were using emotional blackmail to bully them.
The young co-leaders pleaded with the group for their understanding, saying they were still new and were learning on the job, but people were on fire. They were not willing to listen.
Lessons Learned
Many organisations are transitioning, inviting leaders from the South to lead organisations born in the North. Such transitions need resource support so that new leaders can take the time to assess potential challenges, identify opportunities for growth, and determine pathways to build strong, globally-oriented organisations.
As more young leaders from the South assume leadership positions, both expectations and scepticism are high. As a result, they place pressure on themselves and their staff to avoid failure. This pressure inhibits growth and limits the potential depth of transition. Organisations ought to recognise that through imperfections and mistakes, there exists a world of connection where they can take steps in the wrong direction and then still sit together to learn from those experiences.
There are many ways to transition, be, grow, and learn. Part of the prison of dominant capitalist and colonial cultures is the belief that there are no alternatives. This presents a contradiction, as the main reason for including young leaders from the South is ensuring organisational diversity and transformation. Yet dominant organisational cultures continue to infiltrate our minds to have us believe that the options are limited. As a result, transitions are underfunded and the limited resources available do not allow transition processes to be fully developed. Notably, while many organisations talk about shifting power, the kinds of shifts needed and their financial implications need thorough discussion and agreement.
While transitions vary, there are some key elements to include. For example, it is crucial to do a comprehensive organisational review to reveal hidden dynamics and allow some things to compost. Time should be allocated to listening, acknowledging one another’s wounds, sharing painful feelings of anger and grief, as well as learning from one another, gently and with ease, to avoid larger ruptures later on. Discussions should not be hurried; instead, time should be created for managing uncertainties. A transition map should be drawn and the new leadership should be given an opportunity to share their own transition plans. Patience is essential as the intergenerational dynamics of all staff members require coordination.
Though every transition will be different depending on the organisation’s state of being, it should not follow a linear path but represent an adventurous journey with many twists and turns. It is important to realise that sometimes the best response to unclear yet pressing questions during transition is bewilderment. The value lies not in the answer itself but in embracing the gift of uncertainty!
