Amnesty International: To Expand or Not to Expand?

Transcription

1 The Bernard P. McDonough Center for Leadership and Business at Marietta College Amnesty International: To Expand or Not to Expand? Anna Bjerstedt, Jamie Gougarty, and Grace O Dell Learning Objectives The objective of this case study is to provide an example of an internal debate within a non-profit organization, Amnesty International. Amnesty was faced with the decision to officially expand its mandate to incorporate violations of economic, social, and cultural rights in addition to its original focus on violations of civil and political rights. Objectives include gaining an awareness of: The difficulties of mandate change for any organization; The effects of organizational hierarchy in terms of decision-making; The importance of leadership in adhering to a stated vision/common goal. Context Leading by Example In leadership, it is effective to motivate followers by showing them how to be successful by doing something oneself. This is a theory that focuses on walking the walk, and talking the talk. Leading by example is an inspirational method that is supposed to communicate values, morals, and motivation. In the case of Amnesty International, leading by example comes into play when the organization is charged with the decision to expand its mandate: if it expands, is this a good example to give to human rights activists as well as to other human rights organizations? Considering their followers, Amnesty must realize the impact they would be making in changing their mandate. Servant Leadership Robert Greenleaf developed the concept of servant leadership, which is rooted in a person s natural inclination to serve others first and foremost. Amnesty International demonstrates servant leadership because its actions are rooted in serving its members and the victims of human rights violations. The principle of serving others signifies Amnesty International s adherence to altruism. This notion of altruism is a guiding principle that is highly evident in many NGOs as they act in accordance

2 to their followers approval to best serve those needs. Criticism often arises with servant leadership with the concept of how can one think and act as leader and servant simultaneously a leader who serves and a servant who leads. This concept comes into question with Amnesty International as its members criticized the narrowness of its mandate. It was in response to this criticism that Amnesty decided to address the issue of expanding its mandate to include ESC rights in addition to civil and political rights. Ethical Leadership Ethical leadership is an extensive topic that encourages much debate, even regarding the simple definition of what is ethical and what is unethical. The debate surrounding ethical leadership addresses what leaders should do and what they have an obligation to do, especially because their actions affect more people than do those of other individuals. The theories of ethical leadership cover a broad range of issues. Plato addressed ethical leadership in terms of justice and by advocating the belief that only the knowledgeable should lead and a knowledgeable leader means one who is both intelligent and ethical. In contrast, Niccoló Machiavelli s The Prince involves a leadership style that does not promote ethical behavior because ethical behavior does not imply effectiveness, which directly affects a leader s power. More recent theories, such as those formulated by James MacGregor Burns theory of transformational leadership, involve a certain assumption that as leaders invoke followers to pursue an appropriate end, that the end and the method of achievement are ethical and will assist in rising people to upholding to higher values. Others make use of Utilitarianism, meaning that practical decisions that provide the greatest good for the greatest number are the most appropriate for leaders to pursue. Amnesty International must consider all of these theories and mindsets as it seeks to form a consensus regarding whether or not to expand its mandate, and whether or not its final decision reflects ethical leadership. Leadership for the Greatest Good Leadership for the greatest good is a theory related to ethical leadership because it relies heavily upon the Utilitarian concept that leaders should make decisions with the understanding that the happiness of the greatest number is the best outcome. Leadership following this concept becomes controversial because there is no set definition of what the greatest good consists of nor how to best provide for that good. Furthermore, oftentimes the greatest good for the greatest number can only be achieved by depriving a select few from needed resources and desired outcomes. Providing for the greatest number at the expense of a few will undoubtedly raise some ethical concerns. Amnesty must address the concerns of a whole population and determine what is the greatest good and whether their future decision will uphold that belief. Situational Leadership Situational leadership emphasizes adapting to a changing environment. This type of leadership depends heavily on followers and their abilities to cooperate in situations, especially on their maturity. The model created by Hersey and Blanchard displays four types of leadership: participating, delegating, telling, and selling. The relationship between the leader and follower is important in this style because both are constantly adapting to changes in environment. Goals must correspond in order to keep the followers involved. In the case of Amnesty International, the situation they faced was the push to change their mandate. This came at a time when the universal definition of human rights had outlined different violations than those Amnesty had been focusing on in the past. Therefore, with a follower base urging them to expand, Amnesty International should recognize their followers desires and reevaluate their organizational goals. 2

3 Organizations as Organisms The metaphor of organizations as organisms leads us to understand Amnesty International s ability to best meet the external demands while responding to internal pressures. The notion of survival of the fittest breathes life into the art of corporate survival as corporations are clusters of interconnected human networks that are urged to remain open to satisfy new challenges while balancing internal demands to develop as vibrant organic systems. (Morgan, 2006, 35) Amnesty International is faced with a challenge as ESC rights gain more attention in today s society. Being an NGO that defends human rights, Amnesty is being pressured to respond to the needed call to defend such rights, requiring them to broaden their mandate to include ESC rights. This gives support to the idea that homeostasis will require organizations that value humanity to respond in such a way that they will behave more like organisms and less like machines by adapting to the new situation. References for Context Section Ciulla, J. B. (2003). The ethics of leadership. Australia: Wadsworth. Leadership: a leader lives in each of us. (n.d.). Retrieved from < college/schermerhorn/ /module16/module16.pdf>. Morgan, G. (1998). Images of organizations. SAGE Publications. Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: its origin, development, and application in organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 9: Retrieved from < sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/9/2/57> on 4/21/10. Additional Recommended Reading Amnesty International. (2010). Retrieved from < Amnesty International. Amnesty International handbook. (1991). Claremont, CA: Hunter House, Inc.. Bell, D, & Carens, J. (2004). The Ethical dilemmas of international human rights and humanitarian ngos: reflections on a dialogue between practitioners and theorists. Human Rights Quarterly 26: Rowe, P. (2009). Full spectrum: Amnesty International and Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. University of Saskatchewan,

4 Answer Key Does Amnesty International, as a leader of human rights NGOs, have an obligation to defend all human rights? Consider: o Leading by Example o Servant Leadership o Ethical Leadership o Leadership for the Greater Good o Situational Leadership and Organizations as Organisms If Amnesty International considers itself to be a leader of human rights NGOs, then the criticism aimed at its narrow mandate in terms of selectively defending human rights (p. 6), would confirm that Amnesty does have an obligation or should have the obligation to defend all rights. Because Amnesty s actions are looked to by other human rights NGOs as a model, if Amnesty is to lead by example, Amnesty should accept its needed position and responsibilities as one of the first NGOs to address and incorporate ESC rights. Amnesty International demonstrates servant leadership because its actions are focused on its members and victims of rights violations. It is a non-profit organization and does not act without the approval of its followers. It was in response to criticism from its own members about the narrowness of its mandate that Amnesty decided to initially address the issue of expanding its mandate. Even after Amnesty confirmed the importance of ESC rights (as shown on p. 7), the initial criticism that Amnesty ignores issues and crimes against entire populations in its defense of specific civil and political rights violations still holds. Even Amnesty s members are uncomfortable with the new distinction between promotional and oppositional rights because of the confusion over whether this new distinction was ethical. Confusion also arises over whether Amnesty s narrow mandate and actions now reflected ethical leadership in human rights activism. Additionally, if Amnesty s mandate does not specifically outline the defense of ESC rights, Amnesty is not held to any ethical obligation to adhere to its mandate by defending ESC rights. In facing a decision of whether or not to defend all human rights, Amnesty International must address the question of what is the greater good and how best to achieve it. In terms of civil and political rights, Amnesty focuses on specific and well-known cases that are able to garner global attention, support, and recognition. In terms of the greater good, Amnesty could potentially face a loss of support and credibility if it were to address all human rights (which would not be the greatest good). Therefore, it is under no obligation to act. Conversely, the greater good could be defined as a world in which all human rights are upheld and defended, making Amnesty responsible for defending all rights, and it is its obligation to do so. With the current world situation in which ESC rights are gaining more attention (and more violations), there is more pressure for Amnesty International and other human rights NGOs to demonstrate situational leadership and respond to the needed call for leadership in defending human rights (like Amnesty s origins). Recently, there is an expectation that among 4

5 organizations that value humanity and the human opinion, that they will behave more like organisms and adapt to the new situation, rather than behave as machines. What difficulties could Amnesty International face in its potential defense of economic, social, and cultural rights?; What are potential implications that could arise after a decision has been made? o How would membership, loyalty, obligations, abilities, credibility, etc. be affected? Amnesty s potential defense of ESC rights could lead to problems in the following areas: ESC rights definition could cause difficulties since it is very broad and all-encompassing; ESC rights are not always seen as legitimate rights (Origin of the Dilemma, p. 5); defending ESC rights could lead to potential overload and problems with selection of ESC rights violations (p. 7); defending such a broad and varied set of rights could result in a loss of focus and credibility if Amnesty were to fail in its new obligations. Potential implications that could arise after a decision has been made include (if the decision was made to expand the mandate): if Amnesty s global membership still widely believes that Amnesty s main purpose is for the defense of civil and political rights, not ESC rights, then loyalty would decrease, leading to a decline in membership, which would in turn lead to a loss of credibility for the organization along with abilities and human resources. Amnesty could also face a decline in credibility if it proved unable to fulfill its new commitments and purpose. If the decision to expand the mandate is rejected, Amnesty would still be subjected to the criticism it faced prior to recognizing that there was a decision that needed to be made. Does the organizational hierarchy of Amnesty International affect the council s decisionmaking process? o How does communication and representation between the decision-making parties affect the council s debate? o Whose choice(s) is reflected in the decision-making process? All members, or just administration? In terms of the decision-making process, the organizational hierarchy of Amnesty International affects the overall decision because it is reached through a democratic, majority vote. This ensures that all members of the ICM have had a chance to voice their opinion and argue for the decision they deem best for the organization as a whole. Also, the structure of the organization serves as a system of checks and balances. For example, the ICM consists of representatives elected by members, and whose agenda is set by the IS, the Treasurer is a member of the IEC. The IEC in turn is made up of eight regular members each representing a given section and whose agenda is also set by the IS, which is headed by the Chairperson of the IEC. The Secretary General is appointed by the IEC, etc. Each governing body fulfills a separate and needed role, not only in a decision, but also in implementing the outcome of that decision (in terms of when each body meets and what they discuss). Each decision-making body has a role in reaching a consensus, with the ICM in charge of the final vote. 5

6 Ultimately, the representatives of each of the decision-making parties (ICM, IEC, IS) have been elected by members and sections of Amnesty International. The administration of Amnesty strives to accurately represent and voice the concerns of its membership, nationally and internationally. Therefore, the desires of the membership should be reflected in any decision voted upon by the ICM. Assessment Student participation will be assessed based upon individual written reflections that will be collected at the end of the case study presentation. These reflections will compare and contrast their feelings on the decision that Amnesty International s International Council Meeting reached and the decision that the class reached, along with their own suggestions and opinions about what Amnesty should or should not have done. 6

7 Lesson Plan 1. Introduction Names, purpose of case study, agenda 2. Give case overview (10 minutes) a. Ask students, What do we know about Amnesty International? 3. Small groups (3 or 4 per group) (10 minutes) a. Outline pros and cons seen in case study b. Address Questions to consider c. Circulate amongst students (participation if needed) 4. Lead discussion of questions to consider/task (see answer key) (20-30 minutes)** a. We should ask question/rise concern; students respond b. Call on students if there are no volunteers c. Play Devil s Advocate 5. Mock debate* (20-30 minutes)** a. Address the Task: Should Amnesty International officially expand its mandate to incorporate economic, social, and cultural rights? b. Discussion leaders mediate debate c. Class serves as the ICM, no Chairperson elected d. Divide students into two teams: for expansion and against expansion e. Allow time to organize thoughts as a team before debate (separate rooms) f. Opening argument given by elected student g. Countering points made by individual students (not just one speaker per team) i. Three minutes per side to speak, no limit on number of students to speak within the time allotted h. Closing points 6. Vote on a decision (last 5 minutes of Mock Debate) a. Vote as individuals (not based on Team assignment) b. Count hands c. Democratic and civil when making a decision 7. Provide Outcomes sheet (5 minutes) a. Give handout; read b. Answer any questions that arise 8. Written Individual Reflection (5-10 minutes) a. Compare and Contrast Amnesty s decision with class decision b. Include individual thoughts or suggestions for Amnesty s actions agree/disagree c. Turn in results (as assessment) 9. Summary (5-10 minutes) a. Address learning objectives b. Questions/concerns Total Time: 75 minutes (minimum) to 105 minutes (maximum) *Start debate with an hour left (9:00pm); cut short when 25 minutes remain (9:35pm) **Able to cut time off from these sections if running late 7

8 Case Resolution/Epilogue A Compromise: Testing the Waters In 2001, the International Council Meeting of Amnesty International reached a compromise between those in favor and those against expansion of the mandate by deciding to expand its restrictive mandate to a more inclusive mission that would officially incorporate economic, social, and cultural rights. This revision to a mission addressed the issue of expanding the mandate because a mandate expressed what work could, and perhaps more significantly could not, be done whereas a mission stated what the NGO hoped to accomplish and gave both the organization as a whole, as well as individual sections, more freedom in deciding how to achieve this goal (Rowe, 2009, p. 68). This mission now states that Amnesty International will take action in pursuit and defense of all rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Amnesty International). In addressing the argument that ESC rights and ESC rights violations are broad and extensive (as well as relative), Amnesty International decided on a set definition of what would constitute a grave abuse of ESC rights. There are three considerations in determining whether a violation met the criteria of a grave abuse of ESC rights: 1. Whether there is evidence that ESC rights are denied to a specific portion of a country s population versus a population-wide phenomenon (Rowe, 2009, p. 69). 2. How an individual country s current level of ESC rights standards compares to previous years standards within that same country. 3. Whether the violations of ESC rights are also considered violations of a minimum set of humanitarian standards, such as when a government neglects to provide food or healthcare to its population when it has the ability to do so (Rowe, 2009, p. 70). Amnesty International also established the beginnings of pilot projects, which would serve two purposes. First, the projects would hopefully demonstrate that Amnesty International has the resources to actively support and enact its new mission while testing the waters of its new compromise. Second, these projects are hoped to convince those still critical of Amnesty s new decision to expand their mandate/mission that the decision was the correct one (Rowe, 2009, p. 70). Additionally, Amnesty International loosen[ed] the rules around the Work on Own Country policy (Rowe, 2009, p. 72). Because ESC rights generally require a more extensive knowledge of a country s cultural lifestyle, workers were needed who had local knowledge and experience. In its compromise, Amnesty International also decided to be more accepting in its work and collaboration with other human rights NGOs, which had previously been discouraged. Amnesty now understands that working with other NGOs would yield more informed decisions and successful results (Rowe, 2009, p. 73). 8

9 Reflection Successes: We feel that, overall, our case presentation went very well. The organization of our case study itself was clear and well thought-out, and the pros and cons were neatly outlined and explained. There was no unnecessary information presented and students were able to discuss the task intelligently based upon the information presented to them and their own prior knowledge. We also think that the organization of the debate adequately addressed the pros and cons and allowed for amble opportunity for the students voices to be heard. We managed time very well during the presentation and nothing took too long to cover. Our presentation style was very conversational, which we felt was a good thing for the sophomores (since we are peers as well and not well-known to them). We believe our presentation encouraged students to think outside the box by addressing concepts that were not necessarily addressed in any of the core leadership classes (like the value of a mandate or a mission and the struggles associated in changing them). Opportunities for Change: In terms of our case study, we feel that we should have included a more conclusive ending statement to our case study, rather than leaving an open-ended list. We noticed a few typos in our revision of the case study and we regret that we did not see them prior to assigning the case study to the LEAD 203 students. Additionally, there was some confusion regarding the organizational hierarchy of Amnesty International, which we had hoped to both address and clarify using an in-text exhibit (Exhibit A), which clearly outlined the hierarchy of Amnesty. Unfortunately, there was some unexplained technical difficulty resulting in the absence of the above-mentioned chart. In the future, we would hope that these confusions would be avoided. In our case, we purposefully attempted to leave a vague connection to leadership concepts. Our reasoning behind this strategy was to allow students to think outside the box and rely upon their own knowledge and experience acquired through their own leadership classes. We thought that drawing overt connections and providing specific definitions of these leadership concepts would inhibit students in their brainstorming and decision-making skills. It would narrow their thoughts and opinions and their abilities in thinking beyond the clear-cut issues presented in the case study. In terms of our case study presentation, we recommend a slightly different and more thorough approach in the case overview and summary at the very start of the presentation. We wanted our question of What do we know about Amnesty International? to spur participation and also serve as a brief summary of the points mentioned in our case study (meaning pros/cons, mandate, activities, organization, etc.). As noticed, this was not as effective as we had hoped. Also, we think a small discussion about the outcome of Amnesty s true decision would have been beneficial, rather than just handing out the outcome and asking for individual, written reflections. Additional Suggestions: To add to our previously stated opportunities for change, we would also have include more information on concepts and organizational hierarchy within the case study rather than just relying upon students prior knowledge of the concepts. Moreover, we think an overt connection as to why this particular task was important for a non-profit organization to consider would be a beneficial addition. Finally, we think that, if time allotted for it, students should be asked to actually reach a conclusion or consensus and come up with a resolution or a compromise as they fulfill their duties as the ICM (as opposed to just holding a debate with no concrete outcome). The structure of the debate may also change the outcomes if students had been given more time to prepare (days in advance), if a Chairperson had been elected, if the rules were more formal, etc. 9