University of Konstanz Department of Politics and Management Hybrid Institutions

Multiple (Hybrid) Identity for NGOs

Preutescu Drago-Andrei
Dragos.preutescu@gmail.com Konstanz, 14.02.2012

Multiple (Hybrid) Identity for NGOs

Abstract
NGOs status started to take increasingly more and more responsibility. To recognize and NGO we must look on his type of institutional meaning and his road during the time, to guess what is the destiny for the future. This seminar paper is intended to make a small introduction to the potential of non-governmental organizations to have multiple identities, and forming a good hybrid institution status, considering the theme of our seminar. I will try to define identity, how members identify with organizations, the role of Board members and their strategies accountability and resources. Every explanation is focused on the idea of hybrid meaning as a way to be and make activities, create identities. Also three definitions for hybridity are incorporated in this paper.

An active status- NGOs Why an NGO have multiple identities? What kind and where an NGO find legitimacy? What is the role of accountability? What is the definition for hybrid institutions concerning the activity of NGOs? This will be the questions followed by me in this seminar paper to develop an introductive background about multiple (hybrid) identity for NGOs. The term and concept of NGOs in this paper refers to non-governmental organizations both national and local, but also international. In the first part of the paper I will discuss about legitimacy and its role to justify the creation of multiple-identity for NGOs. Second part I will stress the meaning of hybrid identity, defining hybrid concept and assumptions with the role of identity. The last part is focused on accountability matter and Board members, which have the role to sustain the idea of hybrid identity through cooperation or constraints from different actors or non-actors.

An NGO was not always been an organization well structured, with important status, so many involved members, at least not so voluntarily or activists. The first such organization, in my opinion was the International Red Cross Movement, a concept of the Swiss diplomat Henry Dunant. He made the first institutional recognized steps take into actions as a big social actor in the need of a societal problem. It was about the wounded soldiers on the battlefield of Solferino. I am talking about Red Cross because I have two and half years experience as a youth leader and
2

coordinator of organizational development department in my city Iai. Here I understand what is the role of an NGO and how different social actors work together. The identification of problems and needs, have become the main purpose to found and working with an NGO. NGOs become major social actors. The evolutions in time show that the actors involved in dealing with the requests define identity, and find identities to legitimate their role. Today NGOs cooperate at a large scale with different governmental, intergovernmental and business corporations which define the role of NGOs in a status of multiple (hybrid) identity. Hybrid identity concept means to accept the environmental reality of global societies as interdependent and constraints between different organizations to proceed public goods or meanings. To understand the meaning of institutions first we have to understand the meaning of identities implied in design of hybrid identity.

The Legitimacy of identity and multiple-identity An NGO provide identity concerning the demands of each society or community? Or people try to identify themselves, like a way to find a second life or desires, doing voluntary work in an NGO? The phenomena of NGOs around the world increased day by day new types of identity, interconnection or hybrid working to grow the number of goods for the public sphere. For these reason NGOs must find representation for representation they need identity. What about legitimacy? We have to say that today an NGO face many realities and many forms of representation (Hilhorst 2003: 3-5). Identity it is a good way to find legitimacy for different resources. Explaining your role and making the right connection between purposes, structures and practices (Foreman and Whetten 2002: 622) is the key body for the existence and winning capital resources and volunteers and members. The place of birth of an NGO is establishing in the path of demands or needs in different communities. Who take this job, and with what purpose? Could be philanthropists like Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Foreign Policy 2011), politicians, people with right thinking, business mens?

When you want to enter in a world with problems concerning peoples it is obvious you have to create identity or to change identity, programmers for different projects. NGOs have to follow the national and international changes. To take on their account each sector or level of
3

intervention to proceeds public goods is the main purpose. Every time a new vision takes the principle role (Ronalds 2010: 41). The game between identity and identification is very clear that with identity you look for members, and followers, legitimacy for your activity, and with identification people search for you. This is the differences between identity and identification. Identity must be a kind of innovation. Multiple identities are a type of recognition by more people, from different parts of society (Morgan 1997: 420).

Figure 1 The path to create identity and find legitimacy

NGOs have to make changes to respond to different quotidian problems. And for this reason they create identities. I will take again the example of Red Cross. The main role of this institution is to provide medical help, first aid, and protection of soldiers or people in armed conflicts. Because these conflicts are not permanent in all areas of the world, national Red Cross where forced to create multiple identities taking into consideration the public needs to survive, to legitimate their existence to raise funds and resources. It is quite common to understand why German Red Cross is different from Romanian Red Cross. Each system of Red Cross for each country founded a different purpose, and different types of demands from the public, or maybe another way to cooperate with the state or stakeholders. A multiple way of meanings are developed (Hilhorst 2003: 100). NGOs through their identities create a network of ideas, values, norms (Ronalds 2010: 4) with which individuals identity are found, and with which find a way to explain the existence for their activity. How the NGOs function? What values, beliefs, meanings, sense making shapes their role? The answers of these questions build the idea of identity or multiple (hybrid) identity.

What you integrate from the locals/people into your organization? We choose political, cultural, or economical beliefs? NGOs sometimes use different people to find legitimacy and reputation to create identity. For example, in the various type of Gala (e.g. Red Cross Gala) a
4

number of personalities are involved and speak for the organization. And why all this happens? because NGOs must create emotions to help people to identify with each action and project. Bosma and Kunnen (2011: 41) acknowledge that emotions, in fact, are multi-componential. People react concerning their emotions for achieving the meaning of reality. It is the relationship with the environment where NGOs manage to intermediate between people with different thoughts and beliefs and institutional actors. For this reason NGOs are so develop or start to be more developed. Multi-componential means multiple-identity. NGOs places into action the human desire in a more and free or transparent meaning. Through emotions NGOs create identity. Continuous improvement and development is a cause of multiple identities. To achieve a multi-level of identity it is necessary to change and to develop your image. To win legitimacy, morality and truthiness you must be focused on the people behavior and beliefs. In this way multiple activities is implied in NGOs activity today. I am not very sure if an NGO choose a model for action, instead of an ideal (Francois 2004: 5). Identity must create emotions, sympathy, and attraction and voluntarily work, and multiple identities must create co-operation between emotions and beliefs.

Who creates the role of NGOs? This is a good question as a starting point to explain the hybrid identity concept about NGOs in the following part of the paper. To survive in a multifunctional and multi-performing world NGOs must create multiple (hybrid) identities. The adaptability to the environment has a life circle (Morgan 1997: 34). This circle of life or existence is made by multiple (hybrid) identity day by day. Hybridity a way of multiple-identity The term hybrid or more precisely hybrid institution does not have a general definition to explain this type of relationship between actors and non-actors, between public, NGO and various stakeholders. The idea of this paper to discuss about multiple (hybrid) identity appears after reading the work of Peter Foreman and David Whetten (2002), Members Identification with Multiple-Identity Organizations. They find the concept of hybrid-identity based on the public relations or members with different organizations (Foreman and Whetten

2002: 621-623). Well, my goal is to identify some definitions for the concept of hybrid-identity and explain it with examples.

A great challenge for NGOs is that they must adapt (Ronalds 2010: 2). Emergence of new forms of trade (change goods), between NGOs, institutions, private and public sphere have created an interconnection to provide legitimacy, moral authority (Ronalds 2010: 4) and a source of good influence. The power of aid, create an era of integration and interdependence (Ronalds 2010: 29). What kind of mechanism works in the aid area to create hybrid-identity? NGO is develops as a society need to replace, to cooperate or compete in certain areas of the state or private area.

I identified three definitions for the concept of hybrid identity:

1. Aggregation relationships between different institutions to identify a pattern of legitimacy and efficiency. 2. A co-operative sector between actors and non-actors to develop goods in public sphere. 3. A systematic power based on the integration of applications and needs from a society/community and to solve them by cooperation and association of the various institutional and non-governmental forces. As we can think and see, different types of institutions launched a process to co-operate to advance the <common good> (Edwards and Sen 2002: 606), or I could remember the idea of Jane Bennet (2010) about a type of conjoint action (Bennet 2010: 95) where different agents make effects for public. An institutional matrix (Selznick 1966: 251) or a cooptation mechanism (Selznick 1966: 259) work as a complex collaborative arrangements (Ronalds 2010: 97), to develop goods concerning public demands. The interdependent matter is necessary to achieve goods and outcomes and people to be satisfied. Absorbing to create a hybrid meaning to get into action, or to see how many functions are integrated in this mechanism. This process I tried to explain in the following scheme.

Figure 2 The outcome of hybrid identity like a working mechanism

I will take two examples from Romania to explain this type of hybrid identity. First one is of Foundation Sport for Iai. Is an NGO created by the local council with the task of distributing founds and cooperate with other sports organizations in town. Before this foundation to be founded the money were allocated directly by the local council, and to avoid political speculations they had to create this type of non-governmental institution to legitimize public how they spend money and to cover the mother identity into a hybrid and multiple identity. Here we have an NGO as a delegating power (Hilhorst 2003: 107).

The second example is of a large corporation that wants to extract gold and silver ores from the Carpathian Mountains (official website http://en.rmgc.ro/). This project is so complex at all levels of involvement possible: civil society, government, NGOs, foundations, that is required a separate study to demonstrate the type of multiple (hybrid) identity, especially explaining the meaning of hybridity. I can mention how this corporation founded schools, NGOs to support their project and to legitimate themselves to civil society. Here we have a hybrid meaning were NGOs had a room for manoeuvre (Hilhorst 2003: 106) for a big international corporation.

To complete this part of the paper I should mention that to correctly identify and NGO status as a hybrid institution, or in this case hybrid identity it is important to be careful to the social judgment (Ashforth and Gibbs 1990: 177). To identify for each organization a well answer is on the Board members. With what actors and for what actors they act are the next and the last part of this seminar paper. Whose power increased? Of NGOs, stakeholders or states? How accountability and legitimacy for multiple (hybrid) identity appear concerning the members and their motivations in a Board. Board members and accountability justifying multiple (hybrid) identity My own experience on the Red Cross, and the initiative to found an NGO (who has failed in short time) to work with state institutions and other organizations, allow me to see much more realistic a situation in which a Board must decide on the image and the activities of the organization, and what pressure is against a Board if cooperates with other actors. Another good example is to mention a new NGO founded in Iai. The Community Foundation for Iai (official website http://www.fundatiacomunitaraiasi.ro/#echipa), where the Board is composed of a bank manager, an architect, a major figure in local media, a professor, managers and marketing people etc. It is correct to say and see how this organization is linked to its external environment and how he secures critical resources, including prestige and legitimacy (Goodstein, Guatam and Boeker 1994: 241). Or the Board could be a tool to use the organization for social network (Seibel 1996: 1018), but not to be use in the public attention (Seibel 1996: 1019). This mean these NGO want to legitimize the identity of Board members in front of an audience, or to justify their actions without giving open to speculations. I see how a multiple-identity and the connection with other institutions are made indirectly with the Board members, create a hybridity meaning. Or to more precise the Board used his role to make a network-embeddedness (Thoits 1983: 182). Why I discuss about Board members on their role to legitimize a hybrid identity? Because they seek public support (Suchman 1995: 571-572) to collect founds, and because in this way they justify their activities as a way to collect indirect and continuous more resources and people with influence (Ashfort and Gibbs 1990: 177).

It is quite normal to see that NGOs have a different pattern of participation and legitimacy instead of other type of institutions (Schwetz, Sullivan and Bell 1995: 418). NGOs are now a regular part of the cooperative process (Raustiala 1997: 724) and Board members could offer this type of cooperation and it is a good opportunity to set agendas concerning the values and motivations of each members. The role of accountability appears especially in the Board cases where the members are constraint by other important stakeholders. So I can say that the meanings of hybrid identity concerning the role of Boards have two directions:

1. The Boards is already composed of influential and well-known people (like in the case of Community Foundation of Iai). Here they just have to justify and legitimize in front of public sphere. 2. The Boards is lead by any other members but constraint by the important actors. Hybrid identity is observable in the role of accountability for the stakeholders and for the public sphere. The cultural background of organizational modernity (Seibel 1996: 1020) arise in this example. Hilhorst acknowledge (2003: 142) that accountability relations between NGOs and their stakeholders appear, then, as properties: actors negotiate the nature of their obligations in accountability process. When you are a part of such a system you realize much simpler how great de increase of hybridist is made and have civilizing power (Ronalds 2010: 97) becomes a major role in the future activities of NGOs played in the field of national or international sphere. We have to take into consideration the role played today by NGOs as gatekeepers between donors and beneficiaries (Ronalds 2010: 103).

Conclusions The functioning future status for NGOs will rely heavily on the idea of hybridity because there are a good source of legitimacy and identity for major players to demand goods in the field of public desires of each community. To seek and identity or multiple (hybrid) identity is find in the solidarity with what is required among citizens. An NGO has the power to organize, raise
9

funds, coordinate, so that community could find forms of identification with various organizations. Efficiency of an NGO today is based on the concept of hybrid institution. Interdependencies become a high level of development between different actors and non-actors. It is a need of meaning, actors and non-actors interpretation of social phenomenas based on reality facts, and influence of state or stakeholders to combine different perspectives of action to create hybrid identity for justification and legitimacy. In this way NGOs collect resources, and the power of resources give to NGOs the rule key to make a better society, to improve social services.

Political and private areas try to make a closer connection with NGOs because people trust in states or corporations decreased. And we see how multiple-identity on members of the Boards coordinate or facilitate NGOs activity. An NGO must create an effect for the public demands and for this reason the concepts of identity and identification are found in the field of emotions, values and morality. My purpose for this paper was to highlight the possible types of identities created by NGOs and how it manifests in the form of hybridities. Maybe the concept of hybridity or multiple (hybrid) identity has another meaning, or another purpose, but concerning my experience in the Red Cross organization and other NGOs from my town I can tell that this is a reality. Cooperation and joint projects, members, volunteers and personalities make up a great debate and outcomes to demonstrate how hybridity exist and how there will be in the future. I am convinced of the existence of this concept because I give the examples of two big projects like the Gold Corporation Roia Montan and the Community Foundation for Iai. I could follow this. I created identities and I had cooperate with other institutions and I am sure that the meaning of hybridity exist. Everything depends on the game of legitimacy and how could define better the concept of multiple (hybrid) identity, especially hybridity.

10

References 1. Ashforth, B.E. & Gibbs, B.W. (1990). The Double-Edge of Organizational Legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177-194. 2. Bennet, J. (2010). Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. In Political Ecologies, (pp. 94-109). Durham, NC: Duke University Press 3. Bosma, A.H., & Kunnen, E.S. (2011). Identity and Emotion- Development through selforganization. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 4. Edwards, M., & Sen, G. (2002). NGOs, Social Change and the Transformation of Human Relationship: A 21st Century Civic Agenda. Third World Quarterly, 21(4), 605-616. 5. Francois, J. (2004). A Treatise on Efficacy: Between Western and Chinese Thinking. In Fixing Ones Eyes on a Model (pp. 1-14). Hawaii, University of Hawaiis Press. 6. Foreman, P. and Whetten D.A. (2002, November-December). Members Identification with Multiple-Identity Organizations. Organization Science, 13(6), 618-635. 7. Goodstein, J., Gautam, K. & Boeken, W. (1994). The Effects of Board Size and Diversity on Strategic Change. Strategic Management Journal, 15(3), 241-250. 8. Gold Corporation Roia Montan. (2012). Retrieved from http://en.rmgc.ro/. 9. Hilhorst, D. (2003). The real world of NGOs. Discourses, diversity and development. London, Zed Books Ltd. 10. Raustiala, K. (1997). States, NGOs, and International Environmental Institutions. International Studies Quarterly, 41(4), 719-740. 11. Ronalds, P. (2010). The Change Imperative. Creating the next generation NGO. USA, Kumarian Press. 12. Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organization. USA, Sage Publications. 13. Schweitz, M.L., Sullivan, D. & Bell, P.D. (1995). NGO participation in International Governance: The Question of Legitimacy. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), 89, 415-426.
11

14. Selznick, P. (1966). TVA and the Grass Roots: A study in the Sociology of Formal Organization. In Guided principles and interpretation a summary (pp. 249-266). New York, Harpe Torchbooks. 15. Seibel, W. (1996). Succesful Failure: An alternative view on organizational coping. American Behavioral Scientist, 39, 1011-1024. 16. Suchman, M.C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610. 17. The FP Top 100 Thinkers [Special Report]. (2011, December 11). Foreign Policy. Retrived from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/. 18. Thoits, P.A. (1983). Multiple identities and psychological well-being: A Reformulation and test of the social Isolation Hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 174187.

12