Bureaucracy – part one

Much of what follows may sound disrespectful to, or even critical of the administrative process. But please do not misinterpret me. If bureaucracy is an unwieldy, complicated leviathan of a tool it is because the material it must fashion (us… me in particular) is very complex, contradictory, frequently selfish and sometimes just plain stupid. So please do not think I am mocking it. What I do find funny is the human condition that made bureaucracy necessary in the first place, and if a boy can’t laugh at… well himself basically, then what the hell can he laugh at?

I have almost 15 years experience with the British National Health Service (the world’s fifth largest employer, slightly behind McDonald’s) so I am no stranger to bureaucracy at its most cumbersome. And MSF isn’t small-fry either, so I don’t know why it surprised me to have such a fine example of the subject so early on in my mission. It was a swelteringly hot afternoon in Biraul (you know you’re in trouble when even the locals declare a heat wave), and the team supervisors had gathered for their weekly meeting.

From beneath the layers of perspiration, I became vaguely aware that we had been talking about chairs for some time. One of the supervisors felt his team would benefit from a new office chair, to replace the medieval-looking devices that were currently in use.

“Is there the necessary budget?” asked one.

“What about health and safety aspects?” considered another.

“And what about upkeep and repair costs?” chimed in a third.

Some while had been spent discussing these matters, when yet another interested party pointed out that if one department was getting a new chair, perhaps all of them should get one. In terms of debate, the cat was truly set among the pigeons. With 20 minutes already lost to comfortable office chairs, the rounds of queries and counter-queries began afresh.

Now it might seem strange that office chairs are even on the table, as it were. I myself sometimes send a little cash MSF’s way (yes, my accountant hates me), and long in the past, I had some naive idea that every last penny was being spent directly on medicines or food. It turns out that someone at MSF much cleverer than I has had a bit of a think about this, and arrived at two important conclusions. Firstly, if you are going to provide care, it needs to be of as high a quality as possible – anything short of this would be at best unethical, and at worst downright harmful. Secondly, to deliver quality care, you don’t just blow your budget on antibiotics or therapeutic food and randomly wander around giving it to people who look a bit thin.

To use donors’ money effectively, you need also to invest heavily in human resources, logistics, administration, equipment, support teams, managers, analysts and so forth. Without this investment, the whole system falls apart and little gets done. For those members of staff who spend all day in front of a computer screen, comfortable office chairs are part of this effectiveness, and I for one am very happy that some fraction of my donation is being spent on bottom padding.

Nonetheless, after almost 40 minutes of chair-related discussion (outcome: we need some), I found myself having to suppress a big, childish grin.

Next week, I’ll tell you about the second point of order: mangoes as a security threat.


This post was first published in Spanish in 20minutos.es

This entry was posted in Doctor, India, malnutrition and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Bureaucracy – part one

  1. AD says:

    I guess this is all part of being a responsible organization. And MSF should aim at nothing less. What would MSF be if it does great humanitarian work and neglected international norms like labour rights along the way? But I feel the “amused frustration” with you – I have experienced it, too. I agree – we must be glad that MSF makes room for debate. We must just work together to not let it get out of proportion.

  2. Kalu Iroha says:

    Bureaucracy is absolutely necessary for large organisations specifically. All the principles of organisation for which bureaucracy is associated enable organisations to deal with people that constitute them, deal with technology as well as environmental challenges.

  3. Eric Denison says:

    I know that this may seem trite but administrative work, as nebulous as it may sound, is a necessity and must be done well to be effective. Poor administration has a cascading effect that is not good for the whole organization. Comfy bottoms do go a long way to keep the bureaucrats happy and keep the whole machine humming along.

  4. Farah says:

    You are lucky it went only for 40minutes in your case. I have experienced discussions for a whole month on a matter which rather needed to be solved in a wayyy shorter period. At first I had that grin too, later it became -maybe I should not say what it was hahhaha. The saddest part was, one of the chief discusser (is that a word though, but I cudnt think of anything else) asked a question which kind of interprets to ‘what are we discussing again’. :D I am a national staff, its good to know expats feel the system too. I have come to expect that discussion is important in MSF, no matter how much of precious whatever you are missing! Amen :)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>