Meg Sattler sits down with Beth Eagleston and Kate Sutton the co-founders of the Humanitarian Advisory Group (HAG), a Melbourne based social enterprise that seeks to use research to challenge the status quo of humanitarian aid.
You can read more about HAGs work on their website: https://humanitarianadvisorygroup.org/
Transcript
For this week's episode, I happily closed my laptop and took the train down to Melbourne. Relishing the novelty of a face to face meeting with people close to home, I sat down with Kate and Beth, co-directors of the humanitarian advisory group. We spoke about the role of research focused agencies, what diversity means for decision making, and what it means to work globally and act locally. I threw some challenges at them and some of their answers may surprise you. It was a delightful chat and I hope you'll get something out of it too. I am thrilled to be joined this evening by Kate Sutton and Beth Eagleston who jointly direct the Humanitarian Advisory Group here in Melbourne, Australia. Welcome both of you to Trumanitarian.
Beth Eagleston:Thank you, Meg.
Kate Sutton:Thanks, Meg.
Meg Sattler:And I'll start by acknowledging that we are recording this podcast today on the lands of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nations, and I wish to acknowledge them as traditional owners. I would also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present and emerging, and other Aboriginal elders of other communities here in Australia. Now, let's get stuck in. For those listeners not yet aware of the Humanitarian Advisory Group, shortened often to the HAG, would you mind telling us a little bit about your organisation and what it means to be a couple of proud pegs?
Beth Eagleston:Thank you, Meg. I must say it's such an honour to be chatting with you today because us at HAG have been a fan of this podcast for some time. So it's quite an honour to actually be invited to participate. So thank you very much for that. Yes, Kate and I are two of the original four HAGs that started the organisation back in 2O12. We are now a merry band of 14 HAGs, which is quite exciting. So we're based in Australia, based in Melbourne, and we do have one of our HAGs based in Queensland. We started up, really, because I sort of feel like we were for frustrated aid workers who had come from United Nations, Care, Oxfam World Vision, and we we wanted to start something new that was agile, that was responsive and could ask hard questions. I think we felt like we had been caught up in large, bureaucratic organisations and whilst we were wanting to make a difference, perhaps we felt like that wasn't happening in the way that we had wanted it to. So we started up Humanitarian Advisory Group. And here we are nine years later, which is quite exciting, quite amazing. We're still quite surprised. And we're a business. Many people think that HAG is an NGO. In fact, we are a business and we're structured as social enterprise. So the idea is we wanted to be able to use the power of business to generate ideas and to be able to follow up some of those ideas that perhaps operational agencies find it too controversial or tricky to track down. So we thought we'd ask the hard questions and be able to support those humanitarian agencies, those operational agencies, in what they do, and provide an evidence base for them to do it better.
Meg Sattler:So would you call yourself primarily a research agency?
Beth Eagleston:We do do research. So research, independent evaluations, training facilitation, and any kind of technical advice, really, related to humanitarian action.
Meg Sattler:And it's probably... I mean, it's an interesting time to be an agency like yours, or like mine, or Ground Truth where there is increasingly, you know, a number of these researchy type agencies, I suppose as a response to this endless quest for quality programming that's come about for a number of reasons. How do you fit into that picture? Do you think that there's, there's too many of these agencies? Should there be some sort of cap on it? How do you make sure that you're sort of staying relevant in that way?
Kate Sutton:I think it's a really interesting and live question, Meg. I actually don't think the question is whether or not there are too many research agencies. I think it's about whether or not the research organisations are actually providing the impact that's proportionate to their role. And I think it's a question that we always have to be asking ourselves, because there can be very few research agencies, but if what they're producing isn't actually having impact or actually improving the way the humanitarian system works, and there are already too many, whereas if you have quite a few, but they're actually providing really useful insights, and they're being very relevant to what the live questions are, then I think that's really helpful. And so in terms of the sort of, I guess the niche is the piece you're asking, for HAG, I think it comes down to, we try to be a really practitioner led research organisation. I know that for some academics, they read our papers and would probably be quite horrified by the, you know, the methodology, or the depth of it. But for us, it's always a balance between making sure that the research you're doing is actually timely and relevant, versus, you know, doing a research project for like three or four years, and then maybe you've missed your window to be able to influence and change. So we definitely come in at that practitioner point. And I think the other piece, really, for us, is around having nationally led research. So, you know, during COVID, one of the most exciting things for us, was we could continue with our whole research programme, because pretty much all of our research is led by practitioners and researchers in their country contexts. And so we weren't then limited by the fact that we couldn't jump on a plane because we don't actually conduct the research, or the technical support per se in country. So, you know, I think we fit a particular place, I think it's a really different place to a number of the universities and other institutions, which obviously play a really critical role in another space. But for all of us operating in the sector, if we don't have a really good understanding of our impact, then we're too many, or we're not doing the right role.
Meg Sattler:And that is a very interesting and important point, because organisations like ours, even though they are in this sort of research category, are not academia, because we don't take funding from academic pots, we take it from humanitarian pots, which means that technically, we're taking it away from programming. I think your impact point was really important. And I guess it would be good to maybe break that down a bit more. So how, as HAG, do you make decisions about what you want to focus on and then how you are going to track the impact of what you're doing? And how do you sort of make sure that it's actionable?
Kate Sutton:So I think it's really hard. And I think one of the reasons it's hard is because with research, there is always a lag with impact. So you're always looking at what your research impact may be a year down the track, or two years down the track. So one of the important things and I think it's something we've learned a lot about over the last three years, is how do you track over time, and understand those influences? But, you know, I think one of the big things for us has been around having a design process that has been really led by our national partners. So we've just gone through a process of redesigning our research programme. And it was actually a really lot... it was a 12 month process, really, from start to end. And what we did was we actually contracted our national researchers to be able to find out what the critical issues were in their context in their regions. So they could tell us what they needed research on. I think the other really big piece for us is understanding research uptake. So we definitely, and all research organisations, I'm sure have that moment where you've put loads and loads of effort into a massively into time intensive research product, and then you launch it and you're really, really excited, and then you don't really get the feedback and engagement that you wanted. Now that the lesson for me is to be able to go, Okay, how do we learn from that and understand why that research product didn't get traction, versus another one that did. And if we're constantly going through that reflective process of saying, actually, this piece works, because we spoke to the issues that were going to really help practitioners in the field, because I think the practitioners in the field are like, overwhelmed sometimes with information and data that they're meant to take on board and use. So unless we're actually providing it in a way that helps them do their job, then it won't have uptake. And we need to be monitoring that and understanding that to improve our research.
Meg Sattler:It's interesting that you touch on this approach where you're sort of trying to make decisions that are driven by local need, it seems. I saw a very interesting tweet this week about the colonisation of research and it was this statement from a Rohingya activist that said something along the lines, I'm paraphrasing, but your work might be interesting to you in inverted commas, but it's our life and it's our life that we're living. And the point wasn't necessarily to criticise research, per se, and it was definitely aimed more at Academia, but the point was more that doing such research does come with this immense level of privilege and really needs to somehow help the people living in the situations that we're researching or that we're trying to find out about. I know that this is obviously something that the two of you think about a lot. And I guess a question linked to that is how do you think that we can make sure that some of this action research could be better utilised for real change in communities and how do we make sure that we're sort of localising research and making sure that knowledge is in the hands of those who need it to make their own decisions?
Beth Eagleston:That's a brilliant question, Meg. It also relates back to what you were just saying about... I mean, we're obviously trying to make this impact. But you were mentioning about that finite pot of money, where the money is coming to these research organisations. And I think we have... I mean Kate and I talk often about how are we actually adding value? How are we providing value for money in the projects that we're undertaking that the questions that we're trying to answer? And I guess we're trying to provide an evidence base which will allow operational humanitarian agencies to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness and therefore be able to do more with the funding that they have. And I think this piece around who owns the knowledge, who generates the knowledge, is something... Kate mentioned our design process, our 12 month design process, and what came out so strongly was this piece around people, power, localization, and this piece around who generates knowledge, who owns knowledge. And are we ever understanding local contexts enough to to work with the local knowledge that is there? Are we listening? And I know this is something obviously at Ground Truth Solutions, you ask this question all the time, right? Are we listening? And going through this process and hearing people, more than 700 people from more than 50 countries, we tried to find out what were people prioritising, but not just the areas in thematic areas, but also what products do they want? Did you... Are they wanting to have a podcast like, of course, we would all like to listen to? [laughing] Or are they wanting a training, or a short, snappy brief? Are they wanting a tool? I mean, some people did say to us during this process, We don't want more data, we have all the data we need. We just want to find out how to do things. We know what to do, we just didn't know how to do it. Which is why a piece we really want to touch on, and this will probably come out throughout our chat, is what we want to bring in the behavioural science piece as well around how we can actively unblock some of these bottlenecks and actually see some of that change.
Kate Sutton:Can I jump in with [inaudible]
Beth Eagleston:Yeah, absolutely.
Kate Sutton:Because I think the question around who generates them owns knowledge is a really critical one for our sector. Because right now, the power around research definitely sits in Western countries and contexts. And I think that that is something that is going to have to shift. And I remember, in one of the pieces of research we did, we had national researchers there, and they just watched a cluster meeting. And there was this fascinating scenario whereby all these flip charts had been up on the wall. And then there was this physical fight, at the end of the meeting, where the international advisor wanted the flip charts to take them away to be able to draft the report. And the national government representative also wants to flip charts because it was his country, and it was his cluster meeting. And to me, it was just such a such a wonderful story. It was it was so, you know, beautifully captured in the sense that there is this thing around "knowledge is power". And that whole idea of, when you have all these great ideas that come up in a cluster meeting, who owns that? Is that actually, you know, the person in context, or is it the international advisor who's chaired the meeting? And I think the same question applies to research. Who gets to say what we research and who gets to say which findings are interesting and which ones aren't? And I think the other big question around this, which links into the whole evaluation piece for me is, who gets to define what impact is positive? And we have all our OECD DAC criteria. And we have all these approaches to saying what we believe is a quality approach, which guides and forms most of the work that we do as researchers. They're all Western frameworks that we use when we do our research, and how do we try and turn that on its head and actually research things in a way that makes sense to the people who are then able to use the data. And so I think, you know, we have not completed this journey. I don't want to give that impression at all. I feel as though we are really, really early steps. But I think we're trying harder and harder to ask those questions of ourselves, and to encourage our researchers to ask those questions with us. And so particularly in our new research programme, which we'll be kicking off in July, it's how do we shift that balance even within the research programme? Because if we're researching things like power imbalances in the system, you also then have to be thinking about the power imbalances within our research programme, in order to actually be authentic about it or to be able to really talk to it in a way that doesn't just seem hypocritical. So I think it's really challenging and to be honest, it's slightly daunting, because I feel as though we there are lots of areas we could still be critiqued on and we should be critiqued on and I think it's about being open to allowing people to say, who are you to stand and say X, Y and Zed, and for us to be able to really challenge ourselves to to shift on that. Is that too long? [laughing] I'm very passionate.
Meg Sattler:I think linked to that is this sort of... particularly recently, I think I felt this real sort of existential crisis around, you know, when you do have this immense privilege that comes with being a research agency or an M&E agency or, you know, wherever you might be from week to week, and that you are taking this funding from the same pots that it comes from, from a sector where, you know, we are always the first people to say this sector is so supply driven, and it's so driven by agendas from whether it's donors, or massive agencies, or whatever it is. And sometimes, I wonder that, you know, even as agencies like ours that are sort of trying to push the envelope or change things, that you are also sort of beholden to this thing, where you might become like, sort of a checkbox for something. So, you know, if you, for me, obviously, it's accountability, for you there's a whole host of issues where, you know, you might get funded to do a report on something, whether it's accountability, or PSCA, or localization, and you sort of... maybe that's just someone sort of having this "throw some research at it syndrome", and they're ticking their box. You know, you obviously rely on on funding like anyone else does. How do you think you sort of push against that? And how do you make sure that you're driving an agenda based on what is needed by people who need it?
Kate Sutton:So I've got a couple of thoughts, and I'm sure Beth will have some too. But um, I think the key thing for me is around asking internally, and also asking donors to continue to ask the question about whether or not it's proportionate. Because I think there is a role for standing back and to be able to reflect on something and bring new perspectives. And as Beth said, we've really seen that by having behavioural science come in externally for us and be able to just shine a new light on some of the issues that we would have considered to be really intractable and difficult to tackle. And, and this wonderful woman we've been working with has just been able to say, how about looking at it this way? So I think there is a role for it, I think the challenge is, if it becomes disproportionate, and there is too much funding going into that process, and not enough for the operational agencies to actually be able to do anything with it, then it becomes a really frustrating situation. And I feel frustrated for those agencies because I see all of this... these areas they're being required to do better work on that we've seen they're being able to do, and all these times they've been told they're not doing properly, but the question for me is, are they being resourced to be able to do it properly? Because yes, you can shine a light on things in lots of different ways. But if they actually don't have the people to be able to do it, they're never going to be able to do it. And so I think there's, you know, a really important thing. And the only other thing I would say is that whilst I think sometimes it is used as a tick box exercise, our donors have actually been really good about holding us accountable for impact. I find it really interesting, where donors have come to us and have said, That's great that you're doing interesting research, but with what impact? And how are you going to help us use that research? And how are you going to help operational agencies use that research, and actually being prepared to not only fund the research itself, but being able to fund the engagement that needs to come with the research so that you can actually walk alongside partners, and rather than just saying, Hey, you should be doing that differently, actually being able to say, Have you tried it this way? Could we do it this way? Can we help you do that? And I think that's a really important part of like the follow up piece of research.
Meg Sattler:Are there things that would make that process more effective? So obviously, when you the agency who is sort of looking into things and trying to answer questions and providing evidence, and then you're also being held to account to an extent for the impact of that, but obviously, there's this whole ecosystem of people who have probably more ability than you do of actually making sure that those recommendations mean something. Are there other things kind of within the sector or the humanitarian ecosystem or the garden, [inaudible], that might be more conducive to making, you know, the humanitarian sector sort of more willing or able to be able to act on some of this research.
Kate Sutton:Yes. So I think a really big piece of it, in my mind, is trust. Because as long as agencies feel as though research is set up to catch them out, or to highlight issues, I think you immediately set up a dynamic whereby there's not an openness to learn to engage and also not this sense that we're all in it together. And so I think research has to be framed as, is helping you, because if it's not, then even if we feel like the researcher rigour has been amazing and that we come out with really great results and wish it, but if actually it's undermining people, undermining their capacity to be able to do their job, then ultimately, I think it's failed, regardless of how rigorous the research was. And so I think there's got to be that trust established with the agencies that you're working with in order for that to happen, really.
Beth Eagleston:I love what you said about the privilege, we're absolutely in a privileged position. I feel like we have the distance, we have, most of the time, the time as well, to reflect on what these hard questions are, we listen to what some of the hard questions are from operational agencies, and then we have the luxury to be able to explore this further and come up with some considerations or recommendations. And I think it's so interesting, looking at this, the great new report, this Time to Decolonize Aid report, where some of the recommendations there are around, you know, to us as individuals, asking us to acknowledge that privilege, that privilege and that baggage, and I think some of the recommendations to different, you know, to donors, individuals to NGOs, really ask us to take a long hard look at what we're bringing to humanitarian assistance, humanitarian action. And I think... I just love how... what one of the quotes I love the most in this report, and it's something I guess I've been trying to say for ages, which is around if we want things to shift, a lot of this, for me, is about risk, to how do you increase your appetite for risk. But I think the way in which the authors of this report phrase, it is much better, which is around... so one of the recommendations for donors is to fund courageously and to trust generously. And I think we don't see enough of that. I think if we took risks, and actually, you know, were more courageous in the way that we fund and the way that we listen and the way that we act, that we may actually see the transformation that we've been seeking. But I don't know if we see that appetite for risk? And if we're actually going to see that happen in the future.
Meg Sattler:Do you think that's linked to a lack of appetite to discuss failure, as well in our sector? Because I know that that's something that we grapple with a lot at Ground Truth is that, you know, we sort of want to push things a bit further and try things and then sort of tell people when it's when it's not working. And on the other hand, we know we really want to see that from more of these big operational agencies, we want to see when something didn't work, and why and how can we all kind of learn from that? Is that something that you've also been grappling with?
Beth Eagleston:Absolutely, Kate and I for a long time have... we love the idea of having a "fail fest" just to bring everyone around the table and talk about, in a really mature way, this is what hasn't worked for us, this is what we're finding difficult. And, for me, that's linked a lot around independence, independence from where you get your funding. So I'm a big fan of the work that MSF does around publishing work around their failures, where they wish they'd made different decisions, where they wish they'd done things differently. And I would like to think that we were getting to the point where there is a maturity in the relationship between... and let's be honest, they're quite competitive actors now with a shrinking pot of money, and growing need, international NGOs, in particular are under a lot of pressure to deliver more for less. So how could they come together around the table and actually sort of say, you know, We want to talk about where it hasn't worked. And I am disappointed that perhaps we haven't created the environment for that to happen. I don't know whose role it is to do that. I know, there's been interesting conversations around having independent humanitarian ombudsman who would explore some of these issues, and really bring out the failures and unpack the reasons why there were failures. But I would love to see that happen more. And I would love to see how, you know, us as HAG could help provide a space where that could happen.
Meg Sattler:And I suppose linked to that, there's often pushback because there's a sense that, you know, in the private sector, you can innovate and fail forward because you're not playing with people's lives, as it were. But I guess I would counter that by saying, we very rarely even know the impact of what's happening in the humanitarian sector. And if we sort of spoke to people more and found out, you know, whether something was failing from their perspective on the receiving end, I think that there's a lot that could be learned. But I think for all the reasons that you've outlined, there's not necessarily always an appetite for that. You've said a lot of things about kind of localising research and trying to listen more to people, I guess both on the receiving end of it, but also people who sort of have more of a stake in facilitating humanitarian response locally. Let's move even more local for a moment, which is the room that we're sitting in where we're looking over a nice Melbourne skyline. I wanted to just touch on, the Humanitarian Advisory Group, I suppose has been interesting to me for a while in the sense that, as an international humanitarian actor in a way, you do take quite a specific approach to your local environment and how you engage with that, how you act in a sort of a socially responsible way. It's quite a stark contrast for me having worked in some expat roles in places like Geneva, where, you know, there's a lot of people living these lives of incredible privilege completely disconnected from their surroundings, obviously, focusing on hopefully doing good work within their roles. But there's quite a disconnect between them and the environment in which they're living as expatriates, I suppose. You're living and working, you know, in your home and your community. And as you said, in the introduction, Beth, you're working as a big corporation, not an NGO. Can you tell us a bit more about that, and about your approach to local social responsibility and what that means for you as an organisation.
Beth Eagleston:This is something we've been passionate about for quite some time, actually. I think, right from the beginning of starting up Humanitarian Advisory Group, we made this decision, as I mentioned, to be business. But I think we didn't just want to be a consulting firm, we just did not want to be the same old same old, just to business, just a firm, just another one of those organisations that just people come in, they worked really hard, they leave an empty shell at the other end, that just isn't what we want it to be about. We also felt like it was incredibly important to walk the talk. So if we were talking about diversity inclusion in our research, or if we were talking about, you know, local leadership or supporting localizations in the research we were doing, then we had to actually do that ourselves. So quite early on, we decided that we wanted to have our business as a social enterprise model, which means that we generate our revenue through through trade, not through grants. But also that any profits that are made, then we reinvest back into the humanitarian sector, and that's wherever organisations ask that to the summit. So it might be pro bono or low bono services, understanding people might want a piece of research, or they may want an event, whatever that may be. But it's not just that piece around profits, it's around, what does our procurement look like when we... you know, we're a business. They're a whole bunch of services that we need to procure to actually go, whether that be, you know, office space, or printing, or whatever that may be, ensuring that we actually jump through a few hoops when we're choosing where we spend our money, every dollar that we spend, we want to ensure that that's actually having some impact. And that's actually led us to have a lot of really great conversations. It's led us to become a carbon neutral organisation. We're doing some research and work at the moment on how the humanitarian sector can be more involved in climate action. And we realised that we needed to take a hard look at how are we travelling? How are we how are we working? How are we actually supporting some of these recommendations that are coming out through our research? So we've actually really enjoyed the B Corp certification process? Because not only did it lead us to ask ourselves a lot of questions, there's also a lot of research, a lot of research and a lot of resources, through that pre that process that allowed us to access different experiences from different businesses. So they're able to say, well, we also wanted to either be carbon neutral, or we wanted to be able to work in a different way. And we can learn from those different organisations. And I think, in humanitarian sector, it's very tempting to say, we can't look at our carbon footprint or our emissions, or we can't look at the way we treat our staff--because we're saving lives. And I think we... I admit, we have the luxury of stepping back and saying, Well, we have time and so we're not the ones on the frontline. We're an enabling agency. But the idea is, how can we want to get up every morning and want our team and our staff to get up every morning and want to come to work at humanitarian advisory group because they feel like at every step, not just the deliverables that they send through to a government or an NGO or or the Red Cross, but also the way in which they got there was something that aligned with their own values.
Kate Sutton:And Beth has been amazing at holding us accountable to this as well, which I find really... like it's been so helpful, because we have like four results areas that we track on a quarterly basis. And one of those is our social impact. So we have metrics around how we are contributing on social impact and she really holds our feet to the fire on that which I think is so... [laughing] yeah, she's tough. She's so important. And I think it's fascinating how you see staff own it, and actually engage with the business in a different way when they feel like, they believe, that the business is doing good for the world as well as the products are doing good. It's yeah, well done.
Meg Sattler:Do you think um... and I think that's a great example of I know something, Beth, you and I have spoken about before, which is this idea that, you know, just sort of having an intention to do good is not enough. And you can't say, by working in this sector, I am therefore doing a good job. There's a real sort of weight of responsibility that comes with trying to do it well. Has this sort of local global approach that you've been taking given you any particular inspiration for the International sector, and has your involvement in your local communities, I know Beth, you also volunteer with the Red Cross here, has that sort of given you any inspiration or any ideas or grounding about how we can sort of conduct ourselves in the international sphere?
Beth Eagleston:I will say, it's kind of interesting, because I wish that someone had told me very early on that a great way to learn about doing international aid work is to volunteer in your own community. Herer am I, coming back after years of fieldwork and setting up HAG, and now, sort of, you know, really enjoying learning about how Emergency Services works in Australia, and I'm fascinated about perhaps... of course, there's so many of the same issues, as so much of the state politics, coordination challenges, all that kind of thing, and I do... I guess, I feel a level of frustration sometimes about knowing about all the goodwill and time and resources that are ploughed into best practice globally, you know, these guidelines, benchmarks, standards that we have. And of course, the same thing happens at the domestic level. And you think if only there was a little more overlap, and perhaps a little bit more sharing between those two levels. I think there could be a lot of learning there. But I know I find it fascinating to understand how, when I'm talking to people who are wanting to get into the humanitarian aid sector, and when I say, Well, Start Here. What are the kinds of organisations you can volunteer with, you know, right here in Australia, in your own community? And it's just not something that people spoke about, you know, when I entered the sector 20 years ago. That was not the advice I got. It was sort of like, you need to go and volunteer, you know, far flung country and sort of look at that. And so I love the fact that young students now are hopefully, you know, joining my emergency services team, and maybe things will take a different track. And this could be because of COVID. People are not able to go abroad and get that kind of experience and the usual kind of path people had to getting into the sector. And I wonder how that will actually shift the sector as we're going forward, because people will have a different experience and a different worldview, as they're actually stepping into work with some of those big organisations.
Meg Sattler:Another thing about your organisation, which is that you've had, I guess, all along, less so now than in the beginning, but a distinct absence of men in your team. Talking about diversity, you've recently published a diagnosis on your own team diversity and how you're working on that. You've also done, or continued to do, I think, some really interesting research on diversity in our sector. I've seen that your organisation is quite focused on, you know, trying to promote a different sort of leadership. And through your internship programme, you've been trying to sort of build up this generation of future leaders, working with indigenous groups, you're quite active allies for LGBTQI communities. I will admit that I was very disappointed to see the outcome of the appointment of the new ERC. Based on the last podcast that I did, I was expressing that I was quite hopeful about what that could mean for our sector. And I don't think that's an undiplomatic thing to say, because I think, you know, it's not necessarily a personality issue. For me, it's it's really about representation, and what it means for people to sort of see themselves in leadership roles. Before we started recording, I was talking about, in Australia, this reality show of The Bachelorette. And then today, the internet has really exploded because for the first time, there will be someone on that show who is sort of representative of various elements of diversity. She's an indigenous woman, she's bisexual, and just seeing the positive responses to that and that, you know, that's pop culture. But we work in a sector that constantly claims to be about decolonization and shifting power and, you know, showing, you know, little girls living in crisis that they can change their situations and they can have an impact. How important do you think it is to sort of balance this out? And I guess, do you see diversity and leadership is really... you know, does it really matter? And to what extent has either your way of working or your research demonstrated that it does or maybe that it doesn't so much?
Kate Sutton:So this is a huge question and when I get very excited about [laughing]. I think the thing that really struck me when we started delving into this was how far the private sector have gone with this. So the private sector have a really good understanding of what diversity and inclusion brings. So they can tell you that if they have a diverse and inclusive board, their risk management increases by 20%. Like they have 20% less accidents on oil rigs when they have more women on their boards.
Meg Sattler:I'm not surprised.
Kate Sutton:Yeah [laughing]. The oil rigs in particular. You know, their innovation, like, it just increases dramatically. And one of the fascinating things for me is when we first set up and actually engaged and our research advisory committee had a representative from Deloitte who lead on their diverse, inclusive stuff. And she was great because she got on the phone to me, she said, Kate, I'm just not sure that we're going to be able to work with you because you're all women. And I was like, hang on a minute, isn't that the point? This is brilliant. She's like, No, no, no, you're totally missing the point. The point is diversity. It's not about having necessarily a particular type of person at the top. It's about making sure that whatever your team is, at the top of whatever organisation, is listening to diverse voices, and is, you know, engaging in different ways with different communities. And that really... you know, I'd gone from a position, I guess, three or four years ago, thinking about women in leadership, which I'm still passionate about, but I'm passionate about it because we don't see that representation being balanced at the top, not because women are inherently better or worse or whatever leaders than men, or that people from different racial backgrounds are necessarily better or worse or... but just that they bring different voices to the table. And this, to me is a really important thing that I think we're missing in our sector. And we are missing the link between what happens if we create that more diverse and inclusive leadership, then for improving the way that we manage something like sexual exploitation and abuse? What does it do for the way that we manage innovation? What does it do for accountability to affect populations? Because what we have at the moment in our sector is lots of anecdotal data. So people will say things like, Oh, well, we had lots of women on our management board and so we did protection so much better. And that's great, right? That's great. But there's no... that's not evidence. And so what we've been working on and why I've been really passionate about the last few years working with a couple of team members who've just been incredible in terms of pushing this work, is to get really strong evidence, because I think people don't always change ways because they think it's the right thing to do, they change ways sometimes when there's really clear evidence, and that was absolutely the way in the private sector and hoping it will be borne out in our sector. We've just got... our wonderful statistician has just got all our stats back to us to show that there is indeed a very strong correlation between three leadership teams that... sorry, 13 leadership teams that we worked with in Asia, and we profiled those leadership teams. And there's a correlation between the diversity and inclusion of those leadership teams, and how innovative they are, and the way that they are able to adapt and come up with solutions to difficult challenges in context. And so I am just beyond excited with that, Meg. Because to me, when we're able to start saying there is real evidence, this makes a difference, then hopefully, people will start set up and thinking about it a bit differently. So it... to me, it's not so much about an individual, although I probably share your disappointment, but at the same time, it's it's around the team that is then around an individual as well. And the leadership that has shown on diversity and inclusion, and the extent to which different voices are bought into and heard in making some of the critical decisions that are going to face our sector. Because quite frankly, when... we're struggling as a sector, I think. And so unless we have some different ideas and from different perspectives, I think we are going to really be challenged going forward. So I think that's the key for me.
Meg Sattler:And I suppose it's not... I mean, it's not really surprising, is it, that if you have teams where you bring in a lot of different views, that there is going to be more of a conducive environment to innovation. Is there anything else that you learned from that research that was particularly interesting with regard to how well we're doing as a sector, we've been able to sort of get to that point where we are, you know, operating in this maximised and innovative way?
Kate Sutton:So I think the other really interesting thing, which maybe doesn't directly answer your question, because the other area, I guess, I got very excited about, was that there was really strong evidence that leaders who come from a racial ethnic minority background, are more likely to put in place confidential feedback mechanisms during COVID, for example. So this whole idea that... it's not that any individual group, and we did this research with the Red Cross, and it was it was a really interesting piece of work where they allowed us to talk to their leaders across the movement in the way they responded to COVID. And it wasn't that any particular group was better or worse, that was not the purpose of the research, but it was about saying, what are the different voices that people brought to the table. And there were really interesting things like that. And again, that was statistically significant. So we ran this as a test. And we discovered that it was absolutely more likely that people from that background would have then placed those mechanisms. So we know that people come with their life experiences. And the other interesting differences were actually in relation to professional backgrounds. So when people have been outside the sector for a long time, they're more likely to think about different areas to those people who've been in the sector. So I think it's just an openness to hear those different voices and and to be able to help that solve some of these problems. I think it's absolutely right to raise the question around, where AAP is going, and how accountable we really are. I think, you know, Meg, you and I have been working on something in the wings around thinking through what some of this means for our sector. And obviously, this is this is core to your job and what and what you do, but I... you know, I think in some ways, we need to step back and look at the issue. And you know, when I was talking earlier about shining the light with it... with a different... we need to take a different approach to it. Because the approach we've been taking so far is that if we write enough guidance notes, and if we provide enough tick box things, and if we ask people enough whether or not they've set up a feedback mechanism, somehow that will lead to impact. And we've had years and years of this and it doesn't... and actually having a feedback box does not mean that somebody's voice is heard, or that a programme changes. And I think one of the things that really needs to happen is being able to sort of step back, and some of the conversations you and I have had is about really kind of getting out of the weeds and being able to go, Okay, what is the big picture? And how are we really ensuring impact. And, you know, interestingly, linking back to your point about the local context, one of the stories I got very excited about that we were discussing was this idea of... after the Hazelwood fires, actually, which was a fire event here in Australia, a couple of years ago, there was a commissioner who was set up to basically ensure that that we were hearing community voice. And it was such a contrast of what we do in the international sector. So basically, she was told, Go out and listen to what people want. And she travelled buses. She got on buses, and she just had conversations with people. And I think it was so much more about the outcome that was intended, which is that they wanted their programme to be responsive to what people said, rather than the ways it had to be done. And I think what we've done in our sector is we've got so caught up in the ways it has to be done, that we have forgotten what the impact is we're trying to have. And so I think there's a fundamental rebalancing that needs to take place that will will take time, but we'll be hopefully... yeah, we can make it.
Meg Sattler:While I've got you all fired up, which I think is good energy to end on, I guess a question for both of you, What... You know, obviously, this has been a very strange year or, you know, now over a year. What are the sort of most interesting things that you've learned or that you've been working on and, you know, what has you sort of fired up as we're going into the second half of this year?
Beth Eagleston:I think I can be boring and saying that it's really stuff that came out of our scoping and our new research programme. So on the first of July, we're kicking off a new research programme which is going to be exploring some of these really hard issues around the people in power, around how are humanitarians involving in climate action? And what are some of these key issues that we can be providing rapid, sort of a research lens to that's going to actually change things as we're going forward? But I think the other thing that I've really learnt, and it's through this behavioural science piece, and why I think it's so fundamental that it can apply to every part of our lives, I think. Our... the behavioural scientists we've been working with sort of said, it's not around raising awareness. We always think, No, it's around raising awareness, if we educate people, and of course, they will change. If they have the evidence, of course that will change. We know that that's not the case. We all know that we should exercise and eat healthily and cut out our alcohol. But you know, how many of us actually do that? And I love the way that she has a quote that she uses which is all around, you don't make it easy. And it's question of making things the default. And I think if we can look at more around how... what what behaviour looks like, what what systems and processes look like... And it could be small, and sometimes even cost neutral, tweaks that we can make within this system. And someone actually raised these in a workshop we were having this week around, how do we look at how different organisations work in support of a locally-led response. And people saying, Well, at the moment, it's difficult to actually add in a partner to the work that you're doing. And you've got to... you know, there's not a timeframe when you're doing a proposal to actually have those conversations, to design it together and actually have a good outcome and put that in and hopefully get funded. But actually, what if you just did that? And it should already be there in the form, who is your partner? How are you going to work together, it's not an if, just make it a default. And I realised that's the same... it's when we talk about, you know, making habits, you know, wellbeing, all these kinds of things, it's the same kind of thing of tweak it so it's harder to actually do the behaviour that we're actually trying to move away from. So I think this is something that, you know, we're excited about the research we're doing, you know, come the first of July, and over these next three years, and we're really keen for people to reach out to us if they want to partner, we're really keen to working with people we haven't before and to hearing from people that, you know, want to help ask some of these difficult questions with us.
Kate Sutton:Building on what Beth says, I think we have... I think we're really interesting stage right now, because there are so many defaults in our humanitarian system that have been challenged by COVID. And we are such an awesome opportunity. And I have been called idealistic since I was four. So you know, we can just go with the go with the theme. I actually think we have an amazing opportunity right now. The humanitarian sector has continued to operate without international actors being able to fly in. There were multiple crises where national actors were able to respond now we can quibble over whether or not the impact was great, as much as we wanted it to be, or whether or not it was as accountable as we wanted it to be. But then quite frankly, even when international actors are there, is it as accountable as we want it to be? Probably not. So I actually think the fact that that international humanitarian system, through national actors, continue to operate incredibly well, actually, over the past year under some of the greatest stresses it has ever experienced. If that doesn't challenge our defaults, then I feel like we're in real trouble. So I think it's exciting in terms of potentially being able to really, yeah, changed the way we operate.
Meg Sattler:Kate and Beth, thank you so much. It has been so great to talk to you. Not least because it got me out of my house for a work related meeting for the first time and I think 14 months. Grateful for that. But thank you so much for sharing with us all of your lessons learned and your work and all the inspiring things that you're doing. And we look forward to seeing more from you as the year progresses. Thanks very much.
Beth Eagleston:Thank you, Meg.
Kate Sutton:Thanks, Meg.