|
Introduction
The stark statistics for HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa are terrifying. Countries like
Malawi, for example, are losing more teachers each year than are being trained. 70% of
major hospital capacity is taken up by HIV+ patients, and orphans now amount to 8% of
the population. Such statistics become even more frightening when we dare to think
through the implications over the next ten years, when irrespective of changes in
infection rates the situation will deteriorate as those already infected get sick and die.
The position is so alarming that massive amounts of resources are quite rightly being
targeted at making anti-retroviral therapy (ARVs) accessible. Donors are also laudably
insisting that HIV/AIDS be mainstreamed in all the development programmes they
support. But this is still not enough.
Most donors are failing to fully appreciate the less obvious, indirect impact that HIV/AIDS
is also having on their partner organisations implementing development programmes in
such contexts. In an HIV affected environment, development organisations will
necessarily do less and do it more expensively (all else being equal). HIV specialists,
Barnett and Whiteside (2002) warn: ‘Development becomes virtually impossible in the
era of AIDS’. Yet many donors still appear surprised when the indicators contained in
their logical framework tables are not achieved. The recent head office demands for
greater focus on results and tighter budgets appear increasingly detached from the
reality on the HIV-affected ground. HIV/AIDS can have a significant impact on not just
the partner’s programme, but the partner organisation itself. Operating in a context of
high HIV prevalence will necessarily affect the partner’s staffing, systems, structures,
strategy and even leadership (for more discussion of the organisational impact of HIV
see James and Mullins (2004)). This paper will focus on this aspect of leadership and
although the examples are exclusively drawn from Malawi, the implications may be very
relevant for other HIV-affected countries in Africa.
The impact of HIV on leaders infected by the virus is increasingly obvious and
distressing, and yet the impact on leaders affected by the virus is more widespread and
insidious. Leaders, in countries like Malawi, are not just leaders in their organisations
(and having to bear the weight of HIV in their workplace), but are also leaders in their
extended and rapidly extending families. As HIV/AIDS cuts swathes through the
population, leaders are responsible for responding to the decimation in their families - as
the Chichewa proverb says:
“The big head will not dodge the fists - mutu ukakula sulewa mkhonya”.
If someone in the family gets sick and later dies, the main wage earners in the family
cannot simply ignore it and say it is not their problem. Yet how many such blows from
home can leaders survive and still perform at their very best at work?
Many leaders are being torn apart by the cultural demands from home and the
professional demands from work. The current situation is impossible to sustain and
something will soon give. Unless there is a change, good leaders and effective
organisations may collapse, losing the most valuable, but also most vulnerable of
development resources, and leaving Africa paralysed to rise to the mounting
humanitarian challenge.
|
|
- 73Kb < 1min (10 pages)
