I’ve sat in countless conference rooms—some virtual, some in grand headquarters—where the urgency of a crisis was met not with swift action, but with more meetings. More working groups. More strategy documents. The air in these rooms often carried an unspoken truth: something fundamental was broken, but no one wanted to say it outright.
And yet, the work continued. Policies were revised, procedures refined, committees expanded. The illusion of progress was carefully maintained, even as the world outside demanded something different—something faster, bolder, more attuned to reality.
International NGOs have long been at the forefront of responding to humanitarian crises. But today, as displacement reaches historic highs, as climate change exacerbates food insecurity, as conflicts rage with no end in sight, too many organizations seem more focused on perfecting their internal machinery than on questioning whether the machinery still works.
Meanwhile, the ground beneath them is shifting. Donor fatigue is setting in, with major funders cutting budgets, shifting priorities, or redirecting resources toward domestic concerns. Geopolitical tensions are reshaping alliances, making humanitarian access more challenging than ever. Local actors are demanding greater ownership, challenging the outdated dominance of INGOs in crisis response. And across the sector, the bureaucratic weight of compliance, risk aversion, and slow decision-making is making INGOs less agile, less effective, and—frankly—less relevant.
At a time when the world needs bold, decisive action, many organizations are instead doubling down on what is safe, familiar, and internally focused—more frameworks, more strategies, more policy discussions. They are stuck in a cycle of self-preservation rather than reinvention, reacting to external pressures by reinforcing rigid systems rather than adapting to the changing humanitarian landscape.
But the reality is clear: we are running out of time to adapt….The ship is sinking. And yet, we are still debating the placement of the chairs.
A Crisis of Institutional Inertia
It’s not that humanitarian organizations don’t see the problems—they do. Leadership teams recognize the inefficiencies, field staff voice frustrations, donors increasingly demand results. But instead of fundamental change, the default response remains the same: establish another working group, draft another framework, develop another set of guidelines, organize another training. The assumption is that if we just get the process right, impact will follow.
But what if the process itself is the problem?
The gap between policy and practice is widening. In many organizations, we see procedures that are impossible to implement in fragile environments, compliance requirements that slow down response efforts, and governance models that prioritize internal accountability over external impact. Too often, when faced with operational challenges, the instinct is to layer on another policy rather than strip away what no longer serves. We tend to optimize processes that are no longer needed—perfecting systems that were built for a different era, for a different world. The frameworks we defend, the policies we refine, and the structures we uphold were designed for a humanitarian landscape that no longer exists.
The sector was built on a model of large, centralized INGOs acting as primary responders, funneling resources from the Global North to crises in the Global South. That system is crumbling. Local actors are demanding—and rightfully taking—control. Donors are shifting their priorities. Global attention is waning. And yet, rather than fundamentally rethinking our role, too many INGOs are stuck in classic reform cycles—tweaking policies, adjusting funding mechanisms, launching another localization initiative while maintaining the same top-down structures.
But this moment doesn’t call for refinement; it calls for transformation. A full shift.
This isn’t about recklessness. Accountability is crucial. Governance matters. But what happens when these structures become barriers instead of enablers? What happens when they lead to paralysis rather than action?
The Two Paths: Adapt or Become Obsolete
The humanitarian sector is at a crossroads. One path leads to reinvention—where organizations shed outdated ways of working, embrace agility, and rethink how they engage with crises. The other path leads to obsolescence—where institutions become so consumed by self-preservation that they fail to see their own irrelevance creeping in.
Some organizations are already choosing the first path. They are experimenting with localized funding models, reducing bureaucratic overhead, integrating technology in meaningful ways, and questioning whether the traditional INGOs of the past are still fit for purpose. These actors recognize that responding to a world in flux requires more than just policy tweaks—it demands a complete reimagining of how humanitarian work is done.
Others, however, remain stuck in the comfort of what they know. They double down on internal processes, reinforce rigid hierarchies, and convince themselves that another set of recommendations will fix what is, at its core, a structural problem.
The truth is, the world is changing at a speed that legacy institutions struggle to match. Crises no longer unfold neatly within the confines of traditional humanitarian models. Climate change, digital transformation, and shifting power dynamics are rewriting the rules. The question is: will the humanitarian sector rewrite itself in response?
Time for a New Playbook
Reform won’t come from another high-level summit or a policy paper—it will come from a shift in mindset. It will come when leaders stop asking how to refine old systems and start asking whether those systems should still exist.
It will come when decision-makers trade risk aversion for bold experimentation, when organizations replace rigid hierarchies with adaptable networks, and when the humanitarian sector finally accepts that effectiveness is not measured by the number of working groups formed but by the tangible impact delivered.
This demands a first-principles approach, stripping down assumptions and questioning every layer of our institutional architecture. It requires zero-based budgeting, forcing organizations to justify every dollar spent from the ground up, rather than reflexively funding legacy structures that no longer serve their purpose. And it calls for a governance model that is not just about compliance but about agility and accountability, ensuring that decision-making is driven by impact, not internal politics.
The future of humanitarian response will not be built by those trying to tweak the old playbook—it will be built by those courageous enough to write a new one.
Because at the end of the day, a perfectly arranged set of chairs won’t keep a ship from sinking. The only question left is: who’s willing to grab the lifeboat and start steering in a new direction?
Ali Al Mokdad
#HumanitarianSector #INGO #LeadershipMatters #AidEffectiveness #TimeForChange
