In the world of development and social impact, strategy and implementation often feel like parallel universes.
Policies, frameworks, and budgets are produced in boardrooms, while in communities the realities of daily life unfold — complex, messy, and often resistant to neat solutions. The paradox is striking: those most responsible for making strategies succeed — programme staff, community liaisons, field managers — are frequently excluded from the very decisions that determine their success.
This disconnect is not just an ethical oversight. It has legal, operational, and human consequences. The South African Companies Act, for instance, requires directors to exercise care, skill, and diligence. But what does diligence mean if not engaging with the people closest to the work? In Fisher v Langeberg Municipality (2006), the court held that decisions made without consulting affected stakeholders can be challenged. The law echoes what practitioners already know: governance without implementation voices is governance half-done.
The Distance Between Strategy and Reality
Take, for example, a first-of-its-kind WASH enterprise development programme in South Africa. The executive may design a curriculum aligned with international standards and arrange for business training. On paper, it is impeccable. Yet when field staff attempt to roll it out, they encounter problems: language barrier with international facilitators, participants’ unreliable access to virtual resources, the effect of climate and agricultural cycles on WASH, or workshop materials mismatched with local context. The programme stumbles not because the strategy lacked logic, but because it lacked lived insight.
This is not unique to WASH or enterprise development. In education, and health, similar stories repeat. A well-funded water project in the Eastern Cape once installed boreholes in villages but neglected to consult women — those primarily responsible for collecting water. The pumps were placed far from daily routes, reducing usage and frustrating the very community they sought to help. By contrast, in Bangladesh, BRAC’s community health programmes thrived precisely because they embedded local women as “shasthya shebikas” (health volunteers), ensuring strategies adapted continuously to ground realities.
What emerges is a clear lesson: implementation teams are not simply executors of strategy — they are knowledge bearers. To ignore them is to build plans on sand.
The Legal and Ethical Dimensions
South African governance law implicitly acknowledges this reality. Section 76 of the Companies Act holds directors personally liable for reckless or negligent decisions. But can a decision truly be “informed” without operational consultation? Case law suggests not.
Globally, this principle is mirrored. In India, the Supreme Court struck down policies that excluded local panchayat councils from development planning, recognising the constitutional principle of subsidiarity — that decisions should be taken as close as possible to those affected. In Kenya, the 2010 Constitution explicitly requires public participation in local governance, embedding the same ethos into law. These legal frameworks reinforce a universal truth: excluding ground-level voices is not just impractical; it is often unlawful.
Practical Encounters: When Voices Are Ignored
- Humanitarian Aid in Haiti (2010): Following the earthquake, international NGOs deployed massive resources but failed to adequately consult local communities. Shelters were built in locations vulnerable to flooding, and food distribution bypassed local networks, undermining trust. Studies later showed that programmes with the highest impact were those run by grassroots organisations who knew the terrain.
- South African School Nutrition Programme: Designed to provide meals to vulnerable learners, it initially stumbled because delivery schedules clashed with school timetables and local supplier capacity was underestimated. It was only after consultation with school principals and kitchen staff that the programme stabilised.
- HIV/AIDS Response in Uganda: International funders once insisted on abstinence-focused programming. Local health workers, however, observed that such programmes ignored cultural realities and did not reduce infection rates. When local NGOs pushed for comprehensive sex education and community-driven messaging, outcomes improved dramatically.
These examples raise a critical question: Why do organisations continue to repeat this pattern of exclusion when evidence consistently shows the costs?
From Compliance to Culture: Embedding Ground-Level Voices
Solutions do exist, and they extend beyond compliance. Legal frameworks provide the baseline, but culture determines practice. Organisations can move towards inclusivity by institutionalising mechanisms that bring field perspectives into governance.
- Regular consultation sessions: Programme staff should feed into board discussions quarterly, not as guests but as essential stakeholders.
- Participatory decision-making: Communities themselves can be involved through advisory councils or membership models. For instance, Shack Dwellers International integrates residents into governance, making them co-architects of housing solutions.
- Rotational board immersion: Imagine if every director spent one week per year shadowing field staff. The insights gained could recalibrate priorities in profound ways.
- Feedback loops: Implementation challenges should not remain buried in reports. Dashboards or town-hall meetings can make them visible to leadership in real time.
An apt analogy here is that of an orchestra. A conductor (the board) may hold the score, but without the musicians (field staff), the music cannot exist. And crucially, the musicians often have practical insight into acoustics, timing, and expression that the conductor cannot perceive from the podium. A symphony only works when both are in conversation.
Towards Sustainable Development Practice
Excluding ground-level voices not only undermines programme success but also corrodes organisational trust and credibility. Staff who feel unheard are less motivated; communities treated as passive recipients disengage. On the other hand, inclusive decision-making fosters commitment, innovation, and sustainability.
Development success, then, is not about perfect strategies but about adaptable systems that integrate lived realities. Boards must ask themselves:
- Who is missing from this decision?
- What might implementation staff or community members see that we cannot?
- How do we embed their insight not as an afterthought but as part of our governance DNA?
The answers to these questions could transform development work from fragile interventions to enduring change.
The invisible weight of implementation rests on those who must turn plans into practice. To exclude them from decision-making is to risk irrelevance, inefficiency, and even illegality. Strategy alone is theory; reality lives in the field. The task before us is not simply to acknowledge operational voices but to systematically embed them into governance, ensuring that organisations act with both vision and humility.
The real measure of development success is not how well strategies are written but how deeply they resonate with — and are shaped by — the people tasked with bringing them to life.
– Lele
Lele Muthali 