







































Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(1),  Summer 2020  

 
Sarma, Importance of Role and Agency of Fieldworkers in Transformational Development Work by Christian NGOs  20 
 

 

Importance of Role and Agency of 

Fieldworkers in Transformational 

Development Work by Christian NGOs  
Jaisankar Sarma 

 

 
This article makes the case for the agency and the role of fieldworkers as critical considerations in 

community development projects of NGOs and in transformational development work undertaken 

by Christian NGOs. For the latter, the role and agency of fieldworkers become even more important, 

as inner transformation and transformation of relationships require fieldworkers’ investment through 

relationships in people and not simply interventions in program population. The article explores the 

concepts of agency, personhood, social changes, and what they mean for the transformational 

development work of Christian NGOs. The paper argues that institutional donor-funded programs 

that give prominence to external interventions, but pay lip service to actor-oriented approaches, create 

tensions for frontline workers and instrumentalizes them. The paper closes with recommendations 

for Christian NGOs in helping to reconcile fieldworkers’ agency and their role in transformational 

development, even as NGOs work with institutional donor funding in development projects. 

 

 

 

Critical Role of NGO Fieldworkers in 

Development 
The pivotal role of the fieldworker at the interface 

of NGOs and communities has been recognized for a 

long time (e.g. Taylor and Jenkins, 1989, Tilakaratna, 

1985). This role has been characterized in many ways: 

facilitator, change agent, gatekeeper, technical 

knowledge resource, and relational broker. 

Fieldworkers have also been challenged as 

‘modernizing disruptors’ of tradition and culture, and 

agents of foreign interests. The importance of 

fieldworkers in NGOs doing development work cannot 

be over-emphasized. They are the ones at the 

frontlines, representing organizational vision, mission, 

and values to communities, and planning and 

implementing programs on behalf of NGOs. Over a 

period of time, the cumulative daily interactions of 

fieldworkers with community members and local 

partners shape NGO Development projects. 

Fieldworkers provide the interface between the NGO 

and people, interpreting projects to communities, as 

well as community realities and perspectives to NGOs. 

By virtue of their presence in communities and the 

intermediary role they play, fieldworkers do not exist as 

passive instruments, but have the opportunity to actively 

shape the content and quality of community 

engagement in programming processes. Project designs 

or plans, when they are developed, reflect the intentions 

of what the NGO would like to accomplish sometime 

in the future, but it is the fieldworkers who implement 

project designs in the reality of any given moment – in 

contexts that are more complex and dynamic than what 

can be portrayed in neatly packaged design documents.  

The fieldworker role is especially critical in the 

transformational development work of Christian faith-

based NGOs, as noted by Bryant Myers...  

 

Ultimately, the effectiveness of transformational 

development comes down, not to theory, 

principles, or tools, but to people. Transformation 

is about transforming relationships, and 

relationships are transformed by people. 

Techniques and programs only fulfill their promise 

when holistic practitioners use them with the right 

attitude, the right mindset, and professionalism. 

When development promoters have made the 

theory and values of transformational development 

their own, when they live them out in the real world 

of development practice, then good things can 

happen (Myers, 2011, 219). 

 

There are many theological approaches towards 

understanding poverty and transformational 

development within a Christian worldview, but this 

paper makes use of a conceptual framework proposed 

by Myers (2011). According to Myers, poverty is 

understood as the result of broken relationships and 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(1),  Summer 2020  

 
Sarma, Importance of Role and Agency of Fieldworkers in Transformational Development Work by Christian NGOs  21 
 

transformational development as its antidote, is about 

restoration of relationships with God, self, others, and 

the environment (Myers, 2011, 144, Christian, 1999, 

72). Based on such an understanding, development 

projects provide the platform to facilitate 

transformational changes in the identity, vocation, 

relationships, competency, attitudes, and values of 

individuals and groups of people that increasingly 

reflect the Kingdom of God. In such a process, the 

agency and role of fieldworkers in working with people 

assume great importance when Christian NGOs 

undertake development projects. 

 

Agency of Individuals and Social Change 

Sociologist Anthony Giddens (1984) says, “to be a 

human being is to be a purposive agent,” where agency 

is defined as follows: 

 

Agency refers not to the intentions people have in 

doing things, but to their capability of doing those 

things in the first place, which is why agency implies 

power…. within the limits of information, 

uncertainty and other constraints that exist, social 

actors possess ‘knowledgeability ’and ‘capability’. 

They attempt to solve problems, learn how to 

intervene in the flow of social events around them 

and to a degree monitor their own actions and how 

others react to them… (Giddens, 1984, 9).  

 

According to Giddens, knowledgeability and 

capability to take purposeful actions define agency of an 

individual. Knowledgeability involves understanding 

the roles and rules of the social structure around the 

actors. Capability involves changing those rules towards 

a purpose. Within this framework, agents are cognitive 

and reflective actors. How actors interact with roles and 

rules over time leads to changes.  

To be an agent is to be able to deploy a range of 

causal powers, including that of influencing those 

deployed by others. Action depends upon the 

capability of the individual to ‘make a difference’ to a 

pre-existing state of affairs or course of events. An agent 

ceases to be such if he or she loses the capability to 

‘make a difference’, that is, to exercise some sort of 

power (Giddens, 1984, 14). 

Giddens argues for inclusion of individual 

motivation and action in considering social change 

processes. The individual is located within a time and 

space, but will be able to cause social changes even 

though it may not be fully predictable at the outset. The 

social structure changes human beings, but human 

beings also change the social structure (1984, 27-28). 

Agency is expressed in social relations and can only be 

effective through them if it must make a difference to a 

pre-existing state of affairs. The ability to influence 

others depends essentially on the actions of a sequence 

of agents, each of whom provides interpretations in 

accordance with his or her own agenda or perspective. 

Understanding development as a social change process 

and not merely as time and space bound projects has 

significant implications for development NGOs – the 

agency of fieldworkers and that of other actors, their 

relationships, and network patterns become critical 

considerations in thinking about and planning for 

development. 

 

Personhood and Transformational 

Development 
Bible verses from Genesis 1:26, 27 declare God 

creating human beings in his image and likeness and 

have been understood and explained in a variety of 

ways (Grenz, 2007). In the biblical narrative, God grants 

power and agency to human beings with freedom to 

relate and communicate with others and even resist 

God. Human beings have great significance because 

they bear the image of God and have irrevocable dignity 

and worth that is conferred or bestowed on them by 

God (Kilner, 2015, 250-251). Understanding human 

beings as created in the image of God means that they 

are co-creators with God, with the power to observe, 

reason, and act on the common good (Myers, 2011, 

61). Human beings are actors with a purpose and are 

given gifts and tasks for the wellbeing of others, which 

means for Christian faith-based NGOs, human agency 

and vocation become the basic foundation for doing 

development work; program plans and financial 

resources are only tools. This understanding of agency 

and vocation applies both to community members and 

fieldworkers who work with them on a daily basis.  

From the perspective of the New Testament, Jesus 

Christ is the perfect image of God (Colossians 1:15). If 

Christian NGOs could consider Jesus as a 

‘development actor’ who was sent by his father to carry 

out a mission in the world, did he have the freedom to 

carry out the mandate given to him? Or was he just 

someone who slavishly carried out detailed instructions 

from above? How much freedom did he have? The 

Bible says that the divine Son of God willingly became 

a genuine human person. He chose to stand in 

solidarity with the poor and the needy. He preached 

good news to the poor and comforted those who 

mourned. The gospels, which narrate Jesus’ words and 

actions in this world, reflect his agency and relationship 

with his father through the Spirit (So and Hardy, 2006, 

11-12). In other words, there was no dissonance 

between Jesus’ words, his actions, his identity and his 

relationship with the Father.  

Christian development workers need to have such 

an ‘incarnational spirituality’ modeled after Jesus 

Christ. Incarnational spirituality understands that God’s 

Spirit lives in his children and Christian fieldworkers 

are part of the presence of God in communities. It 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(1),  Summer 2020  

 
Sarma, Importance of Role and Agency of Fieldworkers in Transformational Development Work by Christian NGOs  22 
 

requires fieldworkers to live out their Christian values 

among the poor, seeing them as being made in the 

image of God and thus expecting community members 

to be the primary actors in their own development 

(Myers, 2011, 232). Incarnational spirituality enables us 

to see the world from the perspective of the Kingdom 

of God and is not confined to an intellectual 

understanding derived from mere socioeconomic and 

political analysis of the situation. It draws us near to the 

poor in order to listen, understand and relate before 

trying to find solutions. It implies accompanying the 

poor on their journey rather than planning and 

implementing programs. Myers says that the most 

important thing a Christian development worker can do 

is to be present with God and the poor – to be open 

and willing, not controlling, but letting things unfold. 

Understood this way, the investment of the agency of 

development workers in the lives of the poor is much 

more important than implementation of well-planned 

programs and projects in promoting transformational 

development (ibid., 2011, 233).  

The idea of transformational development links 

inner change and personal transformation as part of 

development work and attributes the work of God’s 

Spirit to inner transformation (Mitchell, 2014, 96). The 

connection between inner transformation and 

development is seen as the two-fold goals of 

transformational development; a) changed people who 

are restoring their identity as children of God and 

recovering their vocation as productive stewards of 

God’s creation and b) changed relationships that are 

just and peaceful (Myers, 2011, 190-202). 

Transformational development breaks down the 

divisions between physical, social, and spiritual aspects 

of life and sees them as a coherent whole (Wilson, 

2011, 103). Transformational development is always 

focused on persons and developing personhood and it 

happens through the actions of communities and 

community institutions (Sugden, 2003, 72-73). In 

summary, transformational development calls Christian 

faith-based development organizations to a) view 

individuals and communities as interconnected and 

whole, b) link inner transformation or radical changes 

in values, attitudes, and worldviews with external 

changes or progress, and c) consider the agency of the 

development worker and community members both as 

resources and as end goals of development. 

 

Agency of Fieldworkers in Different 

Approaches to Development 
Community development approaches influenced 

by Paulo Freire’s (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed 

recognize the agency of the fieldworker as fundamental 

to transformational change. Freire states that oppressed 

people should develop critical consciousness of their 

situation through dialogical action and learn to think for 

themselves through a grassroots pedagogical process 

facilitated by a grassroots educator. Freire relates critical 

consciousness and the resulting synthesis of thought 

and action as a way to reclaim humanity, to become 

humanized (ibid., 1970, 47-49). For example, a 

program on participatory organizations for the rural 

poor in Sri Lanka reflects this Freirean thinking and 

states that: 

 

…The role of the animator (community facilitator, 

change agent, catalyst or activist as variously called) 

is seen as a central factor in the generation of self-

reliant grassroots initiatives. The essence of this 

role is a catalytic one of stimulating the rural poor 

to a systematic reflection of the causal factors in 

their poverty and deprivation and of assisting them 

to realise their self-reliant potentials through their 

own organized efforts (Tilakaratna, 1985, i).  

 

What these approaches suggest is that the agency 

of the fieldworker is essential for the local ownership of 

social changes and its sustainability. Scholars who give 

importance to actor-oriented approaches to 

development emphasize essential qualities required for 

the fieldworkers.  

Myers, for example, states that if transformational 

development is about transforming relationships, then 

fieldworkers on the ground should have the right set of 

attitude, mind-set, and professionalism. They need to 

live out the principles of transformational development. 

He goes on to list several essential qualities required in 

field practitioners (Myers, 2011, 221-226).  

Fowler (1997, 84) identifies key character traits 

such as patience, listening, learning from communities, 

respectfulness, empathy, perseverance, diplomacy, etc., 

all of which are crucial for effective fieldworkers. 

Communication and negotiation skills are vital and so 

are the abilities to diagnose and analyze a situation. 

Effective fieldworkers require a deep understanding of 

the communities they work with. 

In addition, it is important to ‘be nice’ to people 

and show courtesy, respect, patience, generosity, and 

sensitivity in working with communities (Chambers, 

1997, 233). Ultimately, personal beliefs and values 

should guide fieldworkers in how they choose to 

respond to the constraints they face in their 

organizational work environment and community 

social contexts. Chambers in his aptly titled article on 

‘The Primacy of the Personal’ writes: 

 

This is the fact that individual personal choice of 

what to do and how to do it mediates every 

action and every change. Policy, practice, and 

performance are all outcomes of personal 

actions. What is done or not done depends on 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(1),  Summer 2020  

 
Sarma, Importance of Role and Agency of Fieldworkers in Transformational Development Work by Christian NGOs  23 
 

what people choose to do and not to do…. (1996, 

246) 

 

Chambers observes that every person has some 

room to maneuver, create space for others, form 

alliances with others, and thereby has the vision and the 

courage to make changes (1996, 247). This requires 

fieldworkers to make a personal commitment and 

resolve, over and above the structure within which they 

work, and so as to disempower themselves, to hand 

over the baton to the poor, devolve discretion, 

encourage the initiatives of others, and promote 

genuine forms of community participation (Chambers, 

1997, 237). 

 

Donor-funded Projects and NGO 

Fieldworkers 

Set against such an understanding of agency and 

personhood of individuals in development approaches, 

especially in the concept of transformational 

development, models of development used by official 

development agencies of donor governments are 

mostly based on deterministic, linear, and external 

views of social change. The tendency to view 

development as a discrete set of interventions within a 

specific time-space setting leads to a problem-solving 

approach and promotes the idea that the problems are 

best solved by dividing up what is complex and 

integrated by nature into specific sectors or academic 

disciplines (Clay, 1985, 184). There has been 

progression of understanding of development 

approaches, such as described by Korten in his seminal 

work, Getting to the 21st Century, through four types 

or levels of development responses: a) relief and 

welfare, b) small-scale, self-reliant local development, c) 

sustainable system development and d) people’s 

movements (1990). Yet much development practice by 

NGOs is based on the understanding that development 

happens primarily through externally originated 

interventions, planned as time-bound projects based on 

linear and logical planning to problem solving and 

project cycle management, with an instrumentalist view 

of fieldworkers.  

For example, accountability for NGO 

performance is a key area in which donor preferences 

and requirements often conflict with, or differ from, 

community realities, needs, and preferences, as well as 

with the whole idea of transformational development. 

Official aid is replete with terms such as “measurable 

outcomes,” “managing for results,” “evidence-based 

practices,” and “value for money.” The Paris 

Declaration of Aid Effectiveness (OECD, n.d.) and 

Accra Agenda for Action (OECD, n.d.) are good 

representations of donor expectations for performance 

and results, which were developed on the basis of 

certain principles for promoting effectiveness in 

development aid. This discourse on management for 

results is translated into practice through logframes, 

indicators, targets, baselines, reports, performance 

reviews, randomized control trials, and evaluations, 

which Eyben calls “artifacts of results and evidence” 

(2013, 6-8). This donor imperative for results is 

pervasive throughout the NGO sector including 

Christian NGOs and it is usually the responsibility of 

the fieldworkers to gather data and provide reports 

bearing evidences for results for any donor-funded 

projects (Eyben 2012, 2). Scholars and practitioners 

have long been aware of the limitations of using 

planning and monitoring tools such as logframes, 

indicators and targets in setting goals and measuring 

them (e.g. Eyben, 2010, Myers, 2011, Mosse, et al. 

1998, Korten, 1980). Nevertheless, they continue to be 

used because they are deeply institutionalized in aid 

organizations and they are used even when certain types 

of donors, such as child sponsors, may not be asking for 

them to be used. Then, like yeast, this desire for 

planned results and quantitative measures spreads 

through the organization into senior leadership who 

want to manage the development process from above, 

often pushing for more alignment and data to prove 

effectiveness and impact.  

Part of the problem with this upward accountability 

to donors is that it relies exclusively on quantification 

for measurement as quantitative results are seen as 

more objective and professionally respectable than 

qualitative results. Donors favor certain types of 

knowledge and skills over and above traditional 

knowledge of local communities or fieldworkers who 

would not typically possess competency in quantitative 

analysis (Eyben, 2012, 1, Chambers, 1997, 38). 

Quantitative targets measure people as individual 

entities, whose lives are shaped by actions of others 

(Eyben et al., 2015, 832). Quantitative targets reinforce 

established narratives around a simple and clear causal 

chain on how to solve development problems and tell 

uncomplicated stories to senior leaders and donors 

(Ramalingam, 2013, 34). While numbers may tell some 

aspects of changes that result from development 

projects, they do not tell the whole story of 

transformational development or the efforts it takes to 

achieve it. 

 

Fieldworker Tensions in Transformational 

Development Projects 

When we position the fieldworkers at the interface 

between the NGO organizational context and 

community reality and compare models of 

development of official development agencies and the 

concept of transformational development, the following 

picture emerges. It is a picture where fieldworkers are 

caught in the conflict or crossfire of development 

discourses. 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(1),  Summer 2020  

 
Sarma, Importance of Role and Agency of Fieldworkers in Transformational Development Work by Christian NGOs  24 
 

 

 
Diagram 1: Fieldworker Tensions 

 
 The NGO organizational context emphasizes 

planning for predictable outcomes and the 

management design to deliver planned results with clear 

lines of accountability to the donors. Transformational 

development, which pictures development as rooted in 

community reality, leads to participatory approaches 

that are open-ended and locally relevant, with a strong 

emphasis on learning. While in the participatory 

approach there might be clarity on the issues to be 

addressed and some of the directions to be taken, 

development outcomes are not pre-determined, nor 

are the exact strategies to achieve them. NGOs and 

their donors simultaneously use the approaches, tools, 

and techniques without acknowledging or reconciling 

the tensions that exist between them in terms of 

conceptual underpinnings and practical implications 

(Wallace et al. 2007, 31). Expectations for both a 

participatory approach in working with the poor and the 

delivery of pre-determined results based on a 

managerial approach co-exist in NGOs and, to a large 

extent, achieving these competing goals falls on the 

shoulders of frontline workers. They are left on their 

own to manage the tensions that exist between these two 

discourses. Yet the tension to deliver pre-determined 

results, while also ensuring participation of people, 

creates moral or ethical dilemmas for fieldworkers. For 

Christian NGOs, participation is linked to their 

understanding of transformational development, while 

management systems and structures are important to 

meet donor funding requirements and organizational 

control over activities.  

Eyben calls the rational approach and managing 

development for results “substantialism,” which sees 

development in specific entities such as results, sectors, 

outcomes, outputs, etc. and the people-centered 

approach that sees development in terms of processes, 

patterns, relationships, etc. as “relationalism” (2010, 

380-394). Being a relationist is not only about focusing 

on people, but also about a keen interest in processes 

more than results. Her argument is that many staff, 

especially those in the field, while officially subscribing 

to the substantialist worldview, function as “closet 

relationists,” and by doing so unwittingly make the 

substantialist view of development viable and to appear 

effective (ibid., 394). Yet the relationist approach of the 

fieldworkers, “below the tip of the iceberg,” could be 

problematic for being neither transparent nor 

accountable to others, while at the same time being 

effective by making the substantialist approach to 

development viable and producing results. Ramalingam 

mentions that this tendency to simultaneously operate 

at these two different levels, one at the level of 

development discourse that is officially subscribed to 

and another one in terms of relational processes, is 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(1),  Summer 2020  

 
Sarma, Importance of Role and Agency of Fieldworkers in Transformational Development Work by Christian NGOs  25 
 

reinforced by the co-existence of parallel cultures in aid 

organizations (2013, 86).  

This problem of two different cultures and two 

different ways of acting might be even more acute in 

Christian NGOs that subscribe to transformational 

development, for they may not be able to explicitly 

integrate spiritual and faith aspects into their 

development work due to restrictions that come with 

donor-funding. This tendency to operate at two levels 

can have implications for frontline workers who have a 

strong commitment to participatory, faith-based, 

approaches to development. They may end up working 

long hours of unpaid overtime work due to the need to 

engage in relational processes that are not articulated or 

recognized in the managerial approach in order to 

make it viable.  

While the concept of transformational 

development influences how Christian NGOs 

understand and articulate their approach to work in 

communities, much remains to be done even at a 

conceptual level on the implications of transformational 

development for NGO organizational development 

and management practices. Like their secular 

counterparts, Christian NGOs also make prodigious 

use of management processes, metrics, and tools for 

organizational development purposes that enable them 

to meet the donor expectations. 

 

Suggestions for Way Forward 

Here are some suggestions that may help Christian 

faith-based NGOs reconcile their understanding of 

transformational development, based on participatory 

ideals that leverage the agency and vocation of 

fieldworkers, and with donor-funded programs defined 

by clear accountability for results and use of other 

managerial tools. 

 

Invest in the agency of fieldworkers 

Ideally, fieldworkers in Christian NGOs derive 

their primary motivation and a perceived sense of 

calling from their faith in God to serve the poor. A 

strong and consistent relationship between their identity 

as children of God and their vocation to serve the poor 

provides the fieldworkers a basis for their engagement 

with communities and work among the poor. Formal 

corporate spiritual practices, such as staff devotions, 

family retreats, and prayer times organized by Christian 

NGOs, as well as personal spiritual practices and peer 

support mechanisms, can help fieldworkers nurture 

their identity as children of God, view their work as 

ministry, and sustain the ideal notions of their 

responsibilities for development work. 

 

Emphasize mutual transformation 

Transformation by its very nature is mutual. As 

fieldworkers work with the poor and learn from them, 

they are on their own journey of transformation as their 

identity and sense of calling get further refined and 

strengthened. Managers and senior leaders, as they 

support fieldworkers, share in this journey of 

transformation. Our relationships with donors over 

time should lead to changes in values, giving patterns, 

and lifestyles that are consistent with Christ’s concern 

for the poor. Transformational development assumes 

that the transformation of donors is fundamental and a 

pre-requisite to overcoming poverty in sustainable ways. 

 

Proper use of artifacts of evidence and results 

From an organizational perspective, setting 

strategic goals, use of evidence-based practices, 

logframes, monitoring and evaluation systems, and 

scale up are all about working in a highly intentional and 

effective manner. Christian NGOs do need to use 

rigorous planning and accountability for results in 

donor-funded programs as they work within the larger 

context of aid organizations. These artifacts of results 

and evidence are useful to bring clarity to planning 

processes and provide guidance to implementation and 

monitoring of plans. Even so, in using these artifacts, 

emphasis should be on competency of users who know 

when and how to use them. These artifacts should be 

seen as tools and resources, not as ends in themselves. 

For example, indicators and targets are set up in order 

for program staff and local partners to learn about 

implementation, reflect, make adjustments, and take 

timely corrective actions in response to changing 

contexts, or when originally planned activities and 

targets are deemed unrealistic during the course of 

implementation. But when these measures are used to 

show that falling short of set targets is a performance 

failure of fieldworkers, then these artifacts prevent open 

dialogue, adaptation, learning, and growth.  

 

Use of descriptive analyses to communicate 

transformational changes 
Requiring fieldworkers to report only on 

quantitatively measurable indicators dissuades them 

from engaging in work that is equally important, but not 

easily measurable. It also deters them from focusing on 

the people they serve. Yes, donors need accountability, 

but the need for donor reporting and particular ways of 

understanding accountability should not be allowed to 

distort fieldworkers’ engagement with communities and 

how development work is practiced in communities. It 

should be the other way around, with fieldworkers 

encouraged to facilitate participatory and 

transformational development processes and then to 

capture and report on consequent changes, using a mix 

of quantitative and qualitative measures, including 

descriptive analysis. Outcome mapping and the most 

significant change stories are some examples of such 

alternative monitoring tools. The need for senior 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(1),  Summer 2020  

 
Sarma, Importance of Role and Agency of Fieldworkers in Transformational Development Work by Christian NGOs  26 
 

leaders to aggregate and summarize changes at the 

corporate level should not drive the whole approach to 

monitoring and evaluation. 

 

Inclusive framework for strategy and program designs 
In many international NGOs, policies, strategies, 

and designs are developed to speak to the interests and 

concerns of donors and other senior stakeholders. 

Participation of fieldworkers, if it even exists, is often 

tokenistic. Christian NGOs should therefore develop a 

framework and processes to develop their strategy, 

policies, program designs, and systems that 

intentionally include fieldworkers. Such an inclusive 

framework and processes can help reduce the gap 

between policy and practice and transform the process 

of their development as an exercise in contributing to 

organizational development. Principles of 

transformational development in communities need to 

become principles for organizational development. 

Actor-oriented approaches and agency of fieldworkers 

need to become part of the strategy and program design 

rather than merely instruments to implement them. 

 

Organizational processes that provide space for 
fieldworkers 

Another helpful measure is to ensure that human 

resource processes, policies, and performance 

management systems affirm the discretionary roles of 

fieldworkers and are responsive to their needs and 

contexts. This requires organizational space for their 

voices to be heard, including supervisory discretion to 

allow fieldworker discretion. Performance 

management needs to take into consideration the 

congruence of fieldworkers’ values, commitment to the 

organizational mission, and contributions to intangible 

aspects of development, such as community 

participation and the quality of relationships with 

community members, in addition to meeting tangible 

performance targets for program implementation. 

 

Knowledge management and organizational learning 

Christian NGOs can intentionally invest in 

organizational culture that values learning from 

community members and frontline workers, and that 

promotes downward accountability. They should put 

the emphasis on learning by staff members and 

volunteers, alongside knowledge management, which 

usually commoditizes knowledge and values certain 

types of ‘universal’ knowledge over local and particular 

knowledge. Knowledge management also gives a false 

impression that learning cycles can be shortened for 

people, with a speedy scale-up of evidence-based 

practices. In development work, technical interventions 

based on ‘universal’ knowledge should be applied 

alongside “contextual” knowledge in order for them to 

be effective. This requires an enabling institutional 

environment that includes a clear policy framework, 

leadership commitment, flexible funding, supportive 

systems and procedures, integrated and field-based 

training, and creative management, supported by an 

organizational culture in which people are encouraged 

to take risks. 

 

Relational proximity and not just technical rationality 

Good relationships are critical to the success of 

organizations and development projects, but 

‘relationship’ tends to be a black box that is not readily 

amenable to analysis or quantification. Managerial 

approaches to development tend to relegate 

relationships as part of ‘assumptions’ column in project 

logframes. Relationships among development workers, 

technical specialists, communities, institutions, and 

others need to be treated both as “means” and “goals” 

of development work. Relational approaches, not just 

technical rationality, must form the basis for NGO 

organizational development and working with 

communities and local partners for transformational 

development. The “relational proximity framework” by 

Ashcroft et al. is one way of unpacking relationships and 

better understanding what makes them successful 

(2016, 32-53). The relational proximity framework 

applies to nurturing and measuring effective 

relationships both within the NGO (e.g. between senior 

leadership and frontline workers; technical specialists 

and frontline workers) and in relation of fieldworkers to 

community members (e.g. between frontline workers 

and vulnerable parts of communities and relationships 

among different community groups). 

 

Resist the temptation for big budgets 
NGOs should resist the temptation to pursue large 

program budgets and instead work with budgets that are 

sufficient for staff and operational costs and for the 

minimum required activities. This can be seen as an 

opportunity rather than as a constraint. It can allow 

Christian NGOs and fieldworkers to focus on what is 

really important, to be externally oriented rather than 

being busy with implementing pre-planned activities 

and spending budgets on time. Fieldworkers can thus 

spend their time engaging in relationship-building, 

developing networks, and facilitating transformational 

changes that do not necessarily require a lot of money. 

Instead, the emphasis is on time, trust-based 

relationships, mutual respect, and accountability to 

communities and local partners among the 

communities that NGOs serve. 

 

Conclusion 

This article has described the tensions NGO 

fieldworkers experience due to policy conflicts, 

ambiguity, and mismatch of community and 

organizational expectations. These tensions, significant 



Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(1),  Summer 2020  

 
Sarma, Importance of Role and Agency of Fieldworkers in Transformational Development Work by Christian NGOs  27 
 

in a broad range of NGOs, are amplified yet further in 

transformational development work funded by 

institutional donors in Christian NGOs. Fieldworkers 

exercise discretion to manage these tensions, which are 

often not visible or recognized by the NGO 

management. They make use of their personal 

resourcefulness and invest relationally in communities. 

Fieldworkers should not be seen as mere instruments 

to implement well-thought-out plans and program 

designs developed by experts. Instead, their agency and 

role should be considered as critical assets to further the 

transformational development agenda. 

 

References 
 

Ashcroft, John, Roy Childs, Michael Schluter, and 

Alison Myers. 2016. The Relational Lens: 
Understanding, Managing and Measuring 

Stakeholder Relationships. Cambridge University 

Press. 

Chambers, Robert. 1996. “The Primacy of the 

Personal.” In Edwards and Hulme, Eds. Beyond 
the Magic Bullet. West Hartford, CN: Kumarian 

Press. 241–53 

Chambers, Robert. 1997. Whose Reality Counts? 

Putting the First Last. London: ITDG. 

Christian, Jayakumar. 1999. God of the Empty-

Handed: Poverty, Power, and the Kingdom of 
God. Monrovia, CA: MARC. 

Clay, Edward J. 1985. Room for Maneuver: An 
Exploration of Public Policy Planning in 

Agricultural and Rural Development. Edited by 

Benjamin Bernard Schaffer. Rutherford N.J.: 

Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. 

Eyben, Rosalind. 2010. “Hiding Relations: The Irony 

of ‘Effective Aid.’” European Journal of 
Development Research 22(3): 382-97. 

Eyben, Rosalind. 2012. “‘If They Write a Cheque 

Today, They Want a Result Tomorrow:’ Big 

Push Forward in New York 16 October 2012.” 

Big Push Forward. October 18, 2012. 

http://bigpushforward.net  

Eyben, Rosalind, Irene Guijt, Chris Roche, and Cathy 

Shutt, eds. 2015. The Politics of Evidence and 

Results in International Development: Playing the 
Game to Change the Rules? Rugby, 

Warwickshire: Practical Action. 

Fowler, Alan. 1997. Striking a Balance: A Guide to 

Enhancing the Effectiveness of Non-
Governmental Organizations in International 

Development. London: Earthscan. 

Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 

Herder and Herder. 

Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: 

Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Hoboken, 

NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 

Grenz, Stanley. 2007. The Social God and the 
Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the 

Imago Dei. 1 edition. Louisville, KY: 

Westminster John Knox Press. 

Kilner, John F. 2015. Dignity and Destiny: Humanity 
in the Image of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. 

Eerdmans Publishing Co.  

Korten, David C. 1980. “Community Organization 

and Rural Development: A Learning Process 

Approach.” Public Administration Review 40(5), 

480. 

Korten, David C. 1990. Getting to the 21st Century: 

Voluntary Action and the Global Agenda. West 

Hartford, CN: Kumarian Press. 

Mitchell, Robert. 2014. Finding Meanings for ‘Faith in 

Development’: An Examination of the Applied 
Theology of World Vision and Its Broader 

Implications for the Development Sector and 
Practice. PhD Thesis at University of Divinity. 

https://repository.divinity.edu.au/1767/1/Mitchell

_final_PhD_thesis.pdf.  

Mosse, David, John Farrington, and Alan Rew. 1998. 

Development as Process: Concepts and Methods 

for Working with Complexity. London: 

Routledge. 

Myers, Bryant. 2011. Walking with the Poor: 
Principles and Practices of Transformational 

Development. Revised edition. Maryknoll, N.Y: 

Orbis Books. 

OECD. n.d. The Paris Declaration on Aid 
Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action. 

Accessed December 23, 2017. 

http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.p

df.  

Ramalingam, Ben. 2013. Aid on the Edge of Chaos: 
Rethinking International Cooperation in a 

Complex World. OUP Oxford. 

So, Damon W. K., and Daniel W. Hardy. 2006. 

Jesus’ Revelation of His Father: A Narrative-
Conceptual Study of the Trinity with Special 

Reference to Karl Barth. Waynesboro, GA: 

Paternoster. 

Sugden, Chris. 2003. “Transformational 

Development: Current State of Understanding 

and Practice.” Transformation (02653788) 20(2): 

70. 

Taylor, Laurie, and Peter Jenkins. 1989. Time to 
Listen: The Human Aspect in Development. 

London: Practical Action. 

Tilakaratna, S. 1985. “Animator in Participatory Rural 

Development: Some Experiences from Sri 

Lanka.” ILO Working Paper 244403. 

International Labour Organization.  

Wallace, Tina, Lisa Bornstein, and Jennifer 

Chapman. 2007. The Aid Chain: Coercion and 

http://bigpushforward.net/
https://repository.divinity.edu.au/1767/1/Mitchell_final_PhD_thesis.pdf
https://repository.divinity.edu.au/1767/1/Mitchell_final_PhD_thesis.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf


Christian Relief, Development, and Advocacy 2(1),  Summer 2020  

 
Sarma, Importance of Role and Agency of Fieldworkers in Transformational Development Work by Christian NGOs  28 
 

Commitment in Development NGOs. Practical 

Action Pub. 

Wilson, Paul N. 2011. “Shared Learning in and from 

Transformational Development Programs.” 

Transformation 28(2): 103–13.  

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

Jaisankar Sarma is a holistic transformational 

development practitioner. He has more than thirty-five 

years of experience in international development. He 

has a PhD in Development Studies from the Oxford 

Centre for Mission Studies and the Middlesex 

University in the UK. 

 

 Author email: Jsarma2@gmail.com  

 

mailto:Jsarma2@gmail.com

