The Other Side of Shifting Power – When Power Is Offered, But Not Taken
By Lucy Njue
Here is an uncomfortable thought about localisation:
Sometimes, the hardest part of shifting power is not giving it away. It is watching what happens when the other side is finally given room to use it.
I know that sounds provocative. And I am not suggesting that the answer is to keep power where it has traditionally been.
Quite the opposite.
There is still a great deal of work to do to shift decision-making, resources and influence closer to the people and organisations closest to the context. But after years of working across international organisations, local teams and different parts of the funding relationship, I have started noticing another tension.
And it is not the tension we usually talk about.
When the conversation starts to change
For a long time, we have talked about the imbalance created when teams with greater institutional authority make too many decisions. And rightly so. But in some of the conversations I am having, I am seeing something else.
Some international teams are making very intentional efforts to create more space for teams closer to the context to lead. There is greater awareness of when international teams are speaking for others. More care around making decisions on behalf of local teams. More deliberate attempts to create opportunities for local teams to shape strategy and direction.
In other words, I am seeing a genuine desire to shift power.
But good intentions alone do not necessarily lead to effective power shifts. The opportunity may be created, but it is not always fully utilised.
A team may say they want greater ownership. They may be very clear that they are capable of leading. But when decisions are required, someone needs to convene the conversation, follow through, or maintain momentum; the expected leadership does not always materialise.
And suddenly, everyone is stuck.
The tension we do not talk about enough
I think this creates a particularly difficult situation for teams with greater institutional authority. They want to move the work forward. They can see what needs to happen next. But they also know that stepping in too strongly could be seen as exercising power over others.
So they hesitate. They accommodate. They wait.
Sometimes, they become almost too conscious of exercising power. Meanwhile, the team being invited to take greater ownership isn’t stepping into the space that’s been created.
This is not the old power dynamic. And that is precisely why I find it interesting.
We are used to asking:
How do we get those with more power to give up some of it?
Perhaps we also need to ask:
What happens after that space is created?
Power comes with responsibility
I believe deeply in shifting power. But I am increasingly convinced that we need to think about both sides of the equation.
If we want greater decision-making authority, we need to be ready to make decisions. If we want ownership, we need to demonstrate ownership. If we want others to trust us with responsibility, we need to give them reasons to believe we can carry it.
This does not mean local teams need to prove themselves before they deserve power. That would take us straight back into the old dynamic.
It means something different.
Power without readiness can create its own kind of dependency. Readiness isn’t just technical capacity. It is confidence. It is follow-through. It is the willingness to make difficult decisions. It is showing up when the work becomes uncomfortable. It is being prepared to carry both the authority and the accountability that come with leadership.
Perhaps we need a bigger conversation
I think the next phase of the localisation conversation may require us to hold two truths at the same time.
Teams with institutional power need to genuinely create space for others to lead. And teams being given that space need to genuinely step into it. Neither side can do this work alone.
If those with greater institutional power keep stepping in whenever things slow down, the dependency remains. But if they become so afraid of exercising power that they cannot provide necessary direction, the work can stall too.
The answer is not simply to transfer power. It is to build the conditions in which power can actually be exercised well. That, to me, is a much more important conversation about localisation.
Because shifting power is not only about who gets to decide; it is about building the confidence, capability and accountability to carry out decisions.
(Lucy Njue is a Kenyan fundraising and sustainability strategist, and Founder and Executive Director of Realtime Insights)
