ieve many things through their “guts, vision and commitment,” but the way they use power is a “disability” that jeopardizes organizational effectiveness. He argues such charismatic leaders are “vulnerable to acquiescence, deference, flattery and placation” (Chambers, 1997). They are not easily contradicted or corrected. As a result they actively suffocate promising initiatives that may threaten their power base, relationships, or position of patronage.
考虑到非政府组织领导的高度个性化性质，非政府组织的领导是一个令人关注的问题。该行业充斥着关于家长式创始人领袖、“魅力十足的独裁者”或“大师综合症”的负面影响的轶事。一方面，这些领导人表现出干劲和决心，以及调动人员和资源的非凡能力。而另一方面，他们却因主导组织、不负责任和无法适应不断变化的环境而受到批评。钱伯斯指出，这些非政府组织领导人可以通过他们的“勇气、远见和承诺”实现许多事情，但他们使用权力的方式是一种“残疾”，会危及组织的有效性。他认为，这些富有魅力的领导人“容易受到默许、尊重、奉承和安抚”。它们不容易被反驳或纠正。因此，他们积极扼杀可能威胁其权力基础、关系或赞助人地位的有希望的计划。
The concept of leadership in NGO could also at times be antithetical to the participatory culture espoused by many NGOs. In a sector that believes itself to be more value driven, participatory, and less managerialist than the for-profit business sector, there is an unwillingness to concede the important influence of any one individual leader. Managers in this new era thus have to be conscious of the greater credence given to ideas of equality and participatory democracy in this sector if they are to succeed (Hailey & James 2004).
非政府组织领导的概念有时也可能与许多非政府组织所倡导的参与性文化相悖。在一个认为自己比营利性商业部门更受价值驱动、参与性更强、管理者更少的行业，人们不愿意承认任何一位领导者的重要影响力。因此，这个新时代的管理者必须意识到，如果他们要取得成功，平等和参与式民主的理念在这个领域得到了更大的信任。
Effective NGO leadership also requires the ability to balance a range of competing pressures from different stakeholders in ways that do not compromise the leader’s individual identity and values (Hailey & James 2004). The leadership of development NGOs face extraordinary challenges as they work with very limited resources in uncertain and volatile political and economic circumstances to help the most marginalized and disadvantaged members of their communities. Civicus referred to the growing deficit in leadership abilities in NGOs. In particular they pointed to rapid turnover of NGO staff in leadership positions into business and government and the difficulty NGOs have in replacing them (Civicus, 2002). All too often this failure of leadership results in programmatic dysfunctionality and even organizational collapse.
有效的非政府组织领导还需要有能力平衡来自不同利益相关者的一系列竞争压力，同时不损害领导者的个人身份和价值观。发展非政府组织的领导层面临着巨大的挑战，因为他们在不确定和动荡的政治和经济环境中利用非常有限的资源来帮助社区中最边缘化和处境最不利的成员。Civicus提到非政府组织领导能力的日益不足。他们特别指出，担任领导职务的非政府组织工作人员迅速转变为企业和政府，非政府组织在替换他们方面存在困难。这种领导力的失败往往会导致程序功能失调，甚至组织崩溃。
MONITORING AND EVALUATING PERFORMANCE 监测和评估绩效
NGOs are making significant efforts to show how they are performing, a trend impelled by three factors: stricter requirements attached to official aid; doubts about NGO claims to be more effective than governments; post-Cold War shifts in the role of NGOs, which increase their own needs to know what is being achieved, in order to manage the processes of organisational reorientation and transformation. However, almost without exception, NGOs are finding it very difficult to come up with sound, cost effective methods to show the results of their development activities, or even to demonstrate their effectiveness as organisations (Fowler, 1996). Rick Davies attributed the problems of monitoring and evaluating the performance of NGOs to ambitious expectations, complexity caused by scale (hierarchical differences in goals and expectations at various actors’ levels), diversity of NGO activities, vague objectives, ‘fault-able’ measuring tools, and absence of baseline information & adequate monitoring systems (Davies, 2000).
非政府组织正在作出重大努力，以展示他们的表现，这一趋势受到三个因素的推动：对官方援助的要求更加严格；怀疑非政府组织声称比政府更有效；冷战后，非政府组织的角色发生了转变，这增加了他们自己了解正在取得的成就的需求，以便管理组织重新定位和转型的过程。然而，几乎无一例外，非政府组织发现，很难拿出合理、经济有效的方法来展示其发展活动的成果，甚至很难证明其作为组织的有效性。里克·戴维斯将监测和评估非政府组织绩效的问题归因于雄心勃勃的期望、规模造成的复杂性（不同行为体层面目标和期望的等级差异）、非政府组织活动的多样性、模糊的目标、“易出错”的测量工具以及缺乏基线信息和适当的监测系统。
Unlike commercial companies development NGOs do not have the ‘bottom lines’ of market feedback, profitability, and returns on financia
