Ben_West🔸 comments on Concerns with ACE’s Recent Behavior

[Ben_West🔸]

Edit: Jakub says that ACE’s evaluation was based on the Facebook comments, not leadership transition. The below is kept for historical purposes. Also, I should have noted in this post my appreciation for Anima’s transparency – it wouldn’t have been possible for me to post something like this with most organizations, because they would state that their CEO stepped down “spend more time with her family” or something similar.

Nevertheless, given the overall positive assessment, it’s strange that Anima was awarded a “weak” rating in this category, and I think it’s likely that Anima is being heavily punished for the public comments made by staff members.

Last year, Anima fired their CEO. The public statement said:

However, no matter how much we value her merits, there are issues in regards to everyday behaviour towards employees that we as an organization cannot accept. In Anima International we have to be a team that strongly supports each other.

I think ACE’s rating about poor leadership and culture was based on that rather than Facebook comments made by staff members.

[Pablo]

This is what ACE’s “overview” lists as Anima’s weaknesses:

We think Anima International’s leadership has a limited understanding of racial equity and that this has impacted some of the spaces they contribute to as an international animal advocacy group—such as coalitions, conferences, and online forums. We also think including non-staff members in Anima International’s governing board would increase the board’s capacity to oversee the organization from a more independent and objective perspective.

Their “comprehensive review” doesn’t mention the firing of the CEO as a consideration behind their low rating. The primary reason for their negative evaluation seems to be captured in the following excerpt:

According to our culture survey, Anima International is diverse along the lines of gender identity and sexual identity, however, they are not diverse on racial identity. This is not surprising, as most of the countries in which their member organizations operate are very racially homogenous; in practice, we think it would be particularly difficult for them to successfully attract and hire advocates who are Black, Indigenous, or of the global majority⁴⁹ (BIPGM) in those countries. Our impression, however, is that the racial homogeneity at the organization has resulted in a limited understanding of racial issues, which has presented itself in some of the public and private communications⁵⁰ we’ve witnessed from Anima International’s staff in the last year. In particular, we think leadership staff publicly engaging in conversations about the relevance of racial equity to the animal advocacy movement may have had a negative impact on the progress of racial equity in the movement.⁵¹ While we think this issue is less salient in the more racially homogenous countries in which they operate, for their work in more racially diverse countries, we think it is particularly important that they prioritize developing an understanding of racial equity. Additionally, for any organization working on an international scale, there are spaces that all staff may encounter that are more racially diverse—such as coalitions, conferences, and online forums—in which it is again important to have an understanding of racial equity. This is particularly important so as to ensure the safety of BIPGM and to not impede—and to eventually contribute to—work on racial equity in the broader animal advocacy movement, which we believe will be crucial to its long-term success.⁵² Note: Our concern here is specifically about their understanding of racial issues and not issues relating to ethnicity, of which they report frequently encountering in their work in Eastern Europe and Russia—we have no reason to doubt their handling of those situations.⁵³

In our culture survey, some respondents mentioned that leadership could offer training to be more inclusive or to better support staff who are members of marginalized groups.

Anima International supports R/​DEI through their human resources activities. Anima International has a workplace code of ethics/​conduct and a written statement that they do not tolerate discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, or other characteristics. Anima International has a written procedure for filing complaints, as well as explicit protocols for addressing concerns or allegations of harassment⁵⁴ or discrimination.⁵⁵ In our culture survey, 96% of respondents agreed that Anima International protects staff, interns, and volunteers from harassment and discrimination in the workplace, and 98% agreed that they have someone to go to in case of harassment or discrimination. However, our culture survey suggests that Anima International’s staff experienced or witnessed some harassment or discrimination in the workplace during the past year, more than the average charity under review. Some respondents mentioned that they witnessed troubling behavior from the former CEO but that they were satisfied with leadership’s handling of the situation, i.e., suspending and removing the former CEO. Because staff feel overall protected from harassment and discrimination, and Anima International seems to have in place systems to prevent and handle harassment and discrimination in the workplace, we are not highly concerned about this finding.

Anima International does not offer regular trainings on topics such as harassment and discrimination in the workplace. In our culture survey, 75% of staff agree that they and their colleagues have been sufficiently trained in matters of R/​DEI. Respondents mentioned that training has not taken place, or they are not needed. We believe that the opportunities for the team to learn about R/​DEI at Anima International should be increased.

Overall, we believe that Anima International is less diverse, equitable, and inclusive than the average charity we evaluated this year.

---

Although it isn’t relevant to this particular thread, I’d like to urge all participants to consider Will Bradshaw’s comment and try to “hav[e] this discussion in a more productive and conciliatory way, which has less of a chance of ending in an acrimonious split”, insofar as this is compatible with maintaining our standards of intellectual rigor.

[Neel Nanda]

Thanks for sharing, that part updated me a lot away from Ben’s view and towards Hypatia’s view.

An aspect I found particularly interesting was that Anima International seems to do a lot of work in Eastern European countries, which tend to be much more racially homogenous, and I presume have fairly different internal politics around race to the US. And that ACE’s review emphasises concerns, not about their ability to do good work in their countries, but about their ability to participate in international spaces with other organisations.

They work in:

Denmark, Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Estonia, Norway, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, Russia, and France

It seems even less justifiable to me to judge an organisation according to US views around racial justice, when they operate in such a different context.

EDIT: This point applies less than I thought. Looks like Connor Jackson, the person in question, is a director of their UK branch, which I’d consider much closer to the US on this topic.

[Will Bradshaw]

Thanks, this comment was a pretty big update for me towards Hypatia’s interpretation (I’d previously been much closer to Ben’s).

Footnote 50 from that blockquote is also relevant:

In addition to lengthy email correspondence, our impression here was informed by evidence we cannot publish, including calls with Anima International’s leadership and correspondence in a public Facebook group (“Effective Animal Advocacy – Discussion”). Even though Anima and the ACE staff members who are discussed in the email thread encouraged us to publish the email correspondence, members of the evaluations committee decided against this to protect the privacy of the third parties mentioned, and to assure charities that we keep our private correspondence confidential.

[Hypatia]

Hi Ben, thanks for your comment.

I don’t think ACE’s review of Anima supports this interpretation at all.

The review does mention the leadership transition under Criterion 5: Leadership and Culture:

Anima International had a recent transition in leadership. Kirsty Henderson took the role of Acting CEO in April 2020, after being elected by the managing board of Anima International. Their new leadership describes the transition as an opportunity to re-evaluate their goals, structure, work, and values, through frequent communication with staff about the transition process and challenges. Henderson is requesting more in-depth feedback from staff members and having one-to-one meetings with all of them to learn more about who they are and how they see Anima International’s work. In the next few months, a new CEO will be elected. We are yet to see how successful the leadership transition turns out.

But ACE doesn’t give any indication that it thginks the leadership transition or firing of the previous CEO is a bad thing. Additionally, when the review cites results from the culture survey, the results generally seem quite positive. And the review’s overall assessment of culture and morale appears positive:

Overall, we think that Anima International’s staff satisfaction and morale are higher than the average charity we evaluated this year.

However, when it comes to Anima leadership’s comments on DEI, ACE paints a negative picture, stating:

In particular, we think leadership staff publicly engaging in conversations about the relevance of racial equity to the animal advocacy movement may have had a negative impact on the progress of racial equity in the movement

And ACE concludes the section by saying

Overall, we believe that Anima International is less diverse, equitable, and inclusive than the average charity we evaluated this year.

This is despite the culture survey results related to DEI generally being quite positive.

And in the weaknesses section of the review summary, ACE states:

We think Anima International’s leadership has a limited understanding of racial equity and that this has impacted some of the spaces they contribute to as an international animal advocacy group—such as coalitions, conferences, and online forums

But doesn’t mention anything related to firing the CEO or leadership transitions.

So based on the review, I would be quite surprised if firing the previous CEO played a larger role in ACE’s evaluation of Anima than public comments from staff related to DEI. And if it did, then I think ACE did a poor job indicating that in the review.

[Ben_West🔸]

Thanks! I had interpreted “We are yet to see how successful the leadership transition turns out” as a pretty strong statement, but I agree that the review doesn’t specify how the different factors they list are weighted and your interpretation could be correct. I hope someone from ACE can clarify.