Why humanitarian organizations must let go to remain relevant

Liana Ghukasyan argues that to remain relevant humanitarian leaders must find the courage to break from tradition.

Is Your Organization Still Relevant?

Relevance is a word that resonates deeply in the world of humanitarian organizations. In an era marked by geopolitical upheavals, climate crises, and shifting societal expectations, remaining ‘fit for purpose’ is not just a lofty ideal—it is an existential imperative. Yet, how often do humanitarian organizations pause to ask themselves the uncomfortable question: Are we still relevant?

The notion of relevance is tied to the ability of an organization to meet the evolving needs of the people it serves. For humanitarian organizations, this means being agile, adaptive, and, perhaps most importantly, reflective.

While most organizations engage in annual planning cycles at the beginning of the year, few dedicate time to the deeper, more difficult exercise of evaluating whether their actions, priorities, and structures are aligned with the world’s changing realities and whether they truly make a difference.

Beyond Tradition

One of the greatest challenges most of the humanitarian organizations face is their reliance on tradition. Many have long-standing mandates and practices that were conceived decades—or even centuries—ago. These practices have been a source of strength, providing a moral and operational compass. However, they can also become a source of inertia, preventing organizations from responding nimbly to emerging needs.

In ‘The Innovator’s Dilemma’, Clayton Christensen highlights how successful organizations can fall into the trap of sustaining existing models while missing the disruptive innovations that redefine their field. This phenomenon is particularly relevant in the humanitarian sector, where longstanding approaches may struggle to address new challenges like climate-induced displacement or digital vulnerabilities in conflict zones.

Relevance must be measured—not by the number of programmes delivered or the funds raised, but by the impact achieved - something that humanitarian organizations have always struggled with. Are lives being saved? Are communities being strengthened? Are systemic barriers being dismantled? These are the metrics that matter.

The courage to drop programmes or approaches that are no longer effective or relevant is rare but necessary. Organizations must be willing to let go of what no longer serves their mission and embrace a forward-thinking mindset.

The Role of Leaders in Defining Organizational Relevance

At the heart of an organization’s relevance lies its leadership. Leaders set the tone for how an organization perceives and adapts to its environment. Their vision, willingness to embrace change, and ability to inspire collective action are critical in ensuring the organization remains fit for purpose. However, maintaining relevance requires leaders to do more than simply manage—they must lead with foresight, humility, and a commitment to reflection.

Staying relevant demands self-awareness. How many senior leadership teams annually dedicate time to ask:

• Are we still addressing the most critical humanitarian challenges?
• Are our strategies empowering communities or perpetuating dependency?
• Are we unintentionally contributing the issues we seek to resolve?
•  Are we addressing the root causes of suffering, or merely treating symptoms?

There are not easy questions, and their answers may be uncomfortable. But they will help to reveal inefficiencies, misaligned priorities, or even the need for radical change.

Relevance often requires breaking away from entrenched practices. Leaders must have the courage to challenge traditions and question the status quo. This includes evaluating whether long-standing programmes and activities continue to deliver value.

Relevance also demands a culture of innovation. Many organizations tout their adaptability, but true innovation requires a willingness to take risks and embrace failure as part of the learning process. Humanitarian organizations must challenge themselves to look beyond immediate needs and anticipate future trends. In the report ‘The Humanitarian Enterprise: Dilemmas and Directions,’ Larry Minear argues that the sector often struggles to balance its commitment to immediate relief with the need for long-term transformative change. This dual responsibility requires careful prioritization, strategic vision, and operational flexibility.

The Courage to Let Go

To remain relevant, organizations must have the courage to let go. This could mean phasing out programmes, stepping aside when others are better placed to lead, or relinquishing control to local actors.

In the humanitarian sector, the localization agenda has been reshaping how organizations approach relevance. Leaders must actively champion the devolution of power and resources to local actors, recognizing that relevance is not about maintaining control but about enabling those closest to crises to lead. This shift requires leaders to embrace humility, acknowledging that their organizations may play a supporting role rather than being at the forefront.

The commitments made in The Grand Bargain have highlighted the importance of localization. For many organizations, this shift feels like a loss of relevance—but in truth, it can make them more relevant than ever, as enablers rather than implementers.

Relevance is not a static state; it is a dynamic process of adaptation. So, as a new year begins, I wonder how many organizations will dare to hold up the mirror and critically assess their relevance and how many will act on what they see. These questions may determine the future of humanitarian action—and, more importantly, the lives of those it seeks to serve.

When you gather for your annual planning meeting, start with this reflection at all levels of your organization—it may be one of the most important discussions you have all year.

Liana Ghukasyan is Special Advisor to IFRC President, former Deputy Permanent Observer to the UN in New York.

Photo by Walls.io