The Monitors Dilemma Navigating the Ethics of Being Both Partner and Verifier

Published on: Thu Aug 04 2022 by Ivar Strand

The Monitor’s Dilemma: Navigating the Ethics of Being Both Partner and Verifier

The modern approach to independent monitoring requires us to perform two distinct functions simultaneously. We are expected to act as a constructive, diagnostic partner to the implementing agency, using our findings to help them build more resilient systems. At the same time, we must serve as a rigorous verification agent for our principal—the donor or government ministry—fulfilling our duty to provide them with unvarnished, objective assurance.

These two roles, that of partner and verifier, can and do come into tension. This creates a recurring and non-trivial ethical dilemma for the monitoring professional. When a weakness is discovered, what is the correct course of action? Is it to work collaboratively with the partner to resolve the issue quietly, or is it to formally document and escalate it as a finding?

Deconstructing the Professional Tension

The core of the dilemma lies in the competing objectives of the two roles.

• The partner role is oriented towards collaboration, capacity building, and joint problem-solving. It is a relationship that benefits from a degree of discretion and a focus on constructive improvement.
• The verifier role is oriented towards accountability, transparency, and a primary fiduciary duty to the principal. It is a function that demands the full, frank, and objective reporting of all material facts.

Navigating this tension requires careful professional judgment. A monitor who acts only as a verifier can create an adversarial dynamic that limits their access and insight. A monitor who acts only as a partner risks failing in their primary duty to the principal who hired them.

A Framework for Ethical Decision-Making

There is no simple, universal rule for resolving this dilemma. However, a professional monitor must operate with a consistent and transparent ethical framework. At Abyrint, our conduct in these situations is guided by a set of clear, established principles.

1. The Principle of Materiality. This is the first and most important filter. Is the issue a minor, non-systemic administrative error, or is it a significant control failure with material financial, programmatic, or reputational consequences? Minor clerical errors can often be addressed constructively at the technical level as part of a “no surprises” validation of facts. Material weaknesses, by contrast, must always be formally documented and reported.

2. The Principle of Intent. An assessment must be made of the nature of the issue. Was it the result of an unintentional mistake, a clear capacity gap, or a poorly designed process? Or is there credible evidence of willful deception, gross negligence, or potential malfeasance? Issues of the former type allow for a collaborative, diagnostic approach. Any suggestion of the latter requires immediate and formal escalation to the principal as per the agreed-upon communication protocol.

3. The Principle of Systemic vs. Idiosyncratic Issues. Is the finding an isolated, one-off event (idiosyncratic), or is it a symptom of a deeper, systemic flaw in a process or technology? We may work directly with a partner to help them correct a single data entry error. However, if our analysis shows that the same error is occurring repeatedly, the issue is systemic and must be reported as a formal finding, as it represents a persistent and unmanaged risk.

4. The Principle of Institutional “Do No Harm.” In our role as a partner, our goal is to strengthen, not undermine, the implementing organization. However, the principle of “do no harm” applies equally to our principal. Failing to report a material risk in order to avoid a difficult conversation is a dereliction of our primary fiduciary duty and does harm to the integrity of the donor’s investment and the accountability of the program.

The Imperative of Transparency

The ultimate guide in navigating this dilemma is transparency. Our approach is to be clear about this decision-making framework with both the principal and the implementing partner from the very outset of an engagement. When all parties understand the criteria by which an issue will be escalated, it depersonalizes the process and reinforces its objectivity.

The monitor’s role is not one of a neutral arbiter, but that of a professional agent who must balance the productive goals of partnership with the non-negotiable duty of verification. A mature and transparent ethical framework is the only way to navigate this complex reality with integrity.