The Competing Responsibilities Challenge: Capacity Building in Organisations

In resource-constrained organisations, a single individual may serve simultaneously as the director of one function, the lead for multiple cross-cutting initiatives, the chair of an internal committee, and the organisation's representative on an external working group. This phenomenon — multiple portfolio management — is not an anomaly or a sign of poor organisational design. It is the inevitable consequence of running a full-service organisation with a team that may be smaller than a single department in a larger entity.

Multiple portfolio management has profound implications for programme delivery. When the key counterpart for a programme is simultaneously responsible for five other portfolios, the programme cannot realistically expect the same level of engagement and responsiveness that it would receive from a dedicated counterpart in a larger institutional setting. Meetings are cancelled because of competing demands. Reviews are delayed because the relevant person is attending an external conference. Approvals languish because the decision-maker is managing a concurrent crisis in another portfolio. These delays are not signs of disinterest or incompetence; they are the predictable consequences of a structural reality that programme designs routinely ignore.

The failure to account for competing responsibilities in programme design is one of the most common causes of implementation delays in resource-constrained organisations. External partners frequently design programmes with governance structures, reporting requirements, and engagement expectations that assume the availability of dedicated counterparts. When these assumptions prove unfounded — as they invariably do — the response is typically frustration on both sides: the external partner perceives a lack of commitment, while the organisation perceives unrealistic demands. Neither characterisation is accurate, and neither leads to a productive resolution.

The impact of competing responsibilities on programme delivery manifests in several interconnected ways. The most visible is timeline slippage. Programmes in resource-constrained organisations consistently take longer to implement than their designs anticipate, and competing responsibilities are a primary driver of this pattern. Every programme activity that requires internal input — from terms of reference approval to stakeholder consultation to data provision — is subject to delays that reflect the competing demands on key personnel. These individual delays compound over the life of a programme, transforming a manageable timeline into an increasingly unrealistic one.

Less visible but equally consequential is the impact on strategic oversight. Competing responsibilities mean that the individuals responsible for programme governance are often too occupied with operational demands to provide meaningful strategic direction. Steering committee meetings become administrative formalities rather than genuine decision-making forums. Quality issues go undetected because no one has the bandwidth to scrutinise deliverables with the attention they deserve. The programme continues to move forward on its technical track, but without the strategic engagement needed to ensure it remains aligned with organisational priorities and responsive to changing circumstances.

Competing responsibilities also affect institutional memory and continuity. When a single individual holds knowledge about multiple portfolios, their departure — whether through transfer, promotion, or retirement — creates simultaneous knowledge gaps across several areas. Programmes that depend on the institutional knowledge of individuals managing multiple portfolios are particularly vulnerable to these transitions, as the incoming person must simultaneously absorb multiple portfolios without the luxury of a dedicated handover period.

Addressing the challenge of competing responsibilities requires capacity building approaches that are fundamentally different from the conventional training model. The standard approach — sending staff to workshops, conferences, and short courses — may increase individual knowledge, but it does nothing to address the structural constraint that prevents that knowledge from being applied. A professional who returns from a programme management training course to find 200 unread emails and three concurrent deadlines will not apply their new skills, regardless of how excellent the training was.

Targeted capacity building in this context must focus on three priorities. First, strengthening systems and processes that reduce the dependence on individual knowledge. When standard operating procedures are documented, templates are established, and workflows are systematised, the burden on individuals managing multiple portfolios is reduced because routine tasks can be delegated or streamlined. Second, developing the capacity of support staff to take on functions that are currently concentrated in senior personnel. In many organisations, junior and administrative staff have the potential to absorb significant responsibilities but lack the authority, training, or confidence to do so. Third, investing in knowledge management systems that capture institutional memory and make it accessible to incoming personnel, reducing the vulnerability to staff transitions.

These approaches are not glamorous, and they do not lend themselves to the kind of visible, event-based capacity building that programmes typically favour. But they address the root causes of capacity constraints rather than their symptoms, and their benefits compound over time as systems mature and support staff develop.

For programmes operating in environments with competing responsibilities, the most effective form of external support is not additional training but dedicated implementation management that works alongside internal counterparts to share the operational burden. This support model recognises that the primary constraint is not knowledge but bandwidth, and it provides the additional professional capacity needed to maintain programme momentum without replacing organisational ownership.

Effective implementation support in this context is characterised by several features. It is embedded rather than episodic: the support is present continuously, not in intermittent missions that create peaks and troughs of activity. It is adaptive rather than prescriptive: the support adjusts its focus based on where the pressure points are at any given time, rather than following a rigid terms of reference. And it is developmental rather than substitutive: the support works through existing systems and with internal personnel, building capacity through practice rather than creating a parallel implementation structure.

This model of implementation support requires professionals who combine strong programme management skills with deep contextual understanding and the interpersonal sensitivity to work effectively within organisations without being perceived as external impositions. It is a demanding role that requires a specific combination of technical competence, cultural intelligence, and professional humility. But when it works, it transforms programme delivery by providing individuals managing multiple portfolios with the dedicated support they need to fulfil their programme governance responsibilities without sacrificing their other obligations.

While programme-level interventions can mitigate the impact of competing responsibilities on individual programmes, the challenge itself is systemic and requires systemic responses. Organisations, partners, and industry bodies all have roles to play in creating an operating environment that acknowledges and accommodates this reality rather than working against it.

Partners can contribute by harmonising their programme requirements, reducing the aggregate reporting and governance burden that falls on individuals managing multiple portfolios. When five different programmes each require separate steering committees, separate reporting formats, and separate mid-term evaluations, the coordination cost imposed on internal counterparts is multiplicative. Joint programme governance arrangements, harmonised reporting templates, and coordinated evaluation schedules can significantly reduce this burden without compromising accountability.

At the industry level, shared service models offer a promising avenue for addressing capacity constraints that no single organisation can resolve on its own. Pooled procurement services, shared technical advisory capacity, and centres of excellence can provide organisations with access to specialised skills and services that their individual budgets and markets cannot sustain. These models are not new in concept, but their implementation has been uneven, and there is significant scope for expanding their reach and deepening their effectiveness.