“Our collective compassion, when sustained, becomes a force capable of withstanding even the most overwhelming crises” IWG Global Steering Group

Our current world is marked by escalating humanitarian crises ranging from natural disasters and armed conflicts to pandemics and socio-political upheaval. The question many of us grapple with as advocates for peace in these times is “What can I, as an individual, do?” This very question served as the discussion point for our October 2024 International Working Group for Health Systems Strengthening (IWG) think tank session, which sought to unpack how individuals can contribute meaningfully during times of humanitarian crisis. In this reflective piece, we highlight the key insights that emerged from our collective discussion. 

Taking action in times of crisis can feel overwhelming. The scale of suffering often makes our efforts seem insignificant. However, the crises of our time represent a critical test—not just of the resilience of global systems—but also the resilience of our individual and collective compassion. How much human suffering can we witness before turning our attention to the next breaking news story? This is a question of moral resilience, and now, more than ever, that resilience is being tested.

Advocacy in professional spaces

One of the session’s most compelling discussions centered around the unique challenges young professionals face when advocating for peace within institutional settings. One recurring theme was the delicate balance they must strike between their advocacy efforts and their career prospects. Several attendees shared stories of feeling pressured to conform to organizational expectations that at times prioritize stability and partnerships over bold advocacy, particularly in politically sensitive contexts. As RP noted, the fear of being seen as “too outspoken” or “disruptive” often discourages younger professionals from raising their voices, especially in spaces where senior colleagues hold significant influence over career advancement. This dynamic can create a tension where younger advocates feel torn between staying true to their values and protecting their professional trajectories

Participants also reflected on the ethical complexities inherent in global health advocacy, particularly when professionals find themselves working within organizations whose politics conflict with their personal values. As KO pointed out, though many health organizations conduct vital and life-saving work, they sometimes rely on funding from morally questionable sources, such as corporations with exploitative practices or governments implicated in conflict. This reliance creates a profound ethical dilemma that professionals must grapple with: whether their involvement is complicit in perpetuating harm or whether it is a necessary compromise to ensure critical health services reach those in need. This tension can often create the emotional toll of constantly navigating these trade-offs. 

Another challenge arises from value dissonance among colleagues. One participant shared the frustration of working within groups, hesitant to engage with politically sensitive crises. This disconnect is especially poignant for health professionals, who are often driven by a core mission to save lives and alleviate suffering—an objective that frequently intersects with the political and social factors underpinning crises. The fascade of neutrality in many health settings can create additional frustration when colleagues avoid addressing these politically sensitive issues.

Navigating Complexity and Compromise

One skill that emerged as essential for advocacy is the ability to navigate complexity—and, often, the uncomfortable art of effective compromise. Advocacy, especially within diverse groups, requires reconciling differing perspectives, values, and priorities to find common ground without losing the core purpose of the action, as pointed out by KO. This often presents a tension that demands patience, emotional intelligence, and a willingness to engage with opposing views. Adam Kahane’s book, Collaborating with the Enemy, as commented by BB, explores this dynamic and argues that compromise is not just an inherent trait possessed by a few but a critical skill that can and must be learned. Effective leadership requires us to be able to navigate the tensions around us and be able to compromise. 

“The real problem with enemyfying is that it distracts and unbalances us. We cannot avoid others whom we find challenging, so we need to focus simply on deciding, given these challenges, what we ourselves will do next.” Adam Kahane, Collaborating with the Enemy: How to Work with People You Don’t Agree with or Like or Trust

For us as a community at the IWG, this raises an important and ongoing question: How can we, as a diverse collective, align on meaningful actions when our positions at times may be deeply polarized? The answer may lie in our intentional efforts in cultivating a culture of mutual understanding, active listening, and strategic compromise. This doesn’t mean abandoning deeply held convictions but finding ways to move forward collectively while respecting the varied perspectives in the room. It is this balance—between holding firm to our values and adapting to the realities of diverse group dynamics that will enable us to work together effectively in tackling the complex issues we aim to address.

Advocacy within individual spheres of influence

The conversation also emphasized the importance of leveraging our individual spheres of influence. Advocacy doesn’t always require large-scale campaigns; often, it starts within our immediate communities, and, as RP pointed out, change often begins within ourselves as well. In this increasingly globalized world, we are constantly exposed to situations that may feel far beyond our reach, making it difficult to determine where we fit in. BB commented that the key might be understanding our sphere of influence—identifying where we can most immediately make a difference—and starting there. Recognizing our unique position and resources can help us focus our efforts in a way that feels achievable and impactful. By aligning our actions with our immediate capabilities, we not only contribute meaningfully to change but also inspire others within our communities to do the same, creating a ripple effect of advocacy.

However, advocacy must be informed by the true needs of affected communities to ensure that it is meaningful and impactful. Too often, well-intentioned efforts are shaped by the assumptions, biases, or external agendas of those seeking to help rather than the lived experiences and expressed priorities of those directly impacted by the crisis. Listening to those experiencing the crisis is therefore not just an ethical issue; it remains a practical necessity for developing interventions that truly make a difference. It involves creating platforms for affected voices to be heard, respecting their agency, and incorporating their insights into our individual advocacy.

During the session, we reflected on the mental and emotional strain individuals face when their persistent actions appear to have little to no impact. It can feel disheartening—and even paralyzing—when the situations around us worsen despite our best efforts. This sense of futility can challenge our motivation, leading us to question whether our contributions truly matter.

A powerful metaphor that emerged during our discussion was large public participatory paintings or mosaics. This art form, as described by BB, involves countless individuals painting small, seemingly disconnected circles. Up close, these circles appear insignificant, lacking coherence or purpose. However, when one steps back to view the entire mosaic, the circles come together to form a breath-taking and intricate whole. Similarly, our individual actions may feel small and isolated in the moment, but they are essential building blocks in a larger tapestry of change. It is only with time, perspective, and collective effort that we can begin to see the full picture.

At its core, effective advocacy requires a belief in the power of individual and collective action. As a South African freedom fighter famously said:

“The greatest tool of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.”

Stephen Bantu Biko (South African Freedom Fighter)

If we are convinced that our actions are futile, we have already lost the battle. This session reaffirmed that while our actions may feel small, they hold the potential to create ripples of change when combined with those of others.

Key lessons 

In a world facing escalating humanitarian crises, the insights from our IWG think tank session highlighted the power of collective action, the resilience of compassion, and the importance of belief in change. Advocacy is often a complex and challenging journey, requiring us to navigate ethical dilemmas, reconcile differing values, and confront the emotional toll of seemingly small, individual contributions. These challenges, while daunting, test the moral resilience discussed in our opening reflections—the very ability to stay engaged with human suffering without turning away. By grounding our efforts in the lived realities of affected communities, embracing the skill of effective compromise, and believing in the power of individual and collective advocacy, we can rise to this test. While the challenges may feel insurmountable at times, it is through persistence and solidarity that we can create a future defined by justice and shared humanity. Our collective compassion, when sustained, becomes a force capable of withstanding even the most overwhelming crises.

Special Contributions: Bettina Buabeng-Baidoo (BB), Ramonde Patientia (RP), Koye Oyerinde (KO), Malvikha Manoj (MM), Nwamaka Ezeanya (NE)