Decolonising MEL: navigating conflict and misalignment 

By Eme Iniekung – this blog was originally published by WACSI.

Relationship management is integral to consultancy assignments. It’s the bedrock for successful projects and building a funnel for future engagements with a client. At the same time, it may be important to evaluate what kind of relationship one seeks to build and how it benefits you, as a consultant.  

Earlier this year, I was part of a consultancy team working with an international NGO. We came in with clarity and excitement, aligned with our commitment to feminist and decolonial values. The client’s Terms of Reference (ToR) appeared to reflect that spirit, requiring participatory methodology, systems-level evaluation and organisational reflection.  

But from the start, things began to fall apart. Language became contested, the word “decolonial” itself was flagged as uncomfortable. Some managerial staff resisted our questions and our approach. One consultant, feeling the strain (and upon reflection on the likelihood of bias and racism in his interactions with personnel within the organisation), stepped off the project entirely. Eventually, the client revised the project’s scope to one requiring less input from MEL Consultants, reduced the budget and softened the tone; taking a more controlled and conventional approach in place of a reflective and disruptive one.  

This experience fuelled a Consultants for Change webinar discussion I facilitated, interrogating what happens when well-intentioned clients and values-led consultants collide in practice. What it means or takes to remain aligned, grounded and honest when facing resistance, miscommunication and conflicting expectations. Key insights that surfaced include:

Words like “decolonial”, “transformational”, “participatory” and “equity-driven” have become buzzwords that have frequently begun to appear in request for proposals (RFPs), but they don’t guarantee true or shared understanding. In our case, the discomfort with decolonial language highlighted to us that deeper organisational buy-in had not been secured. It might have been heralded by few persons in the team, usually the programme officers, who are the writers of the TORs, but key decision makers involved in a consultancy also need to be onboarded to transformative ways of practice for it to succeed. 

We must stop assuming value alignment based on language alone. Consultants and clients alike need to engage in pre-project sensemaking conversations that mutually interrogate tasks, project management, readiness and values. 

In consultancy, especially when values, ways of work and systems can come into tension, conflict is not just a risk, it’s a certainty. Yet most of our contracts and work plans don’t anticipate this. Instigating regular check-ins, documenting calls (and any further requests/tasks), clarifying responsibilities, asking for consolidated feedback and budgeting for scope shifts can protect both sides.  

In the discussions with C4C colleagues, Alison Napier of INTRAC reminds us, “communicating clearly and early” is not just good practice, it’s essential to maintain relationship integrity. 

Consultants must integrate spaces for pre- and post-project meetings to think, feel, reflect and refine the assignment alongside the client. This builds spaces for honesty and transparency, values that matter when striving to truly consult with soul. It gives room to surface any tensions or stonewalls and as with my colleague,  realisations that sometimes the most decolonial decision might be to walk away.  

My experience revealed to me a quiet violence that can unfold when there is misalignment, not just on deliverables, but on values. It surfaced deeper questions that we must keep returning to as MEL consultants; are we the right fit for a client? Are they ready for what they’ve asked for? Is there an appetite within the organisation to be truly and not just fictionally transformational? 

What is needed to build a relationship where clients are not just knowledge grabbers, or consultants seen as a disposable quick fix, just because we’ve been paid? I advocate for facilitating open spaces; for conversation, action and feedback. However, I also realise that not every client is ready for this journey and we must ask not only if we can deliver this work, but if we should. 

A core message of decolonising MEL is the critique of transactional, extractive consultancy models and a call for more equitable, relational engagements. Consultants must be willing to assess whether the client has the organisational maturity, plus internal alignment to support authentic relationships and transformative work. Unfortunately, there is still the systemic issue of relational approaches between clients and consultants being based on positional power dynamics. A reminder that age, race, gender, technical expertise bias and power intersect in consultancy spaces, and require mindset shifts for truly relational equity.