Curbing unrealistic expectations and business-as-usual in social impact
What is this beast I speak of?
Here are some examples:
- Expecting immediate change and improvement (instant satisfaction/gratification).
- Allocating funding for hyper-specific projects, even if it’s not enough cash/not the best for the community (forcing mission match).
- The perceived need to fully define and fully control the thing that is being funded or implemented (extreme rigidity).
I believe that a lot of these systemic, engrained behaviors comes down to two things: finite resources and risk aversion in a system where these often feed each other.
Finite resources can prompt us to seek refuge in the known and safe.
They also put a lot of pressure on entities to show evidence of change, like yesterday, since most work is accountable to donors, the public, or investors who want to see their money being put to good use.
And money talks.
And when money dictates how we implement and measure our work, we’re less inclined to step outside the bounds set by it to test something else that might be better.
Most of us know this cycle doesn’t always lead us to the greatest good or translate to what people or systems really need to sustainably and holistically to better impact in the end.
And I’m not going to pretend to have some golden ticket to fix it.
What I do have is a call for us—the Implementors, Managers, Epidemiologists, Researchers, Evaluators—to start thinking about how we can break some of these long-enshrined habits. Think of our data use, data communications, and storytelling as ways to advocate for shifting expectations of what should be done and how.
How do I start shifting these habits?
Appeal to your audience with data and emotions.
Let’s begin with data and facts.
Many people, in my experience, still respond pretty well to data and evidence, so do your research (or have someone do it for you) and come prepared with transparent, reproducible receipts.
- Consider a classic—a strong literature review. Source and show evidence around implementation timelines, or why people may need to edit their expected outcomes using published literature.
- Weave in extra data collection pathways to help identify unexpected outcomes or seek feedback from previously untapped sources. These unexpected findings can be pleasantly surprising for stakeholders, which translates to added value and deeper conversations. Use a mixed methods approach for appealing to funder, donor and investor expectations to see a specific change while keeping the door open to learning about alternatives and “extras” through interviews, personal stories, feedback surveys, and even big data sources like social media engagements.
- Make sure YOU understand what you’re talking about. People can sniff out BS quickly, and in my opinion this is the fastest way to losing trust. If you’re trying to convince an audience but you don’t understand the principles, context or methods, find someone who does.
BUT! We’re not relying on data alone.
We now know that to get people to change their minds, we have to appeal to their identity, their emotions, and somehow break through confirmation bias that is so constantly reinforced these days (think social media echo chambers). Not an easy feat.
- One way we can attempt to breakthrough is better storytelling and other communications tools as a transparent means of communication. Go straight to the source and tap into the frontline staff and community members your program is serving to get the scoop in their own words. Showcase these personal stories as part of key takeaways.
- And since tons of funding comes from the general public—whether through donations, tax dollars, or investments—showcase these stories widely and don’t bury them in a 50-page report no one is ever going to read. Rearrange your message. Lead with an emotion-generating image or statement and then follow with data.
- Appeal to emotions and identities by asking questions instead of presenting. It can sound counterintuitive and maybe uncomfortable for some, but try this technique during planning meetings, informational calls, and throughout implementation using mini-SWOTs or check-ins. It can keep minds open and willing to try a new thing or two. It can also keep people’s expectations tethered to reality.
The takeaway point here is this: much of the social impact and development world still works in a fund > measure > report cycle that’s a little creaky and rigid because we’re afraid to rock the boat and risk funding or other support.
So we need to find ways to make that more acceptable, and safer. With less fear. To me that means changing expectations and understanding at the source and amongst our peers.
The thoughts and tools above could be a good starting point, and I’d love to hear whether and how you’ve used any of these to convince others to try something new, out of the box, or bring them back down to reality for the good of the project.