Last week I took my son to the circus. Specifically, a traveling troupe of Chinese acrobats. It was quite clearly the troupe that plays Dushanbe, not the troupe that plays Moscow. They attempted the big stunts, but they didn’t always make it. Spinning plates got dropped, a human pyramid crashed, and one tumbler tumbled right off.
This is what interested me: it didn’t affect the show. They were ready for failure. They had spare plates standing by for quick replacement after droppage. The ribbon twirlers had fresh ribbon at hand in case of tangling. The air acrobatics had truly fantastic spotters. Everyone who fell had at least one person gracefully rush up to soften their fall. They responded to errors so quickly and smoothly that it was like a dance.
Ever since I saw the show, I’ve been wondering how we can build that kind of resilience into development interventions. How can we make sure our errors don’t wreck our work? One thought: maybe ongoing monitoring is the equivalent of those dedicated spotters who saved the falling acrobats. Collecting implementation data will let you know if your human pyramid is going askew, or keep the guy on the springboard from bouncing onto hard ground. Another: you have to be profoundly humble and honest to prepare for failure that way. You have to admit, up front, that mistakes are possible. If your spotters are hiding in the back room, they won’t catch the tumbler in time. You can’t seamlessly replace a knotted ribbon if the new one isn’t right next to you.
It’s a beautiful analogy. Would it be allowed in real life? True, some people do call this industry a circus. But do our donors actually want us to be honest and humble? Would people think we were just incompetent if we visibly prepared for failure? And what, exactly, would preparing for failure look like?
************
Now picture that top girl falling, and landing in the arms of a costumed spotter
M & E is an interesting thing in development: it makes people nervous and proud at the same time. Afaid to admit failure; happy to be on the forefront of good governance/transparency.
How quick can the responses be, though? Unlike at a circus show, the spotters will have to do a lot more work than just watch so fixes (or catching in the circus metaphor) might not be visible. Perhaps the visibility, the immediacy of the responses and adaptations in the show was part of its appeal – is that possible in development?
Rowan,
I think you’re right about the visual being part of the appeal. In development, could that mean something like listening to stakeholders and changing a program based on their input?
As a donor, I think that being upfront about failure can be a dealmaker. I see it as being thoughtful and honest. It also shows that you are confident enough to say that if the donor isn’t comfortable with the possible risks that you have taken the time to foresee, they can go elsewhere. Donors need to be a good fit for your work because they can be your best cheerleaders when they are on board for the entire ride not just the good parts.
It is also about flexibility – being aware that changes may need to be made mid-flight, and having a program/plan/partnership that is dynamic enough to shift and improve as soon as mistakes or barriers (or new opportunities or better ways to operate) are identified. This includes empowering stakeholders to identify / recommend / implement improvements. An approach that sets a plan in stone at the beginning, and considers any change an issue, is more likely to result in failure and/or missed opportunties.
Last year, a small NGO that I volunteer with funded a community in rural Mali to repair the pump on their bore. Several months later, a major development agency rocked in, with plans to sink a new bore. The village leaders said they didn’t need it, and suggested that it be sunk in a nearby village that only had access to well water. The development agency said no, their three year plan specified a bore in this village, and they went ahead and sunk it.