The temptation of conflict vs. balance in reporting

The title of this blog is probably a bit abstruse, and not quite as dramatic as King Kong vs. Godzilla. Bear with me while I explain.

In writing, there is a temptation to focus on problems, on challenges on things that aren’t working. These are all conflicts of one sort or another and conflict is grist for the mill. Conflict grabs our attention. Why else do we exchange gossip, follow sports, watch the news, read history, go to the theater, and slow down to gawk at car accidents? Every one of these “leisure” activities revolves around conflict of one sort or another.

Fundamentally, conflict is one of the cornerstones of the dramatic arts – drama, tragedy, and yes, even comedy. “Conflict creates comedy”, as the HBO show Curb Your Enthusiasm’s Jeff Garlin summed it up. (On a side note, I spent my twenties pursuing an acting career. I moved on when the conflict between the dream and the realization that I wasn’t good enough became too severe. I have no regrets.)  I would go so far as to argue that it is human nature to revel in conflicts, their escalation and resolution.

However, for most people conflict is something to avoid in your own life, the current US President being a stark exception. We prefer to watch from the sidelines, from the safety of our living rooms and mobile devices.

This theme can obviously be taken in all kinds of directions. In line with this blog’s main focus, I’m going to talk about evaluation. The ‘temptation of conflict’, by which I mean the temptation to focus on conflict, can in fact creep into evaluation work. There is, always potential for tension to arise between the evaluator and the evaluated. The former is looking for what works and what doesn’t, and there is always something that doesn’t in this complex world.  It can take experience and diplomacy to put a client at ease, to avoid losing their cooperation, and help everybody get the most out of the evaluation.

The temptation to focus on conflict can also come into play during the writing process. In my own experience, writing up an evaluation report is generally easier when a project or program has gone badly rather than when it has mostly gone swimmingly. There is more to say, more to analyze, and more to recommend. If we consider the term conflict to encompass disconnects, tensions, misunderstandings, misinterpretations, then it not difficult to uncover conflicts between what was planned and what was implemented, between stakeholders, between donors and government, between expectations and reality and on and on.

Thus, I have found that when conducting a project evaluation , there is a natural tendency to zero in on what doesn’t work. If you are so unlucky as to review a project that is splendid in every way, and have nothing to say in your report, whoever commissioned the evaluation will think you didn’t do a thorough job.

While projects should indeed be analyzed and accompanied by well thought out recommendations, the final evaluation report needs to strike the right balance. For example, If the overall assessment of a project is, let’s say, moderately satisfactory, the substance and tone of the report should reflect that.

I was once on a team evaluating a US government development project. Multiple agencies were involved in providing technical assistance to countries in three different continents, and it the coordination they achieved was quite remarkable. We, the evaluation team, agreed that it was an example of an effective, well designed and well implemented project. We noted numerous accomplishments, along with a few weaknesses. However, the tenor of our report, which methodically addressed each question in turn, was rather negative (As is customary the client who commissions an evaluation provides the questions they’d like evaluators to answer). For each question, we were able to identify some weakness, even while acknowledging the achievements. No one is perfect, after all. Upon reading the report, the project implementers were somewhat bemused. They, justifiably, expressed concerns that we had made the project sound, well, kind of mediocre. This was not our intention. Simply put, there was a lot more to say about the problems (i.e. the conflicts), even if they were modest, than about what had gone well! There was more to analyze and there were more factors to unpack for the negatives than for the positives. We did cover the good stuff, but not at the same level of depth. There were fewer issues to dig into, and not many recommendations linked to them.

One lesson I’ve taken from this and other evaluations is that you must make an effort to balance positives and negatives. While problems (and remedies) should be highlighted, the overall tone of the report should reflect the overall assessment of the project. If you find a few twisted or dead trees, do not portray the whole forest as if it were damaged. Of course, you should not neglect or avoid detailing any negative aspects in your findings. But don’t give them more importance – or less, of course – than is warranted. Be objective,  rely on evidence, and be fair.