Much of what consultants do, at least those of us working in international development, involves synthesizing boatloads of information. I’m going to go further, and argue that it is a core competency. If you are unable to effectively absorb, process and synthesize large quantities of information on a given topic, in a way that is useful, you will struggle. Moreover, often you will have much less time than you need or want for the task, so you need to find an efficient way of getting it done.
In my early days as a consultant, fresh out of grad school, I found writing analytical reports a laborious, even painful, process. I wasted a lot of time. I didn’t really know how to go about it. I had to research and write about issues and countries I initially knew little about — such as rural finance in Ukraine, agriculture in Azerbaijan, or community-driven development in Kyrgyzstan.
I would say that my graduate school courses and research papers gave me a decent underpinning in this area, but I still struggled with what to write and how to write it. I somehow pulled off these assignments, but I’ll be the first to admit the process was inefficient and ineffective. I lost many nights and weekends, and when I wasn’t actually writing, it was never far from my mind. If I were to add up the hours, I probably earned well below the minimum wage on those contracts.
It has gotten easier over time, although writing concise and clear and analytically robust reports remains the most challenging aspect of my work. This blog post is therefore designed to help readers who face similar issues to synthesize more effectively, and hopefully lower their stress levels.
Not quite the same as whisky…
Synthesizing large quantities of information is a competence every international development consultant should have in his or her toolbox. It’s a skill you need. Why? Because a significant amount of the work involves summarizing academic literature, gray literature, data, news reports, meeting notes, and any other source that is relevant and credible. What is the final output? In the international development field, examples include the following: policy notes, issue notes, reports on lessons learned, case studies, chapters in a report, and so on.
Usually this is the moment for coming up with a good metaphor for the topic, which I’m going to dispense with right now: synthesizing information is not like distilling a good whisky. With whisky, you have a limited number of elements – fermented grain mash, oak casks, and time. I’m not saying whisky-making doesn’t require a lot of skill. But you can focus on a relatively narrow number of things to get it right. By contrast, the number and type of inputs that go into a typical analytical report are vast and varied, and may change with every assignment.
Researching, reviewing, and writing
Synthesizing a body of knowledge can be broken down into
three main activities:
Research: First, you need to find the relevant information and analysis. Some of it is in written form; much, but not all (books, for example) is publicly available online; and some of it is only found inside of the minds of colleagues, stakeholders, experts, etc. whom you should try to meet with or interview.
Review: You need to review the material you’ve collected. That does not mean reading every word, however. If you try that approach you will never finish, at least not in the weeks or months you’ve been given. (I’ll get to tackling this little problem later.)
Write: The written output needs to capture the essence of your topic and its various sub-topics and sub-sub-topics. Your synthesis of the material, the content, needs to be accurate, clearly written, and have a sound structure. Introductory and context sections need to include the most important and basic information. The level of detail should be appropriate — not too much, not too little. Make Goldilocks happy. And always keep your audience in mind.
Let’s assume you have been given the topic you have to write
about, you know what and who it is for, and how long the report needs to be. So
far, so good.
It’s good to tap into any skills you have lying around because the synthesizing process can be intense and challenging. (If you are an academic, a non-fiction writer, or a journalist, you already have a leg up.) If you are writing about a topic in which you are an expert, you are also in a good position. If you are methodical and well-organized, that’s helpful, too. If you are brilliant, have amazing retention skills and the writing just flows out of you, like Mozart composing new pieces, that is, well, fantastic. (You’re also probably not working as a consultant…or reading this article.)
Under pressure and within limits
The challenging part of the distillation process is when you come face to face with the constraints you work under. For example, you almost never have as much time as you would like. Consultants usually have contracts for a fixed number of days. Whether it is 10 or 50, that number is still a scarce resource that you need to manage well.
Some of your contract days may be needed for travel, for meetings, or for other activities. In other words, you don’t have the luxury of immersing yourself in your topic for months or years on end. You might only realize how tight your timeline is when the work is well underway, as in, “Whoa, I just realized I only have five days left to finish this!”
If you are on staff at an organization, your constraints may be more relaxed. (This applies especially to academia.) Researchers have years to conduct and write up their work. Since staff are paid a salary, they generally don’t have to worry about running out of work days, even if they do have to meet deadlines.
Some things to try…
So much for the challenges. Now here are some things I have found helpful:
Be clear on what you are writing. Yes, you know the topic. But that’s not the same as knowing what you are writing. You don’t want to submit a draft to a client for review, only to have them say that’s not what they were expecting. Even if the topics and sub-topics are clear from your terms of reference, there is always a risk that you will focus too much on one aspect instead of another. Another issue might be that your report is considered too descriptive and not policy-oriented enough.
Start with an outline. Organize the material in a coherent logical outline. Get the client or team members to review it and provide input at this early stage. You can adjust it as you go along. But this outline is going to be the timber frame around which you will build your house.
Review material strategically and methodically. First, I like to read the table of contents, executive summary, introduction, and conclusions. I follow this with a quick scan of the entire document. I zero in on any relevant chapters and sub-topics and read them more in-depth. If it is an electronic document, I’ll “cheat” and do a key word search. I like to extract excerpts (using copy-paste function) and save them in a separate document, being sure to include the source citation. I may pull out citations to use in my report later.
Avoid working alone if you can. It is much more effective to collaborate on reports with colleagues. There will be more brainpower directed at the subject and different perspectives will be brought to bear. The back-and-forth flow of ideas is often stimulating, I find. It’s also a way of dividing and conquering, lessening the burden that one person would otherwise have to carry. Assign tasks to team members based on each person’s strengths; one may be a better writer, another a more thorough organizer of data; one may be a big-picture thinker, another will be good at details.
Break the process down into small and manageable tasks. An issue can seem overwhelming at first, because there are so many different aspects to it. It can help to take on one subtopic at a time, and temporarily ignore the others. Allot a half a day, a day, two days — however much time seems appropriate — to just that section or chapter. I like to open up a clean, new Word document for the purpose, and when I’m done, paste that separately created section into the main body.
Finally, one of the secrets to successful writing is knowing when to stop. You need to stop when the writing is good enough; not perfect, but good enough. You can keep revising a piece until the cows come home. You shouldn’t. Other work, other tasks, other things in life need your attention. Like that whisky — a perfect example of the distillation process bearing fruit.
(Revised May 8, 2020, and September 11, 2020, for clarity)
Is excluding other people ever acceptable? It is, in fact. There are plenty of circumstances where no one bats an eye at being excluded, where no one feels aggrieved.
Have you
ever been to a concert and felt aggrieved that you had to sit in the audience
while the musicians had the privilege of being on stage, receiving adulation
and getting paid for their work? Have you ever been to a football or baseball
game and felt it was deeply unfair that you were a spectator and had not been
allowed to play on the field? Did you feel it was unfair that they were getting
paid millions every year to play while you had to pay to get in? I’m
going to guess that the answer to the above questions, for most people, is
“no.”
On the other
hand, have you ever been excluded without understanding why? Perhaps you didn’t
get invited to a party, were rejected by a college, or failed to make the short-list
for a job.
More
pernicious, have you ever been excluded for reasons that seemed irrational and
unjust? It might have been on the basis of skin color, gender, beliefs or any
number of other seemingly arbitrary characteristics that help humanity divide
itself into tribes, leading to a good deal of enmity and grievance. For those
who espouse a liberal social order, at least, this is screaming social
injustice and a completely unacceptable form of exclusion.
The many
forms of exclusion
Obviously, exclusion comes in many forms. I will posit that “acceptable exclusion” occurs when those excluded basically accept the premise – that the rationale is clear, fair and the determination is arrived at transparently. Its opposite, unacceptable exclusion fails to meet those standards, and is generally referred to as social exclusion.
We recognize
and value the exclusiveness around sports and musical achievements, the basis
of which is, generally speaking, meritocracy.
We don’t want our sports teams to be recruited on the basis of, say,
skin color, or socio-economic background. We want selection of team members to
be based on skill. Sports are also segregated by gender, and this is generally
accepted as well. Genetic differences in strength between men and women create
what would be an unfair playing field if they were to compete against each
other.
There are
many forms of broadly acceptable exclusion. They relate to various criteria, as
the following selection of examples suggests:
skill — while sports and music are the most
obvious areas where exclusion is based on exclusivity, so are many jobs, since
applicants must meet certain qualifications. With jobs, however, there is a lot
more subjectivity around what is fair;
affordability — if you aren’t talented enough to
perform, you can still attend a sports event or concert, but most of the
time attendance is also exclusive, to the extent that people have to pay to
watch;
dress — fancy restaurants with dress codes
aim to maintain a sense of decorum and exclusivity, but even your average fast
food chain requires customers to wear a shirt and shoes;
age — adults are not allowed to attend
elementary school;
privacy — we lock our houses to keep strangers
out;
eligibility based on means — the poor who qualify for assistance.
Exclusion
and social norms
Social norms
determine what is acceptable and what isn’t. They are context specific. Differing
social norms means that some form of exclusion are widely acceptable (as per
the above examples), while other forms are not.
Social norms
change over time, of course. Up until
the 1960s, in much of the United States it was deemed acceptable, by parts of
the white citizenry, to exclude blacks from equal treatment, and they were
excluded from schools, restaurants, swimming pools, water fountains, bathrooms,
clubs, sports teams, and more.
Nowadays, in
the U.S. and in many liberally-oriented countries, it is not only unacceptable
but illegal to be excluded on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual
orientation, etc. Preventing gay people from having the same right to marry as
heterosexuals was yet another form of exclusion. In 1988, only 12 percent of
Americans supported same-sex marriage; three decades later over two thirds did,
in the wake of its legalization.
This is not,
however, a happy story about how society at home or around the world is
becoming ever more inclusive. Here’s an extreme example of how exclusion
affects people. Recently, a young Iranian woman, Sahar Khodayari,
self-immolated after being sentenced to 24 years in prison for illegally
attending a football match. She tried to sneak in to see her favorite team, Esteghlal,
play, dressed as a man. The police discovered her true identity. Rather than go
to jail, she protested her sentence by lighting herself on fire in front of the
courthouse, bringing worldwide attention, and condemnation, to Iran’s policy of
only allowing males to attend football (American soccer) games.
Economic
exclusion
What about economic
exclusion, sometimes known as poverty? Is it acceptable to be deprived of basic
needs to live a dignified life? Is it fair? Here what is acceptable becomes tricky
and less clear.
One can
argue that in our capitalist society, it is acceptable insofar as ability to
pay for something is the price of access. If you can’t afford a nice house, a
car, or nice clothing, that’s seen as an individual thing. But when large
segments of society are not able to enjoy even basic services or standard
conveniences of modern life, things become complicated. In industrial societies
today, many young people struggle to afford decent housing or education. Many
low-income households struggle to eat nutritional food, even if they are not
deprived of calories. In general lacking access to the basics of life makes a
lot of other things harder — like buying a suit to go to attend a
job interview.
Exclusion
and the state
In response
to social pressure, governments often try to increase access to services — water, electricity, markets (via roads), or social payments.
People who deem they have been unfairly denied certain basic needs will take to
the streets. The Arab Spring is exhibit “A”. More recently, France was disrupted
by the gilets jaunes (“yellow vests), the French movement that erupted
in October 2018 in response to planned fuel tax hikes, and morphed into
protests for economic justice. A lot of people felt that the system was rigged
against them, that they were being kept out.
In the U.S.,
economic exclusion has become an ideological issue. To grossly oversimplify,
among conservatives, it has historically been considered an individual matter.
If you couldn’t climb up the economic ladder, pull yourself up by your bootstraps,
that was your fault. You weren’t working hard enough.
Liberals
mostly consider the system to be at fault. It isn’t fair that you were born
into poverty or suffered misfortune —
such as catastrophic
medical bills — and your station in life is not (just) about how hard you
studied or worked. The massive effort and money middle class parents spend on
ensuring their children get the best possible education and acquire the skills
is testament to the costs involved in succeeding in today’s society.
The more
that economic exclusion comes to be seen as unacceptable, the more pressure
governments will be under to expand access to those at the bottom. That
requires lifting the barriers to the on-ramps, and letting more and more people
onto the highway to prosperity.
However,
since such investments require careful planning and huge investments in
infrastructure and human capital, we can expect many politicians to avoid the
issue. Instead, they will focus on the cheaper and easier option of fomenting
popular support by harping on threats to identity and cultural issues, the
usual populist and nationalist tactics. Populism and nationalism work, in the
short-term at least, because they foster a powerful sense of inclusion, often
achieved by excluding and denigrating others.
Conservatism and exclusion
To answer the question I started with, yes, exclusion is socially acceptable when it is based on a clear rationale and transparency. But that may just be the liberal perspective. In many countries, social norms among conservatives relating to exclusion are increasingly discriminatory.
Thus, for the voters who put leaders in power — such as the U.S.’s Donald Trump, Brazil’s Jaime Bolsonaro, Hungary’s Viktor Orban, the UK’s Boris Johnson (elected by Tory party members, anyway), Israel’s Netanyahu — exclusion based on identity is now perfectly acceptable. After all, among the party loyal, trashing the “other” creates a wonderful sense of belonging. Even better, to create a sense of happy security, is the putting up of walls and gates, or pulling up the drawbridge, à la Brexit.
What, if anything, can dilute this growing penchant for exclusion? Can broad-based economic growth contribute to leveling the playing field? Do we need new laws or policies? The fact that most economists are expecting a global recession to kick in in the not-too-distant future should be worrying.
If, in times of relative prosperity demonizing the other works so well, just wait until national economies hit the skids. That’s when we may see the cracks in society turn into unbridgeable cleavages.
The issue of social exclusion in its various forms has been on my mind lately. The contrast between the liberal rhetoric to promote greater social and economic participation on the one side, and the countervailing rhetoric about walls and keeping people out, on the other, seems to be starker than ever. However, I don’t think it is a stretch to say that these dueling tendencies – to band together or to fend off outsiders – are both timeless aspects human nature.
Today’s entry will mark the beginning of a new blog series
devoted to exploring the vast subject of exclusion.
Why talk about exclusion in a blog devoted to evaluation and international development topics? For one, because the contrast between the recent extremist exclusionary talk and behavior in politics (in the U.S. as well as globally) and the more inclusive rhetoric pervading the development aid world is so striking. Another reason is related to domestic, U.S. attitudes. A significant share of U.S. society doesn’t seem to believe in inclusion, in helping others get in. Given the support for President Trump’s rhetoric on building walls and keeping out migrants (88 percent of Republicans approve of the job he is doing, according to the August 1-14, 2019 Gallup poll), what does this portend for a foreign aid policy that, up until now, has pointed mostly in the other direction?
Rhetoric spills into action
Exclusion manifests itself in many ways: moats, walls,
xenophobia, nationalism, nativism, racism, sexism, tribalism, ethnic cleansing,
genocide. It can range from the relatively passive — such as barring “others,”
like migrants, from entering — to the active, such as expelling
members from a group, to the awful, destroying those perceived as not
belonging.
What prompted these reflections — which I will expand on in
this and posts to follow — is the extreme form that this will to exclude has taken
in the U.S. In the recent El Paso mass shooting a young white man killed 22 Hispanics
at a Walmart store, and injured even more. His purported motive was to kill
immigrants, and defend the country against an “invasion” by immigrants, i.e.
outsiders.
This was but the most recent of a spate of U.S massacres targeting minorities. African Americans, Jews and gays have all been slaughtered on U.S. soil in recent years because of who they are, and because their existence posed a problem.
The shootings can be seen as an extreme manifestation of the desire, as expressed by white nationalist groups and their sympathizers, to rid the U.S. of those who don’t conform to their retrograde vision of who is allowed to be here.
Huddled masses need not apply
Ridding the U.S. of ethnic minorities has a long and
ignominious history. As Michael Luo writes in the August 17, 2019 issue of The New Yorker, the U.S. Senate passed
a bill back in 1882 to bar Chinese immigrants from entering the U.S. The Chinese
Exclusion Act, as it came to be called, was not repealed until 1943. Now the
government is at it again, with new regulations to deny permanent legal status,
or green cards, to immigrants likely to need government services.
This is but the latest in ongoing efforts to reduce
migration flows to the U.S. It has been accompanied by rhetoric and full-blooded
condoning of these views. This exclusion rhetoric has risen dramatically under
President Trump. It started with his announcement of his candidacy and its blatant
anti-immigrant message, calling Mexicans criminals and rapists.
The logic may appear infantile and full of holes, but it
resonated with enough Americans to win him the election. And now there are
those who have reached the conclusion that, if Mexicans are coming here to rape
and commit crimes, then they don’t deserve to live, ergo it is okay to kill
them. It is a vision of keeping the U.S. homogenous, and pure, and returning to
a (relatively small) window in time when most of the settled population was
white —
having killed or enslaved “outside” groups such as native Americans or people
brought over from Africa.
The El Paso killer’s statements on social media conformed
closely to attitudes and language used by Trump supporters and Trump himself.
In July 2019 Trump launched verbal assaults against four Democratic
Congresswomen: “Hey if you don’t like it,
let them leave.” Soon after, supporters at Trump rallies were chanting
“Send her back,” although the President has tried to distance himself from the
chant, if not the sentiment.
Is it simply human nature to exclude others?
First of all, it is true that the phenomenon of one group keeping
outsiders out is neither new nor particularly remarkable. I suppose it has been
with us as long as we’ve been a species. The formation of tribes and nations is
as much about outsiders as it is about members.
I will go further, and argue that exclusion of the many by
the few, or of the few by the many, of casting out and keeping out, is one of
humanity’s leitmotifs. The Bible’s key events often center on exclusion in one
way or another: the fall from Paradise, the Great Flood, the Exodus out of
Egypt, the Chosen People. And the history of the 20th century is
full of myths which fed genocides against minorities, facilitated by modern
organizational capacities of the Nazis in Germany and Central Europe, of Serb
nationalists in Bosnia, of Hutu power in Rwanda, and so on.
Yet as ancient as it is, and as horrific as the 20th
century was for millions of people, it feels like we live in a time where the rhetoric
around social exclusion has entered the political mainstream. Accounts of
political leaders demonizing others feature prominently in the daily news. In
both the U.S. and Europe, rightwing parties have galvanized supporters with
anti-immigrant rhetoric. It has become acceptable again for sizable minorities to,
if you’ll permit the oxymoron, openly embrace the exclusion of others.
Development efforts to promote inclusion
Flipping the coin over to the other side, many of the
international development projects I evaluate aim, among other things, at increasing
inclusion. It is part of their underlying rationale.
Increasing access — to things which many of us in the “developed”
world take for granted — is seen as the key to lifting people out of poverty, and
opening up opportunities they wouldn’t have otherwise. In other words,
development assistance is about inclusion, and not just economic growth.
In recent decades, economists have come to the realization that growth isn’t sufficient
if the gains are not sufficiently dispersed through society.
The World Bank’s mission is “shared prosperity”. The UN
Sustainable Development Goals are replete with the terms “inclusive” and
“access to.” Inclusive growth is now a term. Investing in modernization is at
the core of development efforts in poor countries striving to catch up with
rich ones. It is about reducing the gap between the haves and have-nots. It is
about letting more people in on the fruits of civilization and modern society.
It doesn’t always work out, and the rhetoric is often far ahead of the reality,
but the rhetoric matters. Project goals refer to it and, at least in part, are
often linked to it.
The mechanism for reaching these goals are investments and
policy reforms which expand access to, for example, electricity, healthcare
services, clean water and sanitation, markets, education, and political and
civic inclusion, by way of voter registration programs. The expansion of access
is generally aimed at those who have been left out: the poor, women, youth, disabled
persons, etc.
It is true that development aid will not generally help
people join the most, shall we say, “exciting” tribes that humanity divides
itself into, i.e. those which are defined along ethnic, racial, or religious
lines. That would be antithetical to development aid’s raison d’etre. It
is also true that there are probably not enough resources for the many
currently excluded to access. For example, in 1994 when Malawi adopted a policy
of free primary education by abolishing tuition fees, one unintended
consequence was a severe drop in educational quality, as the system was
overwhelmed. There simply were not enough teachers and schools to handle the
influx.
Even when ineffective or focused on issues other than
access, however, international development never aims at exclusion, at keeping
groups of people down and out. After all, the point is to invest in public
goods, which by definition are both non-excludable and non-rivalrous.
On the whole, development programs do try to increase
capacity to participate in society and its rewards, by reducing some of the
most basic obstacles.
Don’t expect the rhetoric on exclusion to disappear
Now contrast international development policies with the prevalent
desire, among certain outspoken parts of country populations and their
political leaders, to exclude others. Even leaving aside the violent and
genocidal tendencies displayed by fringe groups, and some mass shooters, the basic
desire to keep others out appears to be fairly widespread in the U.S. and many
other countries. Fully one third of the U.S. population believes that migrants
do more harm than benefit to the country. That’s less than the 39 percent who
believe the opposite. But it still amounts to a view held by over 100 million
Americans.
Populist parties in Europe rail against immigrants.
Hungary’s populist and self-proclaimed illiberal Prime Minister Victor Orban has
said that “countries that don’t stop immigration will be
lost,” and keeps winning elections. The UK’s Prime Minister Boris
Johnson, as an MP, based part of his pro-Brexit rhetoric on fears of 80 million
Turks invading the UK. Fallacious, but effective.
It is clearly human nature to think in terms of us and them.
There are just too many people for everyone to be “us.” Someone has to be
“them.” There will always be insiders and outsiders, those who belong to a
group and those who don’t.
It seems that Republicans and Democrats have staked opposing
positions on this terrain. I find it curious how many U.S. Democratic party
positions focus on inclusion, on expanding rights and access for those marginalized.
Consider where Democrats stand, not just on migration, but on health insurance,
abortion rights, voting rights. It’s about bringing people in, not kicking them
out. Social inclusion, in other words.
Republican focus on helping small businesses might be
described as promoting economic inclusion. In my view the effort is a
bit desultory, given Republican handouts to corporate America. And how feasible
economic inclusion is without social inclusion is a matter for debate.
In any case, it is a safe bet that the tension between allowing more people in and keeping them out will never disappear. If those of us who believe in inclusion can at least prevent exclusionary tendencies from turning into genocidal tendencies, that is worth something worth fighting for. And as climate change reduces the ability of populations in some regions to manage, or even survive, you can bet there will be a fight.
Will U.S. foreign aid now succumb to exclusionist impulses? Stay
tuned.
First of all, negotiating is about more than getting as much
as you can. It isn’t really even about getting what (you think) you’re worth.
Many factors come into play and it is worth spending a little time thinking
them through. After you’ve signed the contract, assuming your negotiations land
you at that point, you want to feel good about what you’ve agreed to.
When it comes to work, money isn’t everything. It’s one element among many that gives satisfaction. Why else would people volunteer, or work for low pay at organizations they believe in? In other words, when you are negotiating, the dollar amount (or whatever currency you’re getting paid in) is not the only thing you should be thinking about.
In this blog post I am going to suggest 12 things to consider when negotiating your rate. The goal is to help you be more conscious of what exactly you are negotiating about, as well as more strategic.
This post is longer than normal, so if you don’t have the time or inclination to read on, here are the main messages: Know thyself. Think about what the number (your daily rate) means. Decide what matters to you.
The scenario
To make it more realistic, let’s build the discussion around
a typical scenario.
I’m going to posit that you are a consultant working in
international development, although some of what follows applies more broadly.
The basis of your remuneration is your daily rate, because
you undertake short-term assignments, rather than full-time, salaried work. The
daily rate and number of contract days are normally the basis of short-term
contracts in this field.
You have entered into discussions with an organization over a short-term assignment. Let’s call them Acme & Partners International. They are a consulting firm based in Arlington, VA and they submit proposals to organizations like the World Bank, the UN, and USAID, and they subcontract consultants like you.
They found your profile on Devex.com or assortis.com, they’ve checked out your references and contacted you. You’ve had a few exchanges. It turns out that, yes, you are available and there is mutual interest in having you on the project. Your role and responsibilities have been defined. You’re expected to spend part of your time working from home and part of your time onsite, i.e. overseas. So far so good.
Because you haven’t worked for Acme before, you need to
agree on remuneration. The subject might come up as part of their initial
inquiry as to your qualifications, interest, and/or availability, or it might
come up later.
Like most organizations, Acme has a standard range —
and upper limit — for the daily rate they are willing to offer their
subcontractors, i.e. independent consultants like you. It will be based on some
combination of their fee structure or guidelines, what they pay similar
consultants, and the demand for your services.
Now that we’ve got the preliminaries out of the way, what
factors should you take into consideration when negotiating your rate?
1. Any previous assignments may be used as reference points
If you have previous consulting work experience, you will
probably have received different fees, and thus established a range. For the
rest of the discussion, we’ll think in terms of your range. That range can be
wide or narrow.
If you are new to the field of consulting and have not yet
had an assignment based on your daily rate, ask around for advice. Ideally, ask
another consultant. If you’ve been employed full-time somewhere, do not
divide your salary by 250 (the approximate number of working days in a year) to
arrive at your rate. Why? You will
arrive at a figure which is too low, because the full-time nature of salaried
work, the benefits, and the overhead covered by the employer, do not generally
apply to independent consulting work.
Especially as a beginning consultant, you will probably not
be working a full 250 days. It took me about three years working as a
consultant before I was able to corral enough assignments to keep me more or
less busy year-round. And, as noted, you need to take into account the fact
that you will not be getting benefits — health insurance, vacation, sick
days, etc. —
with this rate.
Also, bear in mind your personal overhead —
i.e. the time you spend on activities associated with your work for which you
cannot bill a client. These activities include things like updating your CV, applying
for assignments or responding to inquiries, planning and organizing your
schedule, managing your taxes and accounts, developing your technical capacity,
maintaining or building up your professional network, etc.
Unless you’re a superstar in your field or your skills are
hard to find, you will not be able to unilaterally declare your rate. The vast
majority of us live and function in a world of constraints. That requires self-knowledge
and intelligent negotiating.
Ideally, the rate you eventually agree on with Acme will be
toward the upper end of your own range. However, there are a number of reasons
you may accept a rate that is toward the low end of your range, or even below
it. Read on.
2. How much do I want or need this assignment?
Have you been trying to get work with Acme (or the UN or the
World Bank) for a long time, and this seems like your chance? Have you always
wanted to go to South Africa, and this is your opportunity? Have you been
trying to get experience on refugee issues?
The more attractive the assignment is, the more willing you
may be to agree to a rate that is toward the bottom of your range. On the other
hand, if you’re feeling lukewarm about the assignment, think about how much
they’d have to pay you (and under what conditions) for you to say “yes.” In
other words, anything below that — you’d be willing to walk away, no
regrets.
3. Are there any opportunity costs?
What if you accept this three-month assignment —
which perhaps you’re sort of interested in, since you need the money, but you’re
not enthused by — and then, a month from now a much better one comes along?
It might pay better, or it might be more aligned with your skills or goals, or
it might just be more interesting. Will you have to forgo the better
opportunity because you’ve committed to Acme already? If yes, then that’s your opportunity cost.
The higher your opportunity cost (i.e. the chances of
missing out on something better) the less willing you should be to accept a
lower rate. Of course, you may be able to say yes to both, and fit them both into
your schedule.
I tend to have multiple assignments going on at once.
Juggling is part of the deal. Here’s a bonus trade secret —
it is very common for projects to start later than planned. If the whole
discussion so far has been about starting the work on September 1, don’t be
surprised if it actually starts in October.
4. Will this assignment lead to other opportunities?
Some organizations are difficult to break into. Maybe this
Acme contract is with USAID, whom you’ve always wanted to work for — either
directly or indirectly. USAID, like other organizations, likes it when
consultants have previous USAID experience.
If you think this will indeed open up other doors, then you
may not feel like negotiating too hard. But be a bit careful here —
see Consideration #5.
5. Will this rate determine my rate for all future work with this company or organization?
The answer to that is usually yes. You won’t lock yourself
in, but future increases will be based on this first contract. We can call this
“salary path dependency.” If you start too low, you potentially are giving up a
lot of income down the line. It’s true that $20 per day may not seem like a
substantial amount on a 50-day contract. However, if you end up working off and
on for Acme over the next 10 years, for an average of 50 days per year, that’s
500 days, i.e. equivalent to $10,000.
A low daily rate at Acme won’t necessarily depress your
ability to get a better daily rate elsewhere. Most organizations won’t
generally ask you about your previous rates but some might. (USAID is the
exception, requiring the so-called bio-data form which asks you to list your
salary or rate for the past three years — but note that in some states asking
about previous salaries is now illegal.)
However, a good daily rate can be used as leverage in
negotiations with other organizations.
6. Are there other benefits?
Maybe the daily rate is only part of a package. For example,
the Asian Development Bank typically includes a fairly generous lump sum per
diem amount for every day of onsite work in its contracts. The per diem
includes both accommodation and ‘meals and incidentals’ (most organizations
provide a per diem only for meals and incidentals), so it can be substantial.
If you don’t splurge by staying at a luxury hotel and eating at fancy
restaurants, you can come out ahead. This might lead you to accept a lower
rate.
Another benefit might be that this particular assignment
includes a lot of flexibility — in terms of when and where and how
the work is done. If that is important to you, factor that into your
thinking.
7. Are there any creative solutions lying around?
Sometimes managers may be happy to pay you more, but they
have to work within their organization’s fee structure, which maybe doesn’t
align with your range. The budget is there, and both the manager and you want
to move forward.
In such a case, sometimes more days can be added to your
contract, effectively increasing the total amount while not exceeding fee
guidelines. The outcome might be that, instead of the initially mooted 20-day
contract you get a 25-day contract.
Another option is to enter into a lump sum contract, with no reference to any daily rate at all. A lump sum contract refers only to a total amount, and does not break out expenses for travel, accommodation or other items, which you must cover out of the total sum. You are not required to submit receipts. With a lump sum contract you can avoid being constrained by a low daily rate, and work the number of days that is appropriate to the total contract amount, taking into account expenses. Lump sum contracts are not very common, however, in the international development field.
8. Do I have to pay taxes?
Because Acme is a private company, the answer is yes.
However, at some organizations, such as the IMF and World Bank, international
hires do not pay taxes, only U.S. citizens do. That means U.S. citizens need to
try and ensure their daily rates are about 25-30% above what their fellow
international consultant rates are.
If you are a U.S. citizen and are earning the same amount as
an international hire, you are effectively paying a tax penalty, because, come
next April, you will owe a cut of your income to Uncle Sam, while they will
not. In theory, this would put U.S. consultants at a competitive disadvantage.
However, as a rule, I have not found this to be the case. Hiring managers tend
to have budgets that are elastic enough to enable them to focus on
qualifications.
9. Do I want to help this organization out?
Let’s say you really like Acme and the work they are doing, because they’re a small outfit, doing incredibly meaningful work to help _______ [fill in the blank with your favorite cause]. Maybe they simply don’t have very much budget for the work they’re asking you to do.
In this case, you may be happy to charge them less than your
normal rate or range. That’s absolutely fine. However, I suggest stating up
front that you are giving them a ‘discount’, so that this doesn’t set a
precedent. Thus, if you normally would be asking for x, then charge them 50% of
that. That way, your standard daily rate has not gone down, you have simply
given this particular organization a one-time rebate.
There are some assistance programs that rely on pro-bono
work. They recruit highly skilled senior specialists in a particular field to
work pro bono, i.e. for no fee at all. These might be, for example,
contract lawyers, horticulture specialists or infectious disease specialists
whose day job is academia or at a government agency. The program only pays for
their travel and expenses.
I’ve even heard that work done pro bono can exceed
the quality of paid consultants. The money motivation is just not there;
they’re doing it because they enjoy solving problems, engaging with
counterparts abroad, and making a difference.
10. Is the marginal difference important to me?
It could be that the marginal difference of a higher rate
isn’t meaningful to you. Maybe you don’t even need the extra income.
For example, you’re approaching the end of your career and
the extra income that a 10% higher rate would bring just doesn’t make a
difference. Or maybe you have reached your annual income target, if you have
one. This also highlights the fact that at different phases in your career
different considerations come into play.
Likewise, the pro bono assignments described above
may be more accepted by professionals who have the income or accrued assets to
the extent that they are willing to work (occasionally) for free.
11. Should I always negotiate?
Yes (while bearing in mind the previous considerations).
12. Won’t negotiating make me seem difficult, or greedy?
No, it won’t. Negotiating, if conducted in a reasonable way,
is considered normal and is expected. It may also be as simple as a few emails exchanging
offers and counter-offers.
Keep the tone pleasant, be reasonable and make a good argument. The organization may or may not be able to meet your request, but they won’t hold it against you that you asked for more. There is a side-benefit to the negotiation process: the back and forth over daily rates and other aspects of the contract gives both you and Acme a chance to get to know one another better before making a commitment. And that’s always a good thing.
I recently had the pleasure of being a guest speaker at the International Relations Career Challenge (IRCC), a week-long intensive program aimed at young professionals aspiring to get into the field of international development. It is a terrific professional development opportunity run by Young Professionals United Nations (YPUN), an organization helping young professionals build their international relations careers.
I spoke on the subject of independent consulting in the international development sector, a seemingly daunting path that generated plenty of questions from participants. Some focused on whether it is a path worth pursuing, how to get started, and what are the risks involved.
Let’s get this out of the way first – independent consulting is not for everyone, and I’ve written elsewhere about the downsides. It can be risky the first few years, when there is lots of uncertainty about finding enough assignments to earn a living with. However, it can be an attractive option for those who don’t enjoy 9-to-5 office life, have a set of marketable skills and the motivation to pursue a more independent path.
In this post, I’m going go over in more detail just one of the topics I touched on at IRCC: six ways of finding finding assignments. Three are active and three are passive.
Active methods
Responding to job announcements. The conventional way of getting most work, whether full time or consulting assignments, is applying for advertised assignments. You scan the relevant sites for job announcements and apply to the ones that look attractive and for which you feel qualified. For example, Devex.com lists short-term assignments, as do others, such as Indeed.com and Developmentaid.org.
Reaching out to your personal and professional network. It is a good idea to reach out to friends, colleagues, and acquaintances to ask if they can introduce you to people working in your sector. Once you make a connection, arrange an informational interview, thereby getting to know an organization or company better, and putting yourself on their radar.
Cold calls. Today’s version of “cold calling” simply means contacting professionals in your field without any third-party introduction. This could be through email, Linked In, Facebook, Twitter, organizational websites, or publications. If you are working within an organization, permanently or temporarily, you can simply send the appropriate person an email or, better yet, just knock on their door.
Passive methods
Seeding the Internet with your profile/CV. This is important in terms of making your profile, and availability known. You can post your CV on a number of jobs websites such as Devex, LinkedIn, and organization websites. You can also upload your CV to the websites of consulting firms that work in the sector. You can find a lot (though not all) of firms working on US government contracts at these websites:
Small Business Association for International Companies: sbaic.org/about
Socializing in the real world. Now
this is the easy and fun part. It involves randomly getting to know people during
the course of your workday, at events, workshops, seminars, conferences, embassy
soirees, cocktail parties, dinner parties, bar-b-ques and so on. You get the
picture. Face-to-face contact is hugely important (see knocking on doors,
above). It gives people a sense of your character, which can build trust, or at
least a willingness to risk hiring you. If someone gets a good impression of you, that
will separate you from the pile of nameless, faceless CVs. I don’t claim to
understand why, exactly, being in the same room with someone and being able to
look them in the eyes is so important. Ostensibly all the important information
about your experience and expertise is detailed on your CV. But that’s how the
world works.
Through referrals. The
final passive method is something that will take care of itself as you
accumulate work experience. Do a good job, prove yourself to be competent and
reliable, and managers you’ve worked with will recommend you – to colleagues or
others in the sector – for other opportunities. They may change organizations
and then come back to you for more, and voila! you have a new client.
The passive approach isn’t completely passive, of course. Some
minimal activity is still required on your part. However, two of the passive
methods involve a limited amount of up-front work, maybe a couple of days’
worth, after which they go on autopilot while you focus on other things. The socializing “method” involves you getting
out of the house and mingling with the rest of the world. It shouldn’t really
involve job searching or any sort of stress. Going to parties, events,
workshops and seminars is merely about you being in circulation and keeping up
with what’s going on. Then let serendipity do the rest.
What method works best?
If this were one of those so-called sensationalist click-baiting websites, I would have titled this post something like “6 Common Ways to find Consulting Jobs: You’ll Be Shocked that #5 works best,” or “Why You Should Go to Parties to Find your Dream Job.” Sorry, I just don’t have the stomach for it. And you’ll notice from the lack of ads that I don’t depend on this blog site for income.
However, passivity and partying are, in fact, very good
approaches. Similar to investing in the stock market, in the medium to
long-run, passive investing for your job search beats active investing by
far.
Early in your career or job search, you
can afford to invest your time in the active strategies. The opportunity cost
is low. That is, you don’t have many alternative ways of spending your time. However,
the more experience you have, and the broader your network, the more important
your passive approach to getting work will become. In any case, if all goes
well, you will be too busy to apply for work.
After a couple of years in the field, passive methods will dominate
In my first couple of years as a consultant I tried all six methods. And all, except the first, have paid off. All I got for my application efforts were a few interviews, during which I clearly didn’t, ahem, shine. They did not lead to work. Luckily the other methods have worked fairly well. And over the past 15 years or so, fully 100 percent of my assignments come from passive methods. That means I can devote most of my energy to the work I have and not looking for the work I don’t have.
And yes, for those who are curious, my stock market investment strategy is also passive…
In many fields, starting out can be daunting. This goes not
only for those who have graduated from university but for more seasoned
professionals interested in switching careers.
How do you step onto that first rung of the ladder in the
field of international development? Even though unemployment has hit historic
lows, and jobs are seemingly plentiful, you don’t want to get onto just any old
ladder that’s leaning against a wall — you want to get onto a ladder that
will get you over the right wall.
What are the barriers to entry and how can you overcome them?
In this post, I’ll take a look at four barriers to launching a career in
international development – experience, knowledge, confidence and name
recognition – and some things you can do to lower them.
The experience barrier
The experience barrier can be a maddening catch-22.
Employers want you to have experience, but how do you gain experience if you
haven’t been employed yet? For junior professionals, the experience issue isn’t
about the problem-solving skills. It is about whether you’ve done something
similar before — even just once — and whether you can deliver the
goods.
Through time, this barrier will fade as you build up a body of work. Meanwhile, you need to find creative ways to compensate for your (temporarily) limited experience. If you don’t have professional experience, you may have country experience or language skills from living or studying overseas. Other things that compensate for lack of experience could be your interest in, and commitment to, working in the international development field. Or, better yet, your interest (some call it passion) in a particular issue, whatever it is that keeps you up at night.
A good way of getting experience is to take field
assignments, even volunteer ones. You go to live and work in a country for a
period of time, test your mettle, and gain a better sense of how the real world
works. This is a great way of gaining a perch on the career ladder, while also
learning a new language, and accumulating some marketable practical skills
along the way. I recall a friend saying
that even minimal overseas experience helps.
Her international recruiter explained it this way: “Look, we just want
to make sure that when you get off the plane you don’t freak out and turn
around and come right back. This, unfortunately, has happened more times than
we care to admit.”
Being well-spoken, personable, and reliable, possessing good
analytical and writing skills are always good attributes to have. You can
demonstrate all these things in person and by sharing examples of written work.
And while having 20-30 years of experience in one area is highly valued and
opens doors, it is, of course, only expected of very senior professionals. For
junior professionals, having successfully performed a project once signals to
prospective hiring managers or clients that you can be trusted to do it again.
There is running a joke at the World Bank, where staff shift between projects
and countries at a pretty high frequency, that if you done something once, you
can be considered an expert.
The knowledge barrier
If you are a recent graduate, the knowledge you draw on will
be mostly theoretical. And much of it may turn out to be only marginally applicable
to the work you end up doing.
In the consulting field, technical knowledge relating to a
field or a method is what is most valued. Some examples are: rural water supply
systems, climate change mitigation, social behavior change, natural resource
management, data analytics, governance, and evaluation methodologies.
To build up an area of knowledge, it is advisable not to spread
yourself too thinly. Find a niche that interests you, and focus on building up your
expertise there. After a while, you may find that the niche area that you chose
has a lot of transfer potential, and you can apply it to other sectors. Teach
yourself about the economics of forestry. Learn a statistical software program.
Follow blogs and podcasts that cover a specific issue. All of that will make you more marketable. In
the meantime, you’re keeping your synapses active.
The confidence barrier
Not having worked in the field yet, and not (yet) having a wide
network of experienced friends and colleagues, may make you feel you are at a
disadvantage. It may sap your confidence. How can you compete with the
professionals you meet? My advice is to be bold. Suppress those misgivings.
Hide your nervousness, wear a confident smile. Most people won’t notice your
nerves. Remember that all these senior professionals also started out with zero
experience at some point.
I know of a young woman who was desperate to get her foot in
the door of New York’s high-stakes fashion industry. Freshly graduated, she cold called a
name-brand designer and was told there were no jobs. “Nevertheless,” as they say, “she persisted.” By the end of the call, she had wrangled an
internship, based on her years as a summer camp counselor, where, she assured
them, there was no crisis she couldn’t handle.
And if you are young, remember that you come with distinct advantages.
You probably possess some measure of energy, enthusiasm, resilience,
intellectual curiosity, and analytical prowess that many of us older folks wish
we still had! You also bring tech and social media savvy that you may take for
granted, but that may be valued by your employers.
The name recognition barrier
By virtue of being new to the field, you are unknown. You don’t have “name recognition” as they like to say in politics, because no one knows you. Bizarrely enough, we seem to live in an age where name recognition trumps competence, ideas, and even previously unacceptable behavior when it comes to politicians getting elected. The lesson for you, however, is not to see how much you can get away with and still get hired — the lesson is that name recognition is really, really important.
It is completely normal and understandable that people don’t
know who you are. You don’t have a big network yet, or a reputation. Maybe it’s
going too far to say that this is an existential barrier, but before they can
consider hiring you, people simply need to know that you exist…
That means finding as many opportunities as you can handle
to meet people and get your CV out there in the public domain where
organizations and people can find it. Devex, Developmentaid.org, Assortis.org, are
some of the bigger sites in the development field (and LinkedIn works, too) where
you can post your CV and profile and where employers can find you. In addition,
many consulting firms invite people to upload their profile and CV, which they
can then use to identify potential staff or specialists.
While you’re doing this online, nothing can replace
face-to-face networking – through job fairs, think tank events, conferences,
meet-ups and yes, happy hours and parties. I’ve gotten work simply because I
shared an office with someone, or was introduced to them at a bar-b-que.
Conclusion – Natural barriers
We can consider the four above-mentioned obstacles as “natural barriers.” They are part of the landscape. Everyone has faced them, and almost everyone who is working in their profession has overcome them (and gone on to face other obstacles in their career — but that’s another story).
The barriers I’ve described above are actually pretty straightforward, and there are established (and creative) methods for getting over and around them. Learn to enjoy the challenge. Don’t give up at the first rejection. Be resilient. (What you want to avoid doing is creating unnecessary barriers that you have inadvertently created yourself. More on those in a follow-up post.)
You may need to meet or get in touch with 25 people – remember,
name recognition! – before one comes back to you and says, “I’d like to talk to
you about a project…”
Communication, or rather lack thereof, is part of a power game. Whether we like it or not, calculations connected to power and status seem to lurk behind much of human interactions, as well as policy making (not just politics, as some might think). Not responding is a way of not cooperating, or a signal or non-cooperation. By not responding, one side essentially raises its status at the expense of the other side, at least temporarily. At a minimum, it leaves one side in a state of uncertainty as to what the silence signifies. It is a potent way of saying “I need you less than you need me.”
Silence when there normally should be an answer leaves the other party guessing, speculating as to the reason why. It can even lead to a fundamental change in the relationship, including its termination. To not answer is to break the golden rule of reciprocity. Some might do so intentionally, others unintentionally, but the effect can be similar.
The use of the non-response frequently plays out in the policy and diplomacy arenas. Silence becomes a strategy. It is a way of creating an information barrier.
Not very long ago I was in a country receiving aid from a development bank (like almost all the countries I work in). Years earlier, I had conducted an evaluation of a sector program. Multi-year efforts had been underway to formulate and promote reforms in the sector. This involved convening sector stakeholders at regular meetings to discuss their proposals, concerns, interests, etc. within the framework of the problems that were identified needed to be addressed. However, the agency responsible for managing the sector – related to natural resources – had a reputation for being corrupt. It did not welcome the reform attempts, although it didn’t reject them outright, either. It simply did not respond to invitations to join the discussion forums. Representatives never showed up.
The agency, or at least its personnel, were indeed the stakeholders with the most to lose. Serious reforms would have reduced rent-seeking and corruption, the “excess remuneration” the agency staff were generating for themselves. In not cooperating, in not accepting the invitations to engage in dialogue, they were acting rationally, from their point of view, anyway.
Years later, the sector reforms still have not been implemented and, according to my sources, corruption at the agency continues to flourish. By not showing up, the agency was employing a power play that ultimately worked in their favor, although to the detriment of many other stakeholders who would have benefited (and still can) from reforms.
How to respond to the non-response?
When first confronted with silence in lieu of a response, it is best to consider the possibility that the reason is benign and not intended as an adversarial signal. Perhaps the other person did not receive the message, or received it and is still intending to respond, but is taking a long time. Or, they never got around to responding, and feel guilty about it. Your message may have gone to junk mail. They may have changed their email address. They may have had a death in the family or, God forbid, have passed on to the great beyond themselves. Those are all reasonably good excuses, ranging from the acceptable to the, shall we say, unassailable. They are forgivable sins.
Giving the non-responder a second chance, with a friendly follow-up reminder, is thus a good idea. If you have tried again, and still get no response, however, it may well be time to reciprocate, by “answering” silence with silence.
Have you found yourself in a situation where you asked someone a question, especially in a face-to-face situation, and they simply ignored you? It is not pleasant. On top of all that, there is also a gender angle here, as my astute editor, Kitty Thuermer points out: over the years, women have complained about being professionally ignored, not heard, or marginalized by the men they work with. It is a most aggravating position to be in, and a most effective way of driving the nail in a relationship. (Although maybe we need to make an exception for the long-married couple, for whom a pattern of ignoring the other might be a habit more than anything else.) But in most other circumstances, ignoring someone is a power play, a signal of disrespect. I have rarely seen it used blatantly, I must add, but it is a very strong signal, with often immediate consequences for the relationship.
Sometimes, however, exit from the relationship is not a valid
option. Because of the nature of the professional or personal relationship,
there may be a compelling reason to keep reaching out in the face of silence.
For example, if the other party is in a position of authority in the
organization or network to which you belong, or where in order to move forward,
you absolutely must have a response. If you are in a dependent relationship, or
dependent salary and benefits, you may lack the power to reciprocate.
Still, it is doubtful such a situation cannot persist for
long without some sort resolution, as pressure build to move to a new equilibrium.
When not talking is justified
Sometimes, maintaining silence is about dignity. I recommend
not responding when people make inappropriate and unacceptable remarks. If they
are directing their words at someone else and they is unfair, demeaning, or prejudiced,
then you should, of course, respond. Not doing so would signal acquiescence.
This is not a tactic, it is simply the right thing to (not) do. But stony silence
can be a force for good in these cases.
Thus, talking is not necessarily always a good idea even if one’s intentions are good. Your choice
depends on the circumstances. You need to be discerning enough to know when to
talk and when to zip it. For a lot of
us, that can involve a lifetime of learning. And to re-apply the golden rule: Do not
do unto others that which you do not
want done unto you.
Is more or better communication always the answer? No, of
course not. Communication is not a silver bullet. It doesn’t solve every
problem.
People have different embedded values, opinions, and interests. And if they are strongly held, talking just ain’t gonna change minds. As probably most married (or unmarried) couples have noticed, certain issues don’t simply disappear no matter how much time is spent talking them over. My wife and I have been having pretty much the same conversation —over the design of a minor renovation project — for nigh on half a year, and we’re no closer to resolution, as far as I can tell. (Right now, chances are it will never happen!) This is despite the fact that in most other respects our marital communication seems to work reasonably well, I would venture.
Lincoln’s “hot
letter” routine
There are times when someone else’s problem isn’t yours, and
you don’t want it to become yours by starting a line of communication. There
are also times when you can avoid creating problems by restricting your
communication, when less is more.
This can be to the point where saying nothing at all may be
best for everyone involved. This might be true when, for example, you find
yourself on the verge of a fight, which could lead toward a rift in a relationship,
at work or elsewhere.
Imagine a team member or supervisor has written you email
criticizing your performance or questioning your judgment or abilities. Or they
have said something you find unfair and you are fuming. I’ve been there. In the
heat of the moment, the temptation arises to write them an angry response, explaining,
defending, rationalizing, setting the story straight. Quite possibly the tone
of your response skirts the bounds of what is seemly and professionally
acceptable. You marshal a series of points to make a brilliant argument, but
along the way you start coming across as some combination of defensive,
self-righteous, petty, and oversensitive. Believe me, it won’t make you look
good. It’s not a risk you want to take. However, by all means write that angry email
or text or tweet, but then…before you send it, hit delete.
Abraham Lincoln was a proponent of writing angry letters —
he called them “hot
letters” — but then he would simply not send them. He got whatever
he had to say off his chest, a therapeutic experience. Yet by not sending the
letter he avoided damaging a relationship or making a decision in anger. This
is a most excellent practice. It takes some discipline, but we would do well to
abide by it.
On the virtues of
being bland and brief
Of course, after you’ve written (and deleted) your hot
letter, you may still need to respond in some fashion. However, when you do, the
shorter and more innocuous the response, the better for all involved. I’ve
learned this the hard way.
Nowadays, if someone asks for my advice about what to write when
they are miffed about something, I generally encourage them to let it out all
out, to tell me what is bothering them…verbally. Then I tell them to write
their response but keep it cool, calm, professional, and brief.
Talking serves, among other things, a revelatory purpose. Through
talking (or communicating in some form) people reveal useful information, about
where they stand, their concerns, their values, etc. There is the subject at
hand, of course (e.g. the threat of artificial intelligence (AI) to human employment;
there is the attitude toward that subject (AI is going to be a huge risk); and
there is the way they express themselves, or the oratorical tone (distanced,
passionate, sardonic, etc.).
I’m willing to bet that, all things being equal, the longer
people talk, the more they reveal. And what they reveal comes not only through
words, but also through their body language, signals, etc. some of which maybe
intentional and some not.
In a previous
post, I wrote about how dialogue between stakeholders was such an
important, and yet not overly complicated, solution to many problems — particularly
those involving people or groups with different interests. The post touched on
several reasons why talking things out is so conducive to resolving issues. I urged readers to always consider it as a
potential solution.
The Los Angeles Times, in an article about how the recent horrific Sri Lanka Easter Sunday bombings were enabled by poor communication argued that “Free press and open communication foster debate and combat falsehoods and prejudices, between and within the various groups.”
The many things that talking is good for
To explore the phenomenon a bit further, talking with other people, like some of the most popular things in this world, serves multiple purposes. (Think of the multi-functionality of the smartphone, and before that, the Swiss Army knife, not to mention the mouth or, heck, the human being. I could go on.)
Talking allows you to inform — or misinform, if that is your goal — to explain, to learn, to exchange information, to persuade, to clarify a position, to explore areas of common interest, to negotiate, to connect and build a relationship, even to empower the other side. As to this last example, think of a regime which, after months of anti-regime protests, agrees to meet and talk with the protesters. This significantly enhances the protesters’ credibility. To go back to the assertion I opened with, talking is crucial for reducing uncertainty and doubt by putting more information out there.
The beauty of the live
experience
Unlike one-way or back and forth sporadic communication, with gaps in between, talking face-to-face (or via the various videoconferencing technologies) allows you to gauge the reaction of the person you are communicating with, and to modulate your message “in real time,” so to speak. That way, you can ensure your fellow interlocutor understood you correctly, and, if not, you can immediately modify impressions or correct misunderstandings.
Miscommunication –
communication’s evil twin
Poor communication — especially when it is absent, or only
one-way —
results in one or the other parties resorting to filling in the gaps with their
own imagination or assumptions. Even just small gaps in communication can
create uncertainty. If you’ve ever sent an email (or text) and not received an
answer, you’ll know what I mean. Did the other person not get it? Are they too
busy? Do they prefer to communicate through a different platform? Is it a low priority for them? Are they
oblivious? You don’t really know, and so you end up trying to figure out what
the lack of response means.
An interesting example of many people not communicating is the
United Kingdom’s so far unsuccessful attempt to leave the EU —
an event now postponed until the end of October 2019. It is not a stretch to
say that the latest twists and turns in this ongoing Brexit saga —
with the UK trying to extricate itself from the deep economic and regulatory
embrace of the EU — are very much about communication, and its evil twin,
miscommunication. After over two years of unsuccessfully trying to formulate a
plan for leaving the EU that also commands enough votes in Parliament, British
Prime Minister Theresa May finally decided to talk to opposition leader Jeremy
Corbyn in early April, in a last-ditch attempt to fashion a cross-party
compromise. This was something she had resisted for over two years, and many
have criticized May for focusing entirely on internal Tory party issues instead
of trying to find a consensus that a divided country could somehow live with.
While the likelihood of a satisfactory solution to the
Brexit conundrum doesn’t appear any closer, the fact that May agreed to sit
down with Corbyn was an acknowledgement that talking with the other side
presents a potential way out of the impasse.
The next time you open the newspaper and read about some issue or conflict, keep an eye out for mention of communication, or talks. It comes up quite a lot as a sticking point. Typically, observations will be about communication style, or lack of communication, or the need for communication. One reason Richard Plepler left HBO after it was taken over by AT&T was said to be that HBO and its new parent company had communication issues.
Strategic non-communication?
Of course, keeping people guessing by not letting them know what you are thinking or are planning, can be a tactical move. It can benefit you, and not them. It could simply be due to oblivion on the “silent party’s” part. Or it could be deliberate. This is how communication becomes “weaponized” as part of a power play. Needless to say, it is not pleasant to be on the receiving end of this game, especially when you are not prepared for it. What is the best response in such a case? Tit for tat, i.e. stop communicating yourself? Or seek out the opportunity to talk, knowing that you may be rebuffed? We should not forget, either, that there are also ways of communicating that don’t involve words. In a follow-up post, I will explore some of these options.
Although it is said that humans are social animals — which presumably means that they love to talk and hang out with each other — it is rather striking how often they (ahem…we) mangle basic communication. I find the issue of poor communication, which extends all the to no communication, comes up as a problem in many of the projects I evaluate. The problem can arise between the implementer and project beneficiaries, between the funder and the implementer, between management levels at the same organization. And, of course, at times team members also have their own internal communication problems.
Poor communication can result in all sorts of unpleasant outcomes: people stop cooperating, stop doing what they’re supposed to, misunderstand or distrust each other, get frustrated, get angry. Generally, whatever the cause of the miscommunication, it leaves people unhappy. The situation is unstable; there are dynamics which are pushing it to change.
For example, on a recent evaluation I worked on (whose details I can’t divulge), the project counterparts complained that the consultants who were advising them would disappear for months at a time. They wouldn’t hear from them. They didn’t like being kept in the dark, and when they saw the recommendations the consultants produced, they weren’t very happy. There had been almost no consultation, no input. In short, bad communication.
In another evaluation, the donor organized monthly meetings so the different project leaders could share information. However, communication was reduced to presenting progress reports, which most attendees found terribly boring and not very useful. There was no substantive discussion, no back and forth.
I have also been on projects where the team leader simply would not respond to emails, leaving us in the dark.
Why does communication come up so often as an issue in one form or another? Does it not occur to people that it’s helpful to keep others informed, or to check in with them? Are people just too busy? Or perhaps, do people deliberately withhold information, whether out of an abundance of caution or in order to get some advantage? Really, it could be any of these reasons. Take your pick.
It is
inevitable that when two parties sit down to talk, to work something out, each will
have its own interests. These interests may overlap, but they rarely coincide. This
is particularly true at the policy level, when one, or both, parties are
unhappy with their current situation and want it to improve.
Is talking
really necessary? If one party decides to change a situation unilaterally,
without talking to other stakeholders, in all likelihood this would require
coercion and could lead to an unstable new status quo.
I would argue that, as a rule, it is easier, and less costly, to get the other party to agree to a change by taking their interests into account, as opposed to forcing them to comply with a new policy. It may not always be possible, and opposing interests may lead to full-blown conflict, but it is always worth the attempt.
When is the optimum time to sit down and talk?
Let me propose that a situation is ripe for parties to hold talks when things are veering out of balance, out of equilibrium, and it is in at least in one party’s interest to seek a change. Of course, both parties may be interested in talking, or it could be just the one. In the latter case, it try to might persuade, or even force, the other to engage. The broader objective of talking between stakeholders with different interests is to effect a change.
The new governments of Algeria and Sudan — which replaced those of their ousted leaders, Bouteflika and al Bashir, respectively — may be facing this choice. They will either need to be so strong and ruthless that they force the populace to give in (as many Arab Spring governments in the Middle East have done), or they will need to sit down with opposition leaders and negotiate until a new political system is put into place that everyone can live with. The more powerful the interim governments feel, and the more money and support they get, say, from sympathetic countries, the less they will feel compelled to meet with protesters to address their demands and concerns. In that case, expect the new status quo to be unstable.
Refusing to
talk to others signals that you don’t want to see a change, and/or that you
anticipate losing something as a result.
Of course, there are times when communication may be difficult or impossible, due to language or physical barriers. Although such factors may not be of primary importance, they do also illustrate the value of communication.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma –
communication and cooperation
We can consider the “prisoner’s dilemma” game to illustrate an extreme case — how the failure to communicate leads to sub-optimal outcomes. The prisoner’s dilemma presents a scenario — drawn from game theory — which is based on an inability to communicate and reveals the negative consequences that ensue. Without being able to talk to each other, two prisoners, apprehended for the same violation or crime, will struggle to cooperate. Depending upon the decisions they make, this inability to communicate, can end up hurting both of them.
The dilemma arises because, unable to talk to each other, each prisoner fears the other will betray him or her, and may make a decision which could negatively affect his release.
There are
many variations and applications of the prisoner’s dilemma, including using it for
strategies of cooperating or not cooperating in order to come out ahead in a
game, a competition (in business, for example), or a conflict, and also for
when the game is expanded beyond two parties.
While the game, and the math behind it can get complex, and quite hypothetical in terms of the different outcomes – the larger point is that if the two prisoners could communicate, it is more likely that they would cooperate on an optimal strategy for both, which is generally what it takes to identify solutions that satisfy everyone involved. (Of course, even after agreeing on a strategy, one could still betray the other). Studies have found that, indeed, the ability to communicate reduces the rate of non-cooperation (or “defection” as the academic literature puts).
What I want to draw attention to is the critical factor of communication. Of knowing vs. not knowing what another person’s intentions are. It makes it hard to come to the “right” decision, since you don’t know what the other person wants, what they are thinking. You don’t know where they stand, what they are willing to accept, where they are willing to compromise. Without being able to communicate, the optimal outcome of mutual consensus is out of reach, and both are confined, as it were, to a bad status quo, or “low level equilibrium” (a stable situation that isn’t very good for anyone) as game theorists refer to it. Communication doesn’t automatically erase distrust – the other person may not be sincere, or not keep their word – but it can reduce it.
To return to the context of development work, whether you are in the field, or operating out of headquarters, the inability to communicate with partners, stakeholders or adversaries puts you in a metaphorical prison cell, solitary confinement, only able to guess the other’s intentions. Establishing better communication, breaking out of the metaphorical prison cell, may be the best way of breaking free, and getting to a better, and more stable, equilibrium.
