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.
In a world of intractable problems that often seem to demand complex or high-tech solutions, what is one simple way to cut through the layers and build a consensus to move forward? Start talking…face to face.
Although not a guaranteed remedy, getting people with different interests in the same room to hash out an issue is a tried and true method of dealing with all sorts of impasses. Bringing different sides to the table to sit down and talk together, or creating forums for discussion is a powerful, time-tested tool, whether the parties are in a dispute, have different interests, are communicating poorly, or are merely not paying attention to each other’s concerns. Discussing issues over a meal is even better. Apparently, sharing food has a positive impact on negotiations, according to The Economist.
It is striking how often poor communication comes up as an issue in the news, and — just as striking — how often good communication is considered part of the solution to problems large and small. From international summits to talks on climate change to committee meetings, to mediation as an alternative to court proceedings, to couples’ therapy, creating the space for conversation is at the heart of many solutions. In Eastern Europe, I once evaluated a USAID project whose purpose was to improve economic governance by promoting public private dialogue (PPD). For the uninitiated, PPD is a thing — with its own website , charter, and handbook. About $20 million in project funds were spent in convening stakeholders from government, business and civil society. These resources also covered organizing meetings and retreats on reforms in different sectors. In addition, the project complemented the dialogue forums with analytical work on individual reforms. Guess what? The public private dialogue approach was, by and large, perceived as effective by all three stakeholder groups. The PPD platform did ensure that in many cases the reforms incorporated the interests of the different actors, and, by doing so, helped move them forward. The initiative was seen as one of the most important influences on reforms.
Just getting parties to talk seems like such a simple thing, compared with all the thorny problems facing society, and the sophisticated solutions being promoted (artificial intelligence, anyone?). And talking really means talking, not texting, videoconferencing, or some other forum of digital communication. I’m not denying that these have their uses, but nothing seems to be as effective as face-to-face meetings for building rapport. How else to explain the estimated 462 million business trips taken in the U.S. (in 2017)? Think of the awkward pauses during conference calls, or the unreliable technology that shuts you off in the middle of a videoconference. But even if these issues were addressed somehow, there is a qualitative difference to talking to someone sitting in front of you.
Pay attention and you’ll see that meeting in order to talk is a solution to many, many problems. In her book Leadership in Turbulent Times , Doris Kearns Goodwin recounts how Teddy Roosevelt brought mine owners and workers together to resolve the months-long 1902 anthracite coal strike by United Mine Workers of America, which was threatening to cause major social disruptions. A recent Financial Times(behind paywall) article by Sylvaine Chassany describes French President Emmanuel Macron’s initiative to connect with citizens by holding conversations around the country — organized by En Marche party moderators. Although the word “engagement” is overused, Macron’s motive was to enable people to share their concerns directly with the government. Of course, resolutions to virtually all violent conflicts, are, at one point or another, sought through multi-party talks: North Korea, Iran, Ukraine and so on. Of course, it doesn’t always work out.
There are alternatives. One example would be the one-sided resolution delivered by crushing defeat if you’re on the losing side. There is a school of thought that this approach is actually preferred, as it is stable and final. Continued non-cooperation, or stalemate, is also very common. Or how about endless conflict? Examples of the latter that come to mind are the Israel-Palestine and Afghanistan conflicts. In fact, Wikipedia lists 55 ongoing conflicts that have lasted at least 20 years apiece. Whether these alternatives are preferred or not, they are depressingly widespread. Winston Churchill reportedly said “to jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war,” or words to that effect.
What talks can do
Talking things over with others is a good idea even when you are not at war. It can serve all kinds of ends. Beyond resolving conflicts, it is a good a way of sharing news or information (e.g. the press conference), obtaining information (e.g. interviews), exploring opportunities (e.g. business meetings); promoting ideas (e.g. during campaigning by politicians and activists), or just building trust by bringing in the personal element, when previously it was all about power or preferences. Talking is, admittedly, not necessarily a solution in and of itself. However, it seems that it has some attributes that are conducive to finding solutions. What might they be? I propose the following:
Just showing up for talks demonstrates a willingness to listen to the other side. It signals a cooperative posture, giving both sides confidence that they are not wasting their time.
By their nature, talks force the other side to listen to other views, positions, perspectives, and whatever else they need to get off their chest. Otherwise, outside of talking, the information the other side wants to share may primarily be seen via propaganda, or (possibly biased) media like the press or social media. Listening to others express themselves will probably lead to their views being considered, at a minimum.
Talks can ease tension. They allow different sides to express their positions.
A discussion forum can empower people who felt their voices weren’t being heard. This can help even the playing field
The brainstorming aspect to seek solutions can generate proposals and help chart a way forward.
It is an efficient way of sharing information. Talks focus on the essentials, compared to written reports which may contain much useful information, but much that is extraneous to the purpose of the meeting.
So the next time that you find yourself scratching your head, or worse — banging it against a wall — reach for the low-tech, low hanging fruit. Advise people to sit down together and work it out verbally. Way before Microsoft capitalized and appropriated the term, the Bible’s famous opening line was: “In the beginning was the Word.”
Regardless of what you think of politicians who love to speak in these terms, it is fair to say that the world is full of winners and losers. Government policy may be active, e.g. raising tariffs or taxes to improve its fiscal situation, or it may be passive, e.g. standing by while the forces of globalization and technology sweep jobs from an economy. In either case, some people benefit, some don’t, and some lose out. In fact, just about every benefit comes with a cost, but those costs are not evenly distributed.
Despite great progress in many sectors of the economy, inequality has increased in the US and elsewhere. According to the Pew Research Center, while median real wages have barely budged since 1970, most of the gains since 2000 have gone to the top 10 percent of the population.
How do we know what the impacts will be?
It is extremely difficult to predict the exact impacts of a given policy. Many factors come into play, and there are direct and indirect impacts. However, you can make estimates, and that can be very useful. A big part of my work involves looking at the potential impacts of policy reforms in developing countries. Years ago, the World Bank developed an approach called Poverty and Social Impact Analysis , or PSIA. This is a type of evaluation. It deploys quantitative and qualitative research methods to muck around in people’s financial and economic cupboards (using surveys and focus groups, for example) to try and figure out how they might fare if the government enacts a new policy.
How does this work in practice? I often conduct studies on the effects of price increases on different population groups. Analysis allows us to predict what the effects will be in terms of affordability for different income groups. Quite simply, we assess the winners and losers of a given reform. If electricity rates go up 25%, but you also get more hours of electricity supply per day, what does that mean for you, as a poor household? The risk is that the losers, in the short-term, will be those for whom electricity bills are a serious chunk of their total expenditures.
The agony of asking others to delay their gratification
Of course, reforms typically aim for positive outcomes. But these don’t kick in immediately. In the short-term, most people may experience only costs. The long-term benefits are abstract and perhaps uncertain. This is especially the case if the government has a poor track record of following through on its plans.
The relative costs of a price hike will be higher for those least able to afford the good or service being reformed. Thus, raising water or electricity rates can be a delicate exercise. It can make people quite unhappy, and politicians quite nervous. But those tariffs do need to rise. Otherwise, what will ensure that a utility company can operate sustainably, invest in operations and maintenance, attract external financing, and expand its network?
Tariffs are not boring if you’re poor
If you think utility rates is a boring topic, think again. Such an attitude suggests you are comfortably middle class. Probably your eyes glaze over when you see news reports from some faraway country about the latest unrest over price rises. At most, you may be mildly irritated when your utility bill goes up.
In fact, it is not unusual in some countries that when prices rise, some people pay with their lives. Demonstrations and riots occur on a regular basis. People protest against government attempts to squeeze more money out of people (the demonstrator’s perspective). The argument that it will put a utility on a sustainable footing (the technocrat and economist’s perspective) is not accepted. Especially when the government is perceived as corrupt and unaccountable.
Demonstrations over prices can block policies…and bring down governments
Just last month, violent demonstrations broke out in Cote d’Ivoire against proposed electricity price increases. One person was shot dead by security forces. In Nigeria in 2012 cuts to fuel subsidies led to widespread, violent protests leading to two deaths and many injured. In Bulgaria in 2013 in response to a doubling of electricity rates, six people immolated themselves, and street protests brought down the government. In 2015, Armenians took to the streets to protest proposed electricity price hikes, and dozens were injured. There are many other such cases throughout the world.
The Cochabamba demonstrations in Bolivia, dramatized in the 2010 feature film Even the Rain starring Gael Garcia Bernal, is a great primer on this, although it shows just one side of the story: the poor protesting against the privatization of the city’s water supplier. (It’s also an excellent and evocative film which draws a parallel between oppression by elite outsiders over 500 years of history.) The other side of the story, not covered in the film, concerns the aftermath of the multinational water company’s departure. Sixteen years on, the cost of water has indeed stayed low, but most of the poor still don’t have access to it. In other words, it was Pyrrhic victory for the protesters
Put some effort into finding a way forward
Yet it doesn’t have to be either/or. Yes, tariffs do have to cover costs or the infrastructure will break down and a lot of people will be left without any water at all. But there is more than one way to skin a cat. As a government, you can raise prices – or reduce subsidies, effectively the same thing for the consumer – gradually. You can include protection measures for the poor. You can engage on the problem with people affected. You can be smart about communicating why you have to do this.
In 2003, I was part of a team that studied the impact on the poor of rising electricity rates in Moldova. We found that the poorest 20% of households were not cutting back on electricity use, but were even consuming more. This was because the poverty rate had been coming down, so people in general had more money in their pockets to spend. In another study, in Lebanon, we found that the real (inflation-adjusted) cost of public electricity tariffs had been falling for years, but reliance on expensive private generation has pushed up household electricity expenditures.
The type of approach mentioned above – poverty and social impact analysis – can be usefully applied to all sorts of different reforms, not just utility tariffs. By doing some investigating, and carefully analyzing the data, the road to reforms can be smoothed. Social unrest can be avoided.
Government wins by generating goodwill among the population. It shows cares about them and is trying to work out a solution. And the people win because their needs and circumstances are being taken into account, and painful up-front costs are being reduced.
