When Failure is an Option

Having recently come across an essay by former USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios, I’ve been thinking a lot about what contributes to a successful civil society program. In the piece, Mr. Natsios argues – strongly – that accountability mechanisms originally designed to measure the impact of democracy and governance programs have become over emphasized to the point where they actually interfere with achieving development goals.

Naturally, all donors, be they government or private, want their programs to succeed and their funds to be used efficiently. But an overemphasis on predicting outcomes in highly changeable environments (sometimes 2, 3, even 5 years out) can be at odds with the very spirit of innovation that funders also encourage.

Perhaps finding the middle path between accountability and innovation would be aided by adopting J.K. Rowling’s eloquent description of failure as “a stripping away of the inessential.” In this case, innovation isn’t necessarily a lightning bolt threatening sudden change (and possibly failure) but a series of thoughtful, incremental refinements to a given program or activity.

Regardless, what’s needed is a sustained dialogue among those of us in the international development community —grantmakers, implementers, and beneficiaries — about what constitutes success and failure and which of our practices and assumptions serve our goals in both the short- and long-term.

Randal Mason is the Director of Strategic Development

Photo by PixelPlacebo on Flickr