Now that I have sufficiently alienated software engineers and economists, I thought I should take on my dear non-profit workers next ;) Just kidding! No one really cares about what I or anyone else thinks; I am just out here ranting out so I can be less sore in real life-- I am not delusional enough to believe otherwise :D

For as long as I am aware of, we've used theory of change to explain our work to donors, beneficiaries, and anyone who would listen really.

It's a wonderful tool really-- an immensely necessary one too. It helps us as organisations and communities (and even as individuals) stay true and aligned to our North Star. It makes it easy to communicate to stakeholders what we're trying to do around here and why we think it could work.

As an internal Monitoring & Evaluation at a non-profit, and now as an Impact Measurement Consultant that consults on the theory of change of different organisations from time to time, I believe in it; and I believe in it enough to rely on it as a source of income. However, like any tool, especially like any tool of logic it has its limitations and left unchecked, it has potential to be a bit reductive. Through this rant / blog, I will talk to 3 ways I think a theory of change can be misleading.

Firstly, "Additionality": When you look at a theory of change that very clearly explains "A leads to B and B leads to C" it is often quite difficult to take a step back and consider the universe in which A, B, and C exist in, and ask "but what about X? How is A different from X? What is A doing that X is not doing?". If you are familiar with the Big Bang Theory Universe, this is the equivalent of asking "what is the additionality of Raj's character? Is he just the token Indian dude or does his role have sufficient nuance to add value that is distinct from the value Leonard is adding as an awkward scientist who is also a hopeless romantic?"

Secondly, "Criticality": "Okay yes, Raj might have some additionality; but if the script is such that it can move without him, then is it really critical that we have him?". The same goes for interventions as well. There's a lot of things that are good to do; but there are some things that are "must do". Till we earn the luxury to do "good to do" things in the public sector and third sector, we will always need to consider "criticality".

Thirdly, "Sufficiency": "Is it sufficient that Raj is an awkward Indian scientist with a good inheritance". Do we need more background information about him to sufficiently sympathise with him? The way we know about Sheldon, Leonard, and Howard's families, childhoods, and specifically their mothers so much more intimately: it's hard to only be creeped out by Howard when you know his dad left him when he was young. The same goes for non-profit initiatives as well. Since there isn't a profit incentive, often we don't look at marketing and building 'allied assets' to change behavior where required; we assume that if we do the 'right thing', we will be embraced and adopted. This is obviously a fallacy.

Beyond the Big Bang Theory Universe, a good case study for the importance of additionality, criticality, and sufficiency lies in how we approach femtech innovations and gender policies. Before you laud someone the next time they introduce period leave, free travel for women in public transport, and another period tracking app (all of which are great and truly truly useful!), please do ask for:

  • Additionality: what is this adding? Why hasn't it existed all this while or has it?
  • Criticality: in a world where 80% people who have adverse reactions to medicines are women, is this truly where we want to invest our most time, energy, and gender advocates in? Is this a band-aid or a true solution?
  • Sufficiency: sure, we have that policy that makes sure we have gender representation on boards; but what's protecting women's voice and safety in these spaces?

Let's not let logic models and theory of change approach interventions as reductively as we are as things stand today; let's pause, take a look at the system more expansively, and use our human judgement where essential to create holistic solutions that stick-- interventions that can end.

It might seem like I am making a case against logic. But honestly, I make a living out of our collective obsession with 'logic' and I truly love logic. My case ain't against logic, it's just against the overuse and abuse of logic; here's to a world where we could treat the mind and heart, the right brain and the left brain, the yin and the yang at par with each other, as cringe as I feel saying those words like that: but like a wise young poet once said "do not suppress the cringey parts of you! Suppress the parts of you that cringe!".