Adopting a nonlinear goals mindset in M&E: A case for loosening up as we strive for sustainable and inclusive outcomes

The field of evaluation can be highly innovative in its approaches but there’s still a tendency for many of us to get stuck in traditional, more rigid habits.The field is accustomed to generating detailed plans, drafting goals and expected outcomes that are SMART, and collecting data according to these predefined metrics.
While as guiding principles these things are critical to have, we usually rely on them to the point of these metrics being an end all, be all for our work. We can fall into overly defined, hyper-focused and hyperspecific metrics, which creates a kind of tunnel vision in our theories of change (ToC) and downstream processes. Blame the human desire for certainty or the need to meet funding requirements, or both, but this tunnel vision may not be serving our communities well.
For numerous reasons it is still commonplace to use the SMART goal structure, detailed logic models, and ToCs that contain very specific definitions of success to drive much of the evaluation, research, and learning process in development and social impact. This reliance could be a byproduct of wanting to achieve certainty and accountability but it also pushes us towards a traditional, linear definition of progress that can limit innovation, risk-taking, and learning opportunities.
A recent article from Ness Labs recalls a body of psychological research and states “the most significant breakthroughs often emerge from nonlinear paths. Yet, we cling to goal setting methods that promise certainty and control” (Ness Labs: Nonlinear Goal Setting). This is opposed to where M&E, impact-driven organizations, and many funders in development and impact want to go. So why do we keep falling into this limiting mindset?
Given the additional complexities of a rapidly changing impact landscape, there is a clear need to implement evaluation techniques for the unknown, unexpected, and emergent. Additionally, the slow pace of change that is inevitable in many development and social impact settings is not always compatible with the productivity-oriented SMART goal (in addition to often being incongruent with the desired outcomes and timelines of funders).
These are just some of the factors that prompt a rethink of how we define and measure success.
To highlight these issues and offer alternatives, this roundtable session will:
- Begin with an approximately 30-minute presentation of adapting nonlinear goal-setting to M&E in social impact spaces, including sharing tools and methods that evaluators can use in place of the traditional SMART structure and very detailed logic models when the outcomes aren’t or shouldn’t be super defined.
- We’ll cover leading project teams to a consensus on the benefits of less restrictive evaluation models (and certainly embracing mixed methods approaches)
- An outline of where SMART goals still make a lot of sense and where they may not.
- A second half Q&A-based discussion, with audience participation encouraged to share experiences, thoughts, and current practices.