23 April 2011

Why Didn't You Say So?

I guess it is easy to say this, but I had hopped not to write a post that reflects on the Greg Mortenson and Central Asia Institute blow-up. I thought plenty have written excellent articles and posts already. However, something keeps nagging at me. Why are so many people coming out and saying, "I knew it," after the story broke?

Amanda Taub at Wronging Rights said:
When I first heard about 3 Cups of Tea and CAI, I wondered if they were actually running schools, or just building them. The emphasis on the latter seemed weird. Buildings are nice, but surely "lack of freestanding dedicated structures" wasn't the main barrier to education in poor, rural areas that lacked infrastructure and transportation links? I actually read the book, ages ago, in the hope of finding out how CAI was handling teacher recruitment, salary, and curriculum issues. It did not answer my questions, but at the time I didn't see that as a sign of foul play. I figured that either (a) such bureaucratic details had been sacrificed in service of narrative, or (b) they were just building buildings, which is kind of lame.
Peter Hessler of the New Yorker had heard concerns before:
Last September, when I was researching a profile of Rajeev Goyal, an American development worker, I asked what he thought about the book “Three Cups of Tea.”

...Rajeev paused for a moment. “It seemed to be mostly about the author, about everything he accomplished,” he said slowly. “And that story is about quantity, about the number of schools built.” Rajeev said his own work had convinced him that construction projects are overvalued, and sometimes they can even have a negative impact on a community. He believed that teacher training and other cultural factors have more value. “A good teacher sitting under a tree can do more than a bad teacher in a new building,” he said. “That’s why I don’t want to do school construction anymore. It might have been a mistake. It’s a good instinct, as you want to help, but maybe it’s not the best thing.”

I asked about his impressions of Mortenson. “I kind of felt sorry for him,” Rajeev said. “That was my reaction reading the book. He must have low self-esteem.”
In Foreign Policy Alanna Shaikh:
The whole CAI model was wrong. But here's the truly awful thing: Looking back, it's clear that everyone knew that that CAI's approach didn't work. It was just that no one wanted to talk about it...

Mountaineers, it turns out, have also known all along that the origin story of Three Cups of Tea was a myth.
So, everyone knew that the origin myth and knew that the CAI model had problems. Yet, writers like Nick Kristof took to the New York Times to fawn over the great work being done by CAI. How come nobody said anything? Alanna thinks that it has to do with the narrative and what we hope in international development.
We wanted to believe that sometimes, international aid really is that easy, that a clueless amateur with a heart of gold can bring change in a region that has defeated the experts. If an amateur could pull this feat off, just think what professionals could manage in the future, doing things right. Nobody wanted to pay too much attention to the details because it would have ruined a good story.
OK, I buy that for myself since I read the book before really knowing anything. However, it sounds like some people knew the whole time and either did not say anything or went unheard.

I recently saw a large chuck of the bad film Valentine's Day. There is a scene where Ashton Kutcher's character runs into the airport to prevent his best friend, played by Jennifer Garner, from getting on the plane to surprise her new boyfriend who turns out to have a wife and family. Having just been dumped by his fiancée, Kutcher's character is distraught to hear all of his friends say that they knew it wasn't going to work. He tries to prevent it from happening to his friend, saying:
That's what I'm doing here. Because apparently everyone and their mother felt that way but nobody had the guts to tell me. And now, I'm left with some stupid ring and an empty closet and an ache in my gut the size of Texas because nobody told me.
I think this sums up the way that many people feel after hearing the allegations against Mortenson laid out by Krakauer and 60 Minutes. In the scene, Garner eschews the advice of her friend and gets on the plane.

----------------------------------

So how do we prevent this from happening again? I think Alanna is right that people want simple stories and heroes. We want extraordinary but possible. Mortenson's story was unique but sounded like one that anybody could have done if they worked hard enough and had the dedication to a cause.

Sadly, people knew better from the start and this is why I think that aid blogs matter and should improve. This is the place to work out ideas and share constructive thoughts. It has worked to prevent a bad idea (1 Million Shirts) and failed to prevent a similar one (100K Shirts). Concerns can be brought up and discussed through this space long before it gets to this moment with Mortenson.

Maybe there are readers who want to share something they know. Use the space. This is where information can be distributed and it is not limited to saying that someone did not actually stumble into a village after failing to climb K2. This is where you can share what has worked in your personal experience so that others can learn from your lessons.

----------------------------------

To finish this meandering post, I want to share something that was told to me today. I have been conducting interviews with the Knowledge Management team with UNICEF and the one today go to discussing the access of information. I was struck when the gentleman I was interviewing said, "There are hundreds of offices and thousands of people in UNICEF. Any idea that I come with has likely been already done by 50 people and better than what I had imagined." We need to access this information and share it with each other so that a story like this will not go the same route.

12 comments:

Penelope said...

I once worked somewhere where the "big boss" was a very famous guy, with a big ego. As someone involved in creative arts, he was very respected by his staff and collaborators, who really looked up to him and his creative genius. However, this guy had also made many very bad personal decisions over the years - he had been married 3 times, and had one child with each wife. He'd get married, have a baby, divorce, start all over again. Meanwhile, all the former wives were hovering around, because this man was very wealthy. When I was working in that office, this man started a relationship with a woman that EVERYONE around him knew was after him for his money. His colleagues, friends, family - everyone talked about what a bad decision this was for him. Of course, they got engaged and planned to get married. Not a SINGLE one of these people had the guts to tell him what they thought, except for one person. Incidentally, this one person who said something was also famous, also an artist.
I'm telling this story because at the time, I thought it was extremely sad for this man that no one he knew had the courage to tell him that they thought he was mistaking. Everyone around him pretended to be happy and excited for him, and encouraged him, while their true feelings on the matter were exactly the contrary.
I think there is something similar happening in Mortenson's case. Who is going to stand up to this intimidating, well-known man with a solid reputation and tell him he's wrong? Frankly, people probably didn't want to get on his bad side, didn't want to be known as the a**hole who thinks they've got it all figured out. There is very little incentive for anyone to stand up and say, excuse me, but I think you're making a mistake, when this person is idolized by so many.
In the end, I think it's really sad that no one in Mortenson's circle was able to sit him and down and say "look, Greg, we should talk about how CAI is managed. I have some concerns I want to bring to your attention". It seems that some tried, but were shut out immediately. That's the problem with being famous and loved - people stop telling you what you should hear, and tell you what you want to hear instead......

Talesfromethehood said...

As Penelope implies below: people do dumb shit all the time. Even knowing that they're doing dumb shit. This is the reality of humans.

As Paul Simon once sang, "... still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.." ("The Boxer"), or Sheryl Crow, many years later, "... lie to me, I promise I'll believe..." ("Strong Enough to Be My Man").

I think beyond continuing to improve good humanitarian practice in the field, we have to assertively (sometimes forcibly) remove the wool from people's eyes.

Joe said...

Well some people knew - don't forget that J's post on talesfromthehood was written well before this episode. I guess for me the issue is to ask questions of people as/when you hear about projects. For example, I've been talking to this guy who is starting a t-shirt brand working with needy people in China - working out of converted shipping containers, of all things. There is a lot I don't know, I'm not pretending to know all the answers, but some of the things he has said to me sound like shit. Of course, I could be entirely wrong, but at least asking the questions might show these people that someone is paying attention and has the potential to address issues in projects before they become complete car-crashes.

I suppose that recent lessons for me are that I'm very much less likely to believe a charismatic figure making wild unsubstantiated claims about project effectiveness that don't seem to add up.

Tom Murphy said...

Simply excellent. Thanks for the comment, as always, Penelope.

Tom Murphy said...

I agree and I think you do an excellent job at that.

Gates Keepers said...

If no one else is saying it, we will: "The Gates Foundation's influence is too great. The Foundation is totally unaccountable. There are not enough people watchdogging it."

danielapapi said...

No one listens. Because THEY have bought into the hero story, and if they listen and understand that their "hero" shouldn't be on as high of a pedestal as they have put him/her on, then they feel embarrassed for having supported the wrong thing. We naturally want to protect their own egos and we believe strongly in our own choices, so it is hard for us to change our minds once we have already cast our votes on a person's character. About five years ago when I first moved to Cambodia, took me a LONG time to realize that the founder of an orphanage I had supported in Siem Reap was corrupt. People even TOLD me that, and I didn't want to believe it because he was so nice, so convincing, had suuuuch a great/sad/powerful story. I refused to believe that I had bought into a lie, or at least an exaggeration. Now, if I hadn't already raised money for his work or told others to do the same, it might have been a lot easier for someone to convince me that he was a crook and that I would therefor cause harm by supporting him. Why wouldn't I believe them then - I'd have nothing to loose!

We don't want to loose OUR reputation, our reputation for making good choices - so we refuse to listen to negative things about some we have already put our faith in.

This is a huge problem with BIG organizations and BIG money because people might no very little at all about it but they have heard if it, read the name in papers, seen it on TV, and therefor buy in to the idea that it must be good. The Gates Foundation is mentioned below. How many people reading this have heard of it? How many would vote that it was a "good" organization if asked? Most voters would have very little to base that on besides extensive media and their belief in the fact that if they weren't great, someone else who knew better would have spoken up about it.

The Somaly Mam Foundation is one that is getting excessive funding and attention but not nearly enough scrutiny. If we continue to fund them, and other organizations which have a compelling book written about the founder, without asking to see real impacts, we will continue to see more stories like Mortenson's. Actually, even worse, we will continue to NOT hear stories like Mortenson's and people will continue to get away with raising funds based on their personal story without being asked to use those funds wisely.

Psi Org Com said...

Right! Central Asia Institute, Somaly Mam Foundation, Gates Foundation, PSI ...

Before everyone else discovers this fact, I would like to point out that I found it first: "PSI is spending too much money promoting PSI." There is a shiny print magazine, an expensive website with seven staff, and videos of the ED interviewing important people. Mandy Moore promotes PSI. So does Ashley Judd. And Mark and Tom. Which poor people does this self promotion benefit? P S Aiyee

Chris Talbott said...

Your insinuations about Somaly Mam and the Somaly Mam Foundation are unfair, and frankly, unless you have some evidence, irresponsible. I know Somaly, I've visited all of her shelters in Cambodia, I've met the women who benefit, I've witnessed the impact. Full disclosure, I consult for the organization. Please explain your allegation.

danielapapi said...

Hi Chris. I have lived in Cambodia for the past 6 years. I am happy to give you information and I think you would prefer if I did so via email or phone. You can reach me at danielapapi@gmail.com

daniela said...

Chris, if you haven't seen this, you might want to. It seems that I am not the only one who feels this way: http://apnswdollhouse.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/somaly-uh-uh/

Cindy said...

How to budget right when you're broke. Click www.gofastek.com for more information.

Cindy
www.gofastek.com

All Time Hits