My Love-Hate Relationship with Outcomes

Near the beginning of every conversation about implementing a new intervention, one of the initial irritants for me is this question: "What are the expected outcomes?"

Even before teams have an opportunity to imagine something that quite possibly may have never been done before, they are placed in the Outcomes box.  I call it a box because the very idea of conforming to a prescribed outcome, is counter-intuitive to innovation.  If the expectation is to think outside the box, why do we immediately stifle creativity by boxing it in! Not to mention that in many cases, the outcomes that are selected are not necessarily how the target population would define success.

My hunch is that it has more to do with our societal desire to control everything, than it does with improving quality of life.

I have worked in the field for over 30 years, so I know that there are benefits to identifying outcomes on the front end.  But I would like to posit that in some instances, they are a necessary evil.

While they are quite useful for linear, routine production projects, industries and services, they are not always useful regarding complex endeavors such as advancing equity or population health improvement.  When it comes to changing cultures, communities, deep seated ideology and structures, very little is truly predictable! 

Even with a "best practice," there are so many variables and uncontrollable factors that the question regarding expected outcomes often feels amateur to those on the frontlines.  To be clear, this is no reflection on the social scientists who have come up with ingenious ways to measure the confounding results and make-meaning of progress. 

My point is merely this: use outcomes to guide your journey but don't give them the power to resolutely determine your success.